c. 73) was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that reformed local government in England and Wales outside the County of London.

Although the act made no provision to abolish the hundreds, which had previously been the only widely used administrative unit between the parish and the county in size,[4] the reorganisation displaced their remaining functions.

The passing of the act had been part of the price for Liberal Unionist support for Lord Salisbury's minority Conservative administration.

An innovation in the act was the fact that all electors had a single vote, and thus county councillors were popularly elected.

The original Local Government Bill of 1888 had included provisions for creating district as well as county councils.

However the President of the Local Government Board, Charles Ritchie, had some difficulty in having the legislation passed by Parliament, and dropped the district council clauses for fear that the entire bill might be lost due to opposition from the government's own backbenchers.

John Morley, MP for Newcastle, told a meeting in Reading: The Tories cannot conceal from themselves the fact that all over the land – in the towns, in the villages, in the country districts, in the urban districts - there is a resolute determination that Parliament shall put its hand in earnest to the great work of social regeneration ... parish councils may sound dull and mechanical, we know that they will go to the very root of national life, and that when we have achieved these reforms a freer voice will be given to the community than it has ever had before.

New depths of life will have been stirred in the most neglected portions of our community, and we shall find among the labourers of the fields, as we have found among the artisans of the towns, a resolution that the condition of our people shall, so far as laws can better it, be bettered ...[6]The Earl of Kimberley explained to a meeting in Walworth that the party wanted to create: ... a complete hierarchy of councils popularly elected and with full powers belonging to such bodies.

[9] Following the election the Liberals under William Ewart Gladstone formed an administration with the support of the Irish Parliamentary Party.

Among its provisions were that: The third part of the bill detailed the duties of the county council in dealing with divided areas and small parishes.

[11] Speaking in the Commons on 21 March 1893, Fowler set out the complicated system of local government that was in need of reform.

This limit had been chosen as the Local Government Board already possessed powers to group parishes below this population for the election of guardians.

[12] Turning to the government of towns he explained: We shall convert the Improvement Commissioners and Local Boards into Urban District Councils; we shall abolish all plural voting; we shall propose to abolish all qualifications, for we think the only qualification a man ought to possess is the confidence of his constituents; and we propose to make women capable of serving on these District Councils.

They are to have 12 months in which to discharge their duty; and if at the end of that period they have not made this readjustment, it will devolve upon the Local Government Board to interfere and carry the matter out.

Walter Long, the opposition spokesman on local government attacked the bill on a number of grounds.

He believed the reform of boards of guardians was unwarranted as "the system under which the Poor Law is administered is as admirable as it is possible for the ingenuity and humanity of man to devise", and he called on the government to drop the proposals.

Sir Charles Dilke, from the government's own benches, was unhappy that county councils would have the power to divide or group parishes.

Arguments over the population at which parish councils should be established continued to be made, with amendments proposing limits of 100, 200, 500, 600 and 1,000.

[16] The Lords made two amendments to the bill, the first raised the population for forming a parish council back to the original figure of 300, the second amendment provided that parochial charities would only transfer to the administration of a parish council with the approval of the Charity Commissioners.

UDCs could, by a resolution passed with a two-thirds majority, change to a system of elections of the whole council every three years.

[20] The council elected a chairman at their annual meeting, who was, during their term of office, a justice of the peace for the county.

Where new rural districts were created due to boundary changes the county council were to provide names.

Accordingly, the rural districts of Shipston on Stour, Stow on the Wold, Tewkesbury and Winchcombe included parishes in two or three counties.

In this case the area was too small to become a separate rural district, which was required by the act to have at least five councillors.

[22] These arrangements were usually ended within a few years of the act's coming into force, with the areas being transferred by alteration in either county or rural district boundaries.

Exceptionally, the parish of Pennal, Merionethshire, was administered by Machynlleth Rural District in Montgomeryshire until 1955.

Many county councils took the opportunity to "tidy up" their boundaries with neighbouring authorities, and it was not uncommon for blocks of parishes to be exchanged.

In the event, the electoral register was not complete until late November, and elections did not take place until December.

[35] The Local Government Board issued circulars declaring the appointed day for the coming into office of the newly elected authorities:[37] The act did not apply to the County of London for most provisions.