CONSIDERATION.

HC Deb 04 July 1878 vol 241 cc826-43

Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended [2nd July], resumed.

MR. ANDERSON

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated earlier in the evening that the measure would not be taken up at an unreasonable hour. The number of Amendments on the Paper still to be proposed would involve a discussion of three or four hours, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether it was reasonable to go on with the Bill at that hour (five minutes before midnight)?

COLONEL MURE

hoped that the Government would proceed with the Bill.

Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be now taken into Consideration," put, and agreed to.

Clause 46 (Local authority to have management of roads within burghs).

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL moved, as an Amendment, in page 26, line 2, after "final," to insert— but, in the case of any burgh containing 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. He had admitted, when the question was before the House on a former occasion, that the Amendments which had been accepted by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, on behalf of the Government, went far to take away the urgency of the Amendment he now proposed. Still, he intended to propose it, because he believed it would provide a simpler means of meeting the difficulty to which reference had been made in previous discussions than that which had been already accepted. Royal burghs in which the population did not exceed 5,000 were within the provisions of the Bill, therefore his Amendment referred only to those Royal and Parliamentary burghs which in that capacity were brought within the provisions of the Bill. He ventured to hope that the Government would consider that matters would be simplified by the acceptance of his Amendment. The effect of it with regard to these small burghs would be that it would be in the option of the sheriff to leave them in the position in which they now stood—that was to say, in case they should be willing to remain, for road purposes, part of the county, as they now were, then the rates to be imposed upon them for those purposes should not be heavier than the rates paid by the county in general.

Amendment proposed, in page 26, line 2, after the word "final," to insert the words— 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."—(Sir George Campbell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, the effect of the Amendment would be to place under the clause burghs above and below a population of 5,000 in quite different positions. It seemed to him that there was really no principle upon which they ought to be differently dealt with, and he could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 47 (Clause B.—Burgh within county where Act not in force, may, by agreement or otherwise, assume management, &c., of highways within it).

On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—

In page 26, line 10, after "lawful," insert "at any time after the passing of this Act;" page 26, line 21, after "sheriff," insert "who shall take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, and;" page 26, line 33, leave out "roads, highways, and bridges," and insert "to the highways."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 48 to 50, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 51 (Assessment in counties for management, maintenance, and repair).

Amendment proposed, in page 28, line 7, to leave out from the word "or," to the word "district," in line 9, both inclusive."—(Sir Edward Colebrooke.)

Question, ''That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE moved, as an Amendment, in page 28, line 13, to leave out from "or," to "aforesaid," in line 14, both inclusive. The object of his Amendment was to prevent the expenses of management and repair being levied on a less area than that of a district.

MR. M'LAREN

hoped the Amendment would be adopted, inasmuch as there was a general opinion in its favour.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

was not aware that there was any general desire for the adoption of the Amendment, and could not accept it. The clause only made a separate assessment of any one parish in a district permissive on the part of the trustees.

MR. M'LAREN

observed, with respect to the remark of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, that there had been many instances in which a so-called permissive assessment had become the general rule. The case of roads in upland districts was similar to that of highways in the case of coal mines, which used only railway branches in their works, which had recently been discussed, and such like works, except that roads for the use of sheep would cost £30 or £40 per mile, while roads in mining districts would require an expenditure of £200 to £250 per mile. He had been in favour of a lower assessment in the case of mining parishes until a convincing speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department changed his convictions. If it were not fair to have a lower assessment in mining districts using only branch railways, neither was it right that there should be one in upland districts. A flock of sheep might pass over three or four parishes before it arrived at market, and, therefore, the roads were used by the whole of those districts. The same observation applied to vehicular and other traffic, and made it clear roads could not be considered as being merely for the exclusive use of any particular parish.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN rose to Order. The Amendment seemed to him to be consequential upon another which had been negatived. If the words proposed to be left out were omitted, the clause would become nonsense.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that an Amendment which had already been put to the House did appear to him to deal with the question, and therefore the present Amendment could not be put.

Amendment dropped.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 52 to 55, inclusive, amended and agreed to.

Clause 56 (Power of road authority to recover expenses of extraordinary traffic).

MR. MARK STEWART moved, as an Amendment, in page 30, line 30, after "authority," to insert "may make bye-laws for the regulation or prevention of such traffic on certain roads and." He urged that this clause was intended especially to deal with extraordinary traffic, and, as had been already pointed out, the Amendment was not intended to unduly restrict the use of traction engines, but to keep them within proper limits.

Amendment proposed, In page 30, line 30, after the word "authority," to insert the words "may make bye-laws for the regulation or prevention of such traffic on certain roads and."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted,"

MR. ANDERSON

inquired why the word "prevention" was inserted in the Amendment, if it were only intended to give the surveyor power to regulate the traffic?

MR. MARK STEWART

explained that it was only desired to "prevent" such traffic where the roads were too narrow to admit of it with safety.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, the difficulty he experienced was that the words of the Amendment were so very vague, and as they were intended to apply to locomotives on roads, it would be really and truly handing over to the local authority the power of legislating for such purposes. He must remind the House there was now before it a Bill for the special regulation of locomotive traffic on roads.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 57 to 87, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 88 (Clause C.—Special provisions for highways in counties of Lanark and Renfrew).

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE moved, as an Amendment, in page 46, line 19, to leave out the words "and statute labour." The effect of the Amendment would really be to offer an advantage to the City of Glasgow.

Amendment proposed, in page 46, line 19, to leave out the words "and statute labour."—(Sir Edward Colebrooke.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

DR. CAMERON

did not think that it was material to Glasgow whether the words were left out or not. If they remained in, Glasgow would have to pay a share of the statute labour debt of Lanark and Renfrewshire; but, on the other hand, he considered, it would be enabled to bring a claim against those counties for expenditure incurred in improving certain statute labour roads within the city, which would practically counterbalance the county claim.

MR. ANDERSON

observed that it was a new thing to hear the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Colebrooke) offer a boon to Glasgow, and he feared it was a case of Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. He (Mr. Anderson) had already said so much against the clause, that he would not repeat his words further than to characterize the clause as a deliberate act of spoliation. Not only was this the opinion of the Glasgow people, including himself, but The Scotsman, which might be considered the national paper in Scotland, and which had never shown any very kindly disposition towards Glasgow—as there was some jealousy between Glasgow and Edinburgh—had had a special article on the subject.

MR. SPEAKER

said, he must point out to the hon. Member that it was not regular to refer in debate to articles in newspapers which reflected upon the proceedings of the House.

Mr. ANDERSON

would simply say that that paper characterized the clause as spoliation and black-mail. County Gentlemen were acting in the way that raiders of old times used to do. Whenever they wanted anything they went into the nearest town to take it by force, "for," said they, "what is the use of having a rich town near at hand if you can't take what you like out of it?" The mouths of the gentlemen of the county of Edinburgh watered, and they wondered why they had not made a haul out of the City of Edinburgh by the Bill as the gentlemen of Lanark and Renfrew had done out of Glasgow. But opposition to the clause would be carried on as long as possible, and they would not cease to protest against its injustice. The particular Amendment in question was, however, so small that it was not worth contesting.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

DR. CAMERON moved, as an Amendment, in page 46, line 20, to leave out the word "counties," and to insert "lower ward of the county," in lieu thereof. This was, he said, the first of a series of Amendments directed against the unjustifiable proposal to place upon Glasgow half the road debts of Lanark and Renfrewshire as well as its own. When the Bill was in Committee, it was agreed that the county of Lanark should be considered as three counties for every purpose except the payment of Lanarkshire debts by Glasgow. What he now proposed to do was to extend that division of the county to the purposes of this clause, The Lower Ward of Lanarkshire was in close proximity to Glasgow, and there might be some reason for requiring Glasgow to pay its portion of the debt. But the Upper Ward of the county of Lanark was nearer to Edinburgh than Glasgow; and, on what principle the latter should be asked to pay the debt of that portion of the county, he could not understand. What, therefore, was proposed by this series of Amendments was that Glasgow should pay its share of the debt of the Lower Ward of Lanarkshire, and what he contended was the full extent of its share in connection with Renfrewshire. About £70,000 a-year of the rateable value of Glasgow was in Renfrewshire, and to charge it upon its total rental of £3,000,000 for the purpose of paying the debt of that county was preposterous. A new injustice had been developed by the statements of the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Stewart), and the hon. Baronet the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), it having been actually said by them that Glasgow should pay its share of the road debts of Greenock and Paisley. Could anything be more preposterous? The Amendment he now moved would have the effect of mitigating the injustice, and considerably cutting down the contribution that Glasgow would have to make to the road debts of these counties.

Amendment proposed, in page 46, line 20, to leave out the word "counties," in order to insert the words "lower ward of the county."—(Dr. Cameron.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'counties' stand part of the Bill."

COLONEL MURE

protested against the Amendment, as the roads in question were of great use in Glasgow.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

urged that Glasgow had always maintained that it had a right to a share in the management of these roads, and had actually taken an active part in it. He could not, therefore, see any hardship in Glasgow bearing its share of the expenses of their maintenance. It should also be remembered that when the roads were made and debts were incurred by their formation that they were the great trunk lines of the country. It was that point that should be taken into consideration.

MR. ANDERSON

pointed out, that if some of these trunk roads led to Glasgow, some of them led to Edinburgh also, and that the part of the county of which the House had been discussing was nearer Edinburgh than Glasgow, and it would be more reasonable to make Edinburgh pay than Glasgow. The proposal to make Glasgow pay part of the debt on the roads of a distant part of the county with which she had nothing to do was absurd, and this was shown by the fact that for every purpose excepting that of plundering Glasgow, Clause 93 divided Lanark into three separate districts, which were each to pay their own burdens.

SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER

took exception to the statement of the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Anderson), that there was an attempt in the Bill, on the part of the county, to plunder Glasgow. He wished to remind the hon. Member of this—it was not the rural districts of the county of Lanark that urged the Bill upon the Government. It was the city of Glasgow, and the hon. Member did not make a favourable appearance when he assumed the character of the biter bit. The city of Glasgow had wished to plunder the rural districts of Lanarkshire in order to use the roads without expense—by the abolition of tolls—and all that was now asked of Glasgow was that it should pay its fair share of the burden that would be thrown upon the county in consequence of the abolition of tolls. With regard to the Amendment before the House, let him remind hon. Members that the debt in question was incurred in the construction and improvement of roads not made for local, but for Imperial traffic. In some instances, these roads were made at the request of Glasgow far more than of the localities through which they passed, and he submitted that their present value was not the only subject for consideration. Their value at the time they were made and before the disturbing element of railways intervened must be borne in mind. To use an expression that was not a new one, he might say that if the steam engine had remained in the tea-kettle nothing would have been heard as to the hardship of tolls, and this Bill would never have come before the House of Commons. It was to benefit the general public that these roads were made, and debt incurred that would not now be necessary. As the roads were made for the benefit of the whole community, the debt incurred in making and maintaining them ought to be a charge upon the whole community.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he could not understand the logic of the hon. Baronet who had just sat down (Sir Windham Anstruther). He taunted the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) by saying that it was not the county, but the city of Glasgow, that originated the demand for the Bill, and that Glasgow ought, therefore, to submit. But because Glasgow asked the Government to introduce a Bill whose provisions should be just and equitable, was Glasgow bound, therefore, to submit to a Bill, the provisions of which were unjust and inequitable? Surely it would be strange logic to say so? As to the allegation that these roads were made for the benefit of the whole community, and for Glasgow in particular, he might remind the House, and especially the English Members, that Lanark contained about 40 parishes; that, being a large county, it was touched in its outlines by nine other counties that surrounded it, and that many of these counties were much nearer to Glasgow than the outlying district of Lanarkshire. There were no fewer than 1,332 miles of road in the county. Would the hon. Baronet venture to say that all the remote cross statute labour roads among these were made for the benefit of Glasgow, when, perhaps, not one man in Glasgow in 100 had ever seen one-half of them? Railways were now so abundant that people in Glasgow desirous of travelling any distance never went by road. Of the 1,332 miles of road in the county, 416 miles were turnpike roads, and 916 statute labour roads; and one of the great acts of injustice committed in this Bill was the mixing up of the statute labour roads with the turnpike roads, with which they had no connection. It might be said, that by removing toll-bars, a benefit was conferred on Glasgow; but how could a benefit be conferred on Glasgow by altering the mode of rating with regard to statute labour roads, of which Glasgow had the use now? The Bill, as it stood, was also the embodiment of another mode of jobbing into the hands of the agricultural interest, in the matter of statute labour roads. The Bill provided that the statute labour roads should be maintained by an equal rating on properties according to the annual rack-rent by the valuation roll; but, at present, no rate was laid on houses in Lanarkshire for maintaining the statute labour roads, and no rate on factories or on mines. Nearly the whole of the rates were laid on agricultural lands and on horses; but, under the Bill, when one equal rate was levied all over the county, the agricultural interest would be relieved, perhaps, from one-half of their statute labour burdens. The county at present was divided into plough-gates, each contributing at the rate of so many days' labour, the value differing in the various parishes. There was no rate on houses, nor on minerals, nor on public works, nor manufactories. But, in future, the Glasgow man who had a villa, and some ground around it, would have to pay, perhaps, his £5 on £200 a-year of rental, and to a much greater extent on his mines and factories. These sums would go to relieve the agricultural interest; and, besides, Glasgow would be saddled with one-half of the whole road debts. How could Glasgow be interested in these 1,332 miles of road to such an extent? If the House adopted the Amendment of his hon. Friend, they would act very much in accordance with the Report of the Royal Commissioners. This Lower Ward was closely connected with Glasgow, and the Commissioners recommended that Glasgow should pay its proportion of the debt on the roads that actually entered the city. That would be done if the Amendment were adopted. If the Bill, as it now stood, should pass, he ventured to say that it would be a blot on the Government's escutcheon for years to come, and would cause an amount of irritation, not in Glasgow only, but throughout Scotland, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, or the Government, could have little conception. Reference had been made to the comments of an Edinburgh paper that day; but another Edinburgh paper two days before had denounced the proposals of the Government, if possible more strongly, and referred to them as acts of pure Vandalism. No one had ventured upon any calculation which would justify these roads being maintained to such an extent by Glasgow. In Mr. Smith's Report, there was not a single figure to show that he ever inquired into the expense of their maintenance, and into the proportion which Glasgow should pay. The arrangement was a hop-step-and-jump arrangement, and he was sorry the Government had been so weak as to adopt it in the face of the most positive evidence collected by previous Royal Commission that it would be grossly unjust.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he would remind the hon. Member who had taken his seat (Mr. M'Laren) that, by an Amendment which had been agreed to, the words "statute labour" had been struck out of the clause. ["No, no!"] He begged pardon if that were not so. [Mr. M'LAREN said, what he had shown was merely the extent of the roads.] They knew that the amount of the statute labour debt was exceedingly small. Then, with regard to the other roads—the main lines of turnpike roads—they were those which were burdened with debt, which centred in Glasgow, and which, at one time, were the only means of communication between Glasgow and the South. In the same way Edinburgh had a direct line of communication by Berwick. It was not the case that Glasgow was being plundered for the rest of the county. The way in which the debt had been allocated was this—they took the whole debt, and apportioned it against Glasgow and the two counties; and they might just as well say on the same principle that Lanark was paying the debt of Renfrew, or Renfrew the debt of Lanark, as that Glasgow was paying the debts of both. With regard to the Amendment, he had said enough to indicate that he could not accept it, and he did not think any argument in its favour could be derived from the circumstance that the county had been divided into three distinct districts; because it must be plain that a different principle was applicable in the allocation of debt for payment of a road, and of the cost of its maintenance after it had been made. The cost of making might be much the same in all the districts; but the cost of maintenance depended on the use made of the road; and while one district might hardly use it at all, and cause but little tear and wear, another district might so use it as to involve its constant repair. It was right, therefore, that there should be a division of districts, and it was also right, as was contemplated by those who made the division, that the contribution of the city of Glasgow should be spent in its immediate neighbourhood, and in the lower district.

MR. RAMSAY

remarked, that the whole of the controversy which had arisen on this subject was due to the fact that in framing this clause, the Government had violated the leading principle of the Bill. The leading principle of the assessment clauses was that the money derived from the ratepayers within any given area should be expended for the maintenance of the roads within that area. Upon what principle was Glasgow called upon to pay towards the future maintenance of roads with which they had nothing to do?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the House was not discussing the question of maintenance, but that of the cost of making.

MR. RAMSAY

said, the debt section was under discussion, and he wished to point out that it was inequitable to burden Glasgow with debt and maintenance. On what principle, he asked, were burghs which had no share in the management of these roads asked to pay a share of the debt? Nothing more inequitable could be conceived.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

sympathized with his hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow; but did not think much progress was likely to be made if the question between Glasgow and the counties was to be raised on every clause of the Bill. This clause was as to the division of Lanark into three wards, and, primâ facie, there was reason in the proposal; but after what had been said by the hon. Baronet behind him (Sir Edward Colebrooke), he thought Glasgow had put herself out of court by claiming so assiduously, as he said she had done, a share in the management of the roads with regard to which this debt had been incurred. On the whole, he thought the Government were right.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 33: Majority 54.—(Div. List, No. 196.)

DR. CAMERON

, in moving, as an Amendment, to insert, after line 23, a Proviso, proposing to limit the time of payment of the annual sum of £12,500, payable by the City of Glasgow by Provisional Order to be issued by the Secretary of State, said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had some proposition to make upon the point.

Amendment proposed, In page 47, after line 23, to insert the words "Provided always, That if at any time after the expiration of three years from and after the commencement of this Act, within the counties of Lanark and Renfrew, it shall appear to the burgh local authority of the City of Glasgow, or of any one of the said burghs that, having regard to the cost of maintaining the roads, highways, and bridges within the said counties, or either of them, the payment of the said sum of twelve thousand five hundred pounds sterling should terminate or be reduced, the said burgh local authority may from time to time apply to the Secretary of State to make a Provisional Order terminating or reducing the said payment, and the Secretary of State may issue a Provisional Order under his hand and seal of office, in relation to the matters mentioned in the application, either in accordance with the prayer thereof or with such modifications or alterations as may appear to him to be requisite, and the whole procedure prescribed by section nine of this Act with reference to the Provisional Orders thereby authorised, and the confirmation thereof, shall be and are hereby made applicable to the Provisional Orders authorized by this section; or the said burgh local authority may, instead of applying to the Secretary of State to make a Provisional Order, apply to Parliament by Private Bill to effect the said objects."—(Dr. Cameron.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he thought that a convenient time to make a suggestion to the hon. Members for Glasgow. He would, therefore, suggest to them, and strongly press upon the hon. Members for Lanark and Renfrew, to accept, in order to come to a conclusion upon the matter, what, he thought, would be a fair and reasonable compromise, both to Glasgow and to the counties. Nobody wanted the question of the future maintenance of the roads to be a perpetual cause of trouble, either on the one side or the other; and he, for one, was desirous, if possible, to avoid anything of the kind. Now, whatever the calculations of Mr. Smith, the Commissioner, might be, he (Mr. Cross) had the greatest confidence in the judgment of that gentleman. It was clearly impossible, however, for anyone to vouch for the absolute accuracy of the cost of maintenance; and, therefore, it seemed to him it might be very fairly put as the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) proposed, that there should be some provision in the Bill for a future revision, should either Glasgow or the counties ask for it. He (Mr. Cross) did not think it should be immediately. The hon. Gentleman had inserted the period of three years, and he (Mr. Cross) proposed that the period of five years should be inserted instead. After that period, any person discontented with the measure, should be able to come, either by a Provisional Order or a Private Bill, and ask for a re-adjustment. That, he thought, would be fair to the interests of both parties, and if it met with the favour of the House, he should be willing to accept, on the part of the Government, the Proviso which had been moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, after he had made one or two alterations in it. He really thought it was a fair compromise.

DR. CAMERON

, after what the Home Secretary had just stated, would withdraw his Amendment, and leave the matter in the hands of the Government. At the same time, he begged to say the concession would not satisfy Glasgow. Half-a-loaf, however, was better than no bread, and, therefore, it would be a very foolish thing for them to refuse this offer, especially as everything else they had asked for had been refused them. If this matter turned out as they expected it would, the Proviso as agreed to by the Home Secretary would, at least, give an opportunity for revision; though he did not exactly see the reason of prolonging the period from three to five years, or, indeed, for prolonging it longer than was absolutely necessary for gaining experience as to the cost of the roads. He would not oppose the Amendment; on the contrary, he accepted it; but he wished it to be distinctly understood that he did not do so as a compromise which would bind the authorities of Glasgow to refrain from further opposition to the measure.

MR. ANDERSON

said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cross) had spoken of this as a compromise. Now, Glasgow could not accept it as such—she utterly repudiated it as a compromise; but if the right hon. Gentleman chose to put in the Proviso as a salve to his own conscience for the iniquity of Clause 88, all he could say was that Glasgow would not vote against him. They did not, however, at all admit that it did justice to Glasgow. For instance, the Proviso was not to be made retrospective, so that at the end of five years, Glasgow would have been plundered of £50,000. If the revision showed that the calculation was a wrong one, Glasgow ought to have some means to get back the money she had paid.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the Proviso, as he should propose it, would read as follows:— Provided always, That if at any time after the expiration of five years from and after the commencement of this Act, within the counties of Lanark and Renfrew, it shall appear to the said counties, or either of them, or to the burgh local authority of the City of Glasgow, or of anyone of the said burgh, that, having regard to the cost of maintaining the roads, highways, and bridges, within the said counties, or either of them, the payment of the said sum of twelve thousand five hundred pounds sterling should be altered, the said counties, or either of them, or the burgh local authority may from time to time apply to the Secretary of State to make a Provisional Order altering the said payment, and the Secretary of State may issue a Provisional Order under his hand and seal of office, in relation to the matters mentioned in the application, either in accordance with the prayer thereof, or with such modifications or alterations as may appear to him to be requisite, and the whole procedure prescribed by section nine of this Act, with reference to the Provisional Orders hereby authorized, and the confirmation thereof, shall be and are hereby made applicable to the Provisional Orders authorized by this section; or the said counties, or either of them, or burgh local authority may, instead of applying to the Secretary of State to make a Provisional Order, apply to Parliament by Private Bill to effect the said objects, provided such Private Bill does not contain any provision, except such as may be necessary for such alteration.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

was glad the proposal had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. He thought it was an equitable arrangement, that there should be a revision of the arrangement after a certain period; but after the first revision had taken place, a specific period ought to elapse before there was another revision. He objected to there being an indefinite number of revisions.

MR. M'LAREN

said, that he had a new clause on the Paper to the same effect, or rather more stringent than the one proposed by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow; but, in order to save time, he would not move it. As to Mr. Smith's Report, he had not seen it until three days' ago, and he found that gentleman recognized the power of applying for a Provisional Order; but he did not say it should be applied for only after three or five years, but at any time.

MR. RAMSAY

expressed regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had determined that the period should be five instead of three years. In the course of this discussion hon. Members had frequently referred to the great wealth of the city of Glasgow; but the House ought to know what the real facts were. He had had an analysis recently furnished him of the valuation of Glasgow, and he found in a city containing upwards of 600,000 inhabitants, there were only 4,600 houses with a rental of over £30 per annum. This showed that the population of Glasgow was poor rather than wealthy, and that an addition to the rates of 1d. in the pound was a very serious burden to a very great number of persons in the city.

Amendment (Dr. Cameron), by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (Mr. Assheton Cross) agreed to.

Clauses 89 and 90 agreed to.

Clause 91 (Clause D.—Power of board to make bye-laws).

MR. VANS AGNEW moved, as an Amendment, in page 50, line 24, after "wheel," to insert as a separate subsection— For regulating the weight which may be carried over any highway, and of prohibiting the passage of such weight as may be specified in such bye-laws over certain roads. The reason he proposed the Amendment was, that in many counties in Scotland the roads were of a very light character, and were not equal to the passage of very heavy traffic over them. They were very different to the roads in the neighbourhood of large towns. At present the road trustees had no control over the heavy weights which were taken along county roads. In his out-of-the-way corner of Scotland they were sometimes visited by a menagerie, some of the vans of which carried enormous weights, such as elephants. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 50, line 24, after the word "wheel," to insert the words as a separate sub-section,—"For regulating the weight which may be carried over any highway, and of prohibiting the passage of such weight as may be specified in such bye-laws over certain roads."—(Mr. Vans Agnew.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE LORD ADVOCATE

opposed the Amendment for this reason—that, although by adopting it they would enable the road trustees to deal with an occasional elephant passing along the roads, yet it would at the same time empower them to put a stop to locomotive traffic, and that was one of the vexed questions which ought not to be settled in that Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 92 and 93 agreed to.

Clause 94 (Clause G.—As to certain bridges and ferries in Dumbartonshire).

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL moved the omission of the clause. It had, he said, been added in Committee without discussion, and had reference to the continuance of certain pontages on bridges in the county of Dumbarton for a number of years. It would be much more reasonable to leave those pontages under the operation of the general provisions of the measure. Under Section 33 of the Bill, as it now stood, it was distinctly enacted that all tolls in Scotland should cease upon the passing of the Act, and provision was made for meeting the claim on account of compensation; yet, in another clause, an exception was made, and those pontages in Dumbartonshire were to be continued, although he could not understand for what reason.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 94.—(Sir George Campbell.)

Question proposed, "That Clause 94 stand part of the Bill."

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, the hon. Member had omitted to notice one important fact, which was, that these bridges were not part of a highway in the meaning of this statute, but simply private property. He quite admitted they were a great grievance; but the persons in the county interested in the matter, after a great many conferences, had voluntarily adjusted the clause, and had asked the Government to give it their sanction. It settled a very unpleasant local question in a very reasonable way, to the satisfaction of everyone concerned; and, therefore, the Government had agreed to its insertion in the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 95 to 113, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 114 (Incorporation of parts of General Turnpike Act).

COLONEL ALEXANDER moved, as an Amendment, in page 58, line 17, to leave out "three," and insert "five." The limit of three miles as the extent to which metal for the repair of the road might be fetched was, in his opinion, too small.

Amendment proposed, in page 58, line 17, to leave out the word "three," in order to insert the word "five."—(Colonel Alexander.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Bill."

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he could not accept the Amendment. It appeared too much to say that the road authorities should be entitled to take from the property of one small proprietor metal extending to five or six miles of road.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.