LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 187) AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS BILL (No. 188).

HC Deb 04 July 1889 vol 337 cc1503-44

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 omitted.

Clause 4.

Amendment proposed, page 1, line 17, after "of," leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)

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

Question "That this Act' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. CALDWELL

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, which is, to introduce the words Chairman and Councillors is to introduce what is not known in Scotland as a Chairman chosen outside the body. The County Council will consist of Councillors alone, and it is not necessary that the Chairman should be specially mentioned.

Amendment proposed, page 1, line 20, leave out all after "county," to end of Clause.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The object is that there shall be a Council of which the Chairman may or may not be chosen from within the body of Council- lors. I hope the Committee will dismiss from their minds any impression that there is any exclusion of Councillors from the position of Chairman. All that is proposed is that the Council when they are looking round for a Chairman, shall have it within their competency to go outside, if and when they deem the best choice can be made outside. I am sure it has occurred to hon. Gentlemen that in many instances you may find a man who has ripe experience in county matters, and yet who from one circumstance or another does not come forward at the election. What can be more appropriate than that the County Council, especially in the earlier steps of its existence, and when the number of experienced men amongst the newly elected may not be very large, should have the option of securing a Chairman where he can best be found, and not necessarily from within its own ranks.

* MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Are we to understand that if we pass the clause as it stands that is to be taken as giving an assent to the principle that the Convener of the County need not be a councillor?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

No; I would suggest that the proper plan would be to agree to the words as they stand, leaving entirely open the question whether the County Council may choose a chairman outside.

* MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I recommend the hon. Member not to press the omission of these words, in order that we may have the matter more fully and pointedly discussed later.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

SIR G. CAMPBELL

I should like some explanation with regard to the difficulty we are put in by the definition clause appearing at the very end of the Bill. I should like to know what is a "county" for the purposes of this Act. Burghs are excluded by negation; but, on turning to the definition clause, I find a county is a county exclusive of any burgh, and that a burgh includes any Royal or Parliamentary burgh. There is a great difference between a Royal and a Parliamentary burgh. I understand that under the Bill the larger burghs will have no connection with the county at all. I should like to know whether that is so. Then I find that police burghs are not burghs; they are apparently included in the county.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

This question might more directly come up on some other clause; but I am quite willing to explain now. The word "county" is defined to mean a county exclusive of any burgh, and a "burgh" is defined to be any Royal or Parliamentary burgh. The consequence is that "county" includes everything but Royal and Parliamentary burghs.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 5.

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR (Clackmannan, &c.)

I suppose that, now that the two Bills are to be consolidated, it is unnecessary, in the view of the Government, that I should move the Amendment standing in my name, which is to leave out the words "subject to the provisions of the Acts of 1889." My original reason for putting down the Amendment was to raise the question whether all the councillors should not be elected.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I propose to leave out the words "the Acts of 1889," and to insert "this Act." I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's object will be in the least prejudiced.

Amendment proposed, page 1, line 23 leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)

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

Question "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. FRASER MACKINTOSH (Invernessshire)

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. The Lord Advocate will see from the number of Amendments dealing with the same point that there is great diversity of opinion.

Amendment proposed, page 1, line 27, leave out "one" and .insert "two."—(Mr. Mackintosh.)

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

* MR. MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)

I have an Amendment on the Paper, which provides that one or more councillors should represent each divi- sion, and which therefore goes further than that of my hon. Friend. I would prefer to see his carried than nothing at all, but I do not want to limit it to two Councillors. Some counties, as my own, the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright have road districts, which would make excellent districts from which to elect County Councillors, rather than by taking the parish as the unit. In the case I mention it would be desirable where there are six road districts to elect, say, five County Councillors for each district.

MR. J. C. BOLTON (Stirling)

There is no indication in the Bill of the number of which the County Council will be composed, but we may draw an inference that it will be somewhat larger in number than the possible number of delegates which the parochial boards would be able to send to the District Councils. If, for example, a county consisting of 30 parishes would be able to send two delegates from each parish to the District Council, we may assume that the total number of Councillors for the whole county would be somewhat in excess of 60. Otherwise the delegates and the Parochial Board would in every District Council swamp the County Council if so disposed. I have placed an Amendment on the Paper providing that the number of Councillors should be three instead of one, and I would appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment in favour of mine.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

This is a question of the greatest interest, and it deserves close consideration. The conclusion we have come to on the whole is that it is better to adhere to the plan of single-membered divisions. In the recent re-distribution of Parliamentary seats that plan was regarded as upon the whole most likely to yield fait results, and as a general principle we shall not depart from it. When I turn to the practical difficulties which have been suggested, I do not think they are as substantial as would appear at first sight. It is said we might have larger electoral districts. Well, Sir, the slight Amendment which has been already made has given much greater elasticity to the provision as to what should constitute the electoral division. There does not appear to be any reason for apprehension about your having too small a council. Considerable remonstrances have been made against having large County Councils, which it is considered may be too cumbrous, and I think it will be wise to have single-membered districts of such a size as will not lead to over-representation of the county. If you have more than one member in a division, I am afraid there would be frequent contests, and the expense of elections would be increased. I hope, therefore, the Committee will agree to the proposal of the Bill.

* MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)

I am glad the Government have decided to stand by the provision of the Bill in this respect. Having had considerable experience of both single and double divisions, I have come clearly to the conclusion that single divisions are less expensive and the best.

* MR. HOZIER (Lanarkshire, South)

I am sure that by providing for single-membered constituencies the Government will gratify the vast majority of the Scottish people. If you look at the other proposals you will see that the advocates of those proposals are very much divided among themselves. There are the advocates of two-membered constituencies, and they are split up because some suggest that each man should have only one vote. Then there are the advocates of three-membered constituencies, some of whom suggest that one Councillor should retire each year, but this would, of course, necessitate far too frequent elections. There are others, again, who advocate five members. I am certain that when one looks at the vast diversity of opinion among the opponents of single-membered constituencies, we may congratulate the Government on sticking firmly to their proposal.

MR. A. ELLIOTT (Roxburgh)

There is much to be said in favour of single-membered constituencies; but I hope the County Councils will not be small bodies. I am strongly in favour of having large Councils, and letting them divide themselves into Committees, so as to carry on the work. Unless the Committees are to some extent looked after by a widely-constituted County Council, the general public will take no interest in what they are doing.

* MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I think we may on this Amendment conveniently ask whether the Government can give us any information as to the probable proportion of numbers and divisions, and therefore of Councillors in different counties. I am aware this clause has no immediate connection with the question of determining the boundaries of electoral divisions; but if the Lord Advocate, at all events, could give us some idea of how he proposes to allot the Councillors to each county, and whether he considers the number ought to be settled on the ground of proportion or of area, it would, I I think, be an advantage. In the Parliamentary Redistribution Act two years ago there was a general rule laid down that each Member should represent something like 50,000 inhabitants. Of course, that principle could not be rigidly maintained, but that was the principle generally acted upon; and it would be convenient for us to know whether the Government intend to proceed upon some analogous rule here. With regard to the Amendment, I am disposed to agree with what has been said on this side of the House—namely, that the Government were right in adhering to one-membered constituencies. I should think there is much to be said for three members for each district, on the supposition that the rule of one member going out each year was to be applied, as is the case in burghs. Such an arrangement would not multiply the expense of elections, which would probably be precisely the same as under the other plan. But if no arrangement about their retirement each year were made, I am altogether opposed to any proposal to make the members for a division more than one.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

In answer to the inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman as to the numbers of the County Councillors in each county, we desire to deal in the most frank manner with the House and the country. We are now endeavouring to find out what will be the number, and we shall lay on the Table of the House a scheme showing the matured views of the Government on the subject. When that is done, the Department will be happy to consider any suggestions that are made upon the schemes.

* MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Before we part with the Bill?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

Oh, certainly. We have very nearly followed the phraseology adopted in the English Act of last year as to the schemes, be- cause if we adopted any absolute rule it would probably break down.

* MR. FRASER MACKINTOSH

The general feeling of the Committee being in favour of retaining the number one, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)

The Lord Advocate has not replied to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) with respect to the possibility of amalgamating districts in counties and allowing each division to return three Councillors, one of them to retire each year. If my right hon. Friend had moved an Amendment on that point I should certainly have supported it.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I understood the right hon. Member for Stirling stated that he was in favour, as a first choice, of a single-member system; but that if the other plan was resorted to it would be necessary to have annual elections. I did not refer to that point, because we intend to adhere to the single-member constituencies. I think that most people in Scotland are strongly opposed to having constant elections.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

I beg to propose the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name. It is a drafting Amendment, which has been taken out of some of the other Acts of Parliament.

Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 2, leave out all after line 7, and insert— (3.) The County Councillors shall be elected for a term of three years, and shall then retire together, and their places shall be filled by a new election, and each County Council elected under the Act shall remain in office until a new election shall take place, as provided by said Act."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I am bound to say I think the words of the proposal in the Bill are extremely lucid, and I should, therefore, deprecate a change.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I should like to hear why the Government have given up the old system of having a continuous Council by providing that one-third shall retire annually? That system has long been in operation in the burghs; and I should have thought that, from the Conservative point of view, it would have been thought better not to make this great change.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The circumstances of counties make frequent elections much more inconvenient there than in the burghs; but I think that any one who comes in contact with public feeling in Scotland on this subject must be aware that there is a growing disinclination to have frequent elections. I think it is better that the people should have rest and quiet than that there shall be a contest every year.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. HOZIER

I beg to move to add after "election" the words "a retiring Councillor shall be eligible for reelection."

Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 2, line 10, after "election" to add "a retiring Councillor shall be eligible for re-election."—(Mr. Hozier.)

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I do not think my hon. Friend will find these words are necessary. There is no disqualification implied either by Common Law or by the words of this statute in regard to a man who has served office.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR G. TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

I will only say, in regard to the Amendment I have to move, that in Glasgow it will be considered that by this concession the Government appreciate to a certain extent the position In which parties find themselves placed, that situation being proposed to be met by an Amendment by an hon. Colleague of mine in the representation of the city.

Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 2, after line 10, add— Provided always, that if any police burgh or electoral division shall, after the passing of this Act, be annexed to or included within the boundaries of any burgh, the Councillor or Councillors for such police burgh or electoral division shall, from and after the date when such annexation or inclusion takes effect, cease to hold office."—(Sir G. Trevelyan) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I should just like to say that in accepting the Amendment no presumption is created in regard to individual cases. The right hon. Gentleman has carefully framed his Amendment to meet a class of cases in such a way that the insertion of the words does not prejudice any individual case that may hereafter arise.

SIR A. CAMPBELL (Renfrew, W.)

I hope that it will be thoroughly understood that if the Amendment is agreed to we are not pledged as to dealing with a case we may be asked to deal with hereafter.

Question put, and agreed to.

* MR. ESSLEMONT

Before we pass from the clause it might be well to remind the Lord Advocate that the old Royal burghs are often very small.

* MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

On that subject it is necessary for the Committee to have in mind that Royal burghs will, in some cases, be represented on the County Council where the population is under 7,000; but their representation will be for limited purposes—for police purposes, for the purposes of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act in some cases, and the representatives of such Royal burghs will only vote in reference to these subjects.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6.

Amendment proposed, (The Lord Advocate) line 15, after "such," insert "determination and."

Amendment agreed to.

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

MR. J. C. BOLTON

This clause refers to various matters to which the Secretary for Scotland is to have regard in fixing the electoral districts. I should imagine that if he had regard to population that would be sufficient. Having so many instructions it will be impossible for him to carry out some of them.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The duties the Secretary for Scotland will have to perform will be to fix the number of Councillors for the County Council, and in proportioning between the burgh representation and the rest of the county. The scheme of the Bill is that as regards the fixing of the districts the duty devolves on the Sheriff, and after the first time upon the Council; it is not in the functions of the Secretary of State. As to the various considerations presented to the view of the Secretary of State ii has been thought desirable, in deter mining the number of Councillors, that regard should be had to distances, area, and population, and the situation of masses of people, so that the Secretary of State should have present to his mind everything that should properly affect the fixing of the numbers.

DR. CAMERON

It is important that we should be in possession of information roughly indicating the number of Councillors. The Secretary for Scotland is to determine the numbers, and that is equivalent to determining the electoral districts. Now, you have under the Bill most important District Councils, consisting of representatives of the parish combined with Councillors. It makes all the difference in the world to the composition of these Districts Councils whether the number of Councillors is 'large or small, for you might in some cases have the District Council swamped by the Board of Supervision, a non-representative body. We do not wish to bind the right hon. Gentleman down to any particular figure; but he might give us some general indication, so that we might reckon on the approximate strength of these Councils that are to be called into existence, say whether 20 or 50, or what number. I do not think there will be any difficulty. Surely the right hon. Gentleman has worked it out in his own mind, though, of course, the plan may require elaboration in detail? With a promise to lay down the figure more exactly at a later date, it would facilitate present discussion to have some general idea.

MR. RITCHIE

Perhaps I may be allowed to say, having had some experience of these matters, that it is absolutely impossible to lay down any principle such as the hon. Gentleman indicates. What was done before in the English Bill was, that each county was considered by itself as regards population, area, and all other circumstances. It may be that one county will require many more representatives than another. We desire to have a good working Council for each county, and we desire, at the earliest moment, to take the House into our confidence in the matter. The scheme drawn up by the Secretary for Scotland, showing how many Members it is proposed to assign to each County Council, will be laid on the Table before this Bill leaves the House, and all representations of hon. Members with regard to its variation will be most carefully considered.

DR. CAMERON

Will this scheme be scheduled in the Bill?

MR. C. T. RITCHIE

We do not propose to do that. We propose to lay a paper on the Table of the House; and we shall consider any suggestion made by any hon. Member in reference to any particular county.

* MR. D. CRAWFORD

The last question of the hon. Member for Glasgow puts in practical form a remark I was about to make. I do not think any of us have any doubt that the Government would exercise the discretion they ask for with the best intentions, and, I dare say, with successful results; but I thought when the English Bill was before the House, though, as a Scotch Member, it was not for me to make the suggestion, that it was scarcely a business-like thing for the Committee to leave to the Government the absolute discretion of saying whether the Council shall consist of five or 500 members. It is impossible for us to discuss some of the provisions of the Bill clearly unless we have some general idea of what the size of the Council is to be. Surely, instead of the paper alluded to, it would be better to have the information appended to the Bill in the form of a Schedule?

MR. LYELL (Orkney and Shetland)

In those counties that have adopted the Roads and Bridges Act, the most important duties discharged in the administration of county affairs are those entrusted to the Road Board. The Road Board consists of a considerable number of members, and I certainly hope that the Councils will be as large as these, and equal to provide a sufficient number of members for the different districts into which the counties are divided. Then, there are the Police Committees and the other Committees, now drawn from the Commissioners of Supply, and these will have to be furnished by the County Council. I think we ought to have some indication as to the general scope and extent of the composition of the proposed Councils.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

It might assist us if the President of the Local Government Board would tell us the average number of Committees on the English Councils?

MR. C. T. RITCHIE

It is quite impossible to give an idea on that ground, because the sizes of English counties vary, and you may find one representative to 1,000 inhabitants or to 10,000. It is impossible to go on the basis of population. This I may say, however—that, subject to variations, in each county we had in mind the figure of 60 as the average of the number of members on a Council.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an idea of the variation of representation in electoral districts; can we say from 1,000 to 10,000?

MR. C. T. RITCHIE

Yes; they do vary to that extent.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

And lower than 1,000 and higher than 10,000?

* MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

The question is really this. Is the Secretary for Scotland to take the initiative, and, out of his inner consciousness, evolve some principle upon which the number in each County Council is to be fixed, and then the Sheriff is to parcel out the county into divisions corresponding to that number? That is one way of doing it. Another way would be to begin by constituting suitably sized divisions, and see how many Members would thus be required. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us if his proposal is to fix for each county a good working number of Councillors, and then adjust the divisions to that number.

MR. C. T. RITCHIE

Yes, that is so. We first decided what the County Council is to be, and, of course, in deciding the number we had before us the variations in area of the counties and plans showing variations in population, and we endeavoured in adjusting the number of Councillors to serve, that each division of the county should have separate representation where such was called for by its circumstances.

MR. J. C. BOLTON

It must not be forgotten that the circumstances of the two countries, England and Scotland, are not the same, and the Bills are not similar. We must bear in mind the proportion of Members for the District and Parochial Boards. It may be that in the result the Members of the Council will largely consist of nominated and not elected Members.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

Of course these are matters that will necessarily enter into the consideration of those engaged in framing the scheme.

MR. CALDWELL

It is a most material part of the Bill. The whole power may be thrown into the hands of a few individuals having large property in a county. It all depends upon how the distribution is made, whether there will be popular representation or not. I have given notice of an Amendment on this point, because I can conceive cases in which half the Members of a Council might practically be under the control of a large proprietor. It does seem to me an extraordinary proposal that we should hand over the power absolutely to the Secretary of State to determine the number and distribution of districts—and I cannot think that will be satisfactory to the people of Scotland.

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

It is very natural that in all parts of the House there should be the desire to have as much information as possible on this point. I would suggest it might well be dealt with by a schedule in the Bill, fixing the number not absolutely, still approximately and with a certain latitude. I do not gather whether the Paper which the Government have offered to lay upon the Table of the House would in any way be obligatory upon the Secretary for Scotland. He might be disposed to take an entirely different view.

DR. CLARK

I take, it that if the Secretary for Scotland were to attempt any jerrymandering of the County Council constituencies, we should have full opportunity of revising his proposals. Of course, there are many considerations to have in view in the arrangements, and I think we may leave the matter now and deal with the information with which we are supplied or Report stage, and insert a schedule then.

* MR. D. CRAWFORD

I am sorry the Government do not see their way to a perfectly reasonable arrangement, inserting a schedule. We certainly ought to have more information before going on with the Committee. I shall oppose the clause.

DR. CAMERON

I shall second such opposition, for it appears to me the Government do not know quite what they are going to do. This is a proposal vital to the Bill, and the Government ask us to place ourselves implicitly in their hands, and to sanction some scheme that is to be laid before us by the Secretary for Scotland. What has been said by the two Members of the Government shows that they do not know what the proposals is to be. The President of the Local Government Board speaks of 60 as, the number that was in mind with the English Bill; that it was a central idea to start from, but I think it is quite clear, having reference to Clause 17 of the Supplementary Bill, that the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate, if they are going to work out a scheme for the proportion of representation of District Councils and Parochial Boards, have no such idea. The right hon. Gentleman has told us of the desire of the Government to take the House into their confidence, but it seems to me we are being asked to become parties to what is called the "confidence trick." We are asked to take the matters on trust. I do not think we are treated fairly. Our constituents should have this information and the means of making representations, through us upon any part of the scheme. I think the First Lord, who often plays the part of mediator in difficulties that arise, will recognize the fairness of our contention. We do not ask for a hard and fast definition, but we ought to have before we go on with the clauses a general idea of the line on which the Government will proceed in making the distribution.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I do not think hon. Members will find there will be any delay in putting the House in possession of the views of the Government. As soon as it can be done it shall be done. We quite recognize that from time to time there should be a recurring power of revision of the numbers, and we shall propose an Amendment to provide for this through the intervention of the County Council itself. I repeat, before the Bill is out of the hands of the House, the House shall be put in full possession of our proposals, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen that full consideration will be given to every suggestion offered.

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

I am glad there will be power of alteration of the original number; but what we desire is to have the original number settled in some way by Parliament. The Paper proposed to be laid on the Table will not have the force of a statute, and the power of alteration after a number of years would not I think be sufficient.

DR. CLARK

Perhaps, under the circumstances, the wisest course would be to postpone the clause. The Government are going to amend it.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

No, no.

DR. CLARK

As it stands it will not affect any changes in the future.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

If we are to have single member divisions it is obvious that the number of County Councillors will be the same as the number of electoral divisions. We desire to make that clear by putting in the words "County Councillors."

* MR. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I would suggest that the Committee suspend its opinion on this matter until the Paper which has been spoken of is placed before us; then, if that Paper is approved of, it can be made a schedule of the Bill. That, I think, would meet the views of all parties.

MR. RITCHIE

We will lay on the Table of the House very shortly our proposal as to the number of Members of the County Councils. My own view is that if you get a concensus of opinion in favour of a certain number, the Committee may not think it necessary to add a schedule to the Bill. It would be inconvenient to add a schedule. The number of Councillors might have to be varied, according to the circumstances of the case, subsequently; therefore, I think it would be as well not to fix upon a number. When the Paper is submitted by the Government it will be quite in the power of any hon. Member to move that it be made a schedule, though I should deprecate such a course. Of course, if there were a strong feeling in favour of it, the Government would not offer opposition.

MR. W. SINCLAIR

It seems evident that there is a strong disposition on the part of the Committee to have the number of County Councillors settled before parting to the Secretary for Scotland with the power involved in this clause. Therefore, I would support the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) that the consideration of the clause be postponed until after the paper is in the hands of the Committee.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

It is the subsequent variation that I am afraid of. In the first instance the number will probably be very fairly settled, but it is proposed to give to the Secretary for Scotland au enormous power—that of varying from time to time the distribution of the power of the councils. That is a power which might be used for political purposes. The Government might well make up their minds before they decide as to the number of Members of these Parochial Boards. The number of parishes in Scotland is 1,000 which, if we have double constituencies, would give 2,000 representatives, or 60 Members to each council. Such a number as that would be impossible in counties like Ross and Clackmannan, and you would, therefore, be obliged to have more than 60 Members on the councils in the larger counties which would obviously lead to inconvenience.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 58.—(Div. List, No. 177.)

Clause 7.

* MR. BARCLAY

The Amendment I propose is for the purpose of providing for a subsequent Amendment at the end of the clause. It is provided by the Bill that the County Councillors representing burghs, either Parliamentary or Police, should be returned by the electors at a separate election. No doubt it is provided that the election should be held at the same time as the election of Police Commissioners or Town Councillors, but the County Council election would necessitate a separate and distinct roll. In the second place, it would not be possible to hold the election at the same place, and this would involve a considerable deal of trouble to the electors. The Lord Advocate deprecated frequent elections, and I think this is altogether an unnecessary election, and apart from the trouble, expense, and annoyance, the system will work extremely badly, because one of the great objects of having representatives of boroughs in the County Council is that the County Council and local bodies may work in harmony together. But under the Bill it is quite possible that the County Councillors elected for boroughs may not be either Police Commissioners or Town Councillors. A most important question in the County Council will be that of the police, and it will be extremely awkward if the Provost or the Police Commissioner are not represented on the County Council. According to the provision of the Bill it might be a citizen of the burgh, who is neither a member of the Police Commission nor of the Town Council, who is returned. I think that would be extremely inconvenient and very much to be deprecated. It has hitherto been the custom by one means or another that the Provost or Chief Magistrate of the borough has been a representative of the borough on the Commission of Supply. It would be very desirable and this system should be continued, and I am very certain that it would detract from the dignity, influence, and importance of the County Council if the Provost or Chief Magistrate of the borough were not represented on the County Council. On the grounds that it would be inconvenient, expensive, and work badly, I hope that the Government will reconsider this proposal to have the County Councillors elected directly by the Councillors, and follow the old practice of Scotland by having the representatives of the boroughs on the County Council elected by the Police Commissioners or the Town Council of the borough. This would be the means of uniting the various Local Authorities together, and it would give reason to expect that they would work more harmoniously together in county affairs, if the arrangements for election were simplified.

Amendment proposed, Clause 7, page 2, line 19, after the word "division" insert "not being a police burgh or part thereof."

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

SIR G. CAMPBELL

I would suggest that the hon. Member should insert the words "all burghs," for the arguments he has used would apply quite as much to other burghs as to police burghs.

* MR. BARCLAY

If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, Royal burghs are dealt with in a separate clause.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

This is a most important point which my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire has raised, but perhaps it is by accident that he is first dealing with the case of police burghs. I am bound to say that I think there is a special difficulty in adopting his proposal regarding police burghs. As regards Parliamentary and Royal burghs I think the argument of the hon. Member very powerful. In the case of the Royal and Parliamentary burghs, the Bill proposes to get rid of the fresh elections, and we are all agreed that it is desirable to reduce the number of elections when the object is the same. But when you come to the Royal and Parliamentary burghs you have got the same suffrage electing the Councillors who are to elect the representatives to the County Council as would elect the representatives, supposing there were a direct election. In the police burghs you have not the same suffrage; you have got as electors merely those who pay on £4 houses, and who are on the valuation roll; so that you have not the same suffrage as in the Royal and Parliamentary burghs electing the body which returns the representative to the County Council. If you have an identical suffrage then I grant that considerations of convenience point largely to accepting the choice of the Town Council as representing the choice of the electors of the Town Council. I think there is a very strong case for the Royal and Parliamentary burghs on that ground. My impression is that the better plan would be to distinguish between police burghs and the Royal and Parliamentary burghs, and I venture to suggest that a distinction should be drawn between the Royal and Parliamentary and the police burghs, and that the police burghs should be treated as a part of the County.

* MR. BARCLAY

I think it would be a very great misfortune if the Chief Magistrate of the Police burgh were not represented on the County Council. In the meantime he is represented on the Commission of Supply, and in many cases he is by statute, a member of the Police Committee, and it would be exceedingly unfortunate if, under the new system, he wore not to have a voice in the administration of the police of his burgh. I am quite willing to admit that the franchise in the police burghs is not exactly the same as in the Parliamentary and Royal burghs, but we hope that by-and-bye it will be the same as in the county, and that there will be a uniform register for county and burgh. It is highly expedient that the Chief Magistrate of the Police burgh should be represented on the County Council, so that there may be harmony of administration between burgh and county. If you adhere to the proposal in the Bill it will be necessary to have an expensive register for the burgh, and the practical difficulties—whatever the theoretical ones may be—in the way are so serious that it would be much better to take the direct plan of having the chief magistrate of the police burgh represented on the County Council, as he is now represented on the Commissioners of Supply. I do not think that the theoretical difficulties suggested by the Lord Advocate are of a serious character.

* MR. CAMPBELL·BANNERMAN

This is not a very large point, but it is a very debateable one, and for my part, I think that the Lord Advocate would do well to stand by the provisions of the Bill. I start with rather a prejudice against what I would call secondary elections. Direct election I can understand, but when a certain body of men are elected Police Commissioners, and when those Commissioners elect someone out of their own number to represent them on another body, I think it is found that the persons so elected are not the most active and vigorous representatives, but probably some sleepy member who would go on from generation to generation occupying the post, and not really be of much use to the community. I prefer a livelier method of election. The Lord Advocate, no doubt, draws a distinction between the cases of the Royal, and those of the Parliamentary burghs, but when he says the constituency is the same as the County constituency, he forgets, for instance, the Franchise service.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say that we propose to put into the Bill a Franchise clause applicable to the burghs.

* MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I am very glad to hear that. I quite admit the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire, that it is desirable that the chief Magistrate, who is at present a Commissioner of supply, should be a County Councillor, but on the whole I think it would be safer for the Government to stand by their proposal and allow the County Council electors in these burghs to directly elect a representative.

* MR. ESSLEMONT

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Forfar-shire is right in his contention, and considering what the Lord Advocate said that the functions to be performed by these burghs in the County Councils are not very extensive, it is unnecessary to my mind, as the Police Commissioners are to be a purely elected body to go to the trouble and expense of specially and directly electing a representative for the County Council. But my chief contention in support of the proposal is this, to secure simplicity in the register, and I hope the Lord Advocate will make concessions in this direction. I cannot too strongly impress on the hon. and learned Gentleman the importance of getting rid of these complicated registers. I am sure it will save him and the country an immense amount of trouble if in the Burgh Police Bill he establishes such a simple Register as will answer for all purposes — for Parliamentary, Town Council, Commission, and even School Board and Parochial Board elections. There is nothing I deprecate more than this drawing distinction between Royal burgh and the Police burghs which have been created within the last few years. We must put an end to these distinctions, and I hope the Lord Advocate will not maintain these difficult complications. I quite admit the fair spirit in which the Lord Advocate has dealt with it, and in which my right hon. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs has approached it. But is it after all worth while in the representative burghs to put the electors to the trouble of a special election for a County Councillor? Again I would urge the Lord Advocate to simplify the registers.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I rise for the purpose of explaining a matter which has escaped observation, but I should like in the first place to say a word or two on the subject of registration. The hon. Member seemed to think—and I venture to suggest erroneously—that my proposal on this matter will add to the complexity.

* MR. ESSLEMONT

No, I agree most entirely with all my right hon. and learned Friend said as to there being no worse complication created by the phraseology of the clause. I only hoped by a little gentle pressure to get him to do something to simplify the register.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I may be allowed to say we have altogether altered the clauses dealing with registration which were exposed to the objections raised by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire. We have re-framed them and put them into the form of a new clause. By so doing we have got rid of complexity, expense, and delay. The hon Member has selected a special point about the police burghs, but these burghs are subject to the rating of the County Councils as regards general rates. They are represented on the County Councils not for limited purposes but for the whole purposes of the Act which the County Authority administers. My observation therefore applied not to them but to the Royal and Parliamentary burghs, which are exempted from the county rates. On the question of registration the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire suggested that the result of the proposal of the hon. Member for Forfarshire would be to break up the Parliamentary register as available for the County Council register wherever the police burghs intervene. But police burghs intervene in all sorts of unexpected places, and if you have to except them from the ordinary register which governs all elections for the county, that break will be made. And may I add one or two observations about the service franchise. The Government now propose to admit servants to the franchise on the standing of the Parliamentary register, and the adoption of the Parliamentary register for that purpose affords an additional reason why it should be adopted for other purposes. These considerations are advanced merely in the interests of economy. I would gladly if possible accommodate our proposals to the views of the hon. Member, but in doing so I think we should violate the sound principles of the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling burghs has pointed out, the Committee are only accepting secondary elections in cases whether there is a direct original representation.

* MR. D. CRAWFORD

Without offering any opinion adverse to the general scope of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, I should like to ask him one question. He objected to some of the observations of an hon. Member on this side of the House, because he said it would be necessary to carve out of the present Parliamentary Register practically a new Register for the purposes of police burghs. Now the Bill states that each police burgh is to be a separate electoral district for the purposes of the County Council. Let me take as a concrete instance, for the sake of illustration, the case of the burgh of Motherwell, in North-East Lanarkshire. At present the Parliamentary Register is made up by parishes without reference to police burghs, and, therefore, in the Bill it will be necessary in these cases to define a police burgh as an electoral district, and to make a separate register.

* MR. ESSLEMONT

If the contention were that police burghs formed part of the electoral districts, my argument would not prevail at all. But the Lord Advocate proposes that the police burgh should constitute in itself a prescribed area which is defined.

* MR. BARCLAY

It is proposed that the Chief Magistrate of large burghs of over 10,000 population shall not have any representative on the County Council. At present those Chief Magistrates have a seat on the Police Committee for the express purpose of keeping up a connection between the burgh and the county. But under this new arrangement the County Councillor may not be a member of the Police Committee. At present there is a Register for the police burgh, for the Commissioners of Police, and for the Parliamentary voters. My proposal will make no addition to them. The Police Register will continue, and so also will the Parliamentary Register; but I hope that, by and by, the Police Register for the election of Commissioners will disappear and the Parliamentary Register be used for all purposes. I wish to urge upon the Government that this is a practical question. I do not think that the theoretical question of direct representation is in this connection of any practical value, and I do hold that if the Chief Magistrates of these burghs are represented on the County Council it will tend to the harmonious working of the Borough and County Authorities and increase the weight and influence of the County Council.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I also object to indirect representation, but I heartily hope that the Amendment will be adopted, and that the Town Councils will be elected on the County Council in the person of the Chief Magistrate, and that there will not be a separate election. Now I should be glad if the Lord Advocate would tell us what is the real distinction in this matter between the police burghs and the smaller Royal burghs. I understand that the former are not to be absorbed in the county as regards sanitary purposes, but I do not quite understand what county rates will be imposed on police burghs which will not be imposed on the Royal burghs.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

It is a very agreeable duty to impart information to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy as the Bill progresses, but I hope that what I am about to say will serve once and for all. At present the police burghs are distinguished from the Royal and Parliamentary burghs so far as this question is concerned in this way. The county rates are levied over all the police burghs without regard or discrimination for any parts of the county. But the county rates are not levied in Royal and Parliamentary burghs.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

Which county rates?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

If I must condescend to particulars, which, however, the hon. Member could easily obtain for himself, I should say the general county rates; and there is no subtlety or finesse in that definition. Now the Royal and Parliamentary burghs will continue to be exempted from that levy. That is a very important proposition. We propose that they shall go into the Councils only for such purposes as they are assessed for. They accordingly do not go in for the general county assessment. If we regard the Royal and Parliamentary burghs as a class by themselves, apart from their size, they will stand outside the County Council altogether, but we think that for purposes of convenience it is desirable that the smaller burghs even if they are Royal or Parliamentary burghs should come under the rule, and that the administration of the police should be concentrated, and we therefore propose that they shall be subject to certain rates, and accordingly have the privilege of representation. The Royal burghs will only have a limited interest in the County Council, because some of their functions are entirely independent of the county, however small the population may be. They will, however, only be represented where the population is under 7,000, and then only for limited purposes.

MR. CALDWELL

I should hardly think it advisable that in that case the Provost should be an ex officio Member of the County Council.

MR. W. SINCLAIR

I should strongly object to the Provosts being made ex officio members.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, clause 7, page 2, line 21, at end of Clause add "but no person shall be registered for more than one electoral division of such county."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I think there is no need for this Amendment for the Bill enacts that each elector shall only have one vote. The hon. Member for the St. Rollox division will also find in our new registration clause that we introduce the old system of Parliamentary representation, and that it is impossible for the Sheriff to put the same name twice on the same register. I hope the hon. Member will regard this as a satisfactory explanation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8.

Amendment proposed, Clause 8, page 2, line 23, after "division" insert "of a county."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)

Amendment put, and agreed to.

* MR. MARK STEWART

I beg to move, to add at the end of this clause the words "and no woman shall be elected to serve as a County Councillor." I think the reasons for this Amendment are obvious, and though I believe the words of the clause may convey the intention of these words, it is not at present clearly expressed. Although women are elected to serve on School Boards, I think it will be held by the majority of our fellow citizens that it would be unseemly for them to take any active part on the County Councils.

Amendment proposed, Clause 8, page 2, line 24, after "County," add "and no woman shall be elected to serve as a County Councillor."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I agree with the hon. Member that this Amendment in some form or another should be adopted, and I am, therefore, quite prepared to accept the proposition. On the introduction of the Bill, I stated, without the smallest compromise or hesitation, that the intention was that women should not be eligible as County Councillors. I adhere to that view now, and am prepared, if this is considered the suitable occasion, to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member. I would suggest, however, that as I have a clause on the Paper dealing with disqualifications it may be more convenient to consider this question of women representation at that point.

* MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

As a matter of convenience I think it would be well to follow the suggestion of the Lord Advocate. The subject may best be dealt with in the disqualifications clause, and it would not be right to interpose the question in this place.

DR. CLARK

In the clause there is a provision that certain persons may be elected, which is qualified afterwards by the use of the word "he." I shall move to insert the words "or she." There ought to be no ambiguity on this point.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

That is merely a question of construction. I repeat I do not think it would be right to raise the point now.

* MR. JAMES STUART

I should have been glad if the word "person" had been held to include the word "she," because if it had we should have had at this moment the advantage of women Councillors in London.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

I wish to move an Amendment in order to get the solution of a point of extreme obscurity as to the meaning of the term Royal and Parliamentary burghs. I wish to add before burghs the word "municipal." As the clause at present stands there will arise great confusion on this point, as these burghs often overlap one another. What effect, for instance, will this clause have on the borough of Dysart, in the case of which the Royal burgh is limited, the Parliamentary burgh is more ex- tensive, and the Municipal burgh still more extensive.

Amendment proposed, Clause 9, page 2, line 25, before "burghs," insert "municipal."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The plea as to Dysart is irresistible; but I cannot charge my memory just now whether it is a Royal or a Parliamentary burgh.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

Both. It is a small Royal and a large Parliamentary burgh.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I am not quite certain what is the population.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

The population of the Royal and Municipal burgh is about 3,000, and of the Parliamentary burgh 10,000 or 12,000.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

Then the situation is this: The Bill proposes that the burghs shall be constituted according to the Rolls Act, and therefore the hon. Gentleman will know quite well how Dysart stands in this matter. I shall be happy on the appeal of the hon. Member to consider the case of Dysart, and to give readily any remedy which the hon. Member may suggest.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

It seems to me the reply of the Lord Advocate leaves the matter utterly obscure. Surely a Member who represents a considerable burgh is entitled to know whether or not the clause will affect it. The observations of the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to me that he has not considered this point, and that he is not prepared to say whether a Royal and Parliamentary burgh means a Royal burgh or a Parliamentary burgh.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I shall be glad to confer with the hon. Member, if he will be so kind as to allow me to do so, on the subject, and I feel quite certain I shall be able to satisfy him.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

Then I will withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that this matter will be cleared up before we reach the Definition Clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR.CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I have an Amendment to move which is not on the Paper, and it is to substitute for "census of 1881" the words "last census for the time being." A population of less than 7,000 involves the inclusion of a burgh in the county. But supposing the burgh is an increasing one, is it for all time to be deprived of its full powers because at the date of the Bill passing the last census available showed a population of less than 7,000? The object of my Amendment is to make the limit adaptable to changed circumstances. I hope the Lord Advocate will be disposed to agree to something in the shape of a rising or falling scale.

Amendment proposed, Clause 9, page 2, line 25, leave out the words "census of 1881," and insert "the last census for the time being."

MR. S.WILLIAMSON (Kilmarnock)

This is a Bill for the improvement of Local Government in Scotland, and I hope that the Lord Advocate will allow it to take a wider range than it now does. I could mention the case of a burgh in which, since 1881, large works have been established, and which now has a population of 9,000 persons, but which, if the Bill becomes law, will not reap the benefits of this clause as now framed. If the Bill is to be of practical utility, I think the Amendment ought to be accepted.

MR. CRAIG SELLAR (Lanarkshire, Partick)

I am interested in a burgh, the population of which in 1881 was under 7,000. Now the population is over 9,000, and therefore the case seems to be stronger than that quoted by my hon. Friend who last spoke. I should prefer to take the precedent of the English Act and the Roads and Bridges Act, in which the population at the time of the passing of the Act was taken as the standard.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

I do not know whether the Lord Advocate would care to have another case brought under his notice, but I might mention that of Portobello, which, since the Census of 1881, has passed the standard of population mentioned in this clause. It objects in the strongest manner to come under this limitation, and I therefore hope that the Lord Advocate will allow this Amendment to be accepted.

SIR ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL

I would urge the claim of Renfrew, one of the most ancient Royal burghs in Scotland. I believe that at the present moment that burgh is only within two or three hundred of the limit of 7,000 of population, and it is difficult to justify its exclusion from the benefits of the clause. I may add that I hold that the police of the burghs are better able to deal with small local disturbances, such as those which occur on Saturday nights, than are the county police I think we ought to have an elastic clause, and I trust that the Lord Advocate will give this matter his careful consideration.

* COLONEL MALCOLM (Argyllshire)

I also have a considerable interest in this point, for I believe that if, in the case of a town with which I am connected, the census had been taken at a different period of the year the population would have been returned, not at 4,000 or 5,000, but above the required 7,000. The inhabitants of the burgh, which is a police burgh, have during four or five months of the year to supply roads. water, and sanitary arrangements for a population of from 15,000 to 20,000. I therefore gladly support the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Stirling Burghs, and hold that anything should be taken as the standard rather than the Census of 1881.

* MR. SHAW-STEWART (Renfrew, E.)

I have the honour to represent a borough which in 1881 had a population of only 4,000, and the population of which is now over 7,000, and that is just one of those cases in which elasticity is required.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I think it would be better to deal with the question in a more general way than is done in the Amendment of the hon. Member. The Government have every desire to meet the views of those who have shown their capacity to maintain a Police Force in an efficient state. I will undertake to bring up a clause on Report carrying out what I understand to be the desire of the Committee—namely, that the population at or about the time of the passing of the Act should be ascertained and that that should be the standard.

* MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I am afraid that that does not meet my view. I am not interested in any individual places, the burghs which I represent being either hopelessly small or securely large. What I want to provide for is the future—I wish to secure that places the population of which, owing to a development of industry, may suddenly rise from 3,000 or 4,000 to 10,000 or 20,000 shall come under the operation of this clause, and shall have the control of its own police. Surely it is only equitable and reasonable that there should be some sort of provision made to meet these cases, so that because a community did not happen to have the necessary 7,000 of population, it shall not be hopelessly excluded from the exercise of these ordinary privileges.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

It is one thing to preserve existing and effective organizations, and another to increase the number of those bodies. My impression is that before such new populous places as are contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman arise, there will be in the County Councils powerful and efficient popular bodies which will defy competition from smaller bodies.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. S. WILLIAMSON

I have the following Amendment on the Paper, Clause 9, page 2, line 27, after "thousand," insert— Except such burghs as may have maintained an efficient police force under any local or special Act of Parliament for a period of not less than ten years prior to the passing of this Act, and such burghs as have been formed since the census of one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, the population of which shall be declared by the Sheriff of the county to be not less than seven thousand on the passing of this Act. As I understand the Lord Advocate intends to deal with this matter in a generous spirit, I will not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, Clause 9, page 2, line 32, leave out from "the," to end of sub-section, and insert— Town Council of such burgh, at a meeting of the Town Council to be held in t he month of November, in the year appointed by this Act, for the election of County Councillors."—(Mr. Barclay.) Agreed to.

Amendment proposed, Clause 9, page 2, line 34, leave out Sub-section (2).

Amendment put, and agreed to.

Further Amendment proposed, Clause 9, page 2, line 38, after "years," insert— Provided that his term of office as a County Councillor shall terminato when he ceases to be a Town Councillor, and the Town Council shall fill up any vacancy arising under this subsection at their first meeting after such vacancy occurs, but such appointment shall only be till the end of the next County Council Election. Agreed to.

* MR. D. CRAWFORD

The next Amendment which stands in my name raises a matter of some importance. I wish to add at the end of the clause the words— Police burghs having a population of 7,000 and upwards, shall for all the purposes of this Act, and of the Acts of 1889, be deemed to be Royal burghs. This Amendment does not affect a very large number of burghs, but still it affects a number sufficiently large to deserve the attention of the Committee. The Lord Advocate in the Bill has already drawn a distinction between towns having a population of under 7,000, and those with a population of over 7,000. It is proposed to make the police burghs of whatever size part and parcel of the county for all the purposes under this Act, and I desire to place them in the same position as Royal and Parliamentary burghs. Are we to be told that an important town of 60,000 inhabitants is to be made part of the county and is to receive its organization from the county because it is a police burgh, while a Royal or Parliamentary burgh of the size of a village is to receive separate representation on the County Council? The distinction between police and Royal burghs is that the former are liable to the County General Assessment levied by the Commissioners of Supply, and the latter are not, and I consider that the distinction is most pedantic. There are large towns and small towns, and common sense demands that they should be treated differently. I will take two classes of towns. In one will be found the police burghs in the suburbs of Glasgow, Kinning Park, Pollokshaws, Govan, Govanhill, Maryhill, and Partick, while in the other class are Alloa, Kirkintolloch, John-stone, Motherwell, and Wishaw. Take for instance the towns in the latter class. In the case of the police burgh of Motherwell the town has a population of 20,000, and is separated only by the Clyde from the Royal burgh of Hamilton. Is it reasonable that the two towns though nearly alike in population and importance, should be treated for all future time in an entirely different manner? The microscopic difference between the two is that the police burgh is subject to the County General Assessment, while the Royal burgh is not. Again, in the case of Govan with its population of about 60,000, are we to be told that that large community is to be made part and parcel of the county, is to receive its organisation from the county and is to be represented as part of a county, whereas a more village, because it happens to be a Royal burgh is to be regarded as a separate and independent community? Surely there is no reason for maintaining such an absurdity, and there can be no defence for perpetrating such an anomaly as this. I have great respect for these ancient institutions, and should be the last parson to destroy the privileges of Royal burghs, but I can see no reason why towns which have raised themselves into as high or a higher position than the Royal burghs should not be placed on at least an equal footing with them. I cannot but think that the Lord Advocate will admit the justice of my Amendment, which I now beg to move.

* THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order The Amendment can only apply to this Act, and not to all Acts whatsoever.

* MR. CRAWFORD

Then I will make the necessary omission.

Amendment proposed, Clause 9, page 7, at end of clause, add— Police burghs having a population of seven thousand or upwards shall for all the purposes of this Act be deemed to be Royal burghs."—(Mr. Crawford.)

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment. The policy of the Government has been to take the burghs as they found them, with their respective privileges. Besides, in substance the Royal and Parliamentary burghs are outside the county, whereas the police burghs are inside the county, especially in the most vital matter of rating. We are engaged in setting up a system of county government, and it is not wise to make all manner of obstructions and subtractions from the county or to raise up fresh barriers and fresh interests in the way of the changes which may hereafter become necessary. The Amendment involves the rather startling proposition that burghs are to be deemed to be Royal burghs when in point of fact they are not. They are subjected to the County Authorities by the chief of all tests—they are rated by the county. The proposal is to pay to the police burghs a compliment which is altogether unfounded in fact. I am most reluctant to do anything to alter the status of burghs in this Bill. I desire to steer a perfectly even keel in the matter, and on these grounds I strenuously object to the Amendment.

* MR. D. CRAWFORD

I think the right hon. Gentleman has presented a most misleading case. The police burghs are not within the counties, except fur the one purpose of county general assessment. With regard to roads, bridges, police, and the whole machinery of Municipal Government, they are distinct. The distinctions on which the Lord Advocate's objections are founded are microscopical, and nobody cares a fig about the county assessment.

* MR. ESSLEMONT

I really think that this is a matter on which the Lord Advocate may well give way. The distinctions drawn by the Lord Advocate are insignificant, and I hold that this is a case in which a compromise might be effected. I see no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

I think my right hon. Friend might accept the Amendment. The Parliamentary burghs have a different history from the Royal burghs, but by the Act of 1832 they had somewhat similar privileges conferred upon them; and the police burghs at a later date had certain privileges conferred upon them. There is no reason why these privileges should not be extended so as to equalize the police burghs with the Royal and Parliamentary burghs in the matters in question. I hope the Government will reconsider the question.

SIR A. CAMPBELL

There is one thing which has been forgotten by hon. Members opposite who have supported this Amendment, and that is that the police burghs in the counties will have a voice in the expenditure of the rates. The County Councils will have nothing to do within the burghs. This is a question of considerable magnitude, especially in counties like Renfrew, in which there are are other burghs that are police burghs. If you were to take out all the populous places from the county, you would leave nothing but a skeleton. It would be very hard that the counties should be bereft of the contributions from the large populous burghs whose populations to some extent are a cause of expense for police and other purposes to the county. I should be very sorry indeed to find the County Councils bereft of the assistance of those local bodies who have shown themselves so well able to govern their own towns. I trust that the Amendment will not be accepted and that the large police burghs will be allowed to remain in the county to assist the county in government.

DR. CAMERON

My hon. Friend has urged as a reason why police burghs should be treated differently from Royal burghs in respect to County Government that those burghs are parts of the county. In framing the last Parliamentary Reform Bill the fact which was considered was not whether the burgh was Royal or police, but the number of the population. In disfranchising burghs never, in one instance, was a burgh spared because of its antecedents being royal or otherwise. There is a practical matter of great importance raised by this Amendment. You, Sir, have ruled that certain words that it was proposed to add to the Amendment would not be in order. I understand your ruling; but it is proposed under this Bill to transfer powers exercised by Justices of the Peace and other Authorities, to the County Councils, and among other important powers which will have to be discussed at considerable length, are the licensing functions of the county. Now, if these are transferred from the Justices of the Peace to the County Councils the question of licensing in the police burghs will be raised. At present the police burghs have no licensing power whatever. Govan, with its population of about 60,000, has no voice in the issue of new licenses, and that is a matter which occasions constant friction between the County Authorities and the inhabitants of the burgh. I remember in the neighbourhood of my own constituency — in Pollockshields — a protracted fight occurring on the licensing question. The County Authorities came in and granted licenses where they were not wanted, the Local Authorities having no power to interfere; and the same thing occurred at Hillhead. If this Amendment is carried the Police Commissioners or Magistrates in Parliamentary burghs will have precisely the same powers in regard to licensing as the Magistrates have in Royal burghs, where the licensing powers have been truly exercised for the benefit of the people. Every Scotch Member will admit that it would be well to give the Magistrates in police burghs the same powers as are possessed by the Magistrates in the Royal burghs.

MR. S. WILLIAMSON

The Lord Advocate objects to the subtraction of these very few police burghs. He should recollect that by so doing he weakens the power of Local Government; and his Bill is not entitled a Bill for the improvement of Local Government, but for the improvement of County Government. He should remember that we are now suffering from congestion, and that the people cannot get the Road Trustees of the county to deal with the various proposals that come before them. I think it would be far better to stick to the idea embodied in the title of the Bill, and accept the Amendment.

MR. CALDWELL

I oppose the Amendment for precisely the same reason that the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow supports it. He says the licensing will be transferred from the counties to the burghs, which will be created under the Amendment. But I say the Government have not the intention of transferring the licensing in the manner suggested. Certain burghs pointed out by the Lord Advocate are enfranchised only to the extent of £4, whereas other burghs have a much lower franchise. If the police burghs were turned into Royal burghs they would have all the advantages of Royal burghs without the disadvantages.

MR. J. WILSON (Lanark, Govan)

The Magistrates of Govan are regulated by the Police Burghs Act, and have no power of licensing. They are responsible for the law and order of a large working class population, without the power of restraining the issue of licences. They have to take up persons who trangress the licensing laws and punish them, without possessing power to deal with the issue of the licences. I hold it to be necessary, in large and populous police burghs, that such authorities as the Magistrates and Police Commissioners of those burghs should have in their bands the granting or withholding of licences. This licensing question will have to be dealt with in a drastic manner at a very early date. As to the surrounding burghs of Glasgow, I am glad the Lord Advocate has determined to keep a free hand, and not complicate the case unneces- sarily. On behalf of Govan, most determined opposition would be given to any proposal for annexation to Glasgow.

MR. ASHER

I beg to move to omit the word "Royal" from the Amendment.

Question, "That the word Royal' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Question put, "That the words Police burghs having a population of seven thousand or upwards shall for all the purposes of this Act be deemed to be burghs' be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 148.—(Div. List, No. 178.)

Clauses, as amended, agreed to

Clause 10.

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

I beg to move the omission of the words which render it necessary that the convener shall be elected from among the Councillors and persons qualified to be such. I desire that the convener should be elected from the widest possible area. In England you can have a chairman elected to a Corporation from outside its own body; and I venture to think that the discretion enjoyed by an English Corporation might very well be entrusted to a Scotch County Council.

Amendment moved, Clause 10, page 2, line 42, leave out all after "council."—(Mr. Firth.)

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

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. I consider that even the qualified power which the Bill confers to go outside the Council for a Convener should be removed, and that it should in all cases be necessary to have recourse to those persons who hold a place on the Council to direct election by the people.

Question put, and agreed to.

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

The Amendment I now propose to move is, in line 14, to leave out the words "or persons qualified to be such." The effect of the Amendment, if accepted, will be to limit the selection of the convener of the Council to the members of the Council. Any power to go outside for a convener—or chairman—ought not to be allowed. If the theory is that the Council is an elected body, the proper course would be to require that all persons who sit on it, including the chairman, should owe their position there to the vote of the electors. This Bill seems to have been framed upon a principle which, I think, would be entirely sound if it were fully carried out — namely, to extend municipal institutions to the counties. Now, we have had great and happy experience of municipal institutions in Scotland, and the custom there is to elect the Provost or the Chief Magistrate from among the elected Councillors. I know of no reason why, if analogous institutions are to be accorded to the counties, the selection should not in like manner be made from those who have undergone the ordeal of popular election. It appears to me that the proposal of the Government involves a certain slight on the elected Councillors, and those by whom they have been elected, because it seems to imply that the County Council may possibly not contain within its own body a person fit to occupy the position of chairman. Now, I do not see why we should be asked to go outside that body if we have the means of getting a good chairman inside. We have had experience in Scotland of other elected bodies, besides Town Councils, such as the School Boards, and we know that, without exception, they elect their own chairmen from among their own number, and do not go outside. If my right hon. and learned Friend were right in supposing that there was likely to be any such paucity or poverty of talent among the elected members as would prevent their being able to find among themselves a person fitted to take the chair, I understand the proposal to make the choice as wide as possible, and doubtless it has been with this view that my hon. Friend proposes to go outside the Council altogether; but the Government propose to limit the choice to Councillors, or to persons qualified to be Councillors. If, however, a person is qualified to be a Councillor, the question arises, why is he not a Councillor? Is it intended that the chairmanship of these bodies is to be a refuge for rejected candidates? Because the person who may be selected outside the elected body must either have been rejected, which I should regard as a disqualification, or else he has not had sufficient public spirit to come forward and take his chance of election. So that in neither of these cases does there seem to be any strong recommendation. Every inducement should be held out for the best men to come forward as candidates at the elections, but this proposal would tend to prevent them from doing so, as it might lead them to hope that they might be elected to the office of Convener by the Council, although they had not been elected to the Council by the people. I will not take up further time, but I have thrown out these suggestions in the hope that the Government may see their way to accept of my Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 42, to leave out the words "or persons qualified to be such."—(Mr. J. B. Balfour.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) has discussed this question in a very lair and business-like spirit, as he always discusses every question that engages his attention, and I propose to follow very briefly the arguments he has put forward. This question, as he has stated, has already been discussed on its merits and with great fulness on the Second Reading of the Bill, when there was a very good exposition of the various views taken of the subject by the different sections of this House. But on the present occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan has a preliminary difficulty to settle with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth); because the hon. Member for Dundee is so impressed with the desirability of our leaving a free hand to the County Council in the election of a fit and proper person as Chairman of that body, that he is opposed to any restriction of their choice in that respect. Now, I do not suppose that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan can point to a more fitting representative of liberal views on the subject of County Government than the hon. Member for Dundee, and yet the hon. Member for Dundee is in complete sympathy with the Government on this question. I would urge upon the Committee that it is most desirable and im- portant that we should leave an absolutely free hand to the County Councils in this matter, so that they may be able to enlarge the area of their choice should occasion require it. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan has rather under-stated the case. We, on behalf of the Government, are merely anxious, not that there should be any doubt as to the County Councils comprising within their own ranks suitable persons for the Chairmanship, but that, over and above the superabundant qualifications of the elected members, they should have some way of raising, if necessary, the standard. That, I think, is also the view of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee. It is most important that the County Councils, charged, as they will be, with so much responsibility, should not be restricted in their choice to those who might influence the selection by the fact of their being elected, but should be enabled to extend their vision so as to include all those who have statutory rights in the business concerned. Under these circumstances, and for these reasons, I cannot doubt that the Committee will refuse its assent to this Amendment.

* MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

, The right hon. Gentleman is free to find such comfort as he may in the support of the hon. member for Dundee. But we on this side of the House have a yet stronger ground of comfort in the knowledge that our view is shared by the great mass of the Scottish people. I do not think the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will find among his countrymen many expressions of opinion of any weight or influence in favour of the view taken by himself and his Colleagues in the Government. The truth is that we stand upon the old-fashioned idea that anyone who is to be entrusted with the powers of Chairman of a great representative body ought first of all to be able to secure the confidence of the electors of the district in which he has to act. Having said that, there is no more to be said. The Lord Advocate, however, has urged that we should have the power of going outside to make our choice. My answer to that is that there will be a sufficiently wide field of choice inside the elected bodies; and I am very much afraid that if they have the power of going outside in search of some superior person, they will generally look for some superior person who has not the confidence of the general body of the people.

MR. MARJORIBANKS (Berwick-shire)

I only desire to say two or three words in support of this Amendment. Everybody with any knowledge of the management of Scotch county business is aware of the great authority possessed by the convener of the county. I do not believe the new system will make the least difference with regard to the power wielded by the person who holds that position in the County Council. I think it would immensely weaken the authority of that individual, if it be possible, as is proposed by this Bill, that he should be a person who has not undergone the ordeal of popular election. I hold it to be absolutely necessary that the conveners of the County Councils should undergo that ordeal. If we go to the question of analogy or precedent I do not think I can select a better analogy or precedent than is furnished by this House. I put it to hon. Members on both sides of the House—would any one think of selecting a Speaker, not from among the Members of this Assembly, but from the ranks of those outside, in the hope of finding some one more capable of filling the Chair than one of the Members of this House? It is for the reasons I have thus briefly given that I shall vote for the Amendment.

MR. FINLAY

My right hon. and learned Friend who has moved this Amendment seems to have forgotten that the convener is to be elected by the Council; and I would ask why is the free choice of the Council to be restricted to those who happen to be members of the elected body? He might be a man eminently qualified for the office of convener, and yet one who has not submitted himself to the ordeal of election. Why should not the County Council be at liberty to appoint some one from the outside? I think that in this matter the Government have chosen a happy medium and have steered on an even keel between the Scylla of the hon. Member for Dundee, and the Charybdis of the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Clackmannan.

MR. SHIRESS WILL (Montrose)

As every member of the County Council is to be elected, it seems to me that that is a strong reason why the convener should be elected. I expected to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate some substantial reason for the proposition made by the Government which he knows to be a violation of the sentiment prevalent in Scotland. The reasons given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman are two. First, he agrees with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, and then he falls back on the argument that it is necessary to enable the County Council to raise the standard of fitness. I think that a more gratuitous insult could hardly be offered to any public and representative body than to assume that they will not have within their own limits a fit person to preside over their proceedings, or that they may elect some one from their own number who is not fit to fill that office. I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.

* MR. ESSLEMONT

I remember that when speaking on the introduction of this Bill the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate said there were certain outside persons connected with municipal government in England of whom we know nothing in Scotland, and that the convener came within this designation; but it seems to me it would be ridiculous that the Chief Magistrates of our burghs should be selected from persons outside the burghs. If you want to raise the standard in the case of the County Councils, it seems to me that the way to do that is by making the highest places in the Council, such as would be aimed at as worthy of the ambition of those who are candidates for the County Councils generally. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Finlay) talked about common sense. Is it common sense to have representative government; is it common sense to give the people votes; and is it common sense to have a convener who is too fine to submit himself to the suffrages of the vulgar multitude? There is too much common sense in Scotland to accept such an anomaly.

* MR. M. STEWART

I, for one, would give the County Council credit for common sense, and leave it to their option whether they elected a Convener for their own body or not. It is not made a compulsory matter. The County Council are left to act as they like. If they have a good man in the County Council by all means let them elect him, but if not let them select some one who will undertake the duty.

DR. CAMERON

I have not heard a single argument in favour of the proposition. The Lord Advocate indulged in a little badinage respecting the conflict of opinion between the hon. Member for Dundee and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. B. Balfour); and the learned Member for Inverness appeared to think he had a monopoly of common sense. These are not arguments in favour of the proposition. We want to follow analogy in this matter, for upon the decision of this question will depend whether we are to have a really popular County Council representative of the electors, or a very much weakened body. There is only one way by which the opinions of the people of Scotland can be expressed, and that is by the votes of their Representatives in this House. I think it would be a pity that we should vote on the main question, which would settle the matter, and I therefore move to report Progress in order that the Government may see the strength of the Scotch Members' vote, and perhaps be led by it to re-consider the matter.

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

MR. RITCHIE

I appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to press his Motion to a Division. This matter has already been will discussed, and I would suggest that it would be better for the purposes of the hon. Gentleman if we took the opinion of the Committee on this question before we adjourn to-night.

* MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

The Scotch Members are not likely to forget that they represent the vast majority of the Scotch electors, whose opinion, rightly or wrongly, is against this proposal; and we hope, therefore, that the Government on this, as on other points, will make some concession. But my hon. Friend suggests something in the nature of a sham fight—that we shall march into the Lobby on a Motion to report Progress, in order to show what is our opinion on this amendment. I do not think that is a satisfactory way of showing our force, and I would rather divide on the Amendment. Perhaps the Government will let what has taken place weigh with them on another stage of the Bill.

DR. CAMERON

I would be willing to withdraw my Amendment if I could believe the Government will be affected as my right hon. Friend imagines. We cannot make much more progress to-night, and I do not see how the time at our disposal could be better occupied than by a Division which will enable the Government to know exactly how the Scotch Members vote.

MR. RITCHIE

Surely the hon. Member sees that the Government would better ascertain how Scotch Members voted if they divided on the actual point itself.

SIR G. TREVELYAN

I am very sorry to be in opposition to my hon. Friend. A great many hon. Members are anxious to get this Bill along smoothly, and I must say that I should be sorry to vote for Progress where we could divide on a question which has already been sufficiently discussed. If my hon. Friend insists on reporting Progress, I am afraid he will find that he will not have in the Division a real representation of Scotch opinion.

MR. J. BOLTON

There is a strong feeling on this subject in Scotland, and I hope the hon. Member will press his Motion to a Division.

* MR. ESSLEMONT

I think the Lord Advocate might give some intimation that, seeing the bulk of the Scotch Members are clearly in favour of the Amendments, he will reconsider the matter on Report.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 159.—(Div. List, No. 179.)

It being after midnight, the Chairman left the chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress on the Bills; to sit again to-morrow, at Two of the clock.