THE PARISH COUNCIL DEBATE.
WE are glad to see that both parties in the State are inclined to let Parish Councils be established. We cannot ourselves believe that the great experiment in governing the wise by the foolish, which we call democracy, can end successfully, or, indeed, without some huge catas- trophe; but governing men have throughout all Europe agreed to try it, and it ought, therefore, to be tried honestly, and with a wish to make it succeed. The trans- ference of local administration to the numerical majority is part of the experiment, and we therefore welcome Parish Councils. They will not disestablish either squire or parson half so completely as Mr. G. Russell is supposed to think—he really said. nothing violent—and if they seem to do it for a moment, the needless alarm may be productive of some good. Both have been good men, often good influences in a very high degree, but they have acted too much from above, have failed in thorough comprehen- sion of the mass below, and must learn under democracy a new lesson of understanding. When they have learned it, we at least have no fear that the beneficial authority of either squire or priest will be found in the smallest degree impaired. They have survived, and they will survive, much more serious attacks than any which English Radicals are likely to devise. We agree therefore with the leaders of both parties, with Mr. Balfour as much as with Mr. Fowler, in accepting Parish Councils in principle, and with the former would not too narrowly examine the limits of their powers. These are sure to be extended if they work well, and equally sure to be limited if they work badly, by scientific and centralised supervision. It seems to us, as it seems to Mr. Balfour, that the single precaution to be taken is not against the use but against the abuse of these powers, and that abuse can only happen in one way, the financial. The majority paying no rates, or very small rates, may wish to vote themselves land or allowances out of the pockets of ratepayers. If they, for instance, can get allotments cheap, they will not care that the owner of the parish has first to sacrifice his best land to them—for they all want land close to their houses, that is, practically, " residential " land—and next, as sole ratepayer, to provide all the money for com- pensating himself.. That seems to us rather too great a temptation to place before ordinary men, and particularly men whose votes can turn out Governments ; and we should like, therefore, to see precautions taken to prevent that abuse. Considering the weight of the labourers' vote, we cannot think that the award of an agent of the Local Government Board ought to be final as to the land to be taken. Inspectors in the Civil Service are usually capable men, and are traditionally incapable of corruption ; but they like to please their superiors too, and we can imagine their feeling that to annoy a large body of voters would be exceedingly inconvenient. Some in- dependent authority seems to be wanted there, and should be introduced. The Government say that they limit the addition to rates, and that is a sufficient precaution ; but they know human nature better than that. Democracy has many virtues, but fear of ex- penditure at other people's cost is not one of them, and the parishes will spend, as the cities are spending, with very little thought for the future. Hodge's intelligence is often underrated, for he has on many points, especially the value of pennies, had a fine and successful education ; but even Mr. Fowler or Mr. Jesse Collings will hardly expect the village of Greenhorn to be wiser than the city of Edinburgh, which, if we mistake not, wanted to over- spend itself deplorably. We do not want—and certainly the Radicals, if we may trust them, do not want—to see the villages further depleted by the flight of the well-to- do, who already prefer the towns a great deal too much ; and if the Councils went wild or got fits of caste-hatred on them, that might happen very easily. Mr. Fmkr should strengthen his Bill in this direction, and should also give up that irritating provision for grouping. This seems a small matter; but it is not so &gen from the purely Radical point of view. They want to make of the village a living organism, able to do things for the benefit of its inhabitants ; and so far they are perfectly right. But to secure that end they must take the parish which is alive as their unit, and not an artificial slice of territory which is dead. What does it matter if Greenhorn is small ? Greenh am is alive, is so old that it does not know its origin, and " 'spects it growed ; " is perfectly content with its own smallness, and is ready to fight Flat- ham about boundaries or reputation till it cannot stand. Merge it in Flatham ! You might as well merge a man of five feet in a man of six feet, and expect him to like it. There are some two thousand parishes liable to be grouped, and every one of them will feel as if it were directly in- sulted and deprived of a " natural " right. The Govern- ment say the small parishes cannot find Councillors to serve ; but what on earth does that matter ? Let all the inhabitants be Councillors, as Mr. Stansfeld suggested, or the eldest ten of them ; or let them remain outside the Act till they decide to be friendly with their next-door neighbours, and come within it. England will not perish because her smallest parishes wait a little while, with their own consent, for the latest device of democratic opinion. To force on grouping is doctrinaire oppression, and nothing better.
If there is to be supervision over the expropriations of land, and groupings are abolished, it follows that the part of the Bill which levels the votes for the election of Guardians should be given up. We are not sure that we can sympathise with that proposal, even looking at it from the Radical point of view. Is it not a little outside the principles of pure democracy ? It would be rather rough for the Legislature to insist that in every great com- mercial company all votes should be equal, without reference to the shareholder's stake ; and the levelling provision in this Bill goes far beyond that. A shareholder must own a share, but a compounding householder does not own even that. He does not pay rates even indirectly, but only benefits by them. It is as if the company's contractors were invested with all the votes which control the Board, coal-owners, for example, controlling all a gas company's purchases of coal. Would Parliament trust the coal- owners to be always moderate ? Even allowing, how- ever, that democracy requires this sacrifice of common prudence to sentiment, is the Government so sure that the villagers will like it ? We are not. It will not only tempt but almost compel all landlords to demand full rents, and so, by making their cottagers ratepayers, induce them to remember that large expenditure implies high rates. That will not be a pleasant result for the older and better villages, where the majority occupy houses at about half their natural rental, and we should not be sur- prised if the villagers traced the change back to Mr. Fowler, and entertained bad opinions as to that excellent gentleman's sense. At all events, the change is a very big one, and ought to be gravely considered, and not em- bodied in a Bill for a totally different purpose. The Poor-law saved England, but it needs revision, and ought to have it ; but it should be revised altogether, and not in little snippets. The plural voting may not be a good device for mitigating the dangers inherent in compulsory charity, and is certainly a most illogical one--for, logically, the owner of a whole parish ought to have all the votes— but certainly the people ought to have time to think-out an acceptable substitute, and not to be asked at the fag-end of a weary Session to revolutionise a most important factor in their social administration without consideration or general debate. The Government may be well contented if they get their Councils, all elected as they desire, and if they will make the three concessions we have indicated, they will get them without trouble,—no unimportant con- sideration when they themselves are as tired as gymnasts after a double performance. Nobody wants to kill them with bother if they will only be reasonable, as, in regard to the clerical side of the question, we heartily recognise they have been.
For the rest, the Councils will probably work much less mischief than people expect. All such bodies are soon governed by leaders, and. the leaders have generally some sort of competence, and they will very soon find that com- promise is of the essence of statesmanship, and that the things to get first are the things they can get without driving squire and parson into open revolt. They will not like litigation, because it involves delay ; they will not like enormous rates for fear of the well-to-do flying ; and after a good deal of friction they will win, and probably keep, a parallel place with the squire and. the parson in the village economy. They will be an addition to the little council of "village tyrants," not a solvent force, and probably will modify its tone much more than its action. There is nothing like experience for teaching men what they cannot do, and they will very soon find that while farming does not pay, no kind of Council will make a farm- labourer as comfortable as, considering the high utility of his work and his own character, we all entirely desire that he should become.
Previous page
