Parish Council for depreciation. It was also determined that no compulsory hiring of land should entitle the hirer to minerals, surface minerals, or mineral rights. When the question was put that "the clause as amended stand part of the bill," the Duke of Devonshire appealed to the Government to accept the changes which had been made in the clause, and to try them experimentally, but the Government, through the mouth of the Lord Chancellor, declined altogether to consider such an appeal.

On the third night (Feb. 5) the debate ranged over a variety of topics, but the interest chiefly centred on the question of the administration of local charities, a point on which the Government had shown many strange shiftings of opinion when the matter was under discussion in the House of Commons. A proposal made by the Earl of Harrowby to provide that the 3d. rate which is to be levied by the Parish Councils should include the cost of putting into operation any permissive acts which they might adopt was discussed, and then postponed to the report stage, and the Marquess of Salisbury next proposed to omit the provision that the expenses of the Parish Council and of the parish meeting, including the expenses of any poll, should be paid out of the poor rate. He pointed out that the compound householder paid no rates, and that if he voted for

an increase of the rates he voted for what he would not pay, and for an expenditure which he would not feel. The bill provided for the hiring of allotments, and there was absolutely no limit to the hiring by voluntary agreement. It might happen that the 3d. rate provided by the bill would soon run out, and yet the hiring of land go on, the Parish Council undertaking to pay a certain rent for fourteen years, and looking to be reimbursed by the agricultural labourers to whom the land was let in small quantities. But there was no security that the agricultural labourers would go on occupying the land, and the agricultural population was constantly shifting. There might at first be a considerable number of agricultural labourers each anxious to have his "three acres and a cow," but bad seasons and low prices might come, and the cow might be lost, and the allotment given up. Then the parish would be liable for the rent, without any prospect of reimbursement. Against that source of expenditure and extravagance the bill gave no protection whatever, and a considerable burden might be incurred with great embarrassment to the ratepayers. The remedy lay, not in restriction, but in taking care that the Parish Councils themselves should have a motive for economy-in other words, that they should pay their rates. The "tendency to extravagance haunted all public bodies," and could only be checked by the strongest and strictest sense of economy. The Earl of Kimberley declared that the amendment proposed to make a new and special rate, and that that was a direct infringement of the privileges of the House of Commons, and he asked why the

compound householder was only to be abolished in the rural districts? Why was there this distrust of the rural population in comparison with the artisan population in the towns? Why was this stigma to be attached to the agricultural labourer, who was quite as much to be trusted as the artisan in towns? The Earl of Cranbrook denied that a new rate would be created by the amendment; the rate was created by the bill itself; the only question was from what source it should be obtained. On a division the amendment was carried by 120 votes against 53. On the 14th clause, which dealt with the treatment of charities, the Earl of Selborne moved an amendment striking out the provision which excluded church wardens from the trusteeship of charities which were not "ecclesiastical," and he asked why churchwardens should be excluded. To this the Earl of Kimberley responded by asking why they should be included, and he urged that the change was necessary as a concession to the Nonconformists. But Lord Selborne replied that the churchwardens should be included because it was the will of the founders of the charities, and the Archbishop of Canterbury added that it was because the Church was responsible for the whole of the poor of a parish, which no Nonconformist was or had ever claimed to be. On a division the amendment was carried by 110 votes against 27. The Marquess of Salisbury next moved the omission of Mr. Cobb's sub-section, allowing the trustees of a charity to be swamped by the appointment or election of a majority of representative trustees. He pointed out that it was never intended that a Parish Council should be the master of these trusts, and that most of these charities were given from religious motives, and by people who never supposed that any intention of "spoliating their bequests would ever be entertained. If such spoliation were carried out, a great injustice would be inflicted on the Church of England. The proposal of the bill was a piece of bad faith, and could only discourage future gifts, a result which would be most injurious to the interests of the poor. He attributed the existence of the provision to the "mutiny of a section of the followers of the Government," or in other words to "a Parliamentary clique whose objects were nothing else but simple hostility to the Church," and he expressed surprise that so discreditable a provision should ever have found its way into a ministerial measure. The Lord Chancellor denied that the sub-section had been inserted out of any hostility to the Church or to the charities-it had been put in because charities were better administered when there was a large elected representation on the managing body. That was the opinion of the Charity Commission and of Parliamentary committees. In the course of the subsequent discussion the Archbishop of Canterbury expressed his willingness to "go to Cæsar," or in other words to the Charity Commissioners, who had given their decisions on charities with wisdom and fairness, but he denounced the

sub-section as "outrageous. The Earl of Denbigh suggested that the amendment might be modified, as there was no objection to the representative element on charitable trusts provided it was not in a majority, but the Marquess of Salisbury pointed out, to the great amusement of the House, that he himself had no objection to the representative element within due bounds, but that it was not always possible to give, as many charities had the incumbent for sole trustee, and it would be difficult to elect representatives who should be equal, say, to "one-third of a minister." On a division the subsection was omitted by 80 votes against 19. The Bishop of Ripon proposed an amendment to permit certain doles to be applied for old-age pensions and the care of the sick, and the Earl of Kimberley promised to give favourable consideration to the suggestion before the report stage, whereupon the amendment was withdrawn. Several clauses were then rapidly disposed of; but on clause 20, which dealt with the administration of the poor law, the Duke of Richmond moved to omit the provision abolishing ex officio guardians. The Marquess of Salisbury recommended the withdrawal of the motion, and, in a sarcastic speech, pointed out that the ex officio guardians were magistrates, and that there might arise a Lord Chancellor who might appoint magistrates from political or other considerations of a very doubtful kind, who would not command the confidence of the public. The Lord Chancellor was very angry at this home thrust, and, while expressing satisfaction that Lord Salisbury could be found supporting any part of the bill, asked if magistrates were always to belong to one political party.

The next sitting (Feb. 6) was noteworthy for the secession of the Liberal Unionists from their Conservative allies, on the question of the composition of the Parish and District Councils, and the subsequent adhesion of the Conservatives to the more liberal policy. Before this crisis arose the Earl of Harrowby moved an amendment to make those members of a County Council who were duly qualified ex officio poor-law guardians. This was opposed, however, by the Duke of Richmond, and the Marquess of Salisbury declared that he could not support it, on the ground that the question had been settled on the previous night, and that it was unwise to reopen it; but on a division the amendment was carried by 109 votes against 36, Lord Salisbury and several other Conservative peers walking into the enclosed space around the throne while the division was in progress in order to avoid voting. An amendment moved by Earl Cadogan, to permit the appointment of nominated poorlaw guardians, after a lengthened and interesting debate, was carried by 122 against 44, the Duke of Devonshire, the Archbishop of York, and one other prelate on this occasion retiring in like manner. Then came the most important amendment, and the most important result of the night.

The Earl of Onslow proposed to insert a new sub-section in the 20th clause with the object of providing that no compound householder or person who was not assessed to the poor rate, and who had not personally paid his rates, should be allowed to attend a parish meeting or vote as a parochial elector, and this amendment was resisted by Lord Kimberley, who declared it to be absolutely impracticable, for there was no machinery in existence for ascertaining whether a man had or had not paid his rates. The Duke of Devonshire also opposed the amendment in a long and earnest speech, in which he threshed out the whole subject, discussed the respective privileges of the two Houses of Parliament, and condemned as altogether unpractical and impolitic an attempt to enforce so wide a measure of disfranchisement. This speech produced a marked effect upon the Conservative peers, and soon afterwards the Marquess of Salisbury rose and candidly confessed that in face of the position taken up by the duke it was useless to persevere with the amendment. The duke, he said, had entirely abandoned the hope of modifying the provision in the bill and of protecting the ratepayers from the danger and loss which might be the result of this legislation, and had not held out a very smiling prospect as to the future state of things in the country. Practically by this measure and the principles embodied in it, the landlord and the ratepayer must remit their natural powers of defence. The law for the future would not protect them, but would expose them to the danger of a very large and, in some respects, almost unlimited contribution levied by persons who had no interest whatever in making that contribution equitable. The duke had pointed out that the persons who would impose the rate were themselves cottagers of the landlords, and that the landlords, if pushed into a corner, had the means of punishment in their own hands, for they might raise the rent or get rid of the cottager. But, considering the area over which the bill would extend, how heavy the punishment would be in relation to the offence, and the bitterness that would be caused, such a course hardly held out any prospect of continuing those peaceful, friendly relations which had hitherto existed in country districts between the owner of cottage property and those who inhabited the cottages. It would be "a kind of civil war with the gloves on," and much suffering, contention, strife, and bitterness would be the result. However, after the speech of the duke, it was very doubtful whether the ratepayers could be protected, for though that House had a majority, it was hardly a majority sufficient under the circumstances to cope with opposition elsewhere. Lord Onslow thereupon withdrew the amendment, believing it to be useless to persevere in face of the opposition of the Duke of Devonshire, as the proposal would not receive the support of the Unionist leader and his friends in another place. An attempt was subsequently made

1894.] The Liberal Unionists and the Parish Councils Bill. 127 by Lord Balfour of Burleigh to exclude London from the provisions of the bill, but Lord Kimberley could see no reason for not attempting to reform the metropolitan vestries as well as those of other urban districts. All that the Government proposed to do was to assimilate the franchise to that for the election of District Councils in other localities, to abolish the qualification required for vestry-men, and to apply to the Corrupt Practices and Ballot Acts. Lord Salisbury complained that the idea to include London was not in the original draft of the bill, but had been sprung upon the House of Commons unawares, and before the people of London had had any chance of examining the proposals. Lord Balfour's amendment was then carried by 107 to 26 votes.

Although the attitude taken up by the Liberal Unionist peers foreshadowed a decided retreat from the position which the Conservatives wished to assume in their coming conflict with the ministerial majority in the House of Commons, the committee stage of the Parish Councils Bill was prolonged for another day. The only point of interest which was debated with any eagerness on the last day (Feb. 8) arose on the Duke of Richmond's motion to omit clause 54, which prohibited the meeting of Parish or District Councils and of Boards of Guardians in houses licensed for the sale of drink. Such a restriction, he maintained, would cut into the root of the professions of the Government that they trusted the people. The Archbishop of York, however, supported the clause because of the strong feeling among the working classes that public houses were unsuitable for such meetings. On the other hand the Marquess of Salisbury approved the omission of the clause because its insertion in the bill was "a grave insult" to the class of men who were to be elected to the councils. While every other body might and did meet in public houses, the councillors and guardians were selected for special brand as people who were particularly liable to succumb to temptation. In many cases the licensed house was the only place in the parish suitable for a meeting, for the use of the schoolhouse was often inconvenient. The Earl of Kimberley retorted that in the opinion of many of the working classes it was not the insertion of the clause but its omission which would be regarded as a grave insult, and he urged that what was wanted was that the meetings should be orderly, respectable, and well conducted. The amendment was ultimately withdrawn, but eventually the Earl of Selborne carried by 63 votes against 17 an amendment to protect what were known as "social parish rooms" for the control by councils.

The proceedings on the report stage (Feb. 12) were somewhat more noteworthy. The Earl of Selborne proposed a series of amendments having for their object to disqualify persons elected on Parish Councils or Boards of Guardians unless they were personally rated for poor relief, and another