COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 21 March 1878 vol 238 cc1759-828

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—{The Lord Advocate.)

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, that in rising to move his Amendment, that the House do resolve itself into the said Committee on that day six months, he was fully sensible of the disadvantage under which he laboured in opposing a Bill introduced by the Government and recommended on two separate occasions in the Speech from the Throne. But necessity had no law; and when he found the bulk of his constituents on the one side and the Government on the other, he could have no hesitation as to the course which it was his duty to pursue. It might be asked why did they not last year oppose the Bill which proceeded upon almost identical lines? Well, he confessed his error in that respect. He had followed a practice which he feared was too common in the House—intimating his intention of voting for the Bill, and at the same time making a speech against it. But if he erred, he at least erred in good company, and if he remembered aright, the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir William Edmonstone) had very little to say in favour of the Bill. But he knew that on that occasion they committed a great mistake, because they gave the Home Secretary the opportunity of saying that Scotland, with scarcely a dissentient voice, had pronounced in favour of the Bill. Now, considering that he had recently presented to the right hon. Gentleman a strong Memorial from his constituents praying to be ex- empted from the operation of the Bill, and also numerous Petitions from Commissioners of Supply and Road Trustees in various districts, the House would see that he had no alternative but to protest against the Bill, or, at least, against its application to the county he had the honour to represent. He was fully aware that any opposition it was in his power to offer would be perfectly futile against the Government, which could command the support not only of the majority of Members sitting on that side, but could also look for considerable support from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Last year the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had taken it upon himself to say that he (Colonel Alexander) did not represent the opinions of his constituents upon that point, and remarked that he Pro-ferred the opinion of Sir James Fer-gusson, who formerly represented the county in that House. He need scarcely say that he had the highest respect for Sir James Fergusson, who was a most eminent man; but there was in this instance no reason why the opinion of Sir James Fergusson should override the opinion of the smallest ratepayer of the county of Ayr, and he was sure that the right hon. Baronet would be the last to wish that such should be the case. He was in a position to prove that on this question Sir James Fergusson did not represent the opinion of the county. When at the annual county meeting it was proposed to oppose the Bill, Sir James Fergusson had proposed an amendment, which fell to the ground for want of a seconder. This was pre-eminently a question of local taxation; and he was really surprised that a Government—of which the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devonshire (Sir Massey Lopes), was a Member who had identified himself with every movement for the relief of local taxation, should endeavour to force upon a county unwilling to receive it a measure which would have the effect of trebling the assessment of the proprietors of lands and heritages in the county which he (Colonel Alexander), represented. Last year the Home Secretary had expressed his satisfaction at the favour with which his Bill was received; but he (Colonel Alexander) thought that the right hon. Gentleman was thankful for very small mercies, because, with the exception of the hon. Baronet the Member for Peebles (Sir Graham Montgomery), who certainly-expressed unqualified approval of the Bill, all the right hon. Gentleman's supporters damned his Bill with the faintest possible praise. Then the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) admitted that the Bill was an alteration in the incidence of taxation, and that it would alter the old plan under which those who used the roads paid for them; and it was precisely because it would have that effect, and would impose heavy burdens upon those who made little or no use of the roads, that he had the strongest possible objection to it. Here they would have the highest assessment and the worst roads, and he was credibly informed that in those places where the tolls had been abolished, the assessment was only kept down by starving the roads. He would ask, was there no middle course between the abolition of tolls and the imposition of assessments? There was a course which was recommended by the Commission of 1859, of which both the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) and Sir James Fergusson were Members — he meant the Consolidation of Trusts. The Commissioners said that irrespective of a change from tolls to assessments, the existing system was capable, at least, of important modifications, and that much of the expense which was now imputed to tolls was not fairly chargeable to the system. He agreed with the Commissioners that the evil was attributable principally to the number of small trusts with separate accounts, separate funds, separate management, and separate sets of officials. For instance, they found that in one county there were no less than 11 trusts over 133 miles of road, giving an average of 12 miles for each trust, and in three cases the mileage was much less. Then each district had a separate clerk and treasurer; and, not only were the funds of each district kept separate, but the funds of each road were kept separate, so that for a road passing through three districts it was necessary to keep three separate accounts. Now, that was an evil that might be remedied by the consolidation of trusts under one management, and by a uniform rate of toll levied at each bar, and with no toll leviable oftener than once in six miles. A great deal had been said about the inequality of tolls; but the Commissioners had said that inequality must exist in any mode of taxation, and that complaints of inequality must arise in reference to any plan that was proposed as a substitute for tolls. In reference to what had been said as to the expense of collection by tolls, they must remember that the Commissioners had also said that the expenses of collecting revenues by means of tolls were often greatly exaggerated. For instance, in the county of Mid-Lothian, where the tolls were in the hands of the trustees, the cost did not exceed 10 per cent. In the end, the Commissioners were obliged to fall back upon the sentimental objection of what was called the inconvenience of making small payments. These objections were made by people who, in the slang of that luxurious age, talked about the "awful bore" of having to pay tolls. He might state certain broad principles upon which he based his opposition. Many of his most influential constituents objected to part of the scheme for the extinction of debt. They said it would alter the whole incidence of the taxation, and that under that system a solvent road would be called upon to pay for an insolvent one. Then, again, they asked-—should an occupier who now by payment of tolls contributed to the extinction of debt be entirely relieved from that burden? In the county of Edinburgh, in the course of a few years, a debt of £98,000 was reduced to £9,000, by money which occupiers equally with proprietors contributed. He did not see why they should reverse that system, and throw the burden entirely upon the proprietors. It was also shown that under this Bill the amount of taxation that would be thrown upon burghs would be absolutely ridiculous. It was shown by Returns that about £20,000 was required annually for the maintenance of roads and bridges in the county of Ayr, whilst only about £1,000 was required in the burghs. It followed, therefore, that the sums the burghs would have to contribute would be absolutely inappreciable. It was idle to talk about the unanimity of Scotland in favour of this measure. The Commissioners said that in their opinion any resolution to adopt a system of assessment should only be arrived at at a general meeting of the whole county, especially convened for that purpose, with the view of affording to persons in- terestod an opportunity of objecting to the proposal. Why, in the face of these recommendations, was this legislation forced upon an unwilling county? The only reason suggested for the introduction of the measure was the fancy for so-called "uniformity," and to avoid the anomaly of having a system of tolls in one county and an assessment in another. The Commissioners ridiculed that objection. They said that the anomaly existed already, and that the case of the few persons who paid toll in one county and assessment in another was not worth consideration. He was not greatly enamoured of permissive legislation; but, with regard to roads in Scotland, it had been most successful up to the present time, and he did not see why any change should be made. "Why did the county of" Wigtown adopt a system of assessment, while the neighbouring county of Ayr faithfully adhered to the system of tolls? Simply because the circumstances of the two counties were totally and entirely different. One county was pastoral; the other was what the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Stirlingshire (Sir William Edmonstone) had called a composite county. Ayrshire was partly pastoral, partly agricultural, and partly mineral; and it had not followed the example of its neighbour of Wigtown, because it was not its interest to do so. The pastoral tenants made very little use of the roads, but transported all their cattle by the railways. It was the same with the mineral tenants, who had private railways of their own. But his main objection to the Bill was that it would treble the assessment to be imposed upon lands and heritages in the county which he represented, and any Bill which did that stood self-condemned. Not to use strong language, he would merely say that under the Bill taxation would be most unjust and unequal in its incidence. Two years ago he formed one of a deputation to the Home Secretary on this question of the abolition of tolls, and the right hon. Gentleman then told them that tolls were condemned, that they were out of harmony with the spirit of the age; and he pointed to the example of England, where, he observed, the tolls were being gradually abolished. Since that time the right hon. Gentleman must have changed his mind; for his Colleague had introduced the County Government Bill, in which power was reserved for the re-imposition of tolls, and the re-erection of toll-bars; so that, instead of tolls being gradually abolished in England, it would appear that they were being gradually restored, and the reason given was the difficulty created by the exceptionally heavy traffic in the immediate neighbourhood of large towns. He paid some attention to the debate on the County Government Bill, and with the exception of the noble Lord the Member for the North West Riding (Lord Frederick Cavendish), every speaker pointed out the great inconvenience that must result from restoring tolls where they had once been abolished, and that some means must be devised of escaping from the difficulty. His prescription for Scotland was very simple. If they did not get into the difficulty, they would not be put to the trouble of getting out of it. Do not let them abolish tolls, and then they would not have the trouble and difficulty of re-establishing them. So far from the abolition of tolls being popular in England, he could prove out of the mouth of the President of the Local Government Board, that the very reverse was the case. On the 19th of July last year, the President of the Local Government Board, in reply to a Question of the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Mr. Severne), whether there was not dissatisfaction at the continually increased charges thrown on the rates in rural districts by the abolition of turnpikes and the unequal incidence of these burdens, stated that the Government were very well aware that in several of the rural districts, a growing feeling of dissatisfaction had arisen at the increased charges thrown upon the rates by the abolition of turnpikes. He, therefore, begged the Government very respectfully, but very earnestly, to reconsider this question, and to substitute for compulsory, permissive, legislation. If they did so, he could promise them the lasting gratitude of the county which he had the honour to represent. The last Government was accused, and, in his opinion, accused rightly, of introducing a great deal of unnecessary legislation. He begged the present Government not to follow that bad example, but to abstain from legislation where it was not required and was not desired. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice,

MR. M'LAREN,

in seconding the Amendment, said, he heartily approved of the Motion which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Alexander) had submitted, although the course which he pursued and the arguments which he had used were not those which he would use, or the opinions which he held. He thought the Bill as it now stood a very bad one, and that the best thing they could do would be to reject it altogether. It was a thing of shreds and patches, with nothing that they could call a general principle running through it. Reference had been made to the Royal Commission which sat on this subject; and, as he was a Member of that Commission, he might say that the principle they recommended was a very simple one—that the Bill should come into operation at once, and that every burgh and county should support the roads within its own boundaries. Nothing could be more simple than that recommendation. The Commissioners did not recommend any delay; but, in point of fact, a delay of 17 years had taken place. The Commission was appointed by a Conservative Government, and the Liberal Government who followed them in office fought shy of the subject, declaring on certain occasions that the Commission was none of theirs. Since that time he was afraid to say how many Bills had been introduced. But one was brought in, two years ago, by which turnpikes were to come to an end after five years; and yet this Bill would not come into full operation for nine years from August next. Surely that was a most extraordinary proposition. In fact, the whole turnpike system of Scotland was strangely managed. In England, every Turnpike Bill for renewal came before the House, and there was an opportunity of considering whether it was required or not; but as to Scotland, no such process took place— a Bill of a single clause was passed continuing all the expired Acts for a year. This process had been going on for a very long time, some of the Scotch Turnpike Acts having expired 40 years ago had thus been continued; yet the public never had an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the injustice of this treatment. It had been urged that the trusts in each county should be consolidated; but, in the county of Mid-Lothian, there had been only one trust for the last 40 years, and how could they consolidate that? The same remark applied to other counties—and, in fact, the consolidation suggestion of the Royal Commission was merely a remark by the way that some good might be done in that direction. By the present Bill it was proposed to continue all the Acts for nine years, and to the end of the next Session of Parliament—that was, till August 1888, unless "in the meantime Parliament otherwise provides, or this Act shall be adopted." Who was to decide whether this Permissive Bill was to come into operation or not? By the Permissive Bill, with which they were all familiar, the ratepayers gave their votes; but in this Bill no such power was given to the people generally. They had no power whatever. The landed interest was to decide, for the decision rested entirely with the Commissioners of Supply. The tenants complained that the present system relieved the land of burdens which it ought fairly to bear, yet those landowners were to decide whether the new system was or was not to be adopted. It was like proposing that Bulgaria should obtain a good system of government when Turkey chose to give it her. Who were these Commissioners of Supply? What constituted them was doubtful at one time; but an Act—17 & 18 Vict. c. 91—declared that they should consist of the proprietors of land of £100 a-year, proprietors of houses or other buildings, not farm-houses, worth £200 a-year, eldest sons of proprietors of land of £400 a-year, and the factors of landed proprietors of £800 a-year in the absence of the proprietor. These were the people who were to decide whether this Act was to be adopted or not; so that there was no provision whatever for making the voice of the constituency heard on the question; and they were required to have a majority of two-thirds to bring the Act into operation— which everyone knew it was very rare and very difficult to obtain in any business matters. If the two-thirds was not obtained at the expiration of two years, a majority could apply to the Secretary of State for a Provisional Order; and, after a preliminary inquiry, that Order might be issued by the Home Secretary, with such alterations as he should think fit, and might be contested before Committees of both Houses of Parliament— a most expensive and circuitous process to be gone through. It might be argued that the Commissioners of Supply were a large body, but this was not so, and the burghs were not represented at all. In Edinburgh the county proper contained 73,000 inhabitants. The Parliamentary burghs 254,000; yet the burghs were not to be represented—not even to send their chief magistrates to the meeting of the Commissioners. How could such a disparity be defended? It might be thought that the rental of the counties was a very large one, though the population was comparatively small, and that the counties paid a large amount of rates and taxes which the burghs escaped. But the facts were the other way. Taking Edinburgh county, the rental was £683,000, including railways; while the rental of the city of Edinburgh alone was above £1,500,000—and, including the three Parliamentary burghs of Leith, Portobello, and Musseltmrgh, it was £1,929,000. The rental of the burghs as against the counties was, therefore, as three to one, and yet they were to have no voice in the matter. Again, from a Return showing the income of every borough and county in the United Kingdom assessable to the income tax under all the Schedules, the county of Edinburgh had an assessable income of £1,075,000, while the city of Edinburgh had an income of above £6,000,000, and the burghs of Leith, Portobello, and Musselburgh had an income of an additional £1,000,000—making, altogether, £7,054,000 yearly, being nearly seven to one—and yet the burghs were to have no voice in the representation. Could anything be conceived more unjust than such a mode of legislation? This disparity was not confined to one county; but he would not weary the House by going over the facts relating to other counties. However, he might mention that in the county of Lanark, including all the police burghs, but excluding Glasgow, the income assessable to the income tax under all the Schedules was £4,327,000, while the income of Glasgow alone was £12,216,000. Yet Glasgow was to be ignored and trampled upon, and made tributary to the county by paying £12,500 a-year to keep up the roads of the county. This was landlordism with a vengeance. The expense of keeping up the county roads had been referred to as very great; but, while in the county of Edinburgh the surface repairs were estimated to cost next year £13,141, the expense in the city of Edinburgh alone was upwards of £20,000. The cost of maintaining the roads and streets in Edinburgh was now 5d. in the £, and if the Bill passed the rate would be 6d. Instead of the city being tributary to the county as Glasgow was proposed to be made, the county of Mid-Lothian was, to some extent, tributary to the city of Edinburgh; because the county now paid £1,500 a-year to the city for keeping up certain roads as county roads, although within the limits of the city, and that would cease when the Bill passed; and the causeway mail would cease to be levied, which now produced nearly £2,000 a-year. The city rate would then be 6d. in the £, and the rate for the county would be less than 6d. The expense of keeping up the statute labour roads now met by a separate rate was, in many arguments for the counties, added to the expense of keeping up the turnpike roads, and he could not see why these two things should be mixed up at all. In comparing Edinburgh and Glasgow with the counties, it might be supposed that he had selected favourable cases; but the Return which he had quoted showed that, taking all the counties of Scotland together and all the Parliamentary burghs together, the assessable rental of the counties under all the Schedules to income tax was £25,436,000, while that of the Parliamentary burghs alone, not including the police burghs, was £28,130,000. The landed interest had its own way so much in the framing of this Bill, that the burghs had a strong claim to be heard against it. In the Report of the Royal Commissioners to which reference had been made, it was recommended that small burghs should be dealt with for road purposes as for police purposes—that was, that a small burgh should have the option to be rated as part of the county; but this Bill overthrew that recommendation altogether, and took away the option suggested by the Royal Commission. In certain small burghs the rate would be most oppressive. A small burgh might be a turnpike road, with a row of houses on each side, and the road might be used for traffic from one end of the county to the other, while the rental of the burgh and the use of the road by the burgh might be very small. The wisdom of the old Scottish Parliament gave such burghs compensation for keeping up the repair of the roads, by allowing them to levy causeway mail and through customs. He hoped, the Lord Advocate would take into consideration that, while the Commissioners agreed to abolish these customs, they recommended, as part of their scheme, that the small burghs should have the option of merging themselves into the counties—that the two things should go together; but the Bill took away that option, and the customs, leaving the whole burden of the road on the burgh. He (Mr. M'Laren) was not an advocate for through customs and causeway mail. He had done all he could to get them abolished; but he submitted that if they took away those rights from the small burghs, they ought to leave them the option recommended by the Royal Commissioners of merging themselves in the counties. There was another objectionable principle in the Bill. When two burghs came into juxtaposition, and a turnpike road was the boundary, each burgh was to keep up one-half of the road from the middle; but when a turnpike road divided a burgh from the county, the burgh was, by this Bill, to keep up the whole of the road, and the county was to do nothing. Could that be called a just principle? Then there were the provisions with regard to debts. Four out of five of the Royal Commissioners were large landholders, so that the landed interest could not have been overlooked by the Commission; and they said that whenever a debt existed on any road, part being in a burgh, the debt should be paid off in proportion to the mileage within the burgh and to the mileage without the burgh. But the Bill did not regard the mileage within the burgh, but only the cumulo debt. Another objectionable principle was this—that where tolls had already been abolished the majority of road trustees, at a meeting called for the purpose, could actually repeal the Local Act which had been obtained at an expense of thousands of pounds and adopt the present Act. He might be asked what he would do? He would say—"Do for Scotland what you do for England. Let the trustees of an expiring Act come before the House and ask for a renewal, and then let the local parties, whether of burghs or counties, come before the Committee to be heard for their interests, and then let the Committee pass an equitable Bill as they now do for England." He knew that that was objected to on the score of expense; but he had no hesitation in saying that there would be loss expense to the counties that had not yet abolished tolls, in adopting that principle, than by the Bill's cumbrous principle of going to the Home Secretary, of then having a local inquiry, and then fighting the question in Parliament over again, and paying all the costs incurred by these different inquiries and contests. He apologized for having taken up so much time, and thanked the House for the patient hearing it had given him.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,—(Colonel Alexander,) — instead thereof.

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

COLONEL ALEXANDER

wished to correct an error into which the hon. Member for Edinburgh had fallen. He (Colonel Alexander) had not said that the cost of maintaining the roads under the Bill would be three times what it was at present; but that the Bill would treble the assessment of each individual proprietor of lands and heritages within the counties.

ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM EDMON-STONE

said, that since he spoke on the subject last year his objection to the Bill continued, and had not in any sense decreased. He was opposed to the Bill in the general interest of the counties, as imposing additional assessment, and also because he thought that those who used the roads should pay for them. But as the Government, after long and careful deliberation, had thought right to bring in a Bill, and as his constituents as a whole did not wish him to oppose it, lie should support the Bill, though his own objections to it were as strong as ever. He should reserve the right to deal with the details of his Bill in Committee.

MR. BAXTER

said, it was only fair to the Government that they should go into Committee. It was not necessary for him to reply to the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander), which had been utterly demolished by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren); but he would put it to the House that the Bill had been for several years before the counties, and had been thoroughly canvassed in every line and clause. The Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate had taken a great deal of trouble to give them a day for the Bill; and, now after all the grumbling which had been going on in Scotland about the neglect of Scotch Business and Legislation, it was desired to get up a great debate and not to go into Committee. The hon. Member for Edinburgh had talked about several principles of the Bill; but he (Mr. Baxter) said there was but one principle, and that was the abolition of tolls. He could not understand how anyone could advocate such an antiquated and expensive a system as that of tolls. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire had said that he was prepared to abolish tolls if some equitable system of assessment could be devised; but, in the majority of the Scotch counties, not only had such a system been devised, but it had been in operation for years, and it was not creditable to the other counties that they had not long ago followed so good an example. He appealed to hon. Members whether, where tolls had been abolished and an assessment substituted, it had not worked satisfactorily to all parties? Every one of the objections which had been made could be dealt with in Committee. But did hon. Members expect that the Government and the House were going to give them many more days for such a minor matter as the Roads and Bridges of Scotland? He appealed to hon. Members not to delay going into Committee, so that they could deal with the clauses in a workmanlike manner.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he agreed very much with what had been said by the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter); but sometimes details were very important, and took away all the merit of the main principle, and he thought he should show that the present was one of such cases. When a Government had brought in a Bill, and subsequently brought in new clauses, they were bound to read the new clauses and the Bill together. When they discussed this matter on the second reading of the Bill, the new clauses were not before them. In the discussion on the second reading, he called attention to the objectionable manner in which so much power was left in the hands of the Commissioners of Supply, while there was so little of the representative principle. The Commissioners of Supply were all landed proprietors, or sons of landed proprietors, or factors of landed proprietors.

COLONEL MURE

said, he must demur to the statement of the hon. Member as far as factors were concerned.

MR. ANDERSON

said, that landed proprietors of over £800 a-year had the additional advantage of having factors to represent them in their absence. He had put down Amendments on this part of the Bill, and was prepared to discuss them in Committee. But the new clauses had been brought forward since then, and they were so important to the constituency which he represented that they went far towards making the Bill a blessing or a curse to that constituency according as they were adopted or refused. If the Home Secretary persisted in carrying them through as they now stood, he must do all he could to prevent the Bill passing, and was sorry that he had not more power than he had; but whatever it was he should firmly exercise it. He hoped the Home Secretary would re-consider those clauses, seeing how unjust a burden they would put on the city of Glasgow. The Bill, as it stood, without the new clauses, would give 10 miles of additional roads to Glasgow to keep up; but this considerable burden was not objected to, though it would cost the ratepayers at least 1d. in the £ in addition to the cost of keeping up their own roads. But one of the new clauses would make Glasgow bear a share of the county debts of Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire. This, he thought, was very unjust, because for many years Glasgow had been spending enormous sums in paving and repairing its principal streets. The county had been spending and borrowing sums, and had not paid off its debts in the way in which Glasgow had done, and there was a largo debt on the county roads, whereas he thought the street debt of Glasgow was only £140,000. If the Bill proposed to throw the two debts into one, and that both city and county should pay, then it might be an approximation to justice; but the Bill actually proposed that the city should go on paying its own debt solely, and, at the same time, should pay equally with the county the county debt. He could not see how any proposal could be more unjust than that. But, more than that, there was another clause proposed by which Glasgow was asked to give a fixed annual contribution to the counties to assist them to keep up their own roads. Upon what principle that was proposed he could not say. The clause left a blank for the amount, and therefore he presumed that they were left to make the best fight they could as to what that amount should be. He would suggest that the proper sum with which to fill up the blank would be one farthing. In reality, however, there ought to be nothing at all. The principle was entirely unjust. There was no earthly reason why the citizens of Glasgow should be asked, in addition to keeping up their own streets, to pay an annual sum for the keeping up of the county roads, with which they had nothing on earth to do. A Royal Commission, which sat in 1859, recommended that burghs and counties should each keep their own roads, and the present proposal was entirely contrary to the Report of that Commission. All the street traffic of Glasgow was not city traffic. An immense part of it was county traffic, consisting of coals, iron, and farm produce, which were sent into Glasgow to be sent by railway or shipped at the harbour. All that traffic passed, through the streets of the city at present without contributing a single farthing towards their maintenance. Notwithstanding that, they were to be asked to pay to keep up these streets, which were used by the people in the county for their traffic, and also to pay an annual sum towards keeping up the roads in the county. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh had informed him that the blank had been filled up with the sum of £12,500 a-year in perpetuity. That burden was to be put upon them without a shadow of excuse. That sum, divided between Glasgow and the smaller burghs which surrounded the city, would leave something like £10,000 to be paid by Glasgow— that was to say, it would leave something more than 1d. in the £ on the whole rating of the city. He asked the Home Secretary to consider how far that was a just burden to put upon Glasgow. Then, the share of the debt, the assessment for which was to be spread over 40 or 50 years, would, it was estimated, amount to another ¼d. in the £; so that altogether the Bill would impose upon the citizens of Glasgow, in addition to the present charge for maintaining the streets, an annual assessment of 2¼d. Of that charge they did not object to the 1d. for the new roads, but they did object entirely to the further addition of 1¼d. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider the position of a shopkeeper in Glasgow paying £500 or £1,000 a-year, and that of a landowner in the county paying a similar amount. Was the interest in the road analogous in those two cases? Yet both were to pay an equal rating in regard to the debt, entirely forgetful of the fact that the lands round Glasgow had been enormously enhanced in value through the simple fact of their contiguity to Glasgow. The value of the estates of the landowners round Glasgow had, owing to this circumstance, been doubled and trebled; and, in some cases, enhanced a hundredfold; and they now wanted to escape the burden that ought naturally to fall upon them in consideration of the benefit which they had thus derived. Unless the right hon. Gentleman would give some pledge to re-consider these clauses and deal with this matter in a more equitable way, he should be obliged to divide against going into Committee on the Bill.

SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER

thought the hon. Members who had listened to the observations of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) would be of opinion that he was justly entitled to the name given to him by his hon. Friend and Kinsman the Member for Fife (Sir Robert Anstruther), when he called him, two Sessions ago, an "Encyclopaedia of figures." The observations which the hon. Member had addressed to the House would have been more properly made in Committee on the Bill. The same remark applied also to the observations to which they had just listened from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). He (SirWindham Anstruther) did his best last year to help to defeat this Bill; because he thought that a measure of this import- ance, affecting local interests, touching property, and largely increasing the burden of local taxation, ought not to be pushed through the House at the fag-end of a Session. He did not intend to take that course on the present occasion, though he wished to guard against its being either implied or understood that he accepted this measure unconditionally. From the fact that two hon. Members differing so entirely in their views as the hon. Member for Edinburgh and the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire had joined hands across the floor of the House in order to defeat the Bill, he was led to think that there must be some good in it, and that it contained the materials out of which, with care and consideration, a measure might be constructed which, whilst abolishing tolls on highways, would do so in a manner as equitable, as such a measure could be equitable, to those who would have, by the proposed change, to bear the burden of maintaining the roads. He hoped that they might be allowed to go into Committee on the Bill without much further discussion. In Committee, when the Bill should come into operation, if certain counties should be exempted from its provisions, how far it was advisable to disregard all local interests, and to treat all the different counties of Scotland as if they were all the same length, and breadth, and height, whilst the fact was notoriously the reverse; and when, and where, and how this perfect model of cut-and-dried uniformity in pattern should be altered, could be fully considered and decided upon. He maintained that the rejection of this measure implied delay, and that again meant a continuance of the agitation for the abolition of tolls, without any probable result.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), that it was desirable to go into Committee on the Bill as soon as possible; but there was one point upon which he should like to say a word, especially as he should feel himself precluded from raising the question in Committee. He alluded to the imposition of a tax upon horses and carriages. Last year he did place an Amendment on the Paper on this subject; but he had now come to the conclusion it would so vitally affect the framework of the Bill that he did not think it was possible for a private Member to raise the question in Committee unless the Government were willing to accept the general proposition of which he had given Notice—namely, that no measure could be satisfactory which failed to satisfy the classes who did not ordinarily pay tolls by placing a part of the burden on horses and carriages. He did not moan horses ordinarily used on agricultural land. He admitted that, such land being taxed, there was no case for taxing agricultural horses. Speaking principally as representing a burgh constituency, he said that the most intelligent and best men connected with burghs were almost united in wishing that the Bill should be passed in a modified form, such as the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) would be able to suggest in Committee; but, at the same time, he had found by experience, that there was a strong undercurrent of feeling on the part of the smaller ratepayers of burghs who did not directly pay tolls that the effect of the measure would be to put upon them rates which they thought ought to be paid by the people who used the roads. He was quite aware that in reality, when they came to the merits of the question, this objection could be in great part met; because, although these people did not directly pay tolls, yet they undoubtedly paid more for their coal, corn, and a great many other things in the shape of tolls, and in that way they would be benefited by the abolition of tolls. But, on the other hand, he was inclined to think that in political matters, and especially in financial matters, they must not only be just but seem to be just. They must make it clear and apparent to all that they were just. Now, that indirect saving which would come to the small ratepayers was not a saving which they very clearly saw, and therefore they were not inclined to acknowledge it; and he believed that if this Bill were passed without some such provision as that which he suggested, there would be a great deal of grumbling on the part of the small ratepayers when the impost came to be enforced upon them. Therefore, he asked why a rate should not be imposed upon the horses and carriages which used roads other than agricultural horses? There was a class—no doubt a limited class—who kept horses and carriages for pleasure, and a real injustice would be done unless these rich, people contributed their fair quota of taxation for the purpose of maintaining the roads which they used more than other people used them. Tate the ease of two men living in houses of equal value—one of them kept a carriage and horses, and the other kept nothing of the kind. Well, those two men would pay equally to the rates, although they did not equally use the roads. That was an injustice, and he was afraid there was a feeling rising up which would spread, that this was to a certain extent a question between rich and poor. If the Government desired to satisfy the smaller ratepayers, they would endeavour to engraft upon the Bill a clause which should impose a tax upon horses and carriages using the roads for the purpose of pleasure and luxury, which should so far go in diminution of the rate imposed upon land and houses.

SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME

said, there were several matters in the Bill which appeared to be mere points of detail; but which, in fact, involved important principles, and ought to be discussed before the Committee stage was reached. One of these was the question whether it was possible to arrange for the maintenance of roads by assessment in preference to the present arrangement of tolls, or by the payment of tolls by the people actually using them? That was a question which they could not fairly discuss without entering upon those broad matters of principle which he had embodied in the Amendment of which he had given Notice— That, whilst this House is not unwilling' to assent to the abolition of tolls in Scotland (if an equitable system of assessment can be devised), it is of opinion no measure is satisfactory which changes the burden of taxation during existing leases, and which does not provide that the richer classes should bear a part of the charge proportionate to the number of horses and carriages used by them. He did not wish to be considered as anxious to take up any position of active hostility to the Bill, but he could have wished that it had been made permissive. He had no wish to delay the passing of the Bill; because it appeared to him that when the Home Secretary stated, as he was reported to have stated, that he was determined to abolish tolls, there was very little further to be said in the matter but to endeavour to make the Bill as satisfactory as possible to all parties who would be affected by it. His principal objection to it was that he was very much afraid that the measure, if passed, would bring a great deal of unpopularity on Her Majesty's Government, making it many enemies, but no friends. A new rate was always an unpopular measure, and under this Bill a great many men would have to pay a rate who had never paid a toll in their lives, and when the rate collector came round they would consider they owed a grudge against the Conservative Government. If there had been any special demand throughout the country for this measure, he should possibly have considered it was worth while for the Conservative Government to incur the risk of this unpopularity; but, with the exception of the two great towns of Edinburgh and Glasgow, he was unable to find that there was any large district in Scotland that was very anxious to get rid of tolls. In his own burgh, which could not be entered except through a toll-gate, no such feeling existed; and, but for the allegiance he bore to his Party, he was perfectly free to vote with his hon. and gallant Friend who had moved the rejection of the Bill. With regard to the two points, which he had ventured to bring in his Amendment under the notice of the Government, he hoped before going into Committee that the Home Secretary would be kind enough to give the opinion of the Government upon them.

COLONEL MURE

said, he could not allow the House to divide on the question without saying a few words. He certainly must congratulate the Government on the marvellous allegiance displayed by their supporters. He had often been surprised at the extent to which the allegiance given by hon. Members sitting behind the Ministerial bench was carried; but he had never before been so strongly impressed by the remarkable manner in which Her Majesty's Government was supported. There were two hon. Gentlemen behind the front bench who had expressed their thorough disapproval of the Bill; but, nevertheless, owing to their allegiance towards Her Majesty's Government, although their constituents were opposed to the Bill, they intended to support the measure.

ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM EDMON-STONE

I merely stated that my constituents did not wish me to oppose the Bill.

COLONEL MURE

said, the hon. and gallant Admiral was singularly lucky, for he represented a double allegiance. So much, however, for the solidity of the Conservative Party of which he had heard a good deal already, but which now appeared to be almost perfect. With regard to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander), he was anxious to have risen immediately after that speech had been made; but other hon. Members happened to be before him. Without entering into the points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he wished to point out to the House, without alluding to any personal matter, that he himself (Colonel Mure) had a strong interest in. the county of Ayr. He lived in the county, and his interest in it was quite as strong as that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and the other hon. and gallant Member who opposed the Bill. He believed that they had exaggerated the evils that would be brought upon the county by the Bill, and he could assure them that if he saw in it the same evils that they appeared to perceive, he should be inclined to offer the strongest opposition to the measure. He was the Member for a county (Renfrew) which was overshadowed by Glasgow, and which, by reason of the enormous traffic connected with that city, would have a large amount of rates thrown upon it unless it could obtain some relief under this Bill. That relief would be afforded by the clauses that had been introduced into the measure; and although all those clauses were quite satisfactory, he nevertheless thought the Bill was one which they might fairly ask should have the opportunity of being amended in Committee. The hon. Member for Edinburgh had strongly opposed the Bill. Of course, that was to be expected. The hon. Member, on every Bill that affected his locality, when it was first brought in, and on any great measure dealing with roads, was sure to have a Notice of Amendment put against it that it be read a second time that day six months. [Mr. M'LAREN: No, no!] The hon. Member said "No, no;" but the observation made with regard to him was founded on what he (Colonel Mure) had observed with regard to the hon. Gentleman's general action on measures dealing with local matters. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had also opposed the Bill; but he would point out to that hon. Gentleman that this was not a Bill brought in by the counties, as he seemed to suppose. It was, in fact, a Bill brought in by Glasgow and Edinburgh, which had been so loud in their demands that tolls should be abolished; but now that a Bill had been brought in to abolish tolls, and proposing to deal fairly with conflicting interests of the counties and boroughs, the two hon. Gentlemen to whom he had referred had put their names down against the measure, and in opposition to the view which the two cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh had enunciated when they had been crying out for the abolition of tolls. The hon. Member for Glasgow said it was wrong that that city should be called on to contribute anything in payment of the debts of the county; but it should be remembered that a good many years ago the gentlemen of that county took a heavy burden on themselves, and it was only fair, now that the tolls were to be abolished, and their security abolished with them, that Glasgow, which had been served with the county roads, should pay its fair share of that debt. The Glasgow people wanted to see the tolls abolished, because they thought it was not fair for them to pay tolls on the roads near that city; but in this they necessarily implied that they made use of those roads. Their argument was that they ought not to contribute to the maintenance of the roads because they used the rail, and not the roads; but this statement could not be true, because their very desire to get rid of the tolls was a proof that they did use the road, or the tolls would not affect them. Their position in this matter was utterly inconsistent. However, he would not further discuss the Bill as he saw the House was anxious to go into Committee upon it, and he hoped, therefore, that the debate would be speedily closed.

LORD ELCHO

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Ayrshire Burghs (Sir William Cuning-hame) had put the question on an entirely new footing. He looked at the question in the light in which it would affect the Government. Now, he thought they should look at it in the way in which it affected Scotland. Whatever his hon, and gallant Friend might say, unquestionably the feeling in Scotland had been to got rid of tolls. There might have been disputes between town and country in respect to the subject; but, unquestionably, the feeling had been to get rid of tolls, and in deference to that strong public opinion the Government had taken the matter in hand, which was one of no slight task considering there were no fewer than 20 pages of Amendments to the Bill. He considered that his hon. and gallant Friend had given good advice to the House when he proposed to refer all the questions in dispute to consideration in Committee. His hon. and gallant Friend went "the whole hog" against tolls, but the public feeling was against him in so far as he wished to maintain tolls while the Bill proposed to abolish them. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) took a different line. He did not attack the principles of the Bill, but he attacked it in every possible way in matters of detail. He said this was a principle of the Bill, and that was a principle of the Bill; and if they summed up the number of times the hon. Member said "that was the principle of the Bill," there must be quite 25 principles in the Bill. The hon. Member had discussed matters of detail which should be left to Committee. He had heard it suggested that horses and carts should be taxed, and he (Lord Elcho) represented a county which, before it abolished tolls, endeavoured to find various ways to get out of the difficulty. One of those ways was to place a tax upon horses; but they found that it would not do, and they therefore had to abandon it. It was found after all that they must either keep tolls, or abolish them absolutely. Any stranger to the subject, who listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), would come to the conclusion that the Bill proposed simply to place upon Glasgow the debt that was now paid by the county, and to make Glasgow maintain the roads which it did not now maintain; but the roads were maintained by tolls round about Glasgow, and the lion. Member was endeavouring to throw dust in the eyes of the House by ignoring the fact that there was not a just apportionment of the debt between town and county. He deprecated a fight between town and county in this matter. What they wanted was something that was fair and just, and the Government wore endeavouring to do it.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

appealed to the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Alexander) not to press his Amendment. He contended that the main objection they all had in view was that of the abolition of tolls. The point which he had always endeavoured to enforce was, that when all the roads of a county—namely, turnpike and commutation or statute labour roads—were combined under one management, there should be greater economy practised in regard to the maintenance of roads. The information available justified an estimate of about 21,000 miles of road in the Scotch counties, and that these cost about £252,000 per annum, which was an average of about £12 a-mile. This was direct outlay, quite irrespective of the indirect charges occasioned by letting out the turnpikes. These were about 1,000 in number, and the keepers could not be expected to earn less than £30 for each bar. That alone added £30,000 at least. Indeed, £300,000 per annum might be the direct and indirect outlay on roads of all kinds. Nearly two-thirds might be chargeable to about 5,000 miles of turnpike roads, and one-third to 16,000 miles of other roads. He saw no reason why economy should not be effected in many ways—as, for instance, in dealing with the salaries of their clerks, and surveyors, and lawyers. Looking at all the points connected with the question, and seeing how fast Scotland was diminishing the number of trusts—for in 10 years, 24 trusts had been abolished—he considered it desirable in every way that the whole of the tolls should be got rid of. That was the essential issue. The other questions at issue were matters of detail. He was sure the Home Secretary would allow Scotch Members to discuss the questions fully, and he therefore asked hon. Members who proposed the Amendment not to press for a division.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

remarked that all the reasons which could possibly be brought against the Bill by interests in the city of Glasgow and in Lanarkshire had been fairly urged, and the allegation had been made that had the Bill been brought forward in the naked manner in which it was originally proposed, it would have imposed a most unendurable burden upon the suburbs of the great towns. He had urged over and over again that those suburban places would suffer very much. Some years ago he went so far as to propose— what the Government had now taken up —a continuation of tolls where there was an unusual amount of traffic. A permissive measure was taken in hand, by which, in places where there was a great traffic, tolls should be levied. But the Government went further in the matter. An inquiry was instituted, and statements were made on either side, and the decision had confirmed his allegation on the matter. He admitted the great difficulty of the question as to the real adjustment of the maintenance of the roads between town and county. It would be a needless inquiry to attempt to get at the way in which different parties were interested, and he believed if the Government took the general assessment for the whole, it would be the best plan they could adopt. He hoped a division would not be taken, but that the House might be allowed to go into Committee.

MR. MONTGOMERIE

could not say, with many hon. Members, that he wished the House to go into Committee. He rose to support the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, and thought it more necessary that he should do so seeing that his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Mure) had rather intimated that the feeling in Ayrshire against the Bill had been exaggerated. He thought that the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) placed the question on a right footing when he said the question before the House was whether or not they should abolish tolls, and that this was not a question between town and country; and he had less hesitation in saying that, because in his part of the country the towns were at one with the country. He was quite ready to admit that the abolition of tolls was necessary and desirable in some counties, although in others it might not be. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) said that the ratepayers would have no voice in the Bill; but he only wished that the ratepayers in Ayr had the same opportunity of expressing their opinions of the measure as he had They were entirely opposed to the Bill. What was its object—was it to make better roads, or to make a more equitable adjustment of the expense of keeping up the ones already in use? If it was to make better roads—it was scarcely possible to do so in Ayrshire. If it was to make the burden of maintaining them fall equally, the Bill did not seem to him calculated to do that. There were so many interests involved in the carrying out of the measure that it was impossible to make a rule which would apply with justice to all. They had one coalowner sending all his coal by a railway which he had made, and had to maintain, at a great expense, while his next neighbour might be getting his whole output carried away by the roads; and it could not be said, that justice was done in making each pay the same rate for road maintenance. It seemed to him that the Bill had its origin in the love for uniformity, which was all very well in the prisons and poorhouses, but certainly was not necessary for such matters as keeping up roads. He could not see that there was much in the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir William Cuning-hame), that the Bill was objectionable because it would make the Government unpopular. If the Government thought it good for the country they would, no doubt, carry the measure, whatever its effect might be on its popularity. All he said was that the Bill was certainly not to the advantage of the county he (Mr. Montgomerie) represented. He would still appeal to Her Majesty's Government, and to his learned Friend the Lord Advocate, that they should give effect to the recommendations of the Commission, and allow them to keep things as they were, or, at least, to make the measure permissive instead of compulsory. The Lord Advocate had formerly admitted that the county of Ayr was differently circumstanced from other counties, and it was perfectly possible for counties which had no tolls to live in peace with counties which had tolls. There was this peculiarity in the county which he had the honour to represent. On one side they had the sea, and not many carriages came from there; on the other side they had the hills, and whatever traffic went through went by rail. Let them, therefore, in Ayrshire keen their tolls. The present system worked well, and they did not want any change.

DR. CAMERON

said, he was quite willing that the hon. and learned Member should keep his tolls as long as the law allowed him to do so; but it so happened that the turnpike trusts expired in Ayrshire next year, and if the Home Secretary was as good as his word, not one of these would be renewed. Therefore, it could make but very little difference to the hon. and learned Member whether this Bill was thrown out or not. Either he must face the Bill, which would allow him 10 years grace, or he must submit to inquiry into the various turnpike trusts in Ayrshire. He intended to vote for the Speaker leaving the Chair; but he confessed that if the Bill on which they were now asked to go into Committee embodied the clause relating to Glasgow which it was proposed to insert in it, he should be bound to oppose the Bill, or, at any rate, to treat it in a different manner from what he intended to do. He wished to call attention to a few circumstances connected with turnpike trusts in Scotland. Of these, 22 would expire next year, and for the sake of these 22 it was proposed to reinstate 135 for 10 years. Now, that, he thought, was perfectly indefensible. He could not help reechoing what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, that they should be better able to deal with these Turnpike Acts themselves, and in a short time they would achieve the abolition of the turnpike system in Scotland. The Home Secretary had said that it was only in ease of this Bill being prevented from coming into law by the opposition of the counties that he would insist on expiring Turnpike Acts in Scotland being referred to a Committee; but last year the right hon. Gentleman was reported in Hansard to have said— If by any misfortune, which I do not at the present moment anticipate, legislation should l)c prevented in the course of another year, all these Turnpike Acts will have to be continued only after the greatest possible investigation, and a proper understanding upon them."— [3 Hansard, cexxxvi. 755.] There was, the right hon. Gentleman added, no reason why the Scotch Acts should not be treated in the same way as the English Acts. The expiring Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill of this year would renew for another year about 120 or 130 of these Turnpike Acts; and whether the right hon. Gentleman chose to construe his statement in the manner in which he had stated it to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, or according to the words used in Hansard, was of little matter; but he could promise that, so far as he was concerned, they would demand a stringent investigation before they allowed any of those Acts to be renewed another year under the Expiring Acts Continuance Bill. To show the iniquity of some of these Acts yearly continued without inquiry, he should refer to the case of two connected with the city of Glasgow. The statement he was about to make was based entirely on ex parte evidence, and he gave it simply as showing the necessity for investigation before there was any renewal of these Acts. The first was the case of the Trust of the Yoker Road. That Trust was empowered to borrow money for the purpose of maintaining the road and paying off the debt. Since the road was constructed a tramway line was made, which extended about two and three-quarter miles along it, and the tramway company maintained the greater part of the road for that distance. In 1875 the tramway company discovered that the Trust had nearly £14,000 lying to its credit in the bank, but was continuing to levy tolls all the same. The tramway company drew the attention of the Trust to that fact, and the effect was that the Trust brought in a Bill for the construction of a new road, absorbing the money and preventing the cessation of the tolls. Another instance was afforded by the tramway company on the Glasgow Great Western Road. The Trust there had enough money to pay off their entire debt, as they were bound by their Act to do. Instead of that, they left the money lying in the bank. When the tramway company drew attention to it, the Trust suddenly discovered that they were charging the tram-cars too little, and they raised the rate per car from 1s. to 2s. Now, when they were asked to perpetuate such Acts as these, it was high time that some searching inquiry should be made. He was quite willing, in order to obtain the discontinuance of this gross injustice, to submit to some trifling anomalies; and he should, therefore, vote for going into Committee, on the distinct understanding that he might oppose the Bill at a future stage should any objectionable provision be introduced.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 104; Noes 5: Majority 99.—(Div. List, No. 62.)

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Preamble postponed.

Clause 1 (Short title, and commencement of Act).

MR. ANDERSON,

in moving that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again, said, his reason for doing so was that, although they had been engaged for several hours in a debate in which many hon. Members had spoken, the Government had taken no part in it. It was new to his experience—and he thought it must be to every Member of the House—to find that, after a long debate, no Member of the Government had attempted to reply. This, he thought, was treating the House with very great disrespect. Some Members of the Government were present now, and, in order to give them an opportunity of making the reply which they ought to have made before the Speaker left the Chair, he brought forward the present Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Anderson.)

LORD ELCHO

thought the Government, by not answering, had by no means established a bad precedent. If the Government had not spoken, the House had spoken, by 104 votes to 5, in favour of going on with the Bill. He regretted, therefore, that the hon. Member for Glasgow should have interposed to prevent their proceeding to consider the clauses.

MR. M'LAGAN

was of opinion that the Government did quite right in not speaking on this subject. He was anxious to have spoken himself; but he thought what he had to say could be quite as well spoken in Committee. Many of the speeches that had been made might have been deferred, and he trusted his hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson) would not press the Motion.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, that he was in charge of the Bill, and that nothing was farther from his mind than to show any want of courtesy to the House. If any independent Member had expressed a desire in the course of the debate that he should make some observations, he should not have refrained from doing so. He thought, however, that by keeping silence, he was furthering the object which the House had in view—namely, that they should pass into Committee without any further discussion. He thought hon. Gentlemen who supported the Motion for the rejection of the Bill answered themselves. One opposed the Bill because it did not go far enough, and the others because it went a great deal too far. Although the questions raised in the debate were, no doubt, of great importance, he felt that it would be necessary to discuss them over again in Committee, and that the opinion of the Government might be expressed on every one of them in the discussion which must ensue on the clauses.

MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH

remarked, that the Lord Advocate had said he did not intend any discourtesy. He occupied three minutes in making his statement—-three minutes which he might have utilized to much greater advantage in replying at the proper time to the arguments that had been urged. As they were all anxious to go on with the Bill, he hoped the hon. Member for Glasgow would be satisfied with the explanation now given, and withdraw his Amendment.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he wished to express his opinion of the conduct of the Government, and he thought no hon. Member had ventured to deny that they had pursued a very unusual course. He would not, however, put the House to the trouble of a division.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (Extent of Act) agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation).

SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER

suggested that, as this was an inter- pretation clause which might be affected by what took place during the discussion on other clauses, it and the 4th clause, which might also have to be considerably altered, had better be postponed.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

thought it desirable to pass the clause, in order to define the meaning of the words "burghs," "highways," &c, as they occurred in other parts of the Bill.

SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER

moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, between lines 31 and 32, to insert— Commissioners of Supply shall not include persons whose qualification as such arises from property situated, or office held, in a burgh.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

objected to the Amendment, as being a still further limitation of a body which was already too limited. He thought the limitations of qualification were sufficiently narrow, and thought it very undesirable to narrow them still more.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

could not accept the Amendment. The words "Commissioners of Supply" must, for the purposes of the Act, be taken in a wider sense than was given them by the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF LORNE

moved, as an Amendment, page 1, line 33, to leave out "and" and insert "or." The Amendment was intended to include all burghs not exceeding 5,000 inhabitants in the district assessments. It seemed unfair that when such small townships used the roads in their neighbourhoods, and cut them up by coach and cart traffic, they should not be called upon to pay something.

MR. M'LAREN

considered that the clause, for all its purposes, was better as it stood.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

thought it a matter of extreme indifference whether the word "or" or the word "and" occurred in the clause. Either would be grammatically correct.

Amendment agreed to; word substituted.

MR. ANDERSON

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 8, to leave out the word "five" and insert "three." The object of the Amendment, he said, was to include populous places with populations of under 5,000 in the operation of the Act. Under the Act, all towns with populations of under 5,000 were excluded, and he wished to extend the advantage of the Act to populations of 3,000 and over.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, to leave out the word "five" in order to insert the word "three."—(Mr. Anderson.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON,

who had a similar Amendment on the Paper, supported that of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). A great many small towns in Scotland were desirous of taking advantage of the provisions of this Bill. There were not less than 27 Parliamentary burghs with populations of under 3,000, and not less than 25 Royal burghs with populations under 2,000, and it was an anomaly that the Bill should be applicable to Royal and Parliamentary burghs of less than 5,000 inhabitants, while it would not apply to other towns having the same population. He thought the Amendment was a very reasonable one. In the Police Act of 1850, "populous places" were defined as places and villages of 1,200 inhabitants. They obtained the privilege of assessing themselves for police and municipal purposes. Again, in the next Police Act for Scotland, passed in 1862, "populous places" were defined as towns and villages of 700 inhabitants. This showed there had been a tendency to increase the number of towns which were to have the control of their own affairs. In the present Bill, however, the required population was increased from 700 inhabitants to 5,000, and he did not know upon what principle that was done.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he was unable to accept the Amendment. According to the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken, if they took the measure by the General Police Act of 1862, every place where 700 people were collected together must be dealt with as a town. Whatever might have been the expediency of admitting or excluding Royal and Parliamentary burghs-within the meaning of the Bill, it was well known that they differed widely from "populous places," which were of various kinds. In "populous places" it was often difficult to ascertain where the town ended and the county began, and strange results would be brought about in some cases, if they took out of the county such places, and applied this Act to them. Therefore, the limit for the purposes of the Act was very deliberately assumed, so as not to include any little aggregate of houses that really did not constitute a town.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, that, while he admitted fully the reasoning of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate with regard to populous places taken under the Police Act, he thought that the case of burghs and populous places with populations so large as 3,000 was a very strong one, and he recommended that the opinion of the House should be taken upon the question. There were in his constituency and in Aberdeenshire several such places which were models of good management, not only with respect to the roads, but as to their municipal government. He thought that 3,000 was not by any means too small a population to have the management of its own roads, and if the Committee went to a division, he should vote in favour of the Amendment.

MR. ERNEST NOEL

supported the Amendment. It was an extraordinary thing to say that a small town was not to enjoy the benefits of the Bill, simply because it did not happen to be a Royal or Parliamentary burgh. He was far from wishing to take from the Royal burghs any privileges they possessed; but he could not see why one burgh was to have the right to manage its roads and bridges, while that right was withheld from another burgh in the same county and with an equal population. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate spoke as if those towns were without municipal life. He (Mr. Noel) knew one such town where the corporate life was as good as in any town in Scotland, and it was only by an accident that it had not come within the scope of the Bill as a Parliamentary burgh. It was a Parliamentary burgh in effect, though not according to the Act. He could hardly see that there was any fairness in such a state of things; and he trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider whether the magic line of 5,000 was not one that might be modified. It would cause a great feeling of unfairness and great dissatisfaction throughout Scotland; and he could not see that any reason had been adduced for such an injustice being done.

MR. ORR - EWING

opposed the Amendment, and asked the Committee to remember that the original number fixed upon had been 10,000, and that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had reduced it in deference to the opinion of other hon. Members. The' line must be drawn somewhere, and if it was fixed at 3,000 inhabitants, populations of 2,900 would complain of it. He hoped the Amendment would not be agreed to.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he would join in the appeal to substitute 3,000 for 5,000, inhabitants. He pointed out that places, especially in mining districts, which were 3,000 to-day might be 5,000 and 6,000 in a very short time; but, if not permitted to take part in the Act now, they would be for ever precluded from enjoying its advantages.

MR. DALEYMPLE

trusted that the Lord Advocate would adhere to the number of 5,000 inhabitants. He thought it would be a very unfortunate thing that at so early a stage of the Bill it should be recorded that a populous place contained less than 5,000 inhabitants, and still more absurd that such a place should be called a burgh. The number of 5,000 was a very fair number; and it was perfectly true, as had been stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire, that that number had already been reduced. He was surprised that the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) should have referred to mining districts; because, in those places, populations sprang up suddenly and diminished as rapidly, so that they ought not to be taken into account.

MR. ANDERSON

admitted that the line must be drawn somewhere, but the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had failed to show why it should be drawn at 5,000 inhabitants. It appeared to him that 5,000 was too large a number. Towns in Scotland were not so populous as English towns. He thought a town of 3,000 inhabitants ought to be allowed to manage its roads and bridges, and therefore he should press his Motion to a division.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 38; Noes 60: Majority 22. — (Div. List, No. 63.)

MR. ERNEST NOEL,

who had an Amendment on the Paper, in page 2, lines 8 and 9, to leave out "exceeds five thousand" and insert "is not less than four thousand," said, after the last division he had but small hope of inducing the Committee to adopt it, after they had refused 3,000 instead of 5,000 as proposed by the Bill. At the same time he must express his opinion, and would like to hear something from the learned Lord Advocate on the point—as to the hardship and injustice of an enactment, which would deprive every burgh which had not more than 5,000 inhabitants within three months of this Bill becoming an Act, having no power over the management of its own roads for all future time, unless it procured a new Act of Parliament applicable solely to its own case. No one could wish to be constantly coming to Parliament for fresh Bills for the management of roads and bridges, and he hoped the learned Lord Advocate would be able to accept 4,000 as a limit, and he should therefore move an Amendment to that effect.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the hon. Member could not move his Amendment, because the division had already decided that the words "five thousand" should stand as part of the clause. The Amendment might, perhaps, if a fit occasion offered, be moved later on.

MR. ERNEST NOEL

said, he was afraid that there was very little use in moving his second Amendment, and he would withdraw it.

MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 17, after "this Act," to insert— In the burghs where at present the roads are partially under the charge of commissioners of police and partly under that of road trustees, then the burgh local authority shall mean the commissioners of police of such burgh. The hon. Member said, that although there were a great many definitions in this clause, yet none of them met the case of his own burgh of Inverness, where there were several bodies having charge of the streets and roads within the Parliamentary bounds, and it was desirable to have only one authority.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

wished it to be distinctly understood that this Bill dealt exclusively with turnpike or statute labour) roads; and this particular clause was drawn with the distinct intention of conferring upon the authorities within burghs, who had charge of the proper streets within such burghs, the charge of all turnpike and statute labour roads which might be handed over to the burghs. But the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) was drawn in very general terms, and he (the Lord Advocate), though he agreed with the object of the hon. Member, was rather apprehensive of the effect which might follow its acceptance. For instance, it must suggest that there were to be road authorities, as distinct from street authorities within burghs—a state of things which he was most anxious to avoid. If the hon. Member thought the Bill did not sufficiently provide for Inverness, he should be glad to confer with him upon the subject, in order to the settling of a clause which would make the matter clear.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, between lines 22 and 23, to insert as a new paragraph— Statute labour' shall include moneys raised as the conversion of statute labour, or in lieu thereof, and bridge money; and, in page 2, line 24, to leave out after "labour" to "money" in line 25. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the object of the Amendment was to define statute labour, which was not done in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted.

MR. C. S. PARKER

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 37, after "thereof," to insert— But shall not include any bridge which any person is, at the commencement of this Act, bound to maintain at his own expense, and not from tolls, assessments, or moneys levied or collected for public purposes, or in respect of any such bridge. His intention in moving the Amendment was that the Act should not have the effect of releasing any company or private person from a previous obligation resting on them of maintaining bridges. The present definition left this open to some doubt, which the Amendment would remove.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

admitted the propriety of the suggestion contained in the Amendment, and said he would accept it, if all the words after the word "expense" were omitted. The general terms would probably do.

MR. ORR-EWING

opposed the Amendment, and asked the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) to point out any private bridges which would be exempted from maintaining themselves under the Act. He wished also to know what effect the Amendment would have in respect to certain bridges in Dumbartonshire?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, the bridges to which the hon. Gentleman referred were or would be more properly described as ferries. That, however, did not matter, for an agreement had been come to with regard to them which would be protected in a special clause in the Bill.

MR. DALRYMPLE

thought the language of the Amendment was much too vague. If it was aimed at certain railway bridges and at a bridge owned by Lord Kinnoul, it ought to say so. As it was, it might be feared that the case of other bridges might be prejudged by language so general.

MR. C. S. PARKER

said, there were certain railway bridges in the neighbourhood of Perth which would come within the scope of the Amendment. There was also a bridge in private hands to which it would apply.

MR. DALRYMPLE

said, the words of the Amendment were so shadowy, that he was sorry they had been so easily accepted by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) had said that his Amendment would include certain railway bridges, but there was no mention of any such bridges in his proposal. He (Mr. Dalrymple) was afraid that the Amendment would beforehand prejudice the case of certain bridges in Dumbartonshire, which could not, except by a great stretch of the imagination, be called ferries. He therefore thought it very desirable that the Amendment should be properly worded.

MR. C. S. PARKER

suggested that, if any hon. Members wished to protect the Dumbartonshire bridges, they should move the insertion of words which, if accepted, would have that effect.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

pointed out that the Bill only proposed to deal with highways and bridges which formed parts of highways. The words of the clause, as he proposed it, would meet the difficulty. He should be willing to frame the Bill in such a manner as to include bridges like those referred to. In their case, there existed a sort of feudal right to collect tolls on the bridges which had taken the place of the ferries which formerly existed at the points now occupied by them. He was sure the Committee would not think of depriving anyone of those rights without compensation. But these rights did not come within the Bill, and the object of the clause as amended was simply to prevent persons who were now under obligations to repair a bridge from being freed from that obligation.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he must protest against the doctrine which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had just laid down, that these feudal rights in other peoples' pockets were to be maintained for ever. He thought the time had come when they might abolish these restrictions on freedom of movement and transit which had come down to them from former times. These Dumbartonshire bridges were an abominable relic of feudal times, and the system appertaining to them ought to be ended once and for all.

Amendment amended, by leaving out all after "expense," and agreed to.

On the Motion of MR. C. S. PARKER, further Amendment made, in page 3, line 14, after "include," by inserting "incorporated company."

MR. ANDERSON,

who had an Amendment on the Paper, to leave out the words in page 3, lines 15 and 16, "a Commissioner of Supply," and insert "not otherwise a trustee," said, it was his intention to propose that tenants should be admitted as trustees; but he thought the discussion would be taken better on another clause, and therefore he would bring it forward later on.

MR. M'LAREN

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 23, to leave out the word "four" and insert "ten." As the law at present stood in Scotland, a pro- perty, for the purpose of creating political votes, might be divided into as many £10 as the rent represented, and each £10 gave a vote. This principle had been greatly abused in the creation of faggot votes, and it was much condemned. But this clause proposed to reduce it to £4 for road purposes, so as still further to lessen the qualification. For instance, in the case of a hotel worth £40, four Parliamentary votes were now conferred; but this clause would give 10 votes each of £4 for the election of trustees. He therefore moved to make the qualification the same in the Bill as it was in Parliamentary matters.

MR. ORR-EWING

said, it was quite delightful to hear a Conservative speech from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. M'Laren); and if the Amendment was only intended to affect the class of people who allied itself much more to hon. Gentlemen opposite than to his Friends, he would have no objection to seeing them excluded altogether. But there were a large number of persons—joint proprietors—who paid £4 a-year, yet who did not make faggot votes. Were they to be excluded from voting?

MR. M'LAREN

said, the hon. Member could not have read the latter part of the clause. The Amendment only applied to cases where a tenancy was divided in the way he had spoken of; and, therefore, while tenants of £4 would have a vote, joint occupiers must have £ 10 to entitle them to it.

MR. ORR-EWING

said, he thought the political principle of the hon. Member opposite was, that all persons who paid rates should have votes.

MR. RAMSAY

said, the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing) was under a misapprehension. The Amendment would not exclude £4 tenants; but it would prevent the division of a tenancy among a number of persons for the purpose of creating votes. Sympathizing with the desire of the hon. Members for Edinburgh and Dumbartonshire to prevent the creation of faggot votes, he would support the Amendment that they should strike out the word "four," and insert the word "ten."

MR. VANS AGNEW

said, that it was not likely that anyone would make faggot votes to elect a road trustee, and the effect of the alteration of the clause would be, that two brothers who were joint occupiers of a house worth £8 a-year would be disfranchised, 'whereas if occupying separate houses at £4 they would be enfranchised.

MR. R. W. DUFF

did not think it at all likely that faggot votes would be manufactured.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

pointed out that there were a great many joint proprietors who had no desire whatever to make faggot votes, and he thought it a pity to lay down a rule that would have very little practical effect so far as the management of roads was concerned.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

also declared the question to be of no practical importance, and hoped it would not be pressed. There would be no inducement whatever, that he could see, to create faggot votes, and if any such cases did occur they would be extremely few.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, Amendments made in page 3, line 26, by leaving out "published," and inserting "circulating"; and in line 27, by leaving out after "may be," to "thereto," in line 29.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Continuance of existing Local Acts.

Clause 4 (Existing Local Acts to continue to 1st November, 1887, and end of next Session of Parliament).

COLONEL ALEXANDER

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 39, to leave out from "the" to "this," inline 42. The Amendment would have the effect of making the Bill permissive for an unlimited period, instead of as in the clause for 10 years. He thought it would be well to leave the counties unfettered in this matter, instead of providing, as the Bill did, that the Act should come into operation on the 1st November, 1887. Surely, every county was the best judge of its own necessities. Some counties which did not care to adopt the Act at the end of 10 years, might wish to do so at the end of 20 or 25 years, owing to their circumstances being changed by the formation of new towns, the growth of old ones, or the development of mineral resources. He, therefore, hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, it was quite impossible to assent to the alteration proposed.

Amendment negatived.

DR. CAMERON

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 39, to leave out from "November," to "Parliament" in line 41, inclusive, and insert "eight hundred and eighty." He proposed that date, because he found that the Turnpike Acts expiring then, included the whole of the Turnpike Acts of Scotland with the exception of 22. He thought it most anomalous and absurd, that for the sake of those 22, no fewer than 135 Turnpike Acts should be continued for 10 years. If his Amendment were adopted, the tolls would be abolished in May, 1880, so that there would be ample time for the new system to come into operation. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had made an objection as to the difficulties involved in existing contracts; but there was not anything in that, for the simple reason that no person had any right to contract on the faith of the renewal of Acts which were about to expire.

SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME

maintained that the 10 years' delay, provided by the Bill, was not unreasonably long for the making of arrangements.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

supported the Amendment, observing that he could not conceive that the Home Secretary really meant the date of 1887 which was in the Bill. The Committee had heard no reason, and he did not think that one existed, for the maintenance of these trusts, almost the whole of which had expired. He had a Re-turn showing when the Turnpike Acts were obtained, and when they would expire, and he found that the whole of the trusts of Ayrshire, if they were only left alone, would absolutely expire in 1879. In his own county the whole of the trusts had long ago expired. The whole of the trusts of Perthshire—a large number—had expired. One, the trust of Dunning, expired in 1829, six or seven years before he was born. Did the Home Secretary really mean that a trust which expired in 1829 required to be renewed till the year 1887, in order to enable trustees to make terms with the County Road Boards? The proposal of the Government was absurd. ["No, no!"] Well, almost absurd, and for this reason— that if they existed in the happy country South of the Tweed, those turnpike trusts would have to show cause before a Committee why they should be continued. He had sat on that Committee eight or nine years, and he undertook to say that not one of those trusts, if cross-examined, could show cause why they should be continued one year. Yet, without the slightest investigation of any kind, the Government proposed that all the trusts, whose Acts had expired, should be continued to the year 1887. Unless some very powerful reasons were given why that should be done, he thought they should be compelled to divide against a proposal so contrary to the spirit of a Bill which was introduced to put an end to all such pre-Adamite things, which seemed to prevail only in Ayrshire. He entreated lion. Members to let the Bill come into force while some of them at least were alive. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself (the Lord Advocate) must wish to see some of the fruits of his own exertions, and he hoped, therefore, he would see his way to accepting the Amendment.

MR. ORR-EWING

joined in the hope that the Lord Advocate would give some weight to the considerations which had just been adduced. He regarded 10 years as too long, and thought that three would be sufficient.

MR. BAXTER

said, that, as a warm supporter of the Bill, and as one who desired to see it passed, he earnestly entreated the Government to give way to some extent in this matter. The point which had been raised was one upon which there had been a remarkable concurrence of testimony on the part of those who were in favour of the principle of the Bill, and who were anxious as much as possible to help the Lord Advocate. No doubt, some time would be required to make the arrangements which the passing of the measure would render necessary, but 10 years were really out of the question. He was quite prepared to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). If a compromise could be agreed upon, he believed that three years would be found to give satisfaction.

LORD ELCHO

remarked that if the Bill was a good one, it ought not to be 10 years in coming into operation. He suggested a compromise of three or five years.

MR. RAMSAY

said, the proposal to delay the Bill for 10 years simply indicated that the Government had not much confidence in the beneficial character of the measure; but he believed Ministers might rest satisfied that when it came into operation, they would be thanked for having promoted it. If any danger was likely to result from a speedier application of the provisions of the Bill, he should be the last to insist upon it; but there was no such danger, and the Bill was a proper one. He urged the adoption of the Amendment.

SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER

pointed out that there was a provision in the Bill under which, if a county desired, it could make application to the Home Secretary for a Provisional Order to bring the Bill into operation. If the measure was so popular in Scotland as had been said, and if it had been imperatively demanded, why not have regard to this provision, and allow the term named by the Lord Advocate to remain?

MR. M'LAREN

said, the phrase in the Bill was, that application to the Home Secretary might be made, not must be made. Who were to apply? It must be the Commissioners of Supply, and hon. Members must know that these gentlemen would not apply, and so there was an end of the matter. If four years were right as regarded Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire, why should a similar period be wrong for smaller counties? As the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had well said, if this was a right thing to do, do it at once. Why wait 10 years? He (Mr. M'Laren) supported the Amendment on the ground that the House should retain its character for honesty, and if the Bill was passed as it stood, its title would have to be altered, and it would have to be termed—"A Bill to continue for ten years all the Expired Trusts in Scotland —three-fourths of the whole — behind the backs of the People."

MR. BALFOUR

remarked that, although there might be difficult questions, people who required 10 years to adjust their differences must either have an infinite capacity for quarrelling with their neighbours, or an infinite incapacity for managing their own affairs. He hoped the Government would make some concession with regard to what appeared to be the general feeling in the matter.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

supported the Amendment, remarking that there would be no difficulty whatever in bringing the Act into operation. He was sure the Government would be doing a great service to the country, if they put a little pressure, not on the ratepayers who were desirous of the Act, but on the Commissioners of Supply. These latter, though apparently paying nothing for the maintenance of the roads at present, would in reality benefit as much as anybody, by the abolition of tolls. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept 1880 as the date for the abolition of tolls. In his opinion, there was nothing to prevent that being done, and all the necessary arrangements completed by that time. In 1874, his own county—Forfarshire—obtained a private Act dealing with the statute labour roads, so that his constituents had considerable experience of the operation of such Acts. They paid, he was sorry to say, a very high assessment; but that was owing to the procuring of the Act having been so long delayed, the result being that the roads fell into disrepair. Notwithstanding the high assessment, the whole of the landlords and tenants were in favour of going still further, and obtaining an Act for the total abolition of tolls in the county of For far. There was one disadvantage which would result in so long a delay as 10 years which had not been touched upon, but to which he might advert. The roads would be allowed to fall into a state of great disrepair, as they had done in a great many counties already, and when the Act was adopted the expense of repairing them would be found to be more than the ratepayers could be asked to pay, and very likely borrowing powers would be required. Moreover, the creditors of the roads would endeavour to have their debts estimated at a higher rate than they ought to be. For these reasons, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

hoped that the Lord Advocate would not give way on what was the only good part of the Bill. He trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would so far give attention to a representation coming from so benighted a county as Ayr, as to retain the provision to which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) objected.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, the proposition of the Government had had some reason in it when first brought forward, because there was great advantage in allowing time for arrangements to be made between landlords and tenants; but as the question had now been so long before the public, there was no necessity for the term previously suggested; and four or five years would afford the parties ample time to make fresh arrangements.

LORD ELCHO

said, with reference to a remark made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Barclay), it was practically the owners and proprietors who paid in the long run whether they had a system of tolls or assessment, and this was a point which should be borne in mind in discussing many of the Amendments on the Paper as regarded the Bill.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he had no doubt that considered from a politico-economical view, the statement of the noble Lord was quite correct; but why not therefore follow out the reasoning, and let the proprietor pay the tax in the beginning so as to save the tenant's pocket, and spare the trouble of collection?

LORD ELCHO

said, the question was not one of political economy, but of fact. If a man were about to take a house, he inquired what the taxes were; and if he were about to rent a farm, he asked what charges the land bore.

MR. MARK STEWART

concurred with the observations of the noble Lord (Lord Elcho). One point which had not been brought sufficiently under the notice of the Government was the increase of assessment in those counties where tolls had been abolished. Suppose a tenant had just taken a farm on a lease of 19 years, it was extremely hard that he should be called upon without notice to pay an increased assessment, which such a measure as this would involve. He hoped the Government would take the point into their consideration.

MR. M'LAGAN

said, the reply to these observations was that the House did not legislate for the proprietors and tenants of holdings merely, but for the country generally. He could see no good reason why the Amendment which proposed that the Bill should come into operation much earlier than the time the Government had fixed should not be agreed to. The question had been before the public for nearly 30 years, many Bills on the subject had been brought forward during the last 17 years—so that the public mind was thoroughly educated on the subject. The promoters of private Bills for different counties had not asked for a delay of five years before they came into operation, but that they should commence the very next year after they had been passed; and if these counties were able to make their arrangements in one year, why could not other counties put this Bill into operation within a reasonable period? The public of Scotland were now convinced that the abolition of tolls was inevitable, so that the sooner the Act was brought into operation the better. The Government would only be consistent if they brought this Bill into operation simultaneously with the arrangement proposed for Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire—namely, four years from the present time.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

said, the Government must see that, with very few exceptions, the Committee were strongly in favour of having the time at which the Bill was to come into operation shortened, and if they would accept three years, he thought the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) would not divide. That time would give ample opportunity to make all the necessary arrangements, as the Scotch, being a practical people, would lose no time in making the necessary arrangements. They would not care to linger for a long period over what they knew had to be done. He trusted that the Lord Advocate would accept three years, and thus save them from the waste of time which the taking of a division would involve.

COLONEL MURE

desired to repudiate most emphatically the suggestion that road trustees would be likely to starve their roads with a view to promote their own interests by increasing the debts upon them. He had never heard a more unworthy argument used in that House. [Mr. J. W. BARCLAY said, it was true, nevertheless.] He must still deny it. As to the Amendment, he supported the view of the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan), believing that as the question had been so long before the House and the country, it would be better to shorten the time at which the Bill was to come in force; 1882 would be a very good year to fix.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he had been informed that the arrangement in respect to Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire had been made at the wish of the people of Glasgow. As to the Amendment, after the feeling expressed that evening by the Committee, the Government were ready to consider the question and make a proposal on a future occasion; but they would oppose the specific proposition before the Committee, if it was pressed.

MR. ANDERSON

said, it was quite true that the people of Glasgow had been anxious to have a settlement of the arrangement proposed for Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire as speedily as possible; but Glasgow was not then aware of the sort of provisions that were to be imposed upon her. If the Bill was a good one, the sooner it was brought into operation the better; but there was no such immediate haste for it if it were a bad measure.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

considered the statement of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to be unsatisfactory, and asked for a definite pledge as to what the Government would do.

MR. BAXTER

was also disappointed at the course taken by the Government. Since he had been in the House, he did not remember to have seen so great a unanimity exhibited on any point as had been shown on this; for only two or three Scotch Members had said a word in favour of the long period, while 100 were in favour of the shorter term proposed.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he wanted, in the first place, to say a word in answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife (Sir Robert An-struther). Alluding to the noble Lord who presided over the Committee that sat on the English turnpikes (Lord George Cavendish), he rather suggested that the Scotch roads were referred to him to deal with in the same manner as he had with the English roads. But there was a great difference in the circumstances of the two. The noble Lord had, in the case of the Scotch roads, to consider not only whether the turnpikes should be abolished, but what arrangement should be made subsequent to this; whereas, in the case of the English turnpike trusts, when they ceased to exist, there were bodies who would look after the maintenance of the roads. That being so, it was undoubtedly necessary that there should be a considerable time allowed in Scotland owing to the length of the leases. The feeling on both sides of the Committee seemed to be that the time should be shortened —["No, no!"]—with two exceptions— [Renewed, cries of "No!"]—then with three exceptions—["No!"]—he would say four—with four exceptions, he believed, that was the general feeling of the Committee — ["No, no!"]—well, he would say five. That being so, they were now asked to reverse their course, and fix on the year 1880 for the total cessation of tolls. To that time he was most decidedly opposed. He was quite sure, so far as he had been able to understand the matter, that would not be satisfactory in many of the counties. The Government had been told that they ought to be more definite in what they said. What he was going to say was, that he was quite willing at the present moment to restore the Bill to the same position in which it was when it was originally brought in, and put in the word "five" years instead of "ten."

DR. CAMERON

had hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would have accepted three years, or left the matter open, and then he (Dr. Cameron) would at once have withdrawn the Amendment. As it was, he considered five years would be too long; he was, therefore, constrained to divide on the Amendment, and he hoped other hon. Gentlemen who had Amendments on the Paper would re-test the question.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, he was dissatisfied with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. Ten years was understood to be a concession to those who had objected to the Bill, but now that period was abandoned. Neither the Home Secretary nor the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had vouchsafed a single syllable in reply to the statement of the case of one of the most important counties in Scotland. He quite agreed with the statement that the Bill would make Her Majesty's Government very unpopular, especially in his county, and would probably lead to the return of two Liberal Members at the next Election. In order to give the Government an opportunity of re-considering the matter, he would move that Progress be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Alexander.)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press the Motion, as it would have the effect of stopping the Bill on a night long appointed for its discussion. He did not know he had anything more to explain. The Government thought five years would be sufficient when they first introduced the Bill, and he would return to that period in deference to the general feeling of the Committee.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

said, he had given a general support to the Bill; but what his hon. and gallant Friend had said as to the probable return of two Liberal Members for Ayrshire if the Bill were passed had greatly increased his enthusiasm for the measure. That was a prospect that was most cheerful for the Liberal Party in the House. He was afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman was a hopeless ire-concileable against the Bill. They were all, according to him, going to the dogs; but his protest had been ignored by the Government. He seemed to think, too, that there was no county or part of Scotland but Ayrshire which was to be considered for a moment; but there were other counties and other interests that required to be thought of besides Ayrshire. They had now to deal with the proposal of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and its acceptance or partial acceptance by the Government. They had not got all they wanted, but they had got a considerable concession. The Government were now clothed, and in their former mind— whether it was their right mind or not— and they were going to act on the proposal made two years ago, and continue these obsolete and expiring trusts for five years instead of 10. Considering they had not been long in Committee, he thought that was a hopeful prospect. He trusted hon. Members would not complicate matters. He thought the hon. Member for Glasgow had had a most satisfactory answer from the Government, and his advice to him would be to refrain from a division, and accept the offer of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to have the date 1882 inserted instead of 1887.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that if they took five years off 1887, they would have 1882. If five years had been added to the time when the Bill was brought in, the date would have been 1880.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he proposed to add five years from this time, and make 1883 the time for the commencement of the Act.

MR. ORR-EWING

believed that if the counties had power, by a majority of the Commissioners of Supply, to select the time, most of them would adopt the Act long before the five years had expired.

DR. CAMERON

said, that if the Act did not come into operation until November, 1883, as fixed by the Bill, the tolls would not be abolished until the following May. He would not press his Amendment to a division, if the Government would substitute 1882 for 1887.

COLONEL MURE

thought that the Government had been rather inconsistent in granting four years for Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire, and insisting on five years for the remaining counties of Scotland. Why not accept one period for the whole of the country?

MR. E. W. DUFF

hoped the Government would give way. Long leases prevailed in Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire where the short period had been fixed.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the insertion of 1882 in the Bill, instead of 1887, would mean that the tolls would not be abolished until Whitsuntide, 1884. He suggested leaving out the words "until the end of next ensuing Session of Parliament," and fixing the date at Whitsuntide, 1882. He thought it would very much simplify matters if it were made absolute, so that the clause should read 1882 or 1883; and he would recommend the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) to accept that compromise.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he would agree to compromise the matter by the insertion of 1882.

MR. ANDERSON

was in favour of such an alteration in the clause as would make it more absolute, and he thought the exact term which Government was about to fix for Lanarkshire—namely, June 1882, would be the most suitable.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

did not think the matter was worth fighting about. He proposed that June, 1883, should be inserted.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

remarked, that in substance the question had arrived at the point for which he had been arguing. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman now conceded until June, 1883?

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DR. CAMERON

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

moved to leave out the words "November, 1887, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament," in order to insert the words "June, 1883."

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

thought it would be necessary to leave out more words, in order to carry the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary into effect.

DR. CAMERON

said, the clause as it stood would not carry out the abolition of tolls until the May following June, 1883, as, according to Section 33, they were not to be done away with until the May following the adoption of the Act.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, that all they could consider at that moment was Section 4, and not Section 33. It would not be competent to levy any tolls after June, 1883.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he wished that no tolls should be levied after the date, and the Lord Advocate would see that that principle was carried out in the wording of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to; words substituted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Certain Local Acts made perpetual).

On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:— In page 3, lines 41 and 42, leave out "Parliament otherwise provides;" and in page 4, line 15, leave out after "such Act" to "perpetual," in line 16, and insert "shall continue in force until this Act shall be adopted in such county."

MR. BALFOUR

inquired whether the clause would allow a county to continue its present Acts for any indefinite time?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he could see no objection to counties continuing to administer the roads; but the question involved was really a matter of agreement between burghs and counties. Where, however, only one-third of the maintenance of the roads was borne by the landlord, and two-thirds fell upon the tenants, as in the case of a Private Act, it was not proper that the former should enjoy the right of assessing the latter in perpetuity. The Act should not continue in force beyond the term of its natural existence. With the leave of the Committee, he would bring up a clause to effect the object in view at a later stage of the Bill.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Adoption of the Act.

Clause 6 (How Acts may be adopted in counties).

COLONEL ALEXANDER

moved, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 19, after "Act," insert the following sub-section:— This Act may be adopted in whole or in part; that is to say, in parts, sections, or clauses, and a resolution to adopt this Act in part shall specify the parts, sections, or clauses so adopted, and no part of this Act which is not so specified shall be held to be adopted, except so much thereof as is requisite for giving due effect to, or as in any way modifies, affects, or controls the parts, sections, or clauses so adopted, to which extent this Act shall be held to be as effective as if the whole had been adopted according to the true intent and meaning of this Act; and any general or local Act or Acts relating to roads, highways, and bridges in a county in which this Act shall be adopted in part shall remain in force in so far as not inconsistent with the parts, sections, or clauses so adopted.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

promised to consider the question before the Report, with a view to bringing up a clause dealing with it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. FRASER - MACKINTOSH,

in moving, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 25, after "county," to insert— Such adoption also to include the abolishing-any tolls or pontages still being exacted under the authority of any special Act, and of undertaking the trust thereby created, and liabilities of the same, and providing for such liabilities out of the general assessments authorized by any other Act in force in the county; and that, said, it was specially intended to meet the ease of a bridge in the county of Elgin. Tolls were abolished in the county of Elgin, but the pontage over the Findhorn Bridge, levied under a special Act, was excepted. Under the Amendment, the county of Elgin could, if so disposed, take the Findhorn Bridge, which cost over £6,000, for little more than £1,000, being the balance of debt still subsisting; and the abolishing of the pontage would be most advantageous.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

thought the Amendment would be an embarrassment in the clause, and he recommended the hon. Member to consider whether it would not be better to bring Elgin within the list of counties entitled to avail themselves of the provisions of the Act, instead of inserting the Amendment in the clause.

MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH

agreed to the suggestion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME

proposed an Amendment, the object of which was to place burghs in the same position as counties with regard to the Bill. He was not prepared to maintain that the plan he had chosen was the best that could be devised for the carrying out of his object; but if the principle were admitted, he would be glad to leave the matter in the hands of the Lord Advocate.

MR. TREVELYAN

feared that, unless the subject were carefully considered, the insertion of these words would give rise to extremely complicated arrangements. If there were any outstanding financial question between the burgh and county, he thought it would be dealt with better under Clause 8 than by a sub-section of Clause 6, as now proposed.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, that the insertion of this Amendment might give rise to great complication. He confessed he had some difficulty, without greater explanation, in knowing what the Amendment really meant.

SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME

agreed that it would be more convenient to postpone the Amendment, and take further discussion upon the subject when the Committee reached a later clause. He would therefore withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

moved to leave out, at page 4, line 29, the words "thirty days," in order to insert "six months." The object of the Amendment was not to delay the operation of the Act, but to give a reasonable time for the consideration of so important a measure. There were half-yearly meetings held, at which the business of the county was transacted; and if six months' notice were allowed, that notice might conveniently be given at one of the meetings, and be acted upon at the next. His constituents were very anxious that more time should be given than 30 days. If the Lord Advocate objected to six months, perhaps the right hon. and learned Lord would agree to three months' notice of the adoption of the Act.

MR. RAMSAY

said, the hon. Member seemed to be under some misapprehension as to the effect of the clause. Instead of having only 30 days' notice with regard to the adoption of the Act, the county would have all the time allowed within the limits of the Act that the convener, or the Commissioners of Supply, might avail themselves of; because it was on a requisition by those Commissioners to the convener that action was taken.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

was under the impression that the road trustees, and not the Commissioners of Supply, took action in the matter.

MR. RAMSAY

said, they were not one and the same body in all cases; but they were usually identical where tolls and statute labour had been abolished; and these were in the majority.

Amendment negatived.

MR. VANS AGNEW

moved to leave out, at line 30, the word "convener," in order to insert the words "chairman of the road trustees." The clause referred to those counties where tolls and statute labour had been abolished, and road trustees established. They were to be called together at 30 days' notice; but the duty of calling them together, he proposed, should devolve upon the chairman of the road trustees, and not upon the convener of the Commissioners of Supply.

Amendment agreed to; words substituted.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

moved, at page 4, line 38, to omit "one year," in order to insert the words "three years." The object of the Amendment was to prevent the annual inconvenience and expense to which a county would be subjected if the Commissioners of Supply, after a decision had been come to respecting the adoption of the Act, were allowed to call another meeting and set aside that decision within the short period of 12 months.

MR. M'LAREN

opposed the Amendment. This Bill sought, as one of its especial objects, to facilitate the abolition of tolls, and the Amendment would have the tendency to delay that proceeding.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

doubted whether the alteration was a desirable one.

Amendment negatived.

SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME,

in moving, as an Amendment, at page 4, line 38, after "thereafter," to insert the following sub-section:— la. In those burghs situated in counties in which tolls and statute labour have been abolished or are not exigible, or power has been obtained to abolish them or to arrange for their abolition, this Act may be adopted instead of the local Act or Acts relating to roads and highways and bridges therein in force, on a resolution to that effect agreed to by not less than two-thirds of the ratepayers present and voting at a meeting called by special advertisement on not less than thirty days' notice, for the purpose of considering as to the adoption thereof, and the provost or chief magistrate of any such burgh, on a requisition to that effect signed by any six ratepayers being presented to him shall call a meeting of the ratepayers with a view to consider a resolution in favour of the adoption of this Act; in the event of such a resolution not being carried by the requisite majority as aforesaid, it shall not be lawful to call another meeting with a view to the adoption of this Act for one year thereafter; in the event of such a resolution being carried the Act may be adopted subject to an agreement entered into between the local authority of such burgh and the local authority of any neighbouring burgh or burghs, or the county road trustees of any county or counties in which such burgh is situated, explained that the effect of this subsection would be similar to that of the Amendment which he had previously withdrawn—namely, to place burghs in the same position as counties with regard to the Act. The hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) had on the Paper an Amendment similar to this one in effect, differing from it only with respect to the last part of it. His own opinion was that burghs situated in counties where tolls and statute labour had been abolished, should be entitled to the benefits of the Act, and ought not to be placed in a worse position than the counties which had not adopted, but which might at some future day adopt, the Act.

MR. TREVELYAN

hoped the Lord Advocate would consider the intrinsic justice of this proposal. If the right hon. and learned Lord would do so, the Committee might safely leave to him the precise form in which to carry it into effect. He would mention the special case of the county of Selkirk in support of the justice of this proposition. In 1867, that county obtained an Act, by which tolls and statute labour were abolished. The Act was carried out by the body of trustees who were taken from the Commissioners of Supply of the county, and from among the gentlemen in the burghs who had the same qualification as Commissioners. The burgh of Selkirk, and the burgh of Galashiels, sent one representative to the board. The council, having only one vote on the board, discovered that they did not possess as much power as they thought they had a right to exercise. The burgh council wanted now to take the care of its own roads, and it would be free to place itself under Clause 11, if the county trustees agreed to adopt the Act; but it was doubtful whether the trustees would adopt the Act. Therefore, under these circumstances, it was only fair to enable local authorities like those of Selkirk to take advantage of Clause 11, and manage their own roads. There was one important difference between his own Amendment on the subject and that of the hon. Member (Sir William Cuninghame) now before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman's proposal was that two-thirds of the ratepayers should decide whether this Act should be adopted, and that six ratepayers were to present a requisition to the provost or chief magistrate for a meeting to be called; whereas his own Amendment proposed that two-thirds of the local authority should decide, and that the requisition should be signed by any five of the local authority. There was very good reason for this Amendment. In England, it was all very well to call upon the ratepayers in general to deter- mine whether their education was to be managed by a school board or by self-appointed trustees; and it was all very well to ask the ratepayers in Scotland and England to decide whether they would take advantage of the Public Libraries Act; but it was quite a different matter when exceedingly complicated and delicate questions of finance in a burgh or county had to be dealt with. He did think that these were questions for the consideration of men of business elected to represent the burgh in the town council. He therefore urged the Lord Advocate to allow this, or some clause to the same effect, to be inserted in the Bill.

MR. MARK STEWART

said, the trustees appeared to have the exclusive power under the clause of adopting the general Act. No doubt, the Commissioners, in the first instance, appointed the trustees; but still, he thought there should be an appeal from the trustees to the Commissioners. It had been the subject of warm comments out-of-doors that the whole of the powers were taken out of the hands of the Commissioners and vested in the trustees. That he did not think was the intention of the Government; and he, therefore, hoped the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would bring in a clause to make the necessary alteration on Report.

THE MARQUESS OF LORNE

said, in some cases the adoption of the Act under its terms would be an injustice to neighbouring districts, unless it be provided that burghs now assessable for district roads be prevented from adopting the Act, unless an agreement be previously made with the district road trustees.

MR. TREVELYAN

admitted that injustice would be done in some instances. In cases where financial arrangements had to be made between county and burgh, Clause 8 provided a simple and effective remedy; and as the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir William Cuninghame) had not been adopted in regard to counties, he did not see why it should be applied in the case of burghs.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

apprehended that great confusion would arise if a burgh were permitted to adopt the provisions of this Act without coming to some agreement with the county. It would upset the whole arrangement upon which the provisions of the Local Act were based. He admitted that there might be some exceptional cases.

MR. TREVELYAN

moved to amend the proposed Amendment by substituting, in line 6 of the sub-section, "two-thirds of the local authority of such burghs" for the words "two-thirds of the ratepayers," and in line 10 "any five of the local authority" for "any six ratepayers."

THE LORD ADVOCATE

feared there would be great difficulty in carrying out the sub-section in its present form. He would, however, undertake to frame a clause which he hoped would meet the views of the two hon. Members.

Amendment (Mr. Trevelyan), by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (Sir William Cuninghame), by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ANDERSON (for Mr. M'LAREN),

moved, at page 4, line 42, to leave out the words "not less than two-thirds," in order to insert "a majority." The hon. Member, who himself had a similar Amendment on the Paper, said, it would be prudent to adopt the proposal of his hon. Friend, because its object was to facilitate counties taking advantage of the Act; and it would be easier to arrive at that end by simply stating that a majority should decide the matter.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER,

in supporting the Amendment, pointed out that a majority was allowed to decide all other questions connected with county administration, and he was at a loss to know why, in this instance, a majority of two-thirds should be required. It was doubtful whether, in all cases, the votes of two-thirds of the Commissioners of Supply would be secured.

MR. VANS AGNEW

said, one good reason for requiring a majority of two-thirds was, that if only 30 days' notice were to be given, several of the Commissioners of Supply, who happened to be abroad, would probably be unable to attend the meeting, and the duty of carrying out an important change in the business of counties would consequently devolve upon such a majority as might be in attendance, who would probably not be a majority of the whole number.

MR. RAMSAY

held that if a majority of two-thirds were insisted upon, it would have the practical effect of throw- ing an obstable in the way of the adoption of the Act. He, therefore, recommended the acceptance of the Amendment.

MR. ORR-EWING

also supported the Amendment, and hoped the Government would accede to it.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

thought it would be only fair to give to a majority, however bare, the right of deciding upon the question of introducing the Act. If the stipulation of the clause, that there should be a majority of two-thirds in favour of the Act, were insisted upon, it would give a very considerable power to any small knot of obstructives to oppose the view of the Legislature in introducing this measure, and he sincerely hoped the Government would give way.

MR. MARK STEWART

hoped the Government would stand firm in this matter. They had already indicated their policy, and he saw no reason why they should recede from it. He failed to see the urgency for this new form of compulsory vote, since, as the matter stood now, the worst that could happen to any county would be that it would not have the Act for five years.

MR. E. W. DUFF

urged the Committee to support the Amendment, and relegate the acceptance or rejection of the Act to a simple majority. In the earlier part of the debate that evening, the Commissioners of Supply had been referred to in rather severe terms, and some doubt had been expressed as to the wisdom of giving them the initiative in the matter of introducing the Act. But the past conduct of these bodies did not justify this impression, and he wished to remind the Committee that it was a majority of these Commissioners who invoked the remission of tolls in half the counties of Scotland where they were already abolished.

MR. ANDERSON

hoped the Government, after the strong expression of opinion in the Committtee, would give way. The object of the Amendment was simply to facilitate the adoption of the Act, and he was bound to assume that the Government themselves desired the general acceptance of their own Act. If they considered it a good Act, why not do all they could to get it adopted? while, to reject this proposition, would simply be admitting that their measure was, in their own eyes, not a good one. If the clause were passed as it now stood, he was afraid there were many counties in which the limitation time would be allowed to run without the requisite majority being obtained.

SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER

appealed to the Government to adhere to their present course. It was only a matter of five years.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, if the Government decided to adhere to this new principle in their legislation of requiring a majority of two-thirds, it would be necessary to take the sense of the Committee upon the point. It occurred to him that there was no similar instance of the Government recommending the adoption of an Act to the country, and then weighting their own recommendation with a condition like this. If the majority of the Commissioners of Supply resolved to accept the Act, their decision should be allowed to have effect, otherwise the Government would simply be giving the minorities in counties power to rule over the majorities.

LORD ELCHO

remarked that the feeling on his side of the House seemed to be that the Government should not give way; but he thought it very desirable that they should. There had been no answer given to the argument urged on the other side in favour of the simple majority; and, certainly, in his opinion, it was not desirable that the minority of the trustees of a county should have power to prevent the majority obtaining a measure which they desired. The matter did not affect his county, which had local Acts; but he could not but believe that the sooner the general Act was introduced throughout Scotland the better.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, the proposition was one that the Government could not regard as likely to weaken the force of the Bill, and he would not offer any opposition to it.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. RAMSAY,

in order to make the clause consistent throughout, moved, in lines 35 and 36, and in page 5, line 9, the substitution of the words "a majority" for "the requisite majority."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Provision for case of one county adopting, and another county not adopting, the Act) agreed to.

Clause 8 (Act may be adopted, subject to provisional agreement between county and burgh. Confirmation by Secretary of State).

SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME

said, he had given Notice of a number of Amendments, which he now proposed to withdraw; and he should beg to take the same course with reference to the Amendments to Clause 9, which stood in his name, as they were of the same character as those proposed upon Clause 6, and which had been withdrawn on the understanding that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would consider in what form the object they aimed at could best be carried out.

MR. ORR-EWTNG

moved, as an Amendment, to add the following words at the end of line 29, page 6:— Provided always, that if the local authority of any burgh, the population of which according to the Census then last taken, does not exceed 20,000, shall not have entered into any such agreement with the commissioners of supply previously to the adoption of this Act, the county road trustees of the county may at any time enter into an agreement with such local authority for the payment by such local authority to such trustees of an annual sum in consideration of the loss of tolls and statute labour, conversion money or county road assessment, which will be sustained by such trustees (as coming in place of the existing turnpike and statute labour trustees) in consequence of the adoption of this Act, and of the over-average cost, if any, of maintaining the roads around such burgh; and if such county road trustees and local authority fail to enter into such agreement, such trustees may require such local authority to concur with them in referring to arbitration what annual sum, if any, should, according to equity and in all the circumstances of the case, be paid by such local authority to such trustees as aforesaid; and such arbitration shall be conducted in the manner prescribed by the provisions of 'The Companies Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845,' with respect to the settlement of disputes by arbitration, which provisions are for that purpose incorporated with this Act. The object of his Amendment was to enable burghs and counties to come to an arrangement, whereby the former should come under the operation of the Act, to be reached through the medium of arbitration, if they could not of themselves come to terms. That would be better in case of disputes—at least, less costly than having recourse to Parliament for a Provisional Order, which they all knew was a very expensive process when opposed. The cost of such an application might not be much to a large and wealthy county; but to small counties and small burghs it might possibly have a prohibitory effect. The adoption of his suggestion would not in any way prevent the adoption of the provisional agreements between counties and large burghs which were to be made subject to the confirmation of the Homo Secretary under Clause 9.

MR. MARK STEWART

moved, as an Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, that the limit of population should be "five thousand" instead of "twenty."

COLONEL MURE

suggested that a specified time should be named to intervene between the proposition for agreement and the reference to arbitration, and that the Amendment should run thus— And if such county road trustees and local authority fail to enter into such agreement within three months.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, the Amendment was hardly in accordance with the principle of the Bill. The intention of the Bill certainly was that upon the adoption of the Act for the abolition of tolls a burgh should start with all its arrangements made, and the same with regard to the counties. The Amendment contemplated a totally different state of things—namely, that they were neither to have the agreement under Section (a) before adopting the Act, or at the time of the adoption of the Act, nor were they to have the provisions of the Bill put into operation at the time of its adoption. It further contemplated the making of claims subsequent to the adoption of the Act, as against the intention of the measure, which was that the burgh or county should start with an administration which was not to be subject to revision.

MR. ORR-EWING

said, his intention was quite the reverse of that now ascribed to his Amendment.

DR. CAMERON

remarked that the boroughs and counties in the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Orr-Ewing's) neighbourhood did not appreciate the facilities he was desirous of obtaining for them, and they had actually sent up a deputation to protest against his Amendment,

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, that what the Amendment was really meant to secure could easily be obtained if the two parties were reasonable. It was within their power to refer any matter in dispute to two or three gentlemen who could frame an agreement on the basis of their calculations. It was quite another thing to ask Parliament to grant compulsory arbitration.

Amendment to said proposed Amendment, and said proposed. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR,

in pursuance of a previous Motion, moved, in page 6, lines 5 and 6, to insert "a majority," instead of "not less than two-thirds."

Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (After two years, power to apply to Secretary of State for Provisional Order to be confirmed by Parliament).

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

moved to insert, in page 6, line 32, after "Commissioners of Supply thereof," "or for the ratepayers in public meeting assembled." The object of the Amendment was to enable the ratepayers at large to adopt the Act in case the Commissioners of Supply were indisposed to do so. He quite granted that the concession made in reducing the time for the Act to come into operation from 10 to five years was very important as bearing on this point; but the counties which had private Acts would be much longer affected by this clause. A great question of this kind, regarding the adoption of an Act of Parliament, ought to be decided by the ratepayers at large rather than by the extraordinary and aristocratic constituencies, which were a relic of a past age. He should hope the Government would see their way to making this additional concession.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

thought the purpose of the clause had been somewhat misapprehended. Its object was not in any way to precipitate or retard the adoption of the Act, but was to enable those desiring to take advantage of it, after a given time, if they found it could not be satisfactorily adopted, to obtain such variations as might be required by local circumstances; and it gave them the right of going to the Home Secretary to have added or dispensed with such provisions of the Bill as might be found by experience to militate against its adoption. To pass this Amendment would be to take away from the body of Commissioners who, by the earlier sections which had been passed, were entrusted with very important powers, the right of asking the Home Secretary to remove obstacles that might exist to the adoption of the Act.

Amendment negatived.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, he had given Notice of an Amendment upon this clause; but he should not proceed with it, as it appeared to him hopeless for any hon. Member upon the Conservative side of the House to obtain a concession from the Government, unless, indeed, he were prepared to go to the Opposition side of the House, where he might have some chance.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 39, after "county," insert— Provided, That no such application shall be made to the Secretary of State unless notice of the intention to propose a resolution to that effect at a half-yearly statutory meeting of the commissioners of supply of any county shall have been given in writing to the clerk of such commissioners at their last previous half-yearly statutory meeting. The effect of it would be that those Commissioners of Supply, who wished to apply for a Provisional Order from the Secretary of State, should be obliged to give due notice of their intention to make a proposal of the kind. He proposed that six months' notice should be given— that was, that notice should be given at one statutory meeting of the Commissioners of Supply of the intention to make the proposal at the next meeting.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

thought it desirable to make some provision for notice, but it occurred to him that that proposed was rather long.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

believed the six months' notice would be found most convenient.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

moved, as an Amendment, to insert in page 7, line 30, after the word "trustees," the words "and burgh local authority," his object being, he said, to make the burghs bear their fair share of the expense. He did not think the counties should be saddled with the whole expense.

Amendment negatived.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (for Mr. M'LAREN)

moved, as an Amendment, in page 7, line 32, after "obtained," to add the words "or against the police assessment levied within any burgh, as the case may be." There were certain burghs which had no funds to pay these charges, and in those cases he wished them to be paid out of the police assessments.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted,.

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

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

called the attention of the Committee to an apparent discrepancy between the clause and Clause 6. Under Clause 6, the adoption of the Act was to be determined by the trustees. Under Clause 9, it was to be adopted by the Commissioners of Supply. So far as he was able to compare them, Clause 9, therefore, seemed to him to require some such Amendment as that suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) that the operation of the clause should be limited to the three counties in which tolls and statute labour had been abolished; and in those counties the trustees were the proper persons to deal with the Act, whereas the clause left it to the Commissioners of Supply. As the clause stood, the Commissioners of Supply might overthrow the trustees, and adopt this Act, although it was clearly the intention of the Act to leave the matter in the hands of the trustees.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he thought the criticism was well-founded; but he would look into the matter more fully, and see how it stood.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 (Costs to be awarded in certain cases) agreed to.

Road Authorities in Counties and Burghs.

Clause 11 (Management and maintenance of highways in counties to be in county road trustees, and in burghs in burgh local authority).

SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER

moved to report Progress. They had now reached a clause on which there would be considerable discussion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Sir Windham Anstruther.)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

hoped they would be allowed to go on for a little while. He thought it would be a great pity to stop where they were.

MR. VANS AGNEW

hoped that the hon. Baronet would withdraw his Motion. It was not often that Scotch Members got a night for discussion on a Scotch Bill. Most of them were present, and he thought they might dispose of two more clauses, if not the Bill altogether.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

moved, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the clause— And as early as possible after the assumption of office by the county road trustees and burgh local boards, they shall cause to be prepared lists of the several roads within the respective districts and burghs, with such details connected with their length, width, and condition, as will show the state of the roads hitherto maintained, for three years prior to the transfer; such lists being transmitted to the Secretary of State with a view to the same being compiled into a general statement to be submitted to Parliament as a record of the whole of the roads in Scotland at the date this Act came into force. The object of his Amendment, he said, was to obtain accurate information about the present state and mileage and cost of the roads taken over. In principle it had already been adopted in England to some extent, as it had been taken from the Act of 1872. He hoped the Amendment would be adopted. It was of great importance, in order to verify the state of all the roads when they were brought under the operation of this Act. At present these were of two kinds—turnpike and commutation roads. The cost of the turnpike roads was on the average of all Scotland very great— nearly £30 per mile—whereas the other roads could hardly be calculated at more than £6 per mile per annum. It was, then, necessary to have some standard by which to measure or compare the future charges for roads.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he could not accept the Amendment, as the record it provided would be a very imperfect one, and its preparation would throw a great burden on the ratepayers.

MR. J. W. BAROLAY

suggested that a modification of Clause 103 would meet the hon. Baronet's intention.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, if the Secretary of State opposed, he did not mean to press the Amendment, though he felt it to be an important one, as they were quite ignorant of the present state of the roads in Scotland. The only information available was the Report of the Scotch Road Commission, now nearly 25 years old. Since then great changes had taken place, of which the information was very imperfect. Without the details they would be exposed to blame for all kinds of excessive outlays, because of the abolition of turnpikes. These at present did exercise a check on expenditure, because the funds collected did limit the outlay on roads.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause agreed to.

Appointment of County Road Trustees Board, and Committees.

Clause 12 (Appointment of County Road Trustees).

MR. ORR-EWING

moved, as an Amendment, in page 8, line 36, after "provision," to insert— That no commissioner of supply, whose qualification as such arises from property situated or office held in any burgh, shall be a county road trustee (save as hereinafter provided), and.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted.

THE MARQUESS OF STAFFORD

moved, as an Amendment, to insert, in page 8, line 36, after the words "that no factor," the words— Deriving his qualifications from the said Act, passed in the seventeenth and eighteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-one. The noble Lord explained that, for the purpose in view, they should be in the same position as they were at present.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he would accept the Amendment, which he thought a very proper one.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted.

MR. ANDERSON

moved, as an Amendment, to add, in page 8, line 38, at the end of the sub-section, the words— And no Commissioner of Supply, who holds his position as such only in virtue of being the eldest son of a proprietor, shall he entitled to act or vote, except in the absence of his father.

Amendment negatived.

MR. ANDERSON

moved to report Progress, it being half-past 12 o'clock.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Anderson.)

SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER

urged the hon. Member for Glasgow to press his Motion.

MR. VANS AGNEW

thought the Committee could not do less than complete the clause they were now considering.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

was of opinion that the Committee had been sitting long enough.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was quite ready to go on to the end of the clause.

MR. ANDERSON

was afraid that he would be obliged to take the sense of the Committee on the subject.

LORD ELCHO

considered it most desirable to finish the clause.

MR. ANDERSON

insisted on dividing the House, as after that hour—half-past 12—the chances of what they were doing being reported in Scotland were exceedingly small.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 38; Noes 94: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 64.)

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, if it was too late go on before, it was too late now, and he would therefore move that the Chairman do leave the Chair.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he did not wish to go on against the wish of the House, but he could not assent to the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

then moved that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. He would put the Bill down again for Thursday Pro formâ. He could not say it would come on then, because there were other matters that must come on.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.

House adjourned at One o'clock.