§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON moved that the words contained in the 4th line—"Poor Law, 8 & 9 Vict. o. 83"—be omitted. When Parliament was asked to make a great change they ought to have some reason afforded to them for making it. The Board of Supervision had been in existence for 38 years in Scotland, and every year it had gone on increasing in popularity and giving satisfaction. The Board now performed its duties to the entire satisfaction of the 908 country, and never a word was beard against it. But it was now proposed that this Board of Supervision should be itself supervised by the new Minister who was about to be appointed, and that was an interference with an efficient Board which was wholly unnecessary. He thought they had better leave the excellent arrangements as to Poor Law in Scotland to remain as they were at present in their entirety.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 4, to leave out the words "Poor Law, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 83."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he could not accept the Amendment. He did not cast any reflection on the Board of Supervision, or in the least degree differ from the high estimate which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had formed of that body; but as a new functionary was to be substituted for the Secretary of State for the performance of certain duties, it was necessary that those duties should be transferred to him. At present, the Board of Supervision reported regularly to the Home Secretary. In future, they would report to the President of the Scottish Local Government Board; and the sanction to the rules and regulations of the Board of Supervision would, of course, be given in future by the new President. He hoped this Amendment would not lead to any long discussion.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, be was quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR JOHN HAY moved that the words contained in the 12th line—"Marriage Notices, 41 & 42 Vict. c. 43"—be omitted from the Schedule. He himself had taken no part in the discussion as to who was to be the person who was to hold the new Office; but the noble Earl whose name had often been referred to (the Earl of Rosebery) was not likely, he understood, to be appointed as the first holder of the Office; and he understood that another noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie), who was an ornament to the Profession to which he (Sir John Hay) belonged, and who, he regretted, 909 was no longer a Member of that Profession, was likely to be the first holder. Now, though he had the greatest possible respect for that noble Earl, who, as a naval officer, had his esteem, he confessed that the noble Earl's peculiar views in reference to marriage were such that he (Sir John Hay) thought it impossible that the Marriage Laws of Scotland should be subject to his supervision, or they might all find themselves compelled to marry their deceased wives' sisters, whether their wives were deceased or not. If they were to back the bluejacket rather than the primrose-jacket for this particular Office, he thought it would be a serious matter, so far as the Marriage Laws were concerned.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 12, to leave out the words "Marriage Notices, 41 & 42 Vict. c. 43."—(Sir John Hay.)
§ Amendment negatived.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) moved to leave out "cclxxi," in line 23, in order to insert "cclxxiii."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
SIR ALEXANDER GORDON moved to leave out the words contained in lines 27 and 28—"Food and Drugs, 38 & 39 Vict. c. 63; 42 & 43 Vict. c. 30." It was most important that what was done about adulteration should be done upon a uniform system; and the matter had no special relation to Scotland at all. The adulteration of food and drugs was a very important matter in Scotland as well as in England; and he found that one of these Acts—42 & 43 Vict.—began—
Whereas conflicting decisions have been given in England and Scotland with regard to the administration of the Food and Drugs Act.
That showed how important it was, in the opinion of Parliament, that a uniform system should be adopted; and he thought it should be left, as now, within the control of the Secretary of State.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 27, to leave out the words "Food and Drugs, 38 & 39 Vict. c. 63, and 42 & 43 Vict. c. 30."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
910§ SIR JOHN HAYagreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that these were lines which ought to be omitted. This was one of the matters which ought to remain in the Home Office.
§ MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he thought the argument used by the Mover of the Amendment was not quite to the point. The Act recited began with the words—
Whereas conflicting judgments have been given in England and in Scotland;but that meant not conflicts between the two countries, but in each.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he wished to give one word of explanation as to the nature of the function which was to be transferred, and which he thought was peculiarly fitted to be so transferred. One of the powers of the Secretary of State was to require local authorities to appoint an analyst. That was eminently a duty to be discharged by the new Official. Another matter dealt with was the appointment and removal of Inspectors subject to the Secretary of State. That was another matter which clearly appertained to local government.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, this was hardly a Bill for the appointment of Scottish Inspectors; but what would come of it evidently was that a number of local men should be going about influencing elections. It was plain what was the real object of the Government in the matter, and he hoped the Committee would divide on the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 16: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 296.)
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 29, after "74," insert "Section 72."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Question proposed, "That 'Section 72' be there inserted."
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked whether Section 8 was not a very important one, which ought also to be included? It was the only one which gave the Secretary of State any duties.
§ MR. WARTONonly wished to ask the learned Lord Advocate one question. Did he intend to go upon the principle of in- 911 serting different sections from these different Acts?—because he (Mr. Warton) was inclined to prefer the insertion of whole Acts rather than parts of them. It would certainly be safer. He would have liked to have moved himself, with regard to the Burial Grounds Act, that Sections 5 and 71 should have been omitted; and, indeed, if the learned Lord Advocate intended to persevere with this plan of proceeding by sections, he (Mr. Warton) should certainly move, on Report, that in the case of the Act 18 & 19 Vict. c. 68, only Sections 25 and 26 should be inserted, as they were the only ones which it was important to have in.
§ MR. WARTONI beg your pardon, Sir; there is.
§ MR. WARTONI beg your pardon, Sir. I challenged you. I rise to Order.
§ MR. WARTONI rise to Order, Sir. I say it with respect; but I distinctly challenged you before you put it.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Member may have challenged; but I decided the Question that the Ayes have it, not having heard him.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI heard the hon. and learned Member's challenge before you decided, Sir Arthur Otway.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI rise to Order. I heard him challenge before you decided, Sir.
THE CHAIRMANI have said that I accept his statement without any statement in confirmation, but that I decided before I heard his challenge; and the hon. Member for Portsmouth is not in a position to know whether I decided before I heard it. I alone know that.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, after line 29, in second column, insert "31 & 32 Vict. c. 130."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, it was very difficult to understand what was going on at the Table; indeed, it would be 912 right to ask that the Act which was being cut up and inserted in the Bill should be read out at the Table. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and other learned Members, might understand what was going on; but he (Sir John Hay) confessed that he did not. Here they were taking sections out of 38 different Acts of Parliament, and what was to become of the Bill afterwards he confessed he could not understand. Here they were, at 5 o'clock in the morning, taking bits out of Acts of Parliament, and putting them in anyhow; and then they were to pass the Bill, and send it to "another place," where, no doubt, it would be treated as it deserved. This was simply scrambling a Bill up to the last moment, and making it up of bits of Acts of all sorts. Nobody knew what all these Acts were; and he would undertake to say that there was not a Member present, learned or unlearned, who would know what it was that was being put into the Bill unless it should be read at the Table.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he thought he could explain the matter in a single sentence. There were five Artizans' Dwellings Acts. Only two had been included in the Bill, and it was thought it was desirable, to make it complete, that another should be put in.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, the Home Secretary would, no doubt, remember how angry he was when he (Mr. Warton) talked the Bill out at a Morning Sitting on a previous occasion. He was endeavouring at the time to impress upon the House, and if possible upon the Liberal Party, that the Schedule was exceedingly badly drawn. His statements were received at the time with shouts of derision; but his view was now confirmed by the Lord Advocate.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he thought they ought to have the Bill read at the Table.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not think the hon. Member could seriously desire to treat any Bill in that way. Indeed, it would be impossible. Every Bill recited Acts of Parliament, and if it was to be said that the House were not to pass a Bill until every Act mentioned in it had been read at the Table, why that would not be discussing it ail. If there were any difficulty about this particular point, he could under- 913 stand further explanations being asked for; but the Lord Advocate had already explained the matter amply enough. The Amendment amply incorporated the powers of the Artizans Dwellings Act, which it transferred. One of the Acts was accidentally omitted, and now it was proposed to supply it.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, the explanation, simple as it was, seemed a very odd one. He supposed that somebody who was acquainted with Acts of Parliament drafted the Bill, and selected the two which were to be put into the Schedule. It was now thought fit to put in others which were not in in the first place. If the person who drafted the Bill intended to put in this Bill for Scotland all the Artizans Dwellings Acts, surely the book from which he took the one reference might have given him the other. It was such a singular way of doing business that an explanation ought to be forthcoming.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he could not help making another appeal to the Government. Was it really dignified to press on the Bill at such an hour? The Home Secretary said it was a common practice to refer to Acts in such a manner in a Bill; but was it a usual thing for the Government to put down Amendments of this kind, and ask the, Committee to discuss them at such an hour? Imagine the Home Secretary sitting on the Front Opposition Bench; would he allow a Bill to be carried in such a manner? It would not be tolerated. He (Mr. Talbot) had never obstructed this Bill; he was not in the habit of obstructing Bills; but it was rather hard for Members who only took part in Business with which they were acquainted to be kept sitting all night. It would be an additional ground for the House of Lords to throw out the Bill that it was forced through Committee I against numerous protests, at a time of the Session and at an hour in the morning I when it could not be adequately discussed. If a Motion to report Progress were moved be should certainly support it.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the matter was entirely in the bands of the Committee. Hon. Members had said something about what the House of Lords was going to do. He had nothing to do with that. The House of Lords would take care of itself, and the House of Commons must take care of 914 itself. The business of the Government was to obtain the judgment of the House of Commons on the Bill, and that was what they intended to do; and in what manner that should be done must depend upon the House, and he hoped the minority would consent to accept the decision of the majority. As he had said before, the Government could not consent to postpone the Bill; he had said that over and over again. The question was whether, having got to the Schedule, would the Committee conclude, or would they add another day to the Session, when the House of Lords would want another day added to that? This was the alternative. What hon. Members opposite wished was that the Government should drop the Bill; but this the Government did not intend to do. Would the Committee like to go on and finish the Schedule, or would they like to carry over the Session into another week?
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he merely wished to remark, in reference to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observation that "another place" would take care of itself and the House of Commons would take care of itself, that the House of Commons was not taking care of the legislation of the country in hurrying through a Bill obviously so imperfect that at the last moment the Lord Advocate put down nearly a whole page of Amendments to be inserted. The insertion of these might be an improvement of the Bill; the Bill required improvement; but certainly, as the Home Secretary said, the House of Commons could take care of itself; but he was sorry to say they were not taking care of the legislation of the country.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLremarked, that they had discussed this Bill as exhaustively as any Bill that was ever discussed in the House of Commons.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, after line 31, in second column, insert "42 and 43 Vict. c. 64."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 32, leave out "7," and insert "6."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ MR. WARTONsaid, it was quite possible for a careless draftsman of a 915 Bill to forget three out of five Acts; but when it came to the insertion of a wrong chapter it showed the danger of proceeding with this frightful haste. As an alternative, he would rather add another day to the Session, and have the work done well.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, after line 32, in second column, insert "45 and 46 Vict. c. 54."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he wished to omit the reference to the Alkali Act. This was another question that had nothing particularly to do with Scotland; and it was very important that the inspection, and all the regulations, should be on an uniform system, not depending on the various opinions of those who administered the Act. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson) had put down a Notice, and intended to show how it would affect the English manufacturer. He had withdrawn that Notice; but he had told him (Sir Alexander Gordon) that he attached great importance to the Alkali Act being struck out, so that manufacturers should be under an uniform system. It would be found, on looking at the Alkali Act, that the Secretary of State had only an initial duty; and he believed he had never exercised it once during the whole time the Act had been in force.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 33, to leave out "Alkali, 44 and 45 Vict. c. 37."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson) had withdrawn his Notice; and other hon. Members, he believed, were contented, so he did not think it could be said there was any real opposition to this proposal. There was no reason why the Alkali Act should not be brought under the cognizance of the Local Government Board in Scotland, just as it was under the Local Government Board in England.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, so far from the hon. Member for South Shields having withdrawn his opposition he had telegraphed from Scotland, begging him to urge the omission of the Act.
§ Amendment negatived.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, lines 36, 37, and 38, to leave out the words "Industrial Schools, 29 & 30 Vict, c. 118; 35 & 36 Vict. c. 62; Reformatories, 29 & 30 Vict. c. 117."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid, he hoped the Lord Advocate would say a word as to the import of this Amendment. He could not quite see why the omission was proposed.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the truth was that the reformatories and industrial schools, though called schools, were really prisons, and children were committed there as to prison. There were no means of getting children out of industrial schools; that could only be done by the Secretary of State, as in the case of an adult prisoner. It was in consequence of that, and for the protection of industrial schools, that the Lord Advocate had thought it was not possible to make this transfer to the new Officer.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, then he found that prisons were transferred to the new Officer.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there was not the same objection. The management of prisons did not deal with the release of prisoners.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought, in accepting this Amendment, it would be acknowledged that the point which the hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple) and himself urged strongly on the second reading was just.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, having now got to the bottom of the first page of the Schedule, he would like to call attention to the phraseology—
And any Acts amending the said Acts, and conferring powers on the said Secretary of State.That rather pointed to the idea of the first Act granting the power; but the Lord Advocate would see there was a 917 prospect of an Act amending an Act which took away power from the Secretary of State. Would it not be better to add—Or any Act amending an Act which takes away power from the Secretary of State;for if it was necessary that the amended Act should confer power the Bill might destroy power already given. There might be an amending Act which, for the first time, granted the power.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the Lord Advocate had adopted his Amendment to a great extent; but he must just object that it struck out the whole of the rest of the Public Health Act of Scotland. Now, if there was any Act that should be included under the supervision of the new Officer it ought to be this.
§ SIR. ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, his Amendment was not necessarily that.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he could give an explanation. It would be observed that this Part related to the powers and duties of the Privy Council alone, and the powers of the Privy Council, in respect to the matter, would be brought in in Part III.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, if the Act were struck out of the Schedule it would not be in the Bill at all; and, therefore, the new Minister would not be able to exercise any of the powers. As the Act now stood, the Public Health Act of Scotland would not be under the supervision of the new Officer, and he did not think that was the intention of the Government.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 3, after "101," to insert "Part III."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, after line 4 he would move the same words as in line 26 of page 3, in reference to burial grounds. He had mentioned the point before; and if the 5th section was referred to it would be seen that a duty was imposed both on the Secretary of State and on the Privy Council. The Lord Advocate would see the force of this. According to his construction of the section there 918 was a duty imposed on both. He would only read a very short part of the section—
It shall he lawful for Her Majesty from time to time, by Order in Council, on the representation of the Secretary of State;and then it went on to state what should be done. Now, these two duties were provided for on page 3, and the principal duty was imposed on the Privy Council to order something to be done, that something being the closing of burial grounds. Not only did the Amendment adopt the words, but it came very naturally under the question of public health.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, after line 4, insert "burial grounds, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 68."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he explained yesterday that the Secretary of State had the power to set in motion, or make representations to the Privy Council, and it was proposed to transfer that power to the new Officer; but he would like to consider this point, and he would do so on Report.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, there was a precedent in the Bill for the introduction of an Act in two places if the learned Lord Advocate would look at the Alkali Act.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, it appeared to him that if there was any Act the new Minister ought to have under his control it was that which had reference to common lodging-houses, and other matters relating to local government. Did not the Lord Advocate wish to include this?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, yes; he wished to consider whether it should be put in the first Schedule as well as the second.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, after line 43, insert—"Wild Birds Protection, 43 and 44 Vict. c. 35, 44 and 45 Vict. c. 51; Anatomy, 2 and 3 Will. IV., c. 75, 34 and 35 Vict. c. 16."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. WARTONwished to call the attention of the Lord Advocate to the 919 effect of the insertion of the words in this place. The effect would be that no power of any Act amending these Acts would have effect. But he presumed the Lord Advocate wished to include such? The Amendment ought to come in earlier, unless for some mysterious reason these amending Acts were to be
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Schedule, as amended, added to the Bill.
§ Preamble agreed to.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTexpressed a hope that the Bill would be re-printed with the Amendments, if only as a matter of decency and regularity in their proceedings.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, there had been no considerable alterations made in it—only one or two of an unimportant character.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that after they had discussed five pages of Amendments and six clauses there must have been some changes made in the Bill. He thought it ought to be re-printed, or they could not consider it properly on Report. [The LORD ADVOCATE dissented.] He observed his learned Friend the Lord Advocate shake his head; and as the learned Lord still possessed the dignity of Lord Advocate, he (Sir John Hay) would respect that shake, with all that it contained. But he did not think it possible that the Bill could be considered to-morrow on Report without being re-printed. They could not discuss it properly unless they knew what it contained.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, there had been two changes in the Bill, nine in the Schedule, and one in the Preamble, making 12 in all.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was unusual to re-print a Bill of this kind at so late a period of the Session.