called on Mr. Whiteley.

I beg to ask whether the Committee, having decided that there shall be no ex officio or nominated Guardians, it is now in Order to submit a series of Amendments which would involve the appointment of such Guardians?

The Amendment is in Order.

said, he wished to move the Amendment in the absence of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Whiteley) as follows:—

In page 12, line 30, at end, to insert the words "except that the Council of a municipal borough shall be entitled to elect not less than three nor more than seven representatives upon the Board of Guardians of any Union in which the borough is situated, and such repro- sentatives shall be elected annually, and their number shall be fixed by the Local Government Board."

It seemed to him that the clause as framed did not give sufficient attention to those Unions formed partly out of urban districts—which included municipal boroughs—and partly out of the surrounding rural areas. There were many cases of that kind, and the position of many of these combined Unions was one that did not give satisfaction at the present time. A little later on on this clause he (Mr. Tomlinson) proposed to move a further Amendment having reference to the position of Unions of this kind, but the present proposal was, he thought, the first attempt to deal with the subject. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board must be familiar with the constitution of these Unions, and must also be aware of the fact that at the present moment in many cases the urban half of these Unions, considered from the point of view either of population and rateable value, was very much under-represented. That might, perhaps, have been a matter of less importance under the existing constitution of these bodies than it would be under the Bill if it became law, because owing to plural voting and other causes it might very well he that those who had large interests in the boroughs that formed part of these Unions had also been well represented in the outlying districts. But when, under the Bill, the constitution of Boards of Guardians was put on the footing of household suffrage with the "One Man One Vote" principle, it was obvious that the rural parts of composite Unions of this kind would be much more local in the elements of their constitution than they were now. Take the case of the Preston Union. There was a great preponderance both in popution and rateable value in that part of the Union which comprised the borough of Preston, and even in the rural parts of the Union there was an urban element which ought to be taken into account. In the Preston Union at present what was called the parish of Preston sent 16 representatives to the Board of Guardians. The rural part outside the parish sent 24. More than half of the population, including a good deal more than half the rateable value, only returned 16 Guardians as against the 24 of the smaller and less important part of the Union. There was here a great disproportion, and there was no security in the Bill as to the mode in which the urban parts of a combined Union were to exercise their powers. Was the township to he taken as a whole, or was it to be divided into wards. If into wards, what was to be their size? The township of Preston for Union purposes was divided into six wards, and for municipal purposes it was divided into 14 wards. Home of the municipal wards were outside the township, and the boundaries of the township and the boroughs differed very greatly. Still, it happened that the wards forming the urban part of the Preston Union were entirely different from those which constituted the municipal boroughs or Parliamentary boroughs. It seemed to him, from listening to these Debates, that it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to assimilate to a great extent the local government constituencies. But he could see no provision in the Bill for dealing with the case of the parish. That point, however, had no particular bearing on the Amendment before the Committee. The Local Government Board had power, on receipt of a Memorial, to alter the area of representation and redress grievances of this kind, but that power was exercised in so limited a manner that the grievances of which be complained would he greater in the future under the Bill than they were now. If the Amendment were carried it would have the effect of redressing these grievances; and it would have another effect. He supposed that one of the objects which the Government had in view was that whatever improvements were effected in the administration of Poor Law relief they should be accompanied by duo regard to economy of administration of the funds. The inhabitants of a borough had constantly before; them the burden of the rates, which was very heavy, and which, very often, was increasing. If the Municipality had the power of placing on the Board of Guardians persons who would bring to the discharge of their duties a practical knowledge of the actual burdens of the rates as they were found to press on the localities, the assistance of such members would not merely be a great advantage in the administration of the Poor Law, but it would be a great advantage as tending to bring about economy.

said, that the sub-section on which this Amendment was moved provided that "There shall be no ex officio or nominated Guardians." The hon. Member proposed an exception to the principle of the sub-section as far as municipal boroughs were concerned, he proposed that such boroughs should be entitled to elect not less than three nor more than seven representatives upon the Board of Guardians of any Union in which the borough was situated. He could conceive that a case might be made out and strong arguments used —the weight of which he had never disputed—for the application of this principle to rural parishes and also to County Councils. Certainly if a Municipal Borough Council had the right to elect Guardians a County Council ought to have it. But the House, he might say unanimously—because there was no Division, the Amendment being withdrawn—refused to mix up County Councils with Boards of Guardians. That being so, he submitted that there was no case for mixing up municipal boroughs with Boards of Guardians. The case of Preston would be in no way altered by the passing of this clause, except that the borough would be deprived of its ex officio members of the Board of Guardians. He doubted whether Preston was not one of those places in which the ex officio never attended the meetings of the Board of Guardians.

said, they had had valuable assistance from the ex officios on the Board.

said, he was glad to hear it, but the present Amend- ment would not replace that assistance even if it were carried. It would merely allow the representatives of the same constituencies who would elect the Board of Guardians to put a number of members on the Boards by a second election. That seemed to him a violation of the principle of this sub-section, and one which the Government could not accept. As to the other points referred to by the hon. Member, such as the distribution of boroughs into wards, they were not dealt with in the Bill, nor ought they to be. That was a matter of existing law. The Local Government Board, by the powers they possessed, was constantly adjusting these matters. He thought the Borough of Preston was pretty fairly represented; and if it had any grievance, and the Town Council would make a representation to the Local Government Board, that grievance would be at once taken into consideration and investigated on its merits. But that had nothing to do with the Amendment before the Committee. The Committee had decided that there should be no ex officio or nominated Guardians. It was not intended to make an exception to that rule, and, even if it were, this would be the last case in which the exception would be applied.

said, that in the case of Wigan the number of Guardians belonging to the borough townships in proportion to those belonging to the out townships was inadequate and insufficient. He was aware there was a law which enabled the Local Government Board to make an adequate adjustment; but that law, he thought, had not been properly administered, and he hoped the result of this Debate would be to draw the attention of the Department to the defect and induce them to exercise their powers more vigorously. The evil was as great when they had the borough surrounded by urban districts as when they had it surrounded by rural districts.

said, the assumption with which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board concluded his speech was one he must take decided exception to. The right hon. Gentleman had said the Committee had already arrived at a decision that there should be no ex officio or nominated Guardians. Now, that appeared to him (Mr. Lowther) to strike at the root of all consideration by the House of Commons of Bills in Committee of the Whole House. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the laying down of a proposition like that, separated from the text, if it were to be held to debar the Committee from introducing modifications or a proviso to the clause, would go, as he said, entirely at the root of the consideration of the amendment of Bills in Committee. The fact was, that those words which the right hon. Gentleman had drawn their attention to merely provided that there should be no ex officio or nominated Guardians, and the House was perfectly entitled, as a matter of common sense, to introduce a proviso or qualification under which exceptions should be made. He was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should have made such a statement, because he had already, on more than one occasion, had to introduce important modifications into his own proposals. He was now laying down a doctrine which would render a good deal of his own assistance in Committee absolutely disorderly. As to the Amendment, he (Mr. Lowther) thought it had hardly been fairly dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman. It was not that the hon. Member thought that the persons that he suggested should have the power of nomination would select better Guardians than could be selected in other ways, but because he thought—and had made good his point—that the urban element in certain Unions would be inadequately represented. In parts of the country there were cases where the boot was on the other leg, and in those cases he (Mr. Lowther) would be prepared to ask the assistance of the hon Gentleman and those who thought with him in obtaining justice for the rural community. Inequalities might be produced, and it would be desirable to deal with them. There was another point well worthy the consideration of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said—"You will be no worse off under my Bill than you are already." That was substantially the answer the right hon. Gentleman thought sufficient to deal with the position of the hon. Member for Preston. He (Mr. Lowther), on the other hand, said that the right hon. Gentleman was aggravating every inequality that existed, because the Guardians of the future—those elected by the rural portion of the Union—they were led to think would be differently constituted to what they were now. The urban community might well think that they should not be called on to place their interests under the guidance of raw hands, of whose efforts of statesmanship they might not be disposed to form a very high estimate. He thought his hon. Friend had shown that there were parts of the country which required special consideration, and it was no answer to say that there were other parts of the country where such a requirement did not exist. When the occasion arose, he should be certainly prepared to call on the Representatives of urban communities to vote with Members for rural districts, in order to prevent their representation being swamped by the large towns. He hoped no more would be heard of the argument that the Committee was precluded from giving its attention to any proposal made upon its merits. It was the bounden duty of Members to bestow their attention upon all proposals winch were submitted to their consideration. He hoped that all those which were brought forward would be, like that of his hon. Friend, founded on personal knowledge and experience, and that no effort would he made to prevent the Committee from properly discussing them.

remarked that I he Amendment would cover a great number of those districts where fears were particularly fell about the effect of the Bill. In a great number of the more populous districts, especially in London, there was no doubt that the elections would turn upon Party issues. When the right hon. Gentleman said that the Committee had already settle that there should he no ex officio or nominated Guardians, he went beyond the strict facts, because he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had himself an Amendment on the Paper providing that Boards of Guardians should be empowered to nominate the chairman and vice-chairman from outside. As the right hon. Gentleman had thus given way upon the question of nomination, surely hon. Members ought to use their best endeavours to make the nomination as effective as possible, he did not think the proposal of his hon. Friend was the best that could be adopted, but the Amendments he would prefer had all been refused by the Government and negatived. The Amendment had no relation to any sort of class interest. The Municipal Council was elected, and would be independent of the passing currents of popularity in the district. A Municipal Body might, after all, he supposed to entertain broader views than a Board of Guardians. It would have a larger area to work upon, and would be able to selectmen of higher culture and wider experience than a Board of Guardians. Inasmuch as the persons selected were only to act for one year, and the number was to be fixed by the Local Government Board, a certain amount of protection against mistaken action was afforded by the Amendment itself. It was really a very small matter for the Government to give way upon. It had been pointed out that the chairman and vice-chairman would very seldom be selected from outside by a Board of Guardians, and he submitted that even if this were otherwise much better members would be obtained under the present Amendment than if the proposal of the Government were adopted. He therefore hoped that the Amendment would be pressed lo a Division.

I am not myself very strongly in Favour of the Amendment now before the Committee, although I do not think it is open to the objection which has been taken by my right hon. Friend. It certainly cannot be out of Order after we have decided on a positive proposition to propose exceptions and provisoes to it. Moreover, I would say that if we were over-ruled in regard to that matter, and it were held to have been decided that there should be no nominated or ex officio Guardians, that would not prevent us providing for a different form of electing Guardians. The Guardians proposed to be added by this Amendment are elected Guardians—-elected by an outside authority, which itself is elected upon a most democratic franchise. It would not, therefore, be proper to call members elected in this way ex officio or nominated members. I do not suppose that those who have supposed this Amendment or proposed similar Amendments are really in favour of ex officio or nominated Guardians on their merits. I quite realise that such Guardians would not have the full confidence of their colleagues, and (heir mode of appointment would he constantly against them. When they differed from their colleagues the general body of members would pay less attention to their views than to the views of the elected Guardians, on the ground that they did not constitute proper representatives. Therefore, I feel that the ex officio or nominated Guardians would have very little force indeed. But what is the reason that has led to the introduction of this and a great number of other Amendments? It is the fear—which I do not think my right hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) himself will say he docs not share, at all events, to some extent—that, under circumstances which we can easily anticipate, a body elected by a vast majority of persons who either pay no rates directly or who pay a very small proportion of the rates, will be tempted, partly through ignorance and partly, perhaps, in consequence of bad advice, to so administer the Poor Law as to bring back all the evils against which the Act of 1831 was supposed to be directed. Does anyone in this House think that this is not a possible or even a probable danger? I have been sitting for more than 12 months upon a Commission appointed by my right hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) to consider the administration of Poor Law relief in regard to the aged and other matters in connection with their treatment. Although we are not empowered, or, in fact, intended to inquire into the administration of the Poor Law generally, one thing that has come out strongly in the course of the inquiry is the unreasonable prejudice that exists against what is called the strict administration of the Poor Law. We have found in a great many districts in this country a strong feeling in favour of lavish outdoor relief. The argument, of course, applies with greater strength with regard to the aged than to the able-bodied, but we have had witnesses before us speaking with regard to the aged, who incidentally have shown that they have exactly the same feeling in regard to the able-bodied. They have contended that wherever a man has had anything like a good character in the past he ought, as a matter of right, to be able to receive outdoor relief when he is in a position to ask for it. I say that is a real danger. I could add from my own expe- rience that that feeling is showing itself in agitations connected with the elections of Boards of Guardians, and I say there are circumstances under which the feeling might become a very powerful consideration in connection with the election of Boards of Guardians as they are proposed to be elected under the Bill. Does anyone desire that Boards of Guardians in the country should in future administer outdoor relief in this reckless spirit? It is not a question of class or a question of the advantage or disadvantage of the persons who will have to pay the larger proportion of the taxation. That is a serious matter, but it is a less serious matter than the question we have now to consider. What we have to consider is the danger of demoralising the working classes—

I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the argument he is now using hardly applies to the point which is before the Committee.

My point, Sir Julian Goldsmid, is that it is a real danger which it is proposed in this and other similar Amendments to guard against by putting on Board of Guardians ex-officio members who would not be influenced by such feelings as I have indicated, and which I believe largely exists in the country. I was about to lay some stress on the importance of this question. The complaint is made that Ave are occupying too much time in discussing this Bill. Such complaints come from those who have probably never given a moment's thought to the question involved, and who do not know how complicated it is, and how it touches the very roots of our prosperity as a nation. It is impossible that we should allow this clause to pass without exhaustive discussion of the vast change in the constitution of Boards of Guardians, and in the administration of the Poor Law which it involves. I rose not so much to support this Amendment as to make an appeal to my right hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler). I believe my right hon. Friend is as sensible of the importance of this question as any Member of the Committee. He must he aware that there is danger of the kind to which I have referred, and that you cannot make this largo change in the composition of Guardians without running the risk of bringing about such an altera- tion in the administration of the Poor Law as I have referred to. I would ask my right hon. Friend has he himself any proposal to make which would prevent what I think we have a right to fear as a consequence of this Bill in its present form? I began by saying that, to my mind, the appointment of a limited number of ex officio or nominated Guardians would hardly give us the security we require. In the case I have imagined, where a great many of the electors demand a lavish administration of the Poor Law, I fear the voles of the ex officio or nominated Guardians would be overborne by the majority of the elected Guardians, and therefore hon. Members are attempting to establish a barrier which would fail in its object. I have thought that my right hon. Friend possibly had in his own mind some other proviso which he himself would propose at a later stage in the Bill, and which, if he would state it now, would materially shorten our discussion, because if it were satisfactory in itself all these various Amendments respecting ex officio or nominated Guardians might very fairly and properly he withdrawn. I will not sit down without making a suggestion of my own, although I do not know if it is one the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to accept. I would suggest that rather than interfere with what I believe is the drift of public opinion in favour of having these bodies elected on the broad basis on which this House of Commons and our Municipal Corporations are elected, we should introduce a proviso under which in cases where outdoor relief is granted in excess of a certain sum the Local Government Board shall have special powers of interference, either in the way of appointing Guardians in the Unions where such extravagance exists, or in the way of making Regulations to prevent the giving of outdoor relief under the circumstances to which I am objecting. I appeal to my right hon. Friend whether at this stage he cannot shorten our proceedings by making some statement as to the method in which the Government themselves propose to meet what is no chimerical apprehension on our part.

In response to the appeal of my right hon. Friend, I will again state the views of the Government upon this question, although I have already made statements with regard to it almost ad nauseam. There may, of course, be some Unions in which ill-instructed public opinion will interfere with the present administration of the Poor Law, and I, therefore, recognise the fact that the danger to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred may arise, but I do not entertain the fear of it that the right hon. Gentleman does. I believe that the strong public opinion which influences the administration of our Municipalities will equally affect with beneficial results the management of our Unions, and I believe that that public opinion will be rightly and wisely exerted in reference to the administration of the Poor Law. If I make any confession to the right hon. Gentleman, it is that the danger which has weighed most in my mind is not that there will be a reckless administration of outdoor relief, but that under an elective system there may be too strict and bard an administration of the Poor Law in order to keep down the expenditure. I have feared, in fact, that under the new system there will be much greater stringency introduced from a mere economical point of view, and I certainly believe that the tendency will be to keep down the public expenditure. My right hon. Friend has answered, I think, each of the arguments he advanced. He has shown that these nominated Guardians will inevitably be in a minority. They will be outvoted, and certainly could not have the weight and influence possessed by the elected Guardians. I attach great importance to the continuity of Poor Law administration, and to retaining the services of those gentlemen who have so long do-voted themselves to the work; but nobody knows better than I do that the number of ex officio Guardians who have attended regularly at Board meetings in the past has been exceedingly small, and that the larger number have only come in on exceptional occasions, and have then exerted a mischievous rather than a beneficial effect. The Government, recognising the desirability of retaining the help of those who have attended to the every—day work of the Unions, have conceded the point in regard to chairmen and vice chairmen of Poor Law Boards, and I shall at a later stage propose a sub-section giving effect to that concession. But what is my right hon. Friend's remedy for the danger he has described? He says—"Bring in the Local Government Board and give it some power it does not already possess." My reply to that is that it is unnecessary to attempt to enlarge the powers of the Local Government Board, who have already ample power to check lavish and reckless outdoor relief. The Board can stop outdoor relief in any Union it likes by an administrative act, and J think it would be a very dangerous step to lay down a rule that where outdoor relief exceeded a certain amount it should be stopped; for in all cases there may be exceptional circumstances justifying the policy which has been adopted. The powers of the Local Government Board are already practically unlimited, and if there were any attempt to introduce a wanton and reckless administration of outdoor relief—if there were any attempt to upset the great principle embodied in the legislation of 1834—any Local Government Board worth its salt would at once interfere, and it would have the support of the House of Commons in its interference. That is the great safeguard on which I rely. But I repeat that that is not the danger apprehend. I fear rather that the Poor Law will be administered too rigidly and too economically. It is a great mistake to suppose that the strict administration of the Poor Law depends on the ex officio Guardians. In many instances such Guardians have introduced the elements of liberality of administration when the elected Guardians have been the advocates of the more strict system. The principle of the Government is that the Poor Law administration shall rest in the hands of representatives elected by the people, but we must also recognise that in connection with it we do much more than we do in regard to municipal and local affairs, because we have a Central Board constituted to superintend the working of the Poor Law, and to sec that it is carried on in accordance with the Report of the Poor Law Commission of 1834. I am sorry to have had to go over these grounds again. I have no Amendment to propose other than those which appear on the Paper with reference to the election of the machinery by which the Poor Law is to be worked. I still hold to the opinion that the Bill does nor alter the Poor Law itself, and I certainly cannot consent to alter the principle of Poor Law administration in this measure. No doubt the question of the election of the Guardians by whom the Poor Law is to be administered deserves the fullest, consideration, but I venture to assert that it has already been thoroughly thrashed out, and that no further light can be thrown on it.

I think the right hon. Gentleman has done good service in this Debate by calling attention to a fact which we all recognised, but which may not be always present to our minds—namely, that good Poor Law administration does not necessarily mean hard Poor Law administration. I should he sorry to identify myself, or allow any of my hon. Friends behind me to be identified, with any Poor Law policy which drew such a distinction between harsh and liberal administration. Having made that admission, I must, express a profound difference with the right hon. Gentleman on one matter. He seems to think that the result of the changes we are about to introduce in our Poor Law machinery may tend in the direction of a hard and unduly economical administration. I wish, instead of stilling that opinion dogmatically, he had given us the reasons which induce him to entertain that view. Can the right hon. Gentleman point to a single instance in which a popular elective system has conduced to economy in which the placing of local administrative work on a broader basis has not been accompanied by increased expenditure? I do not say bad expenditure. So far as I know, the result of the establishment of County Councils has been to increase the rates in every county in England. I am not for a moment, suggesting that that increase has not been judicious or proper, but unquestionably the whole tendency of placing our local Governing Bodies on a, popular basis has been not, to augment the strength of the party which makes for economy, but to strengthen that, which makes for expenditure. And surely that tendency is likely to be clearly marked in the matter of Poor Law administration. Not only are we proposing to do away with ex officio Guardians, but the effect of the Bill will be to drive the farmers off the Boards in favour of classes who will not have an equal interest in keeping down the rates. While I feel conscious that I am going beyond the scope of the Amendment now before the Committee, I cannot, as the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the question of general economy, allow this opportunity to pass without a brief reference to his remarks. I think the suggestion of my right hon. Friend opposite (the Member for West Birmingham) is one of very great value and importance, and we shall have to discuss it at length on a subsequent Amendment. Until we reach that I shall reserve what I have to say on the subject. For the present I shall strictly confine myself to the Motion before the Committee. Undoubtedly there are two objections to it, the first being that it is a one-sided and imperfect solution. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that if Town Councils were all allowed to nominate Guardians County Councils also should be permitted to do so in order to make the system systematical. To that extent the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was, I think, sound. But then it has been pointed out that the electorate which in directly chooses these nominated Guardians is precisely the same electorate that chooses the elected Guardians in the first instance. That misses the point of my hon. Friend's suggestion. H The point is this: that whereas if we ask any given electorate to elect people practically for the sole purpose of administering outdoor relief the election is only too likely to be fought on the question whether outdoor relief shall be given indiscriminately or not; on the other hand, if we ask that same electorate to choose persons to carry out their general business, to do the business of the locality, as they choose members of the Town Council, then the election will be fought, not on the narrow issue of indoor or outdoor relief, but on the question of their general competence to deal with local affairs. Surely, when you have elected persons competent to deal with all the complex difficulties of local administration, it is a wise proceeding to say to these people,—Now select two or three of your number, not enough to resist the Boards of Guardians, but quite enough to introduce the leaven of sober administrative wisdom which may perhaps, as we all fear, be lacking in certain cases in the new Boards of Guardians as proposed to be constituted. I think myself that it is an advantage that the body which is to nominate the Guardians under this Amendment is elected on the same broad franchise as the elected Guardians, and it is also an advantage that the nominated Guardians will not be able to outvote the elected Guardians. I do not want them to be able to do so. I think it would be absurd that persons directly elected to administer the Poor Law should be capable of being outvoted by nominated Guardians, and if the proposal of my hon. Friend were likely to bring that about I would not support it. But the modest suggestion is that the Board elected on a popular franchise shall retain the assistance of a few persons who are not likely to be swayed by any of those considerations in favour of giving indiscriminate outdoor relief which may act in regard to the elected Guardians. It appears to me that the Amendment does not sin against democratic principle, but is very decidedly in favour of sound, sober administration. Therefore, if my hon. Friend presses it to a Division, I shall feel it my duty to vote with him.

regretted that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had not seen his way to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He had hoped that even at the last moment the right hon. Gentleman would have agreed to try and devise some scheme free of the difficulties which he admitted attached to his own proposal. They had had the admission from the President of the Local Government Board that there was an inevitable danger in the system about to he created, but the right hon. Gentleman fell back upon the almost illimitable powers of the Local Government Board to which he trusted absolutely and entirely. He recognised the dangers, but he said he had no fears because, thank God, there was a Local Government Board in England. His arguments were contradictory to each other, for it was impossible to claim that complete satisfaction was given to popular opinion, and in the next breath to trust in the powers of the Local Government Board to prevent, if necessary, full effect being given to the popular will. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that a Local Government Board would not be worth its salt if it did not act speedily in order to repress any excess of outdoor relief which any Union might happen to grant.

I said any "reckless or wanton" outdoor relief. I must ask the hon. Baronet when criticising me to quote what I have said. This is not the first time I have had to complain of misrepresentation. I did not say the Local Government Board was to interfere in ordinary cases of undue relief; I used the words "reckless and wanton" administration.

said, he would take note of the words "reckless or wanton" as applicable to results provided for by the existing system, and he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he admitted the inevitable dangers of the new system, but he made no provision for them whatever. It could not be denied that he was upsetting the old system. He was replacing the present electorate by a new set of electors, and substituting au entirely new system for the old one, and yet he was expecting everything to go on just as before. That was not common sense, and the Committee were bound to consider the matter from a practical point of view. Could not the right hon. Gentleman find among the many able men in his Department—men thoroughly acquainted with all the details of Poor Law administration and with the working of the intricate system, and knowing well the difficulties and dangers connected with it—could not the right hon. Gentleman find one man able to frame a scheme which would safeguard the new system against the dangers admitted to be inevitable as at present arranged? Ho did not understand the fears of the right hon. Gentleman in another direction—that the now Boards might show excessive stringency. To say that the new Boards, elected largely by those who did not pay rates, were going to be more careful of the rates than the ratepayers themselves was one of the most singular arguments ever adduced by any Minister. They were going to confide to a body elected by those who did not pay rates the expenditure of a sum of £8,000,000 a year, and the right hon. Gentleman suggested that such a body would be far more careful of the rates. Was it likely that that would be the result? Then the right hon. Gentleman told them that the ex officio Guardians who attended to the everyday work of Poor Law administration wore very few in number. But surely there were to be found in every Union in the Kingdom a certain number who out of pure love for the work and animated by a sense of public duty did attend to the work. It was the services of those gentlemen they wished to retain, and he believed that they could do so by menus of the Amendment. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman continued to turn a deaf ear to all suggestions in this direction. It was difficult to believe that he was being allowed a free hand in the matter.

said, it was clear from the Debate that the ease of the Unions to which the Amendment particularly applied had never been properly considered by the Government. The idea, no doubt, was to make the District Council areas co-extensive with the Union areas. That was all very well in the case of a rural district, but the difficulty arose when they had districts partly urban and partly rural. What the Amendment suggested was that whore they had as part of a Union district a borough worked together as a whole, it was most desirable in the interest of good administration that it should be represented on the Board.

said, that no one could be more opposed than he was to the principle of ex officio representation in this matter. But it did not arise under the Amendment at all. The proposal of the Amendment was simply a return to the ancient system under which even Members of the House used to be elected—namely, the system of double election. The Town Councils wore to select a certain proportion of the Guardians to sit on the Board. The President of the Local Government Board admitted the possibility of reckless or wanton administration on the part of these new Boards of Guardians. And what preservative did the right hon. Gentleman propose against it? In this, as in all other matters, the right hon. Gentleman showed the cloven hoof of centralization. The right hon. Gentleman's one hope and one refuge was Whitehall. If the Boards were reckless, there were the clerks at Whitehall. If they were extravagant, there were the clerks at Whitehall. The right hon. Gentleman declared that he and his clerks had got a tight hand over the Boards. One thing was certain, these clerks acted as Courts of Appeal against the returning officers. He found by the Report of the Local Government Board that they held that a certain election had had no legal effect—

"We issued an Order"—(so election was by Local Government Board Order, and in it by popular vote)—"deciding accordingly, and declaring that the only candidate who had not been returned had been duly elected."

That was centralization. No more practical system of election could he devised than that proposed in the Amendment, which would put some salt into the Boards, and bring to them a little intelligence, a little brains, and a little stability. The only consolation offered by the right hon. Gentleman was, that no matter how reckless or how extravagant the new Boards might be, he and his clerks were at Whitehall, and that would be sufficient. But he would rather trust the Municipal Council than the right hon. Gentleman and his clerks.

said, that in the course of these Debates it had frequently, but not too frequently, been pointed out there was a real and substantial danger of extravagant expenditure on outdoor relief in consequence of the more popular election of Guardians, and the abolition of the ex officio Guardians. To-day they had had an important statement from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and according to that statement tic right hon. Gentleman admitted the possibility of that danger, and also admitted that no concession he had yet made in any way altered the danger.

I do not admit that; the hon. Gentleman is not correctly representing what I said.

said, he apologised for misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman, but when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) was before the Committee the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that if there was a party in favour of saving expenditure the Amendment would in no way meet the danger, but in order to pro- vide for continuity ho was willing that the chairman and vice chairman should be chosen from outside if the Board chose. He (Major Darwin) could not see how it could be urged that the addition of a chairman and vice chairman from outside would mitigate the evil they thought it possible would arise. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had, previous to to-day, given every sign of being ready to consider any proposition seriously brought forward to mitigate this evil, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the last evening they met, asked the Opposition what it was they proposed to bring forward. He could not conceive what was the use of that question if none of the Amendments brought forward were to be considered. What was the use of asking a question of that sort, and then condemning Amendments brought forward, even before they were discussed? The Amendment he had to submit to the Committee was that the Local Government Board should, in certain cases, have power to nominate additional Guardians to any Boards of Guardians, but they were to be added only when the Returns indicating the amount of the expenditure of outdoor relief showed that the expenditure had been excessive. He proposed there should be a list drawn up in a Schedule where some definition should be given of what was considered to be excessive outdoor relief. He admitted that the Amendment, at the first glance, looked like that of the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Rathbone), but be thought it differed from the hon. Member's in certain essential particulars. In the first place, his Amendment was optional and not imperative; he used the word "may," rather than the word "shall," but he did not confine himself to that, as he believed the hon. Member for Carnarvon would have been willing to adopt the word "may," but where his differed essentially from that of the hon. Member was that his was only to apply to a limited number of Boards, and only where it had been proved the administration bad been defective. He was ready to admit there would be a difference of opinion as to the limits that would he fixed, but he did not propose to discuss that question now, though he should have to return to it later; he merely wished to point out at present, that by raising this question of limit they could make this nomination of men apply to as small or as large a number of Boards of Guardians as they desired. He thought his Amendment was exceedingly moderate, and one that might be taken into consideration by the Government. The hon. Member for Carnarvon's Amendment, he was aware, was discussed at considerable length, and in urging his Amendment on the Committee he would try not to go over the same ground, except that he desired to show that the arguments brought forward in favour of his hon. Friend's Amendment applied more strongly to his own, and the arguments against his hon. Friend's applied with less weight to his own. What were the arguments in favour of his Amendment? He thought he could not do better than recall to the Committee the admirable speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Mr. Goscben). In that speech the right hon. Gentleman urged most eloquently the advantages gained by the addition of a small number of nominated Guardians in certain Unions in the East of London, and he put the case in a most logical way. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill interrupted the right hon. Gentleman, and said there were only a few additional Guardians. That was true, but that did not apply to the present Amendment, as he only desired his Amendment to apply to a limited number of Boards of Guardians. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Mr. Goschon) urged, not only for the sake of economy, but also for the sake of humanity, that some step of the sort should be taken, because the right hon. Gentleman proved that the administration of the Poor Law in the East of Loudon had been greatly improved by the addition of these members. As to humanity, he thought the fact of the alteration of the law they were now discussing would not in any way reduce the sympathy shown by Boards of Guardians towards the deserving poor; his fear was rather to the contrary. They all knew how ready and willing the poor wore to help one another, and what a noble characteristic this was of the poor. He was glad to recognise that sympathy, and the sympathy of Boards of Guardians, but he felt that that very sympathy might lead them into trouble through its excess. The analogy of the changes introduced into our county government through the County Councils had been mentioned, and that was the best analogy they could quote, considering what would be the result of the more popularly elected Boards of Guardians. Judging from his own knowledge, so far as he could see, the effect of introducing the County Council bad been to produce greater energy, greater local knowledge, but at the same time greater expenditure, and if they had this greater energy leading to greater expenditure, and had the same or greater sympathy with distress on future Boards of Guardians, he could not conceive how it could possibly be urged this measure was likely to reduce outdoor relief. The only reason for reducing outdoor relief was founded on principles of political economy, and political economy had not much weight with the working classes of this country, and therefore it appeared to him certain this measure brought forward a certain danger of those evils which prevailed in England before 1834. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill urged that the Central Authority would be sufficient to check and prevent the renewal of these unhappy circumstances, but the Rules that the right hon. Gentleman bad made, like other Rules in the world, could be broken or evaded. It seemed to him most dangerous to rely wholly on Rules in so vitally important a matter as this. When hon. Gentlemen had argued this subject before they had not quoted extreme cases, for fear it would look like condemnation of the whole system of the administration of the Boor Law, but as he only wished to deal with exceptional Unions he thought ho was justified in quoting extreme cases, and therefore he would mention one case that illustrated forcibly the reliance that could be placed on Rules and Regulations for enforcing the Poor Law. He regretted to say he was not able to give the name of his correspondent; but this he might say, that he was a gentleman well acquainted with the administration of the Poor Law in the East of London. This gentleman informed him that the Board sat every Tuesday, and that on a Saturday large numbers of able-bodied men regularly applied for relief to carry them over Sunday. They got relief, and were ordered to attend at the Board on. Tuesday, but they never came, and when Saturday came round again they applied for more relief until, writes his correspondent—

"This has become, in my opinion, a regular system by which the able-bodied can obtain out-relief without difficulty."

That single instance, he thought, showed that the Rules could not be trusted so that they could make themselves certain the outdoor relief would he administered in the way that would he desired by the Central Authority. All he wished to prove was that, in exceptional cases, the administration under these Rules would he strengthened if the Local Government Board had power to appoint the Guardians to the Hoard, If in these instances there were a certain number of Guardians in whom the Local Government Board had confidence on the Board, it would be far easier for the Central Authority to dictate means that would prevent their Rules and Regulations being loaded. The right hon. Gentleman said to-day they could stop outdoor relief altogether. That was true theoretically; it might be done in cases where the outdoor relief was small at present, but in cases like those he was considering, where it had become large and overgrown, it would be impossible to stop it suddenly, the outcry it would raise would be too powerful, and the more the outdoor relief has grown above the proper limits, the more difficult it would be to apply a check. The arguments he had brought forward were certainly strong enough to make it desirable to establish some sort of check against reckless expenditure, unless stronger arguments could be brought forward on the other side. He wished briefly to examine those arguments that had been brought forward against the hon. Member for Carnarvon's (Mr. Rathbone's) Amendment, and to show that they did not apply to his own. The Attorney General, when speaking on the question, only brought forward two arguments, the first of which was that it would he impossible for the Local Government Board to nominate so many as 2,000 Guardians. He believed that was perfectly true, but it was no argument against his Amendment, because he only proposed that the Board should nominate a limited number in exceptional cases, and he had also in his Amendment put in a, sentence that would meet this point—namely, giving the Local Government Board power to delegate to the County Councils, if they thought proper, the power of nominating the additional Guardians. The only other argument the Attorney General used was that no one was in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carnarvon. That could not al present he used against his Amendment, because no one knew who were in favour of it or who were opposed to if. All the other arguments agninst the proposal of his hon. Friend were based on the one suggestion that they must trust the people. It had been said over and over again that it was unwise, unfair, and not right to hamper a locally Elected Body by the addition of members from outside. That was their main argument, and the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr. Arch) more than anyone else urged on the Committee the fact that the labourers of England when in power would be exceedingly economical in their administration of local funds. He was inclined to agree, but they must remember the exception proved the rule, and though they might accept the view that the labouring classes of England would be economical, at the same time every precaution should be taken to provide for those cases which might arise when the electors did not elect an economical Board to manage the affairs of the Union. The hon. Member for North amptonshire quoted the case of Friendly Societies as an illustration of how economically the working classes could manage their own affairs, but it seemed to him that Friendly Societies and Unions were totally different things. In Friendly Societies men were managing their own money, but in some of these Unions the Boards of Guardians would be managing other people's money. With regard to the argument as to trusting the people, he thought the strongest point he could make was by quoting the words which the right hon. Gentleman himself used earlier in the Debate—

"The control of outdoor relief would be virtually regulated by the Central Authority, and would not depend on the action or will of local administration."

That was, in no case in the whole of England was the administration to depend on the will of the locally Elected Body. But bow absurd it was to object to over- riding Local Bodies by the addition of a minority of added Guardians when the Committee were already confronted with the principle that Local Bodies were to ho virtually controlled in every detail by the Central Authority! He could not conceive how there could be any objection in principle to adding these additional Guardians. His view was that they ought to trust the people, but that they ought, at the same time, to keep in their hands an efficient check, which might be used if it should be proved in any exceptional case that that trust in the people had not been justified. As to the limit of expenditure on outdoor relief above which the Local Government Board should be enabled to add additional Guardians, he, at first, thought that the limit should be 2s. 6d. per head on the estimated population, but on studying the matter he found that this arbitrary limit would not meet the case, for it would allow the Local Government Board to add Guardians to almost all the large rural constituencies, but not a single one to the towns, where they would, perhaps, be most needed. He came to the conclusion that there was a marked connection between density of population and the amount of outdoor relief. The reasons why there was more, outdoor relief in the rural Unions were various. In the first place, the distance that cases had to be taken to the workhouse must be greater in rural than in urban Unions, which would act, in some sense, as a check to people being sent to the workhouse. Again, where the rents were high there was an incentive towards people going into the workhouse, but in the country, where the rents were low, and where, of course, there was plenty of room, it would very often happen that in a cottage a pauper could he maintained simply by having food given to him as outdoor relief. This would not be the case in towns, because there was not the room, the higher rents being responsible for this. He felt sure, therefore, that in towns they should have less outdoor relief, and, finally, in the country the Boards of Guardians would always have a better knowledge of the different cases they had to deal with than could possibly be the case in towns, and they could thus give more outdoor relief than could be given in towns without producing demoralisation. He had taken 33 counties, and placed them in the order of density of population. Taking 17 of these he found that the average expenditure in outdoor relief was 2s. 5d. per head, whereas in the 16 other counties it was 1s. 7d. That was to say, there was an increase of 50 per cent, in the expenditure in outdoor relief in the sparsely-populated counties compared with the densely-populated counties. This, to his mind, was sufficient proof that the two things hung together; and if they did not take into account this question of density of population in fixing the limit, the result would be that the Local Government Board would be able to supply added Guardians in all the country places, but not in urban places. He had framed a Schedule on the hypothesis that the outdoor relief might be greater in the country places. His Schedule, he was quite aware, would require correction, but he believed the principle he had adopted was the best on which it could be framed. He did not adhere to the terms of that Schedule, but only to the principle; and all he asked was, that some limit should be fixed by which they could tell when the expenditure on outdoor relief was excessive, and by which the Central Authority could deal with cases of bad administration. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury, the other day, pointed out that when one Union was well managed this good management spread to other Unions, and the whole county obtained a good system of administration. It was equally true that if one Union was badly managed the, effect would spread to neighbouring Unions, and the only way of dealing with such a state of things was to treat it like a contagious disease, and stamp it out at the place of its origin. Anyone who bad studied this subject must feel that no precaution was too great to prevent that local and national demoralisation which might come from excessive outdoor relief, and it was on this principle that he begged to propose his Amendment.

As I understand the proposal of my hon. Friend, it is that whenever the expenditure on outdoor relief exceeds the maximum the Local Government Board have to interfere, and their intervention is to consist of the appointment of one in four of the Guardians. That is, they are in such cases to have the power of appointing one-fourth to the existing Board of Guardians, and there the hon. Gentleman stops. I cannot for the life of me see what is to be the result of this proposal. Let us suppose the scheme were carried out and the Local Government Board were satisfied with the Schedule—and here let me say that the actual Schedule which the hon. Member has put upon the Paper would not work—but assuming they were satisfied with the Schedule, and that the Local Government Board did interfere with and sent down new Guardians, what would their position be? They would have no power whatever; they would be a minority of one-fourth; they would he received with distrust and dislike, and they would have all the attributes which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham pointed out earlier in the day would attach to the position of nominated Guardians as against elected Guardians. The whole procedure would he futile and useless for practical good. I have two objections to the Amendment on its merits. The first is that this proposal—a well-meant proposal, no doubt—is a proposal for altering the Poor Law. That I object to do in this Bill. I object to altering the Poor Law in this Bill. The Bill simply deals with the election of Boards of Guardians, and says that no man who now has a vote shall have more than one vote, and that no ex officio Guardians shall continue. That is the beginning and the end of it, so far as this Bill is concerned. But the hon. Gentleman introduces the principle of restricting the powers which the Local Government Board at present possesses. I should just like to read to the Committee one paragraph from the great Act of 1834, which exactly defines and explains what are the powers of the Local Government Board, and that not in this restricted manner of appointing Guardians which, I think, would be absolutely useless. Let us go back to the Act of 1834—and in those days they did that which I wish they did at the present day. They stated in the Preamble their reasons for the enactment, and then in Section 52 of the Act of 1834 there occur these words—

"And whereas a practice has obtained of giving relief to persons or their families who at the time of applying for or receiving such relief were wholly or partially in the employment of individuals, and the relief of the able-bodied and their families is in many places administered in modes productive of evil in other respects.…It shall be lawful for the Commissioners (now the Local Government Board)by such Rules, Orders, or Regulations as they may think fit to declare to what extent, and for what period the relief to be given to able-bodied persons or to their families in any particular parish or Union by payments in money or with food or clothing in kind or partly in kind and partly in money, and in what proportions, to what persons or class of persons, at what times and places, on what conditions, and in what manner such outdoor relief may be afforded."

I say that covers the whole ground, and justifies every assertion I have made to I he House as to the actual power of the Local Government Board. There are a series of elaborate Orders for the purpose of carrying out these Regulations. The hon. Member has suggested that these appointed Guardians would obtain the knowledge of any attempt to contravene any of these Regulations. But the Inspector of the Local Government Board is entitled to attend every meeting of the Guardians. He is the eye of the Local Government Board on all the procedure of the Boards of Guardians just as the auditor controls the finance. Every objection that has been urged against nominated Guardians would apply with great force to this mode of nomination and I think we must infinitely prefer the suggestion of the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire—which did not receive the general favour of the Committee. This proposal as to nomination of certain Guardians for the object indicated is introducing a new principle into the administration of the Poor Law; it would restrain the present power possessed by the Local Government Board, and would not by one jot or tittle minimise the danger which the hon. Gentleman and his friends seem to think will arise in the constitution of the Boards of Guardians. I would venture to suggest to the Committee once again, that the true safeguard against any improper administration of the Poor Law is in the mode which the great Poor Law Commissioners themselves prescribed—namely, the control of the Central Authority. That Central Authority has sufficient power. You cannot add to those powers, but my hon. Friend proposes to limit them, therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.

thought that the right hon. Gentleman, in stating that the Amendment would have the effect of restricting the powers of the Local Government Board, bad overlooked the fact that one of the difficulties that Department had to deal with was that whatever powers might be conferred upon that Board by Statute, it had practically no power of enforcing the Regulations it could issue, the consequence being that in different Unions in different parts of the country, although the same Regulations and the same instructions applied to all, there was the utmost diversity in administration. The Amendment would give that Board a certain power, so to speak, of punishing a Local Authority by holding in terrorem over it this power of nomination. Of course, the argument that these nominated Guardians would be in a minority applied to every form of ex officio or nominated Guardians that it was possible to conceive. The contention was that this small minority of Guardians would be appointed by some outside authority, whereas the majority would be popularly elected, and that the latter would therefore contend that they were the real representatives of the people, and that their opinions were of greater importance than the opinions of those who had only been sent there by the Local Government Board. But what had been said times out of number? That the presence on Boards of specially appointed men, with the peculiar knowledge of the administration of the Poor Law, had the effect of controlling the administration of that law, and led the actions of the Boards into wiser and better channels. The right hon. Gentleman told thorn that ho did not fear bad administration; but the Member for West Birmingham had called attention to the fact that there was undoubtedly a risk in some districts that the administration would fall below the excellent standard that now obtained in many cases. What the Opposition anticipated was not reckless or had administration of outdoor relief, but a departure from the wise and sensible practice which had guided Boards of Guardians up to the present. It was not necessary that the administration should be reckless in wildly giving outdoor relief to make the administration bad, but they said that unless the circumstances were examined into with a most careful scrutiny in every case there would be a risk of falling back into that bad administration which existed prior to 1831, and which the Act of that year was passed to put an end to. They had asked that the Government should temper such Boards of Guardians by certain Guardians nominated, and they had declined to do so. He doubted if the Local Government Board could insist upon its own Regulations and Rules if there was a, strong outcry among the popularly elected Guardians, and a demand to be allowed to administer the law as they thought fit. The practical effect of the Amendment was, in the first instance, to fix a limit beyond which outdoor relief should not go; and, in the second place, to give the Controlling Authority in London the power to say, "We have this power of nomination yet in reserve which we can use, and if you fail to conform to our regulations and administer the law as we think wisely we shall use it." His hon. Friend was not pledged to the actual words of the Amendment. What he wanted was that the principle of control by the Department should be en-forcable by something else than mere ad vice or letter. If the Local Government Board was to be in future the guardian of the poor rates and of administration all over the country, and if people were to be taught to look at the Central Authority in London to protect them from had administration, it was a had augury for the further development of local government in these smaller areas, for instead of being an extension of local government it was an extension of central government in London. To rely upon the Central Authority was the very worst thing that could happen in the interest of Local Authorities. It was teaching them that instead of being self-reliant and dependent on their own exertions they would have to look to and lean upon the Central Authority in London; and this would make the Local Bodies impotent almost before they were brought into existence.

said, that the President of the Local Government Board stated that the Government could not accept the Amendment because they did not propose to alter the Poor Law. Then what were they there for at extreme inconvenience on the 27th of December? If it was meant that the Government did not alter the law itself but only the administration, then he would reply that this Amendment dealt with administration only. The President of the Local Government Board asked what could these nominated Guardians do, because they would be in a minority. Yes; but they might turn a minority into a majority. Moreover, it was not so much their voting power to which he attached importance as their counsel, advice, and experience. Then his right hon. Friend said he infinitely preferred the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carnarvon. "Infinitely" was a very strong word indeed, but even omitting the word "infinitely," he did not observe in the discussion of the Amendment of the Member for Carnarvon that the right hon. Gentleman had any affection for it.

I said I infinitely preferred it to this Amendment.

said, that was strong but rather vague. Perhaps distance lent enchantment to the view, and the right hon. Gentleman now forgot the attitude of uncompromising hostility he assumed lo the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carnarvon. Could anybody say that the thousand Boards throughout England would all be wise and all understand the administration of the Poor Law? Certainly, mistakes would be made through want of experience. If his hon. Friend went to a Division he would support him.

said, he cordially supported the Amendment. The President of the Local Government Board had given the Committee plenty of assertions, but very little argument. The danger which had been called attention to had happened in the past, and they might, therefore, have it in the future. The new Boards of Guardians would be elected by entirely new constituencies. Up to the present time, Boards of Guardians had been elected in a very different way to that in which they would be elected in the future. It must also he remembered that the electors of the new Boards would be largely composed of persons who, either themselves or in their immediate belongings, might be applicants for relief. By this Amendment the hon. and gallant Gentleman would extend the power which already existed in the Local Government Board of nominating Guardians. The nomination was at present confined to London, but if the number nominated was small it did good work. In Bethnal Green, where there were no nominated Guardians, the administration of the Poor Law was confessedly lax, but in Whitechapel and St. George's-in-the East, where there were nominated Guardians, the administration was good and humane. Was that fact not worth bearing in mind? If the system had worked well in London, why should it not do so in oilier places?

There are two nominated Guardians in Bethnal Green.

said, he was glad to hear that; but, at any rate, he would urge that, if the system had worked well in London, there was no reason why it should not work well in other parts of the Kingdom. If lax administration was to he feared, why should not the remedy which had been found so useful in Loudon be applied elsewhere? The right hon. Gentleman said that the nominated Guardians would be only a minority, and, therefore, if the administration was lax what good could a minority do? But that argument was an argument against the very clause of the Act of Parliament under which the right hon. Gentleman was now nominating Guardians. In that clause these words were used—

"So that the number of Guardians so nominated shall not, together with the ex officio Guardians, ever exceed one-third of the number of the elected Guardians."

In fact, the right hon. Gentleman was now administering a system in which the nominated Guardians were not only a minority, but a minority of a minority; and yet it was admitted that they were doing good work. It was not that they expected the nominated Guardians to vote down the others, but to leaven them. For these reasons he cordially supported the Amendment.

said, he thought his right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill, after the admissions he had made as to the dangers to he apprehended, had assumed a great responsibility in rejecting not only this Amendment but all the Amendments which had a similar object. If its terms were not to the liking of the Government, his hon. and gallant Friend was willing to accept any improvement of them which might be proposed from the Government Benches. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was abundant power in the Local Government Board to meet any danger that might arise. But the object of his hon. and gallant Friend was not so much to remedy dangers, which had become so gross that they called for the intervention of the Local Government Board, as to prevent Boards of Guardians from coming down to a state of bad administration. There was all the difference in the world between members who were nominated and who worked continuously on the Boards and Inspectors who could only visit from time to time, and who bad no continuous knowledge of the work of the Guardians. It was almost amusing to hear his right hon. Friend reiterating that he did not intend to interfere with the administration of the Poor Law. But Poor Law administration was everything. If his right hon. Friend would carry himself back to the abuses which took place before 1836 he must admit that they were abuses, not so much of law as of the administration of the law. This lax administration began only at the fag-end of the last century, and it increased up to 1834, when it became so intolerable that it had to be put an end to. The dangers were so great that according to the Commissioners the prosperity of the country was being sapped, the old rural habits of frugality and industry were changed, the line between independence and pauperism in the great majority of parishes and all self-respect was destroyed, and the moral mischief was beyond calculation. As for the expense, there were many cases in which the rates were 10s., 15s., and 20s. in the £1. It was the desire of his hon. Friend, in these circumstances, to introduce some check, and the right hon. Gentleman had taken upon himself a great responsibility in refusing all these Amendments. If the Government could not accept this Amendment would they say what Amendment they could accept, so as to make it clear that in ease of the recurrence of the old evils there should be some active check. He hoped that his right hon. Friend, having brought Members up to town at this unseasonable time of the year, would do something towards forwarding his own Bill, and that be would admit the reasonableness of the modest proposal which had been made.

said, he had been anxious for a long time that Boards of Guardians should be brought more into touch with the mass of the people; it would be better for the people, while it would conduce in the end to a better administration of the Poor Law. He had looked with sympathy on the proposal of the Government, but he confessed that what had now been said greatly alarmed him. He had always thought that there was a danger of some of the new Boards of Guardians going a little wrong at the start, but the good sense of the people would cure early defects in those Boards. What was the check, however, which they were to impose upon the new bodies in order to prevent them from committing extravagances in the administration of the Poor Law, greatly detrimental lo the interests of the people, likely to bring discredit on this system of popular representation, and which might possibly lead to some strong reactive measure? The cure suggested was the arbitrary, tyrannical, pedagogic interference of the Local Government Board. Did the right hon. Gentleman think the people of the country would ever stand that? They would not tolerate this interference. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not know how extremely unpopular the Local Government Board already was. In all the course; of his experience, in discussing these matters in the villages and among country people, he did not remember having heard a single good word said about the Local Government Hoard, but he had heard a great deal of abuse showered upon them, much of which—although doubtless undeserved —had been brought about by the arbitrary interference which the Local Government Board sometimes indulged in in local affairs. The panacea of the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, filled him with alarm, and he would be glad if some Member could suggest another remedy than that of the arbitrary interference of the Local Government Board. He was comforted some days ago by the speech made by his right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, who was himself President of the Local Government Board more than 20 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the case of the East End parishes of London. It became necessary, in order to save the people there from the demoralisation that the maladministration of the Poor Law was bringing upon them, for Parliament to interfere. That was done, by the Local Government Board nominating Guardians to sit upon these Boards, not for the purpose of outvoting the popularly-elected Guardians, but for the purpose of bringing to bear upon them reason and argument and common sense. That remedy had proved remarkably successful. He should have thought the Government would have been taught by the experience of the past, and would have provided some means by which when a Board of Guardians was inclined to go wrong some persons connected with the locality might be put upon the Board for the purpose of using that persuasion which had been proved to be so satisfac- tory in the case of the East. End parishes of Loudon.

said, he protested against the obstructive attitude of the Government. The only answer they vouchsafed was "No" They gave the matter no serious consideration, and had not produced a single Report from any one of their Inspectors in support of their position. He (Mr. Stanley Leighton) was inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was frilling with the House. Pressed into a corner and shown that the clause was unsatisfactory, his statement was—"I will make the clause better by adding the word 'vice'" Then the right hon. Gentleman had pretended to argue the matter—for he (Mr. Stanley Leighton) could not call the right hon. Gentleman's observations real arguments. He had asked, first of all—"What good would be done by the Amendment? "Why, everyone know that the nominated Guardians had done good. The right hon. Gentleman's next argument was—"They will be distrusted," but he (Mr. Stanley Leighton) and his friends maintained that the nominated Guardians were not distrusted. The Local Government Board had failed to produce the good Poor Law administration which I hey ought to have produced, and he, therefore, maintained that the restraining influence should he exercised on Hoards of Guardians from within rather than from without. He did not believe in sending Inspectors to the meetings to act as spies, but preferred having nominated members in their place, for in that way the Boards would not require coercion. The Amendment was free from the objections which had been brought forward against other Amendments. It would not have a universal application. It would only be permissive, and would only he exercised where the Local Government Board deemed it to be necessary. It would only apply where there were mischiefs requiring to be remedied. These new Boards would be to a large extent experimental, and there might be mischiefs in connection with them which would require remedying. Another reason why be thought the Amendment should be accepted was because the taxpayer as well as the ratepayer ought to be represented on Boards of Guardians, and the Amendment would secure such representation.

I think that, as the result of this discussion, the Government must feel that the Committee has made such considerable progress as justifies this exceptional sitting. We have arrived at a better understanding as to the object in view on both sides of the House. Now both sides are agreed that a possible lax administration of the Poor Law by a popular body must be guarded against. The President of the Local Government Board shares this fear, but says that it has been exaggerated, and he points to the result of other popular administrations, as for instance in our Municipalities, as showing that where you have an extremely popular method of election there you have an economic expenditure. Well, that is perfectly true, but I must point out to my right hon. Friend that there is a very great distinction between the two cases. In the great bulk of municipal expenditure the advantage to the ratepayers is not clearly perceptible. For instance, one of the largest items of the expenditure is for sanitary work, and that is very often most unpopular with the persons whom it must benefit. By closing wells in towns the lives of the poorer classes are saved rather than the richer, who are already provided with good water. But the poorer classes resent this interference with their habits and convenience, and therefore you will find that they have not always present before them that expenditure for municipal purposes is immediately and directly to their advantage. Consequently they look as closely to this expenditure as do the richer classes. But Poor Law expenditure—especially in the shape of outdoor relief—is a direct money payment to those persons who pay no rates, or only small rates, or to their relatives, acquaintances, and fellow-workmen. There you have a most direct and patent benefit and advantage. Therefore, there is much fear that you will have on the Boards of Guardians a majority who will benefit by the expenditure in a larger proportion to anything that they will have to pay—who will benefit more than they would in the case of municipal expenditure. I put that forward as showing that the danger is really quite as great as it has been supposed to be. It is only a matter of degree between the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and myself, because he also admits that there is some danger. What is the remedy? The remedy suggested by the Opposition is an infusion into the new popular Board of Guardians of men of experience. Against this the President of the Local Government Board quotes my statement that this remedy is not perfect. I still think that it is not the best that could be devised, but I must vote for a remedy which I think imperfect, but which, at all events, would have some effect until the Government proposes a, better one. At present the right hon. Gentleman has not given any indication that he is prepared to go, I do not say further, but any way, or in any direction, in order to meet the danger which ho himself foresees. ["Hear, hear."] I have heard lately a great deal about the blind leading the blind; but here are people deliberately running their heads against a Avail, while their followers cheer them for it. The Government admit the danger.

We do not admit it.

The hon. Member for Camborne, who has not been in the House and knows nothing whatever about that of which we are speaking, says he does not admit the danger. I do not think the Committee will be much influenced by that announcement. The point is that the Government and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill do admit the danger.

We do not.

Now I think I perceive the situation. "We do not"! says the hon. Member for Camborne, speaking in regal style. As the hon. Member thinks he has the Government in his grasp, this exclamation is not intended as a discourteous interruption of me, but as a hint to the Government not to give way. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will pay no attention to his noisy followers. The right hon. Gentleman has hitherto offered no alternative remedy. He will not accept the remedy offered by the Opposition, but says that the Local Government Board have already sufficient powers for dealing with the difficulty. I want to deal with that point. I do not believe that the Local Government Board will ever dare to interfere; and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Department ever has interfered since he has been at its head? Will the right hon. Gentleman say that at present there are no cases of wanton and reckless expenditure in any of the Unions of the country? If he has this full power, which he claims to have, why does he not use it? From the Local Government Board Returns it can be seen that Unions very similarly situated are spending widely different sums in proportion to their population and rateable value on Poor Law administration. It is perfectly certain that one or other of the systems must be wrong—either certain Unions are spending much less than they ought to, and are much less liberal than they ought to be or—as I believe to be the ease—a great many Unions are spending more than they ought, and are, in fact, indulging in this excessive and wanton expenditure that we believe will be largely extended under the altered circumstances contemplated by the Bill, and in regard to which the only remedy presented to us is the authority of the Local Government Board. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us with what eases such as I have mentioned the Local Government Board have grappled during his administration? How and where have they interfered? Let the Committee understand what is the authority that is to be our only safeguard and security. At all events, until the right hon. Gentleman shows that the Local Government Board not only have the authority, but the will and power to exercise it effectually, I must support my hon. Friend and other Movers of Amendments.

said, he should like to press one point that was touched on by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The President of the Local Government Board had told them that it rested with his Department to prevent the excessive expenditure which was aimed at by the present Amendment. Well, what had the right hon. Gentleman done to prevent this excessive expenditure? It appeared from the latest Report issued by the Local Government Board that the expenditure on relief of the poor varied from 3s. 9d. per head of the population in the West Riding Union to 7s. 6d. per head in the Hereford Union. It might be said that the circumstances of the cases at the ends of the scale were exceptional, but that could not be so, because between the two figures he had mentioned there was every possible gradation. The expenditure in the various Unions of the country was exactly what those Unions chose to make it. There was no control by the Local Government Board. He had given the total expenditure on the Poor Law.

said, the hon. Member had given the figures per head of the population which were somewhat misleading. The total expenditure should be given in each ease.

said, he took the right hon. Gentleman's Report as meaning something. It was the right hon. Gentleman's own calculation. He (Mr. Bartley) spoke with a little knowledge of the Poor Law, and he maintained that these figures were in no way misleading. With regard to outdoor relief, the figures were even more remarkable. Buckinghamshire and Berkshire were completely rural counties, and very much alike in circumstances and conditions, and yet in Buckinghamshire 2s. 9¾d. per head of the population was spent on outdoor relief, and in Berkshire only 1s. 2¼d. The reason for this difference was, as was well-known, that in Berkshire some such precaution as that now proposed had been adopted. The Union had been immensely improved owing to the work of one or two ex officios, and, what was more important, the result had been greatly to the benefit of the poor themselves. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board talked as if the Office in London were a sort of safety valve or clearing apparatus by which the whole amount of Poor Law expenditure could be regulated, but that was not, the case. If it were there would not be these great differences. Supposing the cost of outdoor relief in the East End of London, where it was now only 10¼d. per head, were as costly as in other Unions, in some of which it was 4s. 2¼d., the increase would be something enormous. In North Wales the cost per head of the population was five times as much as in London. The more these figures were studied the more cine was convinced that it was the machinery by which the Poor Law was administered which really regulated the amount of expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition were merely repeating arguments and bringing forward different forms of ex officio Guardians. They were doing nothing of the sort. They were simply arguing, as they had done over and over again on these various Amendments, in support of some way being found for the retention of persons whose action on the Hoards of Guardians had in the past tended to the advantage of the poor. Under the system of universally elected Guardians the tendency would be for the people who received the benefit of the expenditure to have the control of the manner in which the relief was given. It was necessary, therefore, to have persons of independence on these Boards—not a majority of the Guardians, but two or three members who would leaven the whole lump.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had been good enough a few moments ago to indulge, in his own graceful and inimitable style, in some courteous allusions to himself. It was not often that the right hon. Gentleman descended from the pinnacle of his greatness to recognise any ordinary non-official Member. He only wished to tell the right hon. Gentleman in reference to what he had chosen to say—namely, that he (Mr. Conybeare) did not know what was going on in the Committee—that he did know perfectly well what was going on and that he was prepared to stand by the meaning of his interruption which had apparently nettled the right hon. Gentleman. He understood perfectly well that, in the first place, hon. Members were brought down to the House to listen to the interminable stream of oratory from the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Opposition side of the House.

The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment.

That was only intended to be parenthetical. I have a perfect right to defend myself from the right hon. Gentleman's courteous attack when I ventured to interpose the remarks that we do not admit the danger he asserted. We do not admit the necessity or desirability of further concessions such as are demanded by this ex-Radical and his Tory allies. We do intend to stand by that position. We object—[Cries of "Who are 'we'?"] The Radicals; not the rodents. We object to the attempts which have been made to whittle down the principle which the Committee have already agreed to—namely, that there shall be no ex officio or nominated Guardians.

The hon. Member is not referring to the Amendment, which deals with an entirely different point.

I understand that, Sir, and I do not wish to transgress your ruling. I was only claiming to express in intelligible and short language the position we maintain. We desire to resist the introduction of ex officio or nominated Guardians for the reason that we desire to see the mandate of the people carried out. We are in favour of a more general and sympathetic administration of the Poor Law without a departure from the principles laid down in 1834 That is our position, and we ask the Government to stand by it.

said, the extremely interesting and most exhaustive speech of the hon. Member to which the House had just listened had, no doubt, materially advanced the discussion of the Amendment and the clause. He (Mr. Gibson Bowles) might point out that if there was one part of the Poor Law more than another that needed careful treatment it was the outdoor relief. If the Government had dealt with the whole Poor Law by leaving it solely in the hands of the parishes to do as they pleased, even outdoor relief might have been safely committed to these people. In the parishes everyone was thoroughly known, and if they had been allowed to know the amount of rates they were paying, the parishes might have been loft to give any outdoor relief they pleased. But the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and his colleagues had removed the Poor Law administration from the parishes, and put it on the districts. The Amendment would give security for the due administration of outdoor relief. It might not give the best security. It might perhaps be improved upon, but some Amendment of the kind was undoubtedly wanted. The Local Government Board, instead of curbing extravagant expenditure, really increased it. ["Oh!"] Then, as that statement, was challenged, he must give an instance. In Lynn they had for some years a workhouse garden, where they grew vegetables which they distributed amongst the inmates to the relief of the rates and the comfort of the poor. What happened? One day an admirable and omniscient Inspector of the Local Government Board stepped in and said that they must no longer continue to distribute their own vegetables to their own paupers at their own expense. He was appalled to hear the President of the Local Government Board slate that the only practical objection to this Amendment was that it interfered with the Poor Law. If the Solicitor General had said that, the Committee might have taken it as a pleasantry, but when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said it they knew that he meant it. So far from not interfering with the Poor Law, it eviscerated it and disem-bowelled it, and put a new inside into it. It was as though, in dealing with a watch, they took out the main-spring and escapement (as representing the old ratepayers and ex officio Guardians) and then said it was the same watch, and there would he no difference in its general performance. In no fewer than 14 clauses and 18 places did the Bill contain provisions directly affecting the machinery of the Poor Law. If the machinery employed in the administration of the Poor Law were thus affected the Poor Law itself would also be profoundly affected. In view of the ignorance which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had shown of his own Bill he (Mr. Gibson Bowles) was driven to teach him something about it. In Clause 5 the right hon. Gentleman would find the first of the references to the Poor Law—

We have already dealt with Clause 5.

said, that ho would content himself in saying that the Bill in no fewer than 14 clauses and in 18 different places dealt with the Poor Law.

Order order!

went on to say, that under the circumstances it was inappropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to allege against the Amendment that it dealt with the Poor Law. Indeed he wondered that the right hon. Gentleman had not been called to Order. The whole of the trouble which led to the revolutionising of the Poor Law system in 1834 arose from the way in which outdoor relief had been administered, and ho asked whether the Committee were prepared to run the risk of bringing about a return to the state of things which existed before the passing of the Act of 1834? Were the Committee going to allow a distribution of outdoor relief which should not be, as the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) said, "whittled away." The hon. Member did not want outdoor relief to be whittled away.

I did not say anything about outdoor relief. I was speaking about the election of Guardians.

said, that in that case the hon. Member was not speaking relevantly to the Amendment. He (Mr. Gibson Bowles) was. He contended that if Parliament was going to have Guardians in future elected by the persons who did not pay rates, it was with its eyes open and of malice prepense inviting a recurrence of the evils which existed prior to 1834. If the right hon. Gentleman could suggest any method by which a probably excessive liberality of outdoor relief might, be checked let him do so; but, if not, let him accept this Amendment. Of course the Amendment was not perfect, but if the Committee was to rely upon the controlling action of the Local Government Board, with the right hon. Gentleman sitting on the safety-valve, they would rely upon a broken reed. [Laughter] He admitted that the metaphor was somewhat mixed, but it was no wonder that Members got, a little mixed up in their metaphors when the Bill itself was so mixed that the right hon. Gentleman himself doubted whether it dealt with the Poor Law. If the Committee relied upon the Local Government Board the effect would be not to check, but to increase expenditure. He was, therefore, strongly in favour of the Amendment.

thought the Amendment was a most important one, and that some proposal of the kind would have to be carried if the Poor Law was to be properly administered in country districts. He had had the honour of being for 10 years an elected Guardian in his own district. Afterwards when he was appointed a Magistrate ho rather ceased to take as much active interest in Poor Law work, and since he had been in the House of Commons he had been unable to attend the regular meetings. During the 10 years, however, in which he was an elected Guardian he regularly attended the meetings. In the first instance he was very kindly disposed towards the granting of outdoor relief, but he afterwards saw the error of his ways. At that time his Union was the one in Norfolk that gave the largest amount of outdoor relief, and the consequence was that it had the largest amount of pauperism. If under this Bill it should unfortunately happen that men who had been trained on Boards of Guardians failed to secure election to the new Boards, it would, in his opinion, be the most melancholy thing that could possibly happen. People in the country districts knew perfectly well that if these trained men—ho was speaking not of ex officio, but of elected members—were removed from the Boards, measures would be adopted with regard to Poor Law relief which everybody who was really interested in the welfare of the rural population would have occasion to deplore. He therefore hoped that some means would be adopted which would secure the presence on the Boards of men who were seasoned to the work of Poor Law administration.

said, that at the request of his hon. Friend the Member for the Ripon Division (Mr. Wharton) he wished to propose the insertion after "Guardians," in page 12, line 30, of the words—

"But the justices of such Petty Sessional Division shall have the power of nomination of one Guardian to serve on any Board of Guardians the boundaries of which wholly or partly include the area of such Petty Sessional Division."

Inasmuch as the Amendment stood in the name of his hon. Friend, who was chairman of the Durham County Council, and had an intimate knowledge of the administration of the Poor Law, he thought it deserved the careful consideration of the Committee. The Justices of the Peace in each of the Unions throughout the country had a knowledge of the inhabitants of those Unions which was extensive and peculiar. They were also to a great extent representatives of those who paid the rates. Further, at present at all events, they were supposed to be men of substance, and it was not probable that it would ever be the case in this country that those who administered justice in the country districts would be men without qualification. Under these circumstances he thought the Committee would do well if it placed in the hands of the Justices of each Petty Sessional Division some power of appointing additional Guardians. The last Amendment moved had been opposed on the ground that the persons appointed by the Local Government Board would be in a minority. There was no doubt that men appointed under the present Amendment would also ho in a, minority, but he would ask what would be the feeling on the opposite side of the House if it were proposed that the additional Guardians which were nominated should be in a majority. The plan proposed by the Government of allowing the Guardians to appoint a chairman and vice-chairman from outside would not really meet the difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) himself, in answer to an earlier Amendment, said that if there was any power in the majority of the Guardians to bring in persons from outside, they would use it for the purpose of turning a small majority into a large one. That objection applied to the proposal of the Government themselves. Ho thought that Justices of the Peace might be trusted to take an independent line, and to choose the right persons to act as Guardians.

This is a case of ringing the changes over again. The Government, whether rightly or wrongly, have declared that there are to be no ex officio Guardians, and they do not mean to depart from that principle. We have disestablished the Magistrates, and this is a proposal now that they should be allowed to nominate some one to represent them on the Boards of Guardians. But apart from the general objection to the Amendment, that it is simply ringing the changes on the various modes that have been suggested of appointing ex officio Guardians, I ask the House to consider how it would work. Taking the Unions of Berkshire, I find that in Reading, with 60,000 people, there would be one Guardian appointed under the provisions of the Amendment; in Abingdon, with 19,000 people, there would be four; in Wallingford, with 14,000 people, there would be six; and in Hungerford, with 17,000 people, there would be five. Again, in Norfolk County how would it work? In Yarmouth Union, with 48,000 inhabitants, there would be one nominated Guardian; in another Union, with 17,000 population, six; in a third, with 12,000, three; in a fourth, with 12,000, four; and in a fifth, with 10,000, two. These figures show the absolute injustice and impracticability of the scheme.

said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be in doubt as to whether he had been in Order in a good many of his previous observations, for he said that the Government had already declared that they could not accept any such Amendment as this, and he had laid down a general doctrine applicable to all the Amendments both present and future. But notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman he claimed for the Amendment that it ought to have full consideration on its merits, not only on account of the authority which the hon. Member for the Ripon Division, in whose name it stood upon the Paper, brought to bear on the subject as chairman of Quarter Sessions of many years' standing, as well as chairman of the County Council, but because it was believed that it would afford a very valuable method of strengthening the representative element on Boards of Guardians, without being open to the objection which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends felt towards the present ex officio system. The right hon. Gentleman in opposing the Amendment had quoted statistics to prove that in certain localities the plan would work unevenly, but that in itself was not a sufficient reason for resisting it. The existing system allowed all who were nominated by the Crown as Justices of the Peace to act in their own localities as Guardians. That had very often been taken exception to, because it from time to time happened that those who were thus entitled to act as ex officio Guardians might not even be ratepayers in the Union, and might, therefore, to a certain extent be said to be out of touch with the ratepayers. But this case was entirely different. What his hon. Friend proposed was that the Justices should be allowed from among their own number to select one person who in their judgment was capable to represent them on the Board, and no such proposal as that had hitherto been discussed in these Debates. Therefore, he for one felt it his duty respectfully to listen to the arguments adduced in support of the Amendment. As he said on the Second Reading, he was not enamoured of the ex officio system, but the present proposal, in his opinion, embodied all that was desirable in that system, while discarding all to which reasonable objection could be taken. It was not likely the Justices of the Peace would select anyone who was not clearly suitable for the duty cast upon him, and he certainly believed that Justices of the Peace—even the newly appointed ones—might be trusted to choose fairly capable persons to represent the Petty Sessional Division of the Board of Guardians. Ho hoped the non possumus which the right hon. Gentleman applied to every Amendment to that portion of the Bill would in this instance be modified, as ho believed the Amendment of his hon. Friend would constitute a valuable improvement in the Bill.

said, it was impossible for him to describe adequately the strong feeling which that clause excited among the leading men of the division which he had the honour to represent. The House had declared that there should be no nominated or appointed Guardians, and that decision his constituents regarded as a gigantic evil, and wished to mitigate it in every way possible. The Opposition had endeavoured to do so in several ways, and although every proposal they put forward met with the same stereotyped answer—a non possumus—they would, in fulfilment of their duty to their constituents, and in the protection of those interests they were called upon to safeguard, continue their endeavours. They had already tried to secure power of nomination for Municipal Authorities and for the Local Government Board under certain conditions.

Order, order!The hon. Member is not discussing the Amendment before the Committee.

continuing, said, their third plan—the one then before the Committee—was the best proposal of all. They kept their best wine to the last. The suggestion was one of unexceptionable excellence. They could not possibly have a body better qualified for the duty they sought to impose on it; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would favourably distinguish it from previous proposals. A better proposal could not, he was sure, possibly be made.

said, he thought the Amendment was not open to the criticisms which the President of the Local Government Board had directed against other Amendments, because under it the number of independent Guardians would be so limited that they could not have anything like preponderating influence or authority, while their strength on the various Boards would be practically equal. It seemed to him that the Amendment carried out the idea which Lord Althorpe expressed during the Debates on the Poor Law Act of 1834, that there should be one ex officio Guardian in the case of each Union. He therefore supported the proposal.

said, he was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman's objection to this Amendment, that it would produce inequality in different districts, because there was the greatest disparity in representation as amongst the Unions at the present time. He knew one case where a population of 38,000 returned three Guardians, as against another parish in the same Union which, with only 250 inhabitants, had the privilege of returning a Guardian. Whatever disparity might exist in the working of this Amendment it could be easily remedied, and he therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment and thus comply with a very urgent demand.

said, he did not oppose the Amendment the principle of which was accepted, but he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would cover the ground it was intended to cover, because he was advised that it would exclude some who were now qualified as Guardians. That was to say, there were now some acting as Guardians who were not qualified by residence or ownership in the area in which they were acting. These, he was advised, would be excluded.