THE RADICAL PLAN FOR PARISH COUNCILS.
ITO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—Your article and Mr. Fowle's subsequent letter upon my Parish Councils Bill induce me to ask you to publish a few observations upon some only of the points to which they refer. I take it as a compliment that you call the Bill a moderate one ; and a propos of your reference to my friend, Mr. Arthur Acland, as having possibly moderated my more extreme views, it is curious that (owing to an error in a postal address) he was the only Member who backed the Bill who did not see it before I introduced and printed it. Such as it is, good or bad, I am almost solely responsible for it, and must take the blame for the " fine recklessness " and the credit for the " rough reasonableness " which you say it exhibits. The drawing of such a Bill is not an easy task. Local government areas and authorities in England are so numerous and mixed up, that after months of work, and having practical knowledge of village life and opinions, with the advantage which a business and legal training may give, I admit that it is almost impossible to frame a thoroughly satisfactory or even wholly consistent measure. Mistakes and anomalies must exist, and I am thankful to those who will point them out. I start with the principle which I have always held, and which was so ably advocated by Mr. G-oschen upon the introduction of his former Rating Bill,
that the parish must be the unit of local government. I foresee, and I pointed out in Parliament, that grave difficulties will arise in the future in consequence of the Act of 1888 starting at the wrong end with the country. In my opinion, we want a small area, such as a parish for allotments, the Poor- law, licensing, and other matters, a larger area such as a district for education, and a still larger area, such as a county fir the police and the administration of justice. The great difficulty is the small parish. I value as much as Mr. Fowle the principle of keeping villages separate, but would it be reasonable to apply all the necessary machinery (which I believe that the Bill reduces to a minimum) to a parish with less than 200 population, which means, roughly, 50 ratepayers ? Is Mr. Fowle aware that there are 1,423 parishes with popula- tions not exceeding 75, and 331 not exceeding 25? So far from his view that it is " ignorant pedantry " to amalgamate very small parishes being universally accepted, I have been urged by the majority of those who have favoured me with their opinion, and who are, like myself, anxious for village autonomy, that the limit of 200 is too small.
With regard to financial arrangements (which it is impos- sible to discuss in a letter), I would point out that these, under Clause 36 of the Bill, and Part IV. of the Act of 1888, are to be carried out by the County Council; and upon the subject of rating, you fell, in my opinion, into the very usual error of inferring that the only ratepayers are those who actually hand over the money for the rates to the collector. Every house- holder is legally and actually, not merely nominally, a rate- payer. If you knew villages and village life as well as I do, you would agree with me that practically there is hardly any chance of the Parish Council promulgating allotment schemes or permitting wholesale jobbery to the actual detriment of the landowner. I hope the Council would be firm in enforcing the rights of the labouring population as to obtaining land ; but so far from this power being used oppressively, I am only afraid that the landowners would continue to have too great a voice ; and Mr. Fowle will, I think, agree with me that this danger would be greater in very small villages. The landlord class at present has plenty of protectors in the country and too many in Parliament.
I am glad to see that you approve of the Parish Mayor, but you object to that Mayor being ex-officio a County Magistrate,
bacause there is no analogy " between towns and villages of three or four hundred inhabitants." The Bill, however, applies in this respect only to parishes of five hundred and upwards (Clause 21); but you go on to say that this plan would work well " in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, but in the hundredth case there would be a gross scandal." In other words, you admit that ninety-nine out of a hundred Parish Mayors would be suitable to be County Magistrates. Can you say that of those who sit on the present County Benches? Of those Benches the proceedings of which I have noticed, I know very few where a majority, and more generally all, of the sitting Magistrates have not caused a gross scandal by some arbitrary display of injustice. The Parish Mayors would (until we get Stipendiary Magistrates everywhere) at all events relieve the County Benches of the reproach of being composed (as they with few exceptions are) of one class.
I wish you had had space to say more of the allotment clauses. I consider them and the reform of the Parish Vestry the portions of the Bill which are most urgently needed. I thank you for your fairly meant criticism.—I am, Sir, &c.,
House of Commons, April 2nd. HENRY P. COBB.
Previous page
