§ Bill considered in Committee.—(Sir John Ogilvy.)
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 (Short Title).
§ MR. DALGLISHsaid, that the Bill purported to have been amended in a former Committee; but he saw there was an immense number of Amendments down on the paper for that day. He doubted the propriety, under these circumstances, of going on with a Bill which had no chance 1310 of passing this Session, and he moved, therefore, that the Chairman leave the chair.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, he did not in the least care for the Bill. The county with which he was connected had brought in a private Bill, the tendency of which was to abolish tolls altogether; and he hoped that if there was to be a general Bill, it would be of a similar character. The tendency of this Bill, on the contrary, was to maintain tolls. He certainly did not wish to sit there discussing twelve pages of Amendments on eleven pages of Bill, and he should therefore support the Motion. Several of the Amendments were very important, and ought not to be discussed in the absence of English and Irish Members, who did not appear to be aware of their true character. They were Amendments proposed by chairmen of railway companies, which would put those bodies upon an entirely different footing from all other descriptions of heritable property. So far from railway proprietors having any right to be exempted, they were, of all others, the most interested in having good roads.
§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEhoped that the Lord Advocate would not give an opinion until he heard the discussion on the clauses.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had an opinion on the Bill, and was prepared to express it. At the same time, if it were the opinion of the House that he should postpone his views until the clauses arose, he had no objection.
§ MR. R. HODGSONappealed to the hon. Member for Dundee (Sir John Ogilvy) not to go on with the Bill. There was not the least chance of its passing this Session.
THE LORD ADVOCATEentreated the Committee not to lose time in making appeals to his hon. Friend not to go on with the business for which the House had met.
§ SIR MICHAEL SHAW STEWARTprotested against wasting the time of Scotch Members in begining at two o'clock the consideration of this Bill. What progress were they likely to make in two hours, and when would the hon. Baronet obtain another day for a morning sitting?
§ SIR JOHN OGILVYconfessed that he had not now so good a hope of passing the Bill as he had had when he came down to the House, for he found that it had excited 1311 the opposition of hon. Members whose support he thought that he had a right to expect. He had taken up the subject only at the request of many hon. Gentlemen from Scotland who had met together for the purpose; he had committed it pro formâ, in order to insert the Amendments suggested to him; and of the forty-nine which now appeared on the paper in his name, many of them were of a similar character—namely, alterations which had been adopted at the request of others.
§ MR. BLACKBURNsaid, that the measure suggested at the meeting in question only referred to a change of valuation. Various other matters had been, however, imported into the Bill, and it was useless to go on with it at this late period of the Session.
MR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrew's)agreed that, in the face of the opposition which had arisen, the Bill had not the slightest chance of passing during the present Session, unless his hon. Friend would consent to strike oat all the clauses except those which carried out the original object of the Bill—a change in the mode of assessment.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 45: Majority 25.
§ After considerable further discussion, Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 2 (Interpretation).
§ SIR JOHN HAYcomplained that the Orkneys and Shetland Isles had few or no roads, but they might be saddled with the expense of carrying out the measure. He hoped, therefore, that they would be excluded from the operation of the Bill. At all events, the mainland ought to be made one district, and the smaller islands another.
§ After some discussion, it was agreed that the clause should be altered accordingly.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Trustees may consider as to Adoption of Act at any Statutory General Meeting).
MR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrews)said, in order to raise the question whether the Bill should go beyond its original design—namely, to change the road assessment from the old to the new valuation, he would move the omission of the clause.
§ MR. BLACKBURNseconded the Motion.
§ SIR WILLIAM DUNBARwas surprised to find that a measure that had been agreed to with so little difficulty at a meeting of Scotch Peers and Members of Parliament 1312 should now meet with so much opposition. The proposal of his hon. Friend appeared to strike at the root of the Bill; and if it was agreed to, he should recommend the abandonment of the measure.
THE LORD ADVOCATEwould recommend his hon. Friend to omit the 3rd and 16th clauses, relative to management.
§ MR. DALGLISH, on the contrary, thought they were the most important clauses in the Bill.
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, they had wasted a fine summer's day and done nothing. They had now sat two hours, and had not gone through the first of the twelve pages of Amendments. Was there any use in going on?
The further progress of the Bill gave rise to continued objections on the part of hon. Members, many of whom expressed great dissatisfaction at "wasting a fine summer's morning" in discussing a Bill which could not pass this Session. Finally,
§ SIR JOHN OGILVYsaid, that after the opposition which had been manifested, it was hopeless to attempt to pass the Bill this Session. The reception given to his Bill was not sufficiently encouraging to induce him to proceed with the measure next Session; but he would reiterate the request made to the Lord Advocate to endeavour to grapple with this subject.
§ MR. DUNLOPsaid, he was certain he expressed the feeling of all the Scotch Members when he said they were greatly indebted to the hon. Baronet (Sir John Ogilvy) for the trouble he had taken, and the courtesy he had shown, in the conduct of this Bill. He regretted the failure of the Bill, but he could not help thinking that the best way was to let each county bring in a Roads Bill, which could go before a judicial Committee as a private Bill, and would then have a chance of passing through the House.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had already attempted in vain to deal with the subject. He had declined to bring in a general measure this Session from an apprehension of want of success, and certainly the discussion of that day had not altered his opinion.
§ House resumed. [No Report.]