LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS BILL.

HC Deb 16 July 1889 vol 338 cc534-93

Clause 35.

Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 28, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert— The Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer shall at the request of any county council audit the accounts of such council free of charge. Where such request has not been made."—(Mr. Donald Crawford.)

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

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,) Bute

The Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer is certainly not a suitable officer for the performance of the duty of auditing the County Council accounts. Such a duty would not fall within the ordinary scope of his appointment, and I cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

SIR A. CAMPBELL (Renfrew, N.) moved inline 28, after "the," to insert "County Council, subject to the approval of the."

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I feel bound to deprecate a proposal which would give the County Council the initiative in suspending the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 36.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON moved in line 39, to leave out "as in this section mentioned."

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON moved in line 42, after "auditor," to insert "and a copy thereof to the officer concerned six clear days."

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON moved in line 42, after "audit," to insert— And any ratepayer may be present at the audit and may support any objection made as hereinbefore provided either by himself or by any other ratepayer.

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

*MR. HOZIER (Lanarkshire, S.) moved in page 22, line 16, after "account," insert— Provided that no person shall he liable to be surcharged under the provisions of this section so far as his actings have been authorized by the County Council.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

opposed the Amendment.

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON moved in line 27, to leave out "Council," and insert "auditor."

Question, "That 'Council' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON moved in line 28, after "same," to insert, And the county council shall reimburse him for his expenses, including a reasonable allowance for his time in so far as not recovered from the person surcharged.

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON moved in page 23, line 2, after "Scotland," insert, Provided that if the Secretary for Scotland shall so determine, such abstract may come in place of and render unnecessary a return of the receipts and expenditure of the county council in pursuance of 'The Local Taxation Returns (Scotland) Act, 1881.'

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

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37 agreed to.

Clause 38.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON moved—In page 23, line 31, after "seal,' add— All deeds granted by a county council shall, in addition to being sealed, be signed by two members of the council and by the county clerk.

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

*MR. HOZIER moved after the words last inserted to add— And under that name may sue or be sued, purchase, take, hold, and dispose of lands and other property for the purposes of and subject to the provisions of the Acts of 1889.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

opposed.

Question, "That those words be there added," put and negatived.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 39.

Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 36, after "loan," insert— Provided that nothing in this Act shall derogate from the provisions of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts in regard to the appointment on Committees under the said Acts of persons not being members of the local authority thereunder."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. DONALD CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)

I beg to move an Amendment to enable the County Council to fix its place of meeting. If some such words are not inserted a Council might find itself restricted to the county town, which might not be convenient.

Amendment proposed, Clause 39, page 23, line 37, after (2), insert— The county council shall have power to fix from time to time the place of meeting of the council and of the district committees."—(Mr. Donald Crawford.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I have no objection to the substance of this Amendment, as I know the object the hon. Member has in view. That object, however, is provided for in a sub-section which will come on later which gives the County Council power to make regulations as to time and place of meeting.

MR. MARJORIBANKS (Berwickshire)

I certainly think that some clear statement as to this power of fixing the place of meeting should be made. The sub-section the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to does not quite cover it. The county town is fixed by statute as hon. Gentlemen are aware, and it is very desirable that the Councils should be enabled to vary the place of meeting.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

Surely the words "power to make regulations as to the place of meeting" cover the case in point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments made.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 40.

Amendment proposed, Clause 40, page 25, line 13, leave out "a second or," and after "vote," insert "as well as a deliberative vote."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40 agreed to.

Clause 41.

Amendment moved, Clause 41, page 25, line 17, leave out from "all," to "expenses," in line 29, and insert— Subject to such rules and regulations as the county council may, from time to time, appoint."—(Mr. Hozier.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

We cannot accept this Amendment. All payments beyond the normal expenditure of the Council will require deliberation on the part of the Members. There should be no authority given for payments above £50 or for anything beyond payments which fall as a matter of course, and which are necessary to keep the thing going.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 42.

Amendment proposed, Clause 42, page 26, line 42, at end, add— (10.) For the purpose of this section Town Council shall include police Commissioners of a burgh or police burgh."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)

Agreed to.

DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)

It is proposed under this clause that where there is an equality of votes for the chairmanship of a Joint Committee the chairman shall be chosen "by lot." I do not know if there is any precedent for that method of solving the difficulty. I do not say it is not an excellent method, but I would suggest that words should be inserted to show how the lot is to be taken—whether by the toss up of a coin of the realm or how. I am not aware of any statutory regulations applicable to this system of deciding questions, and if we do not have the matter properly defined we may be landed in difficulty.

MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

There is a religious body in Scotland called the Reformed Presby- terians who object to the drawing of lots, except in very rare cases.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I have been in communication with the Reformed Presbyterians, and I do not think their scruples are invulnerable. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), I should have thought it would be better to leave the method of chosing by lot to the County Councils themselves. If they are not able to decide such a matter I am afraid that the capacity of these elected bodies wil, be less than we have been led to expect.

DR. CAMERON

Is it to be three tosses of a penny, or what? Unless you lay down some principle it will be utterly impossible to proceed. The proposal is altogether novel. I never heard of such a thing as the Chairmanship of a Joint Committee formed by statute having to be decided by lot. There does not seem to me to be any necessity for it. You might decide that the person who has received the largest number of votes, or who has been longest elected, should act as chairman. Anything would be better, it seems to me, than this rough and ready method you are proposing to meet a difficulty which will not often arise. I propose to leave out the words "by lot," in order to insert "as hereinafter provided." This will give the Lord Advocate an opportunity of dealing with the matter later on.

Amendment moved, in page 26, line 28, leave out the words "by lot" in order to insert the words "as hereinafter provided."—(Dr. Cameron.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'by lot' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 116.—(Div. List, No. 210.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 43.

Amendment proposed, Clause 43, page 27, line 11, after "divisions," insert— Provided always that such division into districts for the purposes of the management and maintenance of highways shall not be made if it shall appear to the County Council unnecessary or inexpedient.—(Mr J. B. Balfour.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would accept some modification of the Amendment there would be no objection to it. He does not desire that it shall be left to the discretion of the County Council in all cases to make a division, but merely when owing to the size of the county it is unnecessary and inexpedient. Perhaps he would not object to add the words, "owing to the size of the county."

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

I should be quite ready to make that addition to the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has exactly gauged the sort of case I desire to deal with.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to add at the end thereof, "owing to the size of the county."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)

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

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 44.

DR. CAMERON

I had put down a similar Amendment to that of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Sir A. Orr-Ewing), but it did not seem to me that that would be the best place to raise the question. To put in two members from every parish would only be to swamp the representatives of the Council. As the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Sir A. Orr-Ewing) has not moved the Amendment he has placed upon the Paper to reduce the number of Parochial Board representatives from two to one, I beg to move the omission altogether of the provision in reference to the representation of the Parochial Boards.

Amendment proposed, in page 27, line 19, to leave out the words after the word "district," to the end of Subsection 1.—(Dr. Cameron.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'together with' stand part of the Clause."

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

For my part, until we have some satisfactory scheme from the Government before us, in reference to the constitution of Parochial Boards, I cannot consent to allow them to draw a blank cheque.

MR. J. C. BOLTON (Stirling)

, supported the Amendment.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

Perhaps it is desirable that I should state at once what the intentions of the Government are. I hold in my hand a Paper containing our provisional proposals as to the number of County Councillors for each Council in Scotland, a copy of which I shall be happy to furnish to hon. Members. The proposal is that the total number for the county of Lanark shall be 90, Fife 60, Argyll 57, Renfrew 55, Boss and Cromartie 55, Inverness 55, Aberdeen 54, Ayr 54, Perth 50, Stirling 45, Dumbarton 40, Roxburgh 36, Banff 36, Dumfries 34, Berwick 34, Edinburgh 31, Forfar 30, Caithness 30, Kirkcudbright 27, Haddington 25, Elgin 25, Wigtown 28, Linlithgow 23, Letland 22, Kincardine 21, Orkney 21, Peebles 20, Bute 20 Clackmannan 20, Sutherland 20, Selkirk 20, Nairn 20, and Kinross 20. The administration of these district committees will be strictly limited to roads and public health. As regards the roads, hon. Members know that local knowledge is very important, and that on the whole the administration has hitherto been satisfactory. The roads have been managed by district committees elected by the various parishes. We propose to abandon that method, but at the same time it is obvious, having regard to the question of economical administration, that the parishes should continue to be properly represented. If the Committee are of opinion that two parochial representatives are too many let us have one. For my own part I think there ought to be-upon the District Committee a sufficient number of persons locally acquainted with the requirements of the county. The advantage of the scheme we propose is that we combine the force and power of a large central body—namely, the County Council—with the local knowledge which we shall get from the parochial representatives. I hope the hon. Member for the College Division (Dr. Cameron) will dismiss from his mind any idea that the County Councillors are to be swamped, seeing that everything the District Committee can do is to be subject to the review of the Council. The District Committee will simply include persons brought in from outside as the ministers and deputies as it were of the County Council. Therefore in anything that may be said as to the composition of these Committees, I trust these two things will be remembered, first, that the administration is local and limited, and next that everything is to be subject to the supervision and control of the County Council. We have introduced a Bill for the purpose of reconstituting the Parochial Boards, but considering the period of the Session which has now been reached, that Bill must be regarded as effete. I know that there has been a strong objection on the other side of the House to the proposal to give equal power on the Board to owners and occupiers. Until there is a reconstitution of the Parochial Boards, it will be necessary to trust them as now constituted, but it is to be hoped that the County Councils will come to the consideration of all these matters with an open mind. What is known of the Parochial Boards as they exist at present will, I trust, justify us in presuming that they will send to the District Committees representatives who will look after the roads and the public health in a satisfactory manner, subject as they will be to the full swing and influence of the County Councils.

DR. CAMERON

The right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that these District Committees are intended to look after the roads and the public health. If it had been proposed to appoint the representatives of a Road Committee or of a Health Committee the argument of the right hon. Gentleman might be a valued one, but having regard to the large proposals contained in this Bill, I maintain that it is valid in neither respect. If we are to have the Parochial Boards represented on the District Committees I protest against that object being carried out in the way this Bill proposes. So far as the present composition of the Parochial Boards in Scotland is concerned, every proprietor is an ex officio member of the Board. If we must have a representation of the Parochial Boards, I protest against the representation being a random one, and would prefer that the representative should be the Chairman of each Board who, at any rate, occupies an official position, and would have some title to recognition. If the Parochial Boards are simply to send two delegates, it is possible to have persons appointed upon real representative character whatever; they may be heritors or they may be women. As to the question of swamping the County Councillors, let me take the case of Elgin. There you are to have 25 County Councillors; and as there are more than 12 parishes in that county, there will be a larger number of parochial representatives than of County Councillors. It is no answer to say that they will be subject to the control of the County Council. Such an arrangement can only bring about a dead lock. You will have the District Committee determining one way and the County Council, with a vetoing power, determining the other. I cannot conceive how it is possible to have a worse arrangement; and these District Committees are to be entrusted with a most important part of the work of the County Councils—namely, the superintendence of the public health and the management of the roads. Any arrangements they make must necessarily work with great friction, as they are liable to be constantly thwarted and defeated by the action of the Central Authority.

* MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeenshire, E.)

I look upon the constitution of the District Committees as a matter of great importance; and I hope the Lord Advocate will re-consider his proposal and not introduce this new element. The clause as it stands will invest Kirk Sessions with the control of the District Committees. Take the constitution of the Councils themselves. It would be manifestly absurd to return two representatives of the Parochial Boards for every Town Councillor elected by the wards. The County Councillors acting upon the District Committee might be swamped at any moment; and they would take very little interest in the questions brought before them. Take the case of the County of Aberdeen. My hon. Friend the Member for the College Division is right in saying that the District Committees are the persons who will have the real work to do. It is not at the monthly meetings of the big Council that the work will be done, but at the meetings of the District Committee; and you are virtually placing the control of each district under the Kirk Sessions. In the County of Aberdeen, with 54 Town Councils, you will have 164 representatives of the Parochial Boards, as there are 82 parishes. I am sure that the Lord Advocate, when he re- considers the matter, will not insist on his present proposal. For my own part I do not see the necessity of having any representatives from the Parochial Boards at all, until we are able to deal with the question of education as well. At all events, I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the proposal to send two representatives of the Parochial Boards to the District Committees. At the same time, I do concur with my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division, that, if there is to be only one, the best man to take is the Chairman of the Board.

SIR A. ORR EWING (Dumbartonshire),

who was almost entirely inaudible, was understood to support the clause. From the knowledge he had acquired of the way in which the Parochial Boards managed the affairs of the county, he had perfect confidence that they would send representatives to the District Committees who would manage 4he affairs of the county with advantage.

MR. A. ELLIOT (Roxburgh)

I cannot say that I am at all gratified by the announcement the Lord Advocate has made as to the number of county councillors for each county. On the contrary, I am extremely disappointed by it. The numbers appear to be extremely small, and one result would be that the District Committees would not be the representative bodies they ought to be. I trust that the Lord Advocate will inform us that the matter will be open to reconsideration with the view of providing a much larger representation.

* MR. F. STEVENSON (Suffolk, Eye)

This question is of some interest to English Members, because similar proposals may be made for England when District Councils are formed. In the original English Bill neither County Council members nor parishes had anything to do with the District Councils; whereas in the Scotch Bill the District Committees are composed of both elements, but it is important that the wants and wishes of the people in the smaller areas should be adequately represented, and on the showing of the supporters of the clause that would not be the case. I therefore join in the appeal which has been made by the Scotch Members on this side of the House that this part of the Bill should be postponed for the present, until the organisation and representation of the parishes themselves shall have been settled. Although this is in some respects a distinct improvement on the District Council legislation proposed last year to be applied to England, I think it ought not to be carried out until other necessary reforms have been effected.

MR. D. CRAWFORD

The number of members for each County Council announced by the Lord Advocate would create in the District Committees anomalies that would be untenable and intolerable in the widely varying proportions of County Councillors to parochial representatives. I submit that that is an absurd and indefensible result about which no information has been given and no defence attempted. The Parochial Councillors would constitute the enormous majority, and it seems to me that feature of the Bill cannot be defended. I entirely endorse the other objections to the Bill stated by my hon. Friend below me as to the Parochial Council element, and under all the circumstances of the case I think it would be very much better at this stage of the Bill that the Parochial Boards should be put on a different footing.

DR. CLARK

I fail to see how the scheme of the Government will work. If you carry out the proposed clause, you give two Members to each parish, and this will be the proportion in the counties. In the county of Argyll there are 38 parishes; so you will have 76 representatives of Parochial Boards, and 57 County Councillors. In the County of Forfar you will have 30 members on the County Council, and 104 representing the Parochial Boards. In Fife there are 62 parishes, and you would have 60 County Councillors, and 174 representatives of parishes. In Ross you would have 55 County Councillors, and 56 sent by the parishes. In Aberdeen you would, have 104 representing parishes, and 54 County Councillors. In Perth there will be 148 representing the parishes, and 50 County Councillors. From these figures it is clear that in the great bulk of the counties the County Councillors will be swamped by the district representatives. In Sutherland there are 13 parishes—my hon. Friend (Mr. Angus Sutherland) says 14—and you would then have 20 County Councillors against 26 District Councillors. Under these circumstances it is useless for the Government to ask us to discuss this scheme. I was representative of a Local Board some 20 years ago, at a place where the ratepayers numbered something like 20,000. We had about 16 or 18 representatives of the ratepayers, and there were representatives of 500 heritors. The only way in which the work could be done was to have a Joint Committee of the ratepayers, and of the heritors, and of the Kirk Session. This Joint Committee practically did all the work. With Local Beards constituted as they are, and with the small number of County Councillors, those representing the Parochial Boards will practically have full control and will be able to do anything.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The hon. Member has given us an analysis of certain figures which bring out very clearly the desirableness of the method of representing Parochial Boards which the Government have proposed. The hon. Member studiously avoided any notice of the concession which I intimated, that instead of two representatives of Parochial Boards, there would be one. His figures bring out clearly that unless you duplicate the number of parishes, the number of parochial representatives is fair enough.

DR. CLARK

Fifty-two for Forfar.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The proposal of the Government, as now formulated, is completely vindicated by what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is useless to discuss the particulars of individual counties. The hon. Member mentioned Aberdeenshire, where there is a startling preponderance of parochial representatives. But I take the case of one county where there are 20 County Councillors, while the number of parishes in that county is six. The consequence is, that the number of Parochial Councillors will be six to 20 County Councillors. There are similar instances. How can you fairly judge by one example when it is neutralized by another? With regard to the small number of County Councillors, we are quite open to a re-consideration of that subject.

MR. J. C. BOLTON

Under the proposal of the Lord Advocate, the local mem- bers will not be representative in any sense. It is scarcely to be supposed that any Parochial Board will send up as their representative on the County Council an elective member, and I think I can appeal to Scotch Members to confirm that statement. It is true that in a populous place there are elective members, but, so far as my experience goes, in a landlord parish of Stirling the elective members are practically nowhere, generally speaking. There is a landowner more active than his neighbours, and he manages the Parochial Board, or it is the manager of the parish—as very often happens. I would urge upon the Lord Advocate to postpone the addition of any members from the Parochial Boards until there has been a reform of the Parochial Boards. Such a course would be satisfactory to the Scotch people.

MR. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

Sir, it is very certain that this proposal by the Lord Advocate entirely overturns the present system of parochial management in Scotland. Take my own county, for instance. The Council would consist of 12 representatives of Local Boards and six County Councillors. The Parochial Boards, in the country districts especially, do not possess the confidence of the ratepayers. The Road Trustees at present manage the roads remarkably well; but how would it, be if, even supposing the County Councillors were identical with the Road Trustees, the members for the Parochial Boards might overturn their decisions? I think it would be exceedingly unfortunate if the present system were disturbed. I think the number of County Councillors altogether too small. The theory appears to be in the case of Forfarshire to return one for every two parishes, and even if one were returned for each parish, the County Councillors would continue in a minority. I do not see how it would be possible for a County Councillor to accept a seat on a Board whereon he and his colleagues would be in a continual minority. I think the present Bill is only a temporary arrangement, the great defect of which is to divide the County into districts for the purpose of uniformity of taxation. If the Government would carry out the Bill in that way, and leave the adjustment of the districts to the County Council, I think the arrangement would be very much better. I am certain that, if the present proposal were carried, it would be absolutely necessary to have an amending Act next Session. I hope the Government will allow the County Councils to district the counties before they take any steps as to the District Councils. When the District Committees are established you ought not to have the views of the County Councils brought down to the District Committees, but should rather have the views of the District Committees carried up to the County Councils, just as happens in the case of the Government, where we do not find that the views of the higher Department are brought down to the lower Department, but that the views of the lower Department are sent up to the higher Department. I hope the Government will, under all the circumstances, see the necessity of postponing the clause, in order that the matter may be further considered.

* SIR W. FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate has made such liberal concessions with regard to the Officers of Public Health and on some other points that I was very much disposed to accept the position he has taken on this question. I think it is necessary that the small areas should have some kind of representation on these Committees; but, at the same time, that representation ought not to be too large. One of the great difficulties in regard to the existing system is where the local representatives have power enough to enable them to interfere with the general control, and it is desirable that this exercise of unequal power should be avoided. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to postpone the consideration of the clause.

* SIR J. KINLOCH (Perthshire)

I should be inclined to say—let every parish elect two representatives on the District Councils. In the same way as at present, we elect two members for the management of the roads, and if that number be found too few, for certain exceptionally large parishes, it could be increased.

MR. CALDWELL

We are told that the subjects to be dealt with by the District Councils are purely local; and I wish to point out that it is exactly matters of a local character that are of the greatest interest to the ratepayers. As a rule, the ratepayers would take much less interest in the general affairs of the Councils than in those coming under the consideration of the District Councils. As it is at present, the greatest amount of interest is felt in matters that come before the District Boards, and the constitution of those Boards is naturally regarded as a matter of great importance by the county electors. The theory here is that we start with County Councils elected on a popular basis, but yet when you come to deal with the District Councils you introduce a new element. I quite agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Dumbartonshire that the management should be done by the ratepayers' representatives, who are the working representatives on the Parochial Boards; but you will find the landowners coming into the bodies you propose to set up, and although they know nothing about the affairs of the neighbourhood they will exercise their mandate and will vote down the representatives of the ratepayers. In one parish with which I am acquainted there are seven representatives of the ratepayers, and yet there are 120 members of the Parochial Board who simply hold their membership by reason of their property qualification, and those 120 persons can at any time swamp the representatives of the ratepayers. The same result would arise here unless you say that the District Councils, like the County Councils, shall be purely elective. There need be no difficulty in making these bodies elective. If you take the parish, as a unit you can allow each parish to have at least one representative, while the larger parishes might have more. This would probably double the proposed number, and they could be subdivided into District Councils, on each of which you would have a representative of every parish. Or you might arrive at the same end by having the election in each parish for the County Council, and enabling the ratepayers to vote at the same time and on the same paper for the District Councils. If, however, you adopt the proposal of having one-half owners and the other half elected by the ratepayers, you will not have the elective element as the basis of county government, which is the theory on which this Bill is said to be founded.

MR. A. SUTHERLAND (Sutherlandshire)

The obstacle and difficulty here seems to be the constitution of the Parochial Boards, to which I think it would be dangerous to give such powers as are proposed, if, as is stated, they will have no practical voice in what is done.

DR. CLARK

Looking at the list of new suggested qualifications, I take it that this proposal will place the elected members and nominated members very much in the same position. There are about 1,000 parishes in Scotland, and there will be a little over 1,000 members. Some small counties like Clackmannan and Kinross, which ought to be united, will be over-represented under this system; while the larger counties will be under-represented.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 194; Noes 146.—(Div. List, No. 211.)

Amendment proposed, in page 27, line 20, leave out "two," and insert "one."—(Sir A. Orr Ewing.)

DR. CLARK

The result of this proposal will be very different in different counties. There are some parishes that ought to have more representatives than one. Take, for instance, the parish of Govan. If I mistake not, that parish comprises four or five electoral divisions. It runs into two or three counties. It sends four or five Members to this House, and yet it is only to have one representative on the District Committee. The result of this rule-of-thumb proposition put forward by the Lord Advocate will be that the large parishes will be insufficiently represented, while small ones will be over-represented, and it is really worth the consideration of the Government whether they cannot draw up a clause giving the larger parishes a fairer share of the representation, or, at any rate, grouping the smaller parishes together for this purpose. I would invite the President of the Local Government Board of England to give us his views upon this point.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE, Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

The desire of the Government has been to secure that every parish shall be represented on the District Committee—that every parish which has any want or requirement shall be secure of having one person at least on the Committee who is capable of giving expression to its wishes. We regard this as vital to the Bill, and we desire that all parishes shall be equally represented on the County Councils. The Government, therefore, accept the Amendment.

DR. CAMERON

It appears to me that as at present proposed, the Committee will consist to a very large extent of representatives of the Parochial Board, who will, however, be likely to work at variance with the County Councils. This arrangement will do more harm than good, and therefore I hope that my hon. Friend will persist, later on, in moving the rejection of the clause.

DR. CLARK

I have pointed out a serious objection to this proposal. You are giving small and large parishes exactly the same representation. There are some counties which contain only a few large parishes, while others are made up of a large number of small parishes, so that the representation will really be most unequal. In order to have something approaching equality, we ought to group the smaller parishes, so I would suggest that the Government should postpone the consideration of this clause and bring before us at a later stage some more sensible plan.

MR. BARCLAY

I think a uniform system such as that proposed is not suitable to the whole of Scotland. I would strongly urge the Government to withdraw this scheme.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c)

I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of the complete representation of the parish. As the Lord Advocate has pointed out, the number of parishes about equals the number of electoral divisions. But under this plan you will have two classes of representatives on the District Councils. You will have the County Councillor elected from a reasonable and equal electoral division, and you will have the Parish Councillor elected from a totally unequal and incompatible division; in fact, the Parish Councillor will be the nominee of the landlord and the Church party. It seems to me, under these circumstances, that the Parish Councillor is quite unnecessary, and we could get on quite as well without him. I am afraid that the Government are forcing this on to us for the benefit of the landlord and the parson and of the Conservative Party generally.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh. W.)

I hold that the representative of each parish should be not the representative of the Parochial Board, but elected by the parish; and I think that this would carry out entirely the object which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board stated that the Government had in view when they said they desired to secure the representation of each parish on the District Committee. Now, a representative elected in the way I have suggested will be able, on the District Committee, to give expression directly to the voice of the parish, and he will represent the parish most adequately, because he will be elected by the inhabitants. I think there is another reason why the Government may fairly be expected to accept an Amendment of this kind. We know very well that the Lord Advocate has proclaimed loudly that the Government are giving to the counties throughout Scotland a free and popularly-elected body for the administration of county affairs. The authority which is to be charged with this work consists not only of the County Councils, but includes also District Committees. I, for one, thought that the Establishment of District Committees was a good proposal in view of the large extent of some of the Scotch counties; but when we come to discover that these District Committees will be so constituted that the nominated members will be twice as numerous as the elected members, I think we have ample cause for dissatisfaction. In the future, I believe that the District Committees will have to perform much of the work which it is now proposed shall be done by the Councils, and it is only fit that the work shall be performed by a directly representative body. We were told a short time ago that after all the only duties of these District Committees would be to manage matters connected with the public health. But these are matters which excite a deep interest in the inhabitants of the counties, and we hold that if the County Council system is to work successfully these Committees must have control over matters in which the inhabitants of the parishes are most deeply interested. In large and extensive counties District Committees will, practically, do all the work of the County Councils, and in order that the scheme may be consistent throughout I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 27, line 20, to leave out the words, "from the Parochial Board of," in order to insert the words "elected by."—(Mr. Buchanan.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I have already spoken at such length on this subject that it is not necessary for me to make many remarks. The proposal of the Government, as a whole, was before the Committee in the last Division, a Division well calculated to test the opinion of the Committee. As to the single point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I may say that opinion in Scotland is most strong against the multiplication of elections, and by the adoption of this Amendment we should have a double election. Upon the merits and demerits of the question, I think the Committee will agree with me enough has been, said.

MR. A. SUTHERLAND

The Lord Advocate has made it perfectly clear that what the Government wish is the maintenance of the non-representative system on the District Boards. Though the people of Scotland have expressed an opinion against a multiplicity of elections, they have expressed in stronger terms their disapproval of the method of selection instead of election. We have, at the present time, an election for Road Trustees. The District Councils will perform the same duties and functions of the Road Trustees, so there will be no additional election imposed by the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Edinburgh.

MR. BARCLAY

This is an extremely important question; it is really a practical question dealing with the comfort of the people of Scotland generally. The adoption of the Amendment will not increase the elections in the counties, and I think what is proposed may well be accepted as a preliminary arrangement. We protest against the proposal to hand over the management of roads in many of the large counties of Scotland to the Parochial Boards. The Lord Advocate appealed to the last Division, but I appeal to the opinion of the Scottish Members, which, in a matter of this kind, ought certainly to be respected. I would suggest that the roads should be left under their present management instead of being handed over to the Parochial Boards. That would be the best way of bridging over the time between now and the passing of the Parochial Board Bills.

* MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling, &c.)

There is one thing in which we shall all agree, and that is that the Clause, either as it now stands or as it is proposed to alter it, will not be a satisfactory clause, and this fact I confess somewhat modifies my zeal in the matter. I regard this clause as an absolutely transisional proposal; no one can be satisfied with it. The Government will not think that we are pushing this matter too strongly, because they themselves are prepared to take the first opportunity of putting the Parochial Boards on a sounder foundation; but I think we are at least entitled to claim that we should not go backwards. Although there is a good deal to be said against the proposal of the hon. Member for West Edinburgh, which is, of course, an impromptu substitute for the proposal in the Bill, because it would involve a new election, and we should require to introduce other clauses to regulate that election, I do not know there is so much to be said against the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay)—namely, that we should continue the election of Road Committees as it now is, and that from that source we should derive the local element in the District Committees. There is no doubt, as the Lord Advocate some time ago argued, that we must have some representation of the localities. Is there any particular objection to our adopting the body we already have under previous legislation—namely, the Road Committee of the district, which would answer the purpose without being open to the objection raised to the proposal of my hon. Friend?

DR. CLARK

I hope the Lord Advocate will accept the compromise proposed by the hon. Member for West Edinburgh. When the Parochial Boards Bill is considered the clause could be modified, and whatever representation is necessary given. But perhaps the Government are determined, with the aid of the English Members, to put us down. The Lord Advocate has taunted the Scotch Members by being overwhelmed by English Members. The last Division shows, as do all the Divisions on this Bill, that the Scotch Members are overwhelmed by English Members in Scotch matters. This is the very thing we want, to arouse still more enthusiasm in Scotland in favour of Scotch Home Rule.

MR. RITCHIE

If there is one charge the Government are not open to it surely is that they desire to overwhelm Scotch opinion. I am sure hon. Members opposite will acknowledge that the Government have made great and considerable changes in this Bill—not very acceptable to many of our English supporters—great and solid changes in the Bill, with a view of meeting the wishes of Scotch Members. It is rather hard, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman should charge us with endeavouring to over-ride the opinions of the Scottish Members. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) said we must take care to go forward and not to go backward. Let us see what we are doing. At present public health in Scotland is administered by the Parochial Boards. [Dr. CLARK: And administered very badly.] That is not the point at this moment. The roads are administered by a Board consisting half of owners and half of occupiers. [Cries of "No."] Practically that is so. What we propose is that the public health and the roads shall be administered by a Board in which at least the Parochial Board element is leavened or watered down by half being composed of members directly representative. Therefore, so far as the Parochial Board administration is concerned we are going forward As far as the administration of roads is concerned, looking at the fact that one-half of the Board is composed of occupiers and the other half of owners, it cannot be said we are going backwards. We do not profess to be satisfied with the composition of the new Board; and when the Parochial Boards come to be dealt with, no doubt the representation of the District Committees will be more satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen opposite than the proposal now made.

* MR. ESSLEMONT

I admit that, as egards public health, the President of the Local Government Board has made out a fair case, but that with respect to the management of roads the Government are going back. The Parochial Board has really nothing to do with the roads at all, and practically we are putting the roads into the hands of the County Council with this drawback—that we are adding to the Road Trustees a representative of the Kirk Sessions who is elected for ecclesiastical purposes, or for his knowledge and care of the poor. It is a most unfortunate arrangement. I have no desire to bring up the subject of what is good or bad for Scotch Home Rule. What I hope the Government intend is that the roads shall be managed according to the popular wishes of the people. The arrangement proposed cannot be continued. It would be far better to leave things as they are, rather than make a disturbing arrangement which cannot continue and which will not give satisfaction to the community.

MR. SHTRESS WILL (Montrose, &c.)

I rise to propose a compromise in this matter. Of course, the Parochial Boards stand condemned even by the Government themselves; but, recognizing the conciliatory tone of the speech of the President of the Local Government Board, I propose to add after the word "therein," in line 22, "such representative being chosen from amongst the elected members of the Board." My hon. Friend has proposed an Amendment which is objected to because it entails another election. My Amendment will not entail another election: it will entail nothing more than what the President of the Local Government Board himself contemplates, and which will have the advantage that it will make some concession to the representative principle. At present there are upon this Board owners and magistrates and representatives of the Kirk Sessions and so forth, and all we propose is that the gentleman to be nominated shall be one of the elected members. If the Government will accept this suggestion it is probable a Division will be saved.

DR. CAMERON

I hope the Government will not adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. We want real representatives, such as would be secured by the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Edinburgh or by the arrangement proposed by the hon. Member for Fifeshire. I do not think we ought to weaken our case by accepting a compromise.

MR. BUCHANAN

It is said that the adoption of my Amendment would necessitate another election. I take it that, if the Bill passes as it now stands, the election for Road Trustees will cease, so that the election that will take place for the members of what will practically be a new Board, will be merely a substitution for the election which at present takes place. The object I have in view is simply the representation of the parish on what will practically be the Board of Health for the future.

MR. J. C. BOLTON

What we wish to obtain in some way is, that the delegate from the Parochial Board shall be an elected member, that he shall have obtained the approval of those amongst whom he resides, before he goes to represent them. Rather than have the Bill as it stands I, for one, at all events would infinitely prefer to take my chance of getting from the Parochial Board the representation suggested rather than to be represented by a man who, perhaps, does not possess any claim to the confidence of the people.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 189; Noes 143.—(Div. List, No. 212.)

Amendment proposed in page 27, line 21, after "parish," insert "comprised or partly."—(Mr. J. B. Balfour.) Agreed to.

Amendment proposed in page 27, line 21, after "therein," insert— And one representative of each burgh within the meaning of 'The Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878,' where the management and maintenance of the highways within the burgh have under the provisions of the last mentioned Act been transferred to the county."—(The Lord Advocate.)

MR. CALDWELL

The effect of this will be that each police burgh will have a double representation, one as a police burgh, and one as representative of the parish of which the police burgh forms part.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

There is to a certain extent a double representation, but seeing that the burgh formerly had the management of its own streets and roads, I do not think it is other than desirable that it should hare a considerable share in the general management.

* MR. ESSLEMONT

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in this respect, and I am very sorry he did not take the same view of the last Amendment.

DR. CLARK

My own constituency will afford an illustration of the double representation through burghs and parishes, and of the manner in which representation will be confused on these Boards which will be fearfully and wonderfully constituted.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, page in 27, line 21, after "therein," insert" and— Provided, that in the case of parishes partly landward and partly burghal, such representatives shall be appointed from among their own number by those members of the parochial board who have a qualification as such in the landward part of the parish."—(Mr. Hozier.)

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I think my hon. Friend will see that this Amendment would be inconsistent with the changes in the clause which the Committee have already decided shall be made.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments made.

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

DR. CAMERON

I think as the clause stands the Bill would be better without it. I am altogether opposed to the principle of representation on this newly constituted body of a body which has hitherto been non-efficient, and on the sole ground that it has had to do with one of the branches of business with which the new body will have to deal. We have an example of the effect on the Parochial Boards themselves. In the old days administration was in the hands of the Kirk Sessions. They did not do the thing satisfactorily, or at all events the Legislature thought there was occasion for the change. But in making the change, in consideration of the Kirk Sessions having previously had charge of the poor, they were allowed representation on the new Parochial Board. Now that is recognized as a blot on the constitution of the Parochial Boards, and an absurdity that the Lord Advocate does not defend. So in days to come, when the origin of this representation is lost sight of, it will be a curious enigma how—the primal duty of the Parochial Boards being to manage the poor—they came to control the popularly-elected County Councils, and a Committee having the administration of the Public Health Act, and the Roads' Act. I think the theory and precedent we are following are dangerous. We do not require this representation of Parochial Boards, and after the last Amendment the result will be a totally unworkable and cumbrous District Committee. The Lord Advocate has told us that he really has in view that these Committees should owe their existence entirely to the County Council, and I think you might let the County Council do its own districting, but if you appoint a Statutory Committee composed of elements to a large extent antagonistic to the popular representative element on the County Council, and having no real control, carrying their own way in the District Committee, but subject to having their decisions overthrown on every occasion by the County Council, I think you will do much more harm than good, and, therefore, I shall go to a Division against the clause.

DR. CLARK

I object to the constitution of the District Committees on the lines of this very much modified and reconstructed Clause. The Clause has been revolutionized since its first appearance, and it takes some time to understand the relative position of County Council members, Parochial Board members, and Burgh members. We see now the reason why the Lord Advocate was willing to accept the Amendment by which the County Council loses a portion of its control over the District Committee. The District Committee will be constituted in such a fashion that the County Council will have very little influence in it. Constructed in this fashion the District Committee will not have the confidence of the people, and will not be powerful enough for its work. I strongly support the proposal to leave out the clause altogether.

MR. BARCLAY

In my constituency the management of roads is nominally in the hands of representatives of each parish, and to the number of 25 they are elected by the occupiers, and with these are associated an equal number of Commissioners of Supply; but practically only a few members of the Commissioners of Supply attend the meetings, and the whole business is in the hands of the representatives elected by the occupiers. This arrangement has worked exceedingly well, and the County has had no reason to complain of the management of the roads. Now the proposal is to hand over the administration to 12 members appointed by the Parochial Boards and six appointed by the County Council. The people of Forfar, with regard to any policy for the administration of their roads, will have only six representatives instead of 25, and these six will be overruled by 12 members appointed by Parochial Boards. I think it would be exceedingly unfortunate for the management of roads to disturb, if only for a year or two—for it cannot be for longer—until the Parochial Boards Bill, the complement of the present Bill, passes, the arrangement that has worked so well, and put nothing better in its place. Surely it would be reasonable, would be wiser and more prudent to allow the present system to continue until you have at least an equally good system. It is quite true, as the President of the Local Government Board says, there is the addition of duty in the administration of the Public Health Act, but hitherto the administration of the Public Health Act has formed a very small part of county business. The important business of the District Councils will now, as in the past, be the administration of roads and bridges. If you pass the Bill with this clause in this form you will disorganize the existing system without replacing it by a better one. I understood the principle which from the beginning governed the right hon. Gentleman in framing the Bill was that there should be as little disturbance as possible by the passing of the Bill of the existing system. But by this proposal in the Clause the whole system of the administration of roads is to be changed, and changed, according to the almost unanimous opinion of those concerned, for the worse. I do not think that the Lord Advocate will contend that the new District Council will be as good as that now existing. Why, then, persevere with a clause which is distasteful to and contrary to the wishes of the people and opposed by the great majority of Scotch Members? Why not provide that the roads and bridges shall be administered by the County Council through the present representatives of the various parishes? I do not think there would be any difficulty in carrying that out. If the Lord Advocate will say that between now and the Report stage of the Bill he will consider this point and see if he can meet the wishes of Members from Scotland, then probably my hon. Friend will not press his opposition to the clause to Division; but if not then I think it is due to our constituents that we should record our protest.

MR. CALDWELL

It is a question whether the Bill shall be acceptable to the people of Scotland or to the Government. Certainly that is the question, for it cannot be doubted that the Liberal Members represent the Liberal views of the electors that the administration should be entrusted to a purely elective body, elected directly by the ratepayers. It is perfectly evident that by the two principles you apply to the constitution of this body, a man who might be rejected by the ratepayers may, without undergoing the turmoil of election, accomplish his desire by simply getting himself nominated, and the actual representatives of the people may be swamped by the votes of these nominated members. Formed in this manner the District Council will give no satisfaction to the people immediately concerned. What the people require is that full power of choice they have in a Parliamentary election, and which exists in Town Council elections. With the exception of Glasgow—an exception under peculiar circumstances—there is no such thing as nominated members on Town Councils. The County ratepayers will insist on having the same control over the management of their local affairs, through representatives directly elected, as the ratepayers in burghs have over their own municipal affairs. But you are seeking to establish a different principle for counties, you seek to introduce a new element, I am sure the elections will repudiate. I agree it would be much better to be without the clause altogether than to have it in the form in which it now stands.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 113.—(Div. List, No. 213.)

Other Amendments made.

Clauses 45 and 46, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 47.

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

DR. CLARK

There is a very bad principle contained in this clause. I refer to the provision to create a new class of pensioners. I think the County Councils should pay their officers and servants a fair salary, and that the latter should put by a sufficient sum of money for their old age. The system of deferred pay seems to me to be a very bad one. You should give a man fair pay, and let him put by for himself. As we have already got past the lines in the Clause to which I object, perhaps the best thing to do is to raise the question upon Report.

MR. CALDWELL

It will be a very serious matter if practically all the servants of the County Council are to be pensioned. I quite agree that the proper course is to raise this question Report, as the clause certainly contains a new principle.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 48 and 49 agreed to.

Clause 50.

MR. MARK STEWART (Kircudbright)

There seems to me to be an omission in the Bill. The Commissioners of Supply do not appear to have power to hold their meetings in the county meetings, therefore I move the Amendment on the Paper.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 50, page 29, line 31, after "behalf," add— Provided always that the Commissioners of Supply shall he entitled to hold their meetings and transact all necessary business as heretofore in the county buildings, and shall, for all purposes of their business, have the same use of the property transferred by this section, and of any other rooms and accommodation substi- tuted therefor, as they would have had if the Act of 1877 had not been passed.—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I do not think this is necessary, as all the requisite arrangements for the holding of the meetings of the Commissioners of Supply are provided for in another portion of the Bill. At any rate the words proposed are too wide. I will undertake to see whether the clauses of the Bill will provide for the proper housing of the Commissioners of Supply.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 50 and 51 agreed to.

Clause 52.

DR. CLARK

I would propose to strike out of this clause "Good Friday." We know nothing at all about "Good Friday" in Scotland, and I object to the introduction of English ideas of the kind into a Scotch measure.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 52, page 30, line 30, leave out, "or Good Friday."—(Dr. Clark.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I would point out that Good Friday is a Bank Holiday, and that, therefore, you cannot expect the members of the County Councils to meet for the purpose of doing work on that day.

MR. S. WILLIAMSON (Kilmarnock, &c.)

The words "Bank Holiday" will cover the intention of the Government. Why not, then, leave out "Good Friday?"

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I cannot agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member. Altogether apart from the religious aspect of the question, Good Friday is recognised as a secular holiday. It is a statutory holiday and as we have to serve the general convenience of the whole community, I think the words should remain as they stand.

* MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

No doubt Good Friday is a Bank Holiday in Scotland, that is to say, it is prescribed by law that the banks shall close on that day, but so far as my observation goes this "Bank Holiday" is observed in Scotland by no means as strictly as in England, where all the shops are shut and the business of the community is suspended. No doubt it would be inconvenient to meet on the days mentioned in the clause, if the Councils were likely to have financial business to transact on those days, seeing that the banks are closed. As, however, the meetings will only be business meetings, I do not see why Good Friday should not be dealt with like any other day.

MR. CALDWELL

There are other bank holidays in Scotland besides Good Friday, but they are not mentioned specifically in the clause. Christmas Day is put in, but Christmas Day in Scotland is not regarded as it is in England. There is a day in Scotland which is thought a great deal more of—namely, New Years' Day. Scotland is entitled to have her national holidays regarded, therefore I think New Tear's Day should be put in, and I do not see why St. Andrew's Day should not also be included.

* MR. ESSLEMONT

There is a good deal to be said in favour of retaining Good Friday in the Clause. It would be extremely inconvenient if the bank holidays and general public holidays were not simultaneous. If we are to have holidays at all, I think we should have them on those days when the banks are closed.

DR. CLARK

Are we to have the words "Bank Holiday" substituted for Good Friday? Those words would include other bank holidays besides Good Friday; for instance, the first Monday in August.

MR.J. B. BALFOUR

As I understand the Clause, it is no prohibition against anything being done on these days. What it says is that the computation of time required for the performance of anything directed to be done or taken on a certain day by the Act, if that day falls on Christmas Day, Good Friday, public holiday and so on, shall be considered as done or taken in due time, "if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards, not being one of the days in the section specified." There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the County Councils meeting on Good Friday if they like.

DR. CLARK

I know that; but my objection to these words is one of principle. We do not know Good Friday as Good Friday in Scotland, and only a very small proportion of our people know anything about Christmas Day. A great many people in Scotland consider the way in which these days are regarded in England as nothing short of superstition. If we must have a popular holiday mentioned in the Clause, why not take New Year's Day, which is a great Scotch holiday? I object, as I have said, to introducing English ideas into a Scotch Bill. On that ground, and on that ground alone, I object to these words.

* MR. THORBURN (Peebles and Selkirk)

Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate would insert New Year's Day in the clause, in order to satisfy the nationalist feeling of the hon. Member for Caithness?

Question put, and agreed to.

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

DR. CLARK

The Clause mentions a "day appointed for public fast." Does that mean the fast of a district or a fast for the whole country? What is meant by the Clause—what is meant by the words "public fast, humiliation or thanksgiving"? Does the Clause refer to days appointed by the Presbytery? What is the legal meaning of this phrase?

MR.J. P. B. ROBERTSON

Fast days in Scotland are of two kinds. First, those which are used in Scotland and set aside for religious observances, and the time of these may vary according to the custom of the district; the other kind is where a public fast is proclaimed by Her Majesty. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan has pointed out, the Clause only means that anything which has to be done falling on one of these days may be for obvious reasons postponed to the next day afterwards.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 53 agreed to.

Clause 54.

DR. CAMERON

Why do the Government propose that fines or penalties may be recovered at the instance of the County Clerk?

MR.J. P. B. ROBERTSON

Under certain Statutes the Town Clerk—in this case the County Clerk—will be the prosecutor.

DR. CLARK

In cases where fines are not paid you provide an alternative of two months' imprisonment. Why is that?

MR.CALDWELL

The County Council will be able to prosecute in its corporate capacity. It would be incongruous, therefore, to have the County Clerk suing before the Sheriff. There is no reason why the name of the County Council should not be used on all occasions.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I will undertake to consider the case before the Report stage.

DR. CAMERON

This is a very important question and we should have some definite statement from the Government with regard to it. A point has already arisen in connection with this system of fixing periods of imprisonment in default of payment of fines, and I have put questions to the Lord Advocate on the question, but without eliciting anything more satisfactory than that 60 days are equivalent to two months. These alternative periods of imprisonment are most dangerous proceedings. Here is a case in which a man is fined for some smuggling transaction. I say nothing about the punishment—it might be right that he should be sent to gaol for five years. I should not have questioned the matter if he had been sentenced to imprisonment, but what I complain of is that he is asked to pay an impossible fine, and because he does not do it he is sent to gaol for 12 months, in spite of the Act passed not long ago abolishing imprisonment for debt, and merely because the Legislature, having in view very different matters, has enacted that no man shall be kept more than 12 months in prison for a debt in respect of which imprisonment is still allowed. It would be much better to fix a term of imprisonment, where imprisonment is to be inflicted, than to arrive at that method of punishment by the roundabout process of imposing an impossible fine. That is an unstatesman like and often a most barbarous form of punishment.

DR. CLARK

I would point out that in a Bill the Government introduced last year, the Government did not permit the Justices to inflict the maximum of 60 days' imprisonment for a 5s. fine. There was a sliding scale laid down accordingly to which the number of days imprisonment would be 14, 28, and 36. I want to know why the Government do not adopt the same scale in this clause? Under this clause, as framed, a man find 5s. in default of payment can be sent to goal for 60 days.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I do not remember the precise form of the Act of last year, to which the hon. Member refers, but I would appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan, whether the form used in this clause is not such as has been put in Bill after Bill for the last few years. It is the stereotyped provision by which a latitude is allowed to the Judge in the matter of inflicting imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

In reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's appeal, I must say the form seems quite familiar to me, though I cannot offhand mention a Statute in which it is to be found.

DR. CAMERON

Where does it come from?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I cannot say. I did not imagine that any exception would be taken to it, therefore, it did not occur to me to look for precedents. If I had time to search, I have no doubt I could find many instances of the use of this on a similar provision.

DR. CLARK

The change I have referred to, whether wisely or unwisely, I will not say—was made last year.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 55 to 58 agreed to, with Amendments.

Clause 59.

Amendment moved, page 32, line 34, at end, add— (3) Nothing in this Act shall alter or affect any deductions or allowances or power of making deductions or allowances from gross rental made or possessed under or by virtue of the following Acts: 'The Poor Law Act, 1845,' 'The Police Act, 1862,' 'The Public Health Act, 1867,' 'The Roads and Bridges Act, 1878;' but such deductions or allowances, and power of making the same, are expressly continued with regard both to the rates or assessments imposed under the authority of these Acts, and to those formerly imposed under these Acts but now to be imposed under this Act."—(Mr. J. B. Balfour.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I think my right hon. and learned Friend will find that much of this Amendment is unnecessary. After what occurred the other day, I have undertaken to preserve the incidence of taxation under the Public Health Act exactly as if this Bill had not passed. I am anxious to preserve the deductions and allowances which it is now competent for the authorities to make. With regard to the other Acts mentioned in the Amendment they are not touched by the Bill, and I think it might mislead if the Amendment were adopted.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

Shall we see the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman proposes before the Report stage?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

Yes; I will communicate to the right hon. Gentleman what I propose. At present all that is required is to preserve the incidence of taxation under the Public Health Act.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

My object is to preserve the incidence of taxation under the whole of these Acts. I know that in Scotland a good deal of anxiety is felt lest, in some way or other, in the various areas affected deductions may be made, whereby the bases of rating under other than the two Acts referred to may be interfered with.

MR.J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I should prefer to take the words of the old Public Health Act, or, otherwise, to take absolutely general words, as I think that would be the safer plan. This Amendment might mislead the authorities by creating doubts as to whether or not they are touched, when as a matter of fact they are not touched at all.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 59, 60, and 61 agreed to.

Clause 62.

Amendment moved, Clause 62, page 33, line 17, leave out "includes" and insert "means."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)

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

SIR G. CAMPBELL

The Lord Advocate promised that this Definition Clause should be amended so as to make it clear that "burgh" means Municipal and not Parliamentary burgh. He does not do it directly by amending this clause, but he proposes to do it by introducing a substantive clause. The Bill says "The expression 'burgh' includes any Royal or Parliamentary burgh." Well, Dysart, that I have mentioned before, is both the one and the other, but it is under 7,000 population. I should like to know how the right hon. Gentleman makes the Bill clear in this case.

MR.J. P. B. ROBERTSON

This Amendment will meet the case the right hon. Gentleman refers to.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

Perhaps it would be as well to defer the settlement of this question until we come to the clause on which it arises in the other Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word 'means' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. ASHER (Elgin, &c.)

The Amendment I now move is designed to meet the case of burghs, combined for Parliamentary purposes, but which are in other respects distinct burghs A new clause to deal with the matter has been given notice of, and it is quite evident that with regard to this point the right hon. Gentleman, the Lord Advocate and I agree as to the principle on which the matter should be dealt with. I am not quite satisfied with the precise wording of the proposed clause, but as the difference between us is merely a matter of drafting I do not propose to press my Amendment. I have put it down in order that the right hon. Gentleman may consider it. It is as follows:—Page 33, line 18, after "burgh," insert— But when a Royal burgh and a police burgh are combined for Parliamentary purposes, the expression 'burgh' shall be read as applying to each separately.

DR. CLARK

I wish to see the greater include the less. We desire to see Parliamentary burghs taken rather than municipal burghs, for, in the case of Wick, for instance, the Royal burgh, only takes in a portion of the Parliamentary burgh.

Amendment moved, Clause 62, page 33, line 20, after "have," insert "at the time of the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Hozier.)

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

DR. CLARK

The Government seem inclined to accept this Amendment, but I should like to know what it means. The hon. Gentleman who proposes the Amendment seems to have squared the Lord Advocate, but he has given the House no explanation of his object.

* MR. HOZIER

explained that if the Burgh Police and Health Bill were to pass in its last year's form, police burghs would be created of only 700 inhabitants, and it would, therefore, for purposes of Local Government, be well to have some definite line.

DR. CAMERON

The hon. Member has not been very distinct in giving his reason. When there is uncertainty on the part of the hon. Gentleman in giving a reason, we on this side may be certain that he is doing something against Glasgow.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I have given notice of a new clause, which states that nothing in the Bill shall interfere with the formation of the police burghs, and on looking at the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman I find that it would be inconsistent with this clause. I cannot, therefore, accept it.

* MR. HOZIER

I will withdraw the Amendment. But I beg to assure my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division (Dr. Cameron) that it had nothing whatever to do with Glasgow.

DR. CLARK

The Lord Advocate had accepted this Amendment when I wanted to know the meaning of it. The meaning of it, I believe, would have been to prevent the creation of any more burghs. I think that hon. Members who move Amendments having such a wide scope as this should at any rate enlighten hon. Members as to their meaning.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved, page 33, line 32, before "includes," insert "except when otherwise expressly provided."—(Mr. J. B. P. Robertson).

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

MR. CALDWELL

We have scored out of a preceding part of the Bill the exclusion of the Sheriff substitute. The Bill was framed on the footing that the Sheriff substitute was to be precluded from exercising jurisdiction, but we have since given the Sheriff substitute equal power with the Sheriff, therefore the words should be left as they are.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

My impression is that there is no part of the Bill where there is an express exclusion of the Sheriff substitute. At the same time it is obvious that this can do no harm. It had better go in just now, and I will undertake on Report to strike it out if there is no necessity for it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Other Amendments agreed to.

Clauses 62 to 65 agreed to.

Clause 66.

Amendment moved, Clause 66, page 37, line 1, after "office," insert— For the electoral divisions in which their qualifications as county electors respectively are situated."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)

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

MR. MARJORIBANKS

I do not quite understand what the object of these words is. Is it that these ex-officio Members are to be Members for particular districts?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The object is to make these persons ex-officio Members for the divisions in which their qualifications are situate. If their qualification is in one division they will sit for that and not for another.

Question put, and agreed to.

Another Amendment agreed to, Clause 66, page 37, leave out "lord."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)

MR. MARK STEWART

I beg to move an Amendment with the object of obviating the disadvantage the County Council will labour under in the event of there being no permanent Chairman, if either of the bodies mentioned in the clause at the time of the passing of the Act. In a county with which I am acquainted there is no permanent Chairman of the Road Trustees. Inasmuch as the object of the Government is to have on the first Council persons of experience and knowledge, I think it would be desirable to allow the Commissioners of Supply to nominate an ex-officio Member in the case I contemplate in my Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 37, line 6, after "1878," to insert the words But where there is no permanent Chairman of Road Trustees in any county one person shall he elected by the Commissioners of Supply an ex officio Member in the place of such permanent Chairman."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I think this would not he in consonance with the scheme of the clause. The object is to put upon the first Council four men who are certain, by reason of their office, to be experienced. Take the case of a Chairman of County Road Trustees. There is in Scotland, as hon. Members are aware, always someone in every district who has given his attention to the subject of the roads.

MR. CALDWELL

I am totally opposed to anything in the nature of any person entering the County Council except by election. The number of County Councillors will be very considerable in any large or important county, and there ought to be no difficulty, if the Chairman here referred to is anxious to continue his duty towards the Council, in his getting himself elected by the ratepayers for that position. I think we ought to afford no facility for the foisting of any person into the Countil Council by reason of any official position he may have held, and in opposition to the elective principle.

DR. CLARK

I can understand the object of the Government in wishing to make room for the Convener of the county, the Chairman of the County Road Trustees, and the Lord Lieutenant of the county, on account of their experience in county business; but the proposal before us is one that carries the principle a good deal further, and permits the old Commissioners of Supply to nominate certain of their number in addition to these Chairmen into the position. For my part, I shall strongly oppose the proposed extension of the nominative element into the clauses of this Bill.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 55.—(Div. List, No. 214.)

Question proposed, "That Clause 66, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

* MR. MARJORIBANKS

I object to this clause altogether, and were it not that I do not desire to put the Committee to unnecessary trouble, I should have taken a Division against each section of it. As this course would have been inconvenient, I shall now move the rejection of the entire clause. The first part of the clause to which I object is that which introduces the ex officio element. If these four gentlemen have been doing the work properly they will certainly be elected by the electors of the county. My own experience is that the Lord Lieutenant takes very little part in the county business. With regard to the other three, they take a very considerable part in county government, and if they have done this work well they will certainly be elected to the first County Council. But there may be cases where the county would take the opportunity of getting rid of these gentlemen; therefore, I do not see why the County Council should be burdened with gentlemen who have been doing their work unsatisfactorily and unpopularly. I maintain that you are absolutely putting these four gentlemen in a position of disadvantage by insisting that they shall be ex officio members. For the reason that members of the County Council will, like Members of this House, settle down and attach themselves to particular constituencies, I think that to make these gentlemen ex officio members would diminish their opportunities of being elected to future County Councils. Then there is the second provision which reposes in the hands of the Commissioners of Supply the duty of filling vacancies in these seats where two or more of the qualifying offices happen to be in the hands of one person. I protest against that provision as an attempt to introduce by a side wind a sort of aldermanic system in the counties. We have congratulated ourselves on being superior to our English brethren in having no Aldermen at all. But this proposal savours strongly of the aldermanic element. If we allow these four gentlemen to take their chance along with the rest, I have no doubt, if they are worthy of it, they will be elected.

MR. A. SUTHERLAND

I am inclined to oppose the clause on the ground that the clause makes provision for the retention of these gentlemen, and so continuing the government of the county by the Commissioners of Supply. It will be remembered that on the occasion of the Second Reading the announce- ment that there were to be no Aldermen was received with acclamation; but I fear that this proposal is in that direction, and that it is an attempt to continue those who have had control of the county before, and to perpetuate them with the County Council. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick-shire said the Lord Lieutenant took little part in county government, yet this proposal is to place him on the County Council because he has not performed any popular work. That is ridiculous on the face of it. It has been laid down as an argument for these gentlemen that they have had experience of county business; but I presume that hereafter it will be conducted rather differently to what it has been in the past, and there fore these gentlemen will not be better qualified than others to take a share of the county government. Whatever the Commissioners of Supply may have done in the past, it is time now to supersede them in the government of the county and in the interests of popular election. I beg to support the omission of the clause.

* MR. HOZIER

This clause is inserted for the object of securing some slight continuity when the old order changes to the new. It must be borne in mind that the Lord Lieutenant, the Convener, and two holders of the other two offices mentioned are to be ex officio Members of the first County Council only, and after that will have to stand for election in the ordinary way. It is, therefore, ridiculous and absurd to talk of a perpetuation of the Commissioners of Supply, or of a system of Aldermen being introduced by this proposal. As to the principle of popular election being overridden, why surely that principle is not nearly so much overridden in this case as in the case of the burghs, where a Councillor, if elected Provost by his fellow Councillors in the last year of his office, receives by co-optation a fresh lease of three years of Office without having to go back to his constituents. In the burghs, too, the necessity of continuity is so strongly felt that one-third of the Councillors retire each year, having always two-thirds of the Council, with some considerable experience of the work to be done. Surely this Clause which receives some slight continuity when the old order changes to the new, need not be cavilled at, and I earnestly trust that the Government will stoutly maintain their proposal.

DR. CLARK

This is a very serious matter. When you have only got 20 County Councillors, four of them will be ex officio, which would be about equal to the number of Aldermen in Dunoon. I think it would be very unadvisable to have so large a nominated element. It would affect my county considerably. We have no Lord Lieutenant, unless the Government have appointed one recently in room of the late noble Lord, whose death caused general regret. Then the Convener stood as a candidate for the county, and was not returned. I hope that gentleman will again stand; he will be returned for any one of the districts of the county, which would have his assistance in the administration of its affairs. I hope the Government will remember this matter. Where you have 90 or 60, it would not so much matter to have four ex officio members; but where you have 20, the proportion of four is very great. I hope the Government will look to the fact that the proportion will be one-twentieth in some districts and one-fifth in others.

MR. M. STEWART

The ex officio members would be gentlemen of ex perience, and the whole object of their appointment is to make the Bill a really practical measure.

MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND

I desire to say a few words with regard to the experience of these gentlemen whom it is proposed to transfer from the Commissioners of Supply to the new County Councils. I think the question of experience forms one of the strongest arguments in favour of their submitting themselves to the test of popular election. But as a fact it is clear, from a sub section which follows, that it is not because of their experience that these gentlemen are to be transferred, for the sub-section in question provides that in a case where two of these offices are held by one gentleman prior to the establishment of the County Councils, the offices shall be filled up by separate individuals. It therefore cannot be that by reason of their experience these gentlemen are to be foisted on the new County Councils. I consider it is not a great compliment to these gentlemen that they should be compelled to enter the County Councils with the stigma upon them that they are incapable of entering by the proper and constitutional door; and more than that, it will prejudice them in case in the future they should seek to be returned by popular election. If this were a proposal that County Councillors should be elected every three years, and that a certain number should go out of office each year, I could understand the argument. But there is no such provision. This is a proposal to carry into the new County Councils gentlemen who would have no opportunity of being elected upon their merits. I cannot appreciate the argument which has been used, that these gentlemen have had so much experience that they would have no chance of election. If experience is wanted, the Clerk of Supply knows as much about the administration of local affairs as the Lord Lieutenant for instance. It is notorious that the Lord Lieutenant is a purely ornamental gentleman who never goes to county meetings at all, and that a gentleman like that should be tried to be foisted on the new County Councils is absurd. In certain counties, such as my own, there will be only 20 members of the County Council; and it is a very serious thing that four members, or a fifth of the whole, should be non-elective. I think that, taking all the circumstances into account, this is a monstrous proposal. It does not, and cannot, meet the end we have in view. It is not fair to the gentlemen concerned; and it is merely an attempt to qualify and modify the element of popular election, which is too much modified at present.

MR. MAEJORIBANKS

I think we ought to hear the views of the Government on this subject. It is a matter that raises a considerable amount of feeling, and I do not think we are being treated in regard to it with the courtesy which has been extended to us throughout these discussions.

* THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING,) Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities

I am quite ready to afford the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of hearing again the arguments used upon the introduction of these Bills in favour of the present proposal. If the desire of the Government had been, as the hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. A. Sutherland) suggests, to weaken the popular element, I think it would have been possible to find some permanent mode of doing so instead of merely making provision for the first election. I think it might have occurred to the hon. Member that the very character of the proposal suggests, what is the truth, that the Government have made this proposition not for the sake of diluting the popular element, but simply and solely to secure the effective working of the machine of Local Government. He has said that it may be unfair to these officials themselves. Well, there may be something in that; but all these considerations have been well weighed in making this proposal. The conclusion we have come to is, that the balance of public advantage is in favour of starting the new Councils with all the knowledge and experience which these officials possess. The hon. Member suggests, as a substitute, the Clerk of Supply.

MR. A. SUTHEELAND

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to point out that there is, elsewhere in the Bill, provision for the transference of the Clerk of Supply?

* MR. M. T. STOEMONTH DARLING

I know there is; but I do not think it can be seriously suggested that the services of an official, however able and efficient, as I believe the County Clerks almost always to be, will be a substitute for the knowledge and authority which the Chairmen and Conveners possess. The hon. Member says the Lord Lieutenants are purely ornamental. I think his experience of them must have been of a very limited character. Some Lord Lieutenants whom I have known have been far from ornamental. [Laughter.] I mean they have been far from being merely ornamental, but have taken a most active, constant, and steady part in the business of the county. Of course, it goes without saying that the business qualities which the Lord Lieutenants possess attach also to the Conveners. When you look at the matter fairly and impartially you find that this provision applies only to four gentlemen out of a comparatively large County Council. In very few instances will they form more than an insignificant proportion of the Council. Certainly the majority of them have a close and valuable knowledge of county business. It is conceded that this knowledge should not be lost to the county, particularly when the county is embarking in a new system of Local Government. It is entirely in the public interest, and not in the interest of any one class of the community, that the Government have made this proposal, and, so far as we at present see, we intend to abide by it.

* MR. ESSLEMONT

I desire to acknowledge the very fair spirit in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has approached this question. He says that this proposal has been made by the Government solely in the interest of the public. If that be so, I submit that it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the public. I quite admit that the gentlemen referred to in the clause are those who, in most counties, have taken a very fair share in the administration of county affairs. As to the Lord Lieutenants, I think it is generally held that they are more ornamental than useful in the business affairs of the county; but I do not say that out of the slightest disrespect for the Lord Lieutenants, who hold, as the representatives of the Crown in the county, very high positions, and who have not been expected to take a very active part in the business of the county. The Convener of the county has generally been popular in his county, and a man of business habits, and so with the Chairman of the Board. I submit that these gentlemen would certainly be elected if they became candidates for the County Council. Having, however, once occupied an ex officio position, they should be less disinclined to submit themselves to popular election. I think there would be a general desire that those persons who have really a knowledge of county affairs should come forward as candidates for the County Council, and I think the proposal of the Government would rather stand in the way. I should be very sorry if these men did not submit themselves for election, and I therefore oppose the clause.

* MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

In the course of the few observations which I ventured to make on the Second Reading of this Bill, I congratulated the Government upon the fact that as far as Aldermen were concerned, none of them were to be found in their proposals as regards Scotland; but in this clause, as it stands to-day, there is a practical recrudescence of this very unsatisfactory element. I hope my hon. Friend will adhere to his proposition, that Clause 66 should be struck out of the Bill. The Bill would be marred in some of its features by the introduction of a non-elective element of this kind. As long as the County Councils rest upon a popular basis, so long will they be respected and so long will they be powerful agents for good. To the extent to which you introduce into them this nominative element, to that extent will their power be lessened, inasmuch as it is not derived from the people. The London Council has been mentioned. We fought hard and long to get rid of the Alderman. Eventually, that general pressure, to which Conservative Governments always yield, reduced the number of Aldermen in London from the traditional one-third to one-sixth. Well, we have an excellent body of Aldermen in London, their only failure being that they have not submitted themselves to an election. I do not think that the question of continuity is a question of any importance. We have always found that men interested in county affairs and familiar with county business, if they chose to put up for a county election, may rely upon their virtues being eventually and completely recognized. I shall certainly vote for the Amendment to strike out this clause, because I think the section mars the fair features of what is, in many other respects, a most satisfactory Bill.

* MR. PROVAND (Glasgow, Black-friars, &c.)

I hope the Government will give way on this question, as they must be aware it is the unanimous opinion of this side of the House that the non-elective element ought to be struck out of the Bill. Whatever the intention of the Government may be, the fact is that this proposal will interfere with the elective element. I think that in the interest of the public, as well as in the interest of the members of the County Council themselves, the whole body ought to be elected in precisely the same way; and I hope that the Government will meet the views of the majority of the Representatives of Scotland on this point.

* MR. J. WILSON (Lanark, Govan)

I hope the Lord Advocate will make a concession to us on this point. If he has any desire at all to see this Bill popularized with the people of Scotland, he must recognize the necessity of having all the members of the County Councils elected. Referring to the remarks of the Solicitor-General, as to the influence of the clerks of the counties, I may say, as a Justice of the Peace, that we receive most assistance from, and take our law at the hands of the clerk of the J.P. Court, whose life-study it is to direct in a proper manner the Justices of the Peace. I have no doubt that the clerks of counties will be of equal service to County Councils, and I hope that the Lord Advocate will consent to delete this clause.

MR. CALDWELL

It is often a matter of surprise that Conservatives have so little hold upon the people of Scotland, but the discussion which has taken place upon this Clause illustrates the difference between Conservative and Liberal principles. The policy of the Liberal Party is to trust the people, and it has always been the case that when the people have been trusted satisfactory results have been obtained. I believe that if you trust the people to elect all the members of the County Councils, as we trusted them in the case of the election of the School Boards, it will be found that men will be chosen on account of their ability, their knowledge of business affairs, and their aptitude for dealing with the particular subjects allotted to the County Council. On the other hand, if you distrust the Scotch people in this matter and seek to coerce them in any shape, they are just the people that will rebel against such treatment; and it will be most injudicious to rouse the popular spirit by any attempt of this kind.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I rise merely for the purpose of suggesting to hon. Members that we have already had a double discussion on this subject and of expressing a hope that the Committee will now be allowed to proceed to the next part of the Bill. The reasons which have influenced the Government in making this proposal have been explained on two occasions, and I cannot suppose there is any desire to continue the discussion beyond the bounds within which it ought to be confined.

MR. J. C. BOLTON

Before we go to a Division, I should like to refer to the position of the county I represent. At a meeting of the Committee of Supply, called specially to consider this Clause, a resolution against it was moved by the County Covener himself and adopted. The Convener was very desirous of being elected to the County Council; but he felt that if he was forced upon it in the way proposed, it would be the last time he would serve the county. I understand that it is the object of the Government to obtain the services of men who are specially experienced in County Government. I know of one Lord Lieutenant who has not attended a single meeting of the Commissioners of Supply, and who, I believe, has never qualified as a Commissioner of Supply. It would be absurd to put such a man as that on the Council on the ground of his knowledge of local circumstances. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the business that will devolve on County Councils is not the same at all as that which has been transacted by the old Commissioners of Supply. Under these circumstances, I really think it is going beyond the bounds of reason to suppose that these men will bring with them an amount of knowledge which is not possessed by gentlemen who will be elected.

DR. CAMERON

It seems to me that the Government have not paid much attention to precedent in this matter. There are many precedents for the establishment of these new bodies. Take the School Boards as an example. It was never thought of, in connection with the establishment of School Boards, to make representatives of the heritors ex officio members. It might cite dozens of cases where you have the most obvious course of precedents tending in the opposite direction to that which the Government so obstinately insist upon following. For a Conservative Government to adopt such a course as is embodied in this clause is entirely inexplicable. This proposal is an entire departure from any precedent any person in the House can point to. We are told that it is to introduce persons experienced in the management of local affairs, but this is negatived by the terms of Sub-section 1. What it really is is an attempt to obtain on the first County Council the acceptance of a policy which would probably influence the Council for a considerable time to come, and to do this by increasing the representation of the Commissioners of Supply.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 54.—(Div. List, No. 215.)

Clauses 67 to 73 agreed to with Amendments.

Clause 74.

MR. MARKSTEWART

I attach considerable importance to the small Amendment I have to propose—the insertion of the word "similar" in line 35. We know that considerable pressure may be brought to bear against a new body such as this we are constituting, and how difficult it will be to resist it. I do not want to put any check in an invidious manner upon any just claim a man may have for compensation for the abolition of his office; but, at the same time, I think the Committee will agree that the limitation my Amendment will impose is perfectly reasonable.

Amendment proposed, page 39, line 35, to insert the word "similar."

Question proposed, "That the word 'similar' be there inserted."

SIR G. CAMPBELL

This seems to me a reasonable Amendment, and one likely to put a stop to much abuse of the system of compensation. A man not the holder of a permanent office is liable to have his services dispensed with under the new authority, as he would be under the old authority, and yet he may put in a claim for a statutory right of compensation. Clearly, that is not our intention, and I think this Amendment puts the matter right and provides that the man is on the same footing under the new authority as he was under the old authority, and no additional right accrues from the transfer of service.

MR. FIRTH

It appears to me to be a valuable Amendment, and I hope the Government will accept it. It sets up a sort of standard as to what compensation should be, and this is wanting in the Act of last year.

MR. CALDWELL

I think the Government ought to accept this Amendment.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I propose to do so.

Question put, and agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

Clauses amended agreed to.

Clause 75.

MR. CALDWELL

I propose to move the omission of Sub-section 1 of this clause. It introduces, I think, a very objectionable principle against which we ought to contend. It provides that compensation shall be given to present holders of offices if they are removed whether they are entitled to that compensation or not. We have provided for all the servants of the existing authority to become the servants of the new County Council, and we have also provided for the compensation of any of those servants should their services not be required by the Council, in so far as, under the tenure of their office, they could claim compensation. But Clause 75 proceeds on the footing that every existing officer is entitled to compensation. In that proposition I think there is very great objection. I do not object to the holder of a permanent office, if displaced by reason of the transfer of authority being compensated. But, as I read the words of this clause, a man would be entitled to compensation even though he had been offered and had refused service under the Council. Now that, I think, is carrying the principle of compensation to an inordinate extent. Why, it might apply to anyone of the many employers under the Local Authority. There might be a man who was getting £1 a week under the old authority, and be, perhaps, not worth 10s., and he might claim to be entitled to compensation, because he might say, "The Road Trustees have not turned me over to the County Council. I decline to go over, and I want compensation in respect of my office." I am sure none of us intended anything of that kind, and to bring in a clause like this will, I am afraid, open the door to enormous claims and saddle the new authority with a heavy burden of compensations. I therefore move and delete the sub-section.

Amendment proposed, "That Sub-section 1 be omitted."

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The subject of compensation requires very careful handling, and I would direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that the words it is proposed to delete are strictly limited by the governing words, which provide that an officer shall be entitled to compensation for direct pecuniary loss suffered through abolition of office, or loss of salary or fees. Following these words, as they appear on page 39, it will be seen that in considering these claims referred to in the substantive words, regard shall be had to the conditions under which the officer held office. So it will be observed that the words the hon. Gentleman thinks so objectionable are inserted for, and would have the effect of, limiting claims and diminishing the amount of compensation. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see this if he looks at these words with the context.

* MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Neither my hon. Friend, nor, I think, anyone else, is disposed to prevent any public servant from obtaining compensation for loss he may suffer through this change in affairs. The point of my hon. Friend is, he does not want to confer any right to compensation that was not possessed before the transfer.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are mot here to rear up claims against the new County Council—quite the contrary. Nor do I think that the Clause can be interpreted to have such an effect. The special cases entitled to compensation have been dealt with already, and these words merely take up cases that have been omitted, but stand on the same footing. I do not think the form of words requires amendment.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

I quite think it is the correct view that the clause will not create fresh claims; but with the Amendment we inserted just now, it will prevent claims being advanced to a statutory right of compensation where none actually exists.

MR. FIRTH

As the Lord Advocate may suppose, we have given careful consideration to the Clause, for the question in connection with the English Act has excited a good deal of attention. The clause will, to some extent, meet the difficulties that arise. But let me, in a few words, put a difficulty that may arise. Suppose you have an officer whose appointment is determinable at the will of the authority succeeding the present authority. Suppose, for instance, it is a clerk in one of the departments over which the County Council assumes authority, and by virtue of a previous section of this Bill he passes into the the service of the Council. Now, the County Council may think this man's services superfluous, and they may discharge him. Would that man have a claim for compensation by reason of his having suffered pecuniary loss through the exercise of the power the County Council possess? Supposing the authority to which the County Council succeeds had chosen to dispense with his services, he would not have been entitled to compensation; but under this clause, if the County Council dispenses with them, he is to be entitled. The difficulty might be remedied by the insertion of a few words to the effect that he shall not be entitled to any compensation he was not entitled to before.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) says you are transferring a man from one superior to another, and it is conjectural that if he remained under the old authority he might have kept his situation, whereas it is tolerably certain, he may be dismissed under the new. The answer every lawyer would give to that ease is that there would be no claim whatever. He holds at will under both, and he would have no more claim under the new masters than under the old.

MR. FIRTH

That is the construction we place upon it, but I wish to point out that if we abolish the man's office in consequence of the passing of this measure, he will suffer direct pecuniary loss.

DR. CLARK

I think the clause might be slightly modified so as to prevent compensation being given to those who are not otherwise entitled to it.

MR. CALDWELL

I quite agree that only those who have a claim to compensation at present should have a right to it under the County Council, but it is just a question whether these words carry that out or not. It seems to me that the clause will confer a right to compensation upon those who have no such right at present. If the Lord Advocate will consider the matter before the Report stage, I am sure we shall be glad to see that course adopted.

MR. ASHER

The words of the clause are certainly very general, and I can quite understand the question being raised whether they might not give a right to compensation to a person who is not entitled to it at present, and I am sure the Lord Advocate will consider before Report whether the ambiguity cannot be got rid of.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

If the hon. and learned Gentleman has any doubt on the subject, I shall be glad to confer with him with a view to the adoption of some of the well known words used in compensation clauses. My impression is that the clause is clear as it stands, but I should like to make it clear beyond all question.

MR. ASHER

I am very much disposed to agree that the clause should be read as the right hon. Gentleman interprets it, but at the same time I think that as at present worded, it might give rise to a serious question.

MR. FIRTH

I have endeavoured to show the Lord Advocate that we who have to carry out such a clause feel the difficulty I have spoken of.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

New Clause (Provision as to certain burghs,)—(The Lord Advocate,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

DR. CLARK

This is a clause which affects many burghs, and, if adopted in this form, it would keep the Parliamentary burgh of Wick in two parts. I think it is desirable that the two burghs should form one Parliamentary burgh, and be allowed to arrange matters between themselves, and that the burgh should be outside the county. If the clause be adopted, the old Parliamentary burgh of Wick will cease to exercise the functions it has carried on for centuries, and will be merged in the county.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

The effect would be that the burgh would cease to have control of its police and yet would not be represented on the County Council. I should like to know what would become of the Parliamentary burgh of Dysart under this clause?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I think the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy agrees with me for once that the proper boundary is the municipal boundary. In so far as the municipal boundary differs from the Parliamentary boundary we propose to adhere to the Parliamentary boundary. I think that, if the hon. Member will consider the matter and will take advice from experienced men, he will find that this formula is so drawn as to meet this case.

MR. ASHER

Some such clause is certainly quite necessary, because, but for such a clause, the burghs which are combined for Parliamentary purposes only, would have the separate municipalities extinguished. I am familiar with the case of two burghs—one a Royal burgh with upwards of 4,000 inhabitants, and the other a police burgh with nearly 4,000. Each has a perfectly distinct municipality and, to all intents and purposes, they are quite distinct and separate towns. Without this clause, they would, under the Bill, be treated as one, and, having a population of 7,000, would not be merged in the county. It is the desire of both, however, that they should be treated separately. The wording of the clause might perhaps be improved; but I am content to allow it to pass as it stands at present.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause added.

New Clause (Application of Act to County of Ross and Cromarty)—(Dr. Clark)—brought up and read the first time.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

DR. CLARK

Ross and Cromarty are the only two adjoining counties which will continue to be conjoined. I am rather sorry that Cromarty should be wiped out in this fashion, but I suppose it is too small to have an independent existence, and I will not oppose the clause.

* DR. McDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)

I have heard of no objection from anyone in the county to this proposal, and apparently it would be impossible to work the two counties in any other manner, as you have little bits of one dotted over the other.

Question put, and agreed to.

Other New Clauses agreed to.

New Clause (Provision for special drainage or water supply districts,)— (Mr. Barclay,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

This subject has elicited the attention of several hon. Members; and I think the best plan is to accept the clause just proposed, and to add at the end some words I will propose.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, to add at the end of the proposed Clause— And the assessments in respect of the drainage water supply shall he levied in the same manner as they were before such district was formed into a burgh."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)

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

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

I beg to move the clause which stands in my name. I may state that in the cases intended to be dealt with, unless some such clause as this were passed, the parishes so situated would lack representation on the Board until the Boundary Commissioners had decided which counties they should attach them to.

New Clause brought up— Where the roads in a parish, forming part of one county, are, at the passing of this Act, managed and maintained by the Road Trustees of another county upon the Board of Road Trustees of which the said parish is represented, the said parish shall continue to be represented upon the Council of the last-mentioned county until the Boundary Commissioners shall determine of which county the said parish shall form part, and if any county is not divided into districts for such purposes, each parish in the county shall be entitled to elect two representatives to the County Road Board in the manner provided in Section 13 of 'The General Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878.'"—(Mr. J. B. Balfour.)

Clause read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed,"That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is one that is deserving of careful attention, as these anomalous districts present a great puzzle. The matter is one which, I think, had better be postponed for further consideration on Report, as to which I will take care that adequate notice is given.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

I am quite satisfied with the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and therefore will ask leave to withdraw the proposal.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

DR. CLARK

I now beg to propose the clause which stands on the Paper in my name, and the object of which is to permit the Islands of Lewis and Harris, Uist and Skye to be formed into a separate county. I would point out that if this new county were formed it would be much larger in area than that which is represented by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has charge-of the Bill, and will have four times the population of that county. It will also have a much larger population than the Counties of Caithness and Sutherland combined, and would contain a class of people who are separate and distinct, and who have all the characteristics the Boundary Commissioners are to consider in regard to the question of representation. The adoption of this proposal would take these large islands out of the two adjoining counties on the main land where the County Councils will have to meet, and would save long journeys to and fro to the places of meeting. In regard to the question of roads, the people of these islands have, as the Committee is aware, suffered very much, having been compelled to pay the ordinary road rates, although no roads have been made for the repair or maintenance of which rates could be charged. From every point of view it would be better to have these islands placed in the position of a separate county for local purposes than to keep them as they are associated with the counties on the mainland. If they are to be retained in their present position, it will scarcely be possible for them to be properly represented on the County Councils. I should like to hear what the Government have to say on the matter.

New Clause (Application of Acts to certain islands in Ross and Inverness,)—(Dr. Clark,)—brought up, and read the First Time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second Time."

MR. J.P. B.ROBERTSON

The Committee will probably remember that only yesterday the hon. Member for Ross-shire (Dr. Macdonald) made a proposal to the effect that the Island of Lewis should form a separate county for the purposes of the Bill; and I must say that I was not struck with the earnestness or zeal with which the hon. Gentleman brought forward that proposition, nor with the amount of energy with which it was pressed, which was anything but that which he usually displays. The hon. Member for Invernessshire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) put on the Paper a similar proposal for welding these islands into a county similarly isolated; but the hon. Gentleman took the more distinct course of staying away. Tonight the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) has brought forward a proposal to combine the fortunes of all these islands under the administrative arrangements of one county. I do not think the Committee will be well disposed towards a proposal of this kind. There is no doubt that these islands have their difficulties; but I think it better that they should be shared with the counties with which they are at present associated, and that it is most undesirable that they should be cut adrift in the manner suggested.

* DR. McDONALD

My only objection to this proposal is that the county it would create would be far too large. The Lord Advocate has given certain general reasons as to why these islands should not be formed into a separate county; but he has not ventured to allude to the size of the islands, and the great distances the representatives of the people will have to travel if they are compelled to go to Inverness and Dingwall to attend the meetings of the County Councils. Let us take the case of a journey from the Island of Uist to Inverness. From that island the Councillors would have to walk or ride about 40 miles by road, after that they would have to cross by packet or sailing boat to Skye, which would take about half a day; then they must cross Skye, about 23 miles, to Strome Ferry, a journey of several hours, and so proceed to Inverness. The result would be that it would take from four to five days for anyone from the Island of Uist to attend a meeting of the County Council at Inverness. How, I ask, is it to be expected that men can be got to make the sacrifices of time and money involved in journeys such as these? It is said that if this proposal be adopted, the people of these islands will be left in a state of isolation; but it is clear on the other hand that, as far as representation is concerned, the islands will be completely isolated if some such proposition is not agreed to.

DR. CLARK

The Commissioners of Supply of the County of Inverness have strongly urged this proposal, and one of those gentlemen went so far as to say that if it were carried they would recommend that the sum coming to Inverness as one of the counties under the Crofters Act should be given to the islands, Lewis and Skye being at present portions of the County of Inverness. Under existing circumstances, it would be physically impossible for anyone who could not afford to give ten days once a month to that duty to attend the meetings of the County Councils; whereas if my proposal were carried, and the County Council meetings were held in Skye, that would be a central spot to which the Councillors could easily get. If this clause be rejected it will be utterly impossible for the people of the islands to be represented at all. The great bulk of the people of these islands are strongly in favour of this clause.

MR. CALDWELL

I think there is more to be said in favour of this clause than the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate seems to think. There can be no doubt that it is absolutely necessary that the people of these islands should send representatives to the County Council, and the social position of those whom they would elect is such that they would not be able to bear the expenses of repeated journeys to and from the mainland and the long severance from their business which such journeys would involve. There can be no doubt, moreover, that, in the opinion of the people who are most deeply concerned in this matter, it would be far more convenient for them and more conducive to their interests in every way if these islands were formed into one separate county. Such an arrangement would not add to the number of the counties in Scotland, because we have already reduced the number by one, so that if we add the county now proposed there will be no real alteration. I can understand the reason why the Inverness people are anxious to have the islands formed into a separate county, and that is that they consider it unfair that they should be saddled with the poverty of the islands. These islands would have to be dealt with in an exceptional manner, but it would be unfair that the exceptional burden should be put upon Inverness-shire and Rossshire; it should fall upon Scotland generally. The matter is one well worthy of consideration. Under present circumstances it is quite impracticable that these islands should be represented at all. Unless it be some fish-curer the people have really neither the times nor the means to go these long distances to attend the meetings. If you cannot improve the management of these districts, when disturbances are likely to occur, then the benefit of this Local Government measure will be lost.

MR. BUCHANAN

Sir, unless some such Amendment as this is carried, it is quite impossible that the inhabitants of these islands can have representation. The other argument I have to bring forward is this—that you have a precedent for the course suggested by the English Act, under which several counties were divided up—Yorkshire, Sussex, Cambridgeshire, and some other counties. Special provision was made in the English Bill for the Scilly Isles—which are not separated by such a stretch of sea as are Skye and the Outer Hebrides—for the purposes of the County Council. If you wish to benefit the population of the Western Hebrides you are bound to accept some such measure as is proposed.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 150.—(Div. List, No. 216.)

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I have now to move that the Local Government (Scotland) Bill and the Local Government (Scotland) Supplementary Provisions Bill be consolidated in one Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Local Government (Scotland) Bill and the Local Government (Scotland) Supplementary Provisions Bill be consolidated in one Bill."

Motion agreed to.

Bills consolidated into Local Government (Scotland) Bill.

Consolidated Bill reported; Bill recommitted in respect of Clauses 19 and 27, and of certain New Clauses to be proposed in lieu thereof and a Schedule.