CONSIDERATION AS AMENDED.

HC Deb 02 July 1878 vol 241 cc590-653

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 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, 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 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.] 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 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. CAMERON

seconded 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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 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-BANNERMAN

said, 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 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. 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 COLEBROOKE

said, 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 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 COLEBROOKE

said, 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 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. CAMERON

said, 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 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. CAMERON

said, 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 COLEBROOKE

said, 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. CAMERON

said, the hon. Baronet had gone on to state that the burghs 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 MURE

said, 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 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 ALEXANDER

said, 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 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'LAREN

said, 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- 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 CROSS

said, 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 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, 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. ANDERSON

said, 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. RAMSAY

maintained 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. 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 MONTGOMERY

said, 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 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. BARCLAY

said, 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 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. JENKINS

remarked, 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 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- 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 CAMPBELL

said, 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- 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. "(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. "(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. "(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 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 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 17s. 4d., the Scotch tolls to about £35, while the English tolls came to £66 10s. Again, there were 18 tenant farmers in the parish of Coldstream, whose statute labour roads assessment amounted to £71 14s. 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 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 who lived on the north bank of the Tweed—

MR. SPEAKER

interposed, 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 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 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 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- 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 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- 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 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 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'LAREN

said, 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 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 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 ADVOCATE

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

1. "(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. "(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'LAREN

moved 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. ADAM

said, 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. COWAN

moved 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. GRANT

said, he felt himself bound, on the part of his constituents, to oppose the clause, the object of which was to exempt the Dock Commissioners 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 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 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'LAREN

said, 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 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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. RAMSAY

said, 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 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 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 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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 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- 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 COLEBROOKE

moved, 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 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. ANDERSON

said, 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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 NOEL

moved, 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 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 ADVOCATE

opposed 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 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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 GORDON

was 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 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 CROSS

said, 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. BARCLAY

said, 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. ANDERSON

said, 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 "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 NOEL

moved, 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 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 CAMPBELL

said, 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- 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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. PARKER

asked, whether the Government were quite sure that the Bill would not abolish petty customs?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, there was no clause in the Bill by which petty customs were abolished, except in case of petty customs for passing through the burghs.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

regretted 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- 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 CAMPBELL

moved, 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 ADVOCATE

said, he was obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, which he would accept.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

called 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 ADVOCATE

promised to bring up a clause to amend the discrepancy.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

moved, 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 BALFOUR

hoped the Lord Advocate would have the valuation rolls printed, so that people could get copies of them without much 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 ADVOCATE

moved, 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'LAREN

observed, 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 ADVOCATE

said, 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- 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'LAREN

said, he was quite satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, 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 CROSS

said, he was willing to have the word "inhabitants" inserted in the place of "ratepayers."

THE LORD ADVOCATE

would 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- 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.