LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 334).

HC Deb 22 July 1889 vol 338 cc998-1067

Order for consideration of Bill, as amended, read.

* MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)

I beg to move that the Bill be recommitted, and— That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision to enable County Councils to pay the Returning Officer's expenses at any Parliamentary election which may have taken place in the county within the financial year out of the Probate Duty Fund. It will be recollected that, during the past four years, attempts have been made to legislate upon this subject. A Bill was passed in 1886, but rejected by the House of Lords. Last year a memorial was submitted to the First Lord of the Treasury, signed by a majority of the Scotch Members, urging upon the Government the propriety of dealing with the matter. Although the Session was protracted, the right hon. Gentleman was unable to afford an opportunity for discussing the question. I think it is essential, if we are to have popular representation, that the proposal contained in this instruction to the Committee should be passed into law. It has nothing to do with the payment of Members of Parliament or the payment of their election expenses. The expenses referred to in the Instruction are simply those over which the candidate has no control whatever. At present, before a candidate can be nominated, he has to give security for his share of expenses varying from £500 to £700. I am aware that an objection may be taken to the provision we propose to insert in this Bill because the measure itself only applies to county constituen- cies, and leaves the boroughs untouched. I submit that the borough constituencies are on a different platform, having a municipal organization within a limited area with expenses considerably lighter than those which are incurred in county elections. But we are now establishing County Councils, and we must provide the machinery necessary for conducting the elections; and all I ask is that the machinery provided shall be permanent and shall be applicable to Parliamentary as well as County Council elections. No doubt the existing system in regard to the payment of the statutory expenses of elections was introduced in the interests of the monied classes. My contention is, that such expenses ought not to be thrown upon the candidate. If we are to return to this House working class representatives, it is absolutely essential that this bar should be removed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of a new clause,—(Returning Officers' expenses at Parliamentary elections.")—(Mr. Esslemont.)

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

No doubt the question raised by the hon. Member is very important, and of general interest; but, having regard to the interests which the hon. Member has in view, I doubt whether this is the appropriate occasion for the discussion. The House is now dealing with the Local Government of counties and their rating, and the hon. Member proposes that a provision for the payment of expenses, not for County elections, but for Parliamentary elections, shall be inserted in the Bill. Almost any desirable public or Imperial object could be brought with as much reason within the four corners of the Bill. I hope the hon. Member, especially at this period in the progress of the Bill, and the stage of the Session at which we have now arrived, will re-consider the expediency of moving this Instruction, and whether it may not be better to reserve the consideration of the subject for an opportunity when it can be considered on its own merits.

SIR G. TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

I think there is a great deal of force in what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. It would be difficult to introduce a complicated and important clause in the Bill at this stage under which alone the system in Scotland is to be changed. None the less, however, my hon. Friend is right in using this opportunity to bring the question under the notice of the House. I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw the Instruction, and that the Government will consider themselves under a renewed obligation to meet what is undoubtedly the wish of the great majority of the Scottish Members. Next Session the Government will be without excuse in not introducing a Bill, which would pass through the House very easily, considering that the feeling in Scotland would be entirely in its favour.

* MR. ESSLEMONT

I "will not press the Amendment, but I thought it desirable to bring it forward, seeing that the question has now been removed from the possibility of being discussed for three years in succession.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill, as amended, considered.

A clause (Annual Budgets of District Committee,)—(Mr. Rathbone,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire)

I trust that the Government will find themselves able to accept this Amendment, which simply deals with the local expenditure. I believe that the people of Scotland will not long remain satisfied with the multiplication of spending bodies, but will seek to concentrate all of them in one central authority. I do not see why our Scotch friends, who are 50 years in advance of England in almost everything else, should be one year behind us in this matter. I hope, therefore, the Government may see their way to the acceptance of this proposal.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

Any suggestion coming from the hon. Gentleman opposite deserves the utmost respect; but although I entirely sympathize with the object the hon. Member has in view, I think he can hardly have borne in mind the fact that we are not setting up a fully organized and complete District Council, but merely a District Council for limited purposes only, and one which does not call for such an elaborate system as is provided by the clause he has proposed. I may remind the hon. Gentleman that we have had some experience under the English Act, and the result has been to show that there is no necessity for so elaborate an organization as is demanded by this clause. Moreover, I think it is not desirable, unless for very cogent reasons, to cramp the action of the District Committees by dictating to them the exact methods they should adopt. Looking at the somewhat narrow scope given to these Councils in matters of finance this provision does not strike me as being needed, and on this ground, without in any way desiring to diminish the importance of the matter, I am unable to accept the clause.

MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

I think there is a good deal in this clause; because it will be seen that the District Committees have large powers, and will have to discharge separate functions with regard to three important matters—namely, the general council rate, parochial roads, and the public health, all of which will necessitate a large amount of taxation. The Road Trustees have had to make up a budget of their own, and that is sent in to the General County Board. I think that in view of all these matters it would be found desirable to admit this clause.

Question put, and negatived.

New Clause (Highways, counties of Aberdeen and Banff,)—(Mr. Duff,)—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

I have no objection to the clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added.

DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College Division)

I have now to move the clause I have put on the Paper in reference to the payment of fees in certain cases by the School Boards. This provision was struck out in Committee; but its only effect would be to leave matters as they are under the existing Education Act. By an Amendment inserted at the very last stage in Committee on this Bill, two sections were inserted, the first of which deals with the obligation of the School Boards to charge school fees, subject to certain exceptions. Section 69 of the Scotch Education Act imposes on parents the duty of providing elementary education for their children, and goes on to say that where the parent is, in consequence of poverty, unable to pay the fees for reading, writing, and arithmetic, it shall be his duty to go to the Parochial Board and ask that Board to pay, this provision being made applicable to the case of blind children, and it is also provided that the Board shall pay the fees in any State-aided school the parent may choose. Now, the Amendment which was-inserted in the Bill repealing this provision was, I believe, inserted without a full appreciation of its effect, which was to relieve the parent of the duty of providing education for his children where unable to do so by reason of his poverty. Take the case of a widow, with a large family. She is at present enabled to go to the Parochial Board and get them to-pay the children's fees in any Board School or Denominational School she may select in her own district, and under the clause inserted in the Bill as amended in Committee, that widow would be entirely cut off from this assistance. The principle of my Amendment is to leave the existing arrangement undisturbed, an arrangement by which payment from the rates is only to be given in those cases where the stipulations set forth in the Scotch Education Act are complied with. I maintain that it would be entirely overturning that principle if we were, by Section 86 inserted in this Bill, and under the circumstances I have stated, to repeal this provision of the Scotch Education Act. It is quite impossible to say that the voluntary schools shall provide these fees; and by the general admission of all parties the Parochial Board is not the body that, should be called upon to fulfil the obligations required in these matters. The duty will devolve upon the School Board instead of the Parochial Board to pay the fees of poor persons. The result will be that, where fees are charged by School Boards, they will simply have to pay them with one hand and collect them with the other, or, in other words, remit the fees. If a parent sends his children to a voluntary school, as at present he has the right to do under the existing arrangement, the duty will be taken from the Parochial Board. The amount will be vastly less than in the past. The proposal to substitute the School Board for the Parochial Board will meet with general approbation; and I think the right hon. Gentleman himself will admit that the wholesale repeal of that section of the Education Act of 1872 involves more than he intended, without treating the poor persons and the blind children specially provided for in that section. It will be necessary to insert some clause restoring the right to meat the case of those persons.

New Clause (School Boards in certain instances to pay fees,)—[Dr. Cameron,)—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

I cannot accept the clause of the hon. Gentleman, which is open to the very gravest objections. In the first place the principle on which we have proceeded has been to provide funds obtainable from local moneys to relieve school fees. That is to be done away with. What is now proposed is that the School Board shall be bound to offer payment to any parent willing to send his child to a Board School of all fees which fall within the prescribed standards. In the first place it is to be observed that to a large extent this is an entirely superfluous provision; but when it does come to the cases in which it would be operative, it puts a premium on Board Schools. It tells parents that anyone who does not benefit from the grant shall, if they send their children to Board Schools, get payment out of the rates, and the necessary means by which this relief, if ever the power were acquired, is to be obtained, is out of the moneys at the disposal of the Board. I very strongly deprecate the provisions being inserted in the Bill, and the clauses contain the common places of the controversy of fifteen years ago. They were all raised in the English measure, and gave rise to disputes which have fortunately passed away. The hon. Gentleman proposes to revive this obnoxious system which caused so much irritation. It would not be in order to discuss the second clause proposed by the hon. Member, but I would point out to the Committee that this proposal, which he has stated in two branches, involves another very objectionable proposal, inextricably coupled with it, and that is an attack upon the graded schools.

MR. CALDWELL

The law as it at present stands is this, that the Act of 1872 gives the Parochial Board choice of any State-aided school to which to send the child of poor parents. The Government are going to allow the School Boards to charge school fees for the elementary standards in certain schools. The effect of that is that only those children who choose to pay the fees would be admitted to the school. The Act of 1872 made it clear that poverty should be no bar to a child entering the State-aided schools. It is the principle that the man who is unable to pay shall be put on exactly the earns footing as the man who is able to pay, and that there shall be no disqualification whatever. But now you are going to have two classes of schools—schools without any fees whatever and schools where fees may be charged. The effect will be that only those parents who can pay will be able to have children at fee-paying schools, and you deprive the parents who are unable to pay of their choice of a school. The Lord Advocate seemed to think that this clause was aimed at denominational schools. It is not. There is nothing at all in this clause which in any way interferes with the right of a parent to select a school, whether State-aided, denominational, or Board School. All that is proposed is to preserve the existing rights of poor parents under the Act of 1872, which lays down distinctly that any child whose parent is unable to pay may be sent to a State aided school. That is the meaning of this clause which I support, and I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.

The House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 209.—(Div. List, No. 235.)

DR. CAMERON

My next Amendment is intended to insure that the grant to be made for the purpose of providing free education in Scotland, shall be so applied. As the House is aware, there is a sum of money to be distributed in Scotland, and of that £246,000 is to be applied towards the relief of the payment of school fees. This money is to be distributed in accordance with a Minute of the Scotch Education Department. I have asked about that Minute, and I put a question on the Paper to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, who told me in reply that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had already explained the arrangement, but that he would be willing to give me any more information I required. Now, I want a considerable amount of information. We are asked to apply this sum of £246,000 to what we, on this side of the House, call free education, but what hon. Gentlemen opposite call the payment of fees. But we have no guarantee in this Bill as to how the money is to be applied. It is to be applied in accordance with the provisions of some Minute of the Scotch Education Department, which we have not before us, of which we have no knowledge, and which also may be changed another year by means of the Education Code, which the House will have no opportunity of objecting to and no effective means of discussing. Now, I submit that if we do not take precautions to secure the distribution of the money in the way we desire, we shall not attain our end. When we last discussed this point, we were told that this was a financial scheme which was to be amended, and that when it was amended, we should then be able to examine it. Well, we have now got the amended scheme before us, and I venture to think it is worse than the original one. We have got, I admit, £35,000 more than was first offered, but we do not know anything regarding the conditions under which it is to be applied. The Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, the President of the English Local Government Board, and the Lord Advocate have all told us that they do not mean to give us free education. We want free education, and if we do not get it, I venture to assert that in a great number of cases the position of Scotch families will be worse than it is at present. Where three children belonging to one family attend a school, it is the custom of certain School Boards to allow the eldest of the three his education at half rates, and where there are four children or more, the fourth and fifth get their education free. You thus have free education provided in the upper standard for a number of children, and in the case of other children it is given at half prices. In the City of Glasgow alone, I believe 6,000 odd children come under this arrangement, but under the provisions of the Lord Advocate, so far as we can see, all these children will be deprived of free education. Now the question is, as to the sufficiency of the grant to pay all the school fees. It is proposed to give an amount of £246,000 for the relief of fees. What is the amount of fees charged in Scotland? In regard to this matter, an error has crept into the discussion on this point, and if you refer to the Report of the auditor of the School Board accounts, you will find he states the total amount of fees paid as £260,000 or £275,000 a year. But he only audits the accounts of the Board Schools, and if you go through the Report of the Committee on Education which deals not merely with the Board Schools, but also with the State-aided schools in Scotland, you will find that in the year 1887 the amount of school fees paid in Scotland was £316,000, and that it is increasing at the rate of £7,000 a year. That would bring it up to £330,000 now; therefore, you have a deficit of some £90,000 between the grant to be made and the actual school fees paid every year. I admit that this total includes the fees paid in the Sixth Standard, which is not compulsory, and on that account I am willing to make a deduction of say £30,000 or £40,000; but even then there is a deficit of over £50,000 which will have to be made up if you are going to remit all the fees in the compulsory standards. Now I understand the only way in which the Government propose to allocate the grant is in the shape of the payment of bonuses on average attendance. That seems to be the only fair way in which the grant can be distributed, but that puts us in this dilemma. The average amount of fees paid by scholars in Scotland is about 12s. 10d., but if you were to give the full 12s. 10d. instead of the £246,000 you would require £330,000, and some School Boards on that principle would get more than they require, while others would be left a long way behind. One cause of this is that the fees vary in different districts. In many Highland districts they are about one penny per week——

An hon. MEMBER: A quarter.

DR. CAMERON

My hon. Friend says a penny per quarter. I was not aware that the Scotch Education Department had ever sanctioned that low payment, but I do know that in many instances the total fees in certain districts have been under £2 or £3 a year, and in one case they were as low as 13s.; so that it is evident that in a large number of parishes the fees are less than 12s. per year per child. If the average all over Scotland is 12s., it is clear that in many cases the fees must be considerably above that sum. If you then distribute on the basis of the average attendance, the result will be that in those parishes where at the present moment very little expense is incurred in the shape of fees, and a great deal in the shape of rates, you will be allotting more than is required, and the rates will be relieved; while in districts where the education charges are defrayed to a large extent by fees and to a smaller extent by rates, the result would be even if you were to give the full amount of 12s. per scholar, you would not make up the deficiency in the fees, and you would inflict considerable hardship by compelling the School Board to put on an additional rate. Now, I wish to propose that where you apply this grant to the payment of fees, it shall be coupled with a condition that the schools in receipt of the grant shall give free education. In the district of Govan, where the fees are exceptionally high, it will be necessary, under the proposal of the Government, still to charge the fees, unless you couple with the giving of this grant the condition that free education in the compulsory standards shall be given. When I brought up this matter before, it was not discussed, and the Lord Advocate replied to me that it raised the question of graded schools. It does not. I do not wish to raise that matter at all. I do not propose to prevent any School Boards charging fees in any school it likes. All I suggest is that in those schools to which the grant is made, the education in the compulsory standards shall be free. I do not care for graded schools. I think they are snobbish; but if electors choose to empower their School Boards to have graded schools, I do not see why we should interfere with them, and if the Boards prefer to establish schools in which a charge of ninepence a week can be made, there is no reason why we should prevent it. We can very well allow the ratepayers to manage their own business in this respect. But if the School Boards choose to keep up their fees, I do not see why they should participate in this grant of £246,000. We want this money to be given in Scotland in order to secure free education, and if you attach to the grant the condition I suggest, the result will be that the School Boards and the School Managers will have to consider whether or not it is worth their while in order to get the grant to make education free in the compulsory standards.

Clause (Provision as to probate duty grant for relief from payment of school fees,)—(Dr. Cameron,)—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

I object to the Amendment and cannot accept it. There are schools conducted by the managers in which the parents are able and willing to pay fees, and in which it would be absurd if fees were not paid by the parents, and if this clause were inserted the managers would have to close such schools, in which most useful work is being done, and the receipts of which are often of great service in carrying on the ordinary public elementary schools, or they would have to forego their right to a grant in aid under the provisions of this Act. I protest against depriving them of that source of revenue. I think that would be very undesirable. The money will, I can assure the House, be administered by the Scotch Education Department with perfect bona fides and with the object of securing as many free places as possible. More than that it is manifest we cannot do. The House, indeed, has not imposed any further duty on us. I do not think the House will desire that more shall be said at this time. A great deal of interesting detail will require consideration, and the varying circumstances of the School Boards throughout the country will require an immense amount of application in dealing with them. At present it must be remembered certain fees are already paid to the schools by the Parochial Boards. I think I consult the wishes of the House when I do not prosecute this subject further, but from no reticence on the part of the Government, but really because it is rather a matter which should be maturely considered in detail and after the scheme is set in motion.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I trust my hon. Friend will not press this clause to a Division, because although I entirely sympathize with the object he has in view, I do not think there is any answer at all to the concluding remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate. It is provided by the Bill that this money shall be dealt with by a Minute of the Scotch Education Department, and when that Minute is presented would undoubtedly be the proper occasion on which to raise such a question as that which my hon. Friend raises. My hon. Friend has said that if we part with the Bill we lose all power to influence the decision of the Scotch Education Department; but in considering what the Scotch Education Department will do with this money, we cannot entirely ignore the manner and spirit in which the Government have acted with reference to the opinions of the great majority of Scotch Members on this subject. I am bound to say the Government have made a concession to the overwhelming opinion, no doubt, of Scotland. They might have made that concession in a niggardly and grudging spirit, but they have acted very handsomely in the arrangements made with reference to the funds at their disposal; and I think, having regard to the manner in which the Government have hitherto met Scotch Members, we may well leave this subject for discussion until the Minute of the Education Department is before the House. I almost think that, under the circumstances, it savours of ungraciousness to anticipate at the present moment the opinion which the Scotch Education Department will ultimately have to put before the House. Therefore, while I quite agree with the spirit and scope of the clause of my hon. Friend, I think the introduction of the clause is premature, and I trust the hon. Gentleman will not compel us to divide, because agreeing with him, as I do, I shall feel bound on this occasion to support the Government.

MR. W. P. SINCLAIR (Falkirk Burghs)

I am thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow for having introduced this subject, because a statement has in consequence been drawn from the Government which we very much wanted by way of explanation. But there my thankfulness ends. If the clause were adopted I believe the results would be most disastrous. It is absolutely necessary for the financial success of this scheme that the Government proposal should stand as at present, and that the schools in which fees may be charged should remain in the position the Government leave them. I think the hon. Gentleman would do well to withdraw his clause.

MR. CALDWELL

I hope my hon. Friend will not be deterred by the probable result of a Division from going to a Division. This is a subject which concerns the City of Glasgow more than any other part of Scotland, and it is a subject the discussion of which will not rest here, but will be carried on by the citizens of Glasgow. The proposal of the Government is that there are to be two classes of schools in Glasgow, schools in which no fees are to be paid in the compulsory standards, and alongside them fee-paying schools, in which no children are to be educated except those whose parents are able to pay school fees. To have two classes of schools in a community like Glasgow would be to introduce the question of social distinction, which has never yet been raised in the case of public aided schools in Scotland. If there be one thing more than another upon which this country is intent it is that if Government assistance is given it should be given in an open way, and so that all classes of the community may participate in it. Hyde Park is open to every child of the community. Would you think of proposing that a portion of Hyde Park should be enclosed, and that only a certain class of the community should be allowed to enter it? It would not be tolerated. The principle on which the old Parochial Schools of Scotland was conducted was that every child in the parish was upon an equal footing at school. The sons of landlords, tenants, peasants, and the poorest of the people sat on the same form in the class. Of social distinction there was none, and the result was that the poorest child had the same opportunity, educationally, as the richest. What was the advantage of that system? It was that the interest of the higher classes was concentrated in the success of these public schools, and that the Scotch Parochial Schools were the best managed schools in the world. You are now about to divide the people of Glasgow into two classes, each of which is to receive State aid. That is very objectionable. We object to the better classes of society enjoying State aid in schools where they can pay a certain amount of school fees, and from which the general public are to be excluded. There is more than a question of sentiment involved in this matter. There are no less than one million pounds worth of educational endowments in Glasgow. These endowments are open to the children attending every State - aided school in Glasgow. If you have the schools on an equal footing every child is on an equal footing. If you have certain free schools which the poorer children attend, and if, on the other hand, you have better class schools which the better class children attend, what will be the result of the competition in the bursaries in the City of Glasgow? As a matter of course, the free school children will not have the same chance as the children of the wealthy people. Parents will find that the poor schools are attended by the riff-raff of the City, and that the attendance is very irregular. They will very probably find that in the fee-paying schools the attendance is more regular, that the education is more perfect, and that the teachers receive better remuneration. There is no doubt that parents would say—"By all means we would rather send our children to the select schools than to the free schools. "We maintain that no grant should be paid in respect of schools in which fees are charged. It is said the money at the disposal of the Government is not sufficient to free all schools. The very object the Government have in view is to curtail the money that would otherwise ultimately go to the schools. If you exclude from this grant, or any portion of it, all those schools where school fees are charged, necessarily you leave a large sum to those schools which do not charge any fees. The Government may commit themselves to the establishment of free education, and at the same time establish fee-paying schools; but they will find that their proceeding will not commend itself to the people of Scotland. Free education must be free all round; all classes of the community must stand on an equal footing in all schools. In the case of the parish churches in Scotland the principle adopted was that everyone, rich and poor alike, might attend the same church and obtain the same ministrations, and the schools in Scotland, at the time of the Reformation, were established on the principle of perfect social equality, which was continued down to 1872, when the Act was passed. You are now attempting to introduce a policy which is opposed to the feeling of Scotland. In matters of public policy, whether in relation to the Church, the School, or the State, the opinions of the Scottish people have always been in favour of perfect equality before the law. I do not agree that this is a question to be dealt with in a Minute by the Scotch Department. It ought to be settled in the Bill itself. We should have it clearly laid down in the Bill that the money is granted only to those schools where free education is actually given, and where all classes of the community are in a position of perfect equality. I hope my hon. Friend will press the matter to a Division.

* MR. PROVAND (Glasgow, Blackfriars, &c.)

No doubt the opinion in Scotland is very much against the proposal in the Bill. It is looked upon as an attempt to create classes within the masses. It is certain there has always been a strong democratic feeling among the people of Scotland with reference to educational matters. My hon. Friend the Member for the College Division (Dr. Cameron) has shown that Scotland is to receive something like £50,000 less than is necessary to give free education. My hon. Friend has shown that fees in schools in Scotland amount to about £330,000 per annum. Even allowing from this a deduction of, say, £30,000 from the fees derived from the 6th Standard which is not compulsory, we have £300,000 to provide, against which the Government only give £246,000. There are, therefore, fully £50,000 short to meet the fees in all the schools in Scotland, and unless this £50,000 can in some way be provided, graded schools will be established, although against the opinion of the majority of the Liberal Scottish Members in this House, and against an enormous preponderance of opinion throughout Scotland. The Lord Advocate has stated that my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division has over-estimated the amount that will be deficient, and said that there would be the usual payment towards fees by the Parochial Boards to make up this amount, but the right hon. Gentleman bas forgotten that the 86th clause in the Bill abolishes the payment of school fees by the Parochial Boards. There will, therefore, be nothing received to make up the deficiency which has been pointed out, and the financial position described by my hon. Friend appears to me to be unassailable. The figures show a deficit of something like £50,000, and unless the Lord Advocate can inform us how this is to be provided, the School Boards, or some of them, will be compelled to establish graded schools, which will certainly be very much against public sentiment throughout Scotland.

* MR. J. A. CAMPBELL (Glasgow and Aberdeen University)

It rather surprises me that the three hon. Members for Glasgow who have spoken should found their opinions on the case of Glasgow. In my opinion, the case of Glasgow is fatal to this Amendment. The hon. Member for the College Division (Dr. Cameron) said a good deal about this money having been given to establish free education. I do not think that is an accurate way of stating the matter. A certain sum has been given to establish free education as far as the money will go—which is a different thing. The amount of money has been very considerably increased since this Bill was introduced, and from the very beginning it was stated that when once the principle of contributing towards the payment of fees was introduced it would be a great thing if the money could be so increased as to cover the compulsory standards as nearly as possible. This can be accomplished now in most cases, but in some it cannot; and one of the most notable cases, showing the insufficiency of the money to free the compul- sory standards, is in Glasgow itself The School Board for Glasgow expect that their portion of this money will be about £23,000, but the amount of fees they now receive for the Fifth Standard and all under is nearly £33,000; so that, with the money they are to receive from the Probate Duty Grant, they cannot free the compulsory standards; but, with such liberty as they will have if this Amendment is not carried, they will be able to meet the case. Graded schools are in existence. In Glasgow itself, and under the School Board, there is a system of graded schools, not arising from any á priori theory of the School Board, but from the fact that different kinds of schools are wanted in different parts of the city. They have something like five different rates of school fees in the schools under their care. If the schools are all to be of the same grade it will be necessary either to raise the grade of many of them, giving a more expensive class of schools, and increasing the burden on the rates, or to bring down the quality of certain schools. If we do the latter, we shall do a great injustice to a large number of ratepayers who wish to have schools to which they can send their children with comfort and satisfaction, and for which they are quite willing to pay fees. I hope the House will reject the Amendment of my hon. Friend, the result of which if carried would simply be to reduce the quality of the education in Scotland.

* MR. C. S. PARKER (Perth)

I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter), that the hon. Mover of the Amendment would do well to withdraw it, and present it again when the House is in possession of the Minute of the Education Department. I am strongly in favour of leaving the Bill in its present state. I wish to know whether the hon. Mover of the Amendment has placed himself in communication with the School Board for Glasgow, which sent a deputation here on this very question, and whether he has heard the arguments of the School Board on the subject. The Glasgow School Board is as much in favour as anybody of promoting free education; and I understand that their present feeling is in favour of doing so as far as the grant proposed will go. What we want is to have as much money as possible available in that direction, but if a clause be placed in the Bill absolutely prohibiting fees, or fining those schools which charge fees, money is withdrawn which would be valuable in establishing free education. As has been stated by the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. J. A. Campbell), the Glasgow School Board have five grades of schools, and this policy has arisen historically from the fact that in dealing with schools in different districts in the city they found traditional fees suited to the habits and resources of each district, and these were continued. You have schools with no fees, schools with penny fees, and schools with higher fees in Glasgow, and if you permit the School Board of Glasgow—and Glasgow may be taken as representing a large part of Scotland—to have 10 or possibly 12 schools charging fees, what they wish is to have their share of the Probate Grant to throw into a common fund which the Board administers. The fallacy lies in supposing you are dealing with individual schools. You say that individual schools receiving fees should not receive this money from the Probate Grant. But you do not make the payment to individual schools, but to the School Board in respect of certain schools, and having made the payment to the School Board the money goes into the general fund, and is available for the financial arrangements of the Board wherever the needs are greatest. In Glasgow, as has been pointed out, the Board cannot make ends meet unless you allow them to have fees paid in some schools and also allow them to draw a share of the Probate Grant in respect of children in those schools, but applicable towards free education in other schools. The hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division (Mr. Caldwell) says if you allow the two kinds of schools in Glasgow, some with fees and some without, then those children who come from better families will go to the schools where fees are charged, will there get better teaching, will be better qualified for competition, and so they will get hold of the best endowments. He admits, however, that these children of the better class do this at present, so that at any rate things will be no worse. But surely there is a simple mode of preventing any injustice that might so arise. The educational endowments in Glasgow are under four different bodies who have the administration of them, at any rate there are four funds to administer; well, then, in order that the very poorest shall not be deprived of advantages from the endowments, it is quite open to those who have the management of the endowments to say that they will confine certain endowments to a certain class of schools, to say for instance, that no children shall compete whose school fees are above a certain amount. Or you might even say that in some cases there shall be no competition by children from schools where any fees are charged. The difference between schools where fees are paid and those where there are no fees may be taken roughly as representing-a difference in the means of the parents, and it will be open to those who have the administration of the endowment funds to exclude from competition the children attending the higher schools. But this case of Glasgow is only one illustration of the broad principle which I have begged hon. Members to consider in reference to the question of free education. There are three great sources of support for education, the rates, the taxes, and the large sum which hitherto has been contributed by parents in the shape of fees, and I cannot see why in deference to the abstract principle of free education we should unwisely and unnecessarily throw away the whole of the income we are getting from fees. Believe those who cannot pay fees, have schools that may be attended without payment of fees, but where parents are anxious and willing to pay keep that source of income open for the present. If you do not, you will find when you come to meet the great needs of the future, technical schools, evening schools, higher schools, the strengthening of the teaching staff, and so on, that you are short of funds. You must come again to ratepayers and taxpayers for assistance, and ratepayers and taxpayers may refuse that assistance, and desirable reforms will be postponed because the State has intervened between parents, who surely are the natural persons to have the liberty of paying fees for their children's education if they like, and the managers of schools, and says if you have anything to do with public schools you must pay no fees for your children's education. As to the traditional custom in Scotland, it is quite true that in old times the children of the rich and poor often sat in the same school, but it is not true that they were on the same footing as regards fees. Those who could afford it paid fees, sometimes high fees; and those who could not were admitted free. In the country schools and in small towns this may still continue, but in large towns it will be found that those who can afford to pay very liberal fees will send their children to one school, and others who cannot afford fees will send their children where there are no fees at all.

* MR. ESSLEMONT

Perhaps I may be allowed a word of explanation in regard to my vote. I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division on his last Amendment and voted against him, but according to the statement he has made now and the Amendment before us, I understand what he means is this—that we shall not have in the same schools the gradation of fee paying and non-paying pupils. If my hon. Friend wishes to confine his Amendment to the same school, I would agree with him. If that is the meaning of his Amendment, then I can support it; I wish now to say that I am able to vote with him. I am sorry that he did not support a principle more important, whereby the sum would have been made sufficient not to give to State-aided-schools but only public schools any grant whatever. On that principle my hon. Friend parted from me and left me standing alone. I hope, however, my hon. Friend will return to that some day, and in the meantime if my hon. Friend means there shall not be a gradation in the same school whereby a division shall be made between paying and non paying pupils I shall support the Amendment.

The House divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 218.—(Div. List, No. 236.)

MR. MCDONALD CAMERON (Wick, &c.)

I believe this clause, notice of which stands in my name, the payment of the travelling expenses of Councillors, would make a pecuniary charge, and that it is therefore not competent for me to move it. I only rise to ask the Lord Advocate if he is disposed to accept, and has prevailed with his colleagues to in- duce them to accept, something in the nature of this clause.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I am not in favour of the clause as it stands.

MR. McDONALD CAMERON

But will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what modification of the clause he would be disposed to favour?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I am sorry to say the suggestion I made did not meet with acceptance. My suggestion was that in exceptional cases payment might be made towards travelling expenses of County Councillors, but the information I gathered satisfied me that I was not likely to receive support to my proposal.

MR. CALDWELL

I rise to move the Amendment, of which I have given notice, the insertion of a new clause having reference to the application of the Act to the County of Stirling. The Government have accepted and added to the Bill an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Sir Archibald Orr Ewing), which has for its object the taking out of the County of Stirling certain parishes and bringing them into the County of Dumbarton, and the effect will be the unsettling of the boundary of Stirling as fixed by the Roads and Bridges Act. The object of my new clause is, considering that you are going to take out of the county of Stirling certain parishes which originally belonged to Dumbarton, and to restore to them to Dumbarton, my object is to restore to Stirling parishes from Dumbarton and Perth that originally formed part of Stirling. It is a simple question. If the Lord Advocate is going to disturb the existing boundaries of counties in the interest of Dumbarton, then he should equally have regard to Stirling, and set the boundaries of that county right. This new clause would not be needed if the Lord Advocate would agree to strike out Clause 40, which disturbs the present arrangement for the County of Stirling, but if that arrangement is to be destroyed then it is necessary that the county should be restored to the position it occupied before the passing of the Roads and Bridges Act, and this I propose by the clause I now move.

New Clause (Application of Act to county of Stirling.)—(Mr. Caldwell,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

* MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

In the absence of my hon. Colleague the Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. J. C. Bolton), I should like to say a word or two upon this clause. I have joined my hon. Friend in putting on the Paper a Motion for the rejection of Clause 40, because Clause 40 proposes to take away from Stirling some important parishes for the purposes of this Act. What we should very much prefer is that Stirlingshire should be left as it now naturally exists, and has existed for a long time, not deprived, as it will be by clause 40, of the parishes of Cumbernauld and Kirkintolloch. That would be desirable on many accounts, and perhaps the Lord Advocate will say at once whether he can agree to this. If he does not, and still insists upon Clause 40, Stirling will be shorn on both sides in a way the county has done nothing to deserve—and I should support the clause now proposed, which merely restores to that county parishes which originally belonged to it. In the case of the parish of Logie the claim is especially strong, because it contains the flourishing watering-place of Bridge of Allan, which is almost a suburb of the town of Stirling.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment has mentioned it in connection with Clause 40, which relates to Cumbernauld and Kirkintolloch, two parishes in another part of Stirlingshire, and perhaps I ought to say at once that the general intention—the general scope of the Bill—is that these detached and isolated portions of a county should be merged into the county in which they are locally situated, though with which they are not for administrative purposes connected. When we come to the parishes mentioned in the Amendment, I am struck with the fact that they are very peculiarly situated, and the parish of Logie is split up and locally distributed in as eccentric a way as any parish in Scotland, and affords a very strong case for consolidation, and I cannot say that any case is made out for exempting Logie from the general plan of the Bill, with which I think the House will agree as a proper plan, that we should consolidate the detachedportions of a county in that county by which it is in the greater part surrounded. These parishes afford strong instances for carrying out the principle; they are embedded, as it were, in the neighbouring county. I regret the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour). I do not gather that he is favourable to this proposal. I do not think the dignity of Stirling shire ought to rise at all at so very small a matter relatively as this we are now discussing. Considering the case of Logie as "past praying for," so completely is it cut up by its position, I turn to Alva, which has a population of 5,000. Stirlingshire, including this parish, has a population of 85,000, so that this parish is only 4 per cent of the whole. Surely it is not a very strong case for exceptional treatment, more especially when we find that Alva is contiguous to and abuts upon Perth, and is to a large extent surrounded by Clackmannan. Then the right hon. Gentleman has said he will be content if we give an assurance that we will part with Clause 40. But the two parishes mentioned there have been recognized in previous Acts of Parliament in the manner we have treated them, and they fall with in the principle I have referred to, that of merging detached portions of a county into the surrounding county. Here we have the case of two detached parishes with only a population of 15,000 out of a county population of 61,000. What is required is to consolidate the parishes in the county; and when we come to consider all the circumstances of the case it will, I think, appear to the House impossible to carry theory so far as to deal specially with the parishes referred to in the proposed clause.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. CALDWELL

I beg to move in Clause 4, page 1, line 26, to move to add after the word "every, "to add "burgh and." This is rendered necessary through the adoption of the principle that in each burgh instead of the ratepayers being the electors of the county, the Member for the burgh is to I be elected by the Town Council. The Lord Advocate will see that this principle having been adopted, it becomes urgently necessary that the burgh should form an electoral division. It follows as a matter of course.

Amendment proposed, Clause 4, page 1, line 26, after "every" to insert "burgh and."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The hon. Gentleman has misapprehended a provision of the Bill which I thought had been made sufficiently clear. The whole scheme of the Bill is that all places, except those burghs which stand outside the county, are to be included, consequently they cannot be regarded as electoral divisions. Police burghs are distinguished from burghs forming part of a county, and sending representatives to the County Council.

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

MR. CALDWELL

I beg to move the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name, with the addition of the words "provided that," and of the word "only" after "office" in the second line. It will come in in line 5 after "elections." The Lord Advocate has accepted the Amendment.

Amendment moved, Clause 4, page 2, line 6, after "election," insert— Provided that the County Councillors first elected under the provisions of this Act shall continue in office only until the first Tuesday in December in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two, when the whole number of Councillors shall go out of office, and their places shall be filled by election as hereinafter provided."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

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

MR. BAIRD (Glasgow, Central)

I have an Amendment in the shape of a proviso to come in at the end of the clause. It will apply to the case of only part of an electoral division which may be included within the boundary of the burgh. The Amendment is not on the Paper.

Amendment proposed, to add at the end of the clause— Provided also that if a part only of any electoral division shall be so annexed or included, the Councillor or Councillors of such electoral division shall continue to hold office until the Secretary for Scotland shall otherwise determine."—(Mr. Baird.)

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

Another Amendment agreed to:—Clause 5. page 2, line 15, alter "and," insert "each of."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)

MR. CALDWELL

I beg to move an Amendment of Clause 7 to provide that a Councillor who ceases to be a county elector shall nevertheless serve out his term of office. In ordinary circumstances this Amendment would not have been necessary, but I think it is very desirable to have it in the Bill, looking at the general words of the clause as to disqualification.

Amendment proposed, Clause 7, page 2, line 27, after "county," add— But a Councillor duly qualified at the time of his election shall not be disqualified from serving out his term of office as a County Councillor by reason of his ceasing to be a county elector for such county."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I must own that I have thought that the view of the Committee in adopting the words "Councillor shall be at the time of his election, "was that if he ceased to bean elector he should also cease to be a Councillor. I am at a loss to know why that should not be so. It is desirable that Councillors should be persons who are ratepayers, and, therefore, interested in the affairs of the county. If they are electors they will be ratepayers, and if they cease to be ratepayers they ought to cease to be Councillors.

Mr. CALDWELL

I withdraw the Amendment, although I put on it a different interpretation to the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved, in Clause 8, page 2, line 28, after "burgh," leave out to "eighty-one," inclusive, in line 29, and insert "which contains."—(Mr. J. P.B. Robertson.)

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

DR. CLARK

If you leave out "eighty-one," how will you determine the population?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

We put in the clause words which carry the 7,000, then we have the interpretation clause providing that the words shall be held to mean what appears under the Census of 1881, or a number, if greater than that, which shall be established to the satisfaction of the Secretary for Scotland within 10 days of the passing of the Act.

Question, "That the words 'eighty-one' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'which contains' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, Clause 8, page 2, line 32, to leave out the words "or with which it has the largest common boundary," and insert the words "which contains the largest number of the electors of such burgh,"—(Mr. Caldwell,)—instead thereof.

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I do not know which should be selected as the better criterion for determining this question, but it seems to me that to take the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would lead to great confusion as we are accustomed to the other method under the Scotch Roads and Bridges Act, and some other Scotch Statutes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved, Clause 8, page 2, line 39, after "year, "insert" in which the election of a County Council is appointed to take place."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)

MR. CALDWELL

The next Amendment is to make the clause clear, as it is very confused as it stands. The clause says the term of office for a County Councillor for a burgh shall be three years, but in the case of the first election it can only be something over two years. The first election is to take place in February, and it will end two years the November following. But the Bill says it shall be for three years, which will make the period of the appointment of a County Councillor run different to the period of the appointment of a Councillor for a burgh. The object of the Amendment is to provide that the term of office of a County Councillor for a burgh shall be the same as the term of office of a Councillor for an electoral division of a county, and the appointment of a County Councillor for a burgh shall run from the day of the triennial County Council election next ensuing his election. Without this Amendment there would be two periods of election. Its meaning is that though you appoint your burgh members for the County Council in November, yet the appointment is to run from the triennial election of the rest of the County Councillors. It is a drafting Amendment to make the Clause clear and intelligible. Complaints are frequently made that Acts of Parliament are passed in an unintelligible form, and that is a thing I wish to correct here. Of course if the Lord Advocate does not accept the Amendment it is no affair of mine.

Amendment moved, Clause 8, page 2, line 41, after "be," insert— The same as the term of office of a Councillor for an electoral division of a county, and the appointment of a County Councillor for a burgh run date from the day of the triennial County Council election next ensuing his election."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I am ready to accept Amendments to improve the drafting of the Bill, but I cannot accept this, which would add to the labours of the House and only lead to obscurity. All this is cleared up by Section 30, which deals with the dates of the election for the first three years.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. CALDWELL

As the sub-section stands, the only vacancy dealt with is that caused by a man in the ordinary course ceasing to be a Town Councillor. No doubt the intention is that, however the vacancy occurs, it should be filled up. According to my Amendment, the vacancy would be filled up not merely in the event of a vacancy arising under the sub-section, but in the event of a vacancy arising by death or otherwise.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 1, to leave out from the word "Councillor, "to the word "but, "in line 3, and to insert the words:— And in the event of a casual vacancy occurring caused by death, resignation, or disqualification, such casual vacancy shall as soon as practicable be filled up by the Town Council."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I propose to accept an Amendment which has been put down in the right place by the Member for Forfarshire, but which will be moved by the hon. Member for Roxburghshire. The proper place for this Amendment is the special section which relates to casual vacancies.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to, Clause 8, page 3, line 4, leave out after "election," to end of Clause.—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)

Amendment moved, in page 3, line 6, after the word election," to insert the following sub-sections:— (3) The provisions of this section shall apply to a Royal burgh which contains a population of more than seven thousand, but does not return or contribute to return a Member to Parliament; (4) The expression 'The Representation of the People Acts,' in section three of 'The Representation of the People Act, 1884,' is hereby declared to include the Acts regulating the registration of municipal electors."—(The Lord Advocate).

SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

It may be, of course, that I am stupid, but I must confess I do not understand the proposed definition of burghs. The Bill in one part deals with Royal and Parliamentary burghs, and I do not know why it is necessary to bring in this section— The provisions of this section shall apply to a Royal burgh which contains a population of more than 7,000, but does not return or contribute to return a Member of Parliament. A Royal burgh comes within the definition of the law, and I cannot understand why this should be necessary.

* MR. D. CRAWFORD (Lanark, N. E.)

I cannot say that I share the objection of the hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Campbell), but I have another of a different kind. It maybe called an objection to the drafting of the Amendment, but in this case the drafting is of great importance. The clause proposed alters the principle of the Representation of the People Act, and I would, therefore, ask your ruling, Sir, whether it is competent to move it here. It interferes with the service franchise, and anyone reading the Representation of the People Act of 1884, and who afterwards looked through the titles of subsequent Statutes would have no notice that the Representation of the People Act was altered by this Act. I do not dwell on the fact that in terms this is an alteration of the law of England as well as of Scotland, seeing that the Representation of the People Act applies to both countries. No doubt that will be controlled by the title of the Bill when it becomes an Act; but it seems very inexpedient that you should attempt to alter the Representation of the People Act in this way.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

On the question of order. Sir, I would explain that the Representation of the People Act, dealing naturally with Parliamentary elections, makes a certain use of the municipal roll. One result has been that a question arose as to whether service franchise holders have votes both for Parliamentary purposes and also, by incidental enactment, for municipal purposes. What we now propose is to declare that a certain enactment in a Parliamentary Election Act has the effect, which is generally ascribed to it, of conferring the franchise for municipal purposes.

* MR. SPEAKER

There is no objection to the words of the Amendment as a matter of order.

MR. A. ELLIOT (Roxburgh)

Is the object of this sub-section to qualify for municipal purposes those who are disqualified in the burghs? The service franchise gives a qualification for Parliamentary but not for municipal purposes. Is the object now to qualify for all municipal rights in burghs?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

That is the object. There has been a diversity of practice in Scotch burghs. One eminent lawyer who is not on the Front Bench just now is of opinion that the service franchise people are not entitled to vote at municipal elections; but other eminent lawyers are of a contrary opinion. This comes into the Bill because we are giving the service fran- chise in counties, and it would seem by parity of reasoning that it ought at the same time to be given in the burghs.

MR. CALDWELL

I would move to add to the proposed Amendment, the words "for the purposes of the Act."

Amendment proposed, in line 4 of proposed Amendment, before the word "The, "to insert the words "For the purpose of this Act."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

Once for all I would point out that we propose that the service franchise people should have votes within the burghs both for municipal and Parliamentary purposes—for general purposes as well as the purposes of this Act. How would you work out the provision if you said that persons are to be elected for the purposes of this Act on one franchise, and for the purposes of other Acts on other franchises? The thing is impossible.

* MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I agree that these words are not desirable. I desire that the Service Franchise-holders should in burghs have the Municipal Franchise, the only point raised by the hon. Member for North-East Lanark being whether this is the right way of doing it. That point having been decided by the Chair, I presume that there is no more to be said.

* MR. D. CRAWFORD

I think that the object of the Lord Advocate's Amendment is a good one; but it might have been attained in a better way. If, however, the Lord Advocate takes the responsibility as to the method, I shall say nothing more.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

THE CHAIRMAN

I would aubmit to the Lord Advocate whether he is not interfering with the Municipal Franchise in England as well as Scotland by the terms of his proposal?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the second clause is, "This Act shall extend to Scotland only."

Question put, and agreed to; words inserted.

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

The alteration which the Amendment standing in my name proposes would leave women otherwise qualified eligible for election as County Councillors. I raised the question in Committee, and if the decision of the Committee had been such as to fairly reflect opinions in different quarters of the House, I would not have troubled the House with the matter at this stage. The issue is a very important one, and what occurred in Committee seems to me to afford a justification for making another appeal to the House. Under this Act women will be electors; and if this clause were expunged it is doubtful whether they might not also be elected. Above all things the Act is intended to be a utilitarian measure, and the question is what would be the advantage of allowing women to be elected. If there was no good to be gained by electing women, they would scarcely have been elected in England, and certainly they would not be elected in Scotland, and in that case an enabling clause would be inoperative. But I do not believe it would be inoperative. In all probability a few women would be elected, because there is a certain number of things which they could attend to much better than men can attend to them. No better illustration could be afforded of the necessity for electing some women than is furnished by the fact that the County Councils have charge of lunatic asylums, in which there are so many thousand female inmates, about whom women can obtain information much better than men. The people of Scotland would not elect any women as County Councillors unless they were convinced that their election would be for the public good.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 7, to leave out the words" No woman," and insert the words" Any woman otherwise qualified."—(Mr. Firth.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'no woman' stand part of the Bill."

DR. CAMERON

There is nothing in the Bill to prevent women serving on District Councils, whose duties are to look after the administration of the Public Health Act, and to deal with the rates. Surely if that be so there are equal reasons why they should have left open to them the career of County Councillors. In many places in England ladies have been elected on the Councils, and I do not see why the electors should not have the greatest latitude in determining whom they should elect as their representatives.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

I do not think this Amendment is moved in the interest of Scotland. Scotch women do not want to become County Councillors, they have too much sense. This Amendment is put forward with the object of capturing an outpost from which to bombard a stronghold of men in England. I hope the House will adhere to the decision it arrived at in Committee.

DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

I think we may safely leave to women themselves the right of deciding whether women shall or shall not be elected. I think it is tyrannical in the extreme to limit their choice; I took the chair at one of Miss Cobden's election meetings in London, and I could not help seeing that there was a very strong feeling not only among women but among men that it was very important, in view of the class of work to be carripd out in the County Councils, that women should have the opportunity of representing the electors on those bodies. It is perfectly well known that we get our physical properties from our fathers and our mental qualities from our mothers, and it seems to me very important indeed that the mental faculties of women should be sharpened up as much as possible in order to breed good women. I am also a believer in heredity, and I think that if our mothers could have the opportunity of being brought up in public life we might have been better Members of Parliament than we are now. From these points of view I have great pleasure in sup porting the Amendment.

MR. A. GATHORNE-HARDY (East Grinstead, Sussex)

I would point out that we are not going to vote on this occasion on the question whether women should or should not be elected to the County Councils. There is an express provision in the Bill stating that women shall not be elected, but if that provision is struck out the result will not be that women can be elected, but merely that they may be exposed to law-suits. To save a lady from that contingency, I shall support the Bill as it stands.

* MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

I would point out to the hon. Member who has just sat down that the Bill did not in its original form contain the words excluding women from election on County Councils. The words were afterwards inserted by the Lord Advocate. As to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell), he must be unfortunate in his acquaintance with Scottish women if he does not know that in Edinburgh there are women who are quite as well qualified as men—better qualified than many men—to discharge the duties of County Councillors. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), when I recently asked for a day for the discussion of the question, treated the matter with some contempt. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman were to qualify as a Scotch candidate and stand against some of the ladies in Edinburgh, there is not the slightest doubt as to where the victory would lie. I hope the House will not consent to this unnecessary exclusion of women from a duty for which they are eminently fitted.

MR. COSSHAM (Bristol)

I am very doubtful whether it would be well either for women or for the State to bring them into public life, but I think it is almost too late to raise that question now. As you have admitted women to the franchise, I think you must also-allow them to be elected. I should have voted against their being admitted to the franchise, but as they have been admitted, I shall vote for their being allowed to be elected.

SIR AECHIBALD CAMPBELL (Renfrew, W.)

It has clearly taxed the ingenuity of hon. Gentlemen opposite to find out a reason why women should be elected to serve on County Councils, and the feeble arguments used by hon. Gentlemen opposite in favour of the' Amendment seem to me quite sufficient to enable the House to decide in favour of the Bill as it stands.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I may point out that the burgh which the hon. Member who has just spoken represents had a lady as Chairwoman of the School Board. It has been pointed out that the Local Government Board has refused to appoint female inspectors, and that if women are elected on the County Councils we shall be able to have visitation and inspection by ladies, and female patients will be able to bring before them facts which they could not bring before any male visitor. It surely cannot be right for this House to prevent any constituency in a county from electing a female if that constituency desires to be represented by a female.

* MR. M'LAREN (Cheshire, Crewe)

In asking the House to agree to the Amendment I do not base my argument at all on the ground that it necessarily follows that because women are entitled to vote in these elections they are, therefore, entitled to be elected. We maintain that it is distinctly to the advantage of the County Councils that women should be elected to them. I know myself numbers of persons in Scotland who would be desirous of nominating women as candidates for the County Council. A lady has sat in Scotland as Chairman of a School Board, and everybody conversant with Edinburgh knows that Miss Stevenson, the lady member of the School Board there, is the most influential member of the Board, and is often deputed to visit London to interview the Scotch Office on matters of importance. She is also the only member of the School Board who has been elected at every election since the Act was passed. Numbers of women have been elected members of Boards of Guardians, and have done good work on such Boards. I am convinced from my knowledge of Scotland that there is a very strong desire that women should be elected to these Boards, and I hope the House will assent to the Amendment.

The House divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 88.—(Div. List, No. 237.)

Motion made and Question put, Clause 10, page 3, line 32, after "(1)," insert "The Chairman of the County Council, who shall be called."—(The Lord Advocate.)—Agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, Clause 10, page 3, line 34, after "county," insert— But before acting as such justice he shall, if he has not already done so, take the oath required by law to be taken by a Justice of the Peace."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I am unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

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

SIR G. CAMPBELL

I have now to move the Amendment I have upon the Paper—namely, to insert "three years" in the place of "one year" in clause 10, page 3, line 36. This matter of the duration of the Chairman's office was a good deal discussed in the English Bill, and I have a strong opinion in favour of making the period three years. The Provosts of all Scotch burghs are appointed for three years, which is a reasonable period and enables a man to make a position for himself, and I do not see why on the County Councils we should not follow the analogy afforded by the burghs. Again, in many cases, where the appointment was only for a year there would be a feeling against getting rid of the person holding the office after so short a term, and the result might be that the same person might retain the position year after year because the electors might not wish to cast a slur on him by refusing him reelection. If, however, the period were three years a man would know that he was not likely to be re-elected at the end of the term unless he had fulfilled his position so well that the electors desired to offer him an unusual mark of approval by re-appointing him.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 36, to leave out the words "one year," and insert the words "three years."—(Sir George Campbell).

Question proposed, "That the words 'one year' stand part of the Bill."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

As the hon. Gentleman has stated, this matter was fully discussed on a former occasion, and my recollection is that the general feeling was in favour of one year. That is the existing system in regard to the counties, and I think it would be better to have the proposal as it stands in the Bill.

MR. CALDWELL

There is no doubt that the convener of a county is appointed for a year, but the election of the Board is only for a year, and we have always acted on the principle that the chairman should hold office during the currency of the particular body over which he presides. In the School Boards, where the elections are for three years, the chairman holds office for that period, and in all similar cases the chairman's term of office follows the duration of the body he is chairman of. There would be this advantage in making the term of office three years in the present case, that it would help to ensure a continuous policy, and I am also aware of the feeling mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) that by making the chairmanship a matter of annual election the appointment, for the reason he stated, might be unnecessarily prolonged. It would, I think, be contrary to all precedent in Scotland if the chairman should be appointed for a period less than the duration of the body over which he is to preside.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, Clause 10, page 3, line 39, leave out from "office," to "and," in line 40, and insert "at the pleasure of the council."—(Mr. Caldwell.)—Agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 8, to leave out all the words after the word "occurred" to end of Clause.—(The Lord Advocate.)

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

* MR. ESSLEMONT

In the Amendment I have to propose, I desire to raise the question as to the powers of the Commissioners of Supply. My Amendment is absolutely to take away those powers which are only the charge of the police and capital expenditure. We had supposed that the Bill was founded upon the model of Town Councils in Scotland; and the Lord Advocate knows that those bodies in boroughs would not for one moment submit to a limitation which deprived them of the control of their police and of capital expenditure. And if there is anything to be said of the control of Town Councils over police and capital expenditure, it would equally apply to County Councils. But by the Bill you are creating a machinery which will practically have no responsible work whatever. The work of the County Council is limited to such an extent that there will be an agitation from year to year until the powers which are possessed by the boroughs are also possessed by County Councils.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 18, to leave out the words, "save as hereinafter mentioned."—(Mr. Esslemont.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

It is no want of respect to the hon. Gentleman if I say that I doubt whether the House desires to again discuss this subject, which has been debated with great clearness and fulness on the First and Second Readings and in Committee—I do not at all say at too great length. I cannot say that I feel myself that I could add anything to the reasons which prevailed with the majority. I assume that the object of the hon. Gentleman is either to enter a protest or take a Division, and I will not further stand between him and either object.

DR. CLARK

The Government are wrong in the course they have taken. The Commissioners have practically ceased to perform any functions, and they die, if not universally lamented, at all events in the full odour of sanctity. What I meant to point out is simply this, that you will be bringing the landlords and the people in Scotland constantly into conflict on two points; and it would be very much better in the future for Scotch landlords if you now allowed them to cease their functions and allow those matters of the control of the police and capital expenditure to remain in the hands of the people. The Commissioners have now a clean and honourable record, but if they continue to work under this clause, the result will be such as the Government will deplore.

* MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I am not at all surprised that my hon. Friend behind me has moved this Amendment, because it raised again at this stage a point of cardinal importance, and it would have been odd, after attaching so much importance to it, had we passed it over without notice. I agree, however, with the Lord Advocate that the question has been fully argued on both sides; and while I regret that the Government have remained obdurate not only to our arguments, but to the demonstration of feeling on the part of the representatives of Scotland, which took place on an earlier stage of this Bill, I consider it better to content ourselves with a Division in order to express our feeling.

The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 75.—(Div. List, No. 238.)

MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)

The Amendment I am about to move is in substance the same as that which I moved in Committee, though in words it is somewhat different. The words I have put on the Paper now were suggested to me during the course of the Debate in Committee by the hon. Member for Inverness, who supported me. The object is to throw upon inhabitant householders the responsibility for the maintenance of rights of public way. I felt justified in bringing up this matter again on the Report stage, although it has already been discussed in Committee, on the ground that although we were defeated in Committee by a majority of 27, the Division List showed that the Scottish vote was 5 to 1 in favour of my proposition.

Attention called to the fact that 40 Members not present. The House was counted; and, 40 Members being found present,

MR. BUCHANAN

proceeded: Another reason why I bring forward the Motion again is that I think the Government may possibly think fit to give us at least part of what we want, inasmuch as I was supported in the Division Lobby by all the Liberal Unionist Members from Scotland, and even by one Conservative Member, and, generally speaking, the support I obtained may fairly be said to have been drawn from all quarters of the House. The arguments brought against my proposal were practically twofold. There was, first the argument of the Solicitor General for Scotland that no grievance existed, and then there was the argument of the Lord Advocate that I was trying to induce the County Councils to levy war against individuals. I must say I thought the expression the Lord Advocate used was very unfortunate and regrettable. But, putting aside the words he used, I do not think the argument was a fair one, inasmuch as my proposal would have placed no obligation what- ever on the County Councils. My present Amendment makes it perfectly clear that only a discretionary power is to be imposed on the County Council. As to the argument of the Solicitor General for Scotland that there is no grievance in Scotland, or if there is it is open to anyone to remedy it by what is known as a popular action which anyone can bring, I hardly think that contention will be brought forward again. During the Debate in Committee it was shown that last year a single society in Edinburgh was applied to no less than 40 times to defend rights of way. During the past few years there has been a tendency in the Highlands to shut up paths and roads over which rights of way are claimed. There is the well-known Glendall case. There the claim of the proprietor to shut up a road was no doubt openly contested by very few inhabitants either of Glendall or the surrounding districts, and no one had the hardihood to bring an action. An action was brought by a public society. The legal proceedings lasted over two-and-a-half years, and entailed no less than three trials, one before the Lord Ordinary of the Quarter Sessions, one before the Inner House of Quarter Sessions, and the other before the House of Lords. In each of these trials the society won the case. But the expenses of the litigation have amounted to between £4,000 and £5,000, and though the Bights of Way Society will have their costs paid, there is no less a sum than £650 incurred by the society, which will not be allowed under the award of costs. Now is it for a moment to be considered a just reply to the grievance alleged that there is no adequate protection for rights of way in Scotland, for the Solicitor General for Scotland or any other defender of this Bill to say that the protection of rights of way is a duty that can be performed by any single individual? It is almost impossible even for the richer and more popular parts of the country, and absolutely impossible for the poorer and more sparsely-populated parts of Scotland to make any practical use whatever of the protection that is at present afforded by the law I most earn estly urge the Government to reconsider the position they took up on this subject during the Committee stage. I say there is a grievance felt throughout the length and breadth of the land, and chiefly in the Highlands and sparsely-populated districts, and I ask whether the duty of remedying this grievance could be more properly and adequately entrusted to any body other than the County Council?

Amendment proposed, in Clause 11, page 4, line 19, after the word "trustees," to insert the words— And the duty of maintaining, and the right, if they think fit, of taking or defending, proceedings for the protection of any public right of way over roads, drove roads, bridlepaths, and ferries."—(Mr. Buchanan.)

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

DR. FAEQUHAESON

This is a question of such great and pressing importance in the North that I think my hon. Friend has every justification for bringing it once more under the attention of the House. This is simply a demand made upon a popularly-elected tribunal to defend the existing rights of the people of Scotland. It is all very well to say that individuals can defend themselves, but, as any one who has had any experience of the law is aware, the assertion of a legal right is sometimes a very formidable affair. It is said that this power is not wanted. Anyone, however, who knows anything of the North will agree with my hon. Friend that cases of stopping up rights of way are too frequent, and individuals naturally hesitate before they plunge into the possibilities of legal processes. If this provision is not wanted, it will be a dead letter, and no harm will be done. But I say it is wanted, and it is not too much to ask that a tribunal like the County Council should have this little addition made to its respon-bilities and duties. We are told that the question of right of way will be made an electioneering cry. Well, if such a question has anything in it, it is quite right that it should be brought forward at election time, and if it has not anything in it, I think the people of Scotland are too shrewd to be taken in by bogus electioneering cries. The County Councils will take care not to enter into bogus suits, and will take care that any claim put forward by those outside shall only be carried out by them if there is some reasonable possibility of success, or if a strong claim is shown for popular redress.

* SIR D. CUEEIE (Perthshire, W.)

I have only to say in a word that I must support the Amendment of my hon. Friend as I did in the Committee. It appears to me it would be only a wise and a proper thing to throw on the County Councils the responsibility of defending the public rights.

* MR. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)

I cannot help hoping that the Government will see their way to meet what is obviously the opinion of the large majority of the Scottish Members. In Committee the Scotch Members supported the Amendment by, I believe, 51 to 10. While the Government have not departed from the main outlines of the Bill, I think they have shown a laudable wish to accede to our wishes in any reasonable matter where we have expressed these wishes by a large majority. On this point they have an opportunity of meeting us in a way that will give universal satisfaction. I can bear testimony to the extent to which these rights of way are gradually falling out of existence, not so much from the fault of landowners as from the absence of a public authority to see to their preservation. It is only of late years that people have become alive to the value of these rights. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, at a meeting of the Society for the Preservation of Eights of Way, in 1886, expressed himself strongly in favour of imposing this duty on a properly-constituted Local Authority. In the face of this expression of opinion it does seem to me to be difficult for the Lord Advocate to resist the appeal now made to him by the large majority of the Scottish Members.

* THE SOLICITOE GENEEAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. MOIR T. STORMONTH DARLING,) Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities

The speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down shows perhaps some tendency to repetition of the arguments formerly used. I think it is the desire of the House that there should be no repetition of the arguments used in Committee, and I will make that my excuse for being very brief. The Government are still of opinion that it would be undesirable, in the interests of the County Councils and their harmonious working, to intrust them with what can only be described as a licence to raise litigation. It is not at all necessary that I should throw any doubt upon the discre-tion and moderation with which this duty would be exercised if imposed on the County Councils. At the same time, to accept the Amendment would be practically to impose upon the County Councils the duty of raising lawsuits of a particularly delicate and contentious nature. There is nowadays no great tendency on the part of landowners to resist well-founded rights of this character, and therefore there is less need of an Amendment like the present. The hon. Mover of the Amendment said that 40 applications were received last year by the Edinburgh Rights of Way Society. Does the hon. Gentleman think that these 40 applications were all well founded? He knows as well as I do that among them must have been many which, upon examination, turned out to be not justified by the facts, whilst a number of the proprietors in other cases, when application was made to them, at once recognized the right of way. As to the Glendoll case, I will only say that I happen to know the district personally; and it is a fact that this is the only right of way out of a great many in that mountainous tract of country which has ever been resisted by the proprietor. On the whole matter the Government remain of the opinion that it would be unfortunate to entrust this power to the County Council. They are not insensible to the argument that to entrust this power to the County Council would rather tend to make proprietors more jealous of the formation of these rights. It must never be forgotten that these rights grow up by degrees, and if you put proprietors too much upon their guard, you will prevent any such rights being created.

DR. CLARK

We have had from the Solicitor General a repetition of the arguments that were used in Committee, and he scarcely seems to appreciate the difference between the Amendment now before us and the Amendment moved in Committee. The original Amendment in Committee was compulsory in character, but this is not. ["No, no."] However, the hon. and learned Gentle- man's answer is the same, that there is no evidence to justify the Amendment. I might bring forward two cases that occurred quite lately, one in West Perthshire; the old "Sheriff Muir" road has been shut up by the neighbouring proprietor. Of course, the tenants endeavoured to maintain their right to use this old Scotch road, two centuries old; but it has been closed because it passes through the landlord's game preserves. Then there was a case lately in Caithness something similar, in which the Duke of Portland, a Member of the present Government, drawing £2,500 a year for doing nothing, and having great estates in the county, shut up the old road across Marven because it interfered with his deer forest and game preserves. He owns all the land round about, and the people cannot afford to fight for their rights against a powerful English duke who draws a large revenue from London and from the taxpayers, and so the right of way is lost. Now if this power were given to the County Councils these landed proprietors would think twice before they do these things, because they would know they would have to encounter the resistance of a powerful representative body instead of having only to use the landlord's privilege to intimidate and boycott against individual tenants. We seek to create no new rights of way, but only to preserve old rights that are being lost. In Committee I urged what I thought a strong reason in favour of this proposal, and this the hon. and learned Gentleman has not seen fit to reply to. I pointed out that there are many old parish roads and statute labour roads that were not transferred under the Roads and Bridges Act to the present road authorities; the old bodies that had charge of them have ceased to exist, and now these roads are the property of no one; they were constructed by public money centuries ago, but they were not scheduled in the Roads and Bridges Act, and so they have come under nobody's control, the old bodies who could rate for their maintenance having been abolished. These roads not being scheduled under the authority of the Road Trustees will not be transferred to the new County Councils. We have heard no reply at all to the strong reasons urged for this pro- posal, the Solicitor General simply repeats the old story. I hope my hon. Friend will take a Division on his Amendment, and that again we shall have again Scotch opinion represented by five to one in its favour.

* MR. DONALD CRAWFORD

I think my hon. Friend has done right to renew his protest, but at the same time I should be sorry to add much to the prolongation of the Debate. I will only say a word or two in reply to the Solicitor General. The hon. and learned Gentleman has used an argument I have only heard used once before, and I scarcely think it is apposite. He said that the fact that proprietors in a great many instances had yielded to the claims made upon them by the Society for the Protection of Rights of Way was a proof that where those claims were well founded proprietors were ready to acknowledge them. Now, I once heard a similar argument used on Circuit in a Criminal Court in Scotland. A man was accused of theft, and six previous convictions were proved against him, and his counsel very ingeniously argued that as in each of these previous cases the prisoner had pleaded guilty, it must be accepted as proof of innocence that in the seventh case he had not pleaded guilty. It seems to me the argument of the Solicitor General is parallel to that, but I do not think it will carry more weight in this than the argument did in the other instance.

MR. PHILIPPS (Lanark, Mid)

There need be no surprise that my hon. Friend has repeated arguments he may have used on a previous occasion, for if we repeat our protest we must more or less repeat arguments, especially if they have not been answered. The Solicitor General has not quite followed that course. On the last occasion we were answered by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he told us that it was a very great cause of regret to him that Scotch landlords were so very bad in this matter of seizing footpaths; but now the Solicitor General says that these landlords have not been so bad, but that in the preservation of footpaths Scotland has been rather fortunate. I cannot help thinking that some of these rights which the Secretary for Ireland admitted landlords have absorbed in past times would not have been lost beyond hope of recovery if the County Council had power to spend money for the purpose of recovery. I do not for a moment accept the Solicitor General's suggestion that County Councils would be litigious in this matter. I believe, on the contrary, that they will be much more careful in regard to the public money than any body in existence. Nobody who reads the reports of what County Councils are doing in England will think they are reckless and extravagant—they rather seem instead to carry economy to a cheese-paring extent, and I never yet heard that extravagance is more a Scotch than an English characteristic. The Solicitor General referred to the success of the Scotch Society for looking after footpaths; but I think it is rather hard that the duty of maintaining and recovering public rights of way should be thrown upon a private body. The action of the Society represents a large sacrifice on the part of persons not particularly interested, and it is hard that people should be appealed to for pecuniary assistance for the purpose of guarding public rights—a duty which should devolve on public authorities with the assistance of the public purse. I hope that even at the last moment the Government may agree to this reasonable proposal.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I do not think this matter has been pressed or can be pressed too often. The Government are incurring great responsibility by their resistance to this Amendment. I am quite sure the Scotch people are in sympathy with the Amendment, and that the Government will suffer at the next election for their resistance to it. We do not wish to saddle upon the new authority a duty altogether alien to their other duties. One of the principal duties of the County Council will be to look after the roads, and we would attach to this the analogous duty of looking after footpaths and rights of way. I do not think the Solicitor General has said anything to strengthen the arguments of the Government used on a former occasion. I am glad he did not repeat the argument that the Courts are open to every poor man to vindicate a right he believes he has. I do not think if a poor man went to the Solicitor General for his assistance to vindicate his right he would make much of him. It is notorious that a case of this kind requires a very long purse, and a most pertinacious spirit to support it. We nave a Society which, by begging and dunning people for money, has been enabled to do much good; but the Society has undertaken a duty that ought to be discharged by a public authority—it is not a matter for private subscription. The Solicitor General says rights of way are gradually created, but I think it is just the other way. I think they are gradually being extinguished. A river floods a pathway, and it falls into desuetude; a sporting tenant during his temporary occupation puts up an obstruction, because a right of way interferes with his pursuits, and so the right of way is gradually lost. As to the fear that County Councils would promote law suits, I think this power would have an influence in the other direction. The County Council would, under this clause, be in possession of these existing rights, and it would be for other parties to bring law suits, and attack these rights if they dared. It would be a very different thing with a competent authority to defend public rights. I am sorry the Solicitor General takes such a very narrow view of this proposal. I am sure the Government will suffer for their attitude at the next election. We shall again go into the Lobby with the courage of our opinions.

The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 107.—(Div. List, No. 239.)

DR. CLARK

I move the Amendment that stands in my name, and I do so in order that some of the smaller harbours and piers may come under the cognizance of the County Council. Some of these harbours are called Board of Trade harbours, others are Fishery Board harbours, and others are old Trustee harbours. But the Board of Trade and the Fishery Board give no money for their maintenance, and the old Trustees have died out, and so piers are falling into decay, breakwaters are falling down, and the harbours are being lost. I have put my Amendment in a form I think the least objectionable, putting these under the category of capital works, requiring the sanction of the Commissioners of Supply, and in Clause 18 I propose to insert the construction or extension of piers and har- bours among capital works, so that nothing of this kind can be done without the sanction of the Commissioners of Supply. I could mention five or six harbours in Caithness; there are some in Sutherlandshire, and all down the East Coast there are small harbours, neglected and falling out of use, and the fishing population that would avail themselves of these harbours are moving away. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment in the moderate form in which I move it.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 36, after the word "thirty-six," to insert the words "The right to construct and maintain the capital works defined in Section 18."—(Dr. Clark.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The whole significance of the Amendment is derived, not from the words the hon. Member now proposes to insert, but from those that follow in a subsequent section. The hon. Member avows that the works he has in contemplation are not works in the charge of the counties in Scotland. Now, our object in this Bill has been to transfer what are properly county works, according to existing administration, to the new County Body—the County Council. We go further, and under the provisions of Section 15 provide that with the consent of certain public Departments, there may be a transference made of certain statutory duties of those Departments to the County Councils. Now, suppose the Board of Trade (which is a case put by the hon. Member) is tired of the administration of certain harbour works, or considers it desirable that there should be a transfer, then, with the consent of that Department and of the County Council, the County Council may be invested with the powers and duties relating to such harbour works. That is the scheme and system of the present measure, and beyond that I cannot say it would be safe to go. Then I would point out to the hon. Member that his method would be unsuccessful in achieving the result he desires. He proposes to insert afterwards that the right to deal with piers and harbours shall be vested in County Councils; but he must go a great deal further; he must provide, in the first place, for the new burden this would impose upon the ratepayers not existing at present, and this, I apprehend, would bring him within the scope of the Rules of the House, which require that this should be considered, in Committee. The dilemma is this: Either the power he desires to give to the County Council of rating is at present vested in another body, and in that case it is a question of transfer, or, on the other hand, it is a new power, and, if so, it is a just burden. In the one case, it is part of Clause 15 which contains the accepted method of transfer; and, in the other case, as giving a new power to levy a rate, it is a question of larger scope, and though it may be for a useful purpose, it is not one it is competent for the hon. Member now to undertake.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. CALDWELL

I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in his place, because the next Amendment I have to move has reference to the financial part of the scheme. In the meantime, under Clause 19, I propose to leave out Sub-section 1; but the point to which I wish to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this—the distribution of the money under this Bill as compared with the English Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware——

* MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! I think the hon. Member is in error. The next Amendment is on Clause 13.

Amendments agreed to:—Clause 13, page 5, line 39, after the second "burgh," leave out to "eighty-one," inclusive, in line 40, and insert "contains"; page 6, line 7, before "liabilities," insert "same"; line 8, after "county," add— For the purposes of Section 74 of 'The Police Act, 1857,' the expression 'this Act,' shall include 'The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889.'"—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)

SIR A. CAMPBELL

I press the next Amendment strongly upon the attention of the Lord Advocate with the view of saving the police force in one of the most ancient burghs, if not the most ancient burgh in Scotland. I need not detain the House by going into the question, as I made use of strong argu- ments in favour of the proposal on a former occasion. The case, I then argued, was a hard one, because, we believe, looking at the important works which are growing up there, that by this time next year the burgh to which I refer will have increased so as to bring it under the 7,000 condition. Living as close as I do to the burgh I can testify to the excellent manner in which they have worked their police. I urge the Amendment on public grounds, and I hope the Lord Advocate will see his way to accept it.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 8, after the word "county," to insert the words— Provided that this section shall not apply to any burgh which has maintained a separate police force during the ten yean immediately preceding the passing of this Act."—(Sir A.. Campbell.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

This-certainly is one of the most puzzling of the numerous cases to which our attention has been called. The burgh of Renfrew is about the only one, I should think, falling under the restriction to-which the hon. Member refers. It is almost the only, if not the only, burgh which is so close on the population of 7,000, and which, to quote the words of my hon. Friend, has maintained a separate police force during the ten years immediately preceding the passing of this Act. Most of the Royal burghs are in the position that they have accepted the arrangement opened to them under the Police Act, and have used the police force of the county. I believe the police force in the burgh in question efficient, and after full consideration of the matter I am bound to say I agree with the proposal. The next Amendment refers to the burgh of Lerwick, which is different to Renfrew, but I think it deserves consideration from its completely insular position. Perhaps the two might be coupled together, and I think it would be well to name them in the Amendment. I would suggest to the hon. Member for Renfrew that he should withdraw his Amendment, and also to the hop. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Lyell) that he should not proceed with his.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LYELL

I am satisfied with the statement of the hon. Member.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 13 at the end to add the words— Provided that this section shall not apply to the burgh of Renfrew or the police burgh of Lerwick."—(The Lord Advocate.)

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

The following Amendments were agreed to:—Clause 14, page 6, line 9, after "burgh," leave out to "eighty-one," inclusive, in line 10, and insert "contains;" line 13, leave out "in relation to the administration of, "and insert" as the local authority under; "line 18, before" liabilities, "insert "same;" line 31, after "county," insert— The provisions of this section in respect of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act shall apply to any royal burgh which does not return or contribute to return a Member to Parliament."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)

Amendment proposed, in Clause 15, page 7, line 16, after the word "department," to insert the word "respectively."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I cannot quite understand what the effect of this is supposed to be.

MR. CALDWELL

It is to put matters right—to keep the language uniform.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I am afraid this cannot be accepted. "Respectively" is only introduced where you have several alternatives.

Question put, and negatived.

The following Amendments were agreed to:—Clause 16, leave out Subsection (d); Clause 17, page 8, line 39, before "local," insert "certain;" page 9, line 2, leave out "public health;" line 4, leave out "public health;" line 7, after "duties," "insert" and be subject to all the liabilities;" line 12, leave out "public health;" line 15, leave out "public health."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)

MR. CALDWELL

Sub section (c) introduces a new element altogether, which would be very inconvenient. It is well-known that at present the public health area is a limited one, and that you are going to extend by this sub-section the effect of which will be *to cause great delay in dealing with nuisances. If a District Council resolves to make an order, the Sheriff determines whether it is right or not, and it seems to me inexpedient to go to the County Council. The question of public health is a matter which it seems to me should fall under the cognizance of the District Council, as a body acquainted with local circumstances, and I do not think there should be an appeal from that local tribunal to a body brought from all parts of the county, who can obviously know nothing about the local circumstances of the cases. Moreover, delay would be caused by this arrangement, as the County Council will only meet some three or four times a year.

Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 17, to leave out Sub-section (c) of Clause 17.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

Question proposed, "That Subsection (c) stand part of the Clause."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

This is a very important point, and there is great force in what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is necessary, however, that we should preserve the subordination of the District Councils to the County Councils, because we are all agreed, I hope, that the County Council should have control over the District Committees, and bring into the proceedings of those Committees those examinations which can only be got by a considerable momentum of civicforce. There are, no doubt, a great many duties which require promptitude on the part of the County Councils. We have looked at that question, and I think that the Amendment which stands in my name will effect a solution of the difficulty. We propose that— The power of appeal hereby given shall not apply to any order for the removal of a nuisance; and nothing in this Act contained shall affect or prejudice any proceedings to enforce the provisions of the Public Health Acts, save only that when necessary such proceedings shall be taken by or against the District Committee in- atead of against the Parochial Board as Local Authority under the said Acts. That, I think, would meet the most urgent case where expedition was required, and would leave within the region of the County Council the duty of supervising the action of the District Committee in matters where less urgency was desirable. I trust, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will see well to accept this, which I think harmonizes the two points of view which ought to influence the mind of the House.

DR. CAMERON

The removal of a "nuisance" is a technical expression. It means not only removing a dung-heap under the Public Health Act, but it may mean the destruction of an unhealthy house, which is, or may be, a nuisance under the Act. The wording of the Amendment does not meet the case at all. The case of an unhealthy house is preeminently a matter for the judicial decision of the Sheriff. The definition of a nuisance under the Public Health Act is so elastic as to include a large number of nuisances that are not of the trifling and immediate nature contemplated by the hon. Member.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to, Clause 17, page 9, line 18, leave out "public health."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 22, after the word "appeal," to insert the words— but the power of appeal hereby given shall not apply to any order for the removal of a nuisance; and nothing in this Act contained shall affect or prejudice any proceedings to enforce the provisions of the Public Health Acts, save only that when necessary such proceedings shall be taken by or against the district committee instead of against the parochial board as local authority under the said Acts."—(The Lord Advocate.)

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

DR. CAMERON

In connection with this Amendment I would mention the case of a fisherman who built a tent on the foreshore. The Sanitary Authorities condemned it as a nuisance on account of its unsanitary condition. The case gave rise to a great deal of popular feeling in the district. Well, nuisances are not confined to such temporary things as tents and huts, but I know cases where they have been hell to apply to houses, and where unhealthy houses have been ordered to be demolished.

MR. J. P. B. ROBEETSON

I am aware of the class of cases referred to, and of the instance the hon. Gentleman has cited, as he was good enough to direct my attention to it in the House. With regard to that class of case, the answer is simple. Th9 matter is debate-able, and one which, with absolute certainty, must be removed from the Sheriff to a higher Court for decision. A legal point is raised as to the right to force a man to take away his house instead of remedying the defects in it. That is an open question, and nothing that we do there can affect it.

DR. CLARK

The tent of the fisherman referred to was an eyesore, not a nuisance. At first an attempt was made to get the tent removed on the ground that it was a nuisance. The Medical Officer of Health was applied to to certify that it was a nuisance, and for 12 months he refused, but at length pressure was brought to bear on him. He gave the desired certificate, and the tent was pulled down. Of course, the man immediately re-erected the tent with the old materials. It seems that the soot had darkened the canvas, and that was said to be a nuisance; but, as a matter of fact, the structure was an eyesore to the Dunoon merchants, and this section of the Public Health Act was put into operation in order to interfere with this man. Considerable cost was incurred to remove a thing which was said to be a nuisance, but which was no nuisance at all, and which was built on the shore below high-water mark. I think the words of this Amendment should be qualified in some way or other, perhaps by adding the words "dangerous to public health," which would show that the nuisance was a real one. I move to add after the word "nuisance," the words "dangerous to the public health."

Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the word "nuisance" to insert the words "dangerous to the public health."—(Dr. Clark).

Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I strongly deprecate anything at all which would detract from the stringency of the law of public health. This Amendment would introduce a new category of nuisances, and suggest to the Public Health Authorities that there is to be one method of procedure for that and another for other kinds.

DR. CAMERON

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Amendment put and agreed to; words added.

MR. CALDWELL

I beg to move to insert the following Amendment in line 22:— The Medical Officer or the Sanitary Inspector of the county or district may appeal to the County Council, and the County Council may make an order under the Public Health Acts. It has been brought out during the discussions on the Bill that it is most important that there should be a Medical Officer of Health or a Sanitary Inspector for the whole county. He is to act as a Medical Officer of Health. Well, suppose the District Authority should not make an order he thinks ought to be made. It should be in his power to appeal against that decision to the County Council. You have given ratepayers under Sub-section (c) power to appeal to the County Council, and I think we should look at the opposite side of the question.

Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 22, after the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words— The medical officer or the sanitary inspector of the county or district, or any member of the district committee, may appeal to the county council from any determination of, or order made or refusal to make any order by, a district committee, and the county council shall have the jurisdiction of a court of appeal, and may review, confirm, vary, alter, or rescind such determination or order, or may make an order under the Public Health Acts."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I think the hon. Member has something to say for giving the Medical Officer or Sani- tary Inspector of the county a right of appeal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrrwn.

MR. CALDWELL

Under the law as at present existing, where a township consists of 20,000 inhabitants the Sanitary Inspector holds office at the pleasure of the Parochial Board. It is only in the case of the smaller parishes that the consent of the Board of Supervision is necessary for his removal. Now, these District Councils will be of such a size as to be practically in accordance with the parishes of 20,000 inhabitants, and the result will be that we will confer a larger power upon the one than the other. It is quite right that the County Council should have the duty of appointing the proper officers. If they are dissatisfied, they should not require the consent of the Board of Supervision to the dismissal of an officer. There is no reason why the District Councils should not be on the same basis as the burghs, which have the power of appointing and dismissing their own Sanitary Officers. The County Council will have perfect power to dismiss their Medical Officers of Health; that is not affected; and if they have that power, surely they ought to have the power of dismissing subordinates. Therefore, I propose an Amendment to the effect that these officers should hold office at the pleasure of the County Council. It will secure that the Medical Officer shall not be dismissed by the District Council without the consent of the County Council. That is the object of the Amendment, and I think that, in the circumstances, it is most reasonable.

Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 27, after the word "shall," to insert the words "hold office at the pleasure of the County Council, and shall."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I am sorry to say that I cannot accept this Amendment, which seems to me to raise a question of serious importance. We are dealing with the existing machinery of the public health system, and I put it to the House whether it would be to strengthen or weaken that machinery, which we propose to transfer, if we removed the check upon the dismissal of officers. It is of vital importance that those officers should be men of independence, for they have invidious duties to perform which may make them unpopular, and it is important that they should not be subject to any unpopularity they may incur by interfering with people's domestic and sanitary arrangements. Popularly elected bodies must be more or less accessible to a strongly expressed grievance against a Medical or Sanitary Officer, and I strongly deprecate a proposal which would add to the risk of laxity or would remove the precaution requisite to insure, I will not say the integrity but the activity of the Sanitary Officers.

DR. FARQUHARSON

I am extremely glad to hear that the Lord Advocate will stand firm. I believe most emphatically every word he has said. It is a paramount necessity that the Medical and Sanitary Officers should be entirely free of local self-interests and prejudices. It is of the highest importance that they should be able to act without fear of dismissal, because they tread on local corns. I think their ultimate dismissal or retention in office should rest with an independent body, free from all prejudices.

Question put, and negatived.

Other Amendments made.

MR. CALDWELL

My next Amendment raises a question of considerable importance, and it involves the £30,000 to go to the Highlands. By the financial arrangements of this Bill it so happens that Scotland will be deprived of £58,000. This Bill follows the English Bill; and under the English Bill, England has got the whole of the Probate Duty and the whole of the Licences Duty. Scotland is getting the whole of the Probate Duty, and in place of our Licence Duty, which amounts to £323,000, we are only getting £256,000. The only explanation is that this Bill follows the English Bill, and that the first year is made a transitional year, forgetting that the transitional period applied only to last year, and that as regards England, the whole financial scheme is in operation this year. The President of the Local Government Board will see the point, and that Scotland is getting £57,000 less than her proper share as compared with England. There is no reason why we should be treated differently from England in regard to this matter, but seeing that we are this year to receive £57,000 less than our proper share, there seems to me to be every reason on the other side. The result is that, while England this year gets all her Licences and the Probate Duty, in the case of Scotland we are only getting the Probate Duty for the current financial year. We are not getting our licences, but in lieu of thetm £250,000 of grants to be voted. We thus would receive £57,000 less this year than our proper share. This is all the more reason why other items should be scrutinized. As to the £30,000 which is to be given to the Highlands being taken from Scotland no explanation has been offered.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 17, to leave out Sub section 1 of Clause 19.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

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

DR. CLARK

I think we have a right to know why Scotland is to get less for Scotch purposes than England gets for English purposes. According to this Bill we are not to get the Licence Duty till next year, and that being so, we should in common fairness get something equal to it. The Government ought to give us some reason for depriving Scotland of £57,000.

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

I have been somewhat confused by the financial conundrum the hon. Member for St. Rollox has put before the House. I understand the reason for the hon. Gentleman's Amendment to be, that he finds fault with the distribution of the £30,000; but I would point out that that matter was very fully gone into in Committee, and that the feeling of the House was, that though it was not prepared to approve the proposal altogether as a permanent settlement, it was prepared to assent to it as a provisional arrangement. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope of the Chancellor of the Exchequer being induced to do more than he has at present arranged to do.

* MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN

I quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the £30,000, and that it was generally admitted in Committee that we must accept the proposal for this year. But my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Caldwell), with that extraordinary ingenuity which commands the admiration of all of us, has discovered this blot—namely, that Scotland is actually to receive £57,000 less than the normal sum she ought to receive; that whereas last year England was dealt with in a certain manner, Scotland is now to be put in so much worse a condition in comparison with England. The right hon. Gentleman in answering my Friend has only dealt with the £30,000; but that is merely the peg on which hangs this important question of the £57,000.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed in page 13, line 3, to leave out sub-section 2, of Claues 22.—Mr. Caldwell.

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

Other Amendments made.

MR. CALDWELL

The next Amendment which stands in my name deals with an important point as to banking accounts. The Act provides that separate banking accounts shall be kept, and the result may be that while on one account there may be a large sum in hand, for which the authority will only be receiving a small amount of interest, on another account there may be a deficit on which a heavy rate of interest may have to be paid. I do not think that should be the case. Now, in the city of Glasgow there is an arrangement between the authority and its bankers that so long as there is a sufficient surplus on one account to cover a deficiency on another there shall be no claim for interest on the account which shows a deficit. It is the object of my Amendment to secure that.

Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 17, to leave out all the words after the word "applicable" to end of subsection.

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBEETSON

I think it is quite possible to make such an arrangement with the banks, but I do not think it is possible to accept this-Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

DR. CLARK

The sub-section of which I have now to move the omission is one of those by which the Government propose to transfer a rate, hitherto-paid by the landlord to the tenant. The Government have whittled this Bill down bit by bit. Originally we were to have the consolidated rate based on a five years' average, but that was whittled down to ten years, and since then another Amendment has been accepted, which will make the tenants responsible for a share in the consolidated rate. I hope that this is the last occasion on which we shall see a proposal made by the Government, to take away burdens from the landlords, and put them on the tenants. It is in opposition to an old Scotch principle, which says that all rates ought to fall on the landlord. There is no doubt that landlords are very anxious to be relieved of their rites, and thus it is we see the Government making concessions to demands made from their own side of the House, with the object of relieving the landlords of these burdens. I, therefore, beg to move the omission of Sub section 2 in order to secure that these rates in the future, as in the past, shall fall upon the landlord.

Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 6, to leave out Sub-section 2 of Clause 27.—(Dr. Clark.)

Question put, that the words "subject to the provisions hereafter contained," stand part of the Bill.

The House divided:—Ayes 201; Noes79.—(Div. List, No. 240.)

Further Amendment agreed to, Clause 27, page 17, line 9, leave out "shall."—(The Lord Advocate.)

MR. FIRTH

I have an Amendment to propose to the latter part of Sub-section 3, which involves a point on which a great deal of doubt has been raised amongst skilled persons. I understand that an addition which has been made to this clause will have the effect of keeping the law as it is on this point. That law is laid down in Sections 91 and 95 of the Public Health Act (Scotland), 1867, under the provisions of which underground water and gas pipes are in towns and boroughs of over 10,000 inhabitants assessed to the rate at only one-fourth of their value. But in rural districts the works are assessed at their full value, and ray Amendment seeks to provide that the rule as to one-fourth value shall prevail in purely rural as well as in urban districts.

Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 16, after the word "Act," to insert the words— Save and except that the provisions in the said Act whereby the annual value of underground water pipes and the underground works of any water company shall be held to be the nearest aggregate Bum of pounds sterling to one-fourth of the annual value thereof entered on the valuation roll in certain burghs and places, shall be held to extend to all places where such underground water pipes and works exist."—(Mr. Firth.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I cannot acccept this Amendment, and I decline to do so, because throughout the discussions we have taken up the ground that we ought not to interfere with the incidence of rates to be levied by the County Councils. I cannot enter upon the question what should be or ought to have been the incidence of rates levied under the Public Health Act, and we certainly cannot undertake to deal with the complicated question of the assessment of underground works, such as gas and water pipes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, page 17, line 27, after the word "county," to insert the words— (ii.) When ascertaining and determining the average rate in respect of any such branch of expenditure, the sheriff shall exclude any portion of a rate applicable to the payment of interest and repayment of principal of money borrowed in respect thereof: Provided that, until any money so borrowed shall be wholly repaid, a rate sufficient to provide for the payment of interest and repayment of principal thereof shall be payable by owners only, and shall be included in the owner's consolidated rate."—(The Lord Advocate.)

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

DR. CLARK

This is another instance in which the Lord Advocate has given way to the demands made upon him from his own side of the House, in order to whittle down the value of the consolidated rate. The first concession was to make its basis a 10 years' average instead of five years; then he gave way on the question of the uniformity of the rate, and now he proposes to give way in order that the burden of the permanent works required to be carried on shall fall equally on landlord and tenant. This is simply giving way bit by bit, and the consolidated rate will as a result soon become a farce like the land tax. I do not think we ought to allow the Bill to be whittled down in this wav, and if the Lord Advocate presses his Motion I shall vote against it.

* MR. ESSLEMONT

We have had for the last two or three years contributions towards reformatories and industrial schools amounting, I believe, to something like £3,000. The question I wish to ask is whether this rate will be stereotyped in the 10 years' average, and become a burden on the county rate accordingly. I know the rate is exceptional, but will it come within the province of the Sheriff in settling this grant?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I have not heard of the case before, and as it seems rather exceptional I cannot pronounce an opinion offhand. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me I will confer with him on the subject. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), I do not think he expects me to take entirely seriously the attack made upon our motives, because if he had been in the House much during these discussions he would have observed that I have been subjected to attacks by some hon. Gentlemen behind me. The proposal that is embodied in this Amendment is not a concession of mine, but it is a proposal of mediation I ventured to introduce in Committee. I thought it fair then, and I am confirmed in my opinion by reflection. And my opinion of its fairness induces me to stand by it in reference to the subsequent Amendment to be made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Renfrewshire (Sir A. Campbell). This is a case in which there is a terminable loan, the money being paid for a number of years for one specific object. We propose that as long as the rate is imposed it shall fall on owners only as before. We propose that it shall not be treated as if it were one of the ordinary incidents of rating from year to year.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR A. CAMPBELL

I beg to move the insertion at the end of Clause 27 of these words— Provided always that in ascertaining and determining the average rate, the sheriff of the county shall not take into account any rate or portion thereof levied in respect of any capital expenditure in connection with the erection of county buildings, sheriff court buildings, county police station houses, prisons, lunatic asylums, or any other similar special expenditure of capital and interest thereon. In moving this Amendment I beg to draw the Lord Advocate's attention to the fact that several counties have provided all the necessary buildings for the business of the counties, and at the same time paid their way. I ask him to take into consideration the money absolutely spent, although it is not borrowed money. In the County of Renfrew we have for many years imposed something like a rate of ½d. in the £1 for the provision of public buildings because we wished to furnish the county with all that was necessary for it. The buildings which we have erected as Sheriff Court-houses, police stations, and the like, will be used for other purposes entirely. In common fairness we ask that the Sheriff shall consider these works of capital expenditure in the same way as he is able to consider the amount of money borrowed.

Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 43, after the word "removal," to insert the words— Provided always, that in ascertaining and determining the average rate, the sheriff of the county shall not take into account any rate or portion thereof levied in respect of (1) any capital expenditure in connection with the erection of county buildings, sheriff court buildings, county police station houses, prisons, lunatic asylums, or any other similar special expenditure of capital and interest thereon."—(Sir Archibald Campbell.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

It is very difficult to draw precise lines which shall mark the expenditure which has been falling upon owners from year to year, and the class of expenditure dealt with under the last Amendment, but I cannot help feeling that if you analyze the classes of expenditure which are here set out you will find that one year you have one kind of building, another year another kind of building, and so on, so that if you take as long a period as you choose in order to fix a fair average you probably will have some expenditure of that kind going on every year. If that be the case I say that is the kind of expenditure we want to stereotype. If it is the case that there has been something of the kind going on every year we must treat it as one of the ordinary burdens falling upon owners and stereotype it. On the whole I think it would be safest not to accept this Amendment.

* MR. SHAW STEWART (Renfrew, E.)

I feel bound to support the hon. Baronet in this Amendment. I hope the House understands that the money which has been spent on new buildings for the county is money spent on works which will be handed over to the County Council, and which will not require renewal for a very long time to come. It does seem hard that in the County of Renfrew, where we had paid our way, and had not borrowed money, but had imposed a rate in order to pay the debt off as quickly as possible—it does seem hard that this money should be stereotyped and used for other purposes than those for which it was originally intended. The hon. Member for Caithness seemed to think the Government ought only to make concessions to the Gentlemen opposite. He seemed to think the new clause just proposed by the Lord Advocate covered the case of those hon. Members who sat behind him (the Lord Advocate). That was not so; the Lord Advocate did not satisfy his supporters. We think we have very strong reason for proposing this Amendment, and we hope that even now the Lord Advocate will be able to discover some way of doing justice to the County of Renfrew.

DR. CLARK

This Amendment would whittle the thing down, and, indeed, make it nothing but a farce.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. SHIRESS WILL (Montrose)

I beg to move, in Clause 28, page 18, line 4, after "every" to leave out "third." I would not trouble the House with this matter, considering it has been before the Committee, were I not convinced that the Bill as it stands will give rise to a great deal of inconvenience and difficulty hereafter. The object the Lord Advocate has in view in proposing that the register be made up in every third year is to prevent there being elections to fill casual vacancies. Here you are electing a body to exist for three years, and if any casual vacancy occurs, by death, resignation, or what not, the proposal of the Government is that the seat of the Member going out is to be filled by the remaining Members of the Council, and not by election. Let me call the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the last pronouncement of this House upon the subject. In the case of the English County Councils, the provision I suggest should be inserted in this Bill was agreed to, and is now the law of England. Every casual vacancy in England, therefore, is filled up in the ordinary way by election. The Lord Advocate may point to precedents in Scotland, but I would remind him that no precedent can be found in Scotland for the proposal he now makes. In the case of municipal burghs casual vacancies are filled up, but only in order that at the end of the year, in November, when a third of the Council is to be elected, the vacancies can be filled up by election. The same is the case with the police burghs; and the only bodies to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman can point are the School Boards, who are dependent upon an Act which is admittedly full of anomalies and various objectionable principles contrary to the feelings and wishes of the people of Scotland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's only pretence for this clause was that it would save expense; but the question of expense is no more of importance in Scotland in this matter than it is in England, and such an argument was not allowed to prevail last year when the English Bill was under discussion. Besides, my Amendment will only lead to an election in the particular ward in the representation of which the vacancy occurs; and, moreover, elections are not always contested. Then upon the question of expense, I also desire to point out to the Lord Advocate that the register which it is provided here shall only be made up every third year, will practically be made up every year, for the simple reason that the register is to be made up of two things—the person making it is to take the Parliamentary register as the beginning or inception of the register, and then he is to add the supplementary register, in which will be found Peers and women. The Parliamentary register, which will form 99 parts of the register under this Act, will be made up every year, will be printed every year, and will be ready at hand. The only expense, therefore, will be the expense of making up the list of the Peers, which will probably consist of half-a-dozen names, and the list of the ladies who will be enfranchised under the Act. The Lord Advocate thought he was importing into the Bill the principle of the School Board elections, and he defended the Bill upon that ground. In the case of a School Board in one of the burghs I have the honour to represent there is a division of opinion. The majority of the Board have been pursuing a particular policy, which they believe to be in keeping with the interests of the ratepayers, and the minority have been resisting it, equally believing they are acting in accordance with the wishes of the ratepayers. The minority have resigned, and I put it to the Lord Advocate, if he thinks he is following the principle of the School Board elections, what would happen in such a case. The majority, instead of having the opportunity of appealing to the ratepayers, would have the invidious task thrown upon them of selecting men to fill the vacant places. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman used that argument he evidently forgot that in the School Board Act of 1878 rectifying the Act of 1872 this matter is dealt with. Though the burden is cast upon the remaining members of the School Board where there remains a quorum, yet if they fail to discharge their duty within a certain time it is left to the Scotch Education Board either themselves to nominate persons to fill the vacancies or to order fresh elections. I maintain that, even under the School Board Act, the Lord Advocate will find no precedent for what he is doing here, and that, therefore, my Amendment is deserving of consideration.

Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 4, after the word "every," to leave out the word "third."—(Mr. Shiress Will.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBEBTSON

My hon. and learned Friend has shown it is possible to make a very able speech upon what is really a very small point; but after all I do not think the House will be disposed to depart from the decision it arrived at in Committee. No doubt if you desire an incessant return to the opinion of the electorate upon the occurrence of every vacancy, then it would be well to adopt the Amendment; but I imagine the general sense of the Committee was repelled from the strict application of such a principle by two practical considerations. In the first place, here is an opportunity, if we take advantage of it, of cutting away one of the too frequent elections in the case of municipal politics in Scotland. The general desire is to have elections which will best test the opinions of the people and then have done with elections for a while. The second consideration is that if the hon. and learned Gentleman's view in this Amendment prevails, it will add to the expenses of registration. You would have to keep the roll of electors active on the chance of a vacancy occurring. We were pressed most strongly to alter the registration clauses we first submitted to the House in order to avoid the expense of a fresh register every year. We yielded, and I strongly deprecate departing from the convenient arrangement which has generally been adopted in municipal affairs in Scotland.

The House divided:—Ayes 175; Noes 104.—(Div. List, No. 241.)

MR. LYELL (Orkney and Shetland)

I desire to draw the attention of the House to the serious inconvenience that may result from the insufficient publicity provided in the Bill for the list of electors. It is a serious grievance in the Highlands and in the North West that the registration law provides only for the exhibition of the lists on church doors. Now, for the most part, the population in these districts are Dissenters, and, not attending the parish church, the great bulk of them never see these lists in order to satisfy themselves that their names are properly entered on the lists the Assessor now makes out each year. I bring this question forward again all the more readily because the Government in Committee made but a very poor defence of their position—they met the grievance they did not deny with a simple non possumus. As a matter of fact, notices are sent out by the Assessor to the principal landowners to fill up the names of their smaller tenants who may be entitled to come on the register; and although the landlord may intend to fill the notices up quite fairly, the fact is they are most incorrectly filled up. Tenants who have died are represented by the names of their widows, although it may be notorious that the persons really in occupation, and to whom the landlord looks for his rent, is the son; and the names of numbers of deceased tenants are entered on the register, owing to the Assessor taking the evidence of the proprietor only. In Committee I was met by the analogy of the Parliamentary roll, but I do not think the reply met the case. I do not think it is a business that can fairly be thrown upon the County Council candidate to see that the list is properly made up; but I do think that it is the business of this House to provide all facilities to secure that the Assessor makes it a true and faithful list of all qualified electors. I will not say that the proprietors would wilfully make up false lists; but I do not think that an opportunity should be afforded to landlords to leave out from the register those who may not be in political sympathy with them. An objection was urged to putting up notices at Post Offices, where I propose they should be exhibited among other places supported by public money, but I do not know on what grounds. I do not know a more suitable place to secure publicity. The Post Office is a place of general resort—everybody goes there, either for postal purposes or for buying; for the Post Office is the general supply stores usually in sparsely-populated districts. Certainly these lists would be more interesting than many of the notices exhibited at the Post Office, such as the rates of Post Office orders to Roumania or the parcel post to Brazil, and other matters which concern nobody who reads them. It is a matter of great importance in Scotland. My Amendment meets part of the serious defect in this matter, and I hope the Government will on this occasion meet it fairly.

Amendment proposed, in page 21, at the end of Clause 28, to add the words— In addition to any publication of the list of voters at present by Law required, the assessor of every county, or division of a county, shall, on or before the fifteenth day of September in each year of the making of such list, publish copies of the said list by affixing the same in some public and conspicuous position in or near every post office and telegraph office, and in or near every public, municipal, and parochial office and public school within such district, and the same shall continue so affixed for a period including two consecutive Sundays at the least next after the day of publication, and, if removed or defaced within such period, shall be replaced by the assessor."—(Mr. Lyell.)

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

MR. J. P. B. ROBEETSON

It is very probable that the existing arrangements for the posting of electoral lists might be considerably improved, but the proposal of the hon. Gentleman is open to very serious objection. In the first place, it is not in itself a part of the electoral law to be taken into account in connection with these County Council lists, and not in connection with the Parliamentary register. We should have the County Council lists, which certainly are not of greater importance than the Parliamentary lists, given this, vigorous and prominent advertisement, while the Parliamentary list would be relegated to this obscurity the hon. Member thinks attends the posting on church doors. The better plan would be at the proper time to make an amendment of the law on the subject of registration, and provide for both lists simultaneously. The hon. Member suggests post offices as a place for displaying the list, but I would remind him that the departmental notices are numerous, and it is indispensable that they should be made public, and the post offices do not in many cases afford the advertising space now required. It would, moreover, greatly add to the expense. I venture to suggest that the subject the hon. Member has raised is one to be considered maturely and dealt with comprehensively, and not one that properly rises here.

DR. CLARK

It is simply a question whether we shall continue the farce of posting a couple of notices on the church doors where the people never see them. For every eight or 10 people who attend the parish church, 800 or 1,000 attend the Free Church. We want to get rid of this farce of so posting Parliamentary Notices. Why not post them where the people will see them, and no better place could be found than the Post Office? You need not have them inside, have them somewhere outside, as you do on the church doors. In England you exhibit such notices outside chapel doors. Why not avail yourselves of the same means of publicity in Scotland?

The House divided.—Ayes 99; Noes 165.—(Div. List, No. 242.)

It being midnight, further proceeding stood adjourned.

Further proceeding to be resumed tomorrow.