HC Deb 06 May 1892 vol 4 cc313-34

Clause 4.

(4.40.) DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I think this clause must be again postponed, as it is a Definition Clause, and there must be modifications made in it.

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

If it be a competent course it is desirable, as this is a clause that must be amended in a consequential manner, to bring up the Amendments on Report.

(4.41.) DR. CLARK

This is a Definition Clause, which requires modifications. As a rule, Definition Clauses are at the end of a Bill, otherwise you must have discussion upon them. Therefore, I think it had better be postponed; but I do not desire to press its postponement. One of the matters which we must discuss if it is gone on with now is Sub-section 9, which covers the word "Commissioners," as against "Councillors."

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! It would be very unusual to postpone a clause again. It appears quite simple and not a disputed matter to make Amendments to a Definition Clause at a subsequent stage of the Bill.

(4.42.) DR. CLARK

I have an Amendment to leave out of this clause Sub-section 9. This raises the question as to whether the title in the burghs shall be "Councillor" or "Commissioner." The old term in all the Royal burghs, and in all the burghs, until I think the Police Act, was Town or Burgh Councillor, and this term is used in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. But the Council in a police burgh in Scotland is called a Board of Commissioners, and the members are named Commissioners, so that under the present position of things you have old Royal burghs with a population of 700—sometimes only 300 or 400—with Councillors, and large police burghs with Commissioners. I am a little doubtful whether, under the new clauses, even an old Royal burgh, except under the old Royal Burgh Charters, will not change its terms, and the members be called Commissioners. New police burghs of a population of 68,000 or 70,000 are very much more important than the old decaying and dying Royal burghs; and it is a point of honour among them that they have a right to the terms "Council" and "Councillors." I am glad to say we have carried our point so far that in future these large burghs will have a Provost, and Magistrates, and Councillors. If the Lord Advocate will give us any explanation why he should have the two phrases then, of course, I will not press my Amendment; but to place the large burghs under the Police Acts in the same position as Royal burghs as to name, style, and authority, is practically the aim and object of this Bill; and I do not see why we should retain both names.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 9, to leave out Sub-section (9).—(Dr. Clark.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (9) stand part of the Clause."

*(4.44.) SIR C. J. PEARSON

In one sense this may be regarded as a verbal matter; but there is another sense disclosed by the speech of the hon. Member, that shows it is more important, for it touches sentiment. I believe myself there are sufficient reasons for keeping this designation. In the first place, it has become a perfectly well-known and distinct term in Scotland, because it is a term applied to bodies created under the Police Acts of 1850 and 1862, and has a distinct meaning. Having that meaning, it has not only passed into the ordinary language of the people, but has been over and over again adopted in Statutes. It is a convenient term, as indicating the fact that these bodies are acting under certain Statutes, and are not Town or Burgh Councils, in the sense in which these words are understood throughout the whole of Scotland. If there is any value in the distinction, it does appear to me that as a matter of convenience it ought not to be confused, as it certainly would be by the Amendment. For these reasons, I think the clause should remain as it is.

(4.46.) MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

We must look at this matter practically. We are dealing with a Police Act and a Public Health Act, which is to apply to all burghs in Scotland, police, as well as to every other burgh in Scotland. We are conferring upon these burghs equal powers, and if we are going to have uniformity at all, why should some burghs call their Magistrates Commissioners, while others call their Magistrates Town Councillors? We are now attempting to introduce a uniform system, and give uniform powers in all the burghs in Scotland; and I do not see why, in the future, there should be in some cases the title of Commissioner, and in others the title of Town Councillor. It has been urged, as an argument for retaining the distinction, that these were introduced as Police Commissioners. They were introduced then, because their powers were of a very limited kind. They were only practically, police powers, and, therefore, had to be distinguished from Town Councillors, who had larger powers. But the object of this Bill is to bring about uniformity in local management, and I can see very great inconvenience in keeping up the distinctive terms. I hope, therefore, the Amendment will be accepted.

(4.48.) DR. CLARK

I take it that under the first Schedule we are repealing all the other Burgh Acts of all kinds, of William and all the other Sovereigns before Victoria. We are beginning again de novo. This is a Bill to consolidate, and if the Lord Advocate will kindly look at page 5, Clause 5, he will see that the words are— This Act shall apply from its commencement to every existing burgh; and (b) to every burgh created under this Act. So that the Bill will affect every burgh now in existence, and every burgh that is created; and as you repeal all the other Acts—the Acts of William and others—all your old burghs, your Royal burghs, will be in the same position, and you will, practically, be taking away, under this clause, the title of Councillors from those burghs. I contend that small toy burghs, with only 250 or 270 inhabitants, ought not to have, as a matter of sentiment, any right to such a title when large burghs with 60,000 inhabitants are debarred from it.

(4.51.) MR. BARCLAY

I think that the office of Burgh Councillor or Commissioner should be aggrandised as far as possible. I would suggest that in all burghs in which the Chief Magistrate is called "Provost" the term "Councillor" should be used.

(4.52.) MR. ESSLEMONT

I do not see that any hardship would be inflicted upon anybody by adopting the term "Councillor."

(4.53.) MR. MCDONALD CAMERON

Some difficulty may arise with regard to the title in cases where, as in my own burgh, they are governed by a local Act.

(4.54.) MR. CRAWFORD

I sympathise a good deal with the Amendment, but I think it would be extremely difficult to carry out the change of name throughout the Bill. On the other hand, it would be easy to change the name afterwards by a subsequent Act if it is thought convenient to do so.

DR. CLARK

I think it is important to take the sense of the House upon the matter.

THE CHAIRMAN

I would point out to the hon. Member for Caithness that if this Amendment were adopted it would, perhaps, involve five or six other Amendments.

DR. CLARK

Then I will withdraw it, and take a Division on an Amendment to another clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(4.57.) DR. CLARK

I now propose to leave out the word "Commissioner," and to insert "Councillor."

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 40, to leave out the word "Commissioner," in order to insert the word "Councillor."—(Dr. Clark.)

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

The House divided:—Ayes 228; Noes 77.—(Div. List, No. 108.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5.

DR. CLARK

This is a clause in which certain burghs are exempted. Edinburgh, Glasgow, and some of the smaller towns are exempted, and a number of the smaller burghs wish also to be exempted. Perhaps, however, the best time to consider the matter will be on the Schedule.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 15.

DR. CLARK

Connected with this clause is one of the most curious features. These large towns, having fought against the Bill, now change their tactics. They desire to be exempted, and we are exempting them. Now they ask for the right to take any section or sub-section they think proper. I think their position ought to be either that they want the Bill, or that they be taken out of it altogether. I do not see any reason at all for empowering them to take just what they want.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the Clause.—(Dr. Clark.)

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

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

In the Police Acts hitherto passed, there has been power of adoption, and the course seems to me desirable in the interests of all concerned. If any of the larger towns think that any particular section suits them or contains additional powers they ought to have, I think it is reasonable they should be permitted to adopt them without incurring the expense of coming to Parliament for a special Act. I, therefore, appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 28.

DR. CLARK

This is a Limitation Clause. We have found lately that ladies are very useful as members of School Boards and in other capacities. They have been elected even to the London County Council. I want to have Home Rule, and therefore beg to move to omit the word "male," in order that duly qualified ladies may not, on no other ground than that of sex, be excluded from the scope of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 17, to leave out the word "male."—(Dr. Clark.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36 agreed to.

Clause 42.

DR. CLARK

It appears that the object of this clause is, that where there are various jurisdictions in one burgh, for instance a Burgh Commission and a Police Commission, each with certain powers, they are to be united. The original clause dealing with this subject went very much further than the one now before us, inasmuch as, among other things, it determined how the union was to take place. I do not see how you can carry out the proposed object by the present clause. It seems to me to be very vague. I will take one of the places which will be affected by it. In the burgh of Thurso there are two classes of Commissioners—namely, the Burgh Commissioners who exist in virtue of the burgh being a burgh of barony, and the Police Commissioners. Now, the intention of this clause is that those two bodies shall be joined together. The wording is that— All the powers and duties already existing, or conferred by this Act in relation thereto, shall thereafter devolve and be invested in, and be wholly exercised by the Provost, Magistrates, and Town Councils or Commissioners as the sole Municipal Authority. Now in a burgh of barony the Police Commissioners have the larger powers, and what I want to know is, after this clause passes, will the Police Commissioners be the authority, and the Burgh of Barony Commissioners cease to exist? Of course there is no Provost in the place. Take another case. There is the Royal Burgh of Wick and the large Police Burgh of Pulteney Town. I take it that they would not be merged. The people of Pulteney Town are under the impression that they will be merged with Wick against their will. There are a number of other burghs of the same character. The original clause had much more in it than this, and it seems to me was much clearer. The clause now before the Committee is somewhat vague, and I fail to see how it will act.

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

It seems to me that the original clause was a totally different one from this, because it dealt with combinations of burghs under a voluntary arrangement, whereas the present clause is only intended to secure that there shall be no conflict or complication of jurisdiction in a burgh. It seems to be obviously proper as a matter of convenience to the Magistrates and citizens that there should not be a double jurisdiction. Burghs such as the hon. Member referred to would come under Clauses 22, 23, 24, or 25. In the case to which the hon. Member referred, the effect of this Bill would be to sweep the jurisdiction into the hands of the Police Commissioners, and not into the hands of the Burgh Commissioners.

MR. ASHER (&c.) Elgin,

I have given special attention to this clause, as part of my own constituency seems affected by it. This clause has clearly the effect of merging various authorities over the whole of Scotland into one Municipal Authority. I do not think the clause will be found to contain anything at all objectionable.

MR. MCDONALD CAMERON (Wick, &c.)

I have in my constituency two burghs, the Royal Burgh of Wick and another one, Pulteney Town, which is governed by Police Commissioners. The people of Pulteney Town have taken counsel's opinion on this clause, and they have been advised that they will have to amalgamate with the Royal Burgh of Wick, and that they will cease to exist as a separate burgh. Well, they object to be coerced, and they want some definite and reliable assurance that amalgamation will not be compulsory.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,) Bute

The conclusion to which the hon. Member has come seems to be an extraordinary one. On the arguments used by him, such places as Portobello will be merged with Edinburgh and Govan with Glasgow.

MR. MCDONALD CAMERON

When this clause is passed am I to understand that it will leave the burghs such as I have referred to at liberty to take advantage of this Act as they wish?

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

I do not see how you can force the combination of two separate burghs by this clause. I do not think the hon. Gentleman need have any fear on that point.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 46, 60, 75, and 76 agreed to.

Clause 77.

DR. CLARK

I suppose this is one of those clauses on which the Lord Advocate proposes to make an Amendment at a later stage.

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

That is so.

DR. CLARK

The object of the clause is to place Medical Officers of Health in the counties and in the burghs in the same position so far as qualification is concerned. Now, diplomas are granted for sanitary science, and we think it is desirable that the qualification should be amended. We think it would be better if the clause were delayed so that it might be re-cast with the object of placing the Medical Officers in the burghs and the counties on the same footing.

MR. MCDONALD CAMERON

I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken; and I think it is very necessary, in view of the difference that has been made in the examinations, that the qualification should be maintained.

DR. CAMERON

I think it would be well if the Lord Advocate would consent to the postponement of this clause in order that the Medical Officers of Health might lay their objections before him. We have made great progress since 1862, and I think the Medical Officers appointed under this Act of 1892 should be at least on a par so far as qualification is concerned, with the Medical Officers appointed under the Local Government Act. In the small burghs it would be impossible to appoint highly-salaried men, who alone would be competent to discharge the duty of Medical Officers, and I think the clause should be altered so that the qualifications of the Medical Officers should be on a par with those required under the Local Government Act, and that the small burghs should be empowered to make arrangements with the County Authorities, so that one fully competent officer could cover a large area. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has his Amendment ready, or whether it might not be as well to postpone this single clause.

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

This is, to a certain extent, a question of procedure, and I do not think there is any ambiguity on the subject to which the hon. Member has referred. It may be in the recollection of the Committee that the Public Health Clauses of this Bill, strictly so-called, were strongly opposed by a certain body in Scotland and by some hon. Members of this House. It was thought desirable, in order to facilitate the passage of this Bill, that these clauses should be dropped, and the Bill was very carefully gone over with a view to select those clauses which were admitted by those interested to fall within the category of Public Health Clauses. The result was that the clauses with which the Committee is now dealing were selected, and I may say that the hon. Member for the College Division (Dr. Cameron) has accurately described the Amendments which the Government are prepared to introduce in this clause. The Amendments which the Government propose to make are entirely within the scope of what has been said, and hon. Members may rely upon it that they will not raise any matter other than what has been raised in the statement just made. I propose to bring them up on the Report stage, and I believe that the proper form is that the clauses should pass subject to that undertaking, and not that they should be postponed or reserved. Hon. Gentlemen who are interested may feel assured that their position will not be in any degree worse than it is now.

DR. CAMERON

I have no desire to offer any opposition to the Bill, and what I would suggest is this: The hon. Member for Caithness has an Amendment on the Paper as to the qualification of Medical Officers; that might be put in at this stage, and that would give the sanction of the Committee to the Amendment. Then the right hon. Gentleman could make his modification on the Report stage.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

I have a Petition from the Town Clerk of Musselburgh in favour of those Public Health Clauses being included in the Bill.

MR. R. T. REID

I have some Petitions in the same strain.

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

I have no doubt that most people in Scotland would rather have a portion of the Bill than lose it altogether, and it was with that view that we were prepared to consider the Public Health Clauses as a separate part of the Bill. I do not object to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member, and I will accept the Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

No Amendment, has been moved.

DR. CLARK

signified that he moved his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 32, line 19, after the word "practitioner," to insert the words "registered as qualified in sanitary science, public health, or state medicine."—(Dr. Clark.)

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 78.

DR. CAMERON

My Amendment refers to the size of the burghs to be affected by this Act, and I propose it at the request of one of the burghs which will be affected. I will read a letter on the subject which I have received from the Town Clerk of Clydebank, who says— Amongst the clauses of this Bill which have been postponed for further discussion is Clause 78, which seriously affects the burgh of Clydebank. The burgh was formed in 1886 with a population of 5,000, and rose to 9,998 at the last Census. We have not had many months to consider our position in regard to the management of the police force till a proposal is made to alter the law with the effect of throwing us back 20 years before we could again hope to manage our own police. Surely the population limit of 7,000 is a sufficient safeguard without further restrictions. It stands so in the Police Act of 1872 and the Local Government Act of 1889; and if burghs with a population of 7,000 have managed their police force satisfactorily in the past, and are to be entrusted with the same powers in years to come, there can be no good reason why burghs with a similar population, but which have not yet taken over the control of the police, should be debarred from so doing until their population reaches 20,000 at a regular taking of the Census. Assuming that you are taking an interest in this clause on behalf of other burghs similarly situated, permit me to suggest one or two alternative Amendments suited for burghs over 7,000, but which have not yet taken the police into their own hands: (1) Clause 78, page 33, line 5, delete 'And at the date of the passing of this Act maintained a separate police force, and of burghs which at the date of the last Census had a population of not less than 20,000,' or (2) Clause 78, page 33, line 7, after 'force,' insert 'or formed into a separate police district in terms of the County Police Act, 20 & 21 Vict., Chap. 72,' or (3) 'That the limit of population be 10,000, instead of 20,000 (line 8), and that Clydebank be scheduled as having a population of 10,000 at last Census for the purpose of the Act.' I shall be glad to furnish you with any information regarding this burgh which you may deem necessary; and trusting you may be of some little service to us with the least possible inconvenience, I am, &c. The Amendment I propose would meet such cases as this, and I move to delete from the word "thousand," in line 5, to "shall," in line 8.

Amendment proposed, In page 33, line 5, to leave out from the word "thousand" to the word "shall," in line 8.—(Dr. Cameron.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'and at the passing of this Act' stand part of the Clause."

DR. CLARK

Clydebank is not the only place affected in this way. There are other burghs where a similar expression of opinion has been made, and the general feeling, I am sure, is that it is better for the control of the police to be as local as possible. Where the Burgh Magistrates have the control of the police, they find that they are more respectful; but when the police are under the control of the County Authorities, they are not so deferential to the Burgh Magistrates as is considered desirable. I would also suggest that it is a big jump all at once from 7,000 to 20,000 in the way of population; and if the Government cannot see their way to accept this Amendment, they might accept 10,000 as the population. With a population of 10,000 they ought to have the option of having their own police, and I think the jump from 7,000 to 10,000 would be fairer than from 7,000 to 20,000.

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

It is quite obvious that no figure which could be fixed upon would be altogether satisfactory, as populations will fluctuate. With reference to the suggested compromise of 10,000, I would remind the Commission that the figure 20,000 is a compromise. There was a proposal of 30,000, but it was put down to 20,000 by one of the Select Committees, and the reason for not putting it lower is that in regard to the administration of police there is a strong opinion entertained amongst those responsible for that administration that it is inexpedient to have a separate police force in very small communities, and that 20,000 is about the limit below which a separate police force should not be upheld, except in those cases where a separate police force has hitherto been maintained, as in many cases it has been in burghs of much smaller area and population. The limit of 7,000 is the old limit, and it is enforced only in burghs which, at the date of the passing of this Act, contained 7,000 inhabitants and a separate police force. But, as regards those which do not, it is considered desirable that a separate police force should not be set up afresh and maintained unless the population reaches so much as 20,000.

MR. ESSLEMONT

These small burghs have practically their own police. The question is whether it is to be a separate force with a Chief Constable. In all burghs they have their police force within themselves, and I do not think the matter is of so much importance as has been made out. It is inconvenient in very small burghs that you should have a separate force and a separate superintendent. I have not known that there was any trouble in arranging with the Chief Constable of the county to have a certain number of police subject to the orders of the burgh.

*MR. BARCLAY

This is a very delicate question indeed, and the burghs have very strong feelings on the matter. One of my burghs, with between ten thousand and eleven thousand inhabitants, had given up the control of its police to the county, and, feeling very dissatisfied with the way their affairs were conducted, resumed control of the police. If the smaller burghs come under the county, they ought to be treated as a part of the county; but it seems that the County Council can make separate police districts of the burghs, and impose special rates. These burghs would be in a minority on the County Council when the question of special rating came up, and would not, therefore, be in a fair position. That being so, they should be absorbed into the county, and not created separate districts with special rates.

MR. STEPHEN WILLIAMSON (Kilmarnock, &c.)

I cannot vote for the Amendment. My burgh of Renfrew, with a population of 7,000, has not only a separate police force, but a Chief Constable, and they set great store upon it.

MR. MCDONALD CAMERON

I think with the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) that there is often great difficulty experienced in the smaller burghs, where higher rates have to be charged for a separate police force. I know several burghs where a special rate has been imposed, and it has given great dissatisfaction.

DR. CLARK

Perhaps the best way to meet the case of Renfrew as well as other burghs with regard to special rating would be to postpone the coming into force of the Act till the 1st January, 1893, which would give them time to consider what they would do.

(6.0.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 231; Noes 71.—(Div. List, No. 109.)

(6.14.) On Motion of Mr. CRAWFORD, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 33, line 8, after the word "thousand," to insert the words "and of any burgh with respect to which it shall be at any time proved to the satisfaction of the Sheriff on the application of the Commissioners of such burgh that it has a population of not less than twenty thousand.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 83, 87, and 100 agreed to.

Clause 101.

(6.15.) DR. CAMERON

I beg to move— In page 42, line 7, to leave out the words "and to enforce payment thereof in the same manner as penalties. This clause relates to the case of a man who accidentally injures a lamp. He is liable to be brought before a Magistrate and compelled to pay the amount of the damage. I do not object to that; but this clause confers power on that Magistrates to "enforce payment thereof in the same manner as penalties." This clause is taken from the Act of 1862. At that time imprisonment for debt existed; since then it has been abolished, and there is no imprisonment for a civil debt, but there is imprisonment for the enforcement of a fine. The preceding clause, 100, deals with the case of malicious mischief, where there is any fault. This clause deals with the case where there is no fault. The effect of my Amendment would be not to allow the Magistrate to enforce payment of the fine by imprisonment.

Amendment proposed, In page 42, line 7, to leave out the words "and to enforce payment thereof in the same manner as penalties."—(Dr. Cameron.)

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

*(6.16.) SIR C. J. PEARSON

After consideration, I feel disposed to accept this Amendment. I think, however, to make the matter quite clear, we should add the words, "the sum shall be recoverable as a civil debt."

Amendment agreed to.

*(6.17.) SIR C. J. PEARSON

I beg to move, in page 42, line 7, to insert the words, "and the sum shall be recoverable as a civil debt."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 104.

(6.19.) DR. CLARK

I beg to move, in page 43, line 14, to leave out the words "occupier or occupiers," and insert the words "owner or owners." This is a clause which requires modification. The owner of common stairs and passages is required to put up lamps and light them with gas on the landings of houses with flats; and this clause compels the occupier or occupiers of such common stairs or passages to light and extinguish such lamps or lights at such hours as shall be fixed by the Commissioners by any bye-law or regulation, a fine of 10s. being payable for not doing so. I can quite understand the lights on a staircase coming under the control of occupiers, and that they should light them and put them out; but they may be away for a month, and perhaps during that time the gas is lit and goes on burning night and day, there being nobody to look after it. This is work which I think ought to be done by the Commissioners. The Commissioners may pass resolutions by which they will be able to clean and light these places, and then charge the occupiers of the house for it. I do not see why the owners of the front land shall be compelled to pay in respect of these passages, when they not only go to the back land, but go straight on. They then come to be thoroughfares, and the cost ought to be borne by those who take advantage of them. I think the clause as it is drawn now is very unfair to the occupiers. It places on them a burden that ought to belong to the owners or to the general ratepayers.

Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 14, to leave out the words "occupier or occupiers," and insert the words "owner or owners."—(Dr. Clark.)

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

(6.22.) MR. MCDONALD CAMERON

I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. The reasons which the hon. Member for Caithness has given show clearly that the clause will remove the responsibility which ought to rest with the owner. I am perfectly certain that under the clause as it stands the work will not be well done, and will not be effective.

*(6.23.) SIR C. J. PEARSON

This clause is expressive of the law as it now stands; it will not lay any additional burdens upon the occupier. If a passage, though used as a thoroughfare, is nevertheless private, then it will be a matter not for the Commissioners, but for the owner or occupier to look after the lighting. It will be noticed by the Committee that the first paragraph of the clause lays upon the owner the obligation of providing, upon requisition by the Commissioners, all necessary lamps and means of lighting, and the necessary supply of gas or other light; so that the proposition is this: that the owner, having done that, shall, in addition, have to come in the morning to clean, and in the evening to light, and at night to extinguish the lamps, and that these are not among the ordinary duties of the occupier. I appeal to the hon. Member on the ground that this is not an increase of the burdens of the occupier, and also on the ground of the obvious propriety of the provision in the clause, not to press his Amendment.

(6.25.) MR. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite understands the effect of this clause. It, on the face of it, reverses what I believe has been the invariable practice in Scotland. In Scotland the occupiers provide the gas fittings, but the clause proposes that the landlord shall do so.

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

There is nothing to prevent the occupier putting up as many gas fittings as he likes.

MR. BARCLAY

I am afraid I have not made my meaning quite clear. What I say is that it is usual for the gas fittings to belong to the occupier.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

Inside the house.

MR. BARCLAY

But here the first portion of the clause provides that the owner Shall provide all necessary lamps, brackets, and other means of lighting.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

That has nothing to do with the inside of the house.

MR. BARCLAY

If it is not inside the house, why on earth should the occupier pay for it? This is a practical question, for the clause is intended to apply to tenements with 20 or 30 tenants. Now, how is it practicable, with this class of tenants, who occupy for perhaps only a few weeks or months, to come to an arrangement with them as to when the gas is to be lighted, when it is to be extinguished, and how the cost is to be provided? It is impossible.

*(6.27.) SIR C. J. PEARSON

The gas will be paid by the owner. There is no question in this case as to the owner or the occupier paying for the gas. It is a mere question of cleaning, lighting, and extinguishing the lamps.

MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.

I do not think that there is any necessity for this clause at all. I think it might be well left to private arrangement between the owner and occupiers, and I would, therefore, suggest to the Lord Advocate that he should take out this section altogether.

(6.28.) MR. BARCLAY

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has not thoroughly mastered this clause. By a subsequent section he will observe that the cost of the gas, if there is an arrangement between the Commissioners and the owner and occupier, is to be borne by the occupier, and that the cost may be recovered by the Police Commissioners. Anybody who knows anything about these houses and their tenants must know that this is practically impossible—that the Police Commissioners could not go weekly and collect the cost in amounts of a few shillings.

MR. ESSLEMONT

The clause does not provide that they should.

MR. BARCLAY

I think it does, and in order that the Committee may understand it, I will take the liberty of reading the third part of the section— It shall be in the option of the Commissioners to resolve, on a Motion, of which due notice has been given, to contract for, or supply, gas or other light for such common stair, passage, or private court, and to clean, light, and extinguish the same by their servants, and recover the expense thereof to an amount not exceeding the sum of 20s. for each burner per annum from the occupier, or, if there are more occupiers than one, then proportionately, according to the number of the occupiers of any building to which access is obtained by such common stair, passage, or private court. That seems very clear and distinct, but that is what I object to, because it is impossible for the Commissioners to accomplish it. The lighting of these common stairs, which are in one sense public thoroughfares, and in another part of a private building, ought to be laid upon the owner, and, if he likes, he can add so much to the rent of the house in consequence. I am surprised the Government should persist in refusing to accept the Amendment.

(6.32.) DR. CLARK

If the Lord Advocate will look at the sixth line of the clause he will see that it is incumbent upon the owner or owners to supply the necessary gas or other light which may be required. It is very clear that the owner or owners are to supply the light. Under the first sub-section of the clause the occupier or occupiers are required to do the cleaning and to light the gas and to put it out, but under the last sub-section the Commissioners can at any time supply the gas and do the cleaning, and instead of it being paid by the owner and occupier, it is all to go upon the occupier. So you propose by the first sub-section that the cost shall be borne by the owner; then, by the second sub-section the cost of the cleaning and lighting goes upon the occupier, and by the third you propose that the Commissioners can come in and say: "We will both supply the gas and the cleaning, and charge it all to the occupier." The whole of the burdens should have been shifted, not upon the occupier, but upon the owner. That is why I move to leave out the words "occupier or occupiers," and to insert "owner or owners." It would be difficult for the Commissioners to arrange this matter; it has been tried and found to be unsuccessful. It is very easy to place the burden upon the owners, and then the owners can raise their rents if they like for this extra labour you are putting upon them. I think it is a far better plan to lay the whole thing upon the owners and give him the control, with the Municipality; it is easier to deal with a few hundreds of owners than to deal with thousands of occupiers. I hope the Lord Advocate now understands the clause, and I hope he will give us some reason for refusing the Amendment.

(6.34.) MR. THORBURN (Peebles and Selkirk)

I only rise to say that I think it will be much better to put the burden upon the owners, because that is the only means whereby the money can be collected.

(6.35.) MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

This clause contains the most absurd and idiotic provisions I recollect in any Act of Parliament for a long time. We are familiar with the case of common stairs in the Temple, and I put it to hon. Members who have chambers in the Temple how, as occupiers, they would like the obligations put upon them to clean and light and extinguish the gas upon the stairs? Anything more inconceivably idiotic I never heard of in my life. The rational way of dealing with cases of this kind is that there should be some common property as in the Temple and Inner Court. The whole of this clause is a thing which is absolutely absurd and impracticable. It has been pointed out that there is an additional reason why nothing should be thrown upon the occupier, because in the last sub-section the Commissioners are empowered, if they think fit to exercise their powers, to charge as much as 20s. from the occupier for each burner. That is a most monstrous charge upon the occupier, and that is a charge not merely for the obligation which is thrown upon the occupier by the provisions of the section, but also for the whole of the gas which is consumed. There is absolutely no sense of propriety in this. I am told it was in the Act of 1862; I am astonished to hear it. I think the duty of lighting the gas at a particular time and putting it out at a particular time is a perfectly absurd one to throw upon the occupiers.

*(6.35.) SIR C. J. PEARSON

The Amendment is in line 14, to substitute "owner" for "occupier," but the suggestions have ranged over the 1st and 3rd sub-sections, and the references to the Act of 1862 have no connection with the provision here.

DR. CLARK

I may explain that I did not want to put so many Amendments on the Paper.

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

My proposal is that we consider this Clause in reference to the supply of gas, and that we bring up a Clause on Report. The Amendment does not raise that point. I will inquire if there is any reason for the distinction made in the Clause between the liability of owners and the liability of occupiers. While I cannot accept the Amendment—for I think it is reasonable that the owners should undertake the duty of cleansing, lighting, and extinguishing—I will undertake to re-consider the Clause.

DR. CLARK

I have no objection to passing over the Clause now; but it will be very difficult to carry out this method, if not utterly impossible.

*MR. BARCLAY

In a building containing twenty or thirty tenements, and occupiers constantly changing, I do not see how it will be possible for the occupiers to hold meetings and come to arrangements for the lighting and putting out, &c. I should strongly recommend the withdrawal of the Clause now, and the introduction of a new clause.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

The Clause is precisely the same as that in the Act of 1862, which has been attended with no inconvenience.

MR. HUNTER

Because it has not been enforced. It is a question for the Commissioners to deal with. I hope my hon. Friend will divide on the Amendment.

MR. ESSLEMONT

Where the duty is laid upon the owners there will be no difficulty in the owners making an arrangement with the lighting authority or with their own tenants. The putting these words into the Clause is an entirely unnecessary interference.

DR. CLARK

Does the Lord Advocate propose to postpone the Clause, or to agree to it and modify it on Report?

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

It cannot be postponed at this stage; it must be passed or negatived. I would suggest that we pass the Clause now subject to an undertaking to bring up a clause on. Report dealing with all the points.

DR. CAMERON

Let us divide on the question that the Clause stand, and if a new clause is brought up on Report we can then deal with that new clause.

*MR. BARCLAY

There are two questions at issue—

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

I quite recognise that.

*MR. BARCLAY

There is the question whether the occupiers should pay for the lighting, cleansing, and so forth, and whether the light should be paid for by the owners. I certainly think the Clause should be withdrawn, and a new clause brought up on Report.

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

It is really immaterial. I am quite willing to withdraw this Clause now, and I will propose a new clause on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause withdrawn.

Clauses 108, 109, and 114 agreed to.

Clause 115.

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

I hope the Lord Advocate will consent to the omission of this Clause. The 1st section proposes that the duty of sweeping and cleansing the footway in front of a dwelling shall rest with the occupier. Since the clause was originally drafted this question has been fully inquired into by a Select Committee appointed, I believe, to inquire into the Public Health (London) Act, and in the result a clause was introduced into the Act for London, under which the duty is cast upon the Local Authority. If the Committee will consent to the omission of this Clause 115, I propose to substitute the clause from the Public Health (London) Act, with the necessary alterations to make it locally applicable, whereby the responsibility for keeping the footway clear shall rest under penalty upon the Local Authority, not upon individual citizens.

DR. CAMERON

I trust the Lord Advocate will favourably consider this proposal. The subject was much debated on a former occasion in this House, especially in reference to the clearing away of snow and so forth. Up to the present, the duty has devolved on the householder, but I think to the detriment of the community generally. The provision it is now proposed to re-enact was in accordance perhaps with the spirit of the time in 1862, but since then legislation has advanced, and the duty is now recognised as one for the Local Authority. My hon. Friend's proposal to take the clause of the more recent Act as a model is a reasonable one.

DR. CLARK

At the present time, the Commissioners under the clause have to keep clean the footway in front of unoccupied houses, but in front of occupied houses the duty is with the occupier. It is frequently the case after a fall of snow that while the occupiers do their duty, the Commissioners altogether neglect their share. Certainly, I think the duty should altogether lie with the Local Authority, following the principle adopted in London.

MR. ESSLEMONT

I can speak from some experience, and say the clause in the Act of 1862 has worked most unsatisfactorily.

It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday.