Commons Sitting of 2 July 1878

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Local Government and Taxation of Towns (Ireland) [No. 262].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—British Museum (Transfer of Collection)* [236]; Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Expenses) (Scotland)* [237].
First Reading—Truro Chapter * [234].
Select Committee—Report—Freshwater Fish Protection [No. 261].
Considered as amended—Roads and Bridges (Scotland) [224], further proceeding adjourned.
Third Reading—Entail Amendment (Scotland)* [158], and passed.
Lords Amendments considered—Local Government Provisional Orders (Bournemouth, &c.)* [213].
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF PHŒBE NEWTON.—QUESTION.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to a case in which Mr. Isaac Spooner, a stipendiary magistrate at Brierley Hill, near Dudley, is alleged to have sent a married woman named Phœbe Newton, age 48, to gaol for six weeks, for having, as was stated, struck a policeman on the arm with her hand; and, whether it is true that the magistrate refused to hear the witnesses for the defence?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSin reply, said, the magistrate had written to call his attention to this case, and his letter bore out the statement in the Question that the woman did bring forward witnesses who were not called, and sentence was passed. He had thought it his duty, under all the circumstances, to release the woman at once, as she could hardly be considered to have had a fair trial. On behalf of the magistrate, he was bound to say that his statement was that he did not hear the application to produce witnesses; but upon that matter he was in communication with the magistrate, and therefore could say nothing more.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked the honourable Member for Durham, If he intends to proceed with his Bill for the abolition of the Action for Breach of Promise of Marriage this Session; and, if so, on what day?
  MR. HERSCHELL, in reply, said, he believed the Bill excited considerable interest among many Members of the House, and he was anxious to take a discussion upon it. At the same time, at this period of the Session, his prospects of doing so were not very bright; but he did not see why he should abandon them altogether in despair. He could hardly expect the Government to give him a night, although he should be obliged to them if they could do so. He did not propose to proceed with it that night; but he would put it down for that day fortnight, and take his chance of whatever might turn up.

NAVY—THE BOILER COMMITTEE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he can state to the House what has been the total cost of the Committee on the Boilers of Ships in Her Majesty's Navy, including pay, printing, experiments, &c.; whether the Committee has concluded its labours; and, whether it is intended to appoint a further Committee of Inquiry, as recommended in their last Report?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, the approximate cost of the Boiler Committee for the four years they sat was between £16,000 and £17,000. The Committee, in its original form, was dissolved in April last, and a new and less expensive Committee, consisting of Admiralty officials, has been appointed to continue the inquiry, and to conclude the various experiments which have been commenced.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)— DEATHS FROM SMALL-POX IN LON DON.—QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is true that, during the year ended the 25th of March last,

  589
  1,816 deaths from small pox occurred within that portion of the metropolis described as "Lesser London" by the Registrar General; whether such a total number of fatal cases may with approximate accuracy be taken to represent 18,000 attacks of small pox within the same area and during the same period; and, whether the sanitary authorities already possess, under Section 26 of the Act 29 and 30 Vic. c. 90, sufficient powers to enable them adequately to cope with the evil; and, if not, if he has considered whether compulsory registration of infectious diseases might not be tried with advantage?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he believed it was true that 1,816 deaths from small-pox occurred during the year ended March 25, and that number might be taken to represent 18,000 attacks of small-pox. However lamentable that number of deaths, it was nothing in proportion with the last epidemic in the Metropolis. The local authorities had power to apply to a magistrate, on a certificate of a medical officer, for an order for the compulsory removal to hospitals of persons suffering from infectious diseases who had no moans of isolation; but that was a power which, of course, only applied to the confined dwellings of the poorer classes. Before a complete control over such diseases on the part of the sanitary authority could be said to exist, several things were necessary, one of the chief of which was the compulsory registration of infectious disease. This was a subject of very great difficulty. Several of the larger towns in the North of England had obtained in their local Acts powers for compulsory registration, and he had caused inquiry to be made as to the result of their experience. That information had not yet been received, except from one town, and there, he must say, the experience was not altogether satisfactory. The tendency of public opinion was, however, in this direction, and he had no doubt that, before long, medical practitioners and private patients would submit to some notification of certain classes of disease being made in all cases to the local authority. He should be glad when he was able to make a proposal in this direction to the House. Before that could be done, however, it would be necessary, in the Metropolis, that more hospital accommoda-
  590
  tion should be available for the middle classes, who wished for more isolation than they could procure at home, and desired to pay for it. It was to be regretted that the Public Health (Metropolis) Bill of last Session received so much opposition from the Vestries and District Boards—opposition in which the hon. Baronet took part. It was proposed by that Bill to enable the Vestries and District Boards to make arrangements with the Metropolitan Asylums Board which would have put an end to the present anomalous state of things.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 224.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin Ibbetson.)

  CONSIDERATION AS AMENDED.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. ANDERSON, in moving—
  "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, with an Instruction to hear parties on whom exceptional local rates may be imposed by new Clause 88, by themselves, their counsel, or agents, against such exceptional local rates;"
  said, that a Petition had been presented on the previous day by his constituents, praying to be heard by counsel before a Select Committee as regarded the new Clause 88, which was introduced into the Bill while the Bill was in Committee. That clause was a totally different clause, and contained a to tally different principle, from any which appeared in the Bill before. The Bill, as it was introduced, and as it was discussed on the second reading, contained clear provisions for dealing with all the roads and bridges in Scotland, leaving counties to pay the county debts and to maintain county roads, and leaving burghs to pay their own debts and maintain their own roads. There was a further provision to allow arbitrators in cases of difference of opinion. With the Bill as thus read a second time, his constituents were perfectly satisfied; but while the Bill was in Committee this new clause was

  591
  introduced by the Lord Advocate, totally abandoning the principle of the Bill, and imposing upon Glasgow an exceptional burden which had been imposed on no other town in Scotland. By the clause, Glasgow had been made to pay a contribution of £10,000 a-year for the maintenance of county roads with which she had nothing to do, and was bound over to pay a large proportion of the county debts of the two counties next to her. There were various counties close to Glasgow, but there were only two in favour of which this special provision had been given—the counties of Lanark and Renfrew. By the provisions of the Bill the City of Glasgow would have to pay about one-half of the whole road debt of the county of Lanark, and about three-fourths of the whole road debt of the county of Renfrew. These, his constituents thought, were provisions so extremely inequitable, that they did all they could to oppose them when the Bill was in Committee. But they found, when they came to argue the matter, that it was impossible to lay the whole of the circumstances before a Committee of the Whole House. They could not produce the maps and accounts that would illustrate the subject. Consequently, the Government had no difficulty in swamping them by their mechanical majority. The votes of the Scotch Members who understood the matter perfectly well were in their favour, and had the thing been decided by their votes they would have thrown out this clause; but the Government, by bringing in English Members who had not heard the debate, and who knew nothing of the merits of the case, swamped and beat the Scotch Members. He maintained that the Government, by using its majority in that way, imposed a great hardship upon Glasgow which they would not have attempted on any English town. They had not dealt in this manner with Edinburgh, Aberdeen, or Dundee, or any of the other great towns of Scotland. The House never heard of any proposition to deal in this way with Manchester, Liverpool, or Birmingham. What would the Representatives of English towns think if they were asked to keep up the county roads? The other day the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke), on the English Highways Bill, introduced an Amendment in this direction, and the Government themselves opposed it, and,
  592
  assisted by the Liberal side of the House, beat the Amendment, showing that the Government principle was one thing, and that their practice, as regarded Glasgow, was a totally different thing. He had said what the principle of the Bill originally was, and how the new clause violated it. What he wished to show the House now was, that the new clause was really of the nature of a Private Bill, that it was legislation not for the general country, but for one special locality; and he should prove his case best by referring to the authority to which they all bowed with so much respect—the book published by Sir Erskine May. He said that—
  "Every Bill for the particular interest or benefit of any person or persons is treated, in Parliament, as a Private Bill. Whether it be for the interest of an individual, a public company or corporation, a parish, a city, a county, or other locality; it is equally distinguished from a measure of national import in which the whole community are interested."—[May, p. 383.]
  Nothing could be stronger than these words. This showed clearly that the legislation which was to affect any particular area or locality was to be dealt with in a private Bill. The only exception was the Metropolis, which claimed to have her Private Bills brought in as Public Bills, and, he believed, they were so brought in. The only excuse he had heard for dealing with this present matter as a public concern was the greatness of the community of Glasgow; but the greatness of the community of Glasgow had never favoured her one bit when she came to this House for any legislation. She was always put to the expense of Private Bills when she had any object to serve, and had never been treated as the Metropolis was. I will now read another extract from Sir Erskine May, whose words ought to have great weight with the House, and the case of Glasgow is made out very clearly by them. He says—
  "In the case of Public Bills for confirming by Provisional Order schemes of Boards or Commissioners in regard to government of towns, construction of bridges, and other matters, it has been customary, when they have been passed by the parties locally interested, to commit such Bills, so far as they related to the places concerned, to a Select Committee, to be appointed by the Committee of Selection in the same manner as in the case of a Private Bill."
  If a Provisional Order was applied for in this House, following a decision on any of the general Public Acts, no one who

  593
  was aggrieved under that Provisional Order was denied the opportunity of protesting and being heard by counsel against the grievance. This privilege was not confined to Provisional Orders, for Sir Erskine May said—
  "The same course has also been adopted in the ease of other Public Bills affecting a particular place;"
  and that was what he (Mr. Anderson) wished to call particular attention to. It would be impossible to have stronger words than these, or more conclusive evidence as to the practice of the House in dealing with Public Bills in which some particular clause affected some particular place, and did not affect the whole community; but, perhaps, some hon. Member might say that this matter should have been taken up sooner, that it should have been dealt with on the second reading of the Bill, and that it was too late to deal with it now. The reason why it could not have been taken up on the second reading was that the clause did not exist at the time of the second reading. Nor could it be said to be too late to deal with the clause now. Sir Erskine May said—
  "The second reading is the stage at which counsel are more usually heard, whenever the House have agreed that a Public Bill is of so peculiar a character as to justify the hearing of parties whose public or private interests are directly affected by it. … But counsel have also been heard at various other stages of Bills."—[May, pp. 278·9.]
  Therefore, it could not be contended against his argument, that it was now too late. Again, Sir Erskine May said that it often became necessary to re-commit a Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, and, occasionally, to a Select Committee before it was read a third time, and that—
  "The Bill might be committed for a variety of reasons, and it might be re-committed with respect to a particular clause or Amendment only."
  Now, that was exactly the case with this Bill. He wished to re-commit it with respect to one particular clause—Clause 88—and no other. Again, Sir Erskine May said—
  "A Bill may be re-committed as often as the House think fit. … There are cases in which a Bill has been six and even seven times through a Committee of the Whole House."—[Ibid. p. 284.]
  594
  Sir Erskine May again said—
  "Notwithstanding the facilities for discussion afforded by a Committee of the Whole House, the details of a Bill may often be considered more conveniently by a Select Committee."
  That was his (Mr. Anderson's) contention. It was inconvenient to bring arguments or maps before a Committee of the Whole House. He wanted to submit these to a Select Committee upstairs, where counsel could come and explain the maps, and argue the case before unprejudiced minds. Just as an illustration, he had here a map. He could not show this map to the House. He could not explain it in all its details, as it could be explained before a Committee. He wanted to take the map to a table upstairs, where counsel could have an opportunity of explaining it to the Committee, and of showing the absurdity of making Glasgow pay for a debt on county roads 40 or 50 miles away from the city, and with which the city had nothing to do. He wanted to show how Glasgow was made to pay to the county of Renfrew, which barely touched Glasgow at one place, about three-fourths of its debts. He wished to show that the county of Lanark was divided into three wards, and how absurd it was that one part of the county up here should pay for another part down there. The county of Lanark had been divided into three wards for maintaining roads; but, for that one purpose of plundering Glasgow, the county was to be considered as one for the purpose of robbing her of £ 10,000 or £12,000 a-year in perpetuity. It was vain to convince the House or bring a map of this kind effectively before it; but in a small Committee of unprejudiced men, such a case could be made as could not be resisted against the iniquity of the proposed clause. He supposed it would be contended that, although he proposed the proper and usual course, Parliament had the power to adopt the other course if it chose. He did not dispute the power of Parliament. Parliament was omnipotent; but the question was—Was it judicious that it should have used its powers to inflict an injustice on any locality? Parliament had instituted certain Rules for its own guidance in the conduct of its Business, and these Rules had been adopted especially to prevent Parliament from using its enormous powers in a way which was

  595
  invidious or oppressive to certain localities. While Parliament had perfect power to go beyond the Rules, he felt satisfied that Parliament would be very unwilling to inflict an injustice. It had, inadvertently, inflicted an injustice the other day upon Glasgow, and he now asked it to appoint a Committee to hear counsel against this infamous and iniquitous clause. He moved that the Bill be re-committed.
  DR. CAMERONseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from, the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "referred to a Select Committee, with an Instruction to hear parties on whom exceptional local rates may be imposed by new Clause 88, by themselves, their counsel, or agents, against such exceptional local rates,"—(Mr. Anderson,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could not agree to the Motion which had now been made. The 88th clause, which was under discussion, was not before the House for the first time, because, certainly during the discussion of this measure, or rather a similar measure, last year, both on the second reading and in Committee, in which that measure proceeded so far, it was distinctly intimated and understood that it would be necessary to deal with this question. That stops would be taken with the view of dealing with this question this year was perfectly well known to parties interested, and so early as the beginning of February this year the terms of the proposed clause were made known by the Secretary of State for the Home Department again to all the parties interested, to the counties, and also to those representing the City of Glasgow. Then, in the next place, this new clause was put on the Paper on the 19th of March last, so that its terms were not only in the knowledge of the City of Glasgow, but had been before the House for upwards of three months. Now, certainly, the suggestion which had been made in the Motion by the hon. Member for Glasgow meant practically the shelving of the measure. It was impossible to disguise this. The measure
  596
  had been fairly fought in Committee. The hon. Member was quite entitled to bring forward the Motion he had made, but the passage he had quoted to the House from Sir Erskine May's work showed that it was entirely within the discretion of the House to decide whether effect should be given to such a Motion. It was sufficient to indicate in the circumstances of the case that it would be an act of discretion to give effect to the Motion. He hoped the measure would be permitted to proceed in the usual course.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he entirely agreed in the desirability of passing this Bill into law; but he did think that his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had made out a very strong case in favour of the course he had suggested. This was a clause quite apart from the rest of the Bill. It singled out one locality in Scotland, and dealt with it in an exceptional manner; and it appeared to him that his hon. Friend had proved that it would be not only a reasonable and just thing and an equitable course for the House to take to allow Glasgow to have an opportunity of stating its case before a Committee upstairs; but that it was the regular course for the House to take according to precedent and according to the Rules. He did not see that they were tied for a moment by Sir Erskine May's book or by precedent. It was a matter for the House; but still the House was guided by what had been usually and regularly done in the past, and this was a case of so exceptional a nature that it was incapable of being fully considered by a Committee of the Whole House. For his own part he would say that when the Bill was in Committee he supported his hon. Friends who opposed this clause, but he did so in rather a negative way. He had given them his vote, but he had imagined that an arrangement had been come to, and though they objected to it, still he presumed there was a certain amount of fairness in it. But since the Bill had been in Committee he had seen a Report by Mr. Smith, the Government Commissioner, upon whose recommendation this clause was founded, and he was bound to say that the Report having been made public proved another instance of the inexpediency of anyone who had given a decision giving the reasons on which

  597
  he founded that decision, because he had never read a Report which contained so little in the way of argument to justify the conclusion at which it arrived. If Mr. Smith's reasons were those on which the Government proposed this clause, the Government was certainly not strong enough to justify the course which they had taken. Two things had to be proved. In the first place, there was the proof that the roads in the neighbourhood of Glasgow were as much the affair of Glasgow as of the county itself. They had to prove that there was something exceptional in this case calling upon them to deal differently with it from the other portions of Scotland; and having satisfied themselves of that, they had to make out a case for the exact sum to be levied on Glasgow. In this Paper of Mr. Smith's there was no sufficient argument for the one case and no argument whatever for the other. The sum was fixed on the mere ipse dixit of Mr. Smith, who said, "I think the sum to be paid by the City of Glasgow should be "—so and so. Now, they ought to know the data, and he was informed that the Corporation of Glasgow had received no data on which the calculation was founded. And yet, on the mere authority of the Commissioner, they were asked to pay this sum of £12,500 a-year. In the only case where the Commissioner condescended to argument at all, he used an argument which surely could not be seriously relied on. He had been astonished to hear certain remarks quoted from this Report when the House was in Committee with the view of showing that the turnpike adjoining the city was more the affair of the city than of the county. The hon. Member for South Lanarkshire (Sir Windham Anstruther), quoting Mr. Smith, said that in a certain period 14 vehicles went over the turnpikes from the city for every one that entered it, and that, on an average, the proportion was three to one. Why, in the course of three or four days the effect of that would be that Glasgow would be emptied of all the vehicles in it. Did the hon. Member mean empty or full vehicles? If there were more full vehicles going out than coming in, then it was obvious that the wants of the people in the country were more extensive than the requirements of the inhabitants of the city.
  598
  The truth was, that it was the old case of determining which of the portions of the human frame was of the greatest importance. The town was of as great importance to the county as the county was to the town, and he ventured to say that if they established a cordon round Glasgow, it would not be the town which would starve first by the prohibition of traffic, because it had other means of communication. There was, then, no argument in Mr. Smith's Report dealing with this question, and when they went a step further to the amount to be paid, they were not vouchsafed a piece of evidence to justify the charge proposed to be levied. In such a great case as this, he did conceive that the ratepayers of Glasgow had a perfect right to have their case heard upstairs. It was so entirely exceptional, and so entirely outside the provisions of the Bill, that he was sure that he would be absolved from any hostility to the general principles of the Bill, if he supported his hon. Friend's proposal to refer this particular part of it to a Select Committee.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that if the facts were as put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, there would be some reasonable ground for referring the Bill to a Select Committee; but there had been a sufficient inquiry, and Glasgow had an ample opportunity of laying its case before the special Commission appointed to consider and report upon the question. His hon. Friend's demand came forward at much too late a stage of the Bill. It would have been quite competent for the hon. Member to have asked the House a month ago to refer the question to a Select Committee; but the facts had been virtually decided when the Bill was passing through Committee, and it would be quite a new practice on the part of the House, and quite inconsistent with the principle laid down by Sir Erskine May, that the question should be handed over at so late a stage to a Select Committee. His constituents would not feel very much gratified if they were to go back and fight the battle over again by counsel and witnesses before a Select Committee. All the statistics with regard to the hearing of this question in the county of Lanark were fully laid before the Commissioners, and were fairly considered, and, in his opinion, fully established. The question not only

  599
  bore upon Glasgow, but upon the burgh, which were also contributors with the city. He contended that if the burden of maintaining the roads were thrown upon the poor, the effect would be ruinous. A meeting of the burghs interested in the question had been lately held, at which it was resolved that the course proposed by the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) was objectionable, and ought to be opposed for the following reasons:—
  "That the question at issue had already extended over a lengthened period; that the Town Council of Glasgow, and other parties interested in it, had had an opportunity, of which they had availed themselves, of fully stating their views to the Commissioner (Mr. Smith), on whose recommendation Clause 88 was proposed; that the Inquiry suggested would not throw any additional light upon the subject; that the recommendation now made had given more general satisfaction than any other scheme hitherto suggested; that it would he inexpedient in the public interest to keep the matter longer in suspense; and that the proposed Inquiry would necessarily be a protracted one, and one which would be attended with great expense."
  MR. MACDONALD: What are the names of the burghs that passed that resolution?
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, the burghs included those of Partick, Hillhead, Govan, Crosshill, and Mary-hill. The question now brought before the House ought to have been raised at an earlier stage of the Bill. He only desired to make one further remark, and that was with reference to the claim which had been put forward on a previous occasion by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) on this subject. He had had an opportunity of referring to the evidence taken by the Commission to which allusion had been made, and he found that at that time this particular question had never been fairly raised, except by one witness. The Motion at that time was, that there should be the option of paying the expenses of the roads by a tax upon horses. That was the leading idea of the late Lord Belhaven, and of various authorities associated with him. But the Commissioners came to a different decision. They threw over that recommendation, and said they would go upon rental. A Bill was brought in in consequence of that, and then it was that the Town Council took alarm. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee, evidence was heard
  600
  on behalf of Renfrewshire, and he himself presented a Memorial signed by persons connected with the Lower Ward of Lanarkshire, showing the injustice which would be done to the county also. What was the result? The result was that the counties of Lanark and Renfrew were left out of the Bill. Former Governments would not face the difficulties of the question, and after that the subject had not again been mooted in Parliament for a period of 20 years. After all this, he did not think that his hon. Friend had any right to come forward and ask for this Commission. The question of taxation for the maintenance of roads in the suburban districts of Glasgow had long ago been fully discussed. It had been taken in hand either by counties or Committees or by Commissions, and after all those years it seemed to him that the present Bill, having reached the stage at which it had arrived, should not now be thrown back.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that the hon. Baronet who had just spoken had told the House that the case before it had been under the consideration of various Commissioners and Committees. Those for whom he spoke quite agreed with that, but that was exactly what they complained of. They complained that after the case of Glasgow, Renfrewshire, and Lanarkshire had been under the consideration of repeated Committees and Commissioners, the decision, which was most hostile to Glasgow, should have been selected as the decision to be embodied in the present Bill. What they said was, that an elaborate Commission had been appointed on the subject, and the Commissioners, taking a wide and extensive view of the whole question, based upon experience and inquiry over the entire county, came to a decision with which he and others were quite satisfied. Mr. Smith went down to Glasgow, and after an Inquiry, which was altogether circumscribed as contrasted with that of the Royal Commission to which he referred, came to another decision; and what they complained of was, that the decision of Mr. Smith should have been accepted as against the decision of the Royal Commission. They contended that there were special circumstances in the case of Glasgow, Renfrew, and Lanarkshire, and in that they were backed up by the Report of the

  601
  Commission itself. His hon. Friend (Sir Edward Colebrooke) maintained that those were special cases. It was impossible to argue out that question in the House. They could not now go into details, and they could not go into figures; they could not bring witnesses to support this association or that; and he thought that here primarily arose the necessity of referring the whole matter to a Select Committee. He should not bring forward arguments to show that this clause partook of the nature of a Private Bill. He did not think it was necessary to do that, although he believed there could be good grounds shown in support of the argument that the clause dealt with private interests; but between a Bill dealing with private interests and a Public Bill there was another description of Bill still, and that was a Hybrid Bill—a Bill which affected public and private interests also, and it was the invariable practice, in dealing with such a Bill, to refer it to a Select Committee, who took evidence upon it. The Lord Advocate had stated his great objection to this proposal to be that it would have the effect of shelving the measure. He did not think it need have any such effect. There was nothing in the world to prevent the Government from omitting this particular clause and going on with the Bill, and afterwards introducing the clause as a new Bill, and referring it to a Select Committee. The General Act would not come into operation for a number of years, and long before that Parliament would have decided whether or not Glasgow, Lanarkshire, and Renfrewshire would be specially dealt with. The hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Colebrooke) had admitted the reasonableness of the proposal for an inquiry.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE: No, I do not, and did not.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he thought the hon. Baronet had done so a few minutes ago; but he could not tell now whether the hon. Baronet really did so or not.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, his statement was that the subject had been inquired into in previous years, and that there was no occasion for a further inquiry now. His argument was exactly contrary to that of the hon. Member for Glasgow.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, the hon. Baronet had gone on to state that the burghs
  602
  around Glasgow were perfectly satisfied with the arrangement which had been come to; but he desired to point out to the hon. Baronet and to the House, that those burghs were not responsible for the county debt, that they had no debt of their own to pay, but that those for whom he spoke had a debt of their own to pay, and had to pay half of that of the counties as well. The hon. Baronet had mentioned the names of the burghs that deprecated a reference of the question to a Select Committee, and he mentioned amongst others the burgh of Hillhead. He was sorry that he should be obliged to refer to these details in arguing the case; but that only showed the necessity which there was for referring the subject to a properly appointed Select Committee. The case of Hillhead was quite exceptional. There was a bridge across the Kelvin, and every inhabitant of Hill-head suffered heavily from tolls, and would, of course, be willing to escape from their payment if it was at all possible. Then as to the case of Maryhill, the hon. Baronet had an Amendment on the Paper, the effect of which would be to give that burgh a present of some £5,000, which, under the Glasgow clause, would have to come out of the pocket of that city. That, at all events, was the view which his constituents took of the matter. They held that the ground taken up by Mr. Smith was altogether fallacious. Mr. Smith proceeded in this way. He saw that Glasgow was prosperous, and that it had been honest in paying up every farthing of its debts; but he also saw that the county trusts were in a state of insolvency; and, instead of having regard to the efforts which Glasgow must have made to pay off her debt and keep herself in a position of independence, Mr. Smith took no cognizance of past events, but said—"I find you prosperous, I find the counties insolvent, and therefore you must come to their assistance and pay one-half of their debt." He should have great pleasure in supporting his hon. Colleague if he went to a division.
  COLONEL MUREsaid, he was sorry again to trouble the House with the ease of Renfrewshire. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), in the beginning of the discussion, had taken up the old ground of financial difficulty

  603
  between Glasgow and Renfrewshire; but towards the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman had entered into what he considered a great Constitutional question. If the contention of the hon. Member held good, however, that the clause relating to Glasgow was in the nature of a Private Bill, the same contention must hold good with regard to a good many other places which were dealt with in a special manner in the measure. But it had been decided over and over again that Renfrewshire should be dealt with in an exceptional way. It had been decided by Select Committees upstairs, and it had also been decided in the body of the House, that the case of that county and the case of Lanarkshire also were exceptional cases amongst the counties of Scotland, and that therefore they ought to be dealt with in an exceptional manner. He hoped the Government would recollect that those who were opposed to the abolition of tolls, in so far as Bills for that purpose had hitherto been brought before the House, had withdrawn their opposition to the present measure, on the understanding that clauses favourable to Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire would be introduced into the Bill. He thought, therefore, that the Government were under, he would not say a personal, but a moral pledge, not to give way on that point. It had always been the boast of their friends in Glasgow that the county of Renfrew derived enormous benefit from its proximity to that city; but, notwithstanding its proximity to Glasgow, it would not be found that the rental of Renfrewshire was larger in proportion to the agricultural value of the land than that of many other counties in Scotland which did not possess the supposed advantage of being similarly situated.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that as he intended to take an exceptional course with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, he thought it only right to state shortly what that course was, and his reasons for taking it. He did not intend to vote at all. Everyone knew that he had strongly objected to this Bill; but having opposed it on the Question that the Speaker should leave the Chair, and that the House should go into Committee on the measure, and having found himself in a miserable minority of 5, he thought the time had arrived when all further
  604
  opposition on his part should cease; and, therefore, as he had said, he did not intend to vote at all. At the same time, the Bill would inflict so great an injustice on the county which he represented, that he would not lift his little finger in its support. With reference to the observations which had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Mure), he thought that those remarks simply went to show the inequitable way in which the Bill would work. The hon. and gallant Member had stated that there were clauses in the measure, or parts of the measure, which exempted several counties from its operation; but if it were necessary to do that with regard to Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Dumbartonshire, and the other places, it only proved how inequitable the Bill was, and how badly its provisions would work. With regard to the dispute between Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, and Glasgow, he believed that if the hon. Gentlemen who represented the former counties had from the first opposed the Bill, it would never have been passed. If the hon. Member for Glasgow also had strenuously opposed the abolition of tolls from, the very first, he would not now have complained of what he must admit to be very exceptional treatment towards the city which he represented. This was only a question of degree, and there was no more reason why Glasgow should be treated exceptionally than Edinburgh or any large town in Scotland.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he should not have uttered a word upon the Motion before the House but for the remarks of the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Colebrooke), who had referred to the Report of the Royal Commission on this subject as requiring to be set aside because the county of Lanark was favourable to imposing a tax upon horses. It seemed to him the hon. Baronet supposed that the Commissioners had not examined that mode of raising the revenue, but those gentlemen did so. They took a great deal of evidence on the subject, and they published in an appendix useful and interesting tables showing what would be the rate, if all imposed on horses; and also, supposing one-half of the burden to be borne by those animals, and the other half to be borne by the rates; and showing, also, how the different kinds of horses might be classi-

  605
  fied. In short, the whole matter had been thoroughly considered. But his point was this—that whether the rating was to be horses or no horses, the Commissioners separated the burghs from the counties. If there were to be a tax upon horses, those horses within burghs were to be assessed for the burghs, and the horses within the counties were to be assessed for the counties. It seemed to be argued that an inquiry had already been made by the Government Commissioner equal in effect to that which would be made in the case of burghs applying for a Provisional Order. In that respect he thought that his hon. Friend was entirely mistaken. On application for such an Order, the Bill provided that the Home Secretary should direct local inquiry to be made, and that there should be 14 days' notice given of that inquiry—which meant that it was to be a public inquiry. Then the Home Secretary might arrange a Provisional Order to his own taste; but that Order would have to come before the House of Commons, and if it were opposed by any Member of the House, it would go to a Committee, the same as any other Private Bill. Hence the clause which declared that the Home Secretary should decide in what manner the expenses consequent upon such an Order should be paid, and which implied that no such Order should be passed merely as framed at the Home Office.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would not dispute the proposition that there were points embraced in this clause which might, under certain circumstances, be fairly argued before a Committee upstairs; and, no doubt, there were precedents without number for the course which had been taken in the present case. But he desired to remind the House of what had really occurred so far as dates were concerned, and in this matter dates appeared to be of considerable importance. In the first place, so far as the inquiry of Mr. Smith was concerned, that gentleman went down to Glasgow, and on the spot he consulted and examined everybody whom the Town Council wished to have brought before him. Mr. Smith, in short, examined all persons connected with roads in and about Glasgow, and his Report was made known to all parties concerned by himself (Mr. Assheton Cross) on the 15th of February. He did
  606
  not think he was inaccessible to any Members of the House. If hon. Gentlemen told him at any time that they wished to see him upon any public matter, he was always at their service. He knew that communications had taken place between his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate on this question; but until Friday last no one connected with Glasgow or the neighbourhood had ever made a single application to him on the subject. He next came to the Government clauses which were placed upon the Table on the 19th of March. That was a long time ago, and it was only on the 8th of April that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) put his Amendment upon the Paper in regard to this matter; and those Amendments were rather important, because they simply altered the sum to be paid to £100,000 as a whole, instead of £10,000 a-year. Well, then, on the 27th of May another Amendment was brought forward, and it was not until the Bill had been read a second time, had passed through Committee, and was approaching the stage of Consideration on Report, that the slightest suggestion had been made by anyone connected with Glasgow that the question should be referred to a Select Committee upstairs. In these circumstances, he thought it was evident that there had been a laches on the part of the hon. Members for Glasgow. Had those hon. Gentlemen come to him on the 15th of February or 19th of March and said—"Do you not think that this is a fair subject for consideration by a Select Committee?" he did not mean to say that they would not have had a fair case to have been heard. Now they had reached the 2nd of July, and if the Bill were to become law this Session—and he believed it was the desire of Scotland generally that it should become law—every day was important. There was an Amendment in the statute-labour question which was certainly in favour of Glasgow, and there were clauses by the hon. Member for Glasgow which would also be under consideration; and, bearing in mind the expressions which were made use of when this Bill was in Committee, if Glasgow had reason to complain of injustice, they should have come to Parliament before this time to see that no injustice took place. Let them now consider the Bill as amended,

  607
  and do not let them take a course which would have the effect of casting the measure from its place, and, if the division were successful, would defeat the object in view. Let them wait until they came to the 88th clause.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he did not at all agree that it would shelve the Bill or endanger the Bill, and as the thing could be disposed of in a few days, he must go to a division.
  MR. RAMSAYmaintained that the proposal made by the hon. Member for Glasgow was in accordance with the principle of the Bill itself. The principle of the Bill was that for each county or district the road assessment should be levied and expended on the roads within that county or district. Who could say that an assessment of £10,000 on Glasgow for maintaining county roads was in accordance with that principle. There were other places where the Bill dealt with private interests unfairly. It was wholly unjustifiable to saddle Glasgow with £10,000. Renfrewshire was in a position somewhat similar to Argyllshire; but Renfrew had all her roads maintained cheaper than Argyll. When he mentioned that the charge for maintaining all the turnpike and statute labour roads in Renfrew came to less than 6d. in the pound on the annual valuation of that county, the House would agree that the roads could not usually be maintained in an agricultural district at less. This would be shown by the fact that the valuation of Renfrewshire was about £640,000 per annum, irrespective of the burghs, and 6d. a-pound on that would come to £16,000 per annum. The roads in Argyllshire were maintained by a rate of 8d. per pound. He could not conceive, therefore, that, in such circumstances, there could be any justification for the rate imposed on Glasgow. He had never seen the Report of the gentleman who was sent down there. He by no means had the slightest thought of impugning his integrity. No doubt, he recommended the Home Secretary that he should deal in this way with the city of Glasgow; but the grounds on which he did so were in his (Mr. Ramsay's) opinion very inadequate to justify such an imposition. He did not feel that anything more was needed than to take the burghs and county of Renfrew combined, when less than 6d.
  608
  in the pound was adequate to maintain the whole of the roads in that county. He would not refer to the debt, because that was a separate thing; but if he took the whole of the two counties, Lanark and Renfrew, with the burghs, including Glasgow, the whole amount expended in maintaining all the roads and streets was £133,303 on the valuation of £6,473,000. A rate of 5d. in the pound on that sum produced £134,873, or more than the full amount that was expended on all the roads, including Glasgow. How, then, could they justify the imposition of an assessment of £10,000 for the relief of the ratepayers in a county where the roads at the present moment were kept up at less cost than in counties less favourably situated than this was? The Government would do well to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, because there were other particulars on which parties might be heard, and the question might be settled without injustice to Glasgow or other places where injustice was equally proposed to be done. He might the more readily urge that view, as it could not be assumed by anyone that he had any desire to defeat the Bill or to prevent it becoming law at an early date. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had said that to refer this Bill to a Select Committee would be to shelve it for the present Session. Well, he did look upon even that with greater equanimity than he should on any Resolution by the House to perpetrate an injustice of this kind. Anxious as he was to see the tolls abolished, he could not consent to a Bill that would perpetrate such an injustice as this.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, he had no interest in this matter, nor had his constituents; but he had been an interested beholder of the dispute between the city of Glasgow and the county of Lanark. It must be remembered that this dispute had prevented the country of Scotland from having a Road Bill for some years past. If it had not been for this, they would have abolished tolls all over Scotland long ago. The Government sent down a Commissioner to inquire into the case, and this gentleman had made a Report; and it seemed to him (Sir Graham Montgomery) that the city of Glasgow did not object to this gentleman going

  609
  down; but still they did not seem to be satisfied with, his arbitration. If the city of Glasgow was not satisfied with his arbitration, why should not they say that this clause should be struck out altogether, and that the city of Glasgow and the county of Lanark should be dealt with by Provisional Order? They knew that this gentleman had all the parties interested before him. He had the Lord Provost of Glasgow, deputations from the large towns, and deputations representing the county of Lanark; and on that information he came to this decision—that it was fair that the city of Glasgow should pay this sum annually to one division of the county of Lanark, and it did seem to him (Sir Graham Montgomery) too late in the day to upset a decision of this kind by having the matter referred to a Select Committee. If this Amendment should be carried, there could be no doubt that this Bill was done for for the present Session.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he believed they were all anxious to see this Bill become law, but not at the expense of what they must see was a gross injustice to the city of Glasgow. When the Home Secretary got up they hoped that he would give some explanation of the decision at which he had arrived. The right hon. Gentleman must accept the responsibility of it. He would have to bear the weight of what he must call obloquy attending the injustice of the measure. It appeared to him that there was considerable irregularity in the manner of bringing the proposal under the notice of the House. It had not been done in the form of a Provisional Order. It was said that the gentleman who went down acted as umpire between the city of Glasgow and the counties of Lanark and Renfrew; but the people of Glasgow were not aware of that, and simply regarded him as having come down to report to the Home Secretary. There had been no discussion of this clause in that House, and no explanation had been given of the clause. No statement or argument whatever in support of the clause had been brought before the House. It seemed to him that the Home Secretary did not altogether understand the effect of what he had said—imputing laches to the people of Glasgow. It was understood that the Lord Advocate was quite ready to hear any questions in regard to this
  610
  Bill. He had never declined to accept any representations with regard to this Bill; and though the gentlemen concerned were perfectly aware that the Bill was under the control of the Home Secretary, and that points of difficulty would be referred to him, they did not think it necessary to trouble the Home Secretary in the matter. Therefore, although the Home Secretary might not have been referred to until recently, it was quite understood that the matter had been brought originally under his consideration, and that it was on his responsibility that the people of Glasgow were now saddled with this burden. He was surprised that the Government should resist the appeal of the city of Glasgow to have this question decided before an impartial tribunal. What more could Lanark and Renfrew desire than that the question should be settled before a Committee of the House? Why it was not more energetically opposed, probably was that the people could never believe that the House of Commons would sanction such an exceptional arrangement, unless it was shown that there were some exceptional circumstances which would justify this exceptional legislation; and it had not been shown that such was the case by any arguments which had been addressed to this House.
  MR. E. JENKINSremarked, that there was a question before the House which, although it had been alluded to by the senior Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), had not been fully raised, and to which he wished to call attention, and that was, to the Parliamentary aspect of the question. The facts which had been laid before the House that day were certainly facts of a rather startling character, and ought to put every Member of the House on the qui vive regarding the course taken by the Government on this particular clause. He did not hesitate to say that this was an attempt to introduce into a public Bill a private Act, and he would call upon the Speaker to vindicate the right of the House to upset such an attempt at evading its Standing Orders. There were two points which he would submit to the consideration of the House. The first was that, in point of fact, this clause was a breach of the Standing Orders of that House, inasmuch as it was the introduction into a public Bill

  611
  of what was, in fact, a private Act; and, secondly, if that was not decided from the Chair, they had a right to appeal to the House to consider the matter, and to ask if there were no grounds for the claim that had been made, to refer the question to a Select Committee? Let any hon. Member look at the Bill, and read the clause contained in Section 98. The Bill was brought in for establishing certain principles which were laid down in the Bill, and for settling the management of the roads and bridges in Scotland. The principle was, that each county was to assume the burden of its own roads. This general principle being laid down made the Bill practically a public Bill. But when he looked at the Standing Orders, he found that those Orders brought any question affecting tolls within the category of private Bills. The Question was, whether this clause did not in an exceptional manner propose to deal with and alter rates and tolls in Glasgow without giving the parties an opportunity of settling the matter between themselves? It was provided by the Bill that the city of Glasgow and the neighbouring burghs should grant and contribute £12,500 a-year towards the maintenance of the roads and bridges in the counties of Lanark and Renfrew. The effect of that clause was practically to make this a private Bill. It was an attempt to carry a private Bill through the House without the ordinary formalities having been proceeded with, without bringing the matter before the House, and having it referred to a Select Committee. It was said that the Government sent down someone to inquire. A Mr. Smith, a not uncommon name, was sent down to inquire. But no representation was made before Mr. Smith on account of the parties interested. He made an ex parte representation as between the counties and city of Glasgow, and on that report the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary came to an arbitrary decision, which would involve the city of Glasgow in the payment of £12,500 a-year. It might be in accordance with precedent; but it did seem to him that this was a matter which should be referred to a Select Committee. Here was a gentleman sent down to Glasgow, without the parties concerned being properly represented before him, who came to a certain decision, which the Govern-
  612
  ment accepted, and embodied in a clause in an Act of Parliament. He asked the House whether that was in accordance with the spirit of our legislation, whether it was not contrary to the order of proceeding in that House by which such cases were governed? There was a Standing Order that no private Bill should be brought in otherwise than by Petition, signed by the parties or others who were interested in the Bill. He submitted that this clause came, at all events in spirit, within the meaning of that regulation; and, that being so, it appeared to him that the Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) having appealed to me on a point of Order, it is right that I should give the House such information as I can on the matter. As the House is aware, the clause which is now under discussion has been agreed to by a Committee of the House, and, strictly speaking, the point of Order should have been raised in Committee, and not in the House. It appears to me that this is a matter entirely for the consideration of the House. There is no obligation on the part of the House, having regard to the Standing Orders, to refer the clause in question to a Select Committee of the House, though it has power to do so. I should state also that it is a common practice to insert in public Bills, in addition to general enactments which govern the whole subject-matter, special provisions, applicable to particular localities, which, if not there inserted, would be proper subjects for private Bills. There are several examples of this kind. The most apposite example I can quote is that of the South Wales Turnpike Trusts, 7 and 8 Vict. c. 91, which contains general legislation applicable to several counties, and includes clauses which apply to particular trusts and the respective debts of certain local roads and bridges. It appears to me that that Act of Parliament is very much to the point in the particular case before the House.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that if the hon. Member for Glasgow went to a division he would place in an awkward position several of his Friends who took his view of the case, and were ready to support it. To refer the Bill at this stage to a Select Committee would ne-

  613
  cessarily shelve the Bill. As the hon. Member opposite (Sir Graham Montgomery) had stated, a general Bill had been for years delayed on account of this difference between Glasgow and Lanark, and it seemed to him that it should not again be frustrated by reference to a Select Committee. If the hon. Gentleman wished to raise the question on the merits, he ought to do so when they came to the clause referred to. Although he had listened with a certain amount of attention, he had been unable to arrive at an opinion. They had not seen the Report of Mr. Smith. When they had seen that they might either determine the matter or defer the clause until next year. He would ask his hon. Friend not to proceed to a division, because if he did he should have to vote against him.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 81: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 191.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered.
  On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following clause was inserted after Clause 38:—
  (Appointment and powers of joint bridge committee.)
  "The following provisions shall have effect as to the appointment, powers, and duties of a joint bridge committee:

  "(1.) A joint bridge committee shall be appointed annually at such date as may be agreed on between the road authorities appointing representatives thereon, and each road authority may appoint not more than five persons to be members of such committee;

  "(2.) A joint bridge committee shall have power to appoint a chairman, and to appoint and remunerate such officers as shall be necessary for the management of the bridge, such officers, as far as possible, being already officers of the road authorities by whom the committee is appointed;

  "(3.) In the event of difference of opinion, the representatives of each road authority shall jointly have one vote, and, if there is an equality of votes, the question shall be referred to a standing arbitrator to be named annually by the committee, or, failing such nomination, by the sheriff of any adjoining county."

  MR. BAILLIE HAMILTON, in moving, in page 6, after Clause 7, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Provision as to tolls on traffic to and from county where tolls are abolished).
  "Where, under the provisions of this Act, tolls have been abolished in any county, but
  614
  where tolls have not been abolished in any county adjoining thereto (whether such adjoining county be in Scotland or in England), no tolls shall be levied, on or after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, in such adjoining county in respect of any traffic passing for a distance not exceeding six miles over any turnpike road therein to or from the county in which tolls shall have been so abolished,"
  said, that in bringing forward this clause he intended to say very few words in its defence. Those few words would be amply sufficient to prove that the Bill, without some such alteration as was contained in the clause, would perpetrate a gross injustice upon certain localities as regarded residents on the Scotch side of the Border. He proposed to address himself to the consequences of the Bill to the residents in Berwick, about which he was competent to speak, and the whole thing would be found to be in a nut-shell. Some time ago he had received a letter from 18 Scotch Border farmers, in which they stated that about half of what they contributed to roads was levied at toll-bars in England; that nearly the whole of their corn was sent to railway stations in England; and that there was also a considerable amount of traffic from those stations in coal, lime, feeding cakes, and so on, all of which things had to pay 3¾d. per cart for English tolls for every mile or half-a-mile, and 3d. per cart for Scotch tolls. If, however, they went two miles farther into England to fetch coal, every cart coming from the Northumberland pits had to pay 8¾d. per cart in England, and 3d. per cart in Scotland; and the complaint was, that if the Bill passed without alteration, and no saving clause was inserted, the Scotch Borderers would have to pay for the new road rates an amount exceeding what they at present paid for the English tolls, the Scotch tolls, and the statute labour assessment altogether, and that they would still be saddled with the English tolls in addition. They thought it was only fair that they should have the same free use of the roads on the other side of the Border that their English neighbours had on the Scotch side. He did not want to weary the House with any local details; but in order to prove the hardship that this clause was intended to obviate, he would quote a few figures which, he believed, were as nearly as possible accurate, and, if so, he thought conclusive, as to the

  615
  necessity of some steps being taken to remedy the injustice complained of. The 18 subscribers to the letter he had mentioned were resident in five different parishes. Their statute labour road assessments for last year amounted to about £109, their Scotch tolls to about £80, and their English tolls to about £157. The rental of those gentlemen amounted to £17,630 per annum, and seven of them were resident in two parishes. The payments of those seven gentlemen made under the Statute Labour Roads Assessment Act amounted last year to £38 17 s. 4d., the Scotch tolls to about £35, while the English tolls came to £66 10 s. Again, there were 18 tenant farmers in the parish of Coldstream, whose statute labour roads assessment amounted to £71 14 s. 9d., the Scotch tolls to about £35, and the English tolls to no less than £105. Now, whilst he brought forward only a limited number of Scotch tenant farmers, he need hardly say that the number might be enormously increased and the figures greatly augmented; but he thought he had said enough to prove that, if in the Scotch Border counties the tolls were to be compulsorily abolished and general road rates substituted, whilst on the English side the tolls were permitted to exist as hitherto, upon those whose traffic was principally directed to the side of England, it would constitute a grievance for which he was justly entitled to ask for a remedy. He was, of course, aware that as the action of the Bill was confined to Scotland, the terms of the clause might be considered as inadmissible; but if such were the case, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill was bound, before it became compulsory, to make some provision against the hardship and the gross injustice which would otherwise be inflicted upon those whose case he had endeavoured to lay before the House. He might say that in one place—namely, in Greenlaw, the Road Trust capital extended over half-a-mile into England, beyond Coldstream Bridge, and that bit of road was largely used without payment by those who lived upon the English side. He could only add that if any assurance were given that the existing local turnpike Acts would not be continued in Northumberland beyond the day on which the Bill became compulsory in Scotland, all the necessity for
  616
  his clause would be at an end. He hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) or some other Member of the Government would be able to give them some assurance that these turnpike Acts would cease upon the Bill becoming compulsory, and that those for whom he spoke would not be subjected to the very great hardship he had described. The hon. Member concluded by moving the insertion of the clause of which he had given Notice.
  Clause,—(Mr. Baillie Hamilton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  CAPTAIN MILNE-HOME, in moving, as an Amendment to Mr. BAILLIE HAMILTON'S proposed new Clause after Clause 7, to add—
  "Provided, That this Clause shall not take effect in any county or counties in England adjoining the counties of Berwick or Roxburgh, or either of them, during the term or terms of the Local Turnpike Act or Acts of Parliament now in force in such county or counties in England, nor during such further term or terms for which such Local Turnpike Act or Acts may be continued by authority of Parliament,"
  said, that it was not often that a Scotchman had to rise in his place in that House to speak for the rights of England; but that was his case at that moment, because if this clause, without some Amendment like that of which he had given Notice, was passed, it would do a very great injustice indeed to the road trusts in that part of Northumberland with which the constituency he had the honour to represent was most intimately connected. As to the terms of the clause, he had no fault to find with them, because it was fair enough that if tolls were abolished in any county, those who lived on the confines of that county should be free when they passed over the boundary into another county where, though not abolished, they were terminable, provided there was a reciprocity of benefit to those who dwelt in the next county where the tolls had not been done away with. Now, that was the case in that part of Northumberland for which he was there to plead? It was quite true, as his hon. Friend had stated, that those

  617
  who lived on the north bank of the Tweed—
  MR. SPEAKERinterposed, stating that the Question had not been put that the clause be read a second time.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. GRANT, in moving, in page 8, after Clause 11, to insert the following clauses:—
  (With respect to certain roads within the burgh of Leith.)
  "With respect to the roads and streets within the burgh of Leith at present under the management of the City of Edinburgh Road Trust or paving board of the city of Edinburgh, videlicet: Leith Walk from Pilrig Street and including Pilrig Street to Duke Street, the street called Duke Street from the foot of Leith Walk to Easter Road, and the road known as Easter Road, all so far as within the Parliamentary boundaries of Leith; the said roads and streets before becoming vested under this Act in the local authority of the burgh of Leith, shall be put by the said trust or paving board or other authority having immediately prior to the adoption of this Act the burden of maintaining and upholding of the said roads and streets in as good a state of repair as the other portions in the district known as the middle or Edinburgh district of roads, and that to the satisfaction of the surveyor of the City of Edinburgh Road Trust or other authority, and the surveyor of paving of the burgh of Leith; and, in the event of their differing, by a surveyor to be nominated by the sheriff of the county of Edinburgh, on the application of either party."
  (With respect to roads at present maintained under special obligation.)
  "Provided always, That when any trust, board, corporation, or person is under special obligation to maintain, and uphold any roads, streets, bridges, or highways, at the time of the adoption of this Act, the said roads, bridges, highways, or streets, shall be put in such condition by such trust, board, corporation, or person as shall be considered reasonable and proper by a surveyor to be appointed for that purpose by the sheriff of the county, on the application of any person interested before becoming vested under this Act in the said trustees or local authority,"
  said, he begged to state that he did not propose to move the second part of the Amendment, which referred to the general question of the state in which roads should be handed over under the Bill. His desire was to submit the local question as the simple issue to the House for its decision. He was aware that to go into the general question might lead to wider discussion and to complications which he wished to avoid on that occasion. In speaking of the Amendment, he wished to state to the
  618
  House that he was fully alive to the necessity and importance of concessions being made by all parties for the general good if the Bill were to pass into law. But, at the same time, he thought that the House would agree with him that it was not the intention of the Bill, and that it ought not to be its intention, to permit one set of parties to perpetrate an act of injustice upon another set of parties by the side-wind, as it were, of the measure, especially when the smaller and weaker party had on more than one occasion successfully resisted that act of injustice in this Imperial Parliament before the Bill was proposed, when the question between the two parties had been the main issue under discussion. Now, he would trouble the House for a few moments with some remarks upon the history of the long dispute between the people of Edinburgh and Leith. So far back as 1809 a trust was appointed under an Act of Parliament—49 Geo. III.—to look after the upholding and maintenance of the Leith Walk roads, and instruction was given to them to accumulate a capital fund out of the interest of which those roads were to be afterwards supported. That capital fund, which was fixed at £4,000, was subsequently found to be far less than sufficient for the purpose for which it was to be used, and by an Act—3 Geo. IV.—it was provided that the capital fund should be increased to £8,000, the interest from which capital accumulation was to be devoted towards the maintenance of those roads, and to no other purpose whatever. By Act 5 and 6 Will. IV., c. 68, that capital fund having been accumulated, the old Leith Walk Trust was merged in the Middle District Trust, and the toll of the Leith Walk, from which that capital had been collected, was abolished. The Leith Walk Trust made over to the Middle District Trust at that time all the monies in its possession, and the Middle District Trust acquired all the then duties of the Leith Walk Trust, and all its obligations and its undertakings. The money that was made over consisted of £7,000, and that sum was afterwards augmented by a further transfer of £2,000. The debt that the Middle District Trust undertook amounted to only £400. One of the engagements which the Middle District

  619
  undertook was to the effect that the interest of that capital sum was to be devoted towards the maintenance of those Leith Walk roads, and to no other purpose whatever. One of the undertakings was the general maintenance of the whole of the Leith Walk roads. Well, later on, in 1846, an Act was passed—the 9 & 10 Viet. c. 125—in order to provide for the maintenance by the burgh of Leith of all the roads within the burgh with certain exceptions, and one of those exceptions was the portion of the Leith Walk roads which lay within the Middle District Trust. A strong attempt was made to have that portion of those roads which was within the town of Leith transferred as a burden upon the town of Leith; but the Leith people successfully resisted the attempt, and it was specially provided in the Act of 1846 that the whole burden of maintaining those roads, both within Leith and Edinburgh, was to remain on the shoulders of the Middle District Trust, the reason of that probably being that the Middle District Trust had received a pecuniary consideration from the Leith Walk Trust, when they had taken over the roads, no part of which they proposed to transfer to Leith under the proposed arrangement. In the same year another Act was passed for altering the constitution of the Middle District Trust, and for other purposes, and again the Middle District Trust, afterwards the Edinburgh Road Trust, made a strong endeavour to transfer that portion of the Leith Walk roads within the burgh of Leith to the shoulders of the Leith people. But that attempt was again frustrated, and again a special provision was put into the Bill enacting that the burden of sustaining the whole of those roads should remain upon the shoulders of the Middle District Trust. Coming down to the year 1874, in that year a Bill was promoted by the Edinburgh Road Trust for the purpose of abolishing tolls and other matters. Again a strenuous attempt was made by Edinburgh to place upon Leith the burden of those roads. But the burgh of Leith objected to this, on the ground that the lower part of those roads had been left by the Middle District Trust in a neglected and dilapidated state; but they said that they would take over the roads provided either that they were put into a proper
  620
  state of repair, or that a sufficient sum of money was given to Leith to have it done for themselves. The whole question was thoroughly sifted and gone into by a Committee of that House which sat upstairs. Witnesses were examined at great length, and he believed his hon. Friend the senior Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was examined on that occasion. Counsel were heard on both sides, and the whole question was carefully sifted and gone into, with the result that the Committee unanimously came to the following decision:—
  "That the Leith Walk roads, so far as they were included within the boundaries of Leith, should be handed over to the burgh of Leith in as good a state of repair as the other portions situated in the Middle District Trust."
  Now, that was the unanimous decision of a Committee sitting upstairs, with the whole details and particulars of the case before them. It was true it might be said that the Bill never passed into law; but, on the whole, he thought that the House would not hold that that fact detracted from the value of the Report of the Committee with the whole case before them. Now, that was the history of the case, and the position in which it now stood. What, then, were the reasons which should lead the House to support the Amendment of which he had given Notice? The first reason was, that if the Bill were allowed to pass without the Amendment, the House would be allowing the deliberate and repeated opinion of the Imperial Parliament, given when the question was before them as a main issue under discussion, to be overruled; and, again, a second reason was, that if the House allowed the Bill to pass without his Amendment, it would be giving its sanction to a very cruel piece of injustice. For, how did the case stand? When the Middle District Trust took over the roads they received with them a large capital sum of money, the interest of which was to be devoted to the maintenance of these roads, and to no other purpose whatever. If the interest was to be devoted to such a purpose, the capital surely must remain intact. Instead of that, however, they had chosen to pay that capital sum, or, at all events, the greater portion of it for other purposes; and in so doing they clearly contravened the Act of Parlia-

  621
  ment. Of course, if the burden of maintaining the whole of these roads were to remain permanently upon the Edinburgh Road Trustees, this misappropriation of the capital sum would not matter, because they would have to find the money for the repair of them from some other sources. But that was not what the Edinburgh Road Trustees desired. They wished to be relieved from half the burden which they undertook when they received the money, without transferring along with the burden any portion of the capital sum. That was objected to, not unreasonably, by those people who were contributors to the capital sum to a large extent, and who said—"You have given us over the burden of repairing half these roads, therefore hand us over a proportionate amount of the capital sum which you received when you originally took over the burden you ask us to share with you." The Leith people, however, were inclined to be generous in the matter. They knew that the money had been spent, and they did not insist that it should be replaced. They desired, however, that the fact should be taken into consideration in weighing their demands which they did insist on. This matter had been a great grievance to his constituents, and was one on which they had long felt exceedingly sore, and in regard to which they were of opinion that they had been most ungenerously and unfairly treated by the Edinburgh authorities. The Edinburgh Road Trust, under statutory provisions, were bound to maintain the roads in question; and, of course, as far as could be reasonably expected, they were bound to keep the whole of them in a good condition. But the charge which he made against the Edinburgh Road Trust was, that ever since they first conceived the idea, years ago, of keeping up only half of those roads, they had wilfully and systematically and unfairly neglected that portion of the roads which they expected some day and at some fitting opportunity to hand over to the burgh of Leith, and which under this Bill they would so hand over unless the House prevented them doing so. When he said that the Edinburgh Trust had wilfully starved the lower portion of the roads, he did not make an assertion which he could not prove. The fact was, that when the whole question came under the consideration of the Committee in 1874, it was satisfactorily shown to them
  622
  that what he had stated was really the state of the case, and the proof that it was so was the unanimous decision which they arrived at. He did not assert that the whole of these roads were in a bad condition, for that was not the se; but he did say, that while the upper portion of the roads was in a reasonably good state of repair, and, indeed, in a very good condition, the lower portion of roads was in a disgracefully bad state. Therefore, the simple act of justice his constituents now asked for was that the lower portion should be placed in the same condition as the upper portion. Before the Committee which sat in 1874 the Clerk to the Edinburgh Road Trust was examined, and stated frankly and openly enough that the condition of the two halves of those roads was entirely different, and that the lower part was in a bad state of repair. Not only so, but as a further proof, when he was asked as to the apportionment of the money laid out on the two portions of the roads—which were of equal length—between 1859 and 1873, he stated that the sum laid out on the upper portion of the roads, which under this Bill was to remain in the hands of the Edinburgh authorities, amounted to £18,600, while the money laid out on the lower part, which Edinburgh now wished to hand over to Leith, amounted only to £3,100. Those figures, if they stood alone, proved how one portion of the roads had been most unfairly starved, whilst there had been an over amount of money spent on the upper part, and he did not see that that state of things had in any way altered for the better since 1873. He knew that the municipality of Leith was continually remonstrating with the Edinburgh authorities as to the manner in which they maintained the roads, but no redress whatever was obtained. As to this matter, however, he was able to add more. He had personal experience in passing over the roads. At the recent Election he lived in Edinburgh, and had frequent occasion to pass over the roads, and he took particular notice of their condition. He could bear witness to the truth of the statement that the lower portion of the roads was in a very disgraceful state, while the upper portion was very well maintained. With his eyes shut, he could easily tell by the bumping when the boundary be-

  623
  tween the burghs had been reached. A story was told, that on one occasion his Predecessor in the representation of Leith, in his capacity of colonel of a Volunteer regiment, was marching his men up the lower portion of these roads, and that in doing so he lost his bugler in one of the many holes that existed. Though that might be an exaggeration, it was no exaggeration to say that the Edinburgh municipality did nothing more than was absolutely necessary for keeping them free from liability in the case of accidents. As he understood that he should not have an opportunity of addressing the House again in regard to this clause, he would ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments while he took into consideration the arguments that might be raised on the other side. He saw that his hon. friend the Member for Edinburgh was armed with the Report of the Royal Commission which sat in 1859, and no doubt he would state to the House some of the views which had been laid before the Commission. He would endeavour to show that the sum of money handed over to the Middle District Trustees was not £8,000 or £9,000, but only some £2,000 odd. But how would he show that? Why, he would say that the Edinburgh Road Trustees had employed some £6,000 of the money—the capital sum which had been received by the Middle District Trustees—and had appropriated it to paying off the debt on another concern altogether. Of course, the Edinburgh Road Trustees could show that the money had been so applied; but even if they were able to establish the fact by their books, it would not disprove the misapplication of the money which had been placed in their hands for a different purpose. Then the hon. Member would endeavour to show that large sums of money had been laid out in the maintenance and the repair of these roads as a whole; but he thought that he (Mr. Grant) had demonstrated that it was not upon the lower portion of the roads that the money had been spent, but that the Edinburgh Trust had maintained one portion in a state of good repair at the expense of the other part. Then, again, it might be pointed out that the burgh of Leith had been drawing money in the shape of road assessment from the
  624
  houses and premises along the line of these roads, and that they had been contributing nothing to their up-keep; and while he acknowledged that the burgh of Leith had been drawing money from police rates, it was a very small sum, and had been more than made up to Edinburgh by the causeway mail that Edinburgh had levied on Leith Walk. That the causeway mail was a burden to Leith was acknowledged in the statement of the city of Edinburgh, wherein they said that its abolition would be a benefit to the inhabitants of Leith. Again, it might be said that there were a great many new streets being opened up in the Leith quarter, and that the Leith people would draw a large revenue from them. He begged to state that those were only new erections which were only just now becoming available for rating, and that the whole additional revenue to Leith would be required to meet the expenses now imposed on Leith under this Bill. Then, perhaps, it might be denied that the lower portion of those roads was out of repair, or in such a state as he had described. He had, he thought, brought forward evidence enough to convince any unprejudiced mind that the lower portion of the roads was in a bad state. But if it was denied, he should ask why that determined opposition to his Amendment? If the roads were in a fair condition no expense would be incurred by the Edinburgh Road Trustees, and therefore his Amendment would place no additional burden on them. If, on the other hand, it was as he stated, then the two portions of the roads should be made alike, and the surveyors to be appointed would see that this was done. Then the hon. Member might say that the people of Edinburgh had no funds wherewith to execute the repairs he (Mr. Grant) had proposed. As to that, all he could say was that it was not his part to suggest where the money was to come from; but he was not aware that the powers of the Trust had been taken from them by which they could levy rates upon the people of Edinburgh for the maintenance of the roads. He was aware of the fact that the Trust had within a very short time voted a sum of £5,000 for improvements in Princes Street; and he did think that their unperformed duty in connection with the Leith Walk roads

  625
  constituted even a more pressing obligation. In placing before the House the case of the burgh of Leith, he had shown that for many years past the Edinburgh Road Trustees had been endeavouring to get rid of the obligation of repairing the lower roads, without performing their duty with respect to them; that they had received a large sum of money for the purpose of repairing these roads without expending it in the execution of those repairs; and if the House allowed the Bill to pass without inserting the Amendment he now proposed, they would allow the Edinburgh Road Trustees to reap the benefit of their culpable laches in the matter. He appealed to the House for its support; and he asked them to do justice between the two parties. This was an exceptional case, and it should be treated exceptionally, because it in no way affected the general question relating to the condition in which highways were to be handed over under this Bill. He asked the House to confirm the decision which had been arrived at by the Committee of 1874, who had the whole case before them, his Amendment being exactly in the terms of that decision. He trusted the House would not allow a grievous injustice to be done in the matter, and would not allow the influence of the strong to override the interests of the weak. He begged to propose the insertion of the clause of which he had given Notice.
  Clause,—(Mr. Grant,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. M'LARENsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Grant) had made a most gallant defence for his constituency in the matter; but if all who had Amendments to move on the Bill were to take up as much time as he had done, the result would be that they should have to go on discussing the measure for another week. If the House would permit him he thought he should be able to show, in one-tenth part of the time his hon. Friend had occupied, that the statements which had been made could not be proved. It was true that the city of Edinburgh, by an Act of Parliament, was bound to maintain certain roads in
  626
  Leith, and the county of Edinburgh was bound to maintain about 12 miles of roads in the city of Edinburgh. If it was true, as his hon. Friend had said, that the Edinburgh Road Trustees were bound to put the Leith roads into an equally good condition with the upper ones, it would be equally incumbent on the county trustees to put their 12 miles within the city in first-rate order. But the Bill was not intended to do anything of the kind, or to place such an obligation upon that body. All it did was to hand over all the lower roads to the local burgh authorities in Leith, and, in the same way, to hand over the county roads to the city authorities as they now were. He would not enter into details; but would merely state that, so far from the sum of £10,000 having come into the hands of the Middle District, as stated by his hon. Friend, the statement was a myth. The matter was examined by the Royal Commission in 1859, and the evidence was that the Act under which they worked contained two clauses, one of which referred to the roads in question, and the debts and obligations were mixed up with the Leith Walk Trust, and the Calton Road Trusts. The Blue Books showed that all that was left over was £2,570; and he had the authority of the Clerk to the City Trustees for saying that since 1874 £1,600 had been laid out in improving and supporting those roads, within the burgh of Leith, and that they were now in a very good state of repair. In all the districts under their control the road money had been raised by the authority of the burgh of Leith, while not a shilling had been expended by that body in the repair of the roads in question; the whole of the money having been applied to other purposes, while the ratepayers of Edinburgh had been unduly burdened by being saddled with the cost of repairing and maintaining the roads of the district referred to. The House would perceive that the annual interest on the sum of £2,570, which had been received by the Middle District Trustees, only amounted to something like £100 per annum; while the average annual expenditure of the Edinburgh Road Trustees upon the lower portion of these roads during the last four years amounted to over £400. They had, therefore, been expending, in the maintenance and repair

  627
  of these roads, four times as much as they received. The fact was, that there could be no stronger case brought forward to show what an injustice had been done to Edinburgh than by bringing forward the present arrangements. He was unwilling to occupy the attention of the House longer, otherwise he was in a position to enter into details which would show overwhelmingly the correctness of the statement he had made, and the soundness of the views which the Edinburgh Road Trustees had taken on the question. He, however, was quite content to take his stand on this principle—that if the county of Edinburgh was willing to put the dozen miles of roads which were to be handed over to Edinburgh in a perfect state of repair, the Edinburgh City Trust would be willing to put the two-and-a-half miles of roads which were to be transferred to the Leith burgh local authority in an equally good condition.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he rose on that occasion merely to indicate his own opinion. It was proposed by this new clause to deal exceptionally with the Edinburgh Road Trust, and he did not think any case had been made out in the matter. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith (Mr. Grant) pressed his Amendments, he (the Lord Advocate) should certainly follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh into the Lobby.
  Question put, and negatived.
  On the Motion of Mr. M'LAREN, the following Clause was inserted after Clause 46:—
  (Transfer of undertaking of city of Edinburgh Road Trust to Corporation of the city.—Property vested.—Deeds, &c., to be valid.—Officers.)
  "From and after the second Monday of December one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight, the sections of 'The Edinburgh Roads and Streets Act, 1862,' from four to twenty-two, both inclusive, and from seventy-nine to eighty-six, both inclusive, shall be, and the same are, hereby repealed, and the body of trustees thereby constituted under the name and description of 'The City of Edinburgh Road Trust' shall thereon cease to exist; and from and after the said date the whole powers and authorities of every kind vested in the trustees under the said Act, or conferred on them by or under authority of any other Act of Parliament, shall he, and the same are, hereby trans-
  628
  ferred to and vested in the Town Council of the city of Edinburgh, who shall thenceforward, as part of the ordinary business of the town council, and according to the rules by which the conduct of such business is regulated, including the mode of estimating expenditure, and of keeping, making up, auditing, certifying and publishing of accounts, exercise the whole powers and authorities of the said road trust, and perform the whole duties and obligations, and fulfil all contracts incumbent on the said trust; and in construing the said Act, and any other Act in which the said road trustees are named, the expression 'the trustees,' or any other expression referring to the said road trustees, shall be read as if the 'Town Council of Edinburgh' had been inserted instead thereof. And the whole lands, houses, assessments, duties, claims, demands, rights, properties, and effects of every kind, heritable or movable, belonging to or vested in or leviable or exigible by the said road trust, or any person on their behalf, under and in virtue of the said Roads and Streets Act (but subject to any liabilities to which the same are legally liable), shall, from and after the aforesaid date, become vested in and belong to and be leviable and exigible by the Town Council of Edinburgh, for the purposes of the said Act, as fully and effectually to all intents and purposes as if the same had been formally and particularly conveyed to and vested in them, with full power, right, and authority to the Town Council of Edinburgh to levy, adjudge, sue for, and recover the same. And all bonds, obligations, assignments, leases, grants, conveyances, or other deeds or securities legally made or granted to or by the said road trust or any person under authority of the said Act shall he good, valid, and effectual to all intents and purposes; and all debts contracted and all lawful contracts entered into by the said road trust or any person on their behalf by virtue of the said Roads and Streets Act, or any other Act, shall remain valid and binding upon the Town Council of Edinburgh under authority of this Act. And it shall he lawful for the Town Council of Edinburgh to continue any of the officers employed by the said road trust or to make such provision for their retirement or otherwise out of the rates under the said 'Edinburgh Roads and Streets Act, 1862,' or this Act, as may be by them considered just and expedient: Provided always, That, notwithstanding the adoption of this Act or its becoming operative within the county of Edinburgh, the provisions of the said 'Edinburgh Roads and Streets Act, 1862,' not hereby specially repealed, shall, in addition to the provisions of this Act and in so far as not inconsistent with this Act, apply and continue to be applicable to the burgh of Edinburgh as if the said burgh were the district defined in the said 'Edinburgh Roads and Streets Act, 1862.'"
  On the Motion of Sir HENRY FERGUSON DAVIE, the following Clause was inserted after Clause 88:—
  (Special provision as to the burghs of Haddington, Dunbar, and North Berwick.)
  "In the event of this Act being adopted in the county of Haddington, or otherwise coming

  629
  to have effect therein, the same shall be subject to the following provisions:—

  "(1.) The county Road Trustees of the county of Haddington shall manage and maintain the roads, highways, and bridges within the burghs of Haddington, Dunbar, and North Berwick, which the county Road Board of the said county now maintains under the provisions of 'The Haddingtonshire Roads Act, 1863.'

  "(2.) The said county Road Trustees shall be entitled to assess and levy the assessments authorized by this Act upon the lands and heritages within those portions of the burghs of Haddington, Dunbar, and North Berwick which are not within the towns of Haddington, Dunbar, and North Berwick, as defined in 'The Haddingtonshire Roads Act, 1863.'"

  On the Motion of Mr. FRASER-MACKINTOSH, the following clause was inserted after Clause 94:—
  (As to a bridge in Elginshire.)
  "The county road trustees of the county of Elgin may, at any annual general meeting called in terms of 'The Elgin and Nairn Roads and Bridges Act, 1863,' resolve forth with to pay off the balance remaining due of the sum of money borrowed for the purposes of the bridge over the River Findhorn, near Dalvey, and, if they shall so resolve, they shall add the sum required to pay off such balance to the amount required to be raised in the ensuing year for the maintenance, repair, and management of roads, highways, and bridges within the said county, and shall assess there for accordingly; and, as soon as the said balance has been paid, it shall be deemed that the whole sums of money borrowed for the purposes of the said bridge, and the interest thereon, have been fully paid and extinguished within the meaning of the thirty-seventh section of 'The Elgin and Nairn Roads and Bridges Act, 1863.' "
  MR. M'LARENmoved to insert the following new Clause after Clause 96:—
  (Saving yearly payment by North British Railway Company to city of Edinburgh.)
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall affect or prejudice the right of the Magistrates and Town Council of the city of Edinburgh to the yearly amount of not less than five hundred and twenty-nine pounds eleven shillings and one penny, now payable to them by the North British Railway Company, forming part of the revenues and properties included in the Act first and second Victoria, chapter fifty-five, thereby conveyed in security to the creditors of the said city, and mortgaged to the Public Works Loan Commissioners under authority of the Act thirty-third and thirty-fourth Victoria, chapter eighty-seven, and which sum was agreed to by the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway Company (now amalgamated with the said North British Railway Company), and secured to the said city by section twenty-seven of 'The Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway and Edinburgh and Glasgow Union Canal Amalgamation Act, 1849.' "
  Clause,—(Mr. M'Laren,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. ADAMsaid, he objected to the clause. He did not wish to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) into the arguments he had brought forward in support of it. All he could say was, that the proposal seemed to be rather an ingenious method by which the city of Edinburgh should eat their cake and have it also. If the clause came into operation the Company would have to pay the sum which it was the object of the clause to secure to the city of Edinburgh, and also the assessment imposed by the Bill. That would be manifestly unfair. The proposition was either to establish causeway mail or not. If it was causeway mail, it was very unjust that it should be continued under the Bill, and that it should be paid by the North British Railway, while they were also assessed. And if it was not causeway mail, the clause was quite unnecessary. He put the hon. Member upon the horns of that dilemma, and left him to select which of them he pleased. He thought he might safely trust to the Government to see that such an injustice should not be done, and, with those few observations, he should leave them to deal with it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. COWANmoved the insertion of the following Clause:—
  (Saving as to Leith Harbour.)
  Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to relieve the Commissioners for the Harbour and Docks of Leith of any statutory obligation incumbent on them in regard to the making, maintenance, or repair of roads, streets, quays, or bridges within the burgh of Leith; and the exemption to which such Commissioners are entitled under the Acts of the eleventh and twelfth Victoria, chapter one hundred and twenty-three, and of the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh Victoria, chapter sixty, shall remain in force and shall extend and apply to all assessments under this Act."
  MR. GRANTsaid, he felt himself bound, on the part of his constituents, to oppose the clause, the object of which was to exempt the Dock Commissioners

  631
  of Leith from all assessments to be made under the provisions of this Bill. He maintained that this new clause was either unnecessary or undesirable. If it were intended to preserve to the Dock Commissioners their present exemption, it was unnecessary; and if it were intended to give them a new exemption and a new power, he held it was undesirable to do so, because they had no claim to any new power under this Act. He found that, many years ago, an exemption from police assessment was given to the Dock Commissioners, with the object of encouraging and stimulating the trade of the port, which was then comparatively small and in a languishing state; but he could not find that under that exemption there was any exemption from road assessment. In fact, during several years when the road assessment was collected separately from the police assessment, the Dock Board actually paid road assessment to the burgh of Leith. Under these circumstances, he could not see how his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan) could say that the dock property was entirely outside the limits of Leith, and that Leith had really nothing whatever to do with it. It was only when the burgh of Leith adopted the provisions of the General Police and Improvement Act of 1862, and when, consequently, the money for the repair of roads was collected under the police assessment, which was an indivisible rate, that the Dock Board were relieved of their share of contributing towards the repairs of the roads and streets of Leith. If, then, that was the result of a mere accident, and if their exemption from, police rate was preserved to them by the Bill, he thought it was very undesirable that any new exemption should be given to them from road assessment under the provisions of this measure. If the Dock Board were to get a new exemption, it was desirable to show that their case and their position warranted such an exemption; but he was not aware that this had been shown by the hon. Member who had proposed this new clause. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had stated that the great principle of the present Bill was that everyone should contribute towards the maintenance of the roads; and that being so, he thought that if any exemptions were to be made, the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him that
  632
  very good reason must be shown for them. Had any good reason been shown in this case? He certainly thought not. It could not be denied that the heavy traffic to and from the docks contributed in a great degree to the wear and tear of the streets and roads in the burgh of Leith. It might be said that if this Amendment was not introduced, a privilege which the Dock Board at present enjoyed would be taken away from them. He had already shown that that privilege was the result of an accident in regard to the assessment of roads. If it were shown to be necessary to the trade of the port that such an exemption should be granted, then there might be some ground for the clause that had been proposed. But how stood the case with regard to that? At the time when the exemption from police assessment was first given to Leith the trade of that port was in a very poor state, and the Commissioners were doomed in debt on which they could not pay the interest. But the aspect of things had changed since then. In 1866 the Government remitted to the Dock Board their large debt of £180,000, which was due to them; and owing to large and wise improvements in the dock accommodation, the trade of the place had very largely increased, as the following statistics would show:—In 1877, the gross revenue of the Dock Board of Leith was £82,570. The not revenue was £45,821. The debt for reproductive works was £250,000; and allowing for interest and sinking fund £15,821, there remained a clear surplus of £30,000 a-year. He asked, whether there was any ground for claiming for a Corporation with £30,000 a-year, whose traffic damaged the roads to a great extent, an exemption which should relieve them of the few hundred pounds which they would have to pay as their share of the assessment for the roads? He should only put this further argument to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill. If this exemption were granted to Leith, for what reason was there no such exemption granted to any other Harbour or Dock Board in Scotland? There were many such Boards all through the country which deserved greater consideration than the case of Leith; and he should be glad to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill what were the grounds on which he

  633
  would grant a new exemption over and above the exemption from the police rate which they at present enjoyed to the Dock Commissioners of Leith?
  MR. M'LARENsaid, the proposed clause was one of very great importance. That was to say, if his hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Grant) were to succeed in rejecting it, it would be very detrimental to various interests involved. His hon. Friend had referred to the large debt which formerly existed, and which the Government cancelled. Well, if any advantage was to be given to any party, surely the Government which cancelled the debt should be the party to get the advantage, and not the town of Leith, to which the harbour and docks did not belong. The harbour and docks belonged to the city of Edinburgh till 1838. At that time the Government practically purchased the harbour and docks by giving up a debt of £228,000 which had then been advanced. It took the docks and harbours altogether out of the hands of the Corporation of Edinburgh, and established a new commission, one-half of the members to be elected by the Government, and the other half by the Town Councils of Edinburgh and Leith. From that time the trade of the docks and harbour had increased amazingly, and the Trust had been remarkably well managed. It was then provided by the Acts referred to that the Harbour Trust, being entirely separated from the municipalities of Edinburgh and Leith, should watch and light and clean all its own territory. It had done that from its origin in 1838 up to the present date. The Trust had spent, and was now spending, £4,000 a-year in watching, lighting, cleaning, and paving the roads forming the docks and harbour of Leith, and in paving some contiguous streets leading to the docks; and, in place of asking for some new privilege, as his hon. Friend seemed to think, it merely asked to be let alone. They were liable to the Poor Law assessment, but not to the police assessment, which included the cost of paving the streets of Leith, and the clause proposed merely declared that the Trust should be continued free from liability to this new paving rate. If hon. Members looked at the rental of Leith, they would find that the harbour and docks formed one-fifth of the whole rental. Suppose a rate of 5d, in the
  634
  pound was laid on, 4d. would really fall on the inhabitants of Leith. Who would pay the other penny? It would be the inhabitants of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and the surrounding towns; because the trade from the port of Leith, carried on by this public Trust, was not the trade of Leith itself—it was the trade which went from Leith to London, and from Leith to all parts of the Continent. The fact was that it had been one of the most successfully managed Trusts in the United Kingdom; and he asked that it should be left with all its existing burdens, which represented an annual outlay of £4,000 a-year, instead of being mixed up with the town of Leith, which never had any right or title to interfere with its management.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that as he had been challenged by the hon. Member for Leith to state if he intended to support the proposed new clause, he could have no difficulty in replying to that challenge upon the footing that he did intend to support the clause. The reason why he did so was this—he was not aware of any harbour authority in Scotland, with the exception of the Leith Dock Commissioners, who were, at this moment, a road authority managing their own roads, and not only managing the roads, but paying for the cleaning, lighting, and watching of them out of the dock rates. Under these circumstances, the question that arose for consideration was whether an authority so existing and so intimately connected in many respects with the roads should be deprived of the management of them, and the maintenance and repair of them given over to others, while they were simply left to watch, clean, and light? One of the main reasons for intrusting burghs with the management of their own roads was this—that they performed this very function which the Commissioners of Leith discharged within their limits, and it humbly appeared to him that that was quite a good reason for dealing with them exceptionally. It was not the case of making them a road authority; it was a question whether they were to be continued in existence as a road authority in regard to roads upon which tolls had been abolished, or rather had never existed.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he regretted very much that he should have to occupy the time of the House for a few minutes in stating the reason why he thought it necessary to propose that the Speaker should leave the Chair, with a view to the introduction of the following clause in reference to the transfer of Linlithgow Bridge:—
  "Whereas by an Act of the Parliament of Scotland, passed in the year one thousand six hundred and eighty-five, the magistrates and town council of the royal burgh of Linlithgow were authorised and empowered to impose and levy dues for the purpose of repairing and upholding Linlithgow Bridge, and to apply the surplus 'to any public use for the good and utility of the town,' and such dues have since that time been so levied and applied, and whereas the right of property in the said bridge is vested in the said magistrates and town council, and such bridge is situated partly in the county of Linlithgow and partly in the county of Stirling: Be it enacted, That, on the commencement of this Act, the recited Act of the Parliament of Scotland shall be repealed, and the right of property in Linlithgow Bridge shall thereupon vest in the road trustees of the county of Linlithgow and in the road trustees of the county of Stirling, who shall jointly and rateably, in the proportion of the valuation of these counties respectively, be bound to pay to said magistrates and town council compensation for the loss of the surplus of the aforesaid dues, according as the amount or value of such surplus may be ascertained and determined by arbiters, one of whom shall be appointed by the road trustees of the counties of Linlithgow and Stirling at a joint meeting of said trustees, to be convened for that purpose within three months after the commencement of this Act, and one by the said magistrates and town council; and such arbiters, when so appointed, and before proceeding to consider the questions referred to them, shall elect an oversman, and, failing the appointment of an arbiter by the foresaid road trustees, it shall be competent for the said magistrates and town council to apply to the sheriff of the county of Linlithgow to appoint a person to perform the duty of such arbiters, and the decision of such arbiters, or oversman, or person appointed by the sheriff, shall be final."
  The fact was, that the clause which he wished to bring before the whole House in Committee was one which he deemed necessary in order to provide that justice might be done to one of the burghs which he had the honour to represent. In 1681, the Earl of Linlithgow, at that time the proprietor of extensive estates to the west of the town, erected a bridge over the River Avon, and subsequent to its erection the Crown was pleased to grant to the Earl a lease for 19 years, under which he was empowered to levy toll at that bridge, for the purpose of maintaining it and of re-imbursing himself
  636
  for his outlay. In 1681 the Town Council of Linlithgow negotiated with the Earl for the acquisition of his right under the lease, and they paid him a price for his title. Subsequently, they acquired from his Lordship the right to levy the dues which had been sanctioned by His Majesty. In 1685 the magistrates of the burgh, which had been very much plundered in the time of the Commonwealth, applied to Parliament for the purpose of having their right to levy the toll confirmed and perpetuated by an Act of Parliament; and in consequence of a Petition presented to the Parliament of Scotland in that year their claim was taken into consideration, and Parliament in these terms agreed to the prayer of the same. It was that—
  "His Majesty's High Commissioner and Estates of Parliament, having heard the above written Petition, granted the desire thereof, and perpetuated in all time coming the aforesaid imposition formerly granted, as it is now paid, after the expiration of the aforesaid gift, and that for the sustentation and repair of the said bridge, &c., and to apply the surplus to any public use for the good and utility of the town."
  The magistrates, in consequence of the authority they thus got from Parliament, had applied for the good of the town the income which they had derived from that time to the present, a period of nearly 200 years. But he should probably be told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate that this did not of itself confer upon them anything beyond the mere right to a sum requisite for the maintenance of the bridge. He could not admit that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was entitled to make any such statement, and for this reason—that the burgh some years ago got into difficulties, and the question of their right to levy these dues came before the Court of Session, and ultimately before the House of Lords, and it was then held that the Parliament of Scotland, by virtue of this Act, did confer upon the magistrates of the burgh what he might call an inalienable Parliamentary provision, for the purpose of enabling them to uphold the dignity of the burgh, and in consideration of those losses they had sustained to which he had referred. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him that the right to levy an impost of this description was not of the nature—as stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman

  637
  on a previous occasion—of "customs." It was not of the nature of customs, in his opinion, because customs had been in use and levied in most of the ancient burghs in Scotland, but they were levied on commodities coming within the burgh, or passing through the burgh itself. But this bridge was a mile beyond the western boundary of the burgh—a considerable distance from any part of the area over which the magistrates of the burgh had jurisdiction. He could not conceive, therefore, that it was in any way different from a right in respect of private property; and if the Parliament of Great Britain had conferred upon a private individual the right to levy dues at any bridge in the South of England, and that for 200 years he had been authorized to apply, and had applied, the dues to such private purposes as he saw fit, it could not now be contended that in such a state of matters it would be reasonable on the part of Parliament to deprive that individual of that property without compensation. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had already agreed to a clause being inserted in the Bill to provide compensation for certain bridges belonging to private individuals; and unless that House was prepared to make a permanent distinction between the right of Corporations in respect of property held privately by them and the property of private individuals, he could not conceive how it would be justified in withholding assent to the clause which he should have to submit if the Motion which he now made was agreed to. But besides this, there was the consideration of the public purposes to which the burgh authorities had applied this fund. Under an Act passed only some six years ago—the Education Act of Scotland—it was provided that the burgh authorities were to pay over to the school board of the burgh such sum as it had been their custom to pay for the support of the burgh school. In accordance with that provision of the law the burgh authorities had been in the habit of paying, since the passing of that Act, £50 annually to the school board. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to take away this property from the burgh, and he should like to know in what way it was expected that they were to meet the charge upon them? The right of this burgh was singular, and different from the right conferred
  638
  in other cases; for he had examined the old Scottish Acts of Parliament, by which such rights were conferred in the 17th century, and he had not found a single example of another case in which the burgh authority was authorized to levy dues otherwise than for maintaining and upholding of the bridge. But in this case the language was quite express—that the authorities should have the right "to apply any surplus to any public use for the good and utility of the town." He did not know what Her Majesty's Ministers would say on this subject; but he felt that if they set the example in this way of tampering with the rights of private property, they would be doing that which had not hitherto been done by the British Parliament. He would appeal to the Lord Advocate to agree to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, in order that they might fairly consider on its merits the clause of which he had given Notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed in respect of a new Clause (Transfer of Linlithgow Bridge)."—(Mr. Ramsay.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could not agree to the proposal of his hon. Friend, for this reason—that he took quite a different view of the rights and interests of the burgh of Linlithgow in this bridge from that which his hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay) had taken. He should wish to call the attention of the House for one moment to the character of the imposts upon public roads which had been swept away by this Bill. Within a burgh everything was swept away in the shape of an exaction in respect of the use of the roads as a means of passage, and then in the 33rd section of the Bill the same provision was made with regard to public highways, including bridges outside a burgh. Undoubtedly, it was because the exaction in question would be swept away by the 33rd clause of the Bill that his hon. Friend proposed to introduce a new clause. He (the Lord Advocate) took it that the right to levy at a bridge outside the burgh was very much the same thing as the right to levy at the bridge within the burgh; that the right to levy or exact causeway mail or pontages for passing over a bridge in a county was not in the least degree different in character from the right granted by Royal

  639
  Charter to a burgh to levy causeway mail within that burgh; because he took it that the ordinary right to levy causeway mail in most of the burghs in Scotland implied no obligation beyond the maintenance of the road, and that any surplus might be, and had long been, applied to "any other purpose." He did not see why they should deal with the one case by sweeping it away, and deal with the other by conserving it because it happened to be beyond the burgh. That seemed to be the proposal here. The terms of the Royal grant were very guarded, and did not suggest that the leading purpose of the Act was to confer a pecuniary benefit upon the burgh itself; and in that very long and protracted litigation to which reference had been made one of the superior Judges, commenting upon the character of the grant, said it was upon the face of it a grant for the purpose of maintaining the bridge. He wished to state the case as fairly as, according to his opinion, it ought to be stated in a legal aspect; and, under these circumstances, he could not admit that there was any substantive distinction between this case and the ordinary causeway mail levied within the burghs, and he did not see that it could be consistently dealt with in this measure otherwise than it was proposed to deal with it in the 33rd section of the Bill.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 183: Majority 142.—(Div. List, No. 192).
  On the Motion of Mr. J. W. BARCLAY, the following Clauses were agreed to, and added to the Bill:—
  (Provisions for debts contracted under "The Forfarshire Roads Act, 1874.")
  "The sums of money borrowed under 'The Forfarshire Roads Act, 1874,' before the commencement of this Act, in the county of Forfar, shall not be included in the list of debts made up under the provisions of this Act, but every sum so borrowed shall (so far as unpaid) be held to be a debt of the particular district or burgh by which the money was borrowed, and shall be a first charge on the assessment levied under this Act, or any other Act or Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament, for the maintenance and repair of the roads, highways, or bridges within such district or burgh, and the creditors in such debts shall have over such assessment the same rights which creditors under this Act have over the assessment for the payment of debt, and the bonds, mortgage, or other securi-
  640
  ties in evidence of such debts shall be held to be if the same nature and be dealt with in the same way as the bonds, mortgages, or other securities, as the case may be, granted under this Act; and considering that by 'The Forfarshire Roads Act, 1874,' Kirriemuir is for the management, maintenance, and repair of the roads within it separated from the county of Forfar, Kirriemuir shall for all the purposes of this Act be held to be a burgh."
  (Trustees to have power to make bye-laws.)
  "The trustees may from time to time make bye-laws for the better regulation of their business or the management of the roads, and to amend or rescind the same, provided that such bye-laws are not contrary to the spirit or intent of this Act and shall have been approved by the sheriff of the county, after their publication in some newspaper circulating in the county at least ten days before the sitting of the sheriff for their consideration."
  On the Motion of Mr. YEAMAN, the following clause was agreed to, and added to the Bill:—
  (Savings of Acts transferring roads to local authority of burghs.)
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or affect any Act by or under which the turnpike roads and statute labour roads, or either of them, within any burgh have been transferred to the local authority of such burgh."
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEmoved, after Clause 88, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Special provision as to Glasgow and Garscube Road.)
  "Whereas the turnpike road leading from Glasgow to the Milnford of Garscube, which, with the exception of a portion of the bridge over the River Kelvin at the northern termination thereof, is situate entirely within the burgh of Maryhill, is carried under the Forth and Clyde Navigation by a very low and narrow bridge, and the trustees of that road have accumulated certain funds for the purpose of improving the same by constructing a diversion of the said navigation, and a bridge of ampler dimensions under such diversion, for which improvement powers have already been obtained from Parliament but are about to expire, and it is expedient that the funds accumulated as aforesaid should be applied towards the execution of such improvement: Therefore if within five years after the passing of this Act the powers for executing the said improvement shall be renewed, or new powers for a similar object shall be granted by Parliament, the said funds so far as necessary for the purpose shall be applied in carrying such powers into effect, by the said trustees until the improvement be completed, or until the Acts under which those trustees are constituted cease to be in force, and after those Acts cease to be in force (if the improvement be not then completed, and if the said funds or any part thereof remain then on hand) by the commissioners of police of the

  641
  burgh of Maryhill, to whom the said trustees shall, upon the said Acts ceasing to be in focre, hand over such funds or the balance thereof then on hand, if any, as the case may be."
  Clause (Special provision as to Glasgow and Garscube Road,)—(Sir Edward Colebrooke,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he objected to the clause. By a certain Road Trust Act two different trusts were to pay to Glasgow each a debt of £2,100 in consideration of much expensive work done by Glasgow. One of these paid their debt fairly and honestly, but the other did not, preferring to accumulate the funds and to pay to Glasgow an annual tribute, which was really only the interest on this debt. When the hon. Baronet moved that this accumulated fund should go for a different purpose than paying their debts, they must look at the clause in connection with his other Amendment, which proposed to stop this annual payment of interest. They had been laying burdens on Glasgow in every way, on no other ground than that Glasgow was rich and able to pay. They would be adding insult to injury if they robbed her of this £2,100 also. He hoped the Government would not agree to the proposal of the hon. Baronet.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that when this clause was first submitted to the House, he thought from the statement made that the proposal was a very reasonable one; but having recently been made acquainted with the facts stated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, he had changed his views, and he could not give the clause his support.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. ERNEST NOELmoved, in clause 3, page 2, line 9, to leave out from "within," to "therein," in line 10. The hon. Member said, the Amendment was intended to remedy the grievance which, he thought, the Government could never have intended by this interpretation to create. A burgh which at the present moment might have 4,500 inhabitants, and which might be growing very fast, might, nevertheless, not be able
  642
  to have the advantage of the Bill, because three months after its passing its population did not amount to 5,000, He hardly thought the Government intended that a burgh in these circumstances should be excluded from the benefits of this Bill when its inhabitants did exceed 5,000. He hoped the Government would give some consideration to the Amendment, as one of the towns which he represented was fast growing, and in a few years would come under the operation of the Bill. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, to leave out from the word "within," in line 9, to the word "therein," in line 10, inclusive.—(Mr. Ernest Noel.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEopposed the Amendment, because it must inevitably introduce complete disorder into the Bill. The Bill was framed on the footing of settling all questions between the burghs and counties at the outset—administrative questions, boundary questions, debt and allocation of debt questions, questions of bridge management, and all others. It was a difficult enough matter drafting a provision which would effect this as between counties and burghs, or rather between counties adopting the Act at different dates, and it would not do to insert a provision in the Bill to unsettle all these arrangements on certain burghs now under 5,000 of population reaching that figure. That must be left to future legislation. It could not be done now without introducing confusion where there was perplexity enough already.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ERNEST NOEL, in moving, in clause 3, page 2, line 10, to leave out "five," and insert "three," said, the reason he moved this second Amendment on Report was this, that when this subject was before the Committee a division was taken upon it, and a considerable majority of the Scotch Members interested in this Bill supported the proposal to reduce the limit of population, as fixed by the Bill, from 5,000 to 3,000, and he pressed this the more on

  643
  the Government after what had fallen from the Lord Advocate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that the Bill was framed for the purpose of providing a final settlement of all questions between the burghs and the counties, and that any change that might be necessary should be left for future legislation. Under the present legislation they were never to permit any town to come within the provisions of the Bill if it had not at the moment of the passing of the measure, or within three months thereof, reached the population of 5,000. He saw great force in what the Lord Advocate said about the unfairness of unsettling the arrangement, and yet it was very hard on many of these towns to force them to come again to the House and ask for legislation. He hoped the Lord Advocate would give way on this point, and would grant that which was originally supported by a majority of the Scotch Members. Towns that were already under police management should come within the scope of this Bill. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, to leave out the word "five," and insert the word "three,"—(Mr. Ernest Noel,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Bill."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could not agree to the Amendment. This matter was very fully considered by the Committee, and he could only say that wherever they had drawn, as they must, a hard-and-fast line somewhere, a little hardship would arise in some cases. But he ventured to suggest, that in drawing the line at a population of 5,000, there were fewer cases of hardship than there would be if the line were drawn at 3,000.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwas sorry to hear, from the speech of the Lord Advocate, that the request of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. E. Noel) was not to be granted. It appeared to him extremely anomalous that the House had just passed an Amendment which gave the town of Kirriemuir a right of being considered a burgh for the purposes of this Bill, although the town of Kirriemuir had not a population of 5,000. He could not see why an advantage should
  644
  be given to one town in Forfarshire, if it was not to be granted to other burghs in Scotland. There were, besides, no less than 25 Royal burghs with a population under 3,000, and if these 25 burghs were competent to manage their own roads, he did not see why other burghs of a similar population should be refused the like privilege.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the case of Kirriemuir was one where an arrangement had been made between it and the county, and a case where tolls had been abolished.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that the reason why Kirriemuir was excluded from the operation of the Bill was, that under the Forfarshire Road Act of 1874, certain arrangements were made and debts contracted, and therefore a great injustice would have been done by the present general Act unless that town were held to be a burgh, and allowed to carry out the arrangement entered into under the local Act.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, the Government had not answered the Question as to the Royal burghs with populations under 3,000. The Kirriemuir case was not so strong a case as that of the small Royal burghs. Really, if Royal burghs under 3,000 of population, and which were decreasing in population, were to have this privilege, he did not see why places of 3,000 which were growing rapidly, should not have it. He thought this Amendment ought to be conceded.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, Amendment made, in Clause 3, page 2, line 21, by leaving out the word "therein," and inserting the words "within a parish."
  On the Motion of Mr. GRANT, Amendment made, in page 2, line 48, after "pontages," by inserting—"and also any sum payable in respect of any exemption from or relinquishment of tolls."
  On the Motion of Mr. R. W. DUFF, Amendment made, in Clause 4—
  "Providing that nothing contained in the Act should have the effect of continuing in force the provisions of the Act passed in the 9th and 10th Vic., entitled an Act for the repair of certain roads in the counties of Banff, Aberdeen, and Elgin, after the end of the next Session of Parliament."
  On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments were made:—In Clause 3, page 3, line 20, after "trustees," insert "(not being county road trustees);" Clause 6, page 4, line 33, leave out "chairman of the road trustees," and insert "convener;" Clause 7, page 5, line 18, after "adopted," insert "or is in force;" page 5, line 19, after "adopted," insert "or is not in force;" page 5, line 20, after "the," insert "management and maintenance of the;" page 5, line 21, leave out "or bridges;" page 5, line 31, after "adopted," insert "or be in force;" page 5, line 43, leave out from "in" to "bridge," in line 44, both inclusive; page 6, line 1, leave out "or bridge;" page 6, line 5, leave out "or bridge;" Clause 9, page 6, line 33, leave out "the expiration of two years," and insert "anytime."
  On the Motion of Mr. J. W. BARCLAY, the following words were added at the end of Clause 10:—
  "Should the ratepayers fail to elect trustees at the first meeting called by the convener, or at any subsequent meeting called by the county road clerk, the county road clerk shall convene another meeting within six weeks for the purpose of electing trustees as herein provided."
  On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments were made:—In Clause 11, page 8, line 20, leave out "roads;" Clause 12, page 9, line 7, after "seal," insert "or;" page 9, line 8, after "assessed," insert "as owners; "page 9, line 10, leave out "as owners;" page 9, line 12, leave out "two," and insert "the following;" page 9, line 16, after "county," insert:—
  "That is to say: (a.) Where the number of ratepayers does not exceed five hundred, two persons; (b.) Where the number of ratepayers exceeds five hundred but does not exceed one thousand, three persons; (c.) Where the number of ratepayers exceeds one thousand, four persons;"
  page 9, line 17, leave out "one person," and insert "two persons;" page 9, line 17, leave out "an elected trustee," and insert "elected trustees;" page 9, line 25, leave out "provost," and insert "senior;" page 9, lines 26 and 27, leave out "such burgh being a police," and insert "other;" Clause 13, page 9, line 32, after "two," insert "or more;" page 9, line 32, after "number," insert
  646
  "as the case may be;" page 9, line 41, after "two," insert "or more;" page 10, line 16, at end of Clause, add as new paragraphs—
  "If there shall be an equality of votes for two or more persons, the candidate or candidates being the largest ratepayer or ratepayers shall be deemed to be elected.
  "Any question as to the number of trustees falling to be elected for any parish, or as to the election of any person as a trustee, may be disposed of summarily by the sheriff, whose decision shall be final;"
  Clause 18, page 11, line 34, leave out "roads and;" page 11, line 37, leave out "roads and;" Clause 19, page 12, line 10, after "any," leave out "trustee or," and insert—
  "Elected trustee for any parish shall resign (which he may do by any writing under his hand, addressed to the chairman of the trustees), or shall refuse to act, or shall die, or become disqualified, the board, if they think fit, may appoint a person, being a ratepayer of the same parish, to supply his place. If any;"
  Clause 22, page 13, line 20, leave out "and subsequent meetings," and insert "meeting;" page 13, line 21, after "board," insert "and the time and place of the subsequent meetings may be fixed by such district committee;" Clause 24, page 14, line 17, leave out "eight," and insert "six;" page 14, line 28, leave out "eight," and insert "six;" page 15, line 5, before "or payment," insert "or allocation;" Clause 28, page 16, line 22, after "agreement," insert "which shall not endure for a longer period than five years;" Clause 33, page 18, line 20, after "conversion," insert "or in lieu;" page 18, line 22, leave out "bridges and;" page 18, line 24, leave out "and bridges."
  MR. ERNEST NOELmoved, in Clause 33, page 18, line 27, after "Act," the insertion of the following provision:—
  "Provided always, That nothing in this Act contained shall affect any custom or dues although levied on or at any bridge, in so far as such custom or dues shall have been in use, to be applied for other purposes than the repair and maintenance of the bridge, and shall not be of the nature of a toll or causeway mail in the sense of this Act."
  He said, he regretted that from illness he had not been able to move this Amendment in Committee. They had heard a great deal of the injustice which some hon. Gentlemen thought would

  647
  be committed under the Bill; but he thought no case of unfairness would be so great as that which he wished to bring forward. He was quite sure that a Conservative Government could not wish to absolutely take away what was clearly private property. A long time ago a King gave a grant which was afterwards purchased by the town of Dumfries. It was not a right of toll for keeping a bridge in repair, but for the crossing of a river, and this right was granted before any bridge existed. The town of Dumfries bought the right from the monks to whom it belonged, and after that it was confirmed by Parliament, and was afterwards confirmed again in the Law Courts of Scotland. It was not a right of bridge money, but was just the same whether the bridge was used or not. But he feared that this right would be taken away by the Bill. He did not ask the House to change anything in the Bill, or to give causeway mail to Dumfries. He merely asked that a declaration might be made that the Bill should not interfere with any rights that were not in the shape of causeway mail, and that the Government should not be allowed, under the disguise of a road or bridge Bill, to take away the right of the town of Dumfries to which he had referred. Unless his proviso were added to the clause, a large amount of litigation would follow the passing of the present Bill; and he hoped he should be supported by the Committee in his appeal to the Government for the purpose of preventing such legislation.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 18, after the word "Act," in line 27, to insert the words "Provided always, That nothing in this Act contained shall affect any custom or dues although levied on or at any bridge, in so far as such custom or dues shall have been in use, to be applied for other purposes than the repair and maintenance of the bridge, and shall not be of the nature of a toll or causeway mail in the sense of this Act."—(Mr. Ernest Noel.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was sure the Committee could not have listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ernest Noel) without coming to the conclusion that if any difference existed between the characters of the dues levied at Dum-
  648
  fries and the causeway mail, it was that the former were infinitely more objectionable. From what the hon. Member said, it was clear that in the case of the dues levied at Dumfries there was no quid pro quo, as the town was not bound in return for them to perform any service whatever. He hoped the clause as it stood would have the effect of abolishing such tolls; but if there were any doubt about it, he hoped the Lord Advocate would prepare an Amendment by which that doubt should be solved, and all such objectionable tolls absolutely abolished.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he did not think the proviso of the hon. Member would prevent litigation. The bridge in question was practically one of the main entrances to the burgh. He did not consider it fair to propose an alteration contrary to the spirit of the Act, which abolished causeway mails. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell) that the proposal was a very objectionable one, and that the character of the causeway mails must be ascertained by reason, and in consideration and respect of which the causeway mail was paid, as well as the use to which it was applied by the burghs. The last part of the proviso appeared to him to be entirely unnecessary, for if these imposts were not in the nature of causeway mail in the sense of the Act they were not abolished. He apprehended that it was possible these bridge dues might partly consist of the payment of petty customs for passage through the burgh. There were many burghs in which a payment was made for cattle going to the market stands with a view to sale. In regard to this, he would direct attention to the Interpretation Clauses, which said that—
  "Causeway mail should not include petty customs, or any sum or duty except in so far as they were exacted, payable or leviable in respect of goods, articles, things, or animals passing or carried through such burgh."
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. C. S. PARKERasked, whether the Government were quite sure that the Bill would not abolish petty customs?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, there was no clause in the Bill by which petty customs were abolished, except in case

  649
  of petty customs for passing through the burghs.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLregretted that the Bill did not propose to deal with petty customs; because, in his opinion, it was extremely desirable that it should do so.
  On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments were made:—In Clause 33, page 18, line 37, leave out "burgh," and insert "burghs;" Clause 34, page 18, line 42, leave out after "which," to "therefrom," inclusive, in page 19, line 2, and insert "causeway mail;" page 19, line 2, leave out "are," and insert "is;" page 19, lines 4 and 5, leave out "customs or sum or duty," and insert "causeway mail;" page 19, lines 7 and 8, leave out "petty customs and sum or duty," and insert "causeway mail;" page 19, line 12, leave out the second "and," and insert "but always;" page 19, lines 15 and 16, leave out "petty customs and of the sum or duty," and insert "causeway mail;" page 19, lines 18 and 19, leave out "petty customs and such sum or duty," and insert "causeway mail;" Clause 35, page 19, line 26, leave out "roads;" page 19, line 27, leave out "and bridges."
  On the Motion of Mr. RAMSAY, Amendment made, in Clause 36, page 19, line 35, by inserting after the word "corporation," the words "or the magistrates and town council of any burgh."
  On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments were made:—In Clause 36, page 19, line 31, after "shall," insert—
  "As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act in such county or in any of such counties;"
  Page 20, line 6, after "highways," insert "free of pontages;" page 20, line 10, at end of Clause, add—
  "For the purposes of this section 'trustees' shall include the commissioners of supply of a county in which this Act has not been adopted or is not in force;"
  Clause 37, page 20, line 43, leave out "be allocated upon and;" page 21, line 5, leave out "equally in," and insert "in a committee (hereinafter called a joint bridge committee) to be appointed by;" page 22, line 26, leave out "allo-
  650
  cated upon and be;" page 22, line 6, after "charge," insert "equally;" page 22, line 10, leave out from "as nearly," to "respectively," in line 14, both inclusive; page 22, line 16, after "in," insert "a joint committee to be appointed by;" page 22, line 18, leave out after "local" to end of Clause, and insert "authorities chargeable with the cost of maintenance and rebuilding;" Clause 38, page 22, line 25, after "upon," insert "the trustees (whether acting under this Act or not) and local authority or authorities of;" page 22, line 26, at end of Clause, add—
  "The management of such bridge shall, failing agreement, be vested in a joint bridge committee appointed by the trustees or local authorities chargeable with the cost of maintenance and rebuilding."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved, as an Amendment, in Clause 38, page 22, at end, to add the words—"Unless, on an application of either party to the sheriff, he shall otherwise determine." He was, he said, in the hands of the Lord Advocate as to the necessity for the Amendment; for it had been settled that a bridge which was situated partly in one county and partly in another should be maintained equally by each county. He, however, thought there should be some kind of reference to the sheriff in special cases.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, which he would accept.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcalled the attention of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to the fact that a bridge in his county was situated partly in another county, and consequently would come under the jurisdiction of different sheriffs.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEpromised to bring up a clause to amend the discrepancy.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYmoved, as an Amendment, in Clause 39, page 23, line 17, after "included" to insert the words—"a certified copy of the valuation roll of such detached part, or parts."
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURhoped the Lord Advocate would have the valuation rolls printed, so that people could get copies of them without much

  651
  trouble in their respective counties, and at a small cost. The rolls now made out were almost always printed for transmission to the Lord Clerk Register, but only after a lapse of some time.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved, as an Amendment, in Clause 42, page 24, line 13, to leave out after "may," and insert—
  "Resolve that it shall be shut up, but such resolutions shall not take effect until the expiration of six months from the date thereof: Provided always, That thirty days' notice of the intention to propose a resolution, to that effect shall be given by advertisement in any newspaper usually circulating in the county in which such road proposed to be shut up is situated, and that upon such resolution being carried, the county road clerk shall give notice of the same by special advertisement and by printed notices affixed to the principal door of each church in every parish in which any part of such road is situated, and also by printed notices affixed during the said six months in some conspicuous place at both ends of such roads.
  "The determination of the trustees under the preceding section shall be final, and not subject to review in any court or in any process or proceeding whatsoever, unless any three ratepayers who shall be dissatisfied with such determination shall, within fourteen days after the date thereof, appeal to the sheriff, and the resolution of the trustees under this section shall in like manner be final and not subject to review, unless any three ratepayers who shall be dissatisfied therewith shall, within six months after the date thereof, appeal to the sheriff, and the sheriff shall hear and determine."
  MR. M'LARENobserved, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had formerly promised that the period of objection should be extended to two months. He had expressed his willingness to accept that Amendment; but he observed that the clause only gave 14 days. Unless objection was made within 14 days, there was no redress. He would suggest to the Lord Advocate that the period should be extended to two months.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the hon. Member seemed to be under some misapprehension as to the effect of the Amendment. The time given for the purpose of appealing as to the shutting-up of the road was not six months. The period of 14 days referred to the previous section. Thirty days' notice must be given of the meeting of the Board for the purpose of considering the proposal, and the clause then pro-
  652
  vided that a resolution, if passed, should not take effect for six months, and during the whole of that time there was an appeal; so that, in point of fact, 14 days' notice of the intention to propose the resolution was requisite, and after it had been passed, six month's appeal was allowed. The hon. Member would observe that the 14 days referred to the preceding section.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he was quite satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, there ought to be strong safeguards against any abuse in the case of the shutting-up of the public roads. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) seemed to be satisfied with what had been done; but he ventured to suggest that the power of appeal should be given to the public, and not to three ratepayers only. In a question of a right of way, it seemed to him that whether a person was a ratepayer or not, he had a right to object to the shutting-up of a public way.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was willing to have the word "inhabitants" inserted in the place of "ratepayers."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEwould explain that the word "ratepayers" would remain in the first part of the clause as to the appeal within 14 days; but that "inhabitants" would be inserted with respect to the appeal within six months.
  Amendment amended, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made, in page 24, line 36, after "sheriff," at end of clause, insert as a new paragraph:—
  "The ground occupied by any road which has been shut up in terms of this section shall fall and belong to the person or persons whose lands immediately adjoin thereto; and from whom, or his or their predecessor or predecessors, the ground so occupied was acquired without payment, and if any question shall arise as to the person or persons to whom such ground should fall and belong, the same shall be disposed of by the sheriff, whose decision shall be final; Provided, That if a price was originally paid for such ground, the trustees shall dispose of the same as nearly as may be in the manner herein provided in regard to toll houses."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL, who had given Notice to move, as an Amend-

  653
  ment, in Clause 46, page 26, line 2, after "final," to insert—
  "But, in the case of any burgh containing not more than five thousand inhabitants, the terms shall be such that the road assessments in the burgh shall not be higher than those of the adjoining district or districts of the county,"
  said, the object he had in view in proposing it had been to some extent met by the Amendment accepted by the Lord Advocate. And unless he obtained some support, it might not be wise to press his Amendment; but he wished to move it because—
  And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, stood adjourned till this day.
  The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

MOTIONS.
  REMOVAL OF PAUPERS.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING,in rising to call attention to the anomalous state of the Laws under which the destitute poor receiving relief from the poor's rate are subject to removal in England and Scotland, and by virtue of which destitute poor persons born in Ireland and so relieved are subject to deportation from England and Scotland to Ireland; and to move—
    "That said Laws in their operation inflict many wrongs and cause great sufferings; that they are unjust and impolitic therefore. That, in the opinion of this House, the said Laws ought to be so amended as that every poor person who shall have maintained himself or herself for twelve months by some industrial occupation in any parish, combination of parishes, or union in England, Wales, or Scotland, previously to receiving such relief, shall not be subject to removal therefrom,"
    said, he felt that it was unnecessary to enter into the origin of the laws of settlement and the liability of districts to support their own poor, because of their having been so modified by subsequent legislation. He would therefore
    654
    apply himself to the laws as he now found them and to the evils which still remained. Up to the year 1819 persons subject to removal should have committed an act of vagrancy; they should be proved to be rogues, vagabonds, or vagrants; but by the Act of 59 Geo. III., commonly called "Sturges Bourne's Act," powers were for the first time given to remove persons who had become chargeable as destitute poor, from which time vagabondism and poverty had been classed in the same category, and under which, and subsequent Acts amending the same, wrongs and sufferings had been imposed of a character beyond the possible conception or belief of the House. Accounts of them would be found in the evidence given before the Select Committee of 1854, appointed on the Motion of Mr. Baines, the then President of the English Poor Law Board, and in Returns which he (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) obtained by orders of the House in 1871 and 1875. From the year 1846 Parliament had shown a growing tendency to restrict the right of removal. In that year it was provided that no person in England or Wales could be removed from a parish in which he had been resident for five years next before the application for removal. In 1861 the period of three years was substituted for that of five, and "residence in the Union" was substituted for "residence in the parish." In 1865 the period of residence was reduced to one year—mitigations, no doubt, of the evils of the system existing previously, but by no means a solution—for the restriction of removal did not confer a right of settlement or permanent chargeability, and unless residence was kept up, the restriction on removal ceased—that was to say, that although a man might have lived a year in a Union, yet if he went to another, and received relief in it before he had spent 12 months there, he was liable to be sent to some place determined by what remained of the old law of settlement and by the modern laws of removal. But what was the state of the law of chargeability and removal in Scotland? To obtain a settlement there, a person must have resided five years in a parish before seeking relief, and that settlement was lost if, in any subsequent five years, the person did not reside for one year in it; while, in Ire-

    655
    land, there was no law of settlement nor power of removal. They had, therefore, a complete conflict of laws in the United Kingdom, differing to such an extent that it would be thought impossible under a common Imperial Legislature. He (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) would first take the case as it stood between England and Scotland. An English labourer was protected from removal by a year's residence, but let him cross the Border and happen to fall destitute in Scotland, he was deprived of the benefit of the humane improvements in the English law; while the Scotchman who had not obtained even in Scotland a settlement by a five years' residence in a parish, and subsequently resided for 12 months in an English Union, had all the benefits of the English law. There was no law of settlement nor of removal in Ireland, and no law of inter-union chargeability; chargeability was regulated by residence, varied since 1838 by five distinct Acts of Parliament; in some cases, it was four years' residence in an electoral division out of five in the Union; in another, 30 months out of three years. The chargeability arising from birth or marriage was also different. Therefore, he felt that he had established his first proposition as to the anomalous state of the laws. He (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) had from time to time called the attention of Parliament to the many evils resulting from the state of the laws; he did so during the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), which led to a conference between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), then President of the Local Government Board; the President of the Board of Supervision in Scotland, and Sir Alfred Power, Chief Commissioner in Ireland, with the view of considering what remedy might be applied, but from which nothing resulted, in consequence of the break-up of the right hon. Gentleman's Administration. He did so, subsequently, in the discussion on the Union Rating Bill, and upon that occasion the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, said—
    "The hon. Member for Cork had referred to another matter well deserving of consideration—the differences which existed between English and Irish law with respect to the removal of paupers. As far as that was concerned, he
    656
    thought Ireland had fair cause of complaint, and he had been surprised that Irish Members had not brought it under the notice of the House at an earlier period of the Session."
    In 1875, he (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) introduced a Bill, with the view of rendering it unlawful for justices in England or Scotland to remove to Ireland any poor person, where such poor person had for 12 months previously to relief being given, maintained himself, or herself, by some industrial occupation, in any parish, combination of parishes, or Union in England, Wales, or Scotland. On the discussion on that Bill, no one ventured to defend the law of removal, and he was glad to be able to say that there was an unanimous expression of opinion from the English Press that he (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) had made an unanswerable case. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, upon that occasion, after dealing with the measure in the fairest manner, gave a promise—
    "That the whole subject of settlement and removal would receive his attention during the Recess, and that he hoped in the next Session of Parliament to be able to submit proposals which would deal in a comprehensive spirit with the Poor Law of the three Kingdoms."
    With that promise he (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) would have been satisfied, and not have taken a division, had he not yielded to the advice of his more ardent Colleagues. The Bill was rejected by a considerable majority; hon. Members who had spoken in favour of the principle in the Bill—notably the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, and his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett)—who made important speeches on the occasion—declined to vote. The division, however, under the circumstances should make but little difference; it in no way affected the substantial success which the debate achieved, the system of Irish pauper deportation having been concurrently condemned. He was, however, apprehensive that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had been influenced by that division, inasmuch as that the right hon. Gentleman had not since introduced the comprehensive measure affecting the three Kingdoms, which he hoped to have done in the Session of 1876. The right hon. Gentleman, however, introduced a Bill "to provide for

    657
    the better arrangement of divided parishes" in England, in which a clause was introduced—34—by which a person residing for three years in any parish obtained a settlement therein until he should acquire a settlement in some other parish—a most imperfect solution of the question, as the labouring population were constantly forced to migrate from one parish to another, and seldom lived three years continuously in the same parish. A railway or new street ran through a poor quarter of a city filled with labourers' houses; labourers were thrown out of employment by derangement of trade, or other causes, and if they became destitute in the year subsequent, they lost their protection against removal. Had the right hon. Gentleman made a three years' residence in the Union instead of the parish, it would have been of large advantage, but as it was it was almost valueless. He (Mr. M'Carthy Downing), as he anticipated, found that the clause had not in any manner reduced the number of removals. The St. Pancras Union, Middlesex, made more orders of removal than any of the counties of England, and he found in the annual report of the assistant clerk, Mr. Higgins, for the year ending the 31st of December last, 12 months after the passing of the Act, the following statement:—
    "The number of removable persons chargeable to this parish during the preceding 12 months who have gained a settlement, formed of a three years' residence, either wholly, or partly before and partly after the statute of last Session, is but very small, and the returns for future years will, doubtless, prove that the large number of cases originally supposed as being likely to come under such a class—to have gained residential settlements in large towns—will fall far short of the calculations of the most sanguine of those who have agitated for so long past, and on so many grounds, the great necessity of a change in the settlement laws."
    And in the Return No. 5 in the said Report he found that the number of persons removed for the year ending 31st December, 1876, was 391; while, for the year ending 31st December, 1877, it was 524, showing an increase of nearly 34 per cent since the Act came into operation. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman intended the alteration which he effected as an experiment; that his opinion was in favour of the total abolition of the law of settle-
    658
    ment and removal; for he (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) found that at a conference of the Poor Law Guardians of the Southern counties, held at Basingstoke, under the presidency of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, in October, 1875, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said—
    "Of all the arguments which have been brought before me for the abolition of the law of removal, none commends itself more to my mind than that if it were abolished, you would get rid of a most objectionable anomaly—the administration of non-resident relief—and you would have throughout the country a more uniform system of sound principles in the administration of out-door relief."
    And with reference to the total abolition of the law of settlement, he said—
    "I took the opportunity in the early part of last year to direct the attention of all the Local Government Inspectors to the question, and have received excellent reports from them, setting forth their own opinions, and, in many instances, the collected opinions of the guardians and their clerks, and I will not conceal from you the fact that there is a vast amount of opinion tending towards the abolition of the law of settlement."
    The House would observe that all recent legislation had been directed to get rid of the law of settlement. The present Government could effect that object, and he hoped the House might hear from the right hon. Gentleman that it was their intention to do so in the next Session of Parliament. If so, the right hon. Gentleman could not object to his (Mr. M'Carthy Downing's) Motion being adopted. In fact, its adoption would strengthen his hands, and render his task an easy one. The Return from which he (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) quoted in the debate of 1875 was up to and for the 31st December, 1869. From it he read to the House several cases, which made a deep impression on hon. Members then present. He would not feel justified in again quoting those cases; but there were two which, if hon. Members made themselves acquainted with, might enlist their feelings in support of his Motion—those of Catherine Stewart, page 110, and Mary Horigan and four children, page 88. As there were, in the present Session, so many Members who were not in the House in the Session of 1875, he would give the Particulars of the last-mentioned case, he was the wife of Michael Horigan, who was a Marine in the Queen's Ser-

    659
    vice, and at the time on active service in China. He was only seven months absent. He and his wife resided in Henry Street, Woolwich, for 10 years; had four children, the eldest nine years, the youngest one. She had been 27 years in England, and was only one year when she left Ireland. Her children were at the Military School, Woolwich. Her husband allowed her 15 s. a-month; but, some delay having arisen in the payment, she received from the parish 2s. 6d. and two loaves of bread per week. Her husband had five good conduct stripes, and in six months he would have been entitled to a retiring pension. She was taken before a magistrate, and got to sign a statement upon oath that she had no settlement in England, and that she and her children would not suffer any bodily or mental injury by removal to Ireland. The nature of that document she did not know—she could neither read nor write. She and her children were forcibly sent on to Bristol, where she besought the officer to take her back, and that she would pay all expenses, which he refused to do, and she and her four little children were delivered at the workhouse, Skibbereen, in the county of Cork. The case was brought before the Poor Law Commissioners by a strong and unanimous protest of the Guardians of that Union, and condemnation of the law which sanctioned the breaking-up of family ties and associations with the most heartless disregard of consequences and feelings of humanity. Here was a young woman and her four children forcibly and illegally taken from, her home, and transported to a place of which she had never heard. The consequence was that public indignation and sympathy were so aroused that a subscription list was opened and responded to. The Cork Steamship Company gave a free passage and 30 s. for sea store, and Mary Horigan and her four children were in a few days again located at her own house at Woolwich; but by her return, should she again apply for relief, would be liable by the present laws to imprisonment for three months as a vagabond. He obtained a further Return under an order of the 15th August, 1875, and he found by that Return the like cases of gross illegality and cruelty as in the former. In page 6 would be found the case of Patrick Collins, removed from St. Giles-in-the-
    660
    Fields to the Kanturk Union, in the county Cork. He was born in London, where he resided until he was seven years of age. Afterwards he went to Ireland for some time. The man then returned to London and worked there for years, yet the magistrate certified that he was satisfied that he was born in, or last resided for the space of three years in, Ireland, and he was, accordingly, sent to the Kanturk Union. The form of warrant was one which had been long before abolished; and in reference to the case the Poor Law Commissioners, in addressing the Lord Lieutenant, said—
    "There can exist little doubt that the printed forms had been deliberately framed, in contravention of the statute, for the purpose of carrying on the illegal removal of persons who were not born in Ireland."
    Then there was the case of Ellen Connell and four children, the eldest eight years, the youngest one, sent from the Holborn Union to Cahirciveen, county Kerry. She being a married woman, her removal and that of her children was illegal, and under the warrant of a police magistrate, notwithstanding the unanimous decision of the Court of Queen's Bench that such removals were unauthorized by law. The Poor Law Commissioners refer to the case thus—
    "As a further instance of improper practice in such cases in the London police courts."
    And they conclude—
    "There is now reason to believe that in a number of illegal removals which had taken place in the course of the previous year, that the forms had at all times been taken advantage of by parochial and Union authorities to obtain orders of removal without proper inquiry by the removing justices."
    Upon this case the Poor Law Board of Whitehall addressed the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, stating—
    "That they had no control over the magistrates at the police courts. That they admit there is ground for the complaint of the Commissioners in Ireland, and they fear that it is not only as regards Irish paupers that justices make orders of removal upon loose or insufficient evidence, for complaints had been made to their Board that the justices do so in case of English paupers."
    If the Poor Law Board had no authority over magistrates, the Home Secretary had, and a paid official was permitted by an illegal act to separate the wife and children from the husband and parent,

    661
    and cast the burden of their support upon the poor ratepayers of the Cahirciveen Union, and without any compensation to it or the ill-treated family. Mary Keating was removed from the parish of Liverpool to the South Dublin Union on the 7th of November; arrived in Dublin on the 8th, actually in labour, and gave birth to a child in six hours after her admission. The master of the workhouse reported—
    "She appeared to be in labour when presented at the gate, and was confined in six hours after her admission."
    And yet a medical man declared on soul and conscience that the health of the said Mary Keating was such as to admit of her removal, either by land or sea. The medical man defended himself by stating that the woman told him that she did not expect to be delivered for another month; but the woman gave evidence that she told him that she was then ill, and begged not to be removed. And the Poor Law Commissioners stated in the Correspondence—
    "That the woman's statement was corroborated by the subsequent fact that she was actually in labour when presented at the gate of the workhouse."
    He would ask, could anything be more cruel and more revolting to every feeling of humanity and manhood than the case just quoted; and yet it was only one of hundreds of others, varying only in degree? Another case referred to, and on which his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. G. E. Browne), put a Question to the President of the Local Government Board, was that of John Tuoohy, who resided in England for 35 years, having left Ireland at the age of five. His wife was an English woman, and all his children—seven—were born in England. Tuoohy, for want of employment, was, with his wife and children, admitted to the workhouse at Kingston-on-Thames, and in 48 hours after a warrant from two county justices was obtained, without even the depositions required by law, under which this family of nine, the youngest being only 11 months, were shipped off to the Newport Union, in the county of Mayo, in which Union the man was not born, and never had been resident. In reference to this case, the Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in addressing the then Home Secretary, said—
    662
    "I am directed by his Excellency to add that the above case is an illustration of the hardship of the present law with respect to the removal of poor persons from England to this country."
    The Guardians of the Kingston Union were called upon to take back this family and to pay the expenses which had been incurred, which they refused to do; but, with great generosity, they offered to pay the expenses if the Guardians of the Newport Union would send the family to the Castlereagh Union, which he (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) might inform the House they, the Newport Guardians, had no power to do; and upon this point the Commissioners in Dublin in their Correspondence stated—
    "The Guardians of Newport Union have no legal authority to send the paupers away at all, and they are thus, by virtue of the existing removal law in England, and the act of the English Poor Law authorities, burthened with the support of a destitute family, most of whom were born in England, and none of whom were born in the Union, or had previously been in any way connected with it."
    He could supply hundreds of similar cases, but did not wish to weary the House. He must, however, refer to one or two cases from Scotland, for the information of his Scotch Friends. Mary Johnston, or Miller, removed from the parish of Larges, in Ayrshire, to Enniskillen, in Ireland. She left Ireland at the age of eight years, resided in Scotland for 26 years, was married there, had four children, the eldest seven and a-half years, the youngest two. They obtained some relief, and they were sent to Enniskillen, with which Union Mary Johnston had never any connection, having been born in the Union of Irvingstown. Every act in this case was illegal; the wife and children could not be removed without the head of the family; while in the order it was merely stated that she was born in the county of Fermanagh, and the only redress the ratepayers of Enniskillen had was an expression of regret on the part of Alexander Campbell, Inspector of Poor, for the mistake he had made. He asked the attention of the House to the facility with which families were thus illegally separated and forcibly deported—
    "Minute of Inspector's Committee.
    Case of Mary Johnston, deserted by her husband three months; has no settlement in Scotland. Inspector instructed to take out warrant for the removal of paupers to Ireland."

    663
    The House would observe that there was no inquiry before the Parochial Board, or opportunity offered for explanation or information by the parties concerned. They were taken before two magistrates or the sheriff, made to sign the usual printed form that they had no settlement, which in many cases would require the most experienced lawyer to decide. The Return gave but the Correspondence in cases where the Guardians request the attention of the Poor Law Commissioners; and, therefore, there were probably 40 times as many cases of which the public had not heard. One more case from the Return of August, 1875—that of Mary Lochrey, an orphan girl, from Greenock, to Innishowen Union, in Ireland. Her father got fever and died; the mother and her two brothers died from the same disease; she also caught the fever and alone survived. In the subsequent May she was attacked with small-pox, and removed to the Greenock Infirmary. After her recovery she was sent to the convalescent ward, and from that this afflicted girl was sent to Innishowen Workhouse, accompanied by some man named M'Kenzie, without any warrant. The Guardians of Innishowen called the attention of the Commissioners to the case in these words—
    "Mary Lochrey, an orphan of seven years old, removed from Greenock. The child is only recovering from fever and small-pox, and the medical officer of the workhouse does not consider her sufficiently so to be placed in the ward with other inmates. She knows nothing about her previous residence in Ireland, and comes without the usual warrant, having only a medical certificate."
    The medical officer, as in other cases, certified on soul and conscience that this wretched orphan was fit to be removed without danger of infecting others. He (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) would leave the estimate of this doctor's conscience to the judgment of the House; and as to whether he had a soul or not, he would not venture an opinion. Again, what redress had the ratepayers of Innishowen? None, save the expression of regret from John Deas, Inspector of Poor, who wrote to say—
    "If her removal at the time, and in the circumstances set forth, had been the means, or was likely to be the means of spreading disease or causing alarm in the district to which she had been removed, he regretted it."
    664
    And he (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) would particularly call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to the explanation given by this Inspector why there was no order of removal. He said—
    "I have further to state the journey to Ireland on the 16th July was undertaken in the following circumstances, and for the purpose of procuring reliable information, to enable the Board here subsequently to obtain a removal order, in the event of the parochial authorities at Innishowen, not being satisfied of their liability, or not being willing to undertake the future support of the said Mary Lochrey."
    Against a system under which so inhuman and illegal an act could be perpetrated the voice of every humane or just man should be raised. Father, mother, brothers, all swept away within the short period of one month. This orphan of tender years alone recovered, but was shortly afterwards afflicted with the most fearful of all diseases—smallpox. The merciful providence of the Great Judge again saved her life, and while she was but convalescent, the Parochial Board of Supervision, without warrant or other authority, handed her over to some unfeeling subordinate, who conveyed her to Innishowen, of which she had never heard, and with which she was in no way connected. He (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) did not wish to use strong language; but he found it impossible to refrain from characterizing the conduct of this Board of Supervision not only as unfeeling, but inhuman. He (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) hoped that hon. Members had read the Correspondence between the Board of Supervision in Scotland and the Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland, respecting the shocking cases of removal of lunatics from Scotland, manacled. One passage he would read from a communication from the Commissioners to the Inspector of Poor at Edinburgh. Thus, page 48—
    "Recent cases of a shocking nature, in which, under the removal law of Scotland, dangerous lunatics have been taken out of lunatic asylums in Scotland, and removed in irons to workhouses in Ireland, have caused an aggravation of the sense of injustice referred to."
    The account given in page 50 of the removal of John Cassidy and Peter O'Donnell revealed cruelty amounting to barbarity. He would not quote further from this Return, nor would he mention the many cases which had occurred since it was made, save one—the

    665
    case of Thomas Hunt, sent from Bolton Union to Parsonstown, in Ireland, to which The Standard newspaper thus referred:—
    "Thirty years ago he came over to this country from Ireland, and had full work as a stonemason up to six months ago, when he got a paralytic stroke, and was admitted to the Bolton Workhouse. He was instantly shipped over to his native place, and away from his wife and children. Hunt's case, as was shown in the debate last year, is by no means an unusual one; and, consequently, we must admit that the Union Chargeability Act, great an improvement as it effected in the old law, does not protect the poor from grievous hardship."
    The manner in which those removals, cruel at the best, were effected, added to the hardship inflicted, and The North British Daily Mail, in referring to the same case, alluded to the fact that—
    "The old man was the first to set a stone in the very workhouse from which he was so removed,"
    And concluded by saying that—
    "the Parsonstown Board unanimously granted the admission, and denounced the law that imposed such hardships on old paupers who had spent the best of their days in England."
    Having, he hoped, satisfied the House on the second portion of his Motion, that great wrongs had been inflicted and sufferings endured under the operation of those laws, he would proceed to the remedy suggested by his Motion. His hon. Friend the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Mr. Mark Stewart) who moved the rejection of the Bill in 1875, admitted that a grievance existed, and expressed a hope that the Government would submit to Parliament some comprehensive scheme by which the law of settlement and removal would be placed on some satisfactory footing. He admitted that the relief system in Ireland was better than in Scotland, and the principal objection urged by him and the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Torr) was, that if the Bill became law, the Scotch and English Unions would be overwhelmed with an immigration of Irish paupers. He (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) felt that he might put aside that argument, drawn from circumstances resulting from the famine of 1846, when the population of Ireland was 8,500,000; and when it was now under 5,500,000, less than it was 57 years ago. Ireland had not now a superabundant population, and with
    666
    regard to her pauper population, her position could compare favourably with that of England, and still more favourably with that of Scotland. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) also admitted that he had established a grievance, but objected to the Bill on the ground of its particular scope and one-sidedness; and he (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) would admit that to have been the weak part of his case, because the law inflicted hardships and suffering on the destitute poor of England and Scotland as on the destitute Irish pauper living in England or Scotland, although not to the same extent nor accompanied by the same cruelty. He had on the present occasion taken from his Scotch Friends that argument, for his Motion applied generally—the remedy which it suggested being that a residence of 12 months in any part or parts of England and Scotland by a person who maintained himself or herself by some industrial occupation previously to obtaining relief should be irremovable for life. The result of such a change in the law would be that after an industrial residence of 12 months in any part or parts of Great Britain, a poor person would be entitled to relief in the Union in which he became destitute, which would be an assimilation of the law to that of Ireland. It would be said that this might cause an undue accumulation of paupers in any particular Union; but that was met by a Statute that rendered a person liable to a month's imprisonment for going from one Union in which he had been resident to another for the purpose of obtaining relief, and by the fact that the Irish system had been found to work admirably, as proved by Sir Alfred Power and others. Then, as to the law of settlement, it must be recollected that it had been almost universally condemned. Every writer and statesman from Adam Smith to the present time had done so. A Select Committee of this House in 1847 passed the following Resolutions:—
    "1. Resolved—That the law of settlement and removal is generally productive of hardship to the poor and injurious to the working classes, by impeding the free circulation of labour.
    "2. Resolved—That it is injurious to the employers of labour and impedes the improvement of agriculture.
    "3. Resolved—That it is injurious to the ratepayers, by occasioning expense in litigation and removal of paupers.

    667
    "4. Resolved—That the power of removing destitute poor persons from one parish to another in England and Wales be abolished."
    The evidence given before the Select Committee of 1859 was strongly in favour of its abolition. Every official Report and the evidence of the most experienced Inspectors were in favour of its repeal. Mr. Pashley, Q.C., a high authority upon the question, strongly recommended to do away with the laws of settlement, and to relieve the poor in the place they chose for their own residence; and Dr. Allison, Professor of Medicine in the University of Edinburgh, in a paper read by him at the Statistical Society in Belfast, said—
    "The simpler, cheaper, and more satisfactory solution is to do away with legal rights of settlement altogether, and let relief be administered to destitution wherever it shows itself under the best checks that can be devised for ascertaining the distress and apportioning the aid given."
    That was exactly the law as it now stood in Ireland, and he remembered that his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), in a former debate, stated that the Irish system had been more successful than either that of England or Scotland. He believed that the public opinion of England was in favour of the abolition of the law of settlement, and that the feeling of the people of Scotland was in favour of a radical change in the law of removal. In the year 1871, Mr. Craufurd, then Member for Ayr, obtained a Select Committee, which received evidence for two years, and made a Report in reference to a residential settlement under the Scotch law, to the following effect:—
    "The practical result is to throw many paupers back on the parish of their birth, frequently at the close of a long life spent in a totally different part of the country. This evil is aggravated by the fact that most of the towns which constitute the chief centres of labour are divided into more than one parish, and a change of residence from one part of the same town to another may either prevent the acquirement of a residential settlement or defeat it after it has been acquired."
    Mr. Craufurd introduced a Bill founded upon that Report, but was unable to prosecute it before the late Parliament was dissolved. In the last Session, the noble Marquess the Member for Argyllshire (the Marquess of Lorne) presented a Petition from a Parochial Board in that county praying that towns receiving the benefit of the Indus-
    668
    residences of parties who had spent long periods in those towns should be charged with their support on their becoming paupers. He (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) now appealed to the good sense, judgment, and humane feelings of the Representatives of the people to support his Motion, which, if carried, must result in the repeal of the laws to which he had referred, and under which so much wrong and suffering had been endured. His appeal was not on behalf of the destitute Irish alone—it was as well on behalf of the destitute English and Scotch. He felt that he had occupied a very considerable portion of the time of the House, and expressed his grateful acknowledgments for the patience and attention with which it had heard him. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Laws under which the destitute poor receiving relief from the poor's rate are subject to removal in England and Scotland in their operation inflict many wrongs and cause great sufferings; that they are unjust and impolitic; therefore, That, in the opinion of this House, the said Laws ought to be so amended as that every poor person who shall have maintained himself or herself for twelve months by some industrial occupation in any parish, combination of parishes, or union in England, Wales, or Scotland, previously to receiving such relief, shall not be subject to removal therefrom."-(Mr. M'Carthy Downing.)
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he was sure he was only expressing the general opinion of the House in saying that ever since the speech of the hon. Member for Cork first called attention to the subject, an interest had been awakened in it. He would not follow his example of making a long speech, though he rose to oppose the Motion, in which there was, no doubt, much to excite their deep feeling on behalf of those persons who were subject to the hardships complained of, which had been narrated by the hon. Member (Mr. M'Carthy Downing). He would content himself by referring to a few facts, to show the position in which they stood in Scotland in regard to this question. The speech of the hon. Member was very much made up of those harassing details of wretchedness and misery which accompanied those persons who were forcibly removed; but, while he had no doubt

    669
    given them touching scenes, at the same time he must know that many of them were not subjected to the treatment to which he had referred, and it was quite the exception. He (Mr. Mark Stewart) had never known in his experience of any case of actual hardship. He lived very near Ireland, and represented Stranraer—a town containing the largest population in Wigtownshire—where only 10 cases of removal had occurred during the last 10 years; while, from the whole county of Wigtown, from 1870 to 1875, five years inclusive, by the last Return presented to the House, only eight paupers and seven dependents had been removed to Ireland, and great care was taken by the authorities to avoid hardship. That did not show that this law operated in the hard-hearted, tyrannical manner, which had been so forcibly depicted by the hon. Member. No doubt there were cases of hardship in which mothers had given birth to their offspring at unexpected times, and although there was every precaution taken by medical testimony and by magistrates, still mistakes would occur which nothing short of foresight would remedy. However, he was quite ready to admit that the law might be advantageously altered, and he heartily wished that the Government would bring in some Bill which would render more uniform the law of settlement of the poor in Scotland and Ireland. The people of Scotland were perfectly willing to give Irish paupers who came to Scotland the same advantage that they gave to their own poor in Scotland, and he would concede that the Scotch law of settlement should be made applicable to the Irish. But would that be accepted, for hon. Members knew very well that Irishmen did not remain very long in one place? Hon. Members knew very well that there was great difficulty in dealing with the race; they migrated rapidly; so that a man might very well live 30 or 40 years in Scotland without staying more than a very few months in a particular parish. The same thing happened in the South of Scotland, whence many persons went to the mining and manufacturing districts, and no more was heard of them until after they had passed the best of their years and were broken down in health, they became chargeable on the parishes where they were born, or left
    670
    large families chargeable upon them, without these parishes getting any remuneration from the localities that had benefited by their labour. There was, no doubt, occasional hardship; but he could not consent to lessening the term of residence necessary for a settlement. If it were lessened to one year as proposed, Scotland would be inundated with Irish paupers, and its poor rates would soon be doubled. He wanted to point out to the House the inconvenience of a Motion of this kind. He had not the slightest objection that the hon. Member should come down to the House armed with all the facts of the case; but, unfortunately, when he took the course he did in 1875, they had no immediate facts to guide them in the discussion of the question; and now Returns had been moved for some months ago by the hon. Member and himself, which, although being prepared, were not yet given to Members, though nearly ready. Well, in July of 1875 a Return was granted, which was published in August following, and as they were of an interesting character, and had not, at the time of that debate, been published, or had ever been referred to in the House as far as he was aware, he would now quote from them. These Returns gave the number of persons removed from England and Wales to Ireland, and it appeared that from 1870 to 1874, inclusive, 1,263 such persons were removed from England and 23 from Wales, making a total of 1,286, or an average per annum of 257; while the number for the same period from Scotland was no less than 1,151, or a yearly average of 230. Again, the Returns published in 1875 showed that the number of paupers receiving relief in Scotland, but born in Ireland, including those in workhouses and those in receipt of out-door relief, was 58,474. On the other hand, the number of paupers receiving relief in Ireland who were born in Scotland in six months of 1875, was 196. So that, while they had of Scotch people only 196 living on the relief fund of Ireland, the Irish had 58,474 persons living at the expense of Scotland.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGasked, whether the heading of that Return was not "Irish born and descendants of Irish?"
    MR. MARK STEWART: The heading that he copied down was "Num-

    671
    ber of paupers, including children, receiving relief in Scotland, born in Ireland," and the Return went on to specify what the children were, not exceeding 16 years. Then there was another Return in May, 1876, of the number of paupers born in England receiving relief in Irish workhouses, including dependents—namely, 259; and on the 1st of July, 1875, the paupers born in England receiving out-door relief in Ireland numbered 30; while the persons born in England receiving relief in lunatic asylums in Ireland were 49; making together a total of 358. What were the facts on the other side? The number of persons born in Ireland receiving relief in England and Wales, with their dependents, including workhouse relief, out-door relief, and relief in lunatic asylums, &c., was no fewer than 40,016. That was for the six months ending January 1, 1875. For the six months ending July 1, 1875, they numbered 36,266, making together a total of 76,277 Irish persons who were living at the expense of England and Wales, as against 358 persons born in England who were living at the expense of Ireland. These figures showed that the hardship of the present system was not all one way. He had a letter sent to him once in which it was stated that in a certain Union in Ireland it used to be written up in large characters that whoever went over to Scotland immediately before the harvest should have his passage paid and a suit of clothes. [Mr. KING-HARMAN: What is the name of the Union in question?] He believed it was in Roscommon. That was an illustration of what could be done by a Union that was anxious to get rid of its poor. There was no such thing as settlement in Ireland, and therefore the people of that country went over to Scotland or England in order to obtain a comfortable settlement. He should be glad to see a more uniform system of removal, and he appealed to his Friends on the Treasury Bench, whether they did not see their way to legislate on the matter in a comprehensive manner. The sooner that was done the better it would be for Ireland, England, and Scotland, and the House would be spared the pain of listening to such heartrending narratives as they had heard that evening.
    MR. KING-HARMAN, in supporting the Resolution moved by the hon. Mem-
    672
    ber for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing), denied that the Irish people went over in large numbers to England and Scotland to live upon the charity of those countries. Because there were so few manufactures in their own country, Irishmen went to obtain honest employment in the manufacturing and mining industry of England and Scotland as long as their health and strength would enable them to work, and when their energies were exhausted and they had become old, they were not only sent back themselves to Ireland, but their wives and children, who, in many instances, had never seen that country, were sent back with them under circumstances of the greatest hardship. Surely that was a monstrous system, and one that ought not to be perpetuated. The hon. Member who spoke last had mentioned the case of a union in Roscommon in which their passage money and clothes were offered to Irishmen to induce them to go to Scotland. He did not believe that such a thing had really been done, and as there were three unions in the county of Roscommon, he would challenge the hon. Gentleman to say which of them his statement referred to. It was said that the Irishmen who went to Scotland were restless and vagrant; but the fact was that they had to follow their work, and they could not obtain a settlement on account of the extreme harshness of the Scotch law. There was no excuse for the ruthless way in which Irish people were sent back to their parishes when disabled by age or sickness, except the inequality and injustice of a law which required amendment. The present state of the law was known to be regarded with indignation all over Ireland. Nor did he think that indignation was without justification, for although he could not say that the law, as it existed, was exceptionally directed against Ireland, he did say that it pressed with peculiar severity on them, owing to the peculiar circumstances of the case. He appealed to the President of the Local Government Board to do something to diminish the hardship of the present law.
    MR. RATHBONEsaid, that an enormous number of Irish people annually crossed over to Liverpool, and those who could prove a one year's residence could not be sent back. In many cases Irish poor could be removed if the law were

    673
    enforced, but the Liverpool Guardians did not enforce the law when they felt that its enforcement would be a hardship. Those who had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Cork might be of opinion that the Liverpool Union was in the habit of sending back, under the most cruel circumstances, hundreds of Irish who had worked for years in Liverpool; but that was simply not the fact. About one-fourth of the inhabitants of Liverpool were Irish; but more than half of the pauperism and half of the crime in Liverpool was Irish. The ratepayers did not object to the burden of that pauperism and crime; they felt that it came naturally to them, as a consequence of Irish labour, which was most useful to Liverpool; but what the ratepayers did object to was the throwing upon England of pauperism which resulted from crime and wrong in Ireland. There was a time when an organization existed in Dublin for the express purpose of sending people to England. Women were sent from Ireland expressly to be confined here. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might say "Oh!" but that was a fact; and, if he was not mistaken, one of the cases of hardship referred to by the hon. Member for Cork belonged to that category. If hon. Members would visit Liverpool, they would find that large numbers of Irish paupers received far better treatment there than was accorded to paupers in Irish workhouses. There were no such hospitals in any town in Ireland for the care of paupers as there were in Liverpool. This was one of the difficulties of their position, because it acted as an attraction to the Irish to resort to their city. It was not wise to introduce a question of this sort, and to make exaggerated and incorrect statements against a town which treated Irish poor with most considerate kindness. He had been reminded that he had many Irish constituents; but he was sure that his Irish constituents knew him too well to believe that such a hint was necessary, or that it would in any way influence his conduct.
    MR. BRUENsupported the Motion. He joined with the hon. Member who introduced it in affirming that very great hardship was inflicted by the removal of persons to Ireland, many of whom had no connection with that country. When figures were produced showing the number
    674
    of Irish paupers chargeable upon the rates in England and Scotland, it should be remembered that countries having great centres of industry naturally attracted a large number of the Irish poor seeking for a livelihood, and the benefit England and Scotland derived from the labour was quite equal to the cost of those maintained on the rates. It was exceedingly difficult to apportion the rate of chargeability; but as a remedy was essential, he would suggest the expediency of establishing something like a Clearing House, by which the chargeability of paupers could be ascertained, and the charge be apportioned, without removing the paupers. He hoped they would hear from the President of the Local Government Board a repetition of the expressions which fell from him on a previous occasion, when he said that he trusted they might see the day when this cruel law of removal would be abolished. He could not conceive how anyone could stand up in the House and defend a system by which a man could be imported from one part of the Kingdom to another simply because he became chargeable on the rates for relief. The Poor Law of Ireland was enacted at a later date than that of England, and the system which prevailed under it was, and perhaps for that reason, a more merciful one than that now in force in this country.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that while he could not agree with every word of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing), he sympathized with the object he had in view in submitting it to the House. He knew that what his hon. Friend had stated as to the hardship inflicted upon Irish paupers in their removal was borne out by the fact. His hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) said that the statements made had been exaggerated, and there was, perhaps, some slight exaggeration in reference to the town his hon. Friend represented; but the case was one which did not at all require high colouring. No exaggeration whatever was necessary, as each case which had been or could be adduced was in itself bad enough to show that an alteration of the law was required. In regard to the Resolution of his hon. Friend, if he would leave out all the words after "amended," so that it would read, in the "opinion of the

    675
    House the said laws ought to be amended," he would be happy to give it his support. It might be a matter for consideration whether the English and Scotch law should be assimilated to the Irish, or the Irish to the English and Scotch; but it was certain that the present condition of the law was almost a disgrace to the United Kingdom. The system in operation had certainly been modified in later years, so as to bear with less hardship on Irish paupers; but he should be glad to see the day when the Law of Settlement would be abolished altogether. He did not say that could be done without hedging it round with many conditions, and special cases like that of Liverpool, where there was an unusually large percentage of Irish paupers, would have to be provided for. But they ought to look at the question from a broad point of view. Irish workmen were more and more wanted in this country, and it was a hardship that, after passing the best part of their lives in England or Scotland, they should, when misfortune overtook them, have no industrial settlement, and must be sent back to Ireland. He considered the case of Scotland to be the worst. The Law of Settlement was very severe. In the first place, five years' residence was required; and, in the second place, it was only residence in a parish, and not in a Union, as in England. In Glasgow a man might, by removing from one side of the street to another, change into a separate parish, and so lose his industrial settlement. He hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to tell them that he could take the matter up, and deal with the inequalities existing between the three countries. If they were ever to have a perfect union between the three Kingdoms, they must have in this respect one law, adaptable to all. He thought, at least, they might be able to minimize the conditions of removal. There were many towns in Lancashire which never removed a pauper, and one of these was Manchester. If a place like Manchester, where there was a large Irish population, could do without removing the paupers, he thought it showed that the same thing could be done in other parts of the country.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, it must be very gratifying to the hon. Member who had moved the Resolution to find that
    676
    no one had risen to defend the system which he attacked. The number of paupers which had been sent back to Ireland from England had been very few. From Scotland the number had been larger, and the persons sent had been mainly old men and women, who, leaving Ireland young, had spent the best years of their life away from their native places, and had then, in old age and poverty, been sent back to the Unions, which had derived no advantage from their work when they were able to take part in industrial pursuits. In regard to some observations that had fallen from speakers in the debate, he did not think the poor relief given in this country was so very superior to that given in Ireland. If England and Scotland would make in-door relief the rule, and out-door relief the exception, it would be an immense advantage to the ratepayers of the country. The present state of the law was a cause of complaint to Ireland, and he would be happy to see the law so far assimilated as to make the complaint to cease.
    MR. FRENCHthought it had been clearly shown that the law of England as to settlement was in a very unsatisfactory state. He was sorry the hon. Member for Cork had not gone a little farther, and advocated the abolition of the Law of Settlement and Removal altogether. He thought the Irish law would work exceedingly well in England and Scotland. He cordially supported the Motion.
    MR. VANS AGNEWthought that the hon. Member, in introducing this subject, had dwelt rather too much upon exceptional cases. A great deal had been said about the Scotch Poor Law. The settlement in Scotland was only that of the parish and not of the Union, and a residential settlement when acquired might be lost if a person was absent for four years and one day from the place where he had possessed it, falling back then on the place of his birth. That was the reason why so many settlements were lost in Scotland. But removal was not a grievance that applied to the Irish only. The Scotch had the same grievance in regard to labourers who went to England, and it was only an additional reason why the laws of the three Kingdoms should be brought into similarity. When the Irish labourers went over to Scotland, they did so with

    677
    the intention of getting work, and not of acquiring a settlement. The settlement of the wives and children must follow that of the heads of their families. He believed that the place of birth of the head of the family in the cases referred to must have been Ireland, otherwise they would not have been removed. A more stringent enforcement of in-door relief had been recommended; but the poor rates in Scotland could not be rendered lighter by that means, from the fact that they were not under the necessity of having workhouses, and had no power of enforcing in-door relief in Scotland such as could be enforced in England and Ireland. He should be glad if Her Majesty's Government could see their way to deal with the general Law of Settlement and Removal.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that in every part of Ireland there were tales of extreme hardship, resulting from the existing system. He hoped that some Members of Her Majesty's Government would be able to state to-night that they saw their way to remedying the admitted evil. The simplest way to do so would be to remove the power of Removal and abolish the Law of Settlement. He should like to know where the large manufacturing towns of England, such as Barrow and Middlesborough, would have been if it had not been for Irish labourers; for it was undoubtedly the fact that those places had been made large commercial centres by Irish labour. That being the case, he thought the Irish labourers were treated most unfairly under the present Poor Law system when they became unable to support themselves. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would undertake, on the part of the Government, to take a step in the direction to which all the speeches that had been delivered to-night tended.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that although the debate had lasted some hours, there appeared to be no dispute as to the general proposition suggested by the hon. Gentleman's Motion—namely, that in the operation of the Law of Removal there was some harshness and severity, in favour of which not one word could be said on either side of the House. But the attack on the Law of Removal to-night had been made entirely from an Irish point of view. He admitted that the time was coming when
    678
    the Law of Removal must be modified, if not abolished; but the local authorities were not at present satisfied that the time had actually arrived for an absolute and sweeping change in that respect, and the conferences that had taken place for some years past on this subject throughout England had shrunk from the proposition that removal should be entirely abolished. Whenever the Law of Removal came to be materially altered or abolished, it must be accompanied by certain compensating provisions. There must, for instance, be a much more stringent vagrancy law. There must also be a law of domicile, by which every individual would have a place of residence assigned to him; and, in addition, there must be a much more stringent system of out-door relief than had ever prevailed in this country. The administration of out-door relief had, indeed, greatly improved during the last few years; but not so universally as to admit of an alteration in the law at the present moment. In theory, no doubt, the hardship was as great in removing a pauper from the North to the South of England as it was from England to Ireland. The operation of the Law of Removal in regard to Irish paupers was in process of rapid mitigation. Acts of Parliament were passed in 1856, 1859, and 1865, relating to the law of irremovability. As the law now stood, if a pauper had resided in the Union for a period of one year without receiving relief, he could not be removed from that Union; and, of course, Irish as well as English paupers had the advantage of this law. The number of removals to Ireland had been reduced in the last eight or ten years to about 250 annually. The great proportion of these removals took place in Lancashire and Liverpool. ["No!"] Well, in the last 3¾ years there had been 888 removals from England to Ireland. Out of these, 368 were from Liverpool, 126 from the rest of Lancashire—making 494 from the whole of that county. From the Metropolis there were 143 removals, and from the rest of the country 221; and, so small was the area to which the operation of this practice extended, that out of 650 Unions in England and Wales, there were only 66 Unions from which removals to Ireland had been effected in the last four years. A mitigating process was, therefore, going on. He

    679
    now came to a period in which he was more particularly concerned. In 1875, he brought forward a proposal with a view of mitigating the hardships attending removals to Ireland. His offer was not accepted in the form in which it was made, and therefore he was released from any obligation which he had incurred; but he did not feel justified on that account in refraining from endeavouring to propose something satisfactory, and which might mitigate what he admitted to be the harshness and severity of the law. In the Poor Law Amendment Bill of 1876, he introduced a proposal for the special benefit of the Irish pauper, that there should be a settlement founded on the same condition as those which made up the status of removability—that where an Irishman should be settled in a parish for three years, without being chargeable to the rates, it should not only give him a status of removal, but also a settlement in the parish. If the question affected the Irish pauper alone, he should not have been very particular as to whether the period ought to be three or two years, or whether the settlement should be gained in the parish or Union; but there were other difficulties to be encountered, and it was not desirable to mix up this question of settlement with that of irremovability. Settlement was an old feature of the law to which a great many legal conditions attached, and they could not be decided without very careful consideration. It was too soon, however, as yet, to judge of the effect of that change in the law, and, besides, there had been some confusion with regard to the application of the law. A difficulty had arisen as to whether it was intended that the Act should be retrospective, and some conflicting decisions had been given. There could be no doubt whatever that the intention was to make the Act retrospective, and he was happy to say that, in a recent decision, that interpretation had been given to the Act. If that view were not supported by future cases, he should be disposed to cure any ambiguity in that respect. He really thought injustice had been done to Liverpool, where the Poor Law was well administered, and the workhouses admirably managed. There was evidence in the Blue Book, showing that in some cases poor women went over from Ireland to Liverpool with the express
    680
    purposes of being confined in England. He did not mean to say that this would justify the removal of women under such circumstances. Only two cases of complaint had been brought under his notice since he came into Office; but in both of them he had every reason to be confident that the Guardians and workhouse authorities were humane and kindly people, who would commit no act of cruelty; and he might remind the House that Statutes had been expressly made in order to provide against the repetition of the harsh treatment that was formerly the rule. As far as he could ascertain, even in the Nottingham case, every care had been taken that the pauper should be properly conveyed to his destination. As regards the Law of Settlement, he did not see how that could be shifted every few years, as the law had to be administered by the Guardians throughout the Kingdom and comprehended by the poor, for whom an often-changed and undefined law was wholly unsuitable. The hon. Member would see the extreme difficulty of carrying out his proposition in practice, and in many other points he would see that the law was not the same all over the United Kingdom. Of all subjects, this particularly caused jealousy between the local and central authorities, and, in his judgment, the time had not yet arrived when a measure of reform could be hopefully introduced. He had a Consolidation Bill in preparation, and did not know that he should have to propose any very serious changes in the Poor Law system; but, with respect to the Law of Removal, the Act of 1876 would have to be re-considered according to recent experience. He deprecated, however, being compelled to bring in his Bill at a particular time. With reference to the Resolution, he thought the hon. Member would find it more expedient to rest satisfied with the debate, and to refrain from pressing his proposal to a division. It was, doubtless, true that the laws in question had in their operation inflicted many wrongs; but they had not, he submitted, been unjust. The particular remedy propounded in the Resolution was not really applicable, because it confused two Laws of Removal and Settlement which should be left distinct. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would believe him willing to do all that was in his power to improve the law relating to

    681
    Ireland. There was no reason to suppose that the present or any other Government would be blind to the considerations of humanity; and, without giving any pledge that the law of the two countries should be made absolutely uniform, he could assure the hon. Member for Cork that no effort would be wanting on his part, as far as possible, to diminish cases of hardship.
    MR. PELLsaid, he could not agree to the remark which had been made by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone). It appeared to him that he desired to have all the work that Irishmen could give, yet not to bear any of the burdens. [Mr. RATHBONE: I distinctly said the contrary.] That was the inference he (Mr. Pell) drew from the speech of the hon. Member. He seemed to have a sort of wholesome horror of the Irish pauper which did not extend to the Irish workman. He agreed with the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing), and thought that if they had the work of the Irish people, they were bound to relieve them so long as the law existed in its present state. What would be the state of the country if Irish labour were withdrawn? If advantage were taken of a strong and able, and, he might say, industrious race of people, the necessary consequences ought to be borne. What were the consequences? He did not think that any evil consequences arose from these old people settling in the borders of England in their advanced age. It was, no doubt, the result of a bad administration of the Poor Law that these poor people should think that, by remaining in the neighbourhood where they had worked, they would gain some advantages over what they would receive in their own country. Perhaps, the treatment which they would meet with as a class in Ireland would be better than that in England; but if the administration of the Poor Law in England led Irish paupers to remain in the particular districts in which they were located, Parliament ought not to deny them that freedom, and drag them away from the place where they lived and where they wished to die. There was great truth in what the President of the Local Government Board had stated, that they ought not hastily to make sweeping changes. If the word "sweeping" were taken, away, he thought some
    682
    change ought to be made. He did not desire to see the Law of Settlement remain as it was. He should like to see greater freedom given; and, as he had said once before in that House, he thought the Law of Settlement was unjust and unreasonable. For his own part—and he had had some acquaintance with the districts where many persons from Ireland came—he did not find that they burdened these districts with pauperism more than the English, in those cases where the law was fairly and properly administered. On that account, he should give his support to the Motion that had been made by the hon. Member for Cork. It was evident from the latter part of the Motion—that which referred to the change which he desired to see in the law—he had fallen into some error. He understood that his intention was that if any person had made an industrial occupation for one year in a parish, in any part of the Kingdom, that he should not be removed there-from. That was really the present law. If suffering from illness, and unable to maintain himself, then it was only just that, for such period as he required relief, he should be a charge upon the locality in which he had worked. Upon the restoration of his health, he would be just as able and useful as before, and his work would be wanted in the spot in which he had been relieved. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman was going to a division or not; but he should certainly support him.
    MR. D. DAVIESsaid, he had had a great deal to do with Irish labourers. He was pleased to find the good feeling that there was in the House upon this question, and he certainly would support the Motion if it went to a division. He was glad, also, to see that there was a good feeling on the part of the Government towards it. He wished to state his opinion that the law should be altered so as to make it unnecessary to remove any poor Irishman or woman back to Ireland against his or her will. Any measure to carry that out he should support. He could remember many occasions on which he had employed Irishmen to go to Ireland to seek labour. These Irishmen did not come to this country of their own accord, but on pressure when their labour was required. It would be a great hardship that after they had had that

    683
    labour, they should refuse to bear the burden. England had had that labour; and what was any country without labour? Whatever faults the Irish had, England had their labour; and it certainly would be most cruel that, having had it, England should send them back to Ireland whenever they became incapacitated. In his opinion, it would be very unjust, and a reflection on a civilized nation, that they should compel poor Irish men and women to go back to Ireland against their will when unable to keep themselves. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Motion proved that 76,000 Irish were being supported in different parishes in England and Scotland. But that only showed the vast number of Irish people there were in England, and who formed the wealth of this great country. What would England be without labour? Wealth was only an accumulation of labour, and the Irish people did accumulate a vast amount of wealth for England. They should not be sent back to Ireland, because it was a poor country; and he had never heard weaker arguments than those adduced in favour of that proposition.
    MR. DELAHUNTYsaid, that the reason why Irishmen came over to England was that they were forced by circumstances arising from bad legislation. Years ago Irishmen were able to maintain themselves in their own country, and some 50 or 60 years ago Ireland was making equal progress with England in industrial development. Legislation had produced for Ireland a state of things which compelled Irishmen to leave their country in order to live by their labour. Arthur Young, writing 100 years ago, said that the towns in Ireland were very much increased in the previous 20 years, and that Ireland had been rebuilt within that time; and he referred to that as a strong indication of the rising prosperity of the country. The population of Ireland then was constantly increasing, and there was no necessity for the people to go to Scotland or England to seek employment. That state of things continued till 1826, and up to that time Irish labour neither went to England, Scotland, nor Wales. When they came to seek for the cause of Irishmen now leaving their country in search of employment, he would refer to a description of Ireland given by
    684
    the present Prime Minister in 1868, very different to that given by Young in 1778. He said that the condition of Ireland in 1845 was deplorable, and described the miserable manner in which the population dwelt. They had, he said, no clothes, no shelter, and insufficient food, and dwellings not fit for the lower animals. That was, he said, no doubt, true; and, under such circumstances, men would be discontented with any form of government. The Prime Minister went further; it was not necessary for him to say how far he went; he would only say that at that time, owing to misgovernment, the people of Ireland were insufficiently clothed and fed, and had no dwellings fit to live in, although they had a fine country. Since that time the country had become depopulated, and instead of what should be now 12,000,000 or 13,000,000 of people living in affluence and wealth by manufactures, they had been reduced to 5,000,000. And now England, which had profited by the labour of Irishmen thus forced to go there, sent them back, while America retained those who had to emigrate to her shores. The people which came over to England and enriched the country were sent back in their old age. All he could say was that if Ireland were governed by the same laws as England, she would enjoy the same prosperity, and there would be no necessity for Irishmen to come here. So far as regarded the question before the House, he trusted the hon. Member for Cork would press his Resolution to a division. He was not at all satisfied with the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that something should be done, and with this view he begged to support the Resolution of the hon. Member for Cork.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he agreed that there must be a settlement somewhere if there were to be any Pool Law at all. They had had an administration of the Poor Law since the age of Queen Elizabeth, and the foundation of it had been local administration by local authorities. He, therefore, hoped the House would have its attention called to the very grave principle involved in the Motion now before it. For his part, he had no ill-feeling towards the people of Ireland; but why was Ireland poor? Ireland was poor because the

    685
    Irish people, for reasons as to which there might be a difference of opinion, had not been able to make it rich. The elements of prosperity were there if they were only developed. Hon. Members had told the House that Home Rule would add to Irish prosperity; but how came it that at that moment they were proposing a principle directly in opposition to Home Rule? The House was informed that Home Rule was the local self-government that was required in Ireland, and yet they were about to strike at the root of local self-government. That must be an Irish view of the question; but to his uninstructed English intellect it seemed that the Poor Law was founded upon the Law of Settlement, and could only be administered on that basis. It did appear to him extremely inconsistent that the advocates of Home Rule should propose to abolish a principle which was the foundation of local self-government. If there were anything harsh towards those who sought its protection in the present Poor Law, he should be glad to see it abolished; but that was very different from striking at one of the vital principles of local self-government. He, therefore, hoped that the Motion would not be accepted by Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGfelt rather disappointed with the reply which he had received from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. In 1875, he promised to consider the whole subject, and to bring in a measure of a comprehensive character that would apply to the three Kingdoms. Yet, in the whole of his speech that night, he had not referred at all to the state of the law in Scotland. The object of the Resolution he had moved was that Irishmen and Scotchmen in England who had been 12 months in one parish, or had been 11 months in one parish and one month in another, would become irremovable. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make the law of Scotland the same as that of England? He avoided that altogether, notwithstanding the expression of feeling on the part of the whole House; and he must say, for the credit of the Scotch Members, that they were anxious to see the same law applied to Scotland as existed in England. He did expect that the right hon. Gentle-
    686
    man would have accepted the proposal of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert); and if it had been admitted that 12 months' industrial occupation in any part of England or Scotland would have been a settlement, he should have been willing to have accepted that proposition. He thanked the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) for his speech in favour of the poor Irish, to whom he had given so high a character. Then, there was his hon. Friend (Mr. D. Davis), who had borne his testimony to the work of the Irish in this country; and who, after 30 or 40 years' service, were sent back to their country as mere lumber and refuse. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, having promised nothing and not being prepared to adopt the Resolution, there was nothing for him to do but to divide the House.
    MR. VERNERhoped the House would be able to come to a conclusion without a division. This certainly might be accomplished by an alteration of the wording of the Resolution, which would, he believed, be acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. After the many kindly speeches which had been delivered that night in reference to Ireland, he did not think the Lobby should be resorted to; and therefore he suggested that, instead of the latter part of the Resolution, the words should be "that the law requires consideration with a view to amendment."
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "inflict," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "hardships, and requires consideration with a view their amendment,"—(Mr. Verner,)—instead thereof.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYhoped the suggestion of his hon. Friend would be adopted.
    MR. STACPOOLEhoped his hon. Friend the Member for the county of Cork would not agree to the alteration as suggested. The Amendment would be of no use to Ireland, and, therefore, should not be accepted.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, after the remarks of his hon. Friend, considering all the circumstances of the case, and the kind of feeling which had

    687
    characterized the debate, he was prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    REMOVAL OF PAUPERS.
    Resolved, That the Laws under which the destitute poor receiving relief from the poor's rate are subject to removal in England and Scotland in their operation inflict hardships, and require consideration with a view to their amendment.—(Mr. M'Carthy Downing.)

    BRITISH MUSEUM (TRANSFER OF COLLECTION) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. WALPOLE, Bill to enable the Trustees of the British Museum to remove portions of their Collections, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. LOWE, and Sir JOHN LUBBOCK.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 236.]

    PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS' EXPENSES) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. JAMES STEWART, Bill to enable Returning Officers at Parliamentary Elections in Scotland to require security for their expenses, and otherwise to amend the Law of Scotland relating to such expenses, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JAMES STEWART, Dr. CAMERON, Mr. MONTGOMERIE, and Mr. RAMSAY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 237.]
    House adjourned at quarter before One o'clock.