duction of party feeling into these matters. It would be an unfortunate thing to lose Mr Bousfield among the other co-optated members, but they could not be biassed on personal grounds. It was a slight on' the Conference to suggest that they could not manage their own affairs without the intervention of outsiders. (Hear, hear.)

Mr CHANCE said that Dr Cox had referred to the number of members present at the Committee meeting. The minutes showed that there were nine members present; two were co-optated, seven elected members.*

Rev. Dr Cox said he differed absolutely, and he drew attention at the Committee to the facts which he had just stated.

Mr WILLINK (Chairman, Bradfield) said he was in favour of the rule as it stood. Their whole and sole business was to get the best Committee they could to carry on the work. The co-optated members included only one who was not at present a Guardian or Clerk. He asked the Conference confidently whether there could be a better selection of persons to act as their Committee. (Hear, hear.) The only member who was not a Guardian was Mr Bousfield, whose other duties did not allow him time to act as a Guardian. (Hear, hear.)

Mr CROTCH said he took a note of the names of the co-optated members who voted on the occasion he had mentioned - Mr Bousfield, Mr Vulliamy, Mr Pell, and Mr Bury.

Mr PELL (Brixworth) indignantly protested against being called a co-optated member. He was an elected member, and hoped he always would be. (Hear, hear.)

A show of hands was then taken on the amendment, but there was evidently a misunderstanding on the part of many of those present as to what they were voting for. A second show of hands resulted as follows:

In reply to a member, the PRESIDENT said he could not possibly guarantee that only elected delegates had voted. They must trust to the honour of those concerned.

There was then a demand for a division, but the majority of those present protested against it, and the PRESIDENT said it was unnecessary to divide, whereupon an East End Member (in the gallery) shouted, "That's the way they cloak their disgrace." (Laughter.)

Mr J. R. SMITH (Poplar) said he objected to the principle of co-optation. (Cries of "Sit down.") If they were to have it, let the Conference co-optate the members.

The PRESIDENT said the elected members of the Committee were chosen by the District Conferences, and to elect all the members would be to make them no longer co-optative. (Hear, hear.)

In regard to Part III., "Objects of the Committee "-

Rev. J. F. BRADLEY (Kettering) moved that Clause 6 of the original statement stand. It would be said that the Conference was not a practical body, and to do away with the clause in question would give colour to the contention. If the Conference did not come to a decision on the matters deliberated, their time was wasted. They could, if they liked, pass their recommendations on to the Poor Law Unions Association.

Mr BOUSFIELD said that, in all probability, they would pass them on in that way, but it was not desirable to bind the Committee.

Mr BRADLEY said he would not press the point; but he hoped that the Conference would come to a clear understanding as to what the respective duties of the Conference and of the new Association were. (Hear, hear.)

Part IV., section 5, "No resolution, except for the conduct of business, shall be allowed," was next considered.

Mr SANDFORD (Alverstoke) said he took it that there was a fear that there would be divisions of opinion. He hoped that they would always agree to differ. It was also feared that if resolutions were allowed, amendments would follow. That was not so. Every resolution might be voted for "Aye" or "Nay." Were they going to deliberate and not express their opinions afterwards? They were also told that it was feared that they might come there with ready-made opinions. He thought that discussion, with a view to a resolution, was very useful, and often changed the opinions of some of those present at a meeting. He moved that resolutions be allowed. (Hear, hear.)

Rev. H. W. TAYLOR (St Albans) seconded, saying it would be regrettable if they spent time in debate and did not give formal expression to the clear majority of opinion in the Conference. Parliament would be soon probably initiating legislation on Poor Law matters, and it was important that they should be able to make representations by means of resolutions, to which Parliament would doubtless pay great attention. (Hear, hear.)

Mr LEACH (Clerk, Rochdale) said the papers which were read were, as a rule, only put in their hands at the Conference, and it might be an easy matter to snatch a vote which the Guardians, on quietly reading the papers, would dissent from. He was therefore against the amend ment. There was nothing detrimental in discussing the papers without resolutions. It would be quite within the powers of the Guardians of the country, after considering the papers and reports their representatives, to make any propositions they liked to the Local Government Board. (Hear, hear.)

of

Rev. Dr Cox said the speeches seemed to be tending towards the matter on which he had given notice that he would move a resolution. What was before the Conference?

The PRESIDENT said the question was should there be resolutions, or should the rule stand with certain modifications? If the Con

ference wished to do away with Clause 5, there was considering amendments of it.

no use in

Rev. Dr Cox said that with all due respect to Mr Bousfield's regular attendance at the Conferences, he differed entirely from him, as to what had been the practice in the Conferences with regard to resolutions. He (Dr Cox) had carefully studied and analysed the various resolutions which had been passed at former Central Conferences. Resolutions were allowed at the earlier Conferences, and there were also amendments. Mr Pell and Mr Bousfield were constantly moving resolutions, and these were closely debated, so that at Conferences attended by as many as four hundred persons there were majorities of only two, three, and five members. He would be

a thoroughgoing Conservative in asking the Conference to adhere to the principle of resolutions. A very large number of the papers read at the Central Conferences had led to definite resolutions, which were sent to the Local Government Board and to the Government. He did not like to think that certain people, finding public opinion was changing, were afraid of an expression of current opinion on Poor Law matters. He had the greatest respect for the conscript fathers of the Conference, such as Mr Pell and Mr Bousfield— (cheers) but he would remind them that in the past they themselves almost insisted on the Conferences voting on various abstract resolutions, which were then sent to the Local Government Board. (Hear, hear.) The Conference was not a mere debating society. They were there by Act of Parliament. That very Conference must cost the ratepayers roughly £2,000, and were they simply to listen. to the papers? "Party spirit," indeed. Of course they would be pulled up if they attempted to talk party politics, or "war, or no war,' but they were there to talk about Poor Law matters, and they had a right to record their opinions thereon. He was perfectly certain that if they excluded resolutions definitely and altogether, they would be doing that which would destroy the Conferences in the most effective fashion. (Cheers.)

Mr CESAR (Eastbourne) said it would be wasting the time of the Conference not to have resolutions.

Mr PELL rose to speak, but there was great opposition to any prolongation of the debate.

The PRESIDENT having restored order, said the arguments had been rather on one side.

AN ETON GUARDIAN-Yes, my Lord Duke, on the Committee's side, and now there's another. (Order.)

Mr PELL, who spoke amid considerable uproar, said that to authorise general resolutions would put a premium on persons possessing "the gift of the gab." (Oh, oh, and laughter.) He hoped that the Conference would stick to the present rule, and allow the Conferences to go on as they had done in the past. There was another thing, they must remember the onerous duties that would be cast on the Hon. Secretary if resolutions were permitted, and he did

not see how Mr Chance would be able to cope with the increased work.

In response to vigorous demands,

The PRESIDENT put the amendment that Clause 5 be struck out.
On a show of hands, the voting was :-

In favour of the amendment

Against

The sitting was then suspended for lunch.

On the resumption of business,

124

81

Dr Cox moved the following resolution defining the character of the motions which should in future be made at the Conference:"That no resolution be allowed save those which either relate to the business of the Conference or have direct reference to the papers on which discussion is invited."

Mr LAWSON Seconded the proposition, which was carried.

The PRESIDENT said the question was whether the Conferences were a deliberative or an executive body. The functions were to a certain extent antagonistic, and no body, from the House of Commons itself downwards, could combine the two functions without suffering in some degree. The Conference had decided to pass resolutions, and had thereby, in his opinion, diminished their deliberative utility. If they had resolutions, they would require more stringent rules of debate than they now possessed, and therefore he suggested to Dr Cox, who, he understood, wished to make a proposition on the subject, that they should empower the Committee to draw up fresh rules to meet the altered circumstances. (Hear, hear.)

Mrs FULLER (Chippenham) read the following paper-

THE AGED POOR IN RURAL WORK

HOUSES.

BY MRS FULLER,

Guardian, Chippenham Union.

DELEGATES from Rural Unions who have attended these Poor Law Conferences in recent years must have been struck with the tendency of the speakers in the various discussions to enlarge upon the difficulties and the successes of Urban, and to ignore those of the small Rural Unions, and I fear the general feeling amongst country Guardians is that the Central Poor Law Conferences are of little help to them, and they

return to their small Rural Workhouses with a depressing sense of the impossibility of carrying out the different admirable reforms they have heard so ably advocated in this hall. Our subject to day, however, will, I hope, bring to notice the many differences that exist between the larger and the smaller Workhouses, and the difficulties that have to be surmounted by those who wish to introduce reforms for the benefit of the aged poor in small Rural Unions.

In large urban areas it is perhaps scarcely noticeable (owing to the rapidly increasing population) that pauperism has greatly decreased of late years; the large Workhouses are still full, new buildings have frequently to be erected, the rateable value of the Union is high, money is easily forthcoming, a halfpenny added to the rates is scarcely noticed, at all events no outcry is raised, and reforms can be carried out. But in small Rural Unions the case is very different; the population varies little from decade to decade; the reduced price of all necessaries of life, the facilities for thrift offered by Friendly Societies, Insurance Offices, and Savings Banks, the possibility of easy removal from one place to another (generally from country to town) in pursuit of better employment-all these causes conduce to a diminution of poverty, and consequently to a diminution of the numbers of inmates in Rural Workhouses. Houses built some fifty to sixty years ago for the reception of two hundred or three hundred inmates now contain only half that number, or even less; but this very superfluity of accommodation brings other difficulties; the furniture and appliances are oldfashioned and worn out, and yet the low rateable value of the Union makes it very difficult to raise a sufficient sum for carrying out the improvements so badly needed, and, because of the empty or half empty wards, there is no pressure, either of public opinion or from the Local Government Board, for extra expenditure. Under such circumstances there is little wonder