HC Deb 04 June 1878 vol 240 cc1182-215

(The Lord Advocate, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.]

COMMITTEE. [Progress 2lst March.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 12 (Appointment of county road trustees).

MR. ANDERSON

, in moving as an Amendment, in page 8, after line 38, to insert the following section:—"Every tenant of land of the yearly value of one hundred pounds or upwards," said, his object in moving this Amendment was to bring tenants to take a more complete and thorough part in the management of roads. As the Bill at present stood, the management was left far too much in the hands of the Commissioners of Supply, who consisted entirely of the proprietary class. He wished to make tenants of £100 and upwards road trustees; whereas the Bill ignored tenants altogether, unless, perhaps, Corporations who paid £800 and upwards, which was going too far, and was a proposition to which he hoped the Committee would never consent. He wanted to see the Road Boards popularized, and it was high time that something in that direction were done. There was no reason, that he could see, why their counties should not be exactly like the municipalities in their great towns, and until they were so they would not be perfect. In the meantime, when a Bill was being introduced for creating one system of management for the whole of the roads, he thought it was a pity not to recognize the popular element a little more, and with that object he proposed the Amendment.

MR. MARK STEWART

said, he effect of this Amendment in the county next to that in which he resided would be simply disastrous, for it would give an overwhelming majority to a particular class of persons who would, practically, swamp the Board. There would be, he calculated, 1,585 persons on the Road Board instead of 290. These persons would be made up as follows:—The Commissioners of Supply for that county, at present, were 187; the factors, 10; persons appointed by each Corporation or incorporated Company, 4; two persons out of each parish elected by the ratepayers from their own number, 86; one person for every police burgh in the county, 3; total 290. Under the hon. Member for Glasgow's Amendment the Commissioners of Supply would remain at 187, the number of tenants on the valuation roll, paying a rent of £100 or upwards yearly, would be 1,128. Six persons out of each of the 43 parishes elected by the ratepayers from their own number 258, and 4 persons elected by the Commission of the Police of each police burgh, 12; total, 1,585. He need not point out the absurdity of such an arrangement, and he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he did not at all approve of the principle that persons should be on the Road Board not as representing any body, but simply because they occupied property of a certain amount. The Amendment, too, instead of making the Boards more popular and representative, would operate in the adverse direction.

MR. ORR-EWING

hoped the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) would not press his Amendment, and if he did that the Government would not assent to it. He thought the Amendment was dictated rather by opposition to the Commissioners of Supply than by a desire to give the tenants representation. It was a fact, also, that there were many local Acts, the terms of which were practically settled by the tenants, which were so far from being representative, that they were very much less liberal than the proposals of the Government.

Amendment negatived.

On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments were made:—In page 8, line 39, leave out "and," and insert "any writing;" in page 8, line 39, after "seal," insert "under the hand of the secretary or other officer;" and in line 40, leave out "every," and insert "any."

SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER moved, as an Amendment, the omission of the word "incorporated" in line 40. By the clause as it stood Companies not incorporated could not vote, although they were possessed of property of the annual value of £800 and upwards. The result was, that the Clyde Coal Company and Dixon's Company (Limited) would vote, while the Coltness Iron Company and William Baird and Company could not.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he had had very little time to consider the Amendment, as it had not been put down on the Paper. He doubted whether it would have the effect desired by the hon. Baronet, even if carried. An unincorporated Company could not hold land except through trustees.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the trustees could not vote for Commissioners of Supply.

SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER

said, he would not press the matter now, but would bring up the Amendment on the Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he did not understand why £800 was chosen as the limit in the Bill, and why it was not £700 or £600, or any other sum. In his opinion, £800 was too much; but as the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) intended to move to reduce it to £200, he should not move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

MR. M'LAREN

said, the professed object of the Bill was to place corporations who held land in the position of landed proprietors, yet while an ordi- nary proprietor would have a vote for comparatively small rental, a corporation would not unless it came within the £800 class. Now, a corporation was regarded by the law as exactly similar to a private individual, and why should they not be treated as other individuals? He considered that every corporation whose landed estates were worth £200 a-year should have the right to vote in these matters; and therefore he moved to substitute the word "two" for the word "eight," in page 8, line 42.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

also thought that the valuation of £800, required by this clause of the Bill, in order to enable a corporation or a corporate Company to appoint trustees, was too high. He was in favour of reducing the amount as proposed, while, at the same time, restricting the title of the Company to ownership qualification.

MR. RAMSAY

said, as the Bill now stood any Company assessed at £800 for taxes of any kind during the year could appoint a representative. He thought it would be desirable to define the right of Companies more clearly.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh ought not to be accepted. The question raised here was really as to what parties might be represented by proxy. In the case of incorporated Companies, their position was the same as that of Commissioners of Supply, who could be represented by the factors of their landed estates if the rentals were £800 a-year. If the Amendment passed, the Companies would be entitled to vote for any part of their rental, whether received from houses or other sources.

MR. M'LAREN

replied, that a rental of £200 a-year from landed estates should be sufficient. Every corporation had an official—their treasurer, who represented the trust—who was altogether different from an ordinary factor. If the Lord Advocate thought that £200 a-year was too small, he was willing to take a larger sum; but he thought £800 a-year perfectly preposterous. There might as well be a clause to the effect that no corporation with a landed estate should have any representative, as pass the clause as it at present stood.

Amendment negatived.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

, in page 8, line 42, proposed, in order to make it clear that Companies must be owners of land and not tenants only, to insert after the word "assessed" the words "as owners."

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he did not in the least object to the addition of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Forfarshire.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted.

SIR, WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER

said, with reference to the 3rd subsection in the clause relating to the appointment of county road trustees, there should be only one person instead of two elected by the ratepayers in each parish situated wholly or partly in the county. He therefore moved, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 1, sub-section 3, to leave out the words "two persons," and insert the words "one person, not being a Commissioner of Supply, or otherwise a trustee." His reason for moving the Amendment was, that he regarded the persons constituted as trustees under the Bill as so numerous that the Boards would be unwieldy, and he thought it would be almost impossible to get the Bill fairly worked under them. He therefore proposed to substitute one trustee for the two provided for by the Bill.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he had refrained from moving his Amendment to increase the number of trustees to be elected by each parish, because he was informed that in some counties where the number of parishes was very large, any increase of the representation would make the number of elected members cumbersome and unworkable. But he hoped the Government would not consent to reduce the number of trustees appointed by the Bill. He would have preferred that three members should be elected by the ratepayers of each parish in the place of two; but he should certainly oppose the appointment of any smaller number.

MR. MARK STEWART

pointed out that in several counties within his knowledge the election of two members by each parish would completely swamp the other representatives. In some counties which had private Acts, it was found that they could not even give one elected member to each parish, because it would make the representation unfairly great in comparison with the other constituents of the Board. He thought the best way to avoid this difficulty in the present case would be to reduce the number of trustees to one.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, the object of having these elected members was to secure that a certain number of persons representing the ratepayers should take part in the business of managing the roads. He, therefore, thought it very important not to reduce their number to an extent which would prevent their getting proper members. In Lanarkshire the number of elected members would be only four or five, as the number of parishes in that county was comparatively small. He wished to ask the Government a question, which he begged to apologize for not having put into a more workable shape—namely, why the number of elected members should not be made to depend upon the size of the parishes? He thought that it might be easily laid down as a rule that a parish with less than 1,000 or 500 inhabitants should have only one representative; but that as the population increased to 5,000, 10,000, or 50,000, the proportion should be larger.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, it might be that the number of the road trustees would be inconveniently large; that was part of the framework of the Bill. It must be remembered that elected members and non-elected members represented different interests, and he hoped that the House would not consent to reduce the proportion of elected members. It would be remembered that tenants were not directly represented. The only representation of the ratepayers was secured by this clause. He was quite sure that if Scotland were taken as a whole, it would be found that the number of Commissioners of Supply much exceeded the total number of elected members that would be elected at the rate of two to each parish.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

quite admitted that in many counties—indeed, he might say in most counties—the body of trustees would be very unwieldly, and not the best possible for the despatch of business required in the management of the roads throughout the county; but, at the same time, it was exceedingly necessary to have a fair representation by elected members, and he did not think that could be secured by adopting the Amendment proposed for reducing the number of representatives to one for the ratepayers of each parish. Of course, the ratepayers were not tied down to parochial representatives, and he hoped they would be able to furnish a sufficient number of trustees as members of district committees for the management of local roads.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he deprecated any suggestion of a conflict of interests between the elected trustees and the Commissioners of Supply. In the county of Aberdeen there were two tenant trustees elected by each parish, and that number had been found to work very satisfactorily. In the case of For-farshire, which was a county of small parishes, they desired to have two elected trustees, and the Commissioners of Supply were by their experience quite satisfied, after the experience they had, of the great advantage of having two tenant trustees elected by each parish as tenant representatives. These trustees were held responsible by their neighbours to have the roads kept in good condition, and for seeing that the money spent upon them was economically and well spent. It was believed that the election of two trustees would insure economical and judicious management. The elected trustees had no voice whatever in regard to the payment of debt, or in regard to the assessment, therefore, both of which affected the Commissioners of Supply alone. There was, therefore, no conflict of interests between the two classes of trustees. It would be practically impossible, without a very nice machinery, perfectly to balance the powers in the road trust, because the number of Commissioners of Supply was so various in the different counties of Scotland, that what was found to suit in one would not suit in another. He thought, judging from the experience gained from private Bills which had passed, that the proposal to elect two trustees would work perfectly well.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he did not suggest that there was any conflict of interests between elected trustees and Commissioners of Supply. It appeared to him that their interests were identical; that, however, in his opinion, was no reason for withholding a fair representation from either.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

had not alluded to any remark of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate concerning a conflict of interests between the elected trustees and the Commissioners of Supply, but to the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell).

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Consequential Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RAMSAY

said, in the absence, for domestic reasons, of the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour), he begged to move the Amendment of which he (Sir George Balfour) had given Notice—namely, to insert, after the provision for the election of two representatives by each parish in the county, the words— And in counties where the tenants are at present trustees for the commutation roads, on the qualification of paying certain rentals, these tenants shall be trustees for all roads. He would simply state his belief that this proviso would apply chiefly, if not exclusively, to the county represented by the hon. and gallant Member, where it was desired that the trustees should continue to act as they had acted hitherto.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, it was hardly possible for the Government to assent to the Amendment. The proposal was really, that in all cases where a county had a local Act by which the tolls were abolished, the machinery of the old Act should be retained for certain purposes, instead of the new. It was quite competent for these counties to retain their present local Acts, and their local machinery by which they were worked; but, on the other hand, if they discarded those local Acts, and superseded them by the adoption of the present Bill, he did not see why the Committee should import confusion into the Bill by allowing the old machinery to operate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. M'LAREN

said, the Committee having adopted the principle that each parish should have two representatives, he begged to propose that the same measure of justice be extended to police burghs and he would therefore move that in the 4th sub-section of the clause in reference to trustees, instead of one person only being appointed as trustee by the Commissioners of Police of any police burgh within, or partly within, a county, there should be two persons. The parishes in Scotland would be found, as a rule, to be considerably smaller than the burghs; and, besides that, the rental of the parishes was very much smaller on the average than the rental of the burghs. He thought, therefore, it would be exceedingly anomalous to say that every parish, however small, should have two representatives, while every burgh, however large, should have only one. This appeared to him an oversight, and the provision should have been the other way—namely, that while parishes might have one representative, the burghs, being larger and more important, should have two. He begged to move that the word "one" be omitted, and the word "two" be inserted.

Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 6, to leave out the word "one," in order to insert the word "two."—(Mr. M'Laren.)

SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME

asked, with reference to the proposal of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), whether, in cases where the provost or chief magistrate was ex officio trustee, another person would also be deputed to represent the burgh? If this were not so, he should be inclined to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh; because it seemed to him that burghs should have more than one representative.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he had an Amendment coming immediately after the present one, on the same question, but going further than that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh; and it was, therefore, almost needless to say that he entirely approved of giving a larger representation to burghs. He wished to impress on the hon. Member for Edinburgh to take a division on the point, which was a very important one.

MR. RAMSAY

said, that while there might be exceptional parishes, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), where the population was larger than in many burghs, yet the burghs in Lanarkshire which he (Mr. Ramsay) had the honour to represent, were certainly more populous, not only than some parishes, but than almost any rural parish in Scotland. It would be only giving the burghs a fair measure of representation if the Lord Advocate would accede to the Motion.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

was decidedly of opinion that the parish representatives having been fixed at two, the burgh representatives should be increased to the same number.

MR. ORR-EWING

said, that the larger burghs, which would have a separate Road Trust, did not need the representation sought for them. He could not see that any burgh had a right to be represented by a road trustee, unless it contributed to the keeping up of the roads.

MR. W. HOLMS

said, his only objection to the clause was that there were too few representatives of ratepayers, and too few representatives of burghs. He should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren).

MR. DALRYMPLE

thought that the representatives of the burghs should not be on the County Road Trust at all. The burghs managed their own affairs, and it seemed to him that the County Commissioners should be left to manage the landward district roads, and that the burghs should have no voice in their management. At all events, he should distinctly oppose the appointment of a second trustee.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, it seemed to him that the question would come to be one of statistics, and that the hon. Member (Mr. Dalrymple) had entirely misapprehended it. The clause related not to burghs in general but to police burghs, which were defined as populous places having a population not exceeding 5,000. These should in some degree be represented. The roads in these burghs were managed by the County Trust, and the question really was, did their population on an average exceed the population of parishes?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, there had been a good deal of misapprehension as to the import of the clause. Reference had been made by the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) to the population of some of the burghs which he represented; but he (the Lord Advocate) asserted that none of these burghs were at all likely to be in the position of throwing themselves into the arms of the County Trust, instead of managing their own roads. Some of them might do so, but they certainly would not be populous burghs. The only case contemplated was that of a burgh which could not manage its own roads, except at great expense, and which availed itself of the provisions of the Bill in order to make common cause with the county. He believed that this class of burghs would not only be limited in number, but in population. The suggestion of the Bill was very fair. It dealt with Royal and Parliamentary burghs and with police burghs. It provided that where a Royal and Parliamentary burgh took the step alluded to, it should have as representatives the Provost, the chief magistrate, and one member of the town council. In the case of a police burgh, the Provost or chief magistrate and one of the Commissioners of Police should be the representatives, so that in each case there would be two representatives. In those localities intended to be benefited by the provisions of the Bill, there was not much probability of the population being larger than in the parishes.

MR. M'LAREN

thought the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had lost sight of the fact that there was a clause in the Bill which enabled all burghs of a population not exceeding 10,000, to make an arrangement with counties to keep up the roads and streets in that burgh upon such terms as the counties might think fit to agree to. He wished to know whether the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate thought that a burgh of 10,000 inhabitants was to be placed in the same position as regarded representation as some petty parish in Scotland with 500 inhabitants, or even less? The burghs ought to have two elected representatives, in addition to their chief magistrate. He thought the clause an unjust one, and felt it his duty to divide the House upon the question.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

believed there were two classes of burghs which came under the operation of the clause. The sub-section, on which the Amendment was founded, dealt with the case of the police burgh, which had no choice but to be of necessity a part of the county. This police burgh had under 5,000 inhabitants, and would get one elected member. The proposal now was to elect two. The rest of the clause referred to Royal and Parliamentary burghs or police burghs of over 5,000 of population, and for these there existed a different set of circumstances altogether. In their case, the Bill contemplated their coming to an agreement with the counties to have their roads kept up and their representation on the County Board was a separate affair altogether; but the case of the small police burgh was not met by the explanation given by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate.

Question put, "That the word 'one' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 97: Majority 21.—(Div. List, No. 164.)

MR. TREVELYAN moved to amend the clause, by inserting, after the word "trustees," in page 9, line 12, the following words:— All persons being proprietors in feft, in life-rent, or in fee not burdened with a life-rent, in lands and heritages within the county of the yearly rent or value of at least one hundred pounds sterling, in terms of the Act of the seventeenth and eighteenth Victoria, chapter ninety-one. In certain counties in Scotland, as the right hon. and learned Lord and many hon. Members knew, the roads were managed by a joint Board, partly composed of Commissioners of Supply from outside the burghs, and partly of gentlemen inside the burghs, having the same qualification as Commissioners of Supply. Sometimes this qualification was £100. In Dumfriesshire and other counties, however, it was £150. So far as he could gather from its clauses, the Bill would disfranchise those gentlemen whose qualification was derived from property situated within the burghs. In Selkirkshire some of the most valuable members of the Road Board were gentlemen deriving their qualification from property within the burgh of Selkirk. His Amendment, which copied the words of the Selkirk Act, would prevent this disfranchisement.

MR. ORR-EWING

opposed the Amendment in its existing form, as likely to give the same qualification as that of a Commissioner of Supply to persons whose property was situated in burghs which might not contribute to the support of the county roads.

SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME

wished for some further explanation of the effect of the section.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

understood the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) to be, that where a Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh of over 5,000 inhabitants agreed with the county that the county should manage its roads, every owner of property of £100 value within the burgh should in that case have a seat at the Board of Trustees. Such an arrangement between county and burgh would be voluntary, and it would be desirable that it should be easily terminable. He therefore urged that, as the provisions of the Bill already provided for a sufficient representation of a burgh, in these circumstances, it would be undesirable to accept an Amendment which would have the effect of making the trustees a cumbrous body, and of prejudicing voluntary arrangements between burghs and counties.

SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY

understood that the Amendment was suggested to meet the case of Selkirkshire, It seemed, however, to him that the provision would admit too many to the County Road Board.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

understood the proposition to be, that in the case of arrangements between burgh and county, the landward part of the county and the burghs should be put on an equal footing, and that the burghs should be represented by proprietors, plus the elected members, in the same way as the counties were.

MR. ORR-EWING

objected to the Amendment, on the ground that it Would indirectly change the law of Scotland as to the qualification of Commissioners of Supply, which was fixed at £200.

MR. TREVELYAN

assured the Committee that he was not desirous of raising any abstract question for discussion. He only wished that the course which had generally been followed hitherto in these counties where burghs were included in the Road Trust, should be followed under the new Act. That course had been found very advantageous in Selkirkshire and Dumfriesshire. Other counties than Selkirkshire would be prejudicially affected by the Bill if their position were not protected by this Amendment; and a large number of exceedingly useful road trustees would be disfranchised. He did not think the burghs should be placed in a position less advantageous than that which they at present occupied, and if he received sufficient encouragement to do so, he would take a division.

SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME

said, the Amendment would apply not only to the burghs in these counties, but to the burghs in all counties, and where there was a large number of proprietors holding this qualification they would swamp the trust. He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

did not think the Government could accept the Amendment. The counties referred to by the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) were exceptional counties in the South of Scotland, generally of a pastoral character, although they were dotted here and there with centres of industry; and he doubted whether the arrangement which was said to have suited them would suit the industrial counties. In the larger and more populous counties to the North, the species of representation described by the hon. Member was not known, and the more recent local Acts abolishing tolls had approximated to the lines of the present Bill. He had no desire to disfranchise these trustees, and, indeed, they must, to be disfranchised, disfranchise themselves. They were at present county trustees, within the meaning of their local Acts; but if they came within the scope of this Act, they came under legislation of quite a different kind, that contemplated separate management by burghs. He had understood that the burghs in these counties were rather desirous of having that separation, or the means of effecting it for themselves. If the Committee adopted the Amendment, it would simply come to this—that, in addition to Commissioners of Supply and elected trustees, every person who was owner of property of the value of £100 within a burgh would be added to the County Road Trust. In many counties that would render the County Trust cumbrous and utterly unworkable, and would extend the county trusteeship far beyond the limits to which the Government could agree.

MR. RAMSAY

, though believing it desirable that the burghs should have a voice in the management of the county roads with a view to their being able to make representations as to the management of roads adjacent to the burghs, advised the withdrawal of the Amendment, if for no other reason than that, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing), it virtually altered the legal qualification for being a Commissioner of Supply.

COLONEL MURE

thought that as the proposed Amendment would unduly extend the dimensions of the Board of Trustees, it should not be persevered with. While suitable to the pastoral counties mentioned, it would be unmanageable in the industrial counties.

MR. TREVELYAN

, remarking that Selkirkshire would probably take an advantage of another Amendment to the Bill which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had frankly placed on the Paper, and that the discussion would not justify him in delaying the Business of the Committee by taking a division, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ORR-EWING moved to amend the clause, in page 9, line 12, by inserting, after the word "any," the words "such burgh being a."

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, that this, and two other Amendments by the hon. Member being improvements in the wording of the Bill, he did not object to them.

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. ORR-EWING, the following Amendments were made:—In page 9, line 15, leave out "other," and insert "such;" and in the same line, after "burgh," insert "being a police burgh."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 (Mode of election by ratepayers).

Mr. MARK STEWART moved to insert, in page 9, line 23, after the word "election," the words "in such convenient place in each parish as he may appoint." The convener of the county might live a long way off, and it was expedient that meetings should be called at convenient places within the parish.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 (Trustees designated and incorporated) agreed to.

Clause 15 (Appointment of County Road Boards).

MR. J. W. BARCLAY rose to move, in page 10, line 11, to leave out from "shall," to "each," in line 12, and insert "may if they see fit at." There was no place for such a Board as here proposed; and although he did not propose to ask the Committee to omit this Board from the machinery of the Bill altogether, he moved his Amendment so as to make the appointment of such a Board entirely optional.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

thought there could be no doubt that the proposal which had just been made raised an important question, and he regarded it as essential that the constitution and existence of a Road Board should be made imperative. He quite admitted that in some, if not most, of the counties of Scotland, the general management of the trustees was satisfactory. He quite admitted that when any question of importance arose, the trustees would become alive to its importance, and would discuss and deliberate fairly as to what should be done; and he would be no party to limiting that right of determination on the part of the general body of road trustees in a county. But those who were acquainted with the proceedings of such bodies must be aware of the fact that if they were left to themselves, the management devolved upon a few active persons who conducted the whole business of the trust without any personal responsibility, and who practically constituted the supreme authority within the county. His proposal was, that a Road Board should be instituted as a standing committee, which should have administrative powers, but which should still be subject to such regulations and instructions as the trustees might direct and provide. The Board would be able to carry out the directions which the general body of trustees might choose to give, and whenever it might happen to act in a manner which was not in conformity with the desire of the majority, it would be liable to have its actings set aside, and to have a plain rule laid down for future guidance. He did not propose that the Board should be left to take the entire management in districts and parishes; but he believed that, to the extent to which the Bill went, the proposal now under consideration was necessary to the satisfactory working of the measure.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he regarded his proposal as so reasonable, that he thought the Government would have agreed to it. He could speak from considerable experience of one county in Scotland—he referred to Forfarshire—and he asserted with the greatest confidence that there was no room whatever for such a Board to occupy between the district and the general body of trustees. It would, in short, prove altogether a trumpery Board, and would be more likely to cause difficulties than anything else. Indeed, so far as he knew, there was not only no necessity for it in Forfarshire, but no necessity for it at all in any of those counties which had adopted private Acts, and he had not seen it urged in any Petitions which had been presented to the House that such a Board should be appointed. For what imperative duties would the Board be called into existence? Simply these—that the district committee must report to the Board, and the Board to the trustees, instead of the committee reporting to the trustees directly, and that the Board should constitute a court of appeal. These were the only two imperative duties which were set out; but clearly the Board could not have any greater knowledge of the wants of the district than those districts themselves, and the general body of trustees might appoint a committee from among themselves to hear appeals. If, however, the Government were determined that there should be such a Board, he hoped that they would agree to this—that the trustees themselves should be allowed to appoint it, provided they found there was any necessity for doing so. If there were thought to be any such necessity, no doubt it would be appointed; but, for his own part, he regarded the proposal of the Bill as objectionable, and as being a cumbrous piece of machinery for which there was no necessity whatever.

COLONEL MURE

thought that if effect were given to the proposal of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay), the machinery would be much more cumbrous than it was at present.

MR. RAMSAY

said, it had been stated that there were counties in Scotland in which the proposed Board would be an advantage. That might be so; but he thought there were other counties with very large bodies of trustees in which no necessity whatever for any such Board existed, and to that extent his own experience concurred with that of the hon. Member for Forfarshire. He also agreed with the hon. Gentleman that if there were to be this appointment at all, perhaps the permissive method of procedure might be the best. The matter might be left to the trustees without any risk of inconvenience.

Amendment negatived.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he had given Notice of an Amendment, in page 10, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words, "and not less than one-third and not more than one-half of the Board," in order to insert the words— Of whom one-third shall be Commissioners of Supply, one-third shall be tenants, and one-third. He had placed the Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of putting the Board on a better footing, by making one-third of it consist of Commissioners of Supply, one-third of tenants, and one-third of elected members. As, however, his former Amendment had been negatived, it would, of course, be impossible for him to carry this one; and, therefore, he would, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONEL ALEXANDER, moved, as an Amendment, in page 10, line 14, to leave out "third," and insert "fourth." Under' the clause, he remarked, the number of elected trustees appeared to be very large; for it provided that the County Board should consist of not more than 30 trustees, and not less than one-third, and not more than one-half, of the Board should be elected trustees. It was this proportion to which he objected. The elected trustees had not really so much interest in the matter as the other trustees, and they ought not, therefore, to possess such large representation at the Board. Under the clause as it stood, they might certainly form one-half of that body. It was in order to reduce the number of elected members from one-third to one-fourth that he proposed this Amendment.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, it was evident from the Amendments that had been placed upon the Paper, that there might be room for a good deal of difference of opinion on the matter; but he thought that the provisions of the Bill, as drawn up, constituted a fair compromise.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, it would be very unfair if the elected trustees were to be reduced in number, as the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander) proposed. He thought that as the tenants were going to pay as much money as the Commissioners of Supply, they ought not to have any less share in the representation than one-half. The proposal made by the Bill was extremely unfair, and still more unfair and unreasonable was the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. If the hon. and gallant Member did not press his Amendment, he would move to leave out "one-third," in order to insert "one-half." As the elected trustees were, in any case, the representatives of those who paid at least one-half of the taxation, it certainly was a manifest injustice that they should have a smaller representation at this Board than the Commissioners of Supply. If the argument of his hon. and gallant Friend were correct, the Commissioners of Supply ought to pay a larger share of the taxation than they did at present. Instead of paying one-half of the rate, they ought to pay two-thirds, and in that case he would be willing that they should have a representation of two-thirds on the Board. The proposal embodied in the Bill was, in his judgment, contrary to the principles of sound legislation, and could only be carried by a majority of members of that Committee who were determined that the Commissioners of Supply should have an ascendency on the Board.

LORD ELCHO

said, it was evident there were conflicting views upon this subject; but he thought that what the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate proposed was a fair medium course; and he, therefore, hoped that his right hon. and learned Friend would adhere to his proposal. It had been said that the elected trustees would not be adequately represented; but, if they were not, it would be their own fault. The Road Board was to be appointed at a general meeting of the body of trustees, and it was at that meeting that those gentlemen should look after their interests and the interests of those whom they might be called upon to represent. If they had a majority present at the general meeting, there could be little doubt that they would receive there a full representation—namely, one-half, on the County Road Board. He hoped the Government would stand by the clause, which appeared to him to be just and fair.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

thought there could be no doubt that in this case the "one-third" represented the principle that the elected trustees should be in a minority at the Board. ["No, no!"] The expression was "not less than one-third and not more than one-half." The general effect of that would be that the elected members would be in a minority. ["No, no!"] Well, on an average they would. They could not be more than one-half, and they might be less than one-half. The elected members would clearly represent the greater part of the taxation under the Bill. One-half of the taxation was paid by the tenants; but the elected members would represent not only the tenants, but small proprietors under £100 a-year and the burghs, and that being so, it was indisputable that it was unjust they should be put in a minority.

SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME

said, that while he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Alexander) would not press his Amendment, he desired to point out that hon. Gentlemen who spoke of the elected trustees representing the body that paid more than one-half of the total charge, seemed entirely to forget that the tenants practically received back part of what they paid in the shape of diminished rents. This came, therefore, to a large extent out of the landlords' pockets.

COLONEL MURE

said, he desired to supplement what had been stated by the hon. Baronet who had just spoken. Under Clause 65, proprietors would also have to pay for all new works—for new roads and new bridges. In addition to that, the whole burden of the debt would fall upon them; and, in all these circumstances, it was not at all fair to say that the elected trustees would pay a larger sum than the other trustees, and were consequently entitled to a larger representation. He hoped the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would perceive that—"In medias res tutissimus ibis."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved, as an Amendment, in page 10, lines 14 and 15, to leave out "and not less than one-third, and not more than one-half of the Board," and to insert "of whom one-half shall be elected trustees." With reference to the remarks of the last of the hon. Members who had spoken—his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Mure)—it ought to be remembered that the Bill provided that elected trustees should have no voice in the questions of debt or of new roads and bridges. The questions coming before the Board would be questions in connection with which the tenants would have to pay, and the landlords—the Commissioners—would also have to pay, and even if it were distinctly provided that there should be one-half for each, there was still no provision whatever that the burghs should be represented. But he maintained that those who would pay one-half of the taxation would be placed in a minority. On the simple grounds of equity, the House was bound to recognize the principle that those who contributed one-half of the taxation were entitled to one half of the representation. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 14, to leave out the words "third and not more than."—(Mr. James Barclay.)

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

SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY

hoped that the proposal of the Bill would be allowed to remain as it was. It would appear, from the manner in which some hon. Gentlemen had spoken, that there was actually an antagonism between the tenants and the Commissioners of Supply; but such an idea was a perfect delusion. The tenants would be represented at the Board, their interests would be duly considered and cared for, and matters would be conducted with as much economy as possible. In these circumstances, he really thought that they need not waste more time in discussion as to the word which should be put into the Bill.

MR. M'LAREN

said, the hon. Baronet who had just spoken (Sir Graham Montgomery) had protested against the idea that there was any difference of interest between the Commissioners of Supply and the tenants. He (Mr. M'Laren) would admit there was no antagonism between them; but, because of that very fact, why should the tenants be stigmatized as they would be, if they had not an equal vote and an equal representation? There could be no reason for it. He appealed to the Government to give way to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire.

MR. C. S. PARKER

wished to point out to the Committee, that as the Amendment was now put, it would have an effect which, perhaps, was not contemplated—namely, that it would not equally divide the representation; but would provide that, while one-half of the Board must be elected trustees, more than one-half might be elected trustees. Therefore, the Amendment, if carried, might have the effect of giving more than one-half of the representation on the County Boards to the elected trustees. If it were true, as had been suggested, that there would be no antagonism between the two classes of governors, and that, if left alone, a fair proportion of each class would be appointed, he saw no particular reason why either the clause should not be allowed to stand in the form in which it appeared in the Bill, or why the words regulating the proportion of elected trustees should not be entirely omitted. If there were to be no antagonism, no harm could be done by either of these courses being adopted.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that as the Amendment was originally drawn, it contained more words than were necessary, in that It laid down that not less than half and not more than half of the body should be elected trustees. He thought the object would be attained by shortening it to the words "not more than half."

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he did not intend to turn the scale in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. C. S. Parker); and if the words which he had moved were found to have a different signification from that which he attached to them, they could be amended on the Report. The object of his Amendment was to give an equal representation on the Board to the parties interested. He proposed that the Board should consist of half elected trustees and half Commissioners of Supply. If the Government were prepared to leave out the clause altogether, without specifying the numbers in any way, he should be quite content to accept this part of the Bill in that form, and trust to the sense of justice which he had no doubt pervaded the general body of trustees to do what was right in the matter.

MR. M'LAGAN

said, it seemed to be conceded that the interests of the landlords and tenants in this matter were not antagonistic. Well, they certainly were not antagonistic, but they were not identical. The one was permanent, and the other was temporary and fleeting, and only extended to the duration of his lease. If a road were allowed to go down for four or five or six years, it required at the end of the time a good deal of money to put it again in proper condition, and the cost must fall upon the landlord, the tenant who had not paid a fair proportion during his tenancy, but had used the roads, having probably moved away into another district. Therefore, he was inclined to take a middle course, and support the clause as it stood in the Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 121; Noes 69: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 165.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 (County to be divided into districts, and district committees appointed).

MR. ORR-EWING moved, as an Amendment, in page 10, line 24, to leave out the word "shall," and insert "may, if they think fit." The object of the Amendment was to leave it optional with the trustees to divide the county into districts for the purpose of managing the highways under their control.

MR. RAMSAY

hoped that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would not agree to the Amendment; because, if it were thought right that there should be a County Board appointed in every case, it was equally requisite that there should be a division into districts in every case. He thought that if the hon. Member who moved the Amendment would just consider the circumstances of the county which he represented in that House, he would feel that, unless it were divided into districts, some injustice would be done to the inhabitants of very large areas. It was expedient, therefore, that this obligation should continue to exist.

SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY

pointed out that in Scotland there were some counties so small that it would be very inexpedient to divide them into districts at all. Their number might not be large; but, at the same time, he thought the power referred to in the clause should be permissive.

MR. RAMSAY

reminded the hon. Baronet that it was not imperative to make the division in any counties where there were not more than six parishes.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that being so, the result of passing the clause in its present shape would be, that in the case of any small county which happened to contain seven parishes, it would be imperative to divide those parishes into more than one road district. That would be undesirable, and he, therefore, hoped the Amendment would be adopted.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

supported the proposal to divide each county into districts. If the Amendment were not adopted, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate might consider the desirability, in certain cases, of extending the limit which he had introduced into the clause relating to the number of parishes. It was quite proper that as regarded all larger counties, at all events, they should be divided into districts.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

thought it would be well to consider the suggestion just made by the hon. Member for For-farshire (Mr. Barclay). At the same time, he thought it was exceedingly desirable that in some counties in Scotland, at all events, this should be made imperative; and he would remind the Committee that there was provided an appeal to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with a view to see that the boundaries were rightly laid down. The present exception would exclude several of the smaller counties in Scotland; but it was impossible for him at that moment, without looking into the statistics of the case, and ascertaining the number of parishes in each county above that limit, to say what should be the proper figure in the clause.

MR. ORR-EWING

insisted that great harm would be done to many counties by dividing them into districts. He thought it should be left to the whole body of the inhabitants in each county to decide whether the county should or should not be divided into districts.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

suggested that after what had been said, a fair case had been made out for a re-consideration of this particular question. He would remind the hon. Member (Mr. Orr-Ewing), that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had undertaken to look into the matter; but he could not say whether the number "six" should be altered before the Report.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

agreed with the suggestion, remarking that, if passed in its present form, the clause would work great injustice in many parts of the country.

MR. ORR-EWING

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate recommended the clause—with reference to the point now raised—between the present stage and the Report.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he would do that, but added, it was possible that the statistics, when examined, might not enable the Government to propose any alteration in the limit contained in the clause. In that case, it would be open to the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire again to propose and to take the sense of the Committee upon his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD ADVOCATE moved, in page 10, line 29, after "fit," to insert "but being, as far as may be, persons deriving their qualifications as trustees from lands within such district."

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

MR. J. W. BAROLAY moved, in page 10, line 29, to leave out the words from "committee," to "provided," in line 35. The Amendment raised a similar issue to that on which the Committee had recently divided; but, in the present case, it derived additional importance from the fact that the whole management of the roads would depend on the district committee. Therefore, it was of essential importance that upon these district committees the tenant-farmers should be fully represented. No doubt, in the appointment of these district committees, all the principal landowners in the district would wish to be placed upon it; but that would probably be the whole amount of interference which they would take upon themselves in the matter. If the tenants were not fairly and fully represented on these district committees, the practical result would be that the management of the roads would fall into the hands of officials, and that would be a very unfortunate position of affairs both for the landlords and the tenants. He was now speaking from practical experience of those counties which had come to Parliament for private Acts of their own, and it was a very remarkable thing that this Bill, which was brought in by the Government, was far more Tory in its character than the private Bills which had been promoted by the Commissioners of Supply themselves. That was one remarkable feature of this measure. He knew of no Bill, except that of the county which was represented by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Elcho), in which this invidious distinction was made between the two classes of trustees. If the tenant-farmers were not to have a direct voice in the management of the roads in the district in which they lived, all that would remain for them to do would be to vote in the election of those who should have such voice in the management of the roads. He therefore hoped that the Government would not insist upon this clause as it stood, because he did not speak now in the interest of the representative trustees alone, or of the Commissioners of Supply, but in the interest of both bodies; and it was of the utmost importance for the good working of this Bill and the economical management of the roads, that the tenant-trustees of the parish should feel that they had an active and direct in- terest in looking after the roads in their respective districts.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 29, to leave out from the word "committee," to the word "provided," in line 35, inclusive.—(Mr. James Barclay.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'of whom one' stand part of the Clause."

LORD ELCHO

said, he would point out to the Committee that there were a hundred and odd clauses in the Bill. They were now on the 16th, and that day had been given to them for the purpose of making progress with a measure which, he supposed, they were all anxious to pass. Well, the arguments which the hon. Gentleman had adduced in favour of his present Amendment had already been urged by him in reference to a former Amendment, which the Committee, notwithstanding, had rejected, and affirmed the principle of the clause. Under these circumstances, he would suggest that if they wished to make progress, they would simply adopt or negative the Amendment of the hon. Member.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 62: Majority 61.—(Div. List, No. 166.)

MR. ANDERSON

, in whose name the next three Amendments stood upon the Paper, said, they were intended to make the district committees precisely the same as to their construction as he desired the Board to be—namely, that they should be composed of one-third proprietors, one-third tenants, and one-third elected members. The Committee, however, had already entirely ignored the tenant-farmer, and precluded him from having any existence on the Board, except by accident. In two divisions it had declared its approval of the proposal that the Board and district committees should be so constructed that in no instance would the landed proprietors be left in a minority. It was, therefore, absolutely useless for him to move his Amendments, and he would not take up the time of the Committee by doing so.

LORD ELCHO

said, he must protest against the allegation of the hon. Gentleman that the tenant-farmers had been ignored in the Bill.

MR. ANDERSON

replied that they were ignored as a class, inasmuch as the only means which were open to a tenant-farmer to obtain a place on the Board were that he should be among the elected members. As a tenant-farmer he had no status, and it might easily happen under the Bill that the elected members might all be proprietors under £100 a-year, and not a single tenant on the Board.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

Remaining Amendment (Mr. Orr-Ewing), by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17 (Appeal to Secretary of State as to formation of districts).

COLONEL ALEXANDER moved, in page 11, line 6, the omission of the words "Secretary of State," and the substitution for them of the words "Sheriff of the county." The Sheriff would, he contended, because of his greater local knowledge, be much better qualified to decide appeals relating to questions of boundary than a Member of the Government, however eminent, residing in London, and unacquainted with the various localities in regard to which an appeal was made.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

expressed a hope that the Government would accept the Amendment. It appeared to him to be quite out of the question that the Secretary of State in London could satisfactorily discharge the duties which the clause would impose upon him. The people of Scotland managed their own affairs very well, and he, for one, strongly objected to the tendency which prevailed at the present day to the system of centralization. It was quite evident, he thought, that the Secretary of State could not be so well acquainted as the Sheriffs of counties with local circumstances, on which the proper arrangement of boundaries very much depended; and he hoped the Government would think better of it, and not compel the Committee to divide.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

hoped the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood. Under its operation, the words "Secretary of State" would in reality mean the Lord Advocate; and there would, in his opinion, be a great disadvantage in having questions which might arise with respect to the division of counties decided by a person who might be, to a considerable extent, mixed up with local affairs.

MR. MARK STEWART

asked if it was necessary to have the clause at all, and stated that he had an Amendment to omit it altogether. He maintained that no necessity existed for giving a power of appeal at all. The greatest harmony, as a general rule, prevailed at the meetings of the Commissioners of Supply. There were, of course, from time to time, points on which differences of opinion existed; but the minority were always disposed to give way to the views of the majority. But, apart from that, what, he should like to know, could a Secretary of State understand about the intricacies involved in questions of boundary in each county in Scotland? What, again, did the Sheriff of a county know about local matters? He, of course, travelled about the county; but it by no means followed from that that he should possess the requisite information to enable him to be an efficient court of appeal under the Bill. The result of the adoption of the clause, too, would be, he firmly believed, to lead to no end of intrigues and expense in order to have questions settled in London, instead of having them disposed of, as at present, by one vote of the Commissioners of Supply, and, if necessary, re-settled at the expiration of a period of three years. The clause, in fact, would give rise to all sorts of plotting and nagging, which, in his opinion, it would be extremely desirable to avoid.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE rose to Order. He wished to ask whether the hon. Gentleman was in Order in discussing an Amendment for the rejection of the clause, which stood in his name lower down on the Notice Paper, when the immediate question before the Committee was the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander)?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member for Wigton (Mr. Mark Stewart) would not be in Order in making observations which were directed to the rejection of the clause as a whole, inasmuch as the Question before the Committee was a proposal to amend it.

MR. MARK STEWART

would, of course, at once bow to the decision of the Chairman, and would simply say, in conclusion, that he greatly doubted whether the Sheriffs of counties in Scotland were competent to pronounce an impartial opinion on matters which, so far as he could see, could only be satisfactorily decided upon by the members of the Commission of Supply.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY rose to Order. He thought it was doing a great injustice to the Sheriffs of Scotland to suppose that they could not arrive at an impartial opinion on such questions as would, under the operation of the clause, be submitted to them as a court of appeal.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that if the hon. Member for Wigton (Mr. Mark Stewart) intended to cast any general reflection upon the administration of justice in Scotland, his remarks would not be in Order. He did not, however, understand that to be his intention.

MR. MARK STEWART

believed there was only one hon. Member in the House who would have objected to the words which he had used. What he meant to say was, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get men of judicial mind to decide with advantage on the vexed questions which might have to be submitted to them under the Bill. That, he might add, was not only his own private opinion, but the opinion of many persons who had had large and long experience in county matters in Scotland, who had brought the subject under his notice, and whose views he had promised to lay before the House.

COLONEL MURE

, in regard to the argument as between the Secretary of State and the Sheriff, might point out that this was not going to be an annual or general duty, because they had a new Act before them. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire had pointed out that there were great inequalities in the different districts. At the same time, he should be prepared to support the idea that the Sheriff of the county would be better fitted for this duty than the Secretary of State; but he would like to know whether this Secretary of State was to be the English Secretary of State or the new Scottish Secretary of State? As to what had been said, that the Sheriff was not a good court of appeal on local matters, because he might, though not intentionally, be under local influences, he might say that the Sheriff was a local magnate, and he did not think that would be the case. He might, however, remind the Committee that the Sheriff was a Law Officer, appointed by the Court in Edinburgh, whose position in the country was merely temporary, and who, although he might not possess any special knowledge of local matters, was supposed to be acquainted with questions relating to lands and heritages. He would, therefore, so far as he could see, be about the best person to decide in cases of appeal. He should support the Amendment.

SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY

noticed that it was a charge against the former Lord Advocates that they always put the Sheriffs in the Bill they introduced. Now, here was a case where the Lord Advocate exercised his discretion in another direction, and hon. Members stepped in and objected. For his own part, he believed the Secretary of State would be a very suitable authority to whom to give the proposed power of deciding in cases of appeal.

MR. RAMSAY

thought it probable that any reference to the Secretary of State might be found to be unnecessary; but, in the event of the clause remaining part of the Bill, he would prefer that it should pass in its present shape, because, without for a moment impugning the way in which the Sheriffs discharged their duties, and although he had full confidence in them, he must say he did not wish to see them take part in the settlements of any local differences of opinion with respect to the sub-division of counties.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, that if there had been the least affinity between the duties imposed by the clause and those which appertained to the judicial office, he, for one, should not have hesitated to give the matter to the Sheriff. No such affinity, however, existed. The duties which would have to be performed under the operation of the clause were far from being judicial, and would involve the Sheriffs in unpleasant disputes in the endeavour to arbitrate between the two halves of a county, with the certain result of giving dissatisfaction to one of them. He might also observe that, under certain public Acts, the duty had been imposed on the Sheriffs of defining burgh boundaries; and that, in all such cases, it had been provided that their decision should not be final, but that a right of appeal should be given to the Secretary of State. He hoped, he might add, that questions of the kind dealt with in the clause would, generally speaking, be settled by agreement, and that references to the Secretary of State would be exceedingly rare. The clause, he maintained, had in no way a centralizing tendency. It was not proposed to vest the administration of the law in the Secretary of State, but to enable him to decide between certain parties, and to make his decision final for a considerable time.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, the clause would give enormous powers to the Secretary of State to the extent of which he altogether objected. These powers, too, it should be borne in mind, were to last for 10 years. It appeared to him to be giving powers to the Secretary of State in London, and taking power from Scotland; and, under the circumstances, he hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division.

Amendment negatived.

MR. M'LAREN

wished to draw the noble Lord the Member for Haddington-shire's (Lord Elcho's) attention to the fact that a great deal of time had been occupied by useless Amendments on the noble Lord's side of the House.

On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?

MR. MARK STEWART moved its omission. It involved, he said, a question on which he entertained a very strong opinion. He could not see the object of bringing up questions relating to the sub-division of counties in Scotland to be reviewed periodically in London by the Secretary of State. The people of that country had hitherto been able to manage their own affairs without troubling others, and what good reason was there, he should like to know, why they should, in the present instance, be compelled to change a system which hitherto had been found to work well, and to submit to a decision by the Secretary of State which was to have effect for no less than 10 years? Alterations were made in Scotland in such matters as those with which the Bill dealt every October or April as the case might be; and it would, he thought, be much more satisfactory to Scotch Members and also to Scotchmen, that they should not be subjected to the pro- visions of a clause such as that under discussion.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

seconded the Amendment, and expressed a belief that if the clause were omitted from the Bill the Commissioners of Supply would settle disputed matters among themselves without the aid of the Secretary of State.

Moved, "That the Clause be struck out."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)

MR. VANS AGNEW

pointed out another objection to the clause. It would, in his opinion, give rise to persistent opposition on the part of small minorities. It would, in his opinion, be much better that the clause should be omitted from the Bill, and that each county should be allowed to manage its own affairs through the voice of the majority.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

hoped the Government would abide by the clause. The case was one in which, in his opinion, a majority might in a mixed county or town population and suburban districts do a great deal of injury, unless the minority were invested with a right of appeal such as the clause proposed to give.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 9: Majority, 153.—(Div. List, No. 167.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18 (Islands to be districts).

MR. RAMSAY moved the omission, in page 11, lines 38 to 40, of the words— And in payment of a reasonable share of the necessary general expenditure incurred in such county in the execution of this Act. The whole of the money levied in an insular district ought, he contended, to be expended within the limits of that district, and he could not understand why islands should be saddled with any portion of the expenditure which might be incurred in carrying out the law on the mainland, inasmuch as they would derive no benefit from its operation.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

thought the islands had been very fairly dealt with in the Bill. It was very difficult to say that a part of the county should be exempted bearing its share of the outlay. He thought that, to the extent of a reasonable sum, it was impossible to see any principle for not laying a proportion of these expenses upon the islands.

MR. RAMSAY

said, the only reason for which he proposed the Amendment was that the clause imposed upon the islands a payment, while no benefit could be received from the mainland parts of the county. He thought it unreasonable that they should be made to pay a part of the general expenditure.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19 (Occasional vacancies to be supplied).

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he would not move the Amendments to the clause which stood in his name on the Paper. He wished, at the same time, to suggest to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate the desirability of empowering the trustees to supply any vacancies which might arise among their own number as well as in the Board.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he would take the matter into consideration.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20 (Failure to elect not to invalidate acts of trustees), agreed to.