Sitting of 1 January 1894

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to the continuance of his indisposition:—
Whereupon Mr. Mellor, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair I as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

QUESTIONS.

  THE DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT ACTS.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state the amounts charged on estates under the several Drainage and Improvement Acts from 1847 to 31st December, 1892, for labourers' cottages, farm buildings, and drainage; whether he can state the total amount charged upon estates for improvements under the said Acts; and whether he can state the average amount of interest charged under the said Acts?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): The total amount charged upon estates for improvements from the commencement of the Public Money Drainage Acts in 1847, and under the subsequent Improvement Companies Acts and others, up to the 31st December, 1892, amounts to £16,253,512, of which £1,031,436 was for labourers' cottages, £4,568,078 for farm buildings, and £8,942,561 for drainage. The interest charged has varied from about 3½ to 5 per cent., and the average rate may be taken at between 4 and 4½ per cent.

  THE MARKING OF FOREIGN MEAT.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet had the opportunity of reading the Report of the Lords Committee on the marking of Foreign Meat, and the
  542
  evidence upon which the said Report is based; and, if so, whether he will undertake to introduce a Bill in the next, Session of Parliament to carry out the recommendations of the said Committee?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I have considered the Report referred to, but I am not able to make any statement at present as to the legislation of next Session.
  MR. YERBURGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Government to induce them to bring in a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Committee.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I cannot make such a promise when so many questions are pressing for attention.

  PROSECUTIONS FOR POACHING IN SCOTLAND.
  SIR D. H.MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if, in his recent instruction to Procurators Fiscal that they were not to undertake prosecutions for poaching, it was intended to include their Deputes; and whether he is aware that such prosecutions are being undertaken by the Depute Fiscal for Rothesay?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,&c.): The Depute Fiscal at Rothesay does not conduct prosecutions for poaching in his official character, nor are such proceedings taken at the instance of the Procurator Fiscal. The Depute is a practising Law Agent, and he has, as such, recently conducted certain poaching prosecutions on the employment, and in the name, of a, private client. The terms of his deputation do not seem to me to preclude this.

  SCHOOL CENSUS IN THE TENBURY UNION.
  MR. BALDWIN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Education Department is entitled to insist upon a Census of the children of school age being taken by the School Attendance Committee of the Tenbury Union; and, if so, under what Act such powers are authorised, and by whom the expense of such Census will be defrayed?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): Sections 67 and 95 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, as applied to School Attendance Committees by Section 43 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, give the Education Department statutory power to call for such a Census as is mentioned in the question. Section 31 of the latter Act enacts that the expenses of a School Attendance Committee are to be paid out of a common fund raised out of the poor rate of the parishes in which the Committee act.

  TRAWLING OFF THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that Trawler S.D. 29 was captured on Wednesday, 20th December, while engaged in trawling within the three-mile limit in Broad Bay, Island of Lewis, by some fishermen of Portnaguran; and, if so, are steps being taken to prosecute the master or owner of the trawler; and whether the fishermen who effected the capture and witnesses attending at Stornoway to give evidence will be compensated for their loss of time, and paid their travelling expenses?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The trawler referred to by the hon. Member was boarded, not captured, on the 20th ultimo, by some fishermen belonging to Portyoller. As the trawler's crew denied the alleged charge, an agreement was made that the vessel should proceed at once to Stornoway to have the matter investigated; and the Procurator Fiscal is now making such investigation at Stornoway. Allowances, in name of travelling expenses, have been made to witnesses who travelled from Portyoller to Stornoway for precognition.
  MR. WEIR: May I ask whether compensation will be given to these men who had the courage to board the trawler?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The trawler is not yet proved to have broken the law.

  GUERNSEY EDUCATION LAW.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education at what date the law relating to public primary education in Guernsey was considered by a Committee of the Privy Council; of whom such Committee was constituted; and whether the proceedings were public or private; and whether the Committee of the ratepayers of St. Peter Port, Guernsey, who prayed to be allowed to submit their objections to the measure before a decision was arrived at, were informed of the intended sitting of the Privy Council Committee, and were afforded an opportunity of maintaining their objections?
  MR. ACLAND: The project was considered on the 11th December last. The Lord President, the Home Secretary, and myself formed the Committee. The proceedings were not public. The Ratepayers' Committee only asked to be heard if necessary. The Committee of Council, after considering the reply of the States of Guernsey to the statements contained in the Ratepayers' Petition, did not consider it necessary to hear the Petitioners. I can assure my hon. Friend that the whole matter was most carefully considered in all its bearings.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is it not a fact that this law was passed by a Home Rule Parliament in the Island? Did those who objected to it have an opportunity of laying their objections befere the proper tribunal in the Island itself?
  MR. ACLAND: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "proper tribunal in the Island itself."
  MR. BARTLEY: The Parliament of the Island.
  MR. ACLAND: The whole matter was carefully considered for months by the representatives of the inhabitants. We had only to see if there was any ground on which the law ought to be set aside.
  MR. BARTLEY: Do I understand the Committee of the Privy Council tried to find out a means of setting the law aside?
  MR. ACLAND: No, Sir.

  H.M.S. "RESOLUTION."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House, and, if so, when, the Report of Captain Hall on the behaviour of H.M.S. Resolution during the gale off Ushant, the Report of the officers who surveyed her at Devonport, and the further Report prepared by direction of the Admiralty; whether he can now state the number of degrees the Resolution rolled during the gale; whether she rolled her rail under water, and what height the rail is above the water line; how many feel of water there were in her engine-room, or in any other part of the ship below at the most; whether, during the 19th and 20th December, she was kept head to sea because it was deemed that to boar up and run back would be dangerous, and involve risk of capsising; and whether he can inform the House how it was that, while the Gleaner of 700 tons weathered the gale sufficiently to proceed on her voyage in spite of it, the Resolution of 14,000 tons without haying suffered any straining or damage to her structure proved unable to do so?
  MR. FORWOOD: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will at the same time answer the questions of which I have given him private notice—namely, what quantity of coal the Resolution had on board when leaving England; how many tons would she have consumed, at 10 knots speed, from the position she was in when she put back to Gibraltar, and what quantity would, in such ease, have remained on Board on arrival at that port; and, finally, whether the damage to the vessel was so great or the risk of her loss so considerable as to justify the commanding officer returning rather than continuing his voyage?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): The Resolution had 787 tons of coal on board when she left England. At 10 knots speed she would have consumed about 250 tons in fair weather between the point where she put back and her arrival at Gibraltar. About 280 tons would have remained on board under these circumstances on arrival at Gibraltar. No injury was sus-
  546
  tained by the ship as far as her structure is concerned, and no damage to fittings was of a character sufficient to render her return to England necessary. All such defects could have boon made good at Gibraltar. The captain of the Resolution in determining to put back appears to have been mainly influenced by anxiety about his coal supply in the event of the gale lasting many days; and in the exercise of his discretion he determined to proceed to Queenstown. At the time he altered course with that purpose the ship was distant from Queenstown 250 miles, and from Gibraltar 840 miles. In reply to the hon. Member for Lynn Regis, I have to say that we do not propose to lay the Reports mentioned upon the Table. It has been ascertained that no accurate observations were made of the angles of rolling. The rail being under water would indicate of roll of 35 degrees in still water; but under the conditions of the sea a roll of much less than 35 degrees would have put the rail under water. With respect to the hon. Gentleman's other questions, the general statement already made to the House covers all the essential facts, and I would put it to the hon. Member and to the House whether any useful purpose can be served by repeated questions of this character.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: If the right hon. Gentleman makes the appeal to me, I must say that a good purpose is served by these questions. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks it improper to answer the question as to how many feet of water there were in the engine-room, and whether the vessel was kept with its head to the sea, because it was thought that if she bore up, it would have involved the risk of her capsizing?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I answered both these questions the other day. I then said the statements as to the amount of water were greatly exaggerated, and my statement has been strongly confirmed by what I have heard since. I also explained that the vessel was kept with her head to the wind in order to diminish the amount of rolling.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I must press the right hon. Gentleman to answer my question. He has given no answer whatever as to how many feet of water were in the ship.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I have already stated the general facts. I have indicated in a pretty strong way the opinion which is held in the Department which I represent that questions of this character, reiterated and repeated in various forms, are calculated to do injury to the Public Service. I now state that opinion more emphatically.
  MR. HANBURY: Then, does the right hon. Gentleman assert that it is to the interest of the public that they should not know the derails?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!

  CERTIFICATES OF POSTAGE.
  MR. HENNIKERHEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it has been brought to his notice that in numerous cases the sender of a letter, without desiring to register it, wishes to have proof that it has been posted, either as a check upon the messenger or for his own satisfaction, and for business purposes; whether a trial has been made of giving the sender of a letter, upon demand, a certificate of the posting of his letter at a uniform charge of 1d.; in what way the fact that the experiment was in progress was notified to the public; whether he is aware that the introduction of the system is generally desired by men of business; and whether it could be carried out so as to increase the Postal Revenue without entailing additional responsibility or liability for loss on the Department?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): A trial has twice been made of a system such as that referred to by the hon. Member, the fee charged being½d. The cities of Liverpool, Birmingham, and Bath were chosen for the purpose of the experiment in the first instance, and Glasgow in the second, and special notices to the public were issued, calling attention to the arrangement. The demand for certificates, nevertheless, proved so insignificant as not to justify its general adoption. The granting of certificates of posting confers no additional security on the letters—that is only to be obtained by registration—and, so far as I am aware, no general desire exists on the part of any section of the public for the introduction of the scheme.

  RE-VACCINATION AND SMALL-POX.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether Assistant Nurse Annie Flavel, assistant superintendent of the aged women's ward, Birmingham Workhouse, died of smallpox in the City Hospital on 26th December, 1893, after 10 days' illness; and how often and on what dates had she been re-vaccinated?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,): Annie Flavel, late an assistant nurse at the Birmingham Workhouse, died, as stated, of small-pox in the City Hospital on December 26. The Local Government Board are informed by the medical officer of the workhouse that she was appointed assistant nurse on September 20, 1893; that at this date she presented two vaccination cicatrices on one of her arms; that she admitted that she had never been re-vaccinated; and that although re-vaccination was offered her by the medical officer she did not accept it. The mother of Annie Flavel also states that her daughter was vaccinated in infancy, but had never to her knowledge been re-vaccinated.

  THE DUKE OF SAXE-COBURG.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Solicitor General whether Parliament retains the right, secured to it in the Act of 1873, conferring a pension upon the Duke of Edinburgh, to revoke the said pension in the event of His Royal Highness becoming a Sovereign Prince, although payments may have been made to His Royal Highness since his accession to the Throne of Saxe-Coburg by an Executive decision, without Parliament having been afforded an opportunity to exercise its right of revocation?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,): Payments made to Duke Alfred since his succession to the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in respect of the annuity authorised by the Act of 1873 are not made by reason of any Executive decision, but in obedience to the Act and the Letters Patent made under the Act, and no such payments can in any way affect any right of Parliament with reference to the annuity.

  CLARENCE HOUSE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether Clarence House is maintained at the cost of H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh or of the taxpayers; and, if the latter, what is the annual cost of its maintenance and of all charges in connection therewith?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,): The general repairs of Clarence House (exclusive of decorative work) have always been undertaken by the Government, as mentioned in the Estimates. The average expense is about £300 a year.
  MR. WEIR: Does that sum include rates and taxes?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: No, Sir.

  DISCHARGES OF BLUE-JACKETS FROM THE NAVY.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state approximately the number of blue-jackets who have taken their discharge at the expiration of their first term of service during teach of the last five years?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The numbers for the Fleet are as follows:—1888–89, 484; 1889–90, 410; 1890–91, 369; 1891–2, 388; 1892–93, 374; or 23 per cent. fewer discharges last year than in 1888–89.

  INDIAN TROOPSHIPS.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is line that the troopship Malabar has met with more than one mishap in her recent voyage through the Mediterranean; whether her engines have failed more than once, thereby preventing her reaching Bombay in due time; whether some similar defects have become apparent in other troopships, the Crocodile and the Serapis; and whether he can assure the House that the vessels engaged in this military transport to the East are maintained in a state of naval efficiency?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The four Indian troopships are undoubtedly approaching the end of their term after 26 years' very efficient service. The fracture of the crank shaft of the
  550
  Malabar has caused her to be twice delayed at Malta. She sailed yesterday for Bombay. Machinery defects have also occurred in the Serapis this season. The Crocodile is about to be paid off after a serious breakdown near Aden. The Admiralty propose that the Serapis and Euphrates shall be withdrawn from service at the end of the present season, but maintained in an efficient condition till then, and the Malabar for some time longer.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: Will fresh ships be appointed in their place?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I have already stated in a, Debate in the House that communications have been passing between the India Office and the Admiralty on the subject, and that the Report of a Departmental Committee is now under the consideration of the Government of India.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the Crocodile to be kept in the Service?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I just now stated she was about to be paid off. It is not proposed to keep her in the Service.

  INCREASED RAILWAY CHARGES FOR EMPTIES.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Railway Companies continue generally to make greatly increased charges for the carriage of empties as compared with the rates before 1st January, 1893; and whether, in certain cases, the difference in charges for empties is so great as to amount to a large bounty in favour of external as against home produce?
  MR. MUNDELL A: I regret I am unable to answer the question of the hon. Member. It is of too general a character, being applicable to items numbering many millions. If he will specify any instance, I will endeavour to procure for him the information he desires.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I think I indicated in my communication to the right hon. Gentleman the particular case to which I alluded.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have a copy of the hon. Gentleman's letter. It does not give particulars, it only makes general references.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I will endeavour to give the right hon. Gentleman further particulars.

  THE LEWIS FISHING INDUSTRY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that Her Majesty's Government has failed to provide the Scottish Office or the Scottish Fishery Board with sea police to protect the fishing industry around the Island of Lewis, and that, since this fact has become known, trawling has increased to an alarming extent, immediate steps will be taken to deal with the matter before the rich fishing grounds of the districts are ruined and the local fishermen are robbed of their means of livelihood?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member has already been informed by me that the question of providing additional cruisers is under consideration of the Government in connection with the Estimates for 1894–95, and a decision will no doubt shortly be arrived at.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman in considering the matter bear in mind that the Select Committee strongly pointed out the urgency of this matter?
  MR. WEIR: And will the right hon. Gentleman also state what he proposes to do in the meantime, seeing that the trawlers are invading the fishing grounds around the Island of Lewis in large numbers, ruining them and robbing the fishermen of a livelihood. And will the right hon. Gentleman also state whether the fishermen who board these trawlers at the risk of their lives will be rewarded for their services?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Fishermen are only doing their duty as citizens in the same manner as is done by people on shore in aiding in the detection of misdemeanour. They will, of course, be paid their travelling and other expenses.
  MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several fishermen were drowned the other night while in pursuit of one of these steam trawlers? Will the widows and orphans of these men be provided for by the Scottish Office?
  [No answer was given.]

  THE FEATHERSTONE COMMISSION.
  MR. NUSSEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has fixed a day for the consideration of the Report of the Commissioners appointed to consider the disturbances at Featherstone and the evidence taken before them; and, if not, whether he will grant some part of a day at an early date for that purpose?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I have no hesitation in saying that we shall propose some arrangement for the purpose of giving a moderate time for discussion, I hope adequate to the nature of the case, on the Featherstone Report. Nothing has been done as yet, and nothing can very conveniently be done at the present moment, but the discussion will take place within the present sittings of Parliament, and as soon as can be done with reference to the general convenience of the House.

  PROGRESS WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  SIR D. H. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to the fact that, after 28 days in Committee upon an unopposed Bill, there are still upwards of 600 Amendments upon the Paper; and whether the Government intend to take any steps to give effect to the will of the majority of this House?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Before the answer to that question is given, may I ask whether it is not the fact that, instead of there being upwards of 600 Amendments, there are not 500; and whether of these 48 do not stand in the name of the President of the Local Government Board?
  MR. THORNTON: Arising out of that question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this Bill is by no means an unopposed Bill in London; and whether the Wandsworth District Board of Works, representing 170,000 inhabitants and a rateable value of £1,100,000, have not petitioned against the mode of election in the Bill?
  SIR D. H. MACFARLANE: May I explain that this question was written on Thursday last, and if there is any correction to be made it should be that 30

  553
  days instead of 28 days have been spent in Committee, and that instead of 600 Amendments on the Paper the number is 580.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I think, Sir, with regard to the supplementary questions that they do not require notice from me, and, although I should be very sorry to be guilty of any disrespect, I think they were put rather as helps towards the elucidation of the case. I think that the state of facts at the time when my hon. Friend gave his notice justified the question which he put, but since be put it down certain circumstances have occurred which I think have altered the complexion of the case. We have examined and looked very carefully into the matter, and we have arrived at the conclusion that it will be practicable, with the general concurrence of the House, to get the Bill through this House and send it from the House at the latest on the 19th of this month. That being so, we are of opinion that we should not be justified in submitting to the House any exceptional measures.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No. 274.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 20th December.]
    [TWENTY-EIGHTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Sir J. GOLDSAMID (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.]
    Clause 21 (Chairmen of Council to be Justices).
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he had to propose an Amendment to secure that the appointment of Chairmen of District Councils—by virtue of their offiei—as Justices of the Peace should be subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor. What he wanted to do was to make these appointments subject, in some form or other, to the approval of the Executive Government. The clause, if it passed as it now stood, would create a purely elective Magistrate. He did not contend that there was no precedent for it, because, as was well known, there was a precedent for making Magistrates by the
    554
    process of indirect election. The Municipal Corporations Act provided by Section 155 that the Mayor of a borough during the year of his Mayoralty, and one year afterwards, should be a Justice of the Peace for the borough. But although be was made a Magistrate by the process of indirect election, he had no jurisdiction outside the area occupied by the population of whose votes his election might be said to be the result. Under this clause, however, the Chairman of a District Council would be imposed as a Magistrate upon persons totally distinct and separate from those to whom he owed his election, for his jurisdiction would extend over the whole county in respect of Quarter Sessions cases arising not only outside his own district, but also in boroughs that had no Quarter Sessions of their own. It would also appear that the Chairman of the District Council would have jurisdiction in summary cases in any Petty Sessions district for which, by virtue of residence, be might contrive to be attached to the Bench. There was no precedent whatever for giving such extended powers. A Mayor, it was true, was an ex officio Magistrate for two years certain, but he only bail a right to sit on the Bench of the borough of which he was chief Magistrate, and he had no power to sit outside the borough at all or in Quarter Sessions in and for the borough. The other Justices for the borough had no greater jurisdiction than the Mayor; the Statute required that they should be appointed by Her Majesty, and they were in practice usually selected by the Lord Chancellor. Why, then, should they extend the precedent of 1835, confirmed in 1882? Why should they give these elective Magistrates jurisdiction over areas outside that which the electing body inhabits? He did not wish to go into recent unpleasant reminiscences, but he would I point out that the extremely candid revelations which had been recently made by the Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor as to the pressure put upon the latter to manipulate the County Bench in a more extensive manner than at present were warnings against any further move in the direction of the popular election of Magistrates. It was fair to assume of a Chairman of a District Council that, if he were fit to be on the Bench, be would have been ap-

    555
    pointed to it before his election to the Chairmanship of the Council; certainly, if he were not so, the fact of his being Chairman of the Council would not by itself prove him fit to be a Magistrate. All that was known of the Chairman of the District Council was that he was somehow thrown up to the surface by agitation of the political waters. That in itself was not enough security for capacity to fill the position of Magistrate. Political selection based solely on local political service had failed, as was known from the testimony of Lord Herschell and the Attorney General, in certain conspicuous and lamentable cases to detect gross unfitness. It was more necessary than ever to have the safeguard of the Crown's approval in the appointment of Magistrates—the approval without which even the Mayor of a borough could not exercise the jurisdiction of a Magistrate outside the limits of the borough, and without which he could not exercise jurisdiction in all cases in the borough. He had no wish to quarrel with the precedents of 1835 and 1892, which, in his opinion, were necessary and sufficient guides as to the principle on which the Committee should act in this matter. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 13, line 22, at the beginning, to insert the words, "Subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): I cannot admit that the principle which the hon. Member has laid down was the principle of this clause. What the Government are proposing is that the Magistrate should be chosen by popular election, and upon that the hon. Gentleman bases an argument that the Magistrate so chosen should not exercise jurisdiction over people other than those by whom he is elected. He therefore objects to the wider jurisdiction which this clause would confer on Chairmen of the District Councils. The fact that a gentleman elected to fill the responsible position of Chairman of a District Council is a sufficient proof in the
    556
    opinion of the Government that he has done public service and is held in high public estimation, and is an assurance that be is competent to discharge the duties of the Magisterial office so long as he holds the public position to which he has been elected. The principle was laid down in the Act of 1835, and no one has since challenged the wisdom of it. The hon. Member, who represents a borough with 350,000 inhabitants, says that if a man is not already a Magistrate it is pretty conclusive proof that he is not fit to be elected either as the Mayor or Chairman of a District Council. Let the hon. Member repeat that argument in Sheffield. [Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I did not say that.] I am satisfied that a large number of the Mayors of Sheffield, as of other large boroughs, were not Magistrates at the time of their election, and many have since been placed on the Bench permanently in consequence of the admirable manner in which they discharged their Magisterial duties during their term of office. The hon. Member proposes now the intervention of the Lord Chancellor, and enforced his recommendations in a speech in which he referred again and again to the pressure brought to bear upon the Lord Chancellor from political sources in regard to recent appointments of Magistrates. I ask him frankly whether any Lord Chancellor, except in flagrant cases of misconduct, will be at all likely to disapprove the appointment to the Bench of public officers elected under the circumstances in which these Chairmen of District Councils will be chosen? I believe that an added dignity will be given to the office by the clause, and it is desired to get the best men for the post. We are simply following the example of the County and Municipal Councils. We think that the District Councils ought in all respects to come up to the high standard of municipal administration. It is not to pander to any popular demand or with any political aims that the Government suggest that to the honours of the office of Chairman of the District Council shall be added the responsibility and honour of a seat on the Bench while the office is held.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he should like to point out to the hon. Member for the Hallam Division that there were cases where the Mayor

    557
    of a borough was ex officio a member of the County Bench. Peterborough was one instance and Stamford another. Seeing that the Lord Chancellor had said that he had not time to consider all the names submitted to him, it would be absurd to cast upon him the duty of inquiry into the fitness of Chairmen of District Councils, for their term of office would be expired by the time he had arrived at a decision. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General had said there was a demand that they should manipulate the County Benches. That was absolutely incorrect—
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! We are not discussing nominations to the County Benches. The point is whether the appointment of the Chairman of District Council as a Justice of the Peace should be subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he was simply replying to statements allowed to be made by the Mover of the Amendment.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. A. C. MORTON: Will the hon. Gentleman state—
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member must not ask questions in the middle of a speech.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, in conclusion, no blame attached to the Lord Chancellor because by accident one of the many Magistrates nominated to him happened to be an improper person, and he thought, therefore, the charge made by the hon. Member was both absurd and incorrect. As to the general question, he hoped the Government later on would accept his Amendment making Chairmen of Parish Councils as well as District Councils Magistrates by virtue of their office.
    SIR J. GORSTsaid, nothing had astonished him more than the extraordinary eagerness which the supporters of hon. Members opposite in the country had shown to acquire the office of Justice of the Peace.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the question before the House.
    SIR J. GORST: Then I will reserve these remarks till a later stage.
    SIR A. ROLLIThoped that the Amendment would not be pressed to a
    558
    Division. His hon. Friend had, to some extent, challenged the experience of the Municipalities, and he asked the Committee to say that the principle then admitted should not be carried further.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I said expressly that I had not a word to say against the advantage and complete success of Section 155 of the Municipal Corporations Act.
    SIR A. ROLLITsaid, that the principle was not being carried further. It was only in area that the Chairman of the District Council would, as a Magistrate, have a wider sphere of action. He did not hesitate to say that the principle as applied to boroughs had been of the greatest advantage, for it had conferred honour and dignity on the holder of municipal office. While he completely shared the objections which had been expressed to political appointments, he heartily approved of ex officio Justices such as the clause created, because in that case they attained their honour through work. A post of honour was a proper reward for services conferred on the community The alternative method of selection was by political service or social position, and neither was to be compared for a moment with that he had advocated.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is going far beyond the scope of the Amendment.
    SIR A. ROLLITsaid, his desire was to substitute rewards for work for the community for those for political service, and that could best be done by giving the dignity of Justice of the Peace to those who did useful public service.
    MR. DODDthought the Amendment a most unfortunate one. Powers had been given to the Lord Chancellors to advise the Crown in regard to the appointment of Magistrates, and they had allowed those powers to devolve on the Lord Lieutenant. The present Lord Chancellor, eminent as he was, had not varied from the practice of his predecessors, but he was desirous as far as he could where he thought it right to use his power contrary to the power of the Lord Lieutenant—
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot go into the general question of the appointments made by the Lord Chancellor. The only question he can discuss is whether this one

    559
    appointment should be subject to the Lord Chancellor. That is what I have said already to other hon. Members.
    MR. DODDsaid, that in that case he would merely remark generally that the action of the Lord Chancellors in the past in dealing with this matter had not been satisfactory. As to the present Lord Chancellor, of whom he wished to speak with every respect, he had himself given a reason why he should not be entrusted with this business—namely, that he had already too much to do. The Lord Chancellor on a recent occasion spoke in language which almost brought tears into the eyes of his auditors about his hard work. The Lord Chancellor said—"From the time I come in in the morning"—
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member must be aware that he is going beyond the limits I have laid down.
    MR. DODDsaid, he would simply add that it was impossible to burden the Lord Chancellor with further work, and on that ground the Committee ought to reject the Amendment.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I think my hon. Friend was amply justified in moving this Amendment. It has been suggested by more than one speaker that after all this is an analogous proposal to the provision of the law by which Mayors of boroughs are ex officio Justices. It is, Sir, nothing of the kind. What my hon. Friend has desired to point out is this: that the proposal in the Bill is tantamount to allowing the electors of a borough, by electing the Mayor, to appoint a County Justice, which certainly they cannot do. I know very well that in many cases the Mayors of boroughs do claim to sit on the County Bench when the County Bench meets within the area of the borough. They have, however, never claimed to attend the Quarter Sessions of the county or to attend Petty Sessions outside the limits of their borough. The proposal of the Government is that the electors of a district of the county shall elect a Justice for the whole county outside the limits of the district, and that such Justice shall be able to sit at any Petty Sessions within the limits of the county, and be able to attend Quarter Sessions. My hon. Friend has, I think, very fairly pointed out that that requires
    560
    some additional sanction to the vote of the electors. It is not an analagous proceeding to that of the section of the Local Government Act of 1888 by which the Chairman of the County Council is made a Justice of the county. The Chairman of a County Council is elected by the County Councillors, and, therefore, he is a Justice for the whole county. That is quite a different position. Practically, the Chairman of a District Council, unless his appointment be, so to speak, confirmed by the Lord Chancellor or by some authority of the kind, will be appointed a Justice for an area with the greater part of which the electors have nothing whatever to do. It is against this that my hon. Friend protests, and he has, I think, called the attention of the Committee to an utterly new departure on the part of the Government.
    SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD, in supporting the Amendment, said the clause should be considered in connection with Clause 33. It seemed to him that the provision of Clause 33 was not sufficiently strong to disqualify a man from holding the office of Chairman, and consequently of Justice of the Peace unless he had received relief or had been sent to prison. He had heard of setting a thief to catch a thief, but he had never yet heard of setting a thief to judge a thief.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that if the proposal were that the electors should elect a county Magistrate he should be disposed to support the Amendment, but that was not strictly the proposition. The proposition was that the Chairman should be chosen by the other Guardians, and that he should also be a Justice of the Peace. They would choose him for many qualities, and especially for those qualities of moderation which enabled men to preside over Public Bodies. It was said that the Chairman was to be not only a Justice of the Peace for the district but a County Justice also. That, however, was absolutely parallel with the case of the Chairman of the County Council. [Cries of "No."] The County Councillor was not elected by the county at large, but by a division of the county. He might afterwards be elected by the County Council as their Chairman, but his primary function was that of the representative of a division. It would be out of the question to require the Lord

    561
    Chancellor to advise in the choice of 1,600 Justices in one year. How long a time would be consumed in carrying out such a duty? Of course, such a provision would be a mere nullity. It would be far better to throw the responsibility upon the Guardians of the Union, with regard to the choice of a chairman. He hoped the hon. Member would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing on so useless and irritating an Amendment.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, the Lord Chancellor bad a right to remove Justices, and whenever they became unfitted for their office he did remove them. Possibly, in some cases, he would be obliged to remove men who had become Justices of the Peace under this clause. That would be a very disagreeable thing for him to do, and it would throw great discredit on the chairmanship of the District Council, It would be said that there would be only rare cases of unfitness, but it would be just those cases that would be avoided if the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment (after "a," in line 22, to insert "parish or"), standing in the name of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton), is out of Order.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: I rise to a point of Order.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot rise till I have done. This is a clause under the division of the Bill headed "Guardians and District Councils," and therefore the hon. Member cannot introduce a provision which refers to Parish Councils. The proper way in which to introduce his proposal is to move a new clause, and the hon. Member has a new clause on the Paper.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: On the point of Order, Sir Julian Goldsmid, I consulted the Chairman of Ways and Means, and he decided that I was in Order. I have seen him twice on this matter, and therefore I submit to you with great respect that my Amendment ought to be in Order.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Chairman of Ways and Means is frequently consulted in the course of pro-
    562
    ceedings in Committee in regard to future Amendments, and he has hurriedly very often to pronounce an opinion without fully examining the proposal. If he had fully examined this clause, he would, I am sure, have decided as I have done. Further, the hon. Member cannot be prejudiced, as he can bring his Amendment up as a new clause.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: May I be permitted—
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot further discuss the matter.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERmoved—
    In page 13, line 22, after the word "council," to insert the words, "unless a woman or person, ally disqualified by any Act."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid, the Bill allowed a woman to be an elector and a member of the Council, but would disqualify her if she were elected to preside over the Council from becoming a Justice of the Peace. It would be so rarely the case that a woman would be elected a chairman that the provision was as unnecessary as it was invidious, and he must protest against the perpetuation of a principle which in other respects the Bill proposed to abandon.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he must also protest against the Government deliberately introducing into the Bill a disqualification of this kind. No explanation had boon forthcoming as to the reason for the introduction of such a disqualification, and he should certainly feel it his duty to challenge a Division unless he was satisfied with any explanation which the right hon. Gentleman might give. He could not see why the fact of a woman being elected a chairman of a District Council should be fraught with more disaster to the county than was the fact, in the case of his own division, of a woman being elected to the chairmanship of a School Board. He thought that the addition of would be a great advantage—[a laugh]—and if there were any men who were disposed to sneer and say that women would be less qualified to administer the law than the men now on the Bench, he could refer them to a case in

    563
    which such a want of knowledge of the law and such inefficiency had been shown by the Tory game-preserving Magistrates that he thought no woman could be found to equal them. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) for raising the standard of women's rights in this Bill, but he thought that the introduction of this distinct disqualification was an insult to women which ought to be resented.
    SIR H. JAMES: If women are regarded as being fit to be Justices of the Peace there should be a general law on the subject. It would, however, be an absurdity to say that all women who do not preside over District Councils are ineligible for the County Bench, and that the only women who are eligible are the chairwomen of District Councils.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) has anticipated my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Conyboare). We are introducing no disqualification whatever. No woman is qualified by the existing law to be a Magistrate, and if my hon. Friend or any Government wishes to introduce so great a change into our system—I express no opinion as to whether it would be good or bad—as to render women competent to act as Magistrates, it will have to be done by distinct and separate legislation, and not by means of a side-wind in this Bill. We have no doubt that under the clause under which we propose to create the Chairmen of those bodies Magistrates women would not be qualified. We are advised by the highest authority that it would require a distinct and specific Amendment to qualify a woman, but I think we have taken the straightforward course in putting it beyond all doubt what the intention of the Government is.
    MR. A. C. MORTONdid not see why women should not be on the Magisterial Bench, and did not think the Committee ought to trouble themselves about the question of sex. Women had been on the Bench in times past, and why they should not be again he did not know. At present there were on the Bench a good many old women of the other sex, and he thought the Bench would be very much improved if they were replaced by some really well-qualified women. Most
    564
    of the country Justices were game-preservers, and consequently farmers and labourers could not get justice. There was a case in the Hexham Division—
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The question is with reference to a woman who happens to be a Chairman, and only with reference to that woman.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he wanted to show that chairwomen should be appointed Justices in order to improve the Bench. The case he was referring to—
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot go into details of that sort, because it does not follow that the Council would elect a woman in order to please the hon. Member.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he trusted that Councils would elect women not to please him but in the interest of their districts. However, he supposed that later on be could find the means of discussing the question.
    SIR J. GORSTwished to protest against the particular manner in which the Government had thought fit to carry out their intentions in this matter. If they had left the clause as it originally stood, or had proposed the insertion of some such words as "unless personally disqualified by statute or common law," it might have been allowed to pass in silence. They had, however, thought fit to impose a special and new disqualification on women by name. He thought it right that the Committee should protest against any fresh and new disability being imposed on a woman by name in an Act of Parliament, and therefore if the Amendment went to a Division he should have to vote against it.
    SIR A. ROLLITsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was in this case making a very invidious exception and acting in opposition to the whole principle of the Bill. As far as women were concerned the Bill was an enfranchising measure, but the present Amendment was practically of a disqualifying character. If a woman was elected a District Councillor and afterwards selected to preside over the Council, it seemed to him to be utterly unjustifiable to prevent her taking the position of dignity which followed in all other cases upon such a selection. The

    565
    honour did,and should, follow the office, and fall on those who thus did public, work.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESconsidered that this Amendment, which was one of 48 Amendments put down by the President of the Local Government Board, was wholly unnecessary and very invidious. The right hon. Gentleman had confessed women were already disqualified by Common Law from acting as Justices of the Peace. He was entirely opposed to women being brought into public life either as Justices or otherwise, and if they were already excluded by the Common Law from acting as Justices, it would have been better not to have inserted such a disqualification. However, his chief objection to the clause was that it carried out the ex officio principle which they had thrown overboard. Here was a woman who was chairman—
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That has already been disposed of.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Am I to understand that on this clause, which deals with the question whether a woman is to be a chairman, I shall not be allowed to discuss women as chairmen?
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: You must not discuss the question of women as chairmen. The question is whether a woman elected as chairman is by virtue of her office qualified to be a County Justice, and the Government say she shall not he. The hon. Member must confine himself to that question.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The question is whether a woman, by virtue of her office, shall be a Justice of t he Peace?
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I have already stated the question, and the hon. Gentleman is well able to comprehend it.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Precisely, Sir. Then I comprehend that I can discuss this clause.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then I comprehend that I cannot discuss this clause. He contended that a woman ought not to become a Justice of the Peace by virtue of her office as Chairman of the District Council. She was elected not as a Justice, but as a member of the Parish Council. In electing her the electors had in their minds no other view than the proper conduct of the affairs of the district, and it
    566
    would not be right to bring her, in this incidental fashion, into connection with the administration of justice as a consequence of that election. But if women were to be named at all as being disqualified, that ought to be done in the general disqualification clause, and not in this proposed invidious fashion. He suggested the withdrawal of the words "a woman or."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,)said, he denied that the Government were introducing any new disqualification. He believed it was on record that a woman was once appointed a Justice of the Peace, but the validity of that appointment had never been put to the test. In modern times it was beyond doubt that women had not been qualified to be Justices, and therefore the Government were not taking away any light which now existed. They undoubtedly looked forward to the possibility of women being chosen to preside over these Councils, but if they did not say anything about women in the clause they would have the question raised whether, although women were at Common Law disqualified from being Justices, they might not, when elected members of these Councils, acquire that qualification. To introduce so great a change of principle was not the subject of such a Bill as this, and there was nothing disrespectful in the mention of women in the clause. Adopting the language of distinguished Judges in dealing with this question, the Government said it was not because they were wanting in respect to women that they declined to bring them into the turmoil of politics. It was rather because of their reverence and respect for women that they kept them outside the performance of certain duties which might not be altogether in accordance with the higher views of women. That women should be compelled to adjudicate upon all the questions of Criminal Law which might arise before County Justices could not be looked upon as a privilege. It would rather be a burdensome duty which many women would regard as intolerable. The Government, therefore, did not intend at present to remove the disqualification which existed. They thought it far more frank and more advisable that they should put their object in precise language, so that there could be no manner of doubt

    567
    as to the intention of the Government and of Parliament.
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he regretted that the Solicitor General had brought the question of politics into the matter, because he could not see that the placing of women who were elected as Chairmen of District Councils upon the County Bench, at the same time as men, also elected to that position, should be considered as a question of politics. The question was purely one of local administration. Whatever was intended, the words would certainly be viewed as a new disqualification. The Government were introducing the elective principle into the Magistracy, and at the same time they were introducing a disqualification against women participating in that principle. If a woman was fit to be Chairman of the District Council, she was fit to be a member of the County Bench.
    MR. DODDsaid, he ventured to submit that they might be doing injury to women by allowing them to be members of the County Bench. He believed it would be difficult to get women to act as Chairmen of the District Councils if they were also required to act as Magistrates. Women having a greater sense of modesty than men could not be got to undertake such duties. He suggested that the clause would not be so offensive to the ladies if the language were that the Chairman of the District Council should by virtue of his office be a Justice of the Peace, unless he were disqualified at Common Law or by statute, so that no reference might be made to ladies.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he thought the Amendment showed how very carelessly the Bill had been drafted. The Solicitor General had said that it would be more frank to put in words absolutely prohibiting women from being put on the Bench, in order that there should be no possibility of doubt in the matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman thereby acknowledged that the Bill had been so badly drawn that if passed as brought in by the Government there would be a doubt as to whether women could or could not be Justices of the Peace. That acknowledgment justified the contention of the Opposition that the Bill required a great deal of criticism and correction. In his opinion, the words "or personally disqualified by
    568
    any Act" were unnecessary, for he took it as a matter of course that disqualifications imposed by other Acts would not be over-ridden by this Act.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 38.—(Division List, No. 405.)
    MR. HOWARDmoved—
    In page 13, line 24, after "situate" to add the words "but before acting as such Justice he shall, if he has not already done so, take the oaths required by law to be taken by a Justice of the Peace other than the oath respecting the qualification by estate."
    He said, that those words were contained in the Municipal Corporations Act and in the Act of 1888, and should, he thought, be inserted in this Bill.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 13, line 24, after the word "situate," to add the words "but before acting as such Justice he shall, if he has not already done so, take the oaths required by law to be taken by a Justice of the Peace other than the oath respecting the qualification by estate."—(Mr. Howard.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, he was not certain that the words were unnecessary, but, being sure that they were harmless, the Government would accept them.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. HANBURYmoved the rejection of the clause. He regarded it as one of the most mischievous clauses in the Bill, and could not conceive what necessity existed for such a clause, except it was to satisfy the recent agitation that the Lord Chancellor should put more Radical Magistrates on the Bench. If that were the object to be gained by the clause it would be purchased at the cost of great inconsistency, and would introduce into our Judicial and Magisterial system the principle of popular election, which hitherto we had been able to steer clear of, and not follow the example of the United States. He might mention one or two inconsistencies which the clause introduced. He thought they had got rid of the ex officio on all Local Bodies. At any rate, Magistrates had been qualified to act as ex officio mem-

    569
    bers of Boards of Guardians, because they were men of property and contributed largely to the rates. But they had been swept away; and having got rid of men who were well qualified as ex officio Magistrates the Government now proposed replacing them by thoroughly unqualified men. He could not conceive why the Chairman of the District Council should be a Magistrate, especially as there would be no opportunity of testing his fitness to act as a Magistrate, except the opinion of the members of the District Council who elected him as their chairman. If the clause bad followed the analogy of Mayors of boroughs, the Chairman of the District Council would be a Magistrate only for the particular district for which he had been popularly elected; and he did not know that he should have raised much objection to that. But it was a totally new thing to say that because a certain number of inhabitants in a small district chose to make a man their chairman he was to be a Magistrate for an area 50 times larger—namely, the entire county. The great majority of these men would only be Justices for one year, and it was a very serious matter to allow men to act as Justices for only one year. They could get very little training out of it. They were in a totally different position to that of a Mayor of a borough, who was Magistrate for two years—during the year of his Mayoralty and during the succeeding year. There was no provision of that kind with regard to the Chairman of a District Council. The analogy which had been made was not, therefore, a sound one. Under this provision, the Mayor of a small borough, which was not a county borough, would ex officio be a Magistrate for a county, but the Mayor of a larger borough would be only a Justice for his own town, and would not become a Justice for the county. There was this distinction, at any rate, that they were doing a great injustice to the Mayors of the larger boroughs. He objected to the proposal on the further ground of the enormous number of Magistrates who would be added. He would take the County of Lancaster, where the Lord Chancellor had been recently adding considerably to the number of Magistrates, but they were now going to add 136 more Magistrates, and
    570
    there would be as many Magistrates as policemen. [Mr. CONYBEARE: Hear, hear!] If they were going to throw discredit upon the Magistracy altogether, that was the best way to do it. But he did not understand that that was the intention of the hon. Member for Sunderland. He rather thought that the keen anxiety which had been displayed by the Radical Party was for the purpose of getting more Magistrates on the Bench, so as to make it stronger and better, but he gathered now that their object was to get so many on the Bench as would make it perfectly ridiculous, because the hon. Member for Camborne cheered the observation he had made regarding the number of Magistrates and police.
    MR. CONYBEARE: The Bench is made ridiculous by ignorance of law, not by numbers.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, that in that case he would ask the hon. Member to vote with him, because they had no guarantee that these men would know the law. The majority of the 136 men he had mentioned would be sitting for one year only, and what guarantee was there that they would have that knowledge of law which the hon. Member insisted upon? He granted that a great many of the present Magistrates had very little knowledge of the law, but they picked it up as they went along, whereas the newly-appointed ones would not have that opportunity. He objected to the proposal also on the ground that it was a bad principle to introduce popular election into the choice of Magistrates. That was a question upon which a great deal might be said. It had not been a successful experiment in America, and they would be taking a very unwise step indeed if they introduced it into the Magistracy of this country. Besides, they were doing this in a form which, to his mind, was almost worse than popular election, because those men would be chosen at second hand by their brother Councillors. He would like to see all classes represented on the Magisterial Bench, but he did not want to see the Magistracy put up to auction. The tendency would not be to improve the administration of justice, and he confessed that he could not quite see what the object of the Government was in proposing this clause. If it was to meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite

    571
    who desired to see more Radical Members on the Bench, or men of all classes on the Bench, he did not think it would go far in that direction, but, on the other hand, it would have a tendency to put on the Bench men who were not thoroughly qualified for the work, who had no knowledge and who would not have time to acquire knowledge. This clause should, therefore, be considered separately from Party considerations. This clause would operate on a much larger scale than the present law did in the case of the Mayors of boroughs. In Lancashire there were perhaps about 20 Mayors, and there would be 136 chairmen. In Staffordshire there were seven borough mayors, and there would perhaps be 20 chairmen. It was one thing to add 20 chairmen and another to add 136; it was a question of degree. There would be a great difference between the Mayors and the chairmen. Would the Government limit the area of jurisdiction of the chairmen as that of Mayors was limited? [An hon. MEMBER: Certainly.] If they did not, the Mayor of a little borough would be a Justice of the Peace for the whole of Lancashire, while the Mayor of Preston would be a Justice for his own borough only. This was a distinction which certainly ought not to be made. In the introduction of the principle of popular election for Justices they had gone far enough in making Justices of the Mayors of boroughs, and he did not want to see the principle extended; but, if it was extended, the extension ought to be upon the same lines. The clause was, he believed, without analogy in any country, and because it was so anomalous he should oppose it.
    MR. STOREYsaid, he would admit that it would be anomalous that the Mayor of Durham, with a population of 15,000, should be a County Magistrate, while the Mayor of Sunderland, with 150,000, would not be one; but this was a detail that might be amended. Members on his side of the House were as much opposed as the Members of the Opposition to the principle of the direct popular election of Magistrates. [Cries of "No."] Well, then, he would leave others to explain their own position; but, in his opinion, the direct popular election of Magistrates would be unwise. On the other hand, the present system of choosing Magis-
    572
    trates, without any reference to public opinion, was just as pernicious; and this clause, he believed, struck the happy medium. No doubt district chairmen would be ignorant of law. [An hon. MEMBER: Why should they be?] Well, he knew they would be, as 99 per cent. of the present Magistrates were; but the chairmen, having the confidence expressed by popular choice, would clearly be in an improved position. In Durham 40 chairmen would be added to the Magistracy; they would not be all Radicals or all Tories, but each of them would be a man who commanded confidence in his own locality. For too long a time the appointment of Magistrates had been put up to political auction. When the Liberals were in they appointed their own friends, and they were generally pretty fair to the other side; but when hon. Gentlemen opposite had been in, every Primrose Leaguer who desired it was put on, and every Liberal who had ratted was also rewarded forthwith. Even in districts strongly Liberal the County Magistrates were composed in the proportion of nine or 10 to one of gentlemen who differed from the prevailing political faith of the district. They wanted all classes and in fair proportions represented, and men who possessed the confidence of the public, and he therefore cordially supported this clause.
    SIR A. ROLLITsaid, the chief reason why he supported this clause was that it substituted the condition of public service for politics as the mode of qualification for Magistrates, and if one had to chose between those two conditions he could not conceive why there should be any doubt or hesitation in the matter. The hon. Member for Preston had undoubtedly hit a defect in the clause, one that might be remedied by conferring greater privileges upon Mayors of boroughs or by some limitation of the section itself. He had noticed with regret that an Amendment in favour of such a limitation on the Paper from his side of the House had not been moved, and he was sorry for it. With regard to the argument that the Chairman of the District Council would only be in office for one year, and therefore would have no time to learn the duties, the objection applied equally to the case of a Mayor, who served only one year, though he was qualified for another

    573
    year, and had not only to learn his duties, but to preside over the other Justices and indicate what course they should take. And one great advantage of the appointment of the Chairman of the District Council to the Bench was that it would secure a local Justice always being readily available, of the need of which he had recently had official experience.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the hon. Member for Preston had raised the point that those gentlemen would only be elected for a single year, and, therefore, they would not have time to learn their duties; but under the present system of the appointment of Justices the Magistrates knew nothing about their duties. He knew gentlemen who had had a legal training as barristers, but who had been rejected as Magistrates, while a large landowner, or the son of a large landowner, had been appointed under the present system. The men whom they proposed to elect under the clause would be men who had proved their capacity to their neighbours. The whole of the hon. Member for Preston's remarks had been tainted by Cassandra—like vaticinations of the evil to come.
    MR. PIERPOINTsaid, his belief was that at the present time there was a considerable amount of ignorance on the part of the Magistrates, but they ought to do nothing to swell the number of these ignorant Magistrates. It was really extremely unimportant whether these gentlemen were made Magistrates or not, but his fear was that their presence on the Bench would only tend to swell the mass of ignorance that already existed there.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that he desired to support the clause, although it did not go as far as he would like. It was, however, in the direction of improving the Bench of Magistrates. The hon. Member for Preston had told the Committee that they were borrowing the elective principle from the United States, but the hon. Member ought to have known better than that. As a matter of fact, the United States had borrowed it from us. The elective principle had existed in this country for about 700 years, long before the United States were thought of. The principle began in the City of Loudon, and the hon. Member ought to have known that. The hon. Member had also told them that the principle had not been successful in
    574
    America, but he had not given the Committee the slightest proof of that. He could not prove that it had been unsuccessful. The people of the United States had a right to choose their Magistrates as they liked, and they were satisfied; if not, they could and would have altered the system.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid, that obviously that question could not be in Order.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he must hold that the hon. Member ought to have proved his case, which he had not done. The hon. Member for Preston also objected to these Magistrates, because he said they would have jurisdiction outside the limit of the District Council. For his part he could not see any harm in that. After all, it would be only indirectly electing these Magistrates in wards instead of electing them by the whole county. There was no proof that they would hold office for a year only. They would be elected for one year only, but could be re-elected. The members for the District Council would be elected for throe years, and in all probability the same gentleman would act as chairman for throe years. They had four sorts of Benches in this country at the present moment. They had the directly elected Magistrates of the City of London, absolutely elected by the occupiers. They had over 30,000 local voters in the City of London, and they elected the Magistrate; therefore, they had a Magistrate elected by the people. The next Bench was an indirectly elected Bench, and that was the Scottish baillies. They were elected or re-elected every four years out of their own number. Then they had the Borough and County Benches. Their experience in this country had taught them that the best Bench was the Bench directly elected—namely, the City of London Bench of Aldermen. He was not, as a member of the Corporation, in agreement with the Aldermen, either in politics or in what they did as members of the Common Council, but as Magistrates. Irrespective of politics, he said distinctly that experience had taught them that the Bench of Aldermen were the best Magistrates they had in the country. They never had any complaints against the Aldermen in this House, or practically against the Scottish baillies, but they were never without complaints of the County Magistrates, and he said,

    575
    therefore, that, as between the appointed and elected Benches of Magistrates, experience had taught them that the elected were the better. Surely the proposal contained in the clause was a very mild one. At the present moment in the counties they had not justice—
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question is a very limited one—namely, whether the Chairman of the District Council shall, by virtue of his office, be a Member of the County Bench, but the hon. Member is wandering miles from that.
    MR. A. C. MORTONwas trying to show the necessity for this clause being carried so as to give them more Magistrates, and, with the greatest possible respect to the Chairman, it certainly appeared to him that he was entitled to give his reasons for wanting these Magistrates. This question of the Magistrates was a burning question, and he was very glad the Government had had the courage—
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going far beyond the limits of the clause, and if he continues in that strain I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he was about to conclude by thanking the Government for having introduced the principle contained in this clause, and which would give the people an opportunity of administering the laws of this country as they ought to be administered. He objected to a Bench of Magistrates being a political Bench. Let it be a Bench representing the people without regard to politics whatever. He ventured to say that these District Councils would not be governed by politics, as some people thought, and the chairman who under this clause would he a Justice of the Peace would be chosen because he was known and respected of the people and likely to do justice to all classes.
    SIR R. TEMPLEdesired to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he could answer one plain question before they were asked to pass this clause? Why could not the Magisterial jurisdiction of the district chairman be limited to that district without being extended to the whole county? Why could not this blot be removed by this limitation of the jurisdiction to the particular district? Possibly it might be said that the area of the
    576
    district would be too small. He was not sure whether that was the case, because some districts were sufficiently extensive. But supposing the force of that objection were admitted, could not, then, the jurisdiction be limited to the Petty Sessions, which the chairman might attend without being called upon to attend the Quarter Sessions for the whole county?
    MR. BYLESsaid, he might offer some observations from his own experience which would be reassuring to the hon. Member for Preston. He (Mr. Byles) represented a constituency which consisted almost entirely of Local Board districts, and so far from there being a plethora of Magistrates in that portion of the West Riding they were very short indeed for the ordinary Magisterial duties, other than those of sitting on the Bench. He had had, even during the past week, representations from some of these Local Boards, which would be District Councils under the Bill, urging him to press upon the Lord Chancellor the desirability of appointing some new Magistrates for that district, in order that lunatics might be certified, and many other duties might be discharged without expense to the ratepayers. The kind of Magistrates they had already there were gentlemen who had only been appointed when they had acquired important positions in the world, and who spent a great deal of their time not in that inclement district, but elsewhere, and who were, therefore, not available during a great part of the year.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the question whether the Chairman of the District Council is to be a County Magistrate.
    MR. BYLESsaid, what he desired to point out was that the class of men who were wanted were exactly the men who had at this moment been selected as the chairmen of these Local Boards. They were always on the spot; they were men engaged in business, who had the confidence of their fellow-citizens, and they would always be available for those duties which were continually cropping up and which needed the assistance of Magistrates. He wanted to make one observation about the borough of Bradford which was also

    577
    geographically in his constituency. Bradford had a population of 250,000, and the Mayor of that borough was, ex officio, a Magistrate. In almost every case the Mayor of Bradford, after he had served his term as Magistrate ex officio, had been appointed permanently to the Bench because of the admirable way he bad discharged his functions as a Magistrate. He had no doubt the same practice would apply to the gentlemen who were selected by these District Councils as their chairmen. The Member for Preston bad made a great point of the fact that the chairman of the District Council would be a County Magistrate with jurisdiction over a very large area, whereas the Mayor of a borough had only jurisdiction over his own borough. But, as had already been pointed out, the County Magistrate had to select his Potty Sessions Division, and he could mention a case where a Magistrate was actually removed from the Commission because he ventured to sit in some other Petty Sessions district other than that which he had chosen. He did not believe that the chairmen would interfere in the least in their judicial functions with the Magisterial concerns of other parts of the country, other than those for which they had elected to act; but in these small areas over the affairs of which they ruled, and ruled well, he bad no doubt the effect of their being added to the Bench of Magistrates would be of immense practical value and assistance to these districts.
    MR. JEFFREYSsaid, that before the clause passed he thought somebody on his side should remind the Government and the Party opposite of their great inconsistency in trying to pass this clause. They had passed another clause condemning ex officio officers as Guardians. They had condemned the whole races of ex officio altogether by the previous clause, and here they had in the very next clause an enactment to create a race of ex officio members. How could that be consistent? How could hon. Members opposite condemn one set of officials and immediately create another? The hon. Member who had last spoken had stated that there was a great dearth of Magistrates in his own constituency. The remedy would be met by the creation of more Magistrates, and at the rate the Lords Lieutenant and the Government had been creating Magis-
    578
    trates lately, there would very soon be no dearth. But why create a sot of ex officio Magistrates? The Government condemned the Opposition for wishing to retain one set of ex officio officers, and now they were themselves going to create another set. If these chairmen were appointed Magistrates, they should, at any rate, be limited to their own Petty Sessions district. The whole action of the Government was most inconsistent, and in order that there should be no ex officios he should vote against the clause.
    MR. R. WALLACEmerely rose for the purpose of arriving at a distinct understanding as to the meaning of a certain part of the clause. It was stated that the Chairman of a District Council should be a Justice of the Peace for the county. Was he to understand that no Chairman of the District Council could be, by virtue of his office, a Justice of the Peace unless he possessed the property qualification? [Sir W. FOSTER: No, no.] He thought the right hon. Gentleman said he did not wish to interfere with the general law as to the qualification of a Justice of the Peace indirectly and by a side wind, in a measure for a separate purpose altogether. He understood it to be part of the general law for the qualification of a Justice of the Peace that he should have a property qualification. Whore the property qualification was dispensed with that dispensation was exceptional, and the general law in respect to a Justice of the Peace required that he should be possessed of a property qualification as well as that he should be of the male sex. If the point of sex was to be left alone because it belonged to the general law, he wanted to know why the point of property was not left alone, because it just as much belonged to the law as to the qualification of the Justice of the Peace? If the argument of the Government was to be carried out that the general law was to remain standing the chairman of a District Council, unless he possessed the property qualification, could not be a Magistrate.
    SIR W. FOSTER: We have accepted an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the question, by which the qualification of property is not required.
    MR. R. WALLACE: Has it been
    SIR W. FOSTER: Yes, as part of the clause.
    MR. R. WALLACE: Then it has been accepted in the teeth of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, who said that the general law as to the qualification of a Justice was not to be interfered with indirectly by this Bill. I am very glad of the inconsistency all the same.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESquite recognised that the principle of the popular election of Judges was not new in this country. The Sheriffs even were in old times elected. But what he wished to call the attention of the Government to was, that by this clause they would be adding a very large number of Magistrates indeed to those already existing. The Boards of Guardians which were to be coterminous with the districts under the Bill were already 648. There would, therefore, be 648 new Magistrates. But a great many of the present Unions were situate in two counties, and in such cases they would be made two districts under the Bill; therefore, in addition to the 648 Magistrates, they would have a large number more. In other words, they were going to create some 700 new Magistrates by a stroke of the pen, and were going to make them Magistrates ratione officii—that was, in contradiction and condemnation of the very principle the Government bad affected to affirm by this Bill. The chairman of the District Council was not elected to be a Justice of the Peace by the electors, but in order to perform the duties and business of the district; and when the Government superadded to these duties the right of the chairman to become a Justice of the Peace in addition, they were doing it absolutely and strictly by virtue of his office. They were adding to his office duties which the elector did not contemplate would be added, and were doing it under conditions which would make it almost impossible for him ever to learn or perform duly these duties of Justice of the Peace. The duties of a Magistrate were not to be learned in half an hour, but they took a long time to learn. These chairmen, however, were only to have one year of office, and therefore by the time they had learned their business as Magistrates they would have to make room for a fresh set of Magistrates. The result would be that the Government would
    580
    have added to the County Bench 600 or 700 gentlemen under conditions such as to render it impossible for them to learn their duty. He was surprised that the Government should have abandoned their objection to the ex officio principle, and should have undertaken to make some 700 new Magistrates, and that under conditions which would render it impossible for them to satisfactorily perform their duties, but would keep them in a permanent state of ignorance as to what their duties were.
    MR. JASPER MOREwished to draw attention to a point which had not been taken with respect to this clause. It was understood a compromise was under consideration with respect to ex officios. This clause would discount any proposal on that subject, because if the District Council had the privilege of creating a Magistrate they would be willing to forego that privilege, and consequently this privilege would operate to prevent their electing as chairmen any of the experienced Magistrates whom it might be proposed to add to the Board as ex officios. He wishes to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board to consider this.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 65.—(Division List, No. 406.)
    Clause 22 (Constitution of District Councils in urban districts not being boroughs).
    SIR C. W. DILKEmoved—
    In line 1, at the beginning, to insert the words "on the appointed day."
    He moved this Amendment in order to obtain an opportunity of asking the Committee how it was proposed to bring the Bill into operation in urban districts which were not boroughs. As far as he could judge, it was at present proposed that it should come into operation in such districts on the day it became an Act. There was no provision to meet the Public Health Act, the elections under which, as they knew, took place always in April—before the 15th of that mouth. They could see that a difficulty might arise on the time at which this Bill might pass and come into operation. He wanted to know how the

    581
    Register of Voters was to be prepared. There were new classes of electors to be sorted out for the purposes of the Bill—freeholders, lodgers, people claiming under the Service Franchise, local government electors, who were married women—and this sorting out would entail a great deal of time and labour, and some authority must be set up for the purpose of making out an authorised list. He did not see how this could be done unless they had a Revision Court, and no provision was made for such authority. The electorate existing at present differed from that which would act under this Bill. For example, they would have a division in many cases of a parish—it would be partly urban and partly rural; and they would require two Registers. He did not understand how those Registers could be provided for some time to come. What machinery, then, had they to enable them to put this Act into force in April next? The Government would see the difficulty also as to the electoral divisions. In some urban districts they had as few as 70 odd houses, and 250 odd souls—too small a number to form a division. In the case of married women they were omitted from the existing Registers. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had not yet submitted the provision he had promised on this question of the inclusion of married women in the Registers; but it was important that the question should not be overlooked at this point. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the provision of the Act of 1888 dealing with Registers. The powers then given must be taken into account in every future Act, and, as he did not see how the Registers in this case were to be dealt with in time to bring the Bill into operation, he must press upon the Government to give them some information regarding their intentions. There were subsidiary points; but he need only say that in referring to the whole question his object was to ascertain the views of the Government.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 1, at the beginning, to insert the words "on the appointed day."—(Sir C. W. Dilke.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. STOREYsaid, perhaps the President of the Local Government Board would allow him to ask whether he intended that urban districts should be divided either into wards or into three geographical parts? Did he propose to follow the plan for boroughs and to divide these urban districts into wards having three members each, and was one member to retire and another to be elected in each ward every year? His plan was one the people did not want, and, at any rate, it would cause enormous expense. On the other hand, if these urban districts were to be divided into portions—say, east, central, and west; or north, central, and south—did the right hon. Gentleman expect that the necessary arrangements could be made by the County Councils in time to permit of the measure being put into operation this year? Speaking for his own county of Durham, he knew that the County Council could not perform such a task. It was utterly impossible for County Councils to meet oftener than they did now. Some members of the Durham County Council had to travel 25 or 30 miles to attend its meetings. Out of 72 elected members 20 or 30 were working men who most self-sacrificingly forfeited something every time they attended, and they could not expect these men to attend from day to day at their own expense in order to perform their duty. It was a burden the Council would be unwilling to bear. It would be hard enough if this were the only duty imposed upon the County Council, but if they looked through the Bill they found everywhere that the most serious duties had been imposed upon those Councils. They had to deal with. Rural and District and Urban Authorities, and also with highway matters and many other things. He did not see how they would be able to discharge all the duties if they were to be added to in this way. He could only say that he thought it would be impossible to bring the Bill into immediate operation; they would be in a mess unless the right hon. Gentleman took advantage of the truce that had been established with hon. Gentlemen opposite—about which he (Mr. Storey) and his friends knew nothing, though they would, perhaps, be instructed as to which portion of the Bill was to be thrown to the dogs to alter the provision as the division of urban districts.

    583
    He supposed he was doing wrong in making these observations. Had he been on the other side of the House he might have been listened to; but as he and his friends were only voices crying in the wilderness, he supposed the only answer they would get would be—"You must just go down into the country and do the best you can." He would ask his right hon. Friend, as he had placated hon. Gentlemen opposite, to do something also to placate his faithful friends, whose only reason for differing from him was that the Bill as it stood could not be put into working shape by the County Councils.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he would endeavour to state the answer of the Government on the points raised. He was not willing to go into all the questions now; but he might state at once that the Government intended to adhere to the decision the House had come to by a very considerable majority as to the division of the rural districts. They were making no alteration whatever in the existing law or in the existing Local Boards, [A laugh.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Storey) would allow him to give his answer without interruption.
    MR. STOREY: I did not speak.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, they made no alteration in the existing law. Under the existing law the members of every Urban District Local Board held office for three years, and one-third retired each year. With reference to the question of his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, he must in a friendly manner express his surprise at the course he had taken. No man had a greater experience in the conduct of Bills, and he knew of no man who would have complained more strongly than he if a question had been raised of which no notice had been given to him. He (Mr. Fowler) had done his best to carry this Bill through in a manner which would give the House as little trouble as possible, but he could not answer these difficult problems which were sprung upon him without notice. The point the right hon. Gentleman had raised would arise partly on Clause 31, and partly on Clauses 62 and 66, and when those clauses were reached either the Solicitor General (Sir J. Rigby) or himself would be able to deal with the difficulties raised. Of course, the Government could
    584
    not and did not accept the position that this was an impossible Bill. They believed it to be a possible and practicable Bill, though they had not disguised their belief that there would be considerable difficulty in bringing it into operation. They hoped to meet all difficulties and to make practical provision for insuring the first starting of the Bill. He had no objection to accepting the Amendment, as there would, of course, have to be an appointed day. They were endeavouring in the best manner they could devise in the circumstances to deal with the difficulties raised. He remembered what, was predicted of the Bill of 1888, that it would be impossible to bring it into operation; but that had not proved to be the case. He would ask his right hon. Friend whether it was facilitating the progress of the Bill to discuss on Clause 22 questions which were specially legislated for in Clauses 31, 62, and 66. He would only repeat that he hoped, when they reached those clauses, to show his right hon. Friend that all the difficulties indicated were surmounted, and that the Government were alive to the necessity of having the Bill brought into practical operation as early as possible.
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he had just a word or two to say in reply to his right hon. Friend. He admitted that he should have given notice of the points he intended to raise; but it was only this afternoon, when studying the clause afresh by the light of the Debate of Friday night, and taking into consideration the intention of the Bill, that he saw these difficulties himself for the first time, and he did not see how they could be raised if they were not taken note of in that place. If these words were not put in here—and he thought it was the intention of the Government—these new Boards would come into existence the day the Bill became an Act. The point was raised on Friday last, and he thought it was present to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman thought the matter was one of which notice should have been given, but he (Sir C. Dilke) could not give notice as he had not discussed it with any one until to-day. The right hon. Gentleman said he would be prepared later on to make a change in the Bill with a view to the preparation of the Register. At present there was no provision for this, but of course the question

    585
    could be raised on the Amendment to be moved later on. The other points could be dealt with on the clauses as they came up one by one.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, he did not wish to intervene between the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters in the discussion of their differences, but he desired to emphasise a point referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland. No one wished to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman in the discharge of a difficult duty, but he (Mr. Long) had already had occasion to say that those who would have the duty of carrying out the Bill either on County Councils or District Councils would have a difficult task before them and were entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain how he proposed to deal with some of these matters. If the right hon. Gentleman—the Minister in charge of the Bill—chose to wait until the clauses he had mentioned came on he (Mr. Long) had no objection, but he must say it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman told them now how some of these difficulties were to be met. The difficulty which would be thrown on County Councils in rural districts would be as great as that thrown on County Councils in the North and in the Midlands. As to the precedent of the Act of 1888, if the right hon. Gentleman had followed it, it would have facilitated proceedings in Committee, because on that measure they did not wait until they reached the end of it before deciding what to do on those points. They dealt with the whole question of the elections for purposes of county government in a separate Bill, so that when the Local Government Act was passed, the machinery necessary to bring it into operation was already shipshape.
    MR. STOREYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said he thought the County Councils would be able to manage the matter, and he referred to the precedent of 1888. He (Mr. Storey) would ask the Committee to remember that the Act of 1888 was brought into force by the Quarter Sessions, who had to divide the counties into groups of parishes, but they had not to alter a single boundary. They simply grouped the existing boundaries into electoral districts for county purposes. What
    586
    they had to do here was this—wherever there was a great change of boundaries, wherever a parish was now partly in a rural district and partly in an urban district, it became practically two parishes. That made the matter difficult enough, but the right hon. Gentleman added to the difficulty by decreeing that they should all set to work to make new boundaries for election purposes. He said they should add new parishes and call them "election parish A" and "election parish B." All that was to be laid on the shoulders of the County Councils, and, as he understood it, they would have a similiar duty to perform with regard to urban parishes. It was these particular difficulties which would involve a great amount of work which brought him (Mr. Storey) to the conclusion that they should have a considerable change in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman could not complain that he (Mr. Storey) had not given him notice. He had done so the other evening. He had told the right hon. Gentleman that these difficulties existed, and he had taken a note of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had promised to overcome them later on. But he (Mr. Storey) judged from what the right hon. Gentleman had said this afternoon that he had not quite realised the enormous number and magnitude of these difficulties. He (Mr. Storey), for one, would be glad to do all he could to carry out the Act as quickly as he possibly could, but when once the Bill passed all these powers passed to the 44 or 45 County Councils, and the Government had no control over them. Each County Council would have to do its own work, and as each would be free-handed, it was important that its duty should be made as plain as possible by definition in the Bill. He thought this discussion would facilitate progress hereafter, but it was clear from what they bad heard that the matter would have to be looked into very carefully.
    MR. H. HQBHOUSEsaid, the precedent of 1888 which had been referred to was in no way on all-fours with this Bill. Not only was the subject-matter of the former measure less complex, and not only were there fewer things to be done under it, but it became law in August, and no County Council was elected until January; but, as he understood the scheme of the Government, this Bill

    587
    would be passed in February, and they would have to do their best on the County Councils to bring the District and Parish Councils into existence not later than the end of March or the beginning of April. He maintained that the task was an impossible one whether they resorted to the County Councils or to more centralised machinery. He would remind the hon. Member for Sunderland that a Central Department could bring the Act into operation quicker than the various County Councils could do. The Registers were not the only difficulty which faced the County Councils, and a large number of people would have to be added to the staff of the Local Government Board all through the rural districts to bring the Bill into operation. The work could not be done without proper revision and registration. He could not see how the Bill could be brought into operation in a satisfactory form during the present year.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 13, line 28, before the word "So," to insert the words "A person shall not be qualified to be elected or to be a Councillor unless he is a parochial elector of some parish within the district, or has during the 12 months preceding the election resided in the district, or within seven miles thereof, and no person shall be disqualified by sex or marriage for being elected or being a Councillor."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
    In line 3, to add after the second "the," the words "whole of the."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, he moved to omit, in line 4, the words "or within seven miles thereof." This proposal differed from that in the clause relating to Guardians. In that case the elector to have his qualification must reside within the Union. The proposal, in fact, did not stand on all-fours with any proposal yet made or provision contained in the existing law. He would refer the Committee to what was the law with regard to municipal boroughs. There, in order to be elected a Councillor, every person was obliged to have a qualification within a borough, although he might reside from seven to 15 miles from it. According to the present proposal a person need have no
    588
    connection whatever with the district in order to be elected a Councillor. As to the existing law in urban districts, according to the Schedule to the Public Health Act, a person must have a very substantial qualification within the district and must also reside within a certain distance. The Government now proposed to abolish the ratepaying qualification within the district and simply to keep the residence within a certain distance of the district. That was not necessary in order to preserve the qualification of any person who at present sat on an Urban Board, because those persons would be qualified as parochial electors within the district. The proposal was not necessary in order to preserve the rights of any existing person. It was not on all fours with any other proposal even in regard to Parish Councils, though there was a limit of three miles given in that case. The parish was only a small area and there was more to be said for that proposal under the circumstances. In the present instance there was no reason to go seven miles outside the district, for any person to have a qualification must have some connection with the district for which he was to legislate and impose taxes. If not the provision became illusory. They had better throw it over altogether than preserve such an illusory scheme as this would be if the words of which he complained were to remain in it.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
    To leave out the words "or within seven miles thereof."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, there was an Amendment which would come on later to provide that the clause should have no application to Loudon. He endorsed all that had been said by the hon. Member for Somerset, and could see no reason why these words should remain in the clause. He had been trying to find out what line of reason could have induced the Government to put them in. On all their modern Local Parliaments they had qualified persons on the broad distinction that those who were electors within the area should have the right to be

    589
    elected. In the case of the London County Council and the Common Council of the City a person was qualified so long as he was on the burgess roll. That was what they wanted to bring about in the present instance. In London they had large self-contained areas with enormous populations, and they fully realised that the same principle should apply to the parish as to the County Council. In parishes like Islington and Marylebone, with populations of over 200,000, they did not require to go outside to a seven-mile radius. What magic was there in seven miles? If they allowed persons to come in from outside the area itself—persons who were not on the electorate—he could not for the life of him see why they should not throw all elections open to persons from every part of the world. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would see that as there was some feeling against this proposal, it was one that should not be persisted in. If their friends from the rural districts desired this, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept some such modification as was proposed in regard to urban districts.
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, that this clause would not apply to the Metropolis, but for an Amendment which was to be moved on Clause 29. He proposed that the Amendment should not be proposed.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERexplained that he had simply followed the example of urban districts in his Amendment. He did not attach great importance to the particular words objected to and did not wish to press them on the Committee. He would, in any event, be prepared to agree to London being exempted from the operation of the words.
    MR. STOREY: If a burgess.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had made a wise concession to the feelings of the Metropolitan Members, but he hoped he would see his way to omit the words altogether. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the burgess qualification was necessary in the case of all persons who desired to be elected on Town Councils.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: No, no. You must reside within seven miles to vote,
    590
    but you are competent to be elected if you live within 15 miles of the town, provided you possess property there.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, it would hardly be possible for a person who had any interest in one of these places not to be on the Parochial Register. Wherever a person resided he could, of course, qualify to be on the Parochial Register.
    MR. DODDsaid, that this Amendment, which was by mistake put down in the name of his hon. Friend, was really his (Mr. Dodd's). He thought it desirable that the Amendment should be extended. The point he wished to raise was that it was desirable that the same individual should be able to represent the same urban area both on the Sanitary Authority and on the Board of Guardians. The Sanitary Authority and the Board of Guardians were different bodies, but it seemed to him desirable that some individual should be able to represent both for the same district. There were anomalies in connection with those bodies which, to his mind, should be done away with. At present if an individual was living more than seven miles away from a district which was within the Union he could represent this district on the Board of Guardians, but could not represent it on the District Council. On the other hand, if he was living in another Union, perhaps across the road, he could represent the urban district on the District Council, but could not represent it on the Board of Guardians. He was aware that the Amendment did not meet the point completely, but it did to a certain extent. He wished the Amendment had been extended to the qualification of Board of Guardians. Perhaps the Government might be able to deal with both these points at the same time.
    MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, he must press the point unless the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment.
    SIR W. FOSTERsaid, the Government were prepared to accept it.
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he rose to object to the Amendment, not on account of its particular wording, but because it did not seem to provide for those districts which were not local or personal, and because, according to the ruling of the

    591
    Chairman, which was no doubt correct, if the Amendment were carried without any protest, he (Sir R. Temple) would be unable to move the omission of the words that local or personal Acts should be repealed.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. All I really said was that the Government were prepared to accept an Amendment, but I do not know what the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman amounts to yet.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he would tell the Committee what his point was.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Baronet's Amendment should come in later on.
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Baronet's object would be best met by an Amendment to come in at the end of the clause.
    MR. BYRNEsaid, he would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to an ambiguity in the clause as it stood. The Amendment said—
    "A person shall not be qualified to be elected or to be a Councillor unless he is a parochial elector of some parish within the district."
    What was meant, he took it, was that he should be a parochial elector within the district of some parish. ["No, no!"] There were districts in which only a portion of a parish was included—districts comprising the whole of one parish and a portion of another—and it might be said that the electors being the parishioners only of a portion of a parish should not have a vote. He was sure that was not what was meant. Words should be put in to make the matter clear. He could not do more than point out the difficulty at this stage.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the difficuly the hon. and learned Member raised was covered by the Interpretation Clause—Clause 58. There would practically be no part of a parish dealt with.
    MR. BYRNEsaid, he did not think the Interpretation Clause would meet the case.
    SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, that sometimes they had in the centre of a Local Board district an Improvement Act District with no boundary but its own arbitrary boundary. He did not know how such a district would be dealt with. This point deserved careful consideration.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he moved to omit the whole of Sub-section 2 from the words "So much" to the words "general Act," in line 33, but he should be content with the omission of the words—
    "So much of any enactment, whether in a public, general, or local and personal Act, as relates to the qualification of a member of the Urban Sanitary Authority, shall be repealed."
    His reason for moving the Amendment was this: In his division there was the important division of Surbiton. That, he believed, was an urban district and not a borough. It was under Improvement Commissioners who were now considered Urban Authorities, and he was advised that Sub-section 2, if passed as it now stood, would revolutionise the system under which the Improvement Commissioners were elected or appointed—for they were appointed rather than elected. At all events, they were not elected by popular election. These Improvement Commissioners had done their work extremely well. No complaint had been made by the parishes and the Improvement Commissioners had the confidence of the people. What had Surbiton done that it should have its constitution altered? When the people of that place learnt the kind intentions of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, they would be greatly astonished and probably would feel deeply dissatisfied. He felt bound to mention this case and to urge that the local or, as it might be called, personal Act, under which Surbiton had done such good work should be allowed to stand. As he was very anxious to limit his remarks as much as possible he should, having raised his point, request the right hon. Gentleman to give some explanation that would be in some degree satisfactory to him and his constituents.
    Amendment proposed,
    To omit Sub-section 2 down to the end of the third line.—(Sir R. Temple.)
    Question proposed, "That the words down to 'authority' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: There are, no doubt, a very considerable number of Improvement Bodies which will require equalisation with regard both to the "elected" and the "elector." Of course,

    593
    the object of this Bill is to put these Boards of Commissioners upon the same footing as all other Urban District Authorities. The Improvement Commissioners of Surbiton, who I have no doubt deserve all the encomiums which the hon. Baronet has bestowed upon them, have not any exceptional safeguard, qualification, or peculiarity. It is a Local Authority elected by the same rules and on the same principles as all the Local Boards created under the Public Health Act of 1875. It is, therefore, only one of a very large number of Local Boards with which this clause deals, and it would be impossible for us to leave it untouched. We do propose that there should be uniformity of qualification and uniformity both of elected and elector, but there are something like 700 of these Local Boards who will be treated in the same way.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: Will Surbiton suffer a change, although it suffers in company with other Local Boards?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I do not know about suffering; in my opinion it will derive the advantage of a change. The electors will be the parochial electors. There will be no plural voting and voting will be by ballot, and not by voting papers. I have no doubt the great bulk of the people in Surbiton will be very much pleased to have their voting powers put on the same footing as if they were residing in the not very distant town of Kingston.
    SIR R. WEBSTERwished to know whether it was the intention of the Government that the newly elected authorities would have all the special powers given under Private Acts of Parliament to the existing Improvement Commissioners? This was an important matter, because in many districts clauses had been inserted in Private Acts which had led to the exclusion of some powers under the Public Health Act.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, he had already answered the question when his hon. and learned Friend was not present. The intention of the Government was not in any way to interfere with those exceptional powers. Whilst the mode in which Improvement Commissioners were elected was to be altered, it was not the intention to interfere at all with the ample powers which wore vested in them. It was, however, proposed in a
    594
    later clause to simplify the audit of their accounts.
    SIR R. WEBSTERapologised to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having caused him to answer the same question twice, but pointed out that, although he had not heard the previous answer, he had not been very much away from the Committee during these Debates.
    SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, he knew a district in Yorkshire where there were 110 Commissioners, a number utterly out of proportion to the wants of the population. He thought some provision might to made under this Bill with the object of bringing the authority of the Local Government Board to bear upon such cases.
    MR. DODDasked whether the clause applied to special University jurisdiction?
    SIR J. RIGBY: There is a special provision with regard to Oxford which has been considered, and will be introduced at a later period. As to the question raised by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. S. Powell), I think the Bill makes no interference with the number of Improvement Commissioners. It is only as to the mode of election and as to the audit of accounts that we have, as far as I can remember, interfered with them at all. At present we do not think that the Improvement Commissioners are subject to the jurisdiction of the County Council or any other Authority as to any increase in their numbers.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he should be able, as he understood it, to offer to his suburban constituents the consolation that, although their system of election would be revolutionised, their powers would be preserved. If, however, the Surbiton people did not agree to the change he might have to raise the point again on Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On Motion of Sir W. FOSTER, lines 31, 32, and 33 left out.
    On Motion of Mr. STOREY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
    Page 13, line 42, to leave out from the word "conducted," to the end of the sub-section, and insert the words, "according to the Rules to be framed under the Act by the Local Government Board, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained."
    MR. STOREYmoved an Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney), namely—
    To leave out all the words after "years," in page 14, line 1, and insert, "and all the Councillors of a Council shall retire together."
    He said, he did this for the purpose of raising once again the question whether the elections ought to take place once in three years or in driblets year by year. The system proposed by the Government was that the Parish Councillors should be elected once a year, the District Councillors in rural districts by thirds each year, and the Guardians and the District Councils in urban districts either altogether or by thirds. The effect would be that it would be impossible to secure joint elections to any great extent, whilst there would be all over the country every year a very large number of elections which he thought might very well be done without. If his plan were adopted the effect would be that in urban and rural districts alike there would only be an election once in three years for District Councillors and Guardians. All the people who interested themselves in local government were tending towards such a change. A large number of Boards of Guardians had already taken the step of having triennial elections, and he believed that all through the country the conviction was growing that in local matters it was sufficient to have an election once in three years. His right hon. Friend had reminded the Committee that the opposite plan had been carried by a substantial majority. Considering that not only the Government, but the Leader of the Opposition had voted against his (Mr. Storey's) proposition, he thought he had done very well to lose only by a majority of 34. If the Government had not told in the Division, and the Committee had been left free to come to a decision on the merits, it would, he thought, have been shown that the majority of the Committee were in favour of a cheaper and easier plan. He was aware that circumstances had altered since then, and that he could not hope for that efficient help from gentlemen opposite which he could have expected a few days ago, when they were in a fighting mood. But he was so convinced of the necessity of this change and of the economy which it would bring about
    596
    that he should put the Amendment down again on Report.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 14, line 1, to leave out all the words after "years," and insert the words "and all the Councillors of a Council shall retire together."—(Mr. Storey.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: My hon. Friend has raised again a question which has been discussed before upon this Bill, and I cannot add anything to the arguments I have already used, except by saying that in this case we are dealing with Guardians and rural districts, and no doubt we are altering their existing mode of election. The present mode of electing Boards of Guardians is to elect them all together annually. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Temple), whom I observed cheering my hon. Friend (Mr. Storey) just now very excitedly, would be very much surprised if this Amendment were carried, because in Surbiton, which he has so well represented tonight, the people have for many years enjoyed a provision under which one-third of their representatives go out annually, and have thus been able to exercise that beneficial control over the operations of the Local Authority to which allusion has been made. All these Local Boards follow the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act. They hold office for three years, and one-third of the members retire annually. The Government have had to recommend to the House the adoption of that principle in reference to the Boards of Guardians. The District Councils in their present form have always enjoyed it, and, to my own knowledge, value it greatly as conducing not only to continuity of administration, but to constant touch with popular opinion. I think that, as far as Municipalities are concerned, and as far as those Local Boards are concerned, the present plan is not only the most efficient, but the most economical.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, it appeared to him that the proper way was to have a body of men elected to serve for a particular time. If one-third were to retire every year the Board would become a changing and shifting body, and could not

    597
    be brought to the bar of the ratepayers' opinion, because they would always have the excuse of these constant changes whenever any complaint was made as to their policy, and it would be impossible to hold them answerable for anything that was done. Although there was a good deal in what the right hon. Gentleman had said as to continuity of administration and constant touch with public opinion, his Metropolitan experience convinced him that these advantages were far outweighed and counterbalanced by the major and more comprehensive argument.
    MR. STOREYsaid, he had a very strong opinion upon this point, but he quite recognised that that was not a convenient opportunity for taking a Division upon it, and in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment he gave the right hon. Gentleman notice—long notice—that he would raise the question on the Report stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
    Clause 23 (Rural District Council).
    SIR F. S. POWELL: I beg formally to move the Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Islington.
    Amendments proposed,
    In page 14, line 5, after "The," insert "rural."
    Page 14, line 5, leave out "of every rural district."
    Amendments agreed to.
    MR. JEFFREYSsaid that, on behalf of the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division of Kent, he moved an Amendment providing that the District Council should consist of ratepayers who during the previous six months had paid their rates directly. He thought the point was of such importance as to justify them in pressing the Amendment to a Division so as to impress their views on the mind of the Government. Surely it was important that those who wore elected on the District Councils should directly pay their own rates?
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 14, line 5, after the words "rural district," to insert the words "shall be chosen from among the ratepayers in the district who
    598
    for the previous six months have paid their rates directly, and."—(Mr. Jeffreys.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: While I appreciate the motive of the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the Government cannot accept the Amendment, which has been discussed on several previous occasions. The Amendment would destroy the whole symmetry of the Bill and the Register on which the Rural Councillors are to be elected.
    SIR R. WEBSTERdenied that this was a question of electors or electoral registration. The point was, who were to be capable of being members of the District Council, and there was a broad distinction between that and the point raised by the President of the Local Government Board. The reason given by the right hon. Gentleman did not apply in any way to the Amendment. Surely it was not unreasonable to ask that the Councillors who were to direct the expenditure should possess the qualification of paying the rates direct. The right hon. Gentleman had answered the Amendment in a somewhat perfunctory manner. If he chose to lay down the principle that the persons who were to vote should be compound householders and others who did not pay their rates directly they would be able to meet him, but that was not the point raised by the Amendment, which he hoped would be pressed to a Division.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he had no wish to repeat any argument that had been used, and was unwilling to slay the slain: but he thought that Members of the Opposition should take every opportunity of recording their protest against what they considered to be the cardinal vice of the Bill—namely, placing the expenditure of the ratepayers' money in the hands of those who did not contribute to the rates. They had the utmost confidence in their countrymen as regarded the vigilant guardianship of the money which was their own, and which they themselves contributed; but they most be excused if they had no confidence in the administration of those who did not contribute the money. That was the principle on which they persevered in recording their votes.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he should like to see the Amendment pressed to a Division, not only on the grounds stated by his hon. and learned Friend, but also because of the unsatisfactory reply of the Minister in charge of the Bill, who seemed to think that because they had made some compromise with the Leaders of the Opposition it was unnecessary for them to take any interest in the Bill, or to return any adequate answer to objections which were raised on that side of the House. In this case the President of the Local Government Board had returned an answer which in no sense applied to the Amendment before the Committee, but which evidently was solely applicable to some Amendment floating in the right hon. Gentleman's own brain. This Amendment was not one affecting the electors at all, and how on earth the right hon. Gentleman got the idea into his brain he could not conceive! Would the Secretary to the Local Government Board, who had not made many speeches on the Bill, enlighten them on the Government view of the Amendment? All they asked was that the District Councillors who were to spend public funds should themselves contribute directly to the rates, and he assured the Government they would save time if only they would give satisfactory answers to questions put to them. Under the circumstances he hoped his hon. Friend would Divide.
    SIR J. RIGBY: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Preston has dwelt on the letter rather than on the spirit of the reply of my right hon. Friend. His answer was that the Guardians should have the same qualification as the District Councillors, and he pointed out that the whole scheme of this part of the Bill would be broken down if the Amendment were accepted. It would render it impossible to carry out the main object of the clause if we were to alter the qualification. The Amendment would involve that the Councillors who are to take the place of the elected Guardians should have a separate qualification.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he thought it was pertinent to point out that under the Bill as it now stood an illiterate lodger might become a District Councillor. Was not that a good reason for the Amendment? They objected altogether to those who paid no rates
    600
    having anything to do with the administration of the ratepayers' money. It would be some safeguard if such a qualification as was provided in the Amendment were insisted upon, because it would make the Governing Body of the district a wiser and safer body. Considering how the Bill would tend to an increase of rates that would place additional burdens on the shoulders of the farmers, he thought this was a very small Amendment, and the Government would be well advised to accept it.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 107.—(Division List, No. 407.)
    MR. LODERmoved an Amendment to the effect that the chairman of a District Council "should be a male." He said, he supposed that after what had happened on Clause 21 the Government would not accept the Amendment, but he should like to explain the spirit in which it was moved. He, for one, was strongly in favour of extending the Parliamentary and municipal franchises to women; but the privilege of voting and the capability of acting on an Elected Body were different things; and still further was it a question whether women were qualified to take office in these bodies. He quite admitted that women might be useful as members of School Boards and Boards of Guardians; but there were qualities required in a chairman of one of these bodies which few women possessed, and it was to his mind an exceedingly doubtful question whether a woman ought to hold the office of chairman. It was in no spirit of hostility to women that he moved the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 14, line 6, after the word "chairman," to insert the words "who shall be a male."—(Mr. Loder.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: This question has been settled already. It has been decided that women are eligible to take the chair on Parish Councils, and the question raised by the Amendment is one for the members of the District Council to determine for themselves. If they thought that a lady member possessed

    601
    qualities which fitted her for the chair, why should they not elect her? He could see no reason why they should not. The Government certainly contemplated ladies acting as chairmen of District Councils, although they did not consider them qualified for the Bench.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not assert the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying that this question has been already discussed, but I, at any rate, have had no opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject. I must frankly say that, being one of the oldest and most consistent supporters of woman suffrage, I have always regarded these attempts to give them administrative functions as injurious to the perfectly just claim that they should have some share in our Parliamentary representation. As I should oppose women having seats in this House, so I shall vote against their assuming functions which would drag them unnecessarily into an entirely new sphere of action. I think that those who advocate their doing so render a poor service to the cause justly described as the "rights of women."
    MR. STOREYsaid, that as these Local Authorities would have to look after paving, lighting, and sewering, which could not be done by women, he did not believe that a single authority would elect a woman as chairman, and therefore the difficulty indicated in the Amendment was not likely to arise. At Boards of Guardians ladies were very much in their place, and that was one of the reasons why he objected to Guardians undertaking sanitary duties which women could not perform. They could not go about looking at lamps and sewers, and he should not like to see them do it.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he did not agree either with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, or with the hon. Member for Sunderland. He felt that the Councils might be left free to take their own course. If women did not think the work came within their proper sphere they would not do it, and he therefore thought it would be grossly unfair to impose this restriction. He did not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland that women would not interest themselves in the work of the District Councils. He
    602
    happened to know that there were plenty of women who considered that their first and most important duty was to look after the sanitation and everything that concerned the comfort and decency of the homes of the poor; and as those things would be some of the most important work of the District Councils, women would be of the greatest possible service on these bodies, just as they were on Boards of Guardians. So long as the position and status, comfort and health of women were affected by the legislation of these Local Bodies, women should have unrestricted liberty to become members of these bodies, and the Chairmen of these bodies, if they felt so inclined. They were not asking for an unrestricted right for women to do this work simply because they wanted to push women into public positions, and far less because they desired to force on women duties which they were not qualified to discharge. They did so because they thought it was a woman's proper sphere—a sphere in which they were most useful, in which they could do more good than men, and to restrict their usefulness in such a sphere would be a crime.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, that he supported this Amendment with the less hesitation because his consistent fidelity to the cause of woman's suffrage would not be questioned. But he entirely agreed—if he might say so with deference—with what had fallen from his right hon. Leader to the effect that this good cause of women's suffrage which was so dear to the hon. Mover of the Amendment, to his right hon. Leader, and to himself, would be damaged and pushed backward by this constant endeavour to place women in various administrative positions for which their station did not properly qualify them. The question, however, was not whether women should sit upon these Councils. The question was much narrower. It was whether women should occupy the chair. Therefore, he might urge the adoption of the Amendment; at the same time, he agreed entirely with what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Camborne with such force and eloquence. It was, indeed, most important that women should sit on these Councils and take part in all their beneficent operations. But the question was a much simple

    603
    one—namely, whether women should occupy the chair, and he contended that it would not be good either for the Public Service or for women themselves that they should be placed in that position. If it were true, as stated by the hon. Member for Sunderland, that no District Council in its senses would ever elect a woman to the chair—of which he was not so sure—why put such a provision into the Bill?—a provision which must remain neutral and inoperative. If the hon. Member for Sunderland were perfectly sincere, as he had no doubt he was, in these convictions which he had so forcibly and so eloquently expressed, he might fairly support the Amendment. But he was anxious that the hon. Member for Camborne—with whom he did not always have the pleasure of agreeing, as he did on this occasion with almost everything he had said in regard to the employment of women on the Public Service—should understand that they did not swerve or waver in the least in the cause of women suffrage, because they held strongly to the opinion that women should not be placed in the chair of District Councils.
    MR. SNAPEsaid, he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would not give way on this question. The fact that women could occupy the chair of School Boards, which in the large cities were quite as important as the District Councils, was sufficient evidence that the country had recognised that women were highly qualified to occupy such positions. This was not au endeavour to force women into these positions, but it was au effort to give the District Councils an absolute and unrestricted right to choose their own chairman. If a District Council arrived at the conclusion that a woman member of the Council had the business aptitude and the other requisite qualifications in a higher degree than any other member of the Council, they should have a free choice to elect her to the chair. His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland had said that women would not be interested in the work of County Councils. On School Boards women had to deal with matters of interest to their sex, but they had also to deal with purely business matters, such as would come before the District Councils. He thought the argument that the placing of women
    604
    in the chair would injure the cause of woman suffrage was groundless. On the contrary, it was likely to be of great service to that cause, because if women were found to be qualified to act as chairmen of the District Councils it would be a strong proof that they might be entrusted with the right to vote for a Member of Parliament.
    Question put, negatived.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he had put the following Amendment on the Paper—
    In page 14, line 7, after the words "by the," to insert the words "Parish Councils where there is a Parish Council, and where there is no Parish Council by the parish meeting of the"
    —with a view to avoid a multiplicity of elections by having the District Councils elected indirectly, for if there were too many elections the people would cease to take interest in any of them. He did not, however, intend to press it.
    On Motion of Mr. H. H. Fowler, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
    In page 14, line 8, after the word "parish," to insert the words "or other area in a rural district."
    In page 14, line 9, after the word "parish," to insert the words "or area."
    In page 14, line 10, after the word "area," to insert the words "in a rural district."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 14, line 13, at end, to insert,—"Every District Councillor shall be entitled to claim a sum in payment of the expenses, if any, actually and reasonably incurred by him in travelling to and from the place of meeting of the District Council."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he hoped the Government would not agree to this Amendment. It was an entirely new principle, and did not exist in the County Councils.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that this question was surrounded with many difficulties; and as the Government thought it could not properly be dealt with in this Bill, they were not prepared to accept it.
    MR. DODDsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Leon) placed this Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of calling attention to the fact, that for a

    605
    long time past the Guardians throughout the rural districts had been carrying on the government of the country, so far as the poor were concerned, at their own expense, but still he did not think the present was an opportune time for passing the Amendment. It appeared to him that the agricultural districts were not now in a position to pay any additional expenses. Agricultural depression pervaded the whole of the agricultural districts, and in no part more severely than the district in Essex that he represented. Though he agreed, as a matter of principle, that the men who did public work should not be put to any expense, the present was not the time when they could make any alteration in the law. As no provision up to the present had been made for the payment of the travelling expenses of the County Councillors, he thought it was impossible at this moment to make any provision to pay District Councillors such expenses. Another reason why it should not be done just now was that the distance that would have to be travelled would not be so great as in the ease of the County Councillors, and in the majority of cases, if a member of the District Council had no trap, he would easily be able to accomplish the journey on foot. The position of agriculture at the present time was such that he was quite convinced it was impossible for the agricultural districts to bear the imposition of any new liability or fresh expense. Under the circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend would find it his duty to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. LEONregretted that he was nor in the House when his Amendment was brought on by the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare), to whom he was much obliged for moving it. He understood from what the President of the Local Government Board said, in reply to the hon. Member for Camborne, that this was not quite the right time on which to have a discussion in regard to the payment of the expenses of members. As had been said by the hon. Member who had just spoken, there was no doubt the Amendment did not deal sufficiently with the whole question, and he would therefore ask leave to withdraw it, if the hon. Member for Cam-
    606
    borne (Mr. Conybeare) who moved it had no objection to that course.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid, that if the Amendment was to be withdrawn he had nothing more to say, but otherwise he would have to enter a strong protest against it.
    An hon. MEMBER: It is to be withdrawn.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MAJOR DARWINsaid, he had put down his Amendment to insert "administrative" after "one" in order to bring forward the case of Tamworth.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I accept it.
    MAJOR DARWINsaid, he wished to ask a question upon the matter. In the case of Tamworth it was felt that the arrangement under the clause as it stood would be more costly in the future. Tamworth was a large district, which enforced all the arrangements with regard to water and sanitary matters, and it was felt that Tamworth should be the centre of any grouping that took place in that sanitary district. He knew there would be great difficulties on the question of boundaries, as in regard to Tamworth it would be hopeless to get the authorities there to agree to any alteration of the boundary that did not make Tamworth the centre. He thought the whole question should be under the Joint Committee of the County Council of the different counties involved, and he wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether be had considered this question?
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 14, line 18, after the word "one," to insert the word "administrative."—(Major Darwin.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'administrative' be there inserted."
    MR. H. H. FOWLER, who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to say that he would consider the matter, which was one which should be dealt with in Clause 30.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, that in his own Union of Ashbourne they had precisely the same difficulty as that mentioned by

    607
    the hon. Member. No doubt, later on in the Bill, it was provided that the County Council and the Local Government Board might have power to re-adjust the areas and throw little bits of a Rural Sanitary Authority into an adjoining one if it were cut off from another county. That was all very well when they had got two or three parishes taken from a larger Rural Sanitary Authority and they wore thrown into one county, and 20 or 25 into the other. But the difficulty arose in a case like that of Ashbourne, where they had the Rural Sanitary Authority already divided into two, and each of the halves were hardly large enough to form a district of its own. In such a case they would have two small districts and would have to have two sets of officers to deal with what was formerly only one Rural Sanitary Authority, which would add greatly to the expense. The result of such an arrangement would be that they would get 10 parishes in Staffordshire and nine in Derbyshire not large enough to form a good sanitary district, and yet too large to throw into any other. There would thus be caused an infinity of trouble unless there was a re-adjustment of the whole county.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    SIR R. TEMPLEobjected to the clause mainly on the ground that Subsection 3 would enact that District Councillors should be the Poor Law Guardians. There was no doubt, in the opinion of those whom he represented, that the District Councillors as they would be elected under this Bill would not be fitted to be Guardians of the Poor, upon the ground that they were popularly elected in many cases by those who did not pay the rates, and their acting in this capacity would bring about national dangers. He and his friend still thought there was great peril of demoralisation and pauperisation, and that all the risks which were portended by this clause and other similar clauses ought to be protested against upon every occasion and at every stage which the Rules of the House would permit.
    SIR R. WEBSTERdesired to call the attention of the President of the Local Government Board to a matter of some importance. The scheme of Clauses 22 and 23 was, as he understood, that there was to be no longer any special method of electing Improvement Commissioners, or any special qualification. These special elections were swept away, and there was a provision in the clause they were now upon that the number of Councillors in each parish should be the same as the number of Guardians under the scheme. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would have to consider whether he had sufficiently regarded the provisions of the Private Acts which created special districts and numbers. He was not at all satisfied that this repeal by implication would be satisfactory where there was a special Private Act of Parliament creating particular districts and creating a certain number of representatives, and he would respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be necessary to repeal in the Schedule expressly the clauses of the Improvements Act, which would otherwise conflict with these elections. He was a little afraid that the draftsmen might have overlooked a very serious difficulty if they had attempted to deal with all these Private Acts of Parliament by simply engrafting upon them the mode of election. He was not at all satisfied it would work satisfactorily. It would be well to consider between this and the Report stage whether it would not be desirable to repeat by Schedule the electing clauses of these Private Acts of Parliament.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERwas extremely obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising this point, which should receive the consideration any suggestion coming from such a high authority deserved to receive. He would take care that the point was not lost sight of. Clause 23, however, did not deal with the Improvement Commissioners at all.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Except indirectly by Sub-sections 2 and 3. These sub-sections may apply to these very districts.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the matter should be carefully considered.
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
    Clause 24 (Powers of Council of rural district).
    COMMANDER BETHELLmoved—
    In page 14, line 42, to leave out from the word; "district" to the word, "and," in line 1, page 15.
    He said, the Amendment dealt with the important subject of roads upon which they had already had some little discussion, and if carried it would have the effect of leaving matters with respect to roads precisely where they were now. It seemed to him that the most advisable course to pursue was to allow the community and the county to work out their system of road-keeping in their own way as in the past. The question was a purely domestic one so far as the counties were concerned. The County Council was an admirably representative assembly, particularly well suited to decide questions of this sort; and the County Councils and the parishes ought to be allowed to settle this domestic question in their own way. The matter was not one to be dealt with according to the experience of individuals of particular localities, because a system which suited one part of the country was not necessarily the best for another part of the country. He did not know what evidence the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers had in framing this section of the Bill; no doubt they had taken the best advice in their power, but he submitted they could not have advice so good upon a county domestic question of this nature as the advice of the County Council. What objection could there be to leaving the decision of this question to the County Council? He believed at the present time about half the roads in England were managed under Highway Boards and about half by parishes. He wished to draw the attention of the Committee to a distinction between the present system and the system proposed in the Amendment which immediately followed his. At present the highways were managed practically in three ways. There were the Parish Authority, the Highway Boards, and the Rural Sanitary Autho-
    610
    rity. He believed there were only about 40 Sanitary Authorities which had to do with highway roads, which were mainly divided between Highway Boards—which were a collection of parishes—and the parishes themselves. The omission of the words he proposed to leave out would simply have this effect: the Parish Authority who were now managing the roads would be left to manage them. If they and the County Council should come to the conclusion that it would be better to group parishes for the purpose of managing the highways, then they could do so under the special order which could be made. When this question was discussed before the right hon. Gentleman undoubtedly gave some hope that he would favourably consider the matter. It would to him be the gravest blot in this Bill if the Government should unfortunately adhere to their proposal. It would be destructive of one of the most important functions of local government; it would be imposing upon people differently constituted and of different characteristics and wants, a method of managing their affairs constantly unsuited to them, and for which they already had machinery by which they could manage their own affairs in their own way and very much for the better. Under these circumstances, he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 14, line 42, to leave out from the word "district" to the word "and," in line 1, page 15.—(Commander Bethell.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR J. GORSTdesired to say a few words in support of this Amendment from the point of view of the effect which this clause, if carried, would have upon the County of Lancashire. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that his Colleague the present Secretary to the Treasury was the Chairman of the County Council of Lancaster, and he, of course, was not able to represent in that Committee the views of the County Council, of which he was such an admirable chairman. Something had been said at an earlier period of their Debates on this Bill

    611
    about the extreme inconvenience which this clause would have upon the exceedingly well-managed affairs of that particular county. There were in Lancashire no less than 13 Highway Boards which were appointed under the Acts of 1862 and 1864, and which in that county worked admirably. He would give the Committee two examples of the effect of this clause if it were carried without the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend. In that part of Lancashire known as Lancashire-over-Sands there were four highway districts in operation. Those highway districts followed the geographical conformation of the county, and were separated from each other by ranges of mountains, so that it would be extremely inconvenient if these Highway Authorities were combined, and there was only one Highway Authority for Lancashire-over-Sands, which, would have to deal with four different districts separated from each other by ranges of mountains, and having no natural geo-graphical affinity one with the other. That was exactly the effect this clause would produce, because the districts of these four Highway Boards—High Furness, Low Furness, Hawkshead, and Cartmel—would be passed into the rural sanitary district of the Ulverston Union, and the rural sanitary district of Ulverston Union would have to administer the territories of those four districts, which were, as he had said, separated from each other by a range of mountains, and in the opinion of those on the spot they would have in this way an authority much less capable of managing the roads of those four districts than the existing Boards. Then there was the Leyland Hundred, in which there would be the same difficulties. In the case of the Leyland Hundred, seven parishes were in the rural sanitary district of the Preston Union, 19 in the Chorley Union, 14 in the Ormskirk Union, and 4 in the Wigan Union. So that, if the Leyland Hundred Highway Board were broken up, they would have to parcel out the parishes of which it consisted among four Rural Sanitary Authorities, and they would have to adjust all the property and liabilities among these four Rural Sanitary Authorities, and it was very doubtful whether these four separate authorities would administer the roads of
    612
    the Leyland Hundred better than they were administered now. That was the opinion of the Local Authorities, and that was the opinion of the Lancaster County Council, which understood this matter very much better than that House. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit that a County Council which sat under the chairmanship of the present Secretary to the Treasury was about as good a body as possible to manage its own affairs, and why should they, in a Bill for the promotion of local self-government, take this matter out of their hands, and presume to say that all these Highway Boards which were working with advantage to the ratepayers and to the county should be broken up and produce a result which, in the opinion of the County Council of Lancashire, would not conduce either to the good of the roads or of the ratepayers, but which would produce confusion and difficulty? He hoped the Government would devise some plan which would give the Lancashire County Council liberty to regulate the affairs of that great county in the way which they, and those whom they represented, desired.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERquite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that there were few authorities in this House who carried greater weight on questions of this sort than his right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, who was the chairman of the Lancaster County Council. But owing, no doubt, to the absence of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Gorst) from this House, he was probably not aware that by far the ablest speech made in the Debate, when this question was raised at a prior stage of the Bill, in favour of the proposal of the Government was made by the Secretary to the Treasury and the chairman of the Lancaster County Council. From the Lancashire point of view his right hon. Friend argued in favour of this clause with the greatest ability and power, and since then he (Mr. Fowler) had received the following document:—
    "At a special meeting of the Main Roads and Bridges Committee of the County Council held at the County Offices in Preston, on Thursday, 21st December, 1893, County Alderman W. W. Hutton in the chair, it was resolved unanimously, 'That the Main Roads and Bridges Committee of the County Council of Lancashire

    613
    are of opinion that the repair and maintenance of highways, other than main roads in rural parishes, ought to be entrusted to the District Councils proposed to be constituted under the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill, or failing the District Councils to the County Councils, and this committee is further of opinion that any attempt to vest such powers in the Parish Council should be resisted as a retrograde step, the only result of which, if successful, would be to perpetuate the present system of bad and insufficient management, which it most strongly deprecates.' Signed by Frederick Hutton. Clerk to the County Council of Lancaster."
    If he wanted an argument in favour of his proposal from the County of Lancashire he had got it, first, in the able speech of the chairman of the County Council delivered in this House, and, secondly, in the resolution of the Main Roads and Bridges Committee of the Lancashire County Council. He thought that disposed of the Lancashire argument. He did not quite understand on which Amendment this discussion was going to be taken—whether on that of the hon. Member opposite, or on that of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire. The course of the Government upon the question was that they adhered to the transfer as a vital part of the Bill. It was part of the scheme of 1878, and of Mr. Ritchie's Act of 1888, which the Government were now implicitly following, and from that scheme they did not intend in any degree to depart. But the Government were prepared, in pursuance of the pledge which they had given to the hon. Baronet, to insert in line 8, page 15, these words—
    "Provided that the Council of any county may by order postpone within their own county the operation of this section so far as it relates to highways returned not exceeding 12 months from the appointed day."
    The hon. Baronet had laid great stress on the abrupt transition which would take place in so short a time; but the Government attached great importance to this transfer. They believed it to be essential to any thorough reform of the system of local administration in the counties, because they believed that it would promote the better maintenance of the roads and reduce the costs. He did not know whether they were to have any discussion on the matter at this stage; but that, at till events, was the position of the Government.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, he regretted to hear the decision of the right hon. Gentleman. He could not understand the reason why the right hon. Gentleman had taken up such a determined stand on the question of highways. He had taken the case of Lancashire, and based his argument on the case of one county. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: No.] That was what the right hon. Gentleman had done, and he must deny the right to argue in that way; if they did, they would involve themselves in inextricable difficulty. He represented a Lancashire borough, and knew what Lancashire would require; but he would point out that there was no question of county and local administration so intricate, difficult, and involved as the administration of the various Highway Acts. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the transfer would lead to economy, but he (Mr. Long) said they wore entitled to something more than mere assertion in a matter of this kind. How would it load to economy? The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Act of 1888 as if he were an old Tory and not a modern Radical. He (Mr. Long) had been associated with the framing of the Act of 1888, but he did not look upon it as an inflexible standard from which there could be no departure. He was prepared to support a reasonable proposal which indicated that there should be, within a reasonable time, the amalgamation of existing Local Authorities, whether Highway or Sanitary Authorities; but he submitted that this could not be clone within anything like the period of 12 months, owing to the varied circumstances to be dealt with. The circumstances in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, for example, were totally different. In Wiltshire the powers conferred by the Bill would operate with very little difficulty and with little injustice; they would, he thought, be very useful; but in Gloucestershire the effect of the measure as it stood would be just the reverse of that. The Highway Authorities in that county were very few, while the highway parishes were very numerous; and the effect of the clause would be the immediate recreation of highway districts. All that

    615
    they bad recommended from the beginning was that there should be the utmost possible elasticity given to the County Councils and to the subordinate authorities, so that they might have the power to adopt that principle of administration for their highways which should be the most effective and the most economical. If the right hon. Gentleman stood by this clause as a vital part of his scheme in regard to the administration of the highways, he would be embarking on a discussion which would not end in a moment, because many Members looked upon this question as one of great importance. If, on the other hand, he would only concede the elasticity that was contended for, he would get rid of the difficulties, and in no way weaken the powers of administration. The Amendment of his hon. Friend went further than he (Mr. Long) was prepared to go; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, even from the point of view of effective and economical administration for which he himself contended, would endeavour to make some concession.
    MR. SNAPEsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down said he spoke for Lancashire—
    MR. W. LONGsaid, not at all—he said nothing of the kind.
    MR. SNAPEsaid, he did not wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, all he said was that he represented a Lancashire borough.
    MR. SNAPEsaid, the hon. Gentleman's constituency was a borough, and gave him no right to speak in connection with the requirements as to county administration. He could quote to him instances where authorities, as at present constituted, neglected the wards. If the power contained in the clause were not reserved to the District Councils, many high roads would continue to be neglected. In Lancashire, where they had a good road surveyor and Medical Officer of Health, at the last meeting of the County Council, a report was made that several of the roads in our particular part of the county were impassable and injurious to health, and action had to
    616
    be taken in reference to them. The hon. Member (Mr. Long) said what was done in Wiltshire was a fair illustration of what was going on all over the country.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, he did not say that. The administration of the Highway Laws were not identical all over the country. That was well-known to everybody.
    MR. SNAPEsaid, he took Lancashire as a fair illustration, because it had more varying conditions with reference to these Local Authorities than any other county, two-thirds of it being industrial and urban and one-third rural in character. He would ask the hon. Member whether, if an effective road surveyor were to inspect, and a Medical Officer of Health were to make a tour through Wilts and Gloucestershire, they would not make reports similar to those made in Lancashire? He trusted the Government would not give way in the slightest degree in this matter.
    MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had presented the broad issue to the Committee whether or not in the administration of highways there was to be any freedom of local government at all. They (the Opposition) utterly declined to accept any clause in the Bill which, although it might be satisfactory in its working to Lancashire, would be unsatisfactory to other counties. In Gloucestershire, in Berks, and the East Biding of Yorkshire there was a desire to maintain the highway parish system, which had worked well for many years. Highway Boards had been tried and had failed, and the number of highway parishes in England had actually increased somewhat in recent years. He objected to the Amendment because it would remove these Highway Boards entirely from the operation of the Bill. What he desired was that the clause should apply to such Boards, but that those counties which preferred the highway parish system should be allowed to continue that system unless and until they wished to alter it. Since 1888 a very large number of roads had been taken out of the hands of the Parish Authorities and placed under the control of the County Councils, so that in many

    617
    of the smaller counties there would not be enough road work left for the District Councils to do if they were not at liberty to continue the existing system.
    MR. A. H. SMITHsaid, for his part he did not see why the Parish Councils should not undertake the care of the roads in their parishes, and he would, therefore, support the Amendment.
    MR.EVERETTsaid, he was extremely sorry to have heard the statement made by the President of the Local Government Board, and to know that it indicated the attitude the Government had taken up on this question. The Bill, if passed on the lines laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, would be an extremely unpopular measure. They were about, it was supposed, to bring home rule to every cottage door, and certainly it, was inconsistent with that principle to deprive the people of the management of their parish roads. They ought to have a respect for the feelings of the parishes upon the question. The inhabitants of the parish were naturally the best judges of the state of their own roads. They were the best judges of what ought to be done, and were the best able to see that what was required was carried out with due economy. He had been surveyor of the parish where he lived for many years, and had endeavoured to maintain the roads in the way that was most economical and least burdensome to the people of the parish. The system as it worked at present was, he could assure the House, most useful and beneficial. Work upon the roads was done when work upon the farms was slack, and the stones were raised when employment was needed by the labourers. They also tried to save the direct payment of money by the large ratepayers of the parish—the farmers—by permitting them to work out their rate by carting stones on to the roads themselves. In these days of agricultural depression, it was hard for farmers to find cash. To compel them to pay rates for the mending of their roads when they could do the work with their own teams in a way less trying to themselves would be going much against the interest and wishes of the ratepayers.
    618
    It might be said that the parish roads had not been maintained in that state of efficiency in which they ought to have been kept. No doubt there were various kinds of roads in parishes, and roads kept in various states of efficiency, but they were now coming to a new system. The people of the parish, through their parish meetings or Parish Councils, would be able to complain if the roads were not maintained as they ought to be, and would be able to put pressure on their servant, the parish surveyor. There was no way in which the roads could be maintained at so little cost to the parish as by their own parish surveyor. In Suffolk they had the advantage of experience in this matter. Years ago, when the House gave power to form Highway Boards, several such Boards were set up in the county with good expectations of what would take place in the matter of efficiency and economy; but, after the experience of many years, these Boards had all been done away with with the unanimous consent of those who were interested in the matter. It was found that the work was more costly under the Highway Boards, and that the roads were less efficiently maintained instead of more efficiently. He hoped that in a Bill the object of which was to quicken local life in the villages, they would not take away from them, against their will, a power which they valued, and which they would now be in a better position than ever to use. He trusted that they would not have their expenses increased by having this power taken away from them and being handed over to a Central Authority. If the parishes themselves wished for some change let the Parish and the District and the County Councils work it out in amity among themselves, but he hoped the Committee would not assent to a proposal compelling the village people to part with the management of their own roads.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, there were two things he should like to notice in the speech of the hon. Gentleman. One was that he was the surveyor of roads in the parish in which he lived. There were not many parishes so happy in their surveyor as that the hon. Member belonged to. The other point was that the hon.

    619
    Member had been surveyor of roads of his parish for a considerable number of years. In the parish he (Mr. Hanbury) knew best they were not so fortunate. Almost every year they got a new surveyor, so that in this respect they had not the benefit of long experience. The hon. Gentleman opposite talked about home rule for the parishes, but there were other people interested in the parish roads besides the people living in the parishes. The roads were used by people living in adjoining parishes and all over the county, and these people had as much interest in the roads as those living in the parishes themselves. He did not think, therefore, that the argument of the hon. Member opposite went very far. The parish roads, undoubtedly, were the concern not only of the people living in the parishes, but of the people living in the district around, and these people ought to have some voice in the control of the roads. It ought to be impossible for one parish in a large area, where the roads generally were good, to give them thoroughly bad roads. The weakest link in the chain was the test of the strength of the whole chain, and if the roads in one parish were bad the good roads in the adjoining county were neutralised. He did not know much about the County of Lancashire, which had been largely referred to, but he knew a great deal about his own County of Staffordshire, where the roads were as bad as they could be, because they were in the hands of Parish Authorities, who did not know anything about their work.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, he was anxious to know whether the facts mentioned by the hon. Member for Preston would be met by the Bill of the Government. As he was informed, the roads in Staffordshire were managed by Highway Boards and District Councils. Were not the Highway Boards managed by Sanitary Authorities? If the hon. Member thought the proposal of the Bill was to transfer roads which were now parish roads into district roads they were on a different point. The proposal of the Government at present did not deal with the roads mentioned by the hon. Member for Preston. They had Highway Boards coterminous with Sanitary Authorities,
    620
    and Highway Boards distinct from Sanitary Authorities, and Highway Boards which maintained roads independently of Highway Authorities. In addition to this, there were roads which remained to the parish whether or not they were under the control of these other Boards. There was no proposal in the Bill to hand over parish roads under the control of the parish to the District Council. All the Bill would do would be to transfer the roads now under the control of the Highway Boards or Sanitary Authorities or Parish Authorities to the District Councils. The roads, now parish roads pure and simple, would remain parish roads pure and simple.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he had been dealing with the case where the parish was the Highway Authority in the district. The roads now administered by that authority would in future be administered by the District Authorities.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, that Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House would support the hon. Member for Preston if he proposed that the expense of repairing parish roads should be borne by the people who drove over them. But the right hon. Gentleman had contradicted him—
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: No, no.
    MR. W. LONG: Yes; the right hon. Gentleman had intimated dissent when he (Mr. Long) had suggested, or rather asked if the roads which the parish now maintained, which were purely and simply parish roads under the Parish Authority, were to be transferred to the District Councils. The District Authorities, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman, were under statutory obligation as to the character of the roads they kept up and as to the condition in which the roads were maintained. The change would be a serious one.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he could not give the hon. Gentleman a better answer than to read the words of the Act of 1888—
    "On the appointed day there shall be transferred to the District Council of each rural district, in respect of the highways situate within its district, all the powers, duties, and liabilities of a Highway Board and of the inhabitants

    621
    in Vestry assembled of any parish and of the surveyor of highways of any such parish."
    That was the proposal of the Bill of 1888 and that was the proposal of the present Government.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, that was what he thought. His question was whether the roads now maintained by the parish as apart from the Highway Boards and the Parish Authorities would he transferred. Clearly they would not be.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: No.
    Commander BETHELLsaid, the Act of 1888 especially mentioned roads under Parish Vestries. True, parish roads would remain such under the present arrangement. One did not mind being defeated on an Amendment if there was any argument at all brought out in opposition to the arguments advanced in its favour. But he would ask the Committee whether the President of the Local Government Board or anyone else had said a single word in opposition to his proposal? Where, in the name of goodness, did the right hon. Gentleman get his information from? They were being-pestered on this Amendment—as they had been on others—by the fact that they had had a County Government Bill. Hon. Gentlemen said that they themselves knew nothing about the matter, and they could not because they had spent most of their time in towns. They got their information from the Local Government Board, but where did the Local Government Board get its advice from? The hon. Gentleman opposite had urged the Government to stick to their Bill and by no means to give way. And why? Because of the example of the County of Lancaster. That was the liberal sentiment of the hon. Member, and he wished him joy of it. The hon. Member for Preston's view was also extremely liberal. The hon. Gentleman said, in effect, "Certain roads with which I am acquainted are badly managed, therefore I assume that all roads in the country are badly managed." These views, one from an hon. Friend and one from an hon. opponent, marked the character of the advice given to the Government. He (Commander Bethell) did not argue as to which authority was the best. He had
    622
    an opinion of his own, but that was not worth twopence, though it was as deserving of consideration as the opinion of any other hon. Member, who would only judge by the condition of the roads in his own locality. He offered no opinion but stood on the firm and broad ground that the Local Government Board ought to hand over to the people of a locality the management of all their local affairs. It was absured to see a Liberal Government passing a Local Government Bill which kept out of the hands of the localities all those local affairs that were most important. It certainly was almost comic to find a Government, professedly Liberal, passing this wretched Bill, which in many cases deprived people not only of power they ought to have, but of power they possessed already. This was an abominable blot on the Bill—a worse blot than he conceived it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to leave on it. He (Commander Bethell) hoped that better counsels would yet prevail with the right hon. Gentleman, and that he would return to those most sensible and most conciliatory methods with which he began the consideration of the Bill. But he would not trouble the Committee to divide twice. As he understood his hon. Friends preferred a subsequent Amendment, he would not press his proposal to a Division.
    SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, he did not agree with some hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House on this question. He followed the Lancashire County Council, but he was also interested in another district—namely, the West Riding of Yorkshire, which accepted the provisions of the Bill. Having, as a Justice of the Peace in the old days, had to do with the parish roads in the West Riding, he was bound to say that they had found many of them in a most deplorable state. There was great need of reform.
    MR. BYRNEsaid, he wished to ask a question as to the true meaning of the clause, as two views seemed to prevail. He wished to be informed by the Government whether there were any roads which did not come under either the Rural Sanitary Authority or any Highway Authority in the district? If that question were answered the Committee

    623
    would know what they were dividing upon. Some Members seemed to think that parish roads were not included in this clause, whilst others thought they were.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, that a parish road must be a highway. ["No!"] How could a parish have anything to do with a road which was not used by the public, and if it was used by the public it was, ipso facto, a highway? It might not be a high road in the popular sense, but, technically, every public footpath in the country was a highway. As a lawyer, he could not understand the existence of a parish road which was not a highway. With reference to the meaning of the clause they had in the Act of 1888, Section 100, a definition which was introduced into the present Bill. The different classes of highways which the hon. Member for the West Derby Division had referred to were included.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, he did not propose to discuss the technical meaning of the term "highway," but the hon. and learned Gentleman had carried them farther than they had anticipated. Was it intended to cast upon every District Council the duty of maintaining every footpath in the parish? Right hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to be so wedded to the proposals in the Act of 1888 that they objected to their being amended in 1894. But, he, although to some extent responsible for the Act of 1888, did not say that it was infallible. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman to forget it. In very many rural parishes there were two kinds of roads; some were maintained by the Highway Authority—whether the Sanitary Authority, acting as a Highway Board, or the parish acting as a highway parish—while others were kept up by the parish sufficiently for parish purposes. If all they intended to do was to transfer the roads which were managed by the Highway Authorities to the District Authorities he had no fault to find, but if the Government proposed to make the parish road technically a highway in order that the same should be maintained by the Highway Authority, that would be opening up new ground altogether. But, as he understood, the proposal of the Government only included the trans-
    624
    ference to District Councils of such roads as were now known technically as highways.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, the hon. Gentleman had hardly understood him, but lest there should be any mistake, he would repeat in different words what he had already said. They did not by this measure alter the liability to preserve roads, whether they were in the wider sense highways or not, unless that liability had already been recognised and acted upon. He took it that the question in a parish would be what were the duties of the surveyor of highways for the parish, and, whatever his duties and powers were, they without alteration were to be transferred to the District Council. He was aware that there were highways in the wider meaning of the words, which were never repaired at all. He was himself familiar with such highways. A footpath across a piece of arable land, for instance, was never repaired, and the surveyor of highways would have no right there at all. So also some roads had been given to the parish, but had never become highways repairable by the inhabitants at large. The limit of transfer was the present limit of the surveyor's duties.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had defined a highway as a public right of way, but he (Mr. Stanley Leighton) found that they had already given to the Parish Council the right to acquire every right of way, and the right to execute works of maintenance. What was to happen? In a case where a Parish Council had acquired a right and repaired the road, how were the duties of the Parish Council to work in with the section they were now considering, which proposed to place the whole of these highways under the District Council? They had given the Parish Council the right to acquire highways and to repair them, and now they; were giving the District Council exactly the same right. He should like to have an explanation from the Government on this subject.
    MR. BRYNEsaid, they had arrived at this: that there were no public ways which were not highways, and that there

    625
    were no highways, and consequently no public highways which were not subject to some authority, in respect of which some one had not either powers, duties, or liabilities. [Sir J. RIGBY: No, no.] Well, with reference to many highways there was the duty of repairing, and with respect to all highways there were powers in some person or persons to protect and guard them, though there might be no liability to repair. Therefore, he submitted that it was a true proposition that there were no highways in respect of which there were not either powers, or duties, or liabilities. He observed now no dissentient sign from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General. As to the second proposition, it was clear from the words of the section that all powers, all duties, and all liabilities with respect to every highway—which would include roads of every kind, including parish roads—would pass away to the District Council. That was a distinct conclusion, and unless it was contradicted they would know what they were voting for. From and after the passing of this Act, no one would have powers, duties, or liabilities respecting these roads except the District Council.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, he was anxious to make the matter clear. He denied that there was not a highway as to which no one bad any power, duty, or liability. Originally, under the Common Law, if a man dedicated a road to the; public it thereupon became a highway, and had to be repaired by the parish. But the Highway Act of 1835 took notice of the fact that that really operated to the advantage of individuals at the expense of the parish, and, therefore, it enacted that the highway surveyor had to certify, and that the Justices had to order before the parish had any power, duty, or liability in respect of such a road. Therefore, he did not think he was in the dilemma which the hon. and learned Gentleman tried to put him into. No doubt, they had made provision for the acquisition of rights of way which would become, in the wide sense of the word, highways. That was a small matter, and when they come to deal with it, they would have to provide some means to enable the parish to keep these highways up. This "highway" might
    626
    simply mean a footpath over a man's ploughed field, and there might be no powers or liabilities in respect of it.
    SIR J. GORSTsaid, the proper conclusion was this: that if the Bill was passed in its present form, there might be roads in the parish which the Local Authority would have no power, duty, or liability to repair. If the people found these roads in bad repair they might apply to the District Council to repair them.
    SIR H. FLETCHERsaid, he wished to put a question with regard to footpaths by the side of highways. In West Sussex that question had been brought before the County Council, of which he was a member. It had never been settled whether the County Council was to take them over, and the matter had been allowed to rest, because it was anticipated that the present Bill would deal with the point. They had not in West Sussex dedicated or taken over any footpaths, for the single reason that they had been waiting events. He was interested in the matter personally, because some years ago he made and dedicated to the parish a footpath over three-quarters of a mile long by the side of the highway. He had asked the surveyor of the parish to take it over, but he had declined, and when the County Council was formed he had asked them to take it over, and that also had declined. Though the footpath was beneficial to the whole community, he had to keep it up at his own expense. He thought it should be definitely settled now whether those footpaths were to be included in the definition of the term "highway."
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, he begged to move the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire (Sir J. Dorington). The Amendment had been put down at the suggestion of the Local Government Board. When the question was raised on Clause 12, there was what seemed to be a consensus of opinion amongst non-official Members in favour of the preservation of highway parishes. The question was not settled

    627
    then and there, but at the request of the Government it was deferred to the present time. He hoped that now they would have something more than the ipse dixit of the Government—that they would have arguments in favour of the centralised system proposed by the clause put before the Committee in such a shape that they could weigh it against their own preferences for the freedom of the new local government. At present the President of the Local Government Board had relied entirely on two arguments—the opinion of the County of Lancaster, which was clearly not binding on other counties, and the provision of the Act of 1888. These matters were not even discussed in the House of Commons in 1888, and this might be an argumentum ad hominum in reply to the hon. Member for West Derby.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 14, line 43, to leave out the word "authority," and insert the word "board."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'authority' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the Amendment really involved the question they had been discussing for two hours. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire had not pressed his Amendment at the earlier stage in order that the Government might consider on Clause 24 whether the difficulties pointed out in the transition from the old state of affairs to the new could in any way be modified by or be under the control of the County Councils. As he had told the Committee some time ago, the Government had considered this case. He might tell hon. Members who seemed to think very poorly of the advisers of the Local Government Board that the Government included in its ranks—he was not referring to himself—some of the most competent Chairmen of County Councils in England. There were men in the Government who were very familiar with all local affairs and were themselves quite competent to advise the Government on a question of this sort, so that the Government were not in that orphaned state in which gentlemen opposite thought they were. He said that a period of 12 months
    628
    from the "appointed day," though the appointed day was not yet fixed, was sufficient to enable this transaction to take place. Many Members of weight and authority on the question, however, were of opinion that even that time might be extended a little further. He should not stand out on that point. It would be useless to take up the time of the Committee by repeating arguments which he had already given to the Committee at great length, and which had also been used by his right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. T. Hibbert), who was also chairman of the Lancashire County Council. It had been said that the only public opinion quoted in favour of the Government had been obtained from Lancashire. That was not so, but as one right hon. Member had based his objections entirely on Lancashire opinion, he (Mr. Fowler) had thought he could answer him out of his own mouth by showing that Lancashire opinion was the other way. He could not shut his eyes to the fact that a competent Government, composed of men of the greatest experience in county affairs, a Government which proposed the creation of District Councils, and which proposed the whole of the machinery in reference to County Councils, were of opinion that this was the proper mode in which to deal with the roads in question. The present Government were following in their footsteps, and he saw no reason why they should not do so even if the example had been set by gentlemen with whose general political feelings he did not happen to agree.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, the speeches which had been delivered had demonstrated clearly that there was a variety of opinion in the country as to the way in which the clause would operate. His (Mr. Long's) proposal was that the right hon. Gentleman should leave it to the County Councils to decide what should be done. What objection had he to that way of settling the question? The County Council was an elected authority, and if the Act of 1888 was an authority for the right hon. Gentleman, surely the County Councils created by the Act of 1888 ought to receive some of the attention and respect which he devoted to the Act which brought them into existence.

    629
    The Committee was bound to believe that the County Councils represented the interests of the counties with which they were connected. They were familiar also with the circumstances of the different counties. The difficulties which arose from the bad management of roads were confined to a very limited number of areas at the present time, and he thought it would be found that when popularly elected District Authorities had been brought into existence, the present public opinion would be more than sufficient to cure any evils of that kind that might remain. The difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman would create by compulsorily forcing this clause into the Act would be far greater than he could realise. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. T. Hibbert), who was chairman of the Lancashire County Council, had told the Committee that the clause would suit his county, but he had not ventured to say that it would therefore suit every other county in England and Wales. The Government proposed to force on all counties, with their varied conditions and different systems of road management, one uniform system which, let the Committee remember, was a return to those Highway Boards which had been given up in a, great many counties, having been tried and failed, and which had been replaced by other authorities which were now managing the roads economically and efficiently. The Government were going to displace the large number of existing officials, who did their work thoroughly well, and were going to incur all the difficulty and odium that were incurred by compulsorily bringing High way Boards into existence under the Act of 1878, and thus largely increasing the rates without securing any adequate return in the improved maintenance of the roads. It was proposed to make the existing Poor Law area one area for all purposes of administration, including highways. It did not follow that the reason which led to the selection of that area for Poor Law administration was in the slightest degree a reason for its selection as an area for highway administration. At the present moment there were a great many of those Highway Authorities administering the roads under their own system. The Government were going to force those authorities into a compulsory union, and
    630
    one inevitable result of so doing would be to equalise the rate which varied per mile of road from £130 to as little as £35, and to call on the men who at present paid the smaller sum, not because they did it economically, to contribute to the maintenance of the expensive roads of which they had no enjoyment, and which were far removed from them. This might be a right thing to do, but the Government must admit that it was not likely to be a popular one or to be appreciated by those whose rates would thereby be increased. All he asked was that the County Council should be empowered to grant exemptions from the conditions of the Act. This was a reasonable proposition and a practical one. It had nothing to do with politics, and it was founded on justice, and on the experience of all who knew anything about the administration of affairs in rural districts. It was ridiculous to compare the roads of Lancashire with roads in rural counties. The roads in Lancashire were practically streets.
    MR. J. T. HIBBERT: Not in every part of Lancashire.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, that at all events a great number of them were, whilst in Hants, Sussex, Wilts, and other counties, the conditions were entirely different. If the clause was left as it was now the result would be to throw on a great, many parishes a vast amount of inconvenience and a considerably increased expenditure, whilst instead of improving the local government it would take away from parishes powers which they now exercised without giving rise to any complaint, and force them to go into a union with other parishes with which they had no common feeling, and no community of interest. He could not help hoping that even now, in the interests of practical local administration, the Government would reconsider their position, and amend the clause so as to give County Councils power to exempt Local Authorities from its provisions. If the Government stood by the conditions of the Bill, they would force upon unwilling communities powers which they did not want, and would not be able to use.
    SIR C. W.DILKEsaid, it was a considerable disappointment to many Members that the Government had not done as he had gathered in the former Debate they would have done—namely, accept the very reasonable suggestion which had just been thrown out. His hon. Friend the Member for the Heywood Division (Mr. Snape) had mentioned Gloucestershire in the course of his observations, but the view his hon. Friend had suggested was far from being the view taken locally. In the Forest of Dean Division two of the three systems were in force—namely, the parochial and the Highway Board system, and there could be no doubt that almost everybody in the division concurred in desiring them to remain as they were. Where there was so general and unanimous an opinion in the localities, he could not, for the life of him, see why they should be driven into a cast-iron system. There was this additional objection to a cast-iron system—that it was proposed to apply it to districts which, in some parts of the country, were as badly shaped for highway purposes as it was possible for them to be. In some areas, the place which gave its name to the Union was cut out of it, and what remained of the rural sanitary area would be a ring round the hole in the middle which represented the urban area. What possible shape of a district could be worse contrived for a road area than such a one as that, or than a district which was scattered about several other districts of the county? It seemed to him so plain that this was not the system which ought to be started all over the country that he could not see on what ground the Government proposed to adhere to it.
    MR. DARLINGsaid, it appeared to him there was a general anxiety even on the other side of the House to vote for this Amendment, which was deemed to be not only reasonable, but to the public advantage. The chief objection of the Government seemed to be that it was originally proposed by the Conservative Government in 1888.
    MR. EVERETTsaid, he could not understand why populous places like Lancashire and Yorkshire) should impose upon rural districts their own system, seeing that the conditions prevailing there were so totally different to those obtaining in purely rural places. In such a local matter as roads there ought to be local liberty. In the county he came from they would not object to have their liberty curtailed by arrangement with the County Council; but they did object to being dictated to by Parliament, and they did not like to be compelled to make their roads in a way which in the past they had found to be more expensive. He hoped the Government would meet the wishes of the rural districts so far as not to impose a new system on any of them unless the County Council consented to it. The proposal of the Government would meet with a most unfavourable reception if the Central Authority dictated to the rural districts against their wish and the wish of the County Council.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Member who last spoke that perfectly rural districts would oppose the Government scheme, for the district he alluded to was about as rural a district as any to be found in England. While generally in favour of the scheme of the Government, he would like to put before the President of the Local Government Board one practical difficulty. If a number of parishes were thrown into one highway district, had the right hon. Gentleman made any provision for putting those parishes upon equal terms? Had he provided against the constituencies of a parish, which had hitherto kept its roads in a good state, being made liable, when joined with a parish which had kept its roads badly, to contribute to put the roads of the latter into a state of good repair? They all ought to start fair in that matter.
    MR. WARNERsaid, the opinion in all parts of the House seemed to be that the County Councils should be allowed some discretion in this matter. But as the Bill now stood the

    633
    District Council would be elected by the parishes mostly concerned, and it would have the power of delegating the management of the roads to the parishes themselves, and he thought that that would very frequently be done. Personally he believed that the Larger the districts were the better the roads would be, and the District Council, it should be borne in mind, would have a larger district to administer than the Parish Council. He might remind the Committee that a Highway Board district was almost universally unpopular. Owing to the present system under which many parishes took their rates in kind instead of in money, very often a farmer was made a parish surveyor, and he drew his own stone from his own quarry and used his own horses and carts, not always at the time when it would be best for the roads, but when it was most convenient to himself. Therefore it was that the parish roads were often in a bad condition, and he consequently believed that with the larger districts proposed by the Government they would get better management and better roads.
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, there could be no doubt that in this matter experience differed in different parts of the country; but the great majority of the rural districts were in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend, against which the Government had advanced no argument. Let Lancashire and Yorkshire keep to the Government's proposals if they wished; but why should not Kent and Sussex also have the system which they preferred? This was a Bill for local government; but the House of Commons was now asked to force on many districts a system which they did not desire, and which they objected to because it would increase the power of the Central Authority. He believed there would be great advantage in having different systems in different parts of the country, and all they asked for was that a parish which wished to manage its own roads should be allowed to do so. And that was to be refused because certain counties in England preferred a different system. He did not deny that in some cases the roads were bad, but there were also other cases in which the system now advocated by the
    634
    Government had proved expensive and inefficient. In the present depressed state of agriculture, Parliament ought to be very careful bow it plunged the country districts into any expense which could be avoided. He asked the Government to reconsider their decision, as it would certainly be unpopular in the rural districts.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: In reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Preston, I wish to say I quite appreciate the force of the case put forward by him, and I have already drawn a clause, to be inserted after Clause 64, to meet that case. It will enable the District Council to insist on the highways in a parish or area being placed in proper repair, at the separate charge of the parish or area, on the constitution of the new highway district, any dispute with regard to the charge to be determined by the County Council. I have no doubt the House will sanction such a clause. With reference to the general question, I may say that the argument of the right hon. Member for London University was the one that is always used against any reform of local government—that it is tyrannical and unnecessary. I must and do traverse the statement that the general opinion of the rural districts is against the proposed change, but I recognise that there is a difficulty in dealing with the question. The Government believe that, sooner or later, the change must be made, but they do not wish to force it too quickly. I am willing, therefore, to extend the time for the completion of the transfer from 12 months to three years. This will allow scope for all the adjustments which have been referred to as necessary. Of course, the decision as to the exact time at which the transfer shall take place will rest with the County Council.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had made a double proposition, the first part extending the period for the constitution of the new highway districts from 12 months to three years. But he thought the second provision empowering the District Council to make the parish put its roads into a proper state before the responsibility for them was transferred was a much more valuable

    635
    concession than the extension of the time for the transfer. He believed, in fact, that twice three years would elapse before they would be able to get parishes to bring their roads into a proper condition. The latter concession, however, in no way met the principle which the Opposition had raised. In many of the counties for which he was entitled to speak the conditions of the roads would be in no way altered three years hence. Had it made no impression on the right hon. Gentleman that he had been told that in many counties Highway Boards had been tried and had been given up because they were expensive and because they did not achieve the results which were anticipated from them? As a matter of fact, no such arrangements as those provided for under the new clause had proved successful under the old Highway Board system. He did not think that three years was anything like a reasonable time. The hon. Member for Somerset, in the speech he had just delivered, had not explained whether his observations applied to Somersetshire or to Essex, the county to which he belonged. He might have correctly described a condition of things which existed some years ago, but nowadays there was a vast number of men who sacrificed time and trouble and did their best to administer local affairs, and the state of affairs to which the hon. Member alluded had practically ceased to exist. He could not but express his profound regret that in a matter of this kind, purely technical and practical, the Government had not thought it expedient to accept proposals which in no way interfered with the principle of the measure. They were forcing on the counties a hard-and-fast rule, which many of them not only did not want, but believed would be injurious and costly; they were refusing to trust popularly-elected bodies, and were, at the most, offering them three years' grace in which to try and make their affairs harmonise with the Ministerial wishes.
    MR. MALLOCKasked whether the District Council would have the powers of a Highway Board, as at present he believed their powers differed. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman would not yield more than he had done on this point. In his own
    636
    district the parochial system had always existed, and if it was placed under the Highway Board an inconvenient method of placing the parish of an urban district next to the parish of a rural district would be the result.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I should like to point out that since the Act of 1888 six Highway Boards have been dissolved and six established.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, the right hon. Gentleman forgot that they were not dealing with the Act of 1888. He must go back to the legislation of 1878, and he would find a very different state of affairs. There were a large number of counties where the Highways Board system had been adopted and since given up. But even the figures he had quoted constituted an additional argument in favour of their case.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: In 1891 there were 6,971 parishes under Highway Boards, and I do not think that there has been a large discontinuance since.
    COMMANDER BETHELLcomplained that the Government had not thought fit to vindicate the attitude it had adopted. Really the concession of the right hon. Gentleman was no concession at all. He could only regret that the Government had not met them in that matter.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 75.—(Division List, No. 408.)
    [At this point the Chair was vacated by the Deputy Chairman and taken by the Chairman.]
    MR. HANBURYhad the following Amendment on the Paper:—
    In page 14, line 43, after the word "district," to insert the words "including any person liable for the maintenance and repair of a highway ratione tenuræ."
    He said, he desired to call the attention of the President of the Local Government Board to the fact that the difficulties presented by this class of roads in some portions of the country were very great. These roads in his own part of the country were not occupation roads. A great many roads ratione tenuræ were just as much parish roads and market roads as any of the thoroughfares under

    637
    the control of the Vestries. In his own neighbourhood one of these roads ran for two miles, and were used by no less than six or seven villages going to the market town. These certainly were roads which should be kept in a proper state of control, and therefore vested in the District Councils as the new Highway Authorities. Yet the Bill did not deal with these roads ratione tenuræ at all. He admitted that there was an objection to the Amendment that it would not be right to take the repair of these roads out of the hands of the man chargeable with their repair and make the District Councils entirely responsible for them. But he did not see why the occupiers who were responsible for the maintenance of these roads ratione tenuræ should not be made by the District Councils to contribute a proportion of the expense of keeping them in repair in the future just as the parishes would have to pay their proportion of the cost of the maintenance of the parish roads to the District Councils who would do the work. He hoped that before Report the right hon. Gentleman would go into this question, and see whether this difficulty could not be met. In many cases these roads were in a disgraceful condition, and something should be done to keep them in a proper state. He would not press his Amendment now, but hoped to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman a promise that be would deal with this very important matter of highway administration on Report.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he did not at present see how the difficulty raised by the Amendment—that was to secure that the landlords of these roads did not get rid of their liability to keep them in repair—was to be met, but between now and Report he would consult with his legal advisers as to whether he could make a proposal upon the subject.
    MR. FULLERmoved to insert, after "1875," the words "and Section 11 of the Local Government Act of 1888." His object, he said, was to give to Rural District Authorities the same opportunity that Urban District Authorities had under the Act of 1888 of repairing and maintaining
    638
    the main roads within their areas if they desired to accept that responsibility. There were very strong reasons for taking this course, because in many counties the main roads could be better and cheaper maintained by the rural District Authorities than by the County Councils. They found by a recent Return that the expenditure on the main roads by the Highway Boards had been considerably less per mile than the expenditure by the County Councils. All he asked by his Amendment was that the same opportunity for taking charge of their main roads should be given to the District Councils as was given to Urban Authorities under the Act of 1888. In his own county there were no less than 13 different Urban Authorities who had power to maintain their main roads. But the rateable value of these urban districts was not so large as the rateable value of rural districts. In fact, the rateable value of 13 rural districts in his county was three times the amount of the rateable value of 13 urban districts in the same county. Therefore, he thought the rural districts should have 12 months to decide whether or not they would maintain the main roads within their areas under the same conditions as the Urban Authorities maintained their roads. A resolution had been passed by the Chamber of Agriculture of his county in support of this proposal, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would see that it was only justice to the rural districts.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 15, line 5, after "1875," insert "and Section 11 of the Local Government Act of 1888."—(Mr. Fuller.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he had had no notice of the Amendment, as it was not on the Paper, and he would not like either to accept or to reject it without having an opportunity of consulting his advisers. He suggested to his hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment, and put it down for the Report stage.
    MR. FULLERasked leave to withdraw the Amendment, intimating that he would move it on Report.
    MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, that this was a very serious matter. If the right hon. Gentleman gave way on the Amendment it would lead to considerable discussion; and he would find that the County Council would give no countenance to a proposal that they should hand back to the District Councils all the roads which had been placed in their hands five years ago, and on which they had spent so much money. He wished to utter these words of warning to the President of the Local Government Board in the absence of so many hon. Members, chairmen of Quarter Sessions, who, owing to the course the Government had taken, were unable to be present at this stage of the consideration of the Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 15, line 8, at end, insert,—"(2) This section shall not apply to any main road for the time being; within the meaning of 'The Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act. 1878.'"—(Mr. Bill.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he understood the Amendment was unnecessary. The section did not give any power to the District Councils in regard to the main roads referred to.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
    At end of Clause to add "Providing that the County Council of any county may postpone the operation of the section so far as it relates to highways for a term not exceeding three years from the appointed day."
    MR. JEFFREYSsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for the Tewkesbury Division of Gloucester had the following Amendment on the Paper—
    "When the district of any existing Highway Board overlaps the district or two or more District Councils the parishes comprised in the area of each District Council shall become separate highway areas distinct from each other, and be combined as a new highway area with any other parishes administered for highway purposes by the District Council, and all the provisions of the said Acts, except as to the appointment and election of the waywardens, shall apply to such combined area."
    He would not move the Amendment if the President of the Local Government
    640
    Board assured him that the question was met by the preceding part of the clause.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that he was not aware that there was any deficiency in the provision with regard to overlapping. But he would consider the matter more fully.
    Amendment proposed, after last, Amendment, to add—
    "So much of any Act as relates to the formation, alteration, or dissolution of Highway Boards by orders of Justices is hereby repealed."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that when the Schedules were reached he would see whether this provision was necessary, and, if so, would put, it in.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On Motion of Sir A. ROLLIT, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
    In page 15, line 9, to leave out the words "The Councils of rural districts," and insert the words "Rural District Councils."
    MR. H. HOBHOUSEmoved—
    In page 15, line 11, after the word "order," to insert the words "or the County Council by special order."
    He said, the Amendment was to provide that the County Council by special order should be able to confer on the Councils of rural districts the powers of Urban Sanitary Authorities under the Public Health Acts. His Amendment, if carried, would relieve the Local Government Board of a good deal of work. He wanted to render possible the exercise of urban powers in small country towns without the creation of new Urban Authorities, and also to do away with the necessity of applying to the Central Authority whenever such powers were desired.
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Marjoribanks,)—put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at one minute after Twelve o'clock.