Commons Sitting of 23 January 1878

MINUTES.
NEW WHIT ISSUED—For Perth County, v. Sir William Stirling-Maxwell, baronet, deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading —Public Parks (Scotland) [34].
Committee —Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) [44]—R.P.
Committee — Report — Parliamentary Elections (Metropolis) [14].
Withdrawn — Hypothec (Scotland) (No. 2) [49].

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PUBLIC PARKS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Fortescue Harrison, Dr. Cameron, Mr. William Holms, Sir George Balfour, Sir Windham Anstruther.)
  PUBLIC PARKS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    [BILL 34.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. FORTESCUE HARRISON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was a measure to enable the corporations and public bodies in Scotland to acquire lands for the purpose of making parks and recreation grounds in Scotland for the benefit of the working and other classes in that country. There was no new principle in the Bill. It was exactly the same as the Bill which he introduced last year, and which the House then permitted to be road a second time. Unfortunately he had been unable to get it into Committee on that occasion, and the result was that he now asked the House to extend the same indulgence to him as it did last year by agreeing to the second reading. There was great need in Scotland for a measure of this character. In that country there were large towns containing great numbers of the working classes, without any recreation grounds for the people. He had endeavoured by his Bill to place Scotland in the same favourable position in this respect as England. In fact, every clause in the Bill was already law in this country. He might mention that the Lord Advocate, as representing the Government, was not only willing that the measure should pass, but had afforded him valuable assistance in arranging its clauses. He would not further occupy
    360
    the time of the House, but merely move now that the Bill be read a second time, and reserve any further information it might be necessary to give until it was in Committee.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Fortescue Harrison.)
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had last year opposed going into Committee on this Bill for a number of reasons, which he need not now explain. On the present occasion, however, he did not intend to offer any objection to the second reading of the measure. He thought that, on the whole, the Bill was necessary and desirable; but, at the same time, there were some of its provisions which would require, in his opinion, to be modified in Committee. Certain of its clauses were perfectly proper, those, for instance, which referred to cases in which lands could be taken by compulsion; but in connection with which, notwithstanding the compulsion, there must be proper notice given by advertisement and otherwise. In cases, however, where land was proposed to be taken by agreement, no provision was made for advertisements, and thus an opportunity might be offered for jobbery on the part of town commissioners or town councillors, in burghs in Scotland. He did not mean to say in a general way that parties in Scotland were disposed to jobbery; but it would be well if no opportunity was given for it, but a subsection of Clause 6 stated that no notice was required in cases where land was to be taken by agreement. In the same clause, in another sub-section, when property belonged to two or more owners in common, it was proposed that it should be sufficient to serve three of them with notice; but those three might be obscure persons not likely to take any interest in the subject, and they might act in opposition to the interests of the majority. Practically speaking, a notice to three only might be giving no notice at all. That, therefore, was an objectionable feature, and should be amended. Then, again, power was given to town councils to let land to private persons on lease, and no provision was made that that should be at a fair rent. An Amendment should be introduced in that clause, making it imperative that the rent to be

    361
    given by the person who took the land from the town council should be fair and reasonable. He would go further, and would say that if afterwards it could be shown that the land was not let for a fair rent, the lease should become null and void, and the person who took the lease should not be able to take advantage under it. There must always be a certain amount of temptation to town councillors to be friendly to their connections and political friends. In passing Acts of this nature, the Legislature should guard very strictly against the possibility of anything unfair or unreasonable in the way of the rates being aggrieved for the benefit of certain parties. Clause 10 gave power to the council to charge the rates with the expenses that were legitimate under the Act as carried into operation. That would be perfectly legitimate if the Bill wore to be carried into operation, but if a town council made an application for certain powers, and that application proved to be unsuccessful, presumably from some fault of their own, the members of such a body should be made liable for the charge, which should not in such a case be put upon the rates. If the Bill were carried into force, then the expenses should be borne by the ratepayers; but there was always the possibility to be guarded against that the solicitor of a town council might encourage his friends in it to involve themselves in an application which was untenable and uncalled for, and it would only be fair that a council in framing any project under a Bill of this sort should have clearly before their eyes the risks which were being incurred. Another objectionable provision of the Bill was that which gave power to add to taxation for the purpose of making public parks. This was an important point— much too serious and important to be carried into operation under a Provisional Order. Of course places of recreation were very good in their way, but they might entail upon the ratepayers an amount of expense which it would not be desirable for them to bear. Certainly it should not fall upon them without their opinion being asked upon the subject. The application might be made when no election was pending, and in that case the ratepayers had no opportunity, except at considerable trouble and cost, of disputing the dictum of the town council, and the property of the
    362
    borough might be mortgaged to a serious extent for all time to come. He would not, however, make any Motion against the second reading.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, hoshould offer no opposition whatever to the passing of the Bill, which he believed would be a useful one. It was framed very much upon the lines of the English Statute, the Public Health Act, 38 & 39 Vict., and would upon the whole, he thought, be found serviceable in Scotland. But in the working of the English measure some limitations had suggested themselves as necessary and desirable, and it might be requisite to move Amendments in that direction when the Bill was in Committee.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next.

  HYPOTHEC (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  (Sir George Balfour, Mr. Laing, Mr. Barclay.)
  HYPOTHEC (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.

    [BILL 49.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Heading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now road a second time."—(General Sir George Balfour.)
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that in connection with the measure he desired to direct Mr. Speaker's attention to a point of Order. Leave had been given by the House to the hon. and gallant Member (Sir George Balfour) to introduce a Bill on the subject of Hypothec, for which Bill another had since been substituted, and had only been delivered to hon. Members that morning. He wished to inquire whether it was in Order for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to ask the House to give a second reading to a Bill which he had not obtained leave to introduce, and which had not been read a first time?
    MR. SPEAKERreplied that he had noticed that some material alterations had been made in the Bill. Hon. Members might make clinical or verbal alterations in Bills, but it would not be in Order for an hon. Member to move the second reading of a Bill which, although bearing the same title, differed materially and substantially from the measure which he obtained leave to introduce. The Bill which the hon. and gallant Member now asked the House to

    363
    read the second time, was not the one which he was allowed to introduce, and therefore the only course open to him was to withdraw the Order for the second reading of the Bill, and to ask leave to introduce a Bill in substitution for it.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that under the circumstances he would withdraw the altered Bill, and move the second reading of the one which he had originally introduced.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsuggested that the course which the hon. and gallant Member proposed to take would be as far out of Order as his original proposal that the House should read a second time a Bill which he had substituted for the one he had leave to introduce. He submitted that the proper course to pursue, would be to move to discharge the present Order, and to give Notice for leave to introduce another Bill.
    MR. SPEAKERruled that the proper course open to the hon. and gallant Member was to move that the Order for second reading be discharged, and then, if he thought fit, to move for leave to introduce the amended Bill which had been delivered to hon. Members.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that if he was not permitted to go on with the present Bill he should desire to move the second reading of the first Bill.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that he had already ruled that it was not in Order, under the circumstances, to proceed with the first Bill. The proper course would be to move to discharge the present Order, and to ask leave to introduce another Bill.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, it was unfortunate that the Bill (No. 2) had only been circulated to hon. Members that morning. It was still more a matter of regret that his hon. and gallant Friend should not be allowed to proceed with the discussion of his first Bill upon its merits. It was a more comprehensive measure than any Bill previously before them. ["Order, order!"]
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the House was dealing with a point of Order, and it would be clearly out of Order to proceed with any discussion upon the merits of a Bill until that question was disposed of.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: Then, Sir, I now beg to move, with your
    364
    permission, that the Order for the second reading of this Bill be discharged.
    Motion agreed to.
    Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 44.]
  (The O'Conor Son, Mr. Richard Smyth, Mr. Charles Lewis, Mr. James Corry, Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Dease, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Redmond.)
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 44.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[The O'Conor Don.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Preamble postponed.
    THE O'CONORDONmoved that the Chairman do report Progress, as he did not consider it would be fair to proceed with the Bill in the absence of the Chief Secretary and many Members who were deeply interested in the measure, and who had stated their intention to move Amendments in Committee. He had moved the House into Committee mainly to prevent an unnecessary debate upon the question of Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday, 13th February.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (METROPOLIS) BILL— [BILL 14.]
  (Sir. Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Forsyth, Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Gordon, Colonel Beresford, Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (METROPOLIS) BILL— [BILL 14.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read. Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSwished to say one word in reference to this Bill. He thought that some time should be allowed to elapse before the next stage of the Bill was taken, on the ground that the Attorney General had an

    365
    Amendment to propose in it. He Lad not opposed either the second reading of the Bill or the going into Committee upon it; but he thought it was a measure to which the attention of the Attorney-General should be directed.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he desired to meet the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman; but he might state that the Attorney General had seen the provisions of the Bill and had offered no objection to them, and that it was a measure upon which all the Metropolitan Members were agreed. The Bill merely carried out the recommendations of the Select Committee of last Session.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he behoved that the Attorney General had soon the Bill, but he (Mr. Assheton Cross) wished to consult him in reference to some of its provisions before the Report.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Wednesday next.
    House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.