HC Deb 13 June 1892 vol 5 cc935-59

COMMITTEE. [Progress 17th May.]

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 383.

MR. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

The Amendment which stands in my name, and which I now rise to propose, is that the words "in equal proportion" be added after the word "assess," in page 134, line 23. The object of the proposal is that the rates shall be equally divided between the occupiers and owners of property in the burghs. I move this Amendment, not only upon its own merits, but also upon the precedents which Parliament has established in regard to such matters. During the last twenty years the rates that have been imposed in Scotland by Parliament have been uniformly divided between the owners and occupiers. Several days have now elapsed since this question was mooted in the House, and in the meantime the people of Scotland have had an opportunity of expressing their views upon it. The Town Council of Glasgow has, by a majority of two to one, voted in favour of it, and every burgh in my own constituency is, I believe, also in favour of the Amendment which I now submit to the House; and, so far as I can gather, I am of opinion that the whole of Scotland, generally speaking, approves of it. That is shown by the fact that when the police burghs have the opportunity of rating under different Acts they prefer those which give them the power to divide the rate between the landlord and the tenant. I do not think the Lord Advocate opposes this proposal on its merits; I believe he will say that this is not an opportune time for dealing with the question. But it seems to me that this is exactly the time for dealing with it. This Bill is intended to replace the Bill passed in 1862, under which the whole of the taxes have been placed upon the occupiers. Since 1862 the House of Commons has frequently given expression to its opinion on this question, and on every occasion its decision has been in favour of the rates being divided between the occupier and the owner. I contend, therefore, that this is the proper time for fixing the incidence of taxation under this Bill; because if it is allowed to pass now without the adoption of this Amendment, there is every probability that the question will not again be dealt with for an indefinite time. For these reasons I urge the favourable consideration of this Amendment upon the Government.

Amendment proposed, in page 134, line 23, after the word "assess," to insert the words "in equal proportion."—(Mr. Barclay.)

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

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I suppose we are going to be opposed on this point by the Government, although the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a public meeting stated that the division of the rate between the owner and occupier was as much the object of the Unionists as of the Gladstonians. If the right hon. Gentleman was correctly reported, I take it that the other side of the House are in full agreement with us on this matter. The only question, therefore, that remains is whether this is the proper time to deal with it. This Bill has been before the House for nine years, and we hope to see it passed before the termination of this Session; and if the Government are as anxious as we are to effect a division of the rates, now is their opportunity. I should like to hear some reason given by the Lord Advocate for not accepting the Amendment.

*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,) Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities

The only reason why I did not reply at once is that I have on previous occasions expressed my views on this question when it has been brought forward. I have, however, no objection to remind hon. Members of what I then said. This Bill preserves the status quo as to assessment, and therefore it is vain for hon. Members to say that we are proposing by it to do anything contrary to the existing law in Scotland with regard to the general assessment for police burghs. The lines upon which the Bill proceeds are those of the police assessment as laid down in the Police Act of 1862, and it is remarkable that the only burgh which has been mentioned as having come to any adverse conclusion is a burgh to which this Act does not apply. I received only to-day a letter from one of the burghs situated in the county the hon. Member represents—the Burgh of Arbroath — urging that the Bill should be allowed to pass, and that it should not be delayed for a moment by this question. That, I think, justifies me in saying that it is not expedient to raise this whole question at the present time, as it would be impossible to deal with it in the present Parliament. The analogy of recent legislation with regard to counties entirely fails unless a great deal is added to the Amendment. Let me remind the Committee that so far as the owners are assessed in counties, they have representation upon the assessing bodies quite different from that in the assessing bodies in towns. Another difference that suggests itself is that the police in burghs are in a different situation from the police in counties, the benefit being much more directly in favour of the occupiers in burghs than in the counties. On all these grounds the Government do not see their way to accept the Amendment, and I am in hope the hon. Member will not press it.

DR. CLARK

It is evident from the speech of the Lord Advocate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds different views from himself. If the status quo had been maintained by the Bill I should not have minded so much, but you are relieving the landlords of their liabilities. The change will not be made, because the late Lord Advocate, who gave a binding pledge on the subject, is not here, and the present Lord Advocate takes a different line. The position now is that we are not going to have the changes that we desire, and we are going to retain things as they are, although all the changes that have been made in this Bill have been made in favour of owners. This policy of the Government will assuredly help us during the General Election, and I hope my hon. Friend will press this matter to a Division in order to show what the Scotch Members think.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

The Lord Advocate has given two reasons why we should not have this division of rates in the burghs. In the first place, he says it is because of the status quo, which is not to be altered. It is precisely that status quo to which we object and which we say should be altered. Then he says that if we were to alter the status quo, so as to do more justice to the burghs, the Bill would not pass. How does he know that the Bill is going to pass? My own impression is that if the Government would make the changes we desire it would very much facilitate the chances of the Bill passing. I am not at all of the same opinion as the people who have written to the right hon. Gentleman. I think this is a bad Bill, and I would rather that the Bill were lost than that it should be carried without amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has discovered a new argument. He says that the functions of the police in the burghs are different from the functions of the police in the counties. That is a somewhat delicate subject for a Tory Lord Advocate to enter upon, and I was not surprised to see that he clothes his statement in ambiguous language. I fully admit that there is a great difference. In the burghs the police are employed for the protection of persons and property; in the counties they are employed as preservers of game and to catch poachers. That is, to my mind, a work of supererogation, and is no part of legitimate police duty, and we say that that circumstance ought to be taken into account in determining who shall pay the rate. If we lose this opportunity of dealing with the question no one knows when another may arrive, and I tell the Government it will be vain for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go to the country and say that he is in favour of equal division of the rates between landlord and tenant, when in two or three minutes the Government Whips will be sending Members into the Tory Lobby to vote against the equal division. This is all the more unjustifiable, because we are only asking that the burghs may be put in the same position as the counties were placed by a Conservative Government. If now they obstinately refuse to adopt this Amendment they must not be surprised if the electorate judges them by their deeds rather than by their language.

Question put.

(6.10.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 131.—(Div. List, No. 184.)

(6.16.) DR. CLARK

The next Amendment that stands in my name is intended to place one-half of the rates upon the owners. This is a different Amendment from the one just moved by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay), because it provides for the paying of the rates whether the premises are occupied or unoccupied. Unoccupied houses require to be watched, &c., and yet at present they do not contribute one farthing to the rates. The system in London is that the owner pays half the rates and the occupier the other half, and thus when the houses are empty the authorities get something to recoup them for what they are obliged to spend.

Amendment proposed, in page 134, line 23, after the word "burgh," to insert the words "and owners of unoccupied lands and premises within the burgh."—(Dr. Clark.)

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

*(6.18.) SIR C. J. PEARSON

It is quite true that this Amendment has not been disposed of, but it differs very little in principle from the one on which we divided just now. The law as it at present stands is that the owner shall not bear any part of the rates for unoccupied premises. As owner he is exempt, and the reason is that the basis of the assessment is occupied property. We cannot, therefore, accept this Amendment, because it is inconsistent with the present basis of assessment.

MR. BARCLAY

The right hon. Gentleman has given no reason why the basis of the assessment should not be altered. A number of changes have been made by this Bill; but they are all for the benefit of the owner, and none for the benefit of the occupier.

MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

The Government always refuse to consider alterations that are submitted in favour of the occupiers, and you can hardly wonder that the people in Scotland look upon them as a Government of landlords. I fail to see any reason why the Government should not alter the assessment basis, so as to divide the rates equally between the owners and occupier.

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY,) Cornwall, Bodmin

Order, order! That is not the point raised by this Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

(6.21.) DR. CLARK

The object of the next Amendment is to bring Feu Duties under assessment for local purposes. Those duties now escape taxation altogether. The latter portion of the Amendment deals with another class of property, and it proposes that this class shall be assessed at not exceeding four shillings in the pound on four per cent. of the capital value of the said land. A few minutes ago the Lord Advocate repudiated the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer when he declared that his right hon. Colleague was mistaken in supposing that the Unionists were in favour of equalising the rates. Now, he may repudiate a more important Member of the Government, the Marquess of Salisbury. The Prime Minister was a Member of the Committee, several years ago, on the Housing of the Working Classes, and he attached a special Memorandum to the Report of the Committee, in which he recommended the proposal which I am now making—that is, to have taxation of capital value. The present basis of taxation is annual value, but that means anything. I am taxed for my little house in London at a much higher rate than the large castles. What we want to get is what Lord Salisbury thought a fair method of taxation. He recommended four per cent., and I advise that; and the only point on which I go further than Lord Salisbury is that I would allow the owner to declare what is the capital value, and the capital value must surely be best known to the owner. Of course, as everyone knows, there is a vast difference between the agricultural value and the feu value; and if the landlord has declared the agricultural value, it would be open to the Local Authority to purchase the holding at the value declared by the owner, and thus secure for the ratepayers the difference between the agricultural and the feu value. At present the Feu Duties entirely escape taxation.

Amendment proposed, In page 135, at the end of the clause, to add the words—"The Commissioners shall also assess all feu duties or ground rents, and all owners of land within the burgh. The owners of feu duties or ground rents shall pay an assessment not exceeding four shillings in the pound on the feu duties and ground rents received by them for all land within the burgh. The owners of unfeued land, or land occupied for agricultural or other purposes, shall pay an assessment not exceeding four shillings in the pound on tour per cent. of the capital value of the said land. If any difference should arise as to the capital value of the said land, the owner or owners of the land shall fix and determine the said capital value, and it shall be lawful for the Commissioners at any time, on giving six months' notice to the owner or owners, to take possession of the said land on payment to the owner or owners of the capital value fixed and determined by him or them."—(Dr. Clark.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added.

*(6.27.) SIR C. J. PEARSON

This is a very wide question, and one which, in my humble opinion, it is quite impossible to discuss at this time. We are now merely dealing with a Police Bill, and the hon. Member has raised a question which could only be properly introduced in a large measure dealing with assessments generally. The first part of the Amendment, with respect to the taxation of feu duties and ground rents, is charged with fallacy. It is fallacious to say that feu duties escape taxation at the present moment. That question was carefully considered in the Town Holdings Committee, and the fallacies were so obvious that I do not think a single Member of the Committee which considered the matter was of opinion that they escaped taxation, or that in touching them you would touch a new source of revenue. The fact that they escape direct taxation does not prove that they escape altogether. This Amendment would alter the whole basis not only of taxation, but also of valuation, and it is one which the Government cannot accept. With respect to the second part of the Amendment, it is apparently hopeless to convince the hon. Member that the proposal is not legitimate. What the Amendment means, or how it could be carried out, I do not know. I know what the object of the hon. Member is, but his proposal would be an impossible excrescence upon a Police Bill. To say that the owners of unfeued land in the burghs should be taxed on capital value is opposed entirely to the whole valuation system; and if it is considered at all, it must be on a large measure dealing with the system of valuation, and not on a measure for the regulation of the burghs. The proposal that the valuation should be by the owner himself may or may not be a good one, and may or may not be feasible; but it would be introducing a new principle of taxation into the Bill, and on that ground alone I cannot agree to it.

MR. CALDWELL

The Lord Advocate forgets that the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a new principle of taxation when he made the grants in aid of local taxation. Local rates were levied on rent alone; but now those who contribute to Imperial taxation contribute to local rates. The working classes, therefore, contribute to local rates far and above the rates on their rental, and it is only fair that other persons should be asked to contribute also. In Glasgow the value of feu duties has increased enormously during the last fifty years, owing to the increased prosperity of the City, brought about by the expenditure of local rates. We are, therefore, entitled to ask that owners of feu duties and ground rents, who reap the benefit of the increased prosperity of the City, brought about by the expenditure of local rates, should contribute towards those rates. The proposal is that you should not tax them above four shillings; but in fifty years the feu duties have increased in value more than the capitalised value of four shillings, so that you will simply be taxing the increased value given by the community. Besides, feu duties are heritable property, and it is more legitimate to tax heritable property than to tax individuals.

(6.35.) DR. CLARK

I shall, of course, press this to a Division. This is the first opportunity we have had of carrying out the recommendations of the Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, the opinion of which is of more value than that of a Select Committee. I am trying to put into legislation what the Commission recommended, and we shall be able to see if hon. Members are prepared to go as far as the Commission, or think the recommendations of the Commission too revolutionary.

Question put.

(6.40.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 124.—(Div. List, No. 185.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 388.

DR. CLARK

I hope this is one of my Amendments which the Lord Advocate will accept. Under the law as it stands, when a house is let for less than twelve months the owner can be taxed for that period. The Bill changes that, and provides that where an occupier takes a house for, say, the last three months of the year, the previous occupier having gone without paying his rates, the former shall be liable for the rates for the whole year. I want to hear some reason for this change. At present the owner is responsible, and that is the best way, when the house is let for less than twelve months and he can arrange to cover it in the rent. To say that an occupier should pay not only his own but the previous occupier's rates is absurd. My Amendment is to leave the law as it is at present, under the provisions of the Police Act of 1862.

Amendment proposed, In page 136, line 20, to leave out from the word "and," to the word "year," in line 21, and insert "the owner of the said lands and premises."—(Dr. Clark.)

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

MR. MCDONALD CAMERON (, &c.) Wick

I desire to support the Amendment, as I think it is hard that a new-comer should be charged with the unpaid rates of his predecessor. I think the Amendment is a fair one under the circumstances. The landlord you have always with you, but you are never certain of the tenant. It is the landlord who derives all the benefit from the property, and he should be responsible to the locality for the rates.

MR. BARCLAY

The clause will lead to serious grievance if a man who comes into a house for the last three months of the year has to pay for the whole year. I have an Amendment dealing with the question, and I propose that the tenant shall only be charged a proportion of the rates corresponding with his occupancy, leaving the Police Commissioners to recover the remainder from the previous occupier. Thus the new tenant will only be responsible for his own tenancy.

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

I think the hon. Member is under some misapprehension as to the effect of the clause. This is one of the Amendments which were discussed in Committee upstairs, and I cannot find that the clause was passed as it stands otherwise than unanimously. It would be a serious thing to alter the clause in the way proposed unless some substantial reason could be given for doing so. The present law is that the occupier is bound to pay his assessments, but if he fails to do so, the law says in such a case the owner shall be liable. The proposal of the hon. Member is that the owner and not the occupier should be liable. The way the clause works out, as I understand it, is that where premises are let for less than one year the occupier is personally assessed; but if he cannot be found the owner has to pay. This is merely a power given to the Commissioners, when the occupier cannot be discovered. When a new occupier comes in, and is found in possession at the moment of assessment, it seems hard that he should have to pay for his predecessor; but that is just one of those things which the occupier who comes in will look to when the law is known. The Select Committee have settled this clause, and I think we should be incurring a great responsibility if, without a grave reason, we set aside the clause as it stands.

MR. HUNTER

This clause involves a principle which many Water Companies have tried to get into their Acts—namely, to make one man pay another man's debt. That is monstrous; to make the innocent occupier liable. The Lord Advocate said that when the law becomes known a new occupier will refuse to enter on premises until he has seen the receipts for the rates of the other tenant. When will the law become known? Did one ever listen to such insensate nonsense? At the end of ten or twenty years you will not find one lawyer in a hundred who will be aware of the clause. It is a maxim of law that everybody knows the law. But how do we know the law? By exercising our common sense and our sense of common honesty. No one would imagine that a person taking premises at the end of a year would have to pay the rates which the previous tenant had gone away without paying. That is against common sense, and should not be sanctioned by the House. It is inconsistent with the ordinary transaction of business that any human being taking a house should be called upon to inquire into the debts of his predecessor, and whether or not he had paid his rates.

(7.0.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

My right hon. and learned Friend has expressed the general view that he could not depart from the unanimous finding of the Committee.

DR. CLARK

That is a mistake. The question was postponed for the general rating question. Nothing was done. There was no decision at all taken.

MR. BALFOUR

My right hon. and learned Friend was not a Member of the Committee, and was only informed of the fact. However, I confess I think it would be rather hard if the incoming tenant should have thrown upon him all the debt which his predecessor should have paid, but I do not think the best way out of that is simply to tax the owner and leave him without any remedy against the person who ought to have paid the debt. The person who ought to have paid the debt is the outgoing tenant, and the person who is made to pay according to the Bill is the incoming tenant. So far as I can see, the equity of the case would be met if we introduced words, either on this stage or on Report, which would make the owner liable for the debt of the ex-tenant, but with a remedy against the ex-tenant. That, I think, is not the Amendment of the hon. Member, but I think it carries out the object for which he contends. My right hon. and learned Friend will, on Report, bring up words to carry out that object.

(7.6.) DR. CLARK

I have no objection to that course being taken. This is a very important point. In Scotland a house is taken from Whitsuntide to Whitsuntide. A tenant may be in for six months or three months, and then bolt, and another tenant comes in, and at Martinmas the rates for the year must be paid by the owner or the occupier under the present Act. The consequence is that under the Bill you take away the liability from the owner altogether. A man may come in for the last three months of the term and pay a special price for the tenancy. Under the old law the Burgh Magistrates could go against him or the owner. Generally they went against the owner; sometimes they did not. This Bill proposes to do away with the right of going against the owner, and puts the burden on the incoming tenant. I have no objection to postpone the matter till the Report stage, on the understanding that you will draft a clause on the lines to meet both cases, where property has been unlet, and where property has been occupied, but the occupier has gone away without paying rent or taxes.

MR. BALFOUR

According to the Amendment to be introduced, each occupier will be liable for the time which he occupies, and for that time alone; and where the occupier makes default then the landlord will be liable.

MR. BARCLAY

If the Local Authorities neglect to get the money from the previous tenant by the powers they possess then it is their own fault, and they ought to suffer for it. If this Amendment is withdrawn, I shall move a subsequent Amendment which deals with this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. BARCLAY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 136, line 22, leave out the words "the whole," and insert the words "a proportion."

Amendment proposed, In page 136, line 22, to leave out from the word "except," to end of Clause, and insert "corresponding with the period of his occupancy.

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

(7.15.) SIR C. J. PEARSON

These two Amendments put together meet one of the cases raised by the hon. Gentleman, but they do not meet the other case.

MR. BARCLAY

My Amendment meets both cases.

Question put, and negatived.

Words, "corresponding with the period of his occupancy," inserted.

On Motion of Dr. CLARK, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 136, line 24, leave out from "assessment," to end of clause.

MR. BARCLAY

I beg to move in page 137, line 19, after "Acts," insert "or under 'The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889.'" This is an Amendment which I believe the Government will accept.

Amendment proposed, in page 137, line 19, after the word "Acts," to insert the words "or under 'The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889.'"

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ageed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

Clause 401 is not one of the postponed Clauses.

Clause 402 agreed to.

Clause 403.

(7.18.) MR. HUNTER

I wish to ask the Lord Advocate whether the omissions were considered? My hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron), who had an Amendment down to leave out Clauses 403 to 406 inclusive, is not here.

SIR C. J. PEARSON

Yes, they were considered.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 404 to 406 agreed to.

Clause 415.

(7.19.) SIR JOHN KINLOCH (Perth, E.)

I beg to move, in page 147, line 3, after Sub-section (5), add—

(Amendment of S. 5 of Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, regarding special drainage and water supply districts.)

Where any parish shall be partly within and partly beyond the jurisdiction of a town council and of police commissioners or trustees and of a parochial board, or any two or more of such bodies, and the Board of Supervision shall have in such case and under the powers of "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," determined that the parochial board shall be the local authority within the whole limits of such parish, and the parochial board have in consequence of such determination, and as such local authority, formed special drainage districts or special water supply districts prior to the passing of this Act, and levied assessments in respect of the same: Be it enacted that if and whenever the Board of Supervision shall under the powers aforesaid and after the passing of "The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889," recall their determination, and the police commissioners of any police burgh shall become the local authority under "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867." for any such special district, the assessments in respect of the drainage and water supply shall be levied in the same manner as regards the liability thereto of owners and occupiers respectively as they were before the recall by the Board of Supervision of their determination as aforesaid."

The object of this new clause is to remove a rating grievance which fell on the burgh of Coupar Angus after the passing of the Local Government Bill. It was the only police burgh in Scotland which was placed in the position in which it stands. Before the passing of the Local Government Bill, the local authority of this burgh was the Parochial Board; and the Parochial Boards in Scotland put the assessment half on the occupier and half on the owner. The Parochial Board introduced new drainage and water schemes, and the assessment was put half on the owner and half on the occupier; but on the passing of the Local Government Bill the Police Commissioners became the local authority, and the whole of the assessment was put upon the owner.

Amendment proposed, in page 147, line 3, after sub-section (5) add:—

(Amendment of Section 5 of Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, regarding special drainage and water supply districts.)

"(6.) Where any parish shall be partly within and partly beyond the jurisdiction of a town council and of police commissioners or trustees and of a parochial board, or any two or more of such bodies, and the Board of Supervision shall have in such case and under the powers of 'The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867,' determined that the parochial board shall be the local authority within the whole limits of such parish, and the parochial board have in consequence of such determination, and as such local authority, formed special drainage districts or special water supply districts prior to the passing of this Act, and levied assessments in respect of the same: Be it enacted that if and whenever the Board of Supervision shall under the powers aforesaid and after the passing of 'The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889,' recall their determination, and the police commissioners of any police burgh shall become the local authority under 'The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867,' for any such special district, the assessments in respect of the drainage and water supply shall be levied in the same manner as regards the liability thereto of owners and occupiers respectively as they were before the recall by the Board of Supervision of their determination as aforesaid."—(Sir John Kinloch.)

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

*(7.21.) SIR C. J. PEARSON

This is rather a dry matter of detail. When the Local Government Act of 1889 was discussed in this House in the shape of a Bill the matter came up for discussion as to whether the change that was made in the Local Authority should carry with it a change in the arrangement which had theretofore been entered into in reference to schemes under the Public Health Act; and the limit fixed by Parliament at that time was this—that those burghs in which schemes had been carried out before the date appointed for the commencement of that Act should be in one position, and those in which they had not should be in another position. In order to clear the field, if I may say so, for the application of that Act, the Board of Supervision recalled all the determinations made theretofore in reference to the Local Authorities of the areas to which those schemes applied; and the result of that was that in almost all the cases a change took place. In the case of Coupar Angus, the scheme was not within the words of the Act. I have not heard anything to lead me to think that if what the hon. Baronet has just said had been stated to Parliament then they would have come to any different conclusion from what they did; and, therefore, I do not see myself that there would be any propriety in accepting an Amendment which really is not appropriate to the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, but an Amendment of the Local Government Act, and thus altering the verdict come to on the Local Government Bill in 1889. I have very carefully considered the question with the assistance of the information which the hon. Baronet was good enough to give me, and I am not able to see sufficient reason for accepting this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 422

(7.22.) DR. CLARK (for Dr. CAMERON,) Glasgow, College

I beg to move, in page 150, line 12, after "liable," insert "on conviction before the Sheriff." I think these are very serious offences, and the penalties should not be imposed by the magistrates, but by the Sheriff Substitute, who is a trained lawyer.

Amendment proposed, in page 150, line 12, after the word "liable," to insert the words "on conviction before the Sheriff."—(Dr. Clark.)

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

(7.23.) SIR C. J. PEARSON

I think it would be an unfortunate thing if trial for these offences should be withdrawn from the police magistrates, and laid upon the over-burdened shoulders of the Sheriff Substitute. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.

(7.24.) DR. CLARK

I will not press it at the present stage; but I think that persons charged with these serious offences should have the protection of a trained lawyer, and should not have magistrates, who have sometimes been guilty of disgraceful conduct on the Bench in Scotland, trying them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 424.

(7.25.) DR. CLARK (for Dr. CAMERON)

I beg to move, in page 158, line 31, leave out "sixty," and insert "six." I think this is a new crime and a new penalty; and the proposal of my hon. Friend is to limit the penalty to thirty days. After a man has been convicted of drunkenness twice in the same year, on the occasion of the third offence he is by the Bill to get sixty days extra. My hon. Friend proposes to limit it to another month instead of two months. I propose that it should be "six" days.

Amendment proposed, in page 158, line 31, to leave out the word "sixty," and insert the word "six."—(Dr. Clark.)

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

(7.26.) MR. HUNTER

I think this is the most absurd thing I ever met in the way of legislation. For the most serious crime of theft and other crimes of that character a penalty of sixty days is usually awarded in Scotland; but here it is proposed to give a man sixty days' imprisonment at the option of the bailie for being drunk. Now, a man who is drunk no doubt injures himself, but, as a rule, he cannot hurt his neighbour. I must remind the Committee that these cases would be decided occasionally by very rabid teetotalers on the Bench, who would consider that they were doing a good service by inflicting the largest penalty possible upon any unfortunate drunkard who might be brought before them.

*(7.27.) SIR C. J. PEARSON

The hon. Member appears to think that the offence referred to here is that of drunkenness alone. That is not so. It is an offence which is a good deal heard of in police burghs—it is the offence of being drunk and incapable. It is not the case of a man being in drunkenness, or even aggravated or habitual drunkenness, but it is the case of a man being a danger, not only to himself, but to other people, and giving the police infinite trouble. When that occurs more than three times in twelve months I do think it would be perfectly ridiculous to give him six days. I am prepared to accept "thirty" days, which I understood was the Amendment which the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow proposed.

(7.28.) MR. HUNTER

I do strongly protest against this absurd kind of legislation. If a man who is drunk and incapable does give the police a little trouble in carrying him in a conveyance to the police office, that is a damage which might be repaired by the payment of five shillings. As a Scotchman, I feel ashamed that such legislation should be passed.

(7.29.) MR. BARCLAY

I wish to put before the Government the question of the expense of keeping these drunkards in prison for a month or two months. I think six or ten days would be quite sufficient punishment.

DR. CLARK

The man who is punished may be married, and in that case the effect of his imprisonment may be to send his wife and children to the workhouse. I think the penalty proposed is rather drastic, and I think the matter should be considered by the Government on Report.

*(7.30.) SIR C. J. PEARSON

I wish to point out that the penalty will be in the discretion of the magistrates. Thirty days is the maximum penalty. It is "not exceeding thirty days." The maximum penalty would be very rarely imposed, and the ordinary penalty would be just the ordinary few days which the hon. Member desiderates. As to the penalty being additional, that is one of the reasons which induces me to assent to the substitution of thirty days for sixty days as the maximum.

(7.32.) MR. HUNTER

I have appealed to the reason and common sense of the right hon. Gentleman in vain, and now I beg to give him notice that I shall examine this Bill more carefully than I have done, and that I shall put down a sufficient number of Amendments on the Report stage to compel the Government to adopt, at all events, such very reasonable and moderate proposals.

(7.33.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I should like to ask your opinion, Sir, whether it is in Order for a threat to be made to the House of moving Amendments, which would not have been put down in different circumstances, for the purpose of extorting other Amendments, so that this House is to be compelled by the mere waste of time to accept Amendments which would not otherwise be proposed?

THE CHAIRMAN

At present it is merely a threat. If it were carried into action, it would doubtless be met by other action.

(7.35.) Question put, and negatived.

MR. BALFOUR

I move that "fourteen" be there inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

(7.38.) Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 426 added to the Bill.

(7.39.) Clause 470.

DR. CLARK

I think there must be some misunderstanding with reference to this and the next half dozen clauses, because it was practically agreed they would not be kept in the Bill. Clauses 470 to 476 are all of a similar character, dealing with public health, and it was agreed that they should be struck out, as it was thought there should not be one public health law in one part of the country and a different health law in another.

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

I understood that Clauses 470 and 471 were to come out, but that the remaining clauses—472 to 476—were to remain in, as they were a recognition of clauses of the Act of 1862. Probably in order to carry out the understanding it would be better that I should assent to their deletion, leaving myself free to restore on Report any of those I should find left unprovided for in other Acts.

Clause omitted.

Clauses 471 to 476, inclusive, omitted.

Clause 479 agreed to.

Clause 535.

DR. CLARK

This is a clause which the Lord Advocate agreed to amend. It is a preposterous thing that a man whose child has committed an offence, and who is ordered to find caution for it, should be sent to prison if he does not find it.

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

I think my Amendment will meet the case.

Amendment proposed, In page 197, line 14, to leave out from the word "that" to the word "the" in line 16, and insert "no parent or guardian shall be liable in terms of this section either to imprisonment for failure to find caution, or to forfeiture of the caution when found, if such."—(Sir C. J. Pearson.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 548.

DR. CLARK

This clause gives power to the Magistrate to inflict a fine of £20, or to send a person to prison for three months. I wish to limit the powers of the Magistrate to imposing a fine not exceeding £5.

Amendment proposed, in page 201, to leave out lines 31, 32, and 33.—(Dr. Clark.)

Amendment agreed to.

On Motion of Sir C. J. PEARSON, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 201, to insert, in lieu of the words struck out, "exceeds £5.… two months."

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

I beg to move— Page 201, line 34, to leave out after "nothing," to end of clause, and insert "in this Act contained restricting the amounts of fines or periods of imprisonment shall apply to or affect the prosecutions authorised or the penalties enforceable under the Licensing (Scotland) Acts, 1828 to 1887, or to the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, or to any Act other than this Act under which the Magistrate has jurisdiction to impose fines for greater amounts or imprisonment for longer periods than those of this Act.

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

DR. CLARK

What is the object of the Amendment?

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

At present the powers are those exercised under the Public-houses Acts alone. Under these Acts there are certain offences of such a nature that the Magistrates can give as much as six months or a very heavy fine for them. There are various Acts not specified here where the Legislature has given larger powers to the Magistrates, and it was thought that while the restriction to sixty days should operate within the limits of this Act, it should not operate to exclude the larger powers which the Magistrates have already.

Question put, and agreed to.

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

I beg to move the following new clause:—

(Form where sum recoverable as civil debt.)

"Where under this Act a sum is awarded which is declared by the Act to be recoverable as a civil debt, the forms to be followed in the recovery thereof shall be those provided for enforcing decrees pronounced in the Small Debt Courts of the Sheriff, and there shall be added to the finding of the Magistrate in such case a warrant for execution in the following form:—'And the Magistrate decerns and ordains instant execution by arrestment, and also execution to pass hereon by poinding and sale after a charge of ten free days.' Any officer by this Act authorised to execute the warrant of a Magistrate may carry out the procedure authorised by this clause."

Perhaps it may be remembered that on Clause 101 of the Bill the hon. Member for the College Division, I think, took exception to certain penalties imposed upon persons for accidentally breaking street lamps, and that I consented to delete that part of the clause which imposed penalties, and to merely leave it upon the Magistrates to assess the pecuniary damage, which might be sued for as a civil debt. It has been found that that leaves considerable uncertainty as to the mode of recovery, because there are several modes of recovering civil debts, and it was thought right that there should be a clause inserted dealing with that matter; and I may just say that the mode selected is the form for recovery of debts in the Sheriff's Small Debt Courts. It seems to me that that would be the appropriate Court for the recovery of small sums, for in most cases they will be only a few shillings, and the clause so enacts and adds the form in which the Magistrate is to give his decree for the money, so that there shall be no mistake as to how it is to be done. The new clause is really consequential upon Clause 101.

Clause brought up, read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

*MR. JOSEPH C. BOLTON (Stirling)

I beg to move the following clause:—

(Exemption of railway companies' buildings.)

"The provisions of this Act, except with respect to drains and other sanitary arrangements, shall not apply to the railways or stations of any railway company or buildings connected therewith other than dwelling houses."

This clause is intended to prevent a conflict of opinion between two Government Departments. As the law stands at present the Board of Trade has to be satisfied with the building and arrangements of a station before it can be opened; but if the Bill remains as it is without this clause, that same power will also be given to the Local Authority or the Dean of Guild Court. It is quite clear that the public have been very well satisfied with the action of the Board of Trade, as is shown by the fact that a number of Police Bills referred to them during the past few years have all contained clauses identical with or similar to this one, and that the Glasgow Police Bill of the present Session, which is now, I think, an unopposed Bill, contains a clause in the very words of the clause I have put on the Paper. I trust, therefore, the Lord Advocate will be disposed to accept this clause.

Clause brought up, and read a first time.

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

DR. CLARK

It seems to me that my hon. Friend goes very much beyond what he tells the Committee he desires. I have no objection, if it simply affects the Dean of Guild Court; but if it is for other purposes I think we should have to give it some consideration.

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

This clause has been considered carefully, and the exemption of drains and sanitary arrangements is obviously necessary. But with that addition it does seem to me that buildings used for railway purposes, other than dwelling houses, may fairly be regarded as within the railway system, and buildings which ought not to be interfered with by the Magistrates. There being other means of dealing with those buildings, the Magistrates' interference might, in conceivable circumstances, be detrimental to the safe working of the railways. I have looked into the precedents on this matter, and I find that in several instances, notably in the case of Glasgow, a similar clause has been introduced, and also that a similar clause to a certain extent is in the English Public Health Act. The railways are there exempted as regards buildings, other than dwelling houses, which are used for railway purposes; and I have satisfied myself—I believe on sufficient information—that the clause is a reasonable one.

Motion agreed to.

Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

(7.55.) DR. CLARK

I beg to move the following clause:—

Remissions.

"The Commissioners may, on the ground of the poverty or inability of any person liable to the police assessment under this Act, remit, in whole or part, payment of the said assessment by such person in such manner as the Commissioners shall, in their discretion, think just and reasonable, but upon no other account whatsoever."

This clause follows the wording of the clause in the old Act, which, by some means or other, is not in the new Bill.

Clause brought up, and read a first time.

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

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

I only desire to say a single word on this clause. I had this under consideration some time ago, and I have not been able to discover why a similar provision intro- duced in the Act of 1862 has been dropped out. It does seem to me reasonable for the purpose of obviating cases of extreme hardship that the Magistrates should have this discretion of remitting assessments. The only suggestion I would make to the hon. Member is that, inasmuch as poverty is the only recognised ground for exemption, the words "or inability" should be struck out, so that poverty may remain, without any qualifying term, as the real ground for exemption, or that it should run "inability through poverty."

DR. CLARK

I am not responsible for the wording of it. I have merely taken the clause out of the 1862 Act. I have no objection to your changing it if you like.

MR. BARCLAY

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the clause. I can assure him that this clause in the old Act has caused great annoyance to the Police Commissioners. A great many applications are made for remission of taxation upon very insufficient grounds, and I wish to point out to the Lord Advocate that in the case of people who occupy houses of £40 and upwards their taxes are paid by the landlords, and I do not see that there is any reason why exception should be made in their case. The matter is a very great cause of vexation to the Police Commissioners.

Motion agreed to.

Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

(8.0.) MR. ANSTRUTHER (, &c.) (for Mr. FINLAY,, &c.) Inverness

I beg to move, in page 150, after Clause 421, to insert the following clause:—

(Saving of Local Authorities Loans Act.)

"Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect the provisions of the Local Authorities Loans (Scotland) Act, 1891."

MR. SHIRESS WILL (, &c.) (for Mr. LYELL,) Orkney and Shetland

I beg to move, in page 205, after Clause 563, to insert the following clause:—

(Saving rights of Renfrew and Lerwick.) Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect the proviso in section thirteen of 'The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889,' with respect to the burgh of Renfrew, and the police burgh of Lerwick.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

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

*(8.4.) SIR C. J. PEARSON

I may remind the Committee that the two places named were dealt with under the Local Government Act of 1889. I accept the principle of the Amendment, but I would propose to bring up on Report a proposition applicable to these two burghs. On that understanding I hope the hon. Member will consent to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to