CONSIDERATION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]

HC Deb 09 August 1894 vol 28 cc483-546

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [8th August] on Consideration of the Bill, as amended.

And which Amendment was, in page 2, line 3, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "five" —(Mr. Parker Smith.)

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

Debate resumed.

MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)

said, he desired to say a few words in support of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Partick (Mr. Parker Smith) at the previous Sitting to introduce two unpaid members to the Scotch Local Government Board in addition to the three official members. To put himself right with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, he would say that he did not intend to move the Amendment which stood in his name, but he certainly considered it desirable that some further discussion should take place as to the composition of the Board. The Amendment—which, as he said, he did not intend to move—was not designed with any hostility to the medical or legal members of the Board, but was rather aimed at the too professional character, if he might so say, of the Board—at the fact that the administrative powers would be confined entirely to the hands of the medical and legal officers. Some thought that the Amendment would make the Board too large. He himself had held that opinion in Committee; still, he did not see how it would be possible to arrive at the desirable result that the Board should not be of too professional a character, except by the adoption of some such Amendment. He thought it most desirable that all parties should be satisfied with the Board; indeed, that was necessary if the new development was to work well. He did not think it possible to arrive at that general satisfaction by simply gratifying two classes. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that amongst the "professional classes" in Scotland there was immense satisfaction with the composition of the Board. But these "professional classes" were simply the medical and legal classes. He (Mr. Cochrane) had discussed the subject with members of these two professions, and he did not think they cared much about it one way or the other—indeed, throughout the whole of Scotland there was a feeling of indifference in regard to the Bill. He certainly thought, however, that they should add to the Board some element which would appeal more to the ordinary business feeling of the persons who in the past had been in the habit of managing local government in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Trevelyan) had told them upstairs that one of the chief advantages was that "members were to give their whole time to the Board." But when they examined the composition of the Board he did not think that that was borne out at all. The Secretary for Scotland was not going to give the whole of his time to the Board. It could not be expected. The Under Secretary had a great many other things to do, and could not be expected to give all his time to the duties. The same might be said of the Solicitor General for Scotland, and when they came to the three administrative members of the Board—the vice-chairman, the medical officer, and the legal officer— they found that only two of them were expected to give their whole time to the Board. The legal officer was surely to give what was described by the right hon. Gentleman as "sufficient time"; therefore, only one-third, or two members, of the Board would give their whole or "sufficient" time. What, then, became of the argument of the right hon. Gen- tleman in opposing the Amendment of the hon. Member last night? The right lion. Gentleman then said— Able and continuous service was not likely to be rendered by men who were not salaried and not bound to give their whole time to the performance of the duties with which they were entrusted. Their influence also would be less than that of salaried officials. The Solicitor General was to get no extra pay for sitting on the Board neither was the Secretary for Scotland, nor the Under Secretary. So that if the argument used yesterday, in opposing the Amendment, was at all valid, it applied to only two-thirds of the members of the Board. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give them some idea as to how much time the legal member was to give to the work, and what was to be his position? And was it not essential that the legal officer should also give the whole of his time to the service of the Board? To his mind, all the members of the Administrative Board should be placed on the same footing. Then he would ask why it should only be the legal and the medical classes that were represented on the Board? Was there no professional teaching in Scotland? Was not education one of the most important matters that could be dealt with? Were not the School Boards to be placed under Parish Councils; therefore, why should not there be some element connected with education on the Board? Why should not those who would have to bring' up future generations be in any degree represented on the Board? He thought their duties were quite as germane to the Bill as those of medical and legal gentlemen. He was afraid that the legal element was too strong to hope to eliminate it from the Board now. The legal element had a great many friends on the Front Benches. He deplored the fact that in Scotland so much business was in the hands of lawyers. He did not say that their work was not efficiently performed. Four-fifths of the laud in Scotland was managed by lawyers, and he knew that the Scotch landlords in consequeuce acquired a good deal of unpopularity. He greatly feared that the same thing would happen with the Scotch Local Government Board. With a leaven of the legal element upon it he was afraid the Board would take, he would not say a narrow, but, at any rate, a professional view of matters which arose. Then, again, he considered that the salary of the legal member was insufficient to attract the best talent. A legal practitioner who had been in practice seven years was expected to give up the whole of his time for £1,000 a year; and surely for this they would not get the best man. What a private individual would do if he wished to have a legal point cleared up would be to go to a lawyer in actual practice and in touch with the Courts. But the opinion of a man who had been shelved after seven years' practice would not be of the same value as that of a man selling his legal knowledge in the open market. He did not think that in this matter the Government were doing the best they could to get legal advice for the Board. The Legal Officers of the Crown would always be available; and it would have been sufficient, he thought, to depend upon them. As to the medical officer, he should have preferred him to have been a salaried official who would have visited the localities when necessary and have made inquiries and submitted Reports. As it was, he would go down to the localities and make inquiries and investigations, and report and decide upon his own Report. It was obvious that sanitary science was not an exact science, and that as to the causes of fevers, diphtheria, and other diseases, and the best means of prevention, doctors were likely often to disagree. Ho had had experience of this in his own district of Kilwinning. Diseases were not attributable to the same causes in the country districts as in towns. Then there were duties to be discharged by the Board for which the professional members were not specially qualified. They had under Section 9 of the Act to approve of, and in certain cases fix, the numbers of Parish Councillors, a duty which required practical knowledge of the work. Under Section 31 powers were given to appoint committees to manage churchyards and charities, and to sanction schemes. These were all powers requiring local knowledge. Under Section 37 power was given to approve of auditor and "prescribe a scale of remuneration" Sections 24 and 25 dealt largely with laud, and provided for consent as to letting for more than; one year, or sale or exchange, and the determination of what was "suitable laud for public purposes" He submitted that to make the Board practical and useful some other element than the two professional classes he had referred to should be infused into it. If there was one thing more necessary than another in Scotland it was that those managing public departments should have the confidence of the whole people, and that, he submitted, could not be the case with the Local Government Board as it was now proposed.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN, the following Amendments were agreed to:—

Page 2, line 8, leave out "shall," and insert "is"

Line 8, leave out "be."

Line 11, leave out "who."

Line 12, leave out "and who," and insert "Such third appointed member."

MR. MAXWELL (Dumfriesshire) moved, in page 3, line 13, after "such,' to insert "auditors."

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,&c.) Clackmannan,

rose to Order. He said this Amendment would involve the appointment of officers to be "paid out of moneys provided by Parliament," and therefore could not be moved by a private Member.

MR. SPEAKER

said, the Amendment was clearly out of Order.

MR. MAXWELL

said, that being so, he would move to leave out "medical officers," in order to insert "auditors" in their place. That would not involve any additional cost to the taxpayer. He had raised this question in the Committee upstairs, and the view that official auditors should be appointed in place of auditors accountable to no one but themselves received considerable support.

* MR. SPEAKER

ruled that the Amendment was out of Order. The hon. Gentleman moved to omit "medical officers," in. order to insert "auditors," which he had already ruled out of Order.

On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN, the following Amendment was agreed to:—

Page 3, line 13, leave out "assistant."

On Motion of Mr. PARKER SMITH, the following Amendments were agreed to:—

Page 3, line 38, after "parishes," insert "not including any part of the area of a police burgh."

Line 39, after "Council," insert— (c) In the case of parishes wholly within a police burgh by the Burgh Commissoners.

On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN, the following Amendment was agreed to:—

Page 4, line 1, leave out the second "and," and insert "or"

CAPTAIN HOPE

said, he wished to move to amend Clause 9, which dealt with the constitution of Parish Councils, by substituting the following sub-section for Sub-section 2 of the clause:— For the purposes of the first election of Parish Councils, the various authorities named in the preceding sub-section shall, before fixing the number and proportion of the Parish Councillors, consult with the Parochial Boards, and with such other Local Authorities as may appear to be concerned, in each parish. And, as regards any subsequent alterations of numbers or proportion of Parish Councillors, no change shall be made without consultation with the Parish Councils and such other Local Authorities as may appear to the Board to be concerned. In any case of difference of opinion among Local Authorities, the decision of the Board shall be final.

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, this was exhaustively provided for in a clause at the end. It was be more appropriate to raise the question on that clause.

* CAPTAIN HOPE

said, that part of the Amendment related to subsequent alterations of the constitution of Parish Councils. His object in moving the Amendment was to draw attention to the fact there was no provision in the Bill that, in the first election of these new Parish Councils, those who were now actively engaged in the administration of parish affairs should be consulted by the authorities who fixed the number and proportion of the Parish Councillors. The new Boards were to be appointed by the County Councils and the Town Councils, no doubt under the supervision of the Local Government Board, but it seemed to him only reasonable that those who were at the present time in active management of the affairs of the parish should be consulted, at any rate, and have some voice in the fixing of the number and proportion of Parish Councillors. The first part of the Amendment applied only to the first election, the second part to subsequent alterations of numbers or proportion of Parish Councillors. He submitted that those were now actually engaged in the administration of parish affairs were entitled to be consulted in these matters. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were very fond of speaking slightingly of Parochial Boards in Scotland. They were not ideal representative bodies, but still they had admittedly done the work which had been given to them well and to the advantage of the community. They were, therefore, in a position to know what the actual difficulties and necessities of the parish than the County Councils or Town Councils or Burgh Commissioners would be without guidance of any kind. By the Bill they were establishing Parish Councils and instructing the County Councils and other authorities to fix the number of the Parish Councillors, and giving those authorities power to alter the constitution of the Parish Councils from time to time. He submitted that his proposal was a reasonable one, and one which the Government should accept as it stood.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 5, leave out Sub-section (2), of Clause 9, and insert the words,— (2) For the purposes of the first election of Parish Councils, the various authorities named in the preceding sub-section shall, before fixing the number and proportion of the Parish Councillors, consult with the Parochial Boards, and with such other Local Authorities as may appear to be concerned, in each parish. And, as regards any subsequent alterations of numbers or proportion of Parish Councillors, no change shall be made without consultation with the Parish Councils and such other Local Authorities as may appear to the Board to be concerned. In any case of difference of opinion among Local Authorities, the decision of the Board shall be final."—(Captain Hope.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (2), of Clause 9, stand part of the Bill."

SIR G. TREVELYAN

said, that, so far as the hon. and gallant Gentleman desired to leave out Sub-section (2) there, the Government were with him; but they were not prepared to accept the sub-section he proposed in its place. The hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed that the authorities named in the preceding sub-section should have a statutory warning to consult the Parochial Boards as to fixing the number of Parish Councillors and so forth. The Government took it for granted that these Boards would be consulted, seeing that they were representative authorities cognisant of the circumstances of each district. The matter was one of common sense, and to include points of this kind in the provisions would necessitate the passage of a Bill twice the ordinary length. He did not propose to refer to the English Act with regard to any positive enactment. Scotch Representatives knew best what they wanted for their own country. But it was a difficult matter when it was a question of whether England would trust the common sense of the authorities whom they made responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Act. No corresponding Amendment was inserted in the English Act, and he thought it was quite unnecessary to insert the Amendment here.

SIR C. PEARSON (Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities)

said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have some fear that if the existing bodies were consulted some objection would be raised by his supporters or some animadversion would be made upon the Bill. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain his reference to the English Act. He should like to know what Local Bodies existed in England that were analogous to the Parochial Boards of Scotland? How could the English Act have referred to the possible consultation of Local Bodies which did not exist until after the Act came into operation? The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have said nothing to countervail the reasons which had been given for the Amendment.

MR. RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.)

said, that although it might be a matter of common sense that this duty should be discharged by County Councils, it was desirable to secure uniformity of action on the part of County Councils. The right hon. Gentleman said the County Councils would obviously consult the Parochial Boards. It might be said it was obvious that the number of members of the Parish Councils should be fixed after consultation with the Parochial Boards, and yet it was provided by Subsection 2 that the number should be fixed after consultation with the Parochial Boards. He hoped that the Government would reconsider their decision on the point.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick)

pointed out that some of the largest County Councils strongly objected to have anything to do with this matter, and thought it ought not to be left in their hands at all, but ought to be left to the decision of the Parochial Boards. That being so, he certainly thought the Amendment ought to be adopted—at any rate, as far as the first arrangement of wards and the first election of members were concerned. No doubt as regarded future changes the Parish Councils could quite take care of themselves. If the Government were willing to accept the Amendment as far as the first arrangements were concerned, he would advise his hon. and gallant Friend to be satisfied with that.

DR. MACGREGOR (Invernessshire)

said, it appeared to him that the object of the Amendment was to continue the influence of the older Boards upon the new ones, and, as the older Boards were chiefly Conservative, he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.

MR. COCHRANE

asked whether the Government were willing to accept the Amendment as far as the first election was concerned?

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the Government did not think it necessary to do so, because they believed that the County Councils, in carrying out the duties imposed upon them, would consult all available sources of information, knowledge, and experience.

Question put, and negatived.

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

The House divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 140.—(Division List, No. 215.)

MR. RENSHAW moved, in page 4, line 12, after "Councillors," to insert "and the proportion for the landward and burghal parts respectively." He said that in Committee he had called attention to this subject, and had quoted certain cases to which he again wished to draw attention. In the parish of Dunblane the total population consisted of 3,300, of whom 2,200 were in the burgh and 1,100 were in the landward part of the parish, whilst in the burgh the property was valued at £9,381 and in the landward part the valuation was £52,100. In Kilmarnock the burghal population was 900 and the landward population 1,900, the valuation of the burghal portion being £6,000, and of the landward portion £19,000. Supposing Dunblane to have a Parish Council: six of the members, on the basis of population, would go the burgh and three to the landward part. That would be unfair. This, in respect of the duties devolving on the landward committee, would be redressed by Amendments made on the Bill, but that did not apply in the case of the administration of the matters which devolved on the Parish Council as such—that was to say, matters of administration in respect of the Poor Law.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 12, after the word "Councillors," to insert the words "and the proportion for the landward and burghal parts respectively."—(Mr. Renshatw.)

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

SIR G. TREVELYAN

said, that the hon. Member had taken so much interest in the Bill, and done so much to amend it, that the Government were anxious to meet his wishes, and they would be prepared to accept the first part of his proposal, but not the last part, as expressed in a later Amendment— And in the case of parishes, partly burghal and partly landward, the value of property therein. The hon. Gentleman had argued on the last part, and on that part the Government had taken a very decided line indeed. In the Debates in the Committee all the special circumstances of a parish in the fixing of the number of Councillors were considered to come under the head, "Circumstances of the parish." To give a larger number of representatives to a particular part of a parish on account of the value being higher was, in the opinion of the Government, inconsistent with the true principles of representation. The reason that one part of a district was poorer and another richer was very often that the pauperism of the richer part was concentrated in the poorer part. The proposal of the hon. Member was contrary to the tendency of legislation for a long while past. It would be a retrograde step in any way to distinguish between the richer and poorer parts of the same district.

Sift C. PEARSON

said, he regretted that the Secretary for Scotland only accepted the proposal partially, because the first Amendment did not go nearly so far as the second Amendment was intended to go. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had rather exaggerated the effect of the Amendment when he said it was contrary to the spirit of legislation. It would be so to a large extent if this were an injunction to fix proportional representation in the case of the landward and burghal parts of a parish upon valuation alone; but they all knew that the distribution of money, combined with a view of population and other matters, had been accepted by Parliament as a just mode of apportioning other burdens or benefits. The Government themselves, in this clause, did not confine themselves to what, according to the right hon. Gentleman, was the only true principle— population only. If the Secretary for Scotland could assure them that under the words "special wants and circumstances of the parish "there was intended to be included anything approaching the spirit of the Amendment, that might go some length to satisfy them.

DR. CLARK

said, he thought that the Amendment would be a very bad one, and was glad that the Government were going to oppose it. He knew something about Dunblane, and if it were a question of area he could have understood something being said. But it seemed to him an absurd tiling that, merely because a few people would go to one quarter and build villas there, they should have additional representation.

MR. RENSHAW

said, he only spoke to the two Amendments to save time, but he moved the first one at this stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. CALDWELL, the following Amendment was agreed to:—

Page 4, line 14, to leave out the words "according to the last published Census for the time being."

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 16, after the word "divided," to insert the words— And in the case of parishes partly burghal and partly landward the value of property therein."—(Mr. Ranshaw.)

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

The House divided:— Ayes 62; Noes 142.—(Division List, No. 216.)

MR. CALDWELL moved to amend Clause 10 by omitting the following proviso: — Provided that exemption from or failure to make payment of the special rate authorised by this Act, where such rate is due and payable by persons so registered, shall be a disqualification from voting at an election of a Parish Council unless such rate is paid during the period of one year subsequent to service of the demand note requiring payment of the same. He said, that this proviso was not iii the original Bill, and it was inserted in the Grand Committee at the instance of hon. Members opposite. The Government on this matter had the support of hon. Members opposite, but they had not a single supporter from the Liberal Benches with the exception of official Scottish Members. According to the Bill, there was to be a special parish rate established for the first time, and that special rate would be put on the notice of the Poor Law assessment, and would be collected along with the poor rate. As the law now stood, no man could be put on the County Council Register unless he had paid his poor rate on or before the 20th of June. As the special rate was put on the same assessment notice, and was levied and collected with the poor rate, it was obvious that no man could possibly be on the Register for the Parish Council unless he paid his poor rates on or before the 20th of June. It was plain, therefore, that this proviso was quite unnecessary. It was a piece of nonsense to say— Unless such rate is paid during the period of one year subsequent to service of the demand note requiring payment of the same. The giving of a year's grace for the payment of the special rate had no possible meaning whatever, because a man who had not paid his poor rate and his special rate by the 20th of June would not be on the Register at all. This pretended year of grace, therefore, had no meaning whatever, and he could not conceive how such a stupid proviso could be put into the Bill by the Government. Had they not disqualification enough already? The Government were putting this in quite unnecessarily, because even if this were left out there would still remain the disqualification if the special rate were not paid on the 20th June. They had gone out of their way to emphasise a new disqualification, and put it on the Statute Book, although they had always complained of the opposite Party introducing these disqualifications for non-payment of rates. They would find that this matter would be taken advantage of by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and by no one more than by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman's presence in the House just now had reference to this particular matter, and the right hon. Gentleman would make a strong point of the fact that the Government themselves in a Parochial Bill such as this had been compelled to establish a new disqualification as regarded voting. Again, look at another effect. Suppose they passed another Registration Bill to-morrow, and they took away the disqualification from the Parochial Board election for the non-payment of poor rate every man in a landward portion of a parish would be disqualified because he had not paid his special rate, whereas he could not pay his special rate without paying the poor rate, they both being included in the same demand note. They would be bound to pay their poor rate in the landward parishes, and also the special rate, whereas in the burghs they would have no disqualification with regard to the poor rate. The result, again, would be that the Government would find, in passing a Registration Bill, they would require a proviso which would eliminate these people in a landward portion of a county from disqualification in regard to the poor rate; it would require a special provision to do this, and the passing of such a clause would take up a good deal of time, as it would meet with strenuous opposition from the other side. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 22, to leave out from the word "register," to the end of sub-section (1), of Clause 10.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

Question proposed, "That the words Provided that exemption from or failure to make payment' stand part of the Bill."

SIR D. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

hoped his hon. Friend would not be offended if he said he thought he had discovered a Parliamentary mare's nest. The hon. Member said that people would be disqualified for non-payment of their special rate. That was not so. A man would go to the poor rate collector, and would say, "There is my poor rate and the other rates due on the 20th of June. I claim to be put on the Register, and this Bill gives me 12 months' credit for this rate." He would not be disqualified for the non-payment of the special rate until 12 months had expired.

SIR G. TREVELYAN

said, his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment was a little inaccurate in one point. He stated that the Government were not supported on this question by any Members of the Liberal Party who were not in Office. As a matter of fact, they were supported by six. However, it was not his desire to bring these questions before the House. He might say on this Amendment that it was the general intention of the Government to support the Bill as it came out of the Standing Committee. The Amendments which he himself had put down where entirely promises which he had made in Committee, with the general approval, or at any rate no expressed opposition, and Amendments, especially in the earlier portion of the Bill, which were consequential on the decisions come to on the later part of the Bill by the Committee. But with regard to the substantial questions, the intention of the Government was, whether the objection was taken from their own Benches or from the Benches opposite, to support the Bill as it left the Grand Committee; and he thought those who were present at the discussions in the Grand Committee would admit that this was a point upon which the Government were bound to support the Bill as it stood. He thought his hon. Friend had exaggerated the practical importance of this question. At the first election of Parish Councillors this question of the special rate would not occur at all. No special rate could be struck except by the Parish Council which was in existence. With regard to the subsequent elections, in order to be qualified to be on the Parish Council a man must have paid his poor rate. His hon. Friend talked of importing a new disqualification. His own speech showed how very small this new disqualification would be. The special rate was not included in the poor rate, but it was on the same paper, and it certainly was in the highest degree unlikely that a man would pay his poor rate, which would amount to some shillings, and postpone paying the special rate which would amount probably to so many pence. If he did so, and did not pay that special rate within the year, in that case he could he disqualified. That was how the matter stood. He did not strongly argue whether this raised a great principle or not. He was hound to say he did not think it did. He thought they took the general current of the law as they found it, and at present the payment of rates was required as a qualification. He did not think that it hampered them in the least with regard to future legislation. He differed rather on the question of principle from I lie Committee, hut, he did not argue it on principle now. As he had said, they took legislation as they found it. The Government supported this clause in the Grand Committee, and they most certainly should support it now.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

hoped his hon. Friend would not go to a Division on this matter, because ho thought they might he able to practically amend the clause. He himself had given notice of an Amendment to place the whole of the three rates in the same position, and to give 12 months' grace for the whole of the three, which would lie a most, beneficial change of the law. This was a matter which very seriously affected the fishing population of Scotland. They did pay their rates, hut not until after the 20th of June. In the town of Wick out of 3,000 ratepayers less than 1,000 paid before the 20th June, and about 2,000 paid in the beginning of September, when they came home from the fishing. These 2,000 men who had not paid their rates were disqualified and could not vote, so that the burgh of Wick lost every year two-thirds of the Parliamentary electors because they could not pay on the 20th June. He thought the Government should carry the principle further and give these fishermen until September to pay the local, the county, and the poor rates. Although he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as a general rule that they should support the decision of the Committee he would point out that this was a decision where the Scotch Members were overwhelmed. There was a majority of the Scotch Members in favour of placing the whole three rates in the one position, but i the minority of Scotch Members, aided by the English Members, outvoted the Scotch majority. If his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment he (Dr. Clark) would move his Amendment to place the special, the poor, and the consolidated rates in the same position.

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

did not know whether this would be the proper time to say anything on the Amendment which the hon. Member for Caithness intended to propose. The hon. Member's Amendment involved a substantial alteration of the Registration Law. It inferred an alteration of the Registration Acts as they bore on the question of disqualification at present. The proposal was not only to take up matters outside the Bill, but to deal with Parliametary registration and County Council registration, and, of course, it would be for Mr. Speaker to say whether such Amendments could be moved looking to the rulings which he had already given with regard to the proposed introduction of matters which were outside the scope of the Bill.

* MR. HOZIEH (Lanarkshire, S.)

desired to say that his Amendment in the Grand Committee was carried by 46 to 28, and there were only 10 English Members who voted; therefore, there was a decided majority of Scottish Members in favour of this provision.

Question put, and agreed to.

DR. CLARK moved, after the word "payment," to insert the words "Poor rate, local rate, or." The object of the Amendment, he explained, was to place the three rates in the same position, and to give a longer time than the 20th of June. As far as the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire was concerned, it was carried in the Grand Committee by a majority of Scotch Members, but the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen to apply the same principle to the other two rates was lost by the minority of the Scotch Members and English Members who were whipped up for that special occasion.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, this was a similar Amendment to the one he moved in the Grand Committee, the object being to make the clause generally consistent, so that the extension of time with regard to the non-payment of rates should apply to the whole of the rates under this Bill, and not to one only.

MR. SPEAKER

This is a Bill to re-cast the local government, and I do not think it is competent under such Bill to alter the existing law dealing with the subject of local elections and registration. I think the hon. Gentleman would be out of Order in attempting to deal with the Registration Law.

MR. CALDWELL

May I submit that it really does not alter the Registration Law itself?

* MR. SPEAKER

It expressly does so, on the showing of the hon. Gentleman himself. It is, therefore, out of Order.

MR. RENSHAW moved to insert, at the end of the first sub-section of Clause 10, an Amendment to the effect that it should be the duty of the clerk of the Parish Council, one week before the time fixed for the nomination of candidates for any election of Parish Councillors, to prepare a list of parish electors who had failed to make payment of the rates within the specified period, and to transmit a copy of that list forthwith to the Returning Officer, and any votes tendered by any elector named in such list should at any such election be disallowed, unless the elector instantly verified his right to vote by the production of a receipt duly signed and dated within the specified period. He said that some assessors thought difficulties would arise as to who was to decide the question involved in the clause unless such an Amendment were inserted. It would be exceedingly inconvenient to have the question discussed in the polling booth, and therefore the Returning Officer ought to have ample notice of the manner in which his duty should be discharged.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 27, at end, insert— It shall be the duty of the parish clerk, on the expiry of one year from the date on which the demand note was issued, to prepare a list of those persons on the roll who have failed to make payment of the special rate within the specified period, and he shall supply a copy of such list to the Presiding Officer, who shall delete such names from the roll of parish electors, and shall disallow the vote tendered by such persons unless the voter instantly verified his right to vote by the production of a receipt duly signed and dated within the said period of one year."—(Mr. Renshaw.)

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

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the Government would accept the Amendment, as a person was by the Bill not disqualified from being upon the Register through non-payment of the special rate, but was simply disqualified from voting. It was very desirable that the Returning Officer should have information on which he could act.

DR. CLARK

expressed the opinion that the word "instantly" would make it impossible to work the clause. A person might not have the receipt for payment in his pocket, and he could not, therefore, produce it instantly to verify it. He should suggest that "instantly" be omitted.

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, that "instantly verified" was a familiar legal phrase.

* MR. SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member move the omission of the word "instantly?"

DR. CLARK

Yes.

Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

SIR C. PEARSON moved, after the word "verified," to insert the words "prior to the close of the poll."

Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. PARKER SMITH moved, in page 4, line 29, leave out from "more," to end of sub-section. He said, if the Amendment were accepted the sub-section would simply read— Each parish elector may at any poll for the election of a Parish Council give one vote and no more. The Bill proposed to have the foreign system of scrutin de liste, and to allow an elector to give a vote for any number of candidates. That system had been strongly objected to in this country, and had been done away with wherever it had existed. Some precaution was necessary to prevent the opinion of the majority having all the representation on the Council, and the opinion of the minority having none at all. While political questions would not enter into these elections there might be burning questions, such as the management of parish charities, rights of way, and leasing land for allotments, on which it would be mischievous if the minority had no representation. The danger was partly provided against in the Bill by an option being given of dividing a parish into wards. But as that power was merely optional he had put down an Amendment to provide that it should be compulsory for a parish to be divided into wards containing not more than three members, which was, perhaps, the most practical way of doing it. That was the most graceful way of doing it. He had not proposed any scheme by this Amendment. Of course, the principle was plain, and if everybody was given a single vote it would be a more satisfactory development that they should be able to transfer that vote from one candidate to another. That could easily be provided for by a subsequent Amendment; but lie felt that this question as to how the elections were to be carried on in the Parish Councils was so important that it was at any rate necessary to bring it before the House.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 29, to leave out from the word "more," to the end of Sub-section (2), of Clause 10.—(Mr. Parker Smith.)

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

SIR G. TREVELYAN

said, that ho would hardly like to enter upon so large a question as the representation of minorities under the eye of his right hon. Friend below the Gangway, and he must fall back upon the statement that he had voted on every possible occasion against the principle contended for. He would not support this principle of compulsory plumping, the principle imposed in Birmingham and Glasgow, under the system of representation between the Reform Bill of I860 and the Reform Bill of 1885. He did not suppose there was any Member in the House at present who had not made up his mind on the question. The right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway had made statements in reference to the question of principle. Upon that principle they had all by this time decided one way or another, and were quite prepared to say whether or not they wished to have it introduced into the Scotch Parish Councils. His own opinion was as strongly against it there as elsewhere, and ho thought he should best consult the wishes of the Committee by merely saying that the Government would support the Bill as it stood.

COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)

said, that the representation of minorities was rather a large question to start at this period of the Session. He did not think in the circumstances, and seeing the condition of the House, that, having already expressed his sentiments on the question, he need express them again on the present occasion, although lie must confess he was much astonished at what he had heard, especially when his right hon. Friend, in defending his position, gave as a satisfactory reason for the ground he took that ho had himself always voted the other way. However, he would not enter further, as he had said, upon so important a question at this period of the Session.

MR. PARKER SMITH

said, he did not propose to divide on this Amendment, because subsequent Amendments dealt with the point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.) moved to omit the words after "not," down to "be," in line 36. The question was in reference to the date 1st January, 1895, and the provision in Section 57 rendered it unnecessary to insert a date in this place.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 35, to leave out from the word "not," to the word "be," in line 36.—(Mr. Renshaw.)

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

Question put, and negatived.

MR. RENSHAW moved to leave out the words "after the 1st day of January, 1895," in relation to the date when the Registers should be made up, and after which any woman should not be disqualified by marriage from being registered on a County Council, Municipal, or Parish Council Register.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "after the 1st day of January, 1895."—(Mr. Renshaw.)

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

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, that in the event of the Bill becoming law by the 1st of September, there would be sufficient time for making up the Registers so as to include the newly-enfranchised voters. If that was to be done it was of course desirable it should not be delayed till the 1st of January. He thought the wishes of hon. Members would be best consulted by saying that the words in question would be taken out elsewhere.

MR. PARKER SMITH

urged that there could be no harm in taking them out now. By putting it off to the future, expense and trouble might be incurred, whereas if the words were taken out now no alteration of the roll would be required.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said that, looking at the great number of persons concerned in being placed upon the Registers, it would be better not to draw a line now unless it were shown to be necessary.

MR. CALDWELL

pointed out that, the roll would be made up for November, and that there was no reason why women should be disqualified from voting for the Parish Councils. They would not be put upon the first roll, because that would have to be made up in time for November, but they could be upon the second roll. That appeared to be the simple reason for the Amendment—that women should be put upon the roll, and he thought the Government would do well to accept.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, if it was desired by the House, the Government would consent to omit the words.

Question put, and negatived.

*MR. HOZIER (Lanarkshire, S.) moved to substitute the word "qualification" for "property," which he considered a disfranchising expression, in respect to the proviso in Clause 11, that a husband and wife shall not both be registered in respect of the same property. The word he objected to was a disfranchising expression, because a property might comprise and confer several qualifications, and if that word were left in here, it would only be the owner who would be qualified to vote, without any regard to minor qualifications. He would venture again to ask the right hon. Gentleman the question he put to him in Grand Committee: If the word "property" were to be left in, what was to become of a man who happened to marry his landlady, and whether the unfortunate occupier of the house would not be disfranchised immediately? The Government ought to give the Amendment their favourable consideration.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 39, to leave out the word "property," and insert the word "qualification."—(Mr. Hozier.)

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

SIR G. TREVELYAN

said, that there never was the slightest doubt about the intention of the Government, which from first to last was that there should be only one vote for one property, and that the wife, as owner, and the husband, as tenant, should not have two votes. It was not necessary to emphasise the point with reference to this Amendment. Persons who came up to London were sometimes cautioned against taking advice without examining it very carefully. The intention of the Government was expressed quite clearly in Committee, and he wished to make it clear now: they had no wish to allow a double vote in respect of the same property in the case of a husband and wife any more than in the case of any two other persons. The Government conceived that that intention was secured by the words in the Bill, and for this reason it was desirable to retain them.

MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)

could see no ground why the Secretary for Scotland should have run away from an Amendment which he himself put down in Committee, nor why he should now oppose the Amendment. His own Amendment on the same subject in Committee he had withdrawn, under the belief that the Government would stick to their own Amendment; but the Secretary for Scotland, having moved it in a most eloquent speech, suddenly dropped it without any apparent reason. Some remark was interjected, and immediately upon that the right hon. Gentleman turned round and said he was acting after having consulted with one of the cleverest assessors in Scotland, whose opinion had been taken. It was stated that the Amendment had been suggested to the Government by a gentleman well-qualified as an assessor, so that it had not been hastily prepared. But, having withdrawn his own Amendment on the same point, the Government let theirs go. This clause enacted that a woman should not be disqualified by marriage; but the insertion of the word "property" did disqualify her in certain circumstances. It was never contemplated that marriage should be a disqualification. He hoped the Government would re-consider their determination and would accept the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend opposite.

MR. W. M'LAREN (Cheshire, Crewe)

said, the right hon. Gentleman had given a very singular reason for opposing this Amendment; he objected to two persons voting for the same property. But the Secretary for Scotland must be aware that there were hundreds and thousands of cases in which two persons voted for the same property. It was simply in the case of husband and wife that this ridiculous distinction was to be maintained. Where they were respectively owner and occupier it seemed ridiculous that this restriction should be imposed; and as the clause provided that marriage should not be a disqualification, it ought to be carried out to the logical conclusion. In cases of bonâ fide ownership and occupation by husband and wife they should each have the benefit of their separate qualifications. He thought the Government would do well to agree to the wishes expressed on both sides of the House and accept the Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 71.—(Division List, No. 217.)

On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN, the following Amendments were agreed to:—

Page 5, line 10, leave out "burgh," and insert "municipal."

Line 12, after "burgh," insert "or police burgh."

Line 15, after "wards," insert "(1)." Line 17, after "wards," insert— and (2) if and where a landward parish or a part of any parish is co-extensive with a police burgh or part thereof, and is divided into parish wards.

Line 29, leave out from "registered," to end of Sub-section, and insert "duly qualified."

Line 33, leave out from the beginning to the first "the," in line 34.

Line 34, after "assessors," insert "or other persons."

MR. RENSHAW moved, in page 6, line 11, to leave out "county" and insert "sheriff." He had raised this point in Committee, which was that the roll of electors ought not to pass into the possession of the county clerk, but ought to remain in the possession of the sheriff clerk, as the proper party to distribute the rolls was the sheriff clerk, and not the county clerk. Ho had since been confirmed in the opinion by inquiries he had made on the subject from various official sources. The county clerk of the County Councils had informed him that "county clerk" must have been inserted in the Bill by mistake, as there was no provision in it for the handing over of the Register to the county clerk for distribution. Under the present law, with regard to the Parliamentary roll and the county roll, it was the sheriff clerk that had the duty of delivering copies thereof, or parts thereof, lo any person applying for same on payment of a fee.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 11, to leave out the word "county" and insert the word "sheriff."—(Mr. Renshaw.)

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

*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) said, the scheme of Parish Councils which the Government proposed to bring into operation was that the Parish Councils should form part of a hierarchy of county government extending from the county as a whole downwards to the parish. That being so, it seemed to the Government that the person with whom the Parish Councils would naturally be brought into relations would be the county clerk, who, as clerk to the County Council, would have the duty of putting into motion the machinery for the elections, and that, therefore, he would have possession of the roll for administrative purposes. However, since the Amendment had been moved in Committee, the Government had made inquiries of Local Authorities with a view the ascertaining the most convenient course; and if they came to be satisfied that the course suggested in the Amendment was a proper one, they would have the Amendment made in another place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN the following Amendment was agreed to:—

Page 6, line 14, after "burgh," insert "or police burgh."

On Motion of Mr. RENSHAW, the following Amendment was agreed to:—

Page 6, line 16, after "shall," insert "subject to revision in Section 10."

On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN, the following Amendment was agreed to:—

Page 6, line 24, at end, insert— (3) A County Council Electoral Division (exclusive of any police burgh or part of. a police burgh comprised therein) so far as within a parish shall be a parish ward, or shall be divided into two or more parish wards of the parish.

MR. PARKER SMITH moved, in page 6, line 25, to leave out from "Council," to "from," in line 30, and insert "shall." As the Bill stood it was optional for the County Council, looking to the circumstances of the parish, to decide whether it should be divided into wards or not. Upon the principle which he had explained a short time ago, and which he would not go into again, it ought to be compulsory that the parish should be divided into wards in all cases; and that those wards should return either three, two, or one Parish Councillors, but that in no case should there be more than three returned for any ward.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 25, to leave out from the word "Council," to the word "from," in line 30, and insert the word "shall."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)

Question proposed, "That the words down to the word 'may,' in line 30, stand part of the Bill."

SIR G. TREVELYAN

said, the Government desired that the County Council should not be hampered in any respect in the arrangement of the wards of parishes. The Bill said that if the County Council were "satisfied after due local inquiry," they might decide that there should be five Parish Councillors for each parish, or divide the parish into wards, returning one, two, or three Parish Councillors. The Government were prepared to leave the matter to a strong Local Authority like the County Council, who, however, were not to act until they had consulted local opinion.

Question put, and agreed to.

*MR. HOZIER (Lanarkshire, S.) moved, in page 6, line 30, after "may" insert "with the approval of the Board." What he wanted was that instead of the County Council being entrusted abso- lutely with the duty of dividing a parish into wards, it should discharge that duty "with the approval of the Board." He knew that some of the supporters of the Government agreed with him on this point.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 30, after the word "may," to insert the words "with the approval of the Board." —(Mr. Hozier.)

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

SIR G. TREVELYAN

said, that if the words "with the approval of the Board" meant anything, they meant approval given after full cognizance of the facts. That meant that a local inquiry must be made in every parish in Scotland. The Bill would place on the Board many grave duties, and to throw on the Board the absolute necessity of local inquiries in parishes about which the Board, as a Board, could have little local knowledge, was a proposition he could not ask the House to entertain.

Question put, and negatived.

On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN, the followiug Amendments were agreed to:—

Page 6, line 32, after "divided," insert "subject to the provisions of this section."

Line 33, leave out from "expedient," to "and," in line 35.

Line 36, after the second "and," insert "shall thereafter by order."

Page 7, line 5, after "and," insert "shall thereafter by order."

MR. RENSHAW moved to omit the words "second and subsequent" from Clause 14 in order to raise the question as to whether or not it was desirable to have an election earlier than in the autumn of 1895, when the next election of County Councils takes place. He admitted fully the manner in which the Government bad recognised the impossibility of holding the first election of Parish Councils this year, but he would still say that to hold it in the spring of next year meant very hurried preparation, an imperfect roll, and great expense. He had been at pains to inquire what that expense would be. In Lanarkshire he found that the additional expense of an election in the spring for Parish Councils only would amount to £2,322. The county clerk of Midlothian, to whom he had written, had told him that the cost of the election in the County of Midlothian, the now Register, list of women voters, &c., would amount to;£870. That was for the county, apart from the Royal and Parliamentary burghs therein. The population of that county, excluding the Royal and Parliamentary burghs and police burghs, was about87,000. Taking the whole population of Scotland at 4,000,000, they could arrive by a simple arithmetical sum at the probable additional cost of these elections for the whole of Scotland. The calculation showed that it would cost not less than £40,000, in addition to the expense of the autumn election of County Councils. Was it desirable to put the country to the trouble and the turmoil of an additional election, and to the expenditure of £40,000 of local funds, in order to bring six months earlier into existence Parish Councils, which must come into existence in the autumn? On these grounds he moved his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 31, to leave out the words "second and subsequent."—{Mr. Renshaw.)

Question proposed, "That the words 4 second and subsequent' stand part of the Bill."

SIR G. TREVELYAN

said, he did not think the roll would be more imperfect in the spring than at the autumn election. His hon. Friend had told them that certain people who, he was ready to admit, were competent authorities, had informed him that the election would be expensive; but these officers were county officials, not belonging to the class of people this Bill was enfranchising, and it was not from such officials that the Government were going to take their idea as to when Parish Councils wore to come into existence. The Government reluctantly, but for very good reasons of an administrative character, had consented to defer the elections from autumn this year until April next year, but they could not let the prospect of the election go on receding any further from the eyes of the residents in the parishes of Scotland.

MR. MAXWELL

said, they were as desirous as the right hon. Gentleman that Parish Councils should be established in Scotland, but the question was whether it was desirable that Scotland should pay between £30,000 and £40,000 in order that they should be created eight months earlier than if the first election took place in the autumn of 1895. He thought Scotland would accept the blessing of Parish Councils more gladly if she had not to pay this extra £30,000 or £40,000 for it. The Secretary for Scotland had thrown some doubt on the figures given by the Member for Renfrewshire; but the authorities to whom that hon. Gentleman had gone were the most reliable that could be found on the question, and he would ask if the Government themselves had taken the trouble to inquire and ascertain what the additional cost would be? In two counties in which he was interested estimates had been made, and they bore out very nearly the figures given by the Member for Renfrewshire. He thought the Parish Councils would be recognised as great blessings in Scotland if they could be obtained without such a large expenditure of money.

SIR C. PEARSON

said, the Secretary for Scotland seemed entirely to have misconceived the point of the Member for Renfrewshire in writing to those authorities. He did so not to ask their opinion as to the propriety of bringing this Bill into operation earlier or later, but to ascertain the probable cost of what he might call the bye-election in the spring of 1895. The gentlemen consulted were the most competent authorities in Scotland to express an opinion on that question. The Secretary for Scotland was challenged in Committee to say whether the Government had formed any estimate of the cost of their new proposal. That was some weeks ago, and the Government had had ample time to consult authorities on the subject. If they had done so, they would probably have gone to the same sort of authorities whom his hon. Friend had consulted. He would ask, therefore, whether the Government were in a position to challenge the grave and serious statement made by his hon. Friend that the spring elections would cost the country between £40,000 and £50,000? If the Government had no better figures to supply them with, the question arose whether it was worth while for six months more of the existence of the Parish Council to incur this heavy expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman might believe him that no one on the Opposition side of the House any more than on the Ministerial side had the smallest desire to delay the Bill coming into operation. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of this promised election receding from the eyes of the people of Scotland. But why did it recede? Because, he ventured to say, the Government were convinced that they had proposed an impossibility in the Bill as originally brought in. Whether or not it was worth while to spend £40,000 or £50,000 to bring Parish Councils into operation six months earlier was a matter as to whether the people of Scotland should make up their minds. As he had said in Committee the question was one really of administration, the responsibility for which must rest on the Government. Members of the Opposition had done no more than their duty in raising and laying before the country this question.

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, it was rather surprising to hear such an attack upon and objection to the April election. It was decided upon with the unanimous assent of the Committee. The Government had believed, and still believed, that it would have been perfectly possible to have the first election this autumn. Others doubted it, and a suggestion was made by the Member for Bute (Mr. Graham Murray) and assented to by the Government to hold the election next spring. The Bill was recast to meet that change, and they could not now turn it all upside down. He could not say that the Government had got reliable figures, because it was impossible to do so; but they knew the kind and quality of the work to be done, and they believed the cost would not be serious, as the difference was not that of the whole cost of an additional election, but of the cost of having it in the spring instead of six months later.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the Lord Advocate rather led the House to understand that it was a concession to the wishes and desires of the Opposition that the election had been put off to next spring. That was not the case. It was a concession to certain practical and insurmountable difficulties which they had pressed on the attention of the Government. Both sides were animated by the desire to see the Bill brought into operation as soon as it was practically possible to do so, and the only question was— how soon? and what was the expense incident to one particular plan or the other. His hon. Friend (Mr. Renshaw) had come to the conclusion, basing his opinion on competent authorities, that the Government plan would cost over £30,000; and was it worth while for six months' additional enjoyment of the blessings of Parish Councils to put the country to that cost? However, it was for the Government to decide, and he would advise his hon. Friend to leave the whole responsibility to them, and not divide the House upon his Amendment. If he did his hon. Friends opposite might go to Scotland and attempt to make out that the hon. Member (Mr. Renshaw) had wished to put off as long as possible the time when the parochial elections in Scotland should take place. He did not think his hon. Friend should run that risk, and he (Mr. Balfour) did not mean to run it if the Government would not accept the Amendment.

MR CALDWELL

said, it had apparently been overlooked by the other side that, according to the way in which the Bill had been framed in the Standing Committee, it would be competent for the Municipal Authorities in Scotland in making up the new Registers in November to make them up with the new Register. The Town Councils could make up the roll in November, which would do for the Parish Council Register. That would obviate the necessity of spending at least half the £40,000.

* MR. HOZIER

said, that hon. Members opposite seemed to have an idea that the Opposition had gained this as a concession. As a matter of fact, it was the City of Glasgow which obtained the postponement. It was because the City Authorities protested so strongly against the autumn election that exceptional arrangements were proposed for Glasgow, which in turn were resisted with such vehemence by both sides on the Committee that the whole thing had to he abandoned.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. PARKER SMITH

said, he wished to move an Amendment to insert, after "burgbal," or for a parish or part of a parish co-extensive with a police burgh or part of a police burgh. He put this forward because he was puzzled by the clause. He had thought the Government had forgotten their pledges and did not intend to deal with police burghs, and to put elections there on the same footing as elections in other places. Ho had discovered that they had fulfilled their pledge, but had hidden away the provision they had introduced. They had not given the subject a section of its own, but had hidden it away at the end of another section. He was sensitive for the honour of the police burghs, hence this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 35, after the word "burghal," to insert the words or for a parish or part of a parish co-extensive with a police burgh or part of a police burgh."—{Mr. Parker Smith.)

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

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he was sure the hon. Member would not think that the Government meant any disrespect to this important subject. They, however, thought the Amendment unnecessary, because it was covered by a provision which dealt with the very case. The last six lines of the clause to which he referred covered the case.

MR. PARKER SMITH

said, those lines did substantially cover the Amendment; therefore, he would not press the proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Sir G. TKEVELYAN, the following Amendment was agreed to:—

Rage 8, line 39, leave out "ninety-five," and insert "ninety-eight."

MR. PARKER SMITH

said, the effect of the next Amendment he wished to move would be to leave the County Council election out of the clause. As the clause stood, it dealt with certain Amendments of procedure both in regard to Parish Council elections and County Council elections. It was passed at a time when they were expecting and hoping to deal with a large number of questions concerning County Councils. Subsequently, pressure of time obliged them to leave out all those provisions dealing with the various Amendments of the Act of 1889, which many of them thought some of the most important parts of the Bill. Part of this clause was the only survival of those Amendments. They had been promised as definitely as possible in the future a Bill dealing with these matters in regard to County Councils. He had not the slightest objection to any provisions bearing on County Councils contained in any of these clauses. He did not think the provisions urgent, though they were in the right direction. They would be in place in a new Bill, but they were out of place here, being no part of a measure which proposed to deal with the constitution and election of Parish Councils. They should be left out of the Bill, and held over until they came to consider the question of the County Councils next year.

Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 42, to leave out the words "in a county of County Councillors and." — (Mr. Parker Smith.)

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

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, it was quite true that mention was here made of County Councils, and the reason for that was obvious. In this Bill the method of procedure for the election of Parish Councils was assimilated to that for the election of County Councils. The elections would be on the same day and according to the same methods. If it were for no other purpose than that of giving necessary guidance as to the method of carrying out Parish Council elections, County Council elections should be here mentioned.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. PARKER SMITH, the following Amendments were agreed to:—

Page 10, line 9, leave out from "election," to "every," in line 10.

Line 27, leave out "county electoral division or."

On Motion of Sir G. TKEVELYAN, the following Amendment was agreed to:—

Page 10, line 28, at end, add— And provided also that such notices shall take effect in the order in which they are delivered.

MR. W.M'LAREN (Cheshire, Crewe)

said, that on Clause 19 he wished to move an Amendment to enable the electors to elect any person to a Parish Council who was either a parochial elec- tor or who for 12 months immediately preceding had resided within the parish or within three miles thereof. His attention was to restore the Bill to the form in which it was originally introduced by the Government; therefore, he was sure the Government could not meet the Amendment with any objection to it on its merits. It was undoubtedly their deliberate judgment that this provision should stand in the Bill; moreover, its adoption would make the Bill in harmony with the English Local Government Act. Though he desired to support the findings of the Grand Committee he must point out that the alteration from the original proposal was carried at a meeting at which less than one-third of the Members of the Grand Committee were present. When, in conjunction with that fact, they remembered that the original proposal found a place in the English Act he did not think it unreasonable to raise the matter again on the Report stage to see if the judgment of the House would not rather confirm the view taken of the matter in the English Bill than that taken in the Grand Committee. In the consideration of the English Bill this matter was debated at great length, and it was decided that the greatest freedom of choice should be given to the parish electors. That was in harmony with later practice, and on that ground especially he urged the Amendment. Speaking as a Scotsman, he thought it was rather hard that trust in the people in England should be carried so far, but that in Scotland they were not going to trust the Scottish people to the same extent as they did the English people. It was to be remembered that where they limited the right of election of parochial electors they would be excluding a large number of ratepayers who might not yet have arrived at the stage of being electors, because the qualification for the electorate was governed by the Registration Act, and it might be two and a-half years after a man had gone to live in a parish before he became a parochial elector. The Bill itself did not limit the right of election to ratepayers, and a person who was disqualified for voting for the nonpayment of the special rate might be perfectly qualified to be elected a member of the Parish Council. There was not the faintest chance that the parochial electors would ever elect a pauper to represent them, or any person who was un- desirable, and Parliament was doing much the sounder thing and acting much more in harmony with Liberal principles and the general tendency of their legislation if it gave freedom of choice all round. He was only urging, too, that should be done for Parish Councils which was done for School Boards. Both men and women had been elected for School Boards who were not themselves electors, and no grievance had been felt in that matter. He thought that as the Parish Councils were to take over the work of the Parochial Boards it was wise to give a very wide choice, and especially in view of the desirableness of having women as members of the wards.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 19, after the word "electors," to insert the words— or persons who have, during the 12 months next preceding the election, resided in the parish, or within three miles thereof, am I who are of lawful age, and not subject to any legal incapacity."—(Mr. W. M'Laren.)

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

SIR G. TREVELYAN

said, he was not able to pick and choose in this matter, although, of course, it was quite another thing for other Members. He considered himself bound by the decision of the Grand Committee. The position was this—36 hon. Members voted in the Standing Committee, which was a large attendance for a Grand Committee, and upon a Division there voted 27 to 9. If they came to Scotch Members—and he thought under the circumstances he might make some analysis of the voting—they found that there were 23 Scotch Members on one side and eight on the other. Therefore they might analyse the numbers as they liked, but would not find a majority of the Party on the side of the Amendment of the hon. Member. He agreed with a great deal of what the hon. Member had said, and thought the proposal was a good one for England, and a very necessary one. But his hon. Friend had ignored the differences between the position of England and of Scotland. In England small parishes of under 500 population were to be counted by the thousand, and it was a very difficult matter to obtain competent persons to represent them. Then, again, there were a considerable number below 300 and 200 population, while in Scotland, in the County of Midlothian, there were only three parishes below 500; in Elgin, out of 19 parishes, only one was under 500, and in the great County of Inverness, with 32 parishes, there was only one under 500. He thought the difference in the position of affairs as between England and Scotland was sufficient to justify hon. Members in taking a strong view on this subject. Although there were a number of Members absent from the Committee upon the occasion when the decision was arrived at, he believed that had they all been present the voting would have been proportionately the same.

MR. PAUL (Edinburgh, S.)

said, lie agreed with the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, and if he went into the Lobby he should certainly support him. Of course he quite understood the principle upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland acted. He had necessarily to support the decision of the Grand Committee, but while that decision might bind the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, it did not bind private Members. He objected altogether to these qualifications. There was no qualification for membership of the House of Commons, and he did not see why there should be any qualification for membership of a Parish Council. The Amendment of his hon. Friend was a step in the right direction, and if he would divide upon it ho would go into the Lobby with him.

* MR. LUTTRELL (Devon, Tavistock)

said, he should support the Amendment. The Secretary for Scotland, in opposing the Amendment, had stated that the parishes in Scotland being so much larger than the parishes in England, it was not possible to make a comparison, and that it was not necessary in Scotland to have an extension to three miles outside the parish. In some respects that was true, for there would be a wider choice in the larger parishes; but he would point out to his right hon. Friend that the principal arguments used for the three-mile extension in England were that there would often be people Jiving just outside the parish who would have interests in the parish, and it was to include these that the three-mile extension was made. The larger the parish the larger would be the fringe of the parish, and consequently in these large Scotch parishes there would be more people with interests in the parish living just outside it. As the Bill now stood, it differed from the English Act in another respect—not only was there to be no extension to three miles, but the Councillors would only be chosen from the electorate. In England both the parishes and the districts were to be allowed to choose from the electorate and from residents of 12 months. Though on account of size the Scotch and English parishes did not bear exact comparison, no one could contend that the parishes of Scotland were larger than the districts of England. And if it be right that the districts of England should choose from residents, surely the Scotch parishes might. He was in favour of allowing the people to choose whom they pleased without restrictions, and it was because this Amendment went in that direction that he gave it his support. He would suggest, however, that if the Government could not accept the three-mile extension, they would allow people to choose from the residents of the parish as well as from the electorate.

SIR W. WEDDERBURN (Banffshire)

said, the difficulty was that if members were elected who lived three miles away it was very unlikely that they would regularly attend the meeting of the Council. They had had experience of that kind in reference to the School Boards. He proposed to support the Mover of the Amendment if he would leave out the words relating to the three mile limit.

MR. W. M'LAREN

said, he would accept that Amendment to his Amendment.

Amendment amended, by leaving out the words "or within three miles thereof."

Question put, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."

The House divided:—Ayes 37: Noes 99.—(Division List, No. 218.)

MR. MAXWELL moved, in page 11, line 24, at end, insert— Provided that a casual vacancy in a Parish Council and a vacancy in the office of Chairman shall not be filled unless notice, specifying that such vacancy is to be considered, has been issued to each Councillor at least seven days before the meeting. The hon. Member said, his Amendment was one which dealt with the filling up of casual vacancies on Parish Councils. The first part of the clause dealt generally with the matter of notice, time, and place of meetings of the Parish. Councils. He agreed this was a matter which should be left in the hands of the Parish Councils, and that their hands should not be in any way tied. But a case might arise when it might be necessary for a Parish Council meeting to be suddenly summoned, and while he did not think it desirable that any hard or fast line should be laid down, he thought it well that in the case of the election of Chairman and the filling up of a casual vacancy some notice should be given.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 24, at end, insert— Provided that a casual vacancy in a Parish Council and a vacancy in the office of chairman shall not be filled unless notice, specifying that such vacancy is to be considered, has been issued to each Councillor at least seven days before the meeting."—(Mr. Maxwell.)

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

Question put, and agreed to.

*CAPTAIN HOPE moved, in page 11, line 26, leave out "may" and insert "shall." He said that, on examining this clause, he thought that some difficulty might arise unless the word "shall" was substituted for "may." He ventured to submit for the consideration of the Government that the word "may" in the position in which it appeared would give rise to a great deal, not only of difficulty, but of friction. The Inspector of the poor of a parish might place the Parish Council in a very awkward position if it was left to him to say whether he would or would not act as clerk. He believed the intention to be that the Inspector should act, and at all events the clause would be the clearer if "shall" were substituted for "may."

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 26, to leave out the word "may," and insert the word "shall."—(Captain Hope.)

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN the following Amendments were agreed to:—

Page 11, line 27, leave out from "appointed," to "any," in line 28.

Line 34, at beginning, insert "Subject to the provisions of this Act."

Line 34, after "Council," insert "or in any office to which the Parish Council appoint a representative from their own number."

MR. HOZIER moved, in page 11, line 40, after "number," insert "to be chairman during the tenure in office of the Council." He said, that in the Grand Committee upon the Bill the Division on this matter was so close that the Chairman had to give his casting vote. They must remember this had been the rule hitherto: that the Chairman of the Parochial Board was the representative on the district committee, and in a similar manner he had no doubt the Chairman of the Parish Council would, in all probability, be chosen as the representative on the district committee of the Parish Council, and, that being so, he thought it was desirable the Amendment should be adopted. If office was to be held only for one year, he thought that a knowledge of the duties would hardly be acquired before the term of office expired.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 40, after the word "number," to insert the words "to be chairman during the tenure in office of the Council."—(Mr. Hozier.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

MR. RENSHAW

said, he hoped that, in view of the closeness of the Division that took place in the Committee upstairs, the Government would reconsider this matter. He attached very great importance to the proposal made by his hon. Friend, and gave it priority of position. When the matter was under discussion upstairs, he ventured to point out that in the case of School Boards the chairman was appointed for three years, and the principle had worked excellently, and no objection had ever been made to it. The result had been to secure, in the first place, the services of the best man on the School Board as its chairman, and, in the second place, to secure a continuity of policy during their tenure of office. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be unfortunate to expose the Chairman of the Parish Council to the possibility of annual change. It was argued upstairs that if a man was a good chairman he was sure to be reappointed. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member said "Hear, hear!" and no doubt that would generally be the case, but not always. Very often a chairman had, in pursuance of a particular policy to be decided upon and carried out, to look ahead a bit, and in the line he took in connection with questions of local administration he would be hampered if he felt that a particular vote he gave might be made the instrument for turning him out of office. He could not see that there was anything to be gained by making the occupancy of the office so short. He imagined that the Council would only meet about once a month, and it would take some considerable time for the chairman to make himself thoroughly acquainted with the duties. He hoped the Government would reconsider the question. Ho felt more strongly about this, because the subsequent Amendment was in connection with the representative of the Parish Council upon the district committee; and as the probability was that the chairman would be appointed as the representative, he thought it most desirable they should continue him in office for the three years.

DR. MACGREGOR

said, that if the chairman was a popular man he would be re-elected; and if he was unpopular, then the Council should have the power of removing him.

SIR G. TREVELYAN

said, that was their case in a nutshell. Very great inconveniences occurred on Local Government Boards, and even more important Boards, from differences of opinion between the chairman and the members. Anyone who had been connected with local administration had never known, he thought, of an instance in which a man who was really trusted, and was an effective head of the body, had not been re-elected for the position, and where the re-election was not regarded as a service done to the body rather than a service done to the individual. He had not the slightest doubt that a good chairman would always be re-elected.

SIR H. MAXWELL (Wigton)

said, he did not often find himself at variance with his hon. Friend behind him; but on this occasion he thought the Secretary for Scotland was the more Conservative of the two, and he certainly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, who proposed to continue the same order of things that prevailed on Parochial Boards where the appointment was an annual one.

Question put, and negatived.

* MR. HOZIER

said, he did not propose to move the omission of the whole of Sub-section 6, but he wished to move the omission of the latter part of it—namely, the words— If an equal number of votes is given for two or more persons the Parish Council shall determine by lot which of these persons shall be chairman. He could not help thinking there was a good deal too much of Ladas about this; therefore for that reason he moved to omit the latter part, from "If an equal number" down to "chairman." He would add that in the English Act, with regard to Parish Councils, there was no arrangement of this sort, and he could not see why this arrangement should be made with regard to Scotland.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, that in this particular case there was no other mode available, as there was no one to give a casting vote; therefore, he thought the simplest way was to adopt the method proposed in the sub-section.

MR. HOZIER

It is not in the English Act.

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

No; that Act leaves the case unprovided for.

MAJOR DARWIN (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

asked if the right hon. Gentleman could not adopt the other plan that was brought forward—that was, that in case there had been a poll the candidate who obtained the largest number of votes at the poll should be the one selected as chairman. Election by lot was very objectionable if it could be avoided.

* MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! I think the Secretary for Scotland has an Amendment before this one—in line 9.

On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN, the following Amendments were agreed to:—

Page 12, line 9, leave out "ninety-four," and insert "ninety-five."

Page 12, line 10, leave out "all the Parish Councillors are elected," and insert "the first Tuesday of the month of December."

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 11, to leave out from the word "reelection," to the end of Sub-section (6) of Clause 19.—(Mr. Hozier.)

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

MAJOR DARWIN

said, he only wished to say that the omission of the words would not meet the case.

MR. CALDWELL

said, he would like to point out there was a difficulty here, because the elections took place by parish wards; and, as one might be elected in one ward and one in another, it would be difficult to determine the number of votes.

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, it appeared to him that the method suggested might be a fit one, but he did not think it would cover all possible cases. If, however, the House would be good enough to leave it in their hands, they would endeavour to introduce in another place some alternative that would cover all the cases.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PARKER SMITH

said, his Amendment had reference to Sub-section 7, which ran as follows:— The representative from a Parish Council on a district committee of a County Council, or on the County Council, where a county is not divided into districts, shall be appointed annually at the statutory meeting of the Parish Council from among their own number. "Or on the County Council where a county is not divided into districts" was a very clumsy phrase, and all through the Bill, wherever the district committee was mentioned, they found themselves encumbered with this extremely large and clumsy phrase. In dealing with the case of some of the small counties that were not divided into districts he thought it would be extremely awkward to have this large phrase, and that the difficulty could be met by leaving out the phrase and putting in the Definition Clause, at the end, a definition that stood in his name at the end of the Paper—namely, The expression 'district committee of a County Council' shall include a County Council sitting as a district committee in cases where a county is not divided into districts. His Amendment would have the effect of removing a most cumbrous phrase and putting it into the Definition Clause; therefore, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 15, to leave out the words "or on the County Council, where a county is not divided into districts."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or on the County Council' stand part of the Bill."

MR. RENSHAW

said, there was one additional point he should like to urge in support of the view of the hon. Member for Partick (Mr. Parker Smith). By the insertion here of the phrase "or on the County Council where a county is not divided into districts "—at this place it might be considered to convey more than was intended; that was to say, it might be held to imply that under certain circumstances those appointed were appointed on the County Council for other purposes than those of a district committee. He thought the Amendment made it perfectly clear what the position really was, and conveyed precisely and exactly what the Government ought to provide for.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the hon. Member only applied the definition to one particular case, and as a similar expression occurred throughout the Bill he was afraid it would require a good deal of alteration of the Bill. This, also, had to be kept in view, that sometimes persons in reading a Bill did not look at the Interpretation Clause; they liked to have it "writ large," so that it might speak for itself. As the Bill at present stood, he was afraid the acceptance of the Amendment would not meet the case; but they would consider whether, without sacrificing clearness, the Amendment could be accepted. The other point mentioned by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Renshaw) should be looked into with the object of seeing what amount of change would be required in other parts of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RENSHAW

said, the Amendment he had to propose was to omit the word "annually," for the purpose of inserting subsequently, after "at the," the word "first" before "statutory." The decision of the Committee upon this point was very dubious, because 19 voted one way and 19 voted the other; so that as there was an equality, very pronounced, against the scheme proposed in the Bill, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would now, in recognition of that fact, be prepared to accept the Amendment. This was a matter of great importance, and the duties of the office would never be properly performed unless there was continuity of office. The duties of the district committee had reference to public health and the administration of the roads of the district. They would have, perhaps, in the district 15 County Councillors who were members of the district committee by virtue of the fact that they were County Councillors. Say they had seven parishes in the district, they would have seven representatives added to the 15 County Councillors to form the district committee. They would have the responsible charge of administering all matters connected with the roads and the public health of the district, and there could not be the slightest doubt in the mind of anyone who had taken part in the operation of these district committees that those men who had been longest at it were the best-informed upon the intricate questions that came before them for settlement. He was perfectly certain about this: that if they wanted to do justice to the representatives of the Parish Councils, they must give them a longer tenure of office than one year. The members of these district committees were in office for three years, and therefore they would handicap the Parish Council representatives if they appointed them only for one year. He supposed he would be met with the statement that was made with regard to the appointment of the Chairman of the Parish Council, that if the representative was doing his duty he would be returned over and over again by the Parish Council. To that he would reply that, in the first place, the Parish Council would have no special cognisance of what was being done in the district committee; the meetings were not always published in the Press, and therefore what was done would not be circulated outside the limits of the committee itself; and, in the second place, though a man might be a most efficient administrator, and be doing his work well, he might be put on one side at the end of the year for another gentleman on the principle of fair play all round. That, he considered, would be an injury to the Parish Council. He therefore hoped the Government, having regard to the equal division on the question upstairs, would accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 16, to leave out the word "annually."—(Mr. Renskaw.)

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

SIR G. TREVELYAN

said, that undoubtedly it would be a great disadvantage if a good man was turned out to make room for an indifferent man; but what was more likely to happen was that a man might be chosen for some personal quality he possessed, but who might be a most inefficient representative, in which case the parish would be saddled with a person for three years who ought not to be their representative. On the other hand, when a Public Body got hold of a man who really did their work that man might continue to do their work as long as he wished. Under the circumstances of the equal division upstairs, he was able to take his own view, and that was in favour of annual elections.

MR. MAXWELL

said, he was very much disappointed at the statement of the Secretary for Scotland, because everyone acquainted with, the working of district committees in Scotland knew perfectly well it was greatly to the advantage of the locality that the public representatives should be appointed to these district committees for three years. In some districts the Parish Council representatives would form half the district committee, so that they might have half that body going out of office at the end of every year. He would point out that a great part of the work was discharged by sub-committees, and if half of them were to be turned off these committees every year how were they to perform their work satisfactorily and efficiently? This, he could assure the House, was a very important matter, and it would tend to confuse the work of these district committees if the representatives were to be changed from year to year, and it must interfere with the continuity of the work.

DR. MACGREGOR

said, it appeared to him that the arguments used in favour of this Amendment were on all-fours with those used in the other case that had been disposed of, and that the House would be stultifying itself if it did not now decide in exactly the same way in which it decided before.

* MR. CRAWFORD

said, that as so much stress had been laid upon the close Division in the Committee, he would like to say he hoped the Government would adhere to the position they had taken up. He was rather surprised that hon. Friends of his should look upon the point as they did, as he thought they rather mistook the principle of the case. The members who represented Parish Councils on the County Council were much more in the position of delegates than were the ordinary members of County Councils. They were chosen not so much for general fitness for the administration of local government as for representing the views of their parishes on particular points. Accordingly, it was but just that the Parish Council should annually have an opportunity of sending to the County Council such men as they thought would represent the views of the Parish Council at the time.

* CAPTAIN HOPE

said, he must entirely repudiate the idea that the members who represented Parochial Boards on the district committees were any more delegates than were the ordinary members of County Councils. Speaking from practical experience, he could only say that in cases in which the representatives of the Parochial Boards on the district committee over which he had the honour of presiding were constantly changed those representatives attended least and took the least interest in the work of the committee. In the majority of cases, however, Parochial Boards elected their representatives for the whole period of the existence of the district committee, and this, he thought, showed that they believed this to be the most reasonable and advantageous way of appointing their members. The case dealt with by the Amendment was stronger than that of the Parochial Board representatives on the district committee. The Parish Council would hold office for the same period as the district committee and the County Council, and it was therefore reasonable to ask that the representatives of the Parish Council should be appointed for the whole period of the joint existence of that Council and of the district committee. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment.

MR. ANSTRUTHER

said, he had accepted the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Trevelyan), and was willing, as far as he was able, to concur in it—that the Government would at this stage of the Bill adhere to the decisions of the Committee, and especially to those decisions which were unanimously arrived at.

SIR G. TREVELYAN (interposing)

I think my hon. Friend misunderstood what I said. I was speaking about the Amendments I myself brought forward, and my recollection of what I said is that, generally speaking, those Amendments were brought forward in order to fulfil the promises which had been accepted, if not unanimously, without any considerable objection.

MR. ANSTRUTHER

said, he was referring to the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the admission of the words "second and subsequent." If the unanimity of the Committee had given a special title to the right hon. Gentleman to appeal to the House to support the Committee's decision on that point, the right hon. Gentleman had very slender ground for refusing the present Amendment when it had been rejected merely by the casting vote of the Chairman of the Grand Committee- He firmly believed that the Amendment, if adopted, would conduce to administrative efficiency, and he was supported in that view by the fact that several Members who habitually supported the Government had voted against them on this question in the Grand Committee.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

said, ho thought the most cogent argument used in favour of the Amendment was to be found in the speech of the hon. Member for North-East Lanark(Mr. D. Crawford). He had been more than surprised to hear the theory of delegation supported by that hon. Member, as there was no theory which he thought was more destructive of proper representative work than that.

* MR. D. CRAWFORD (interposing)

remarked that the representatives of the Parish Councils on the district committees would be delegates, as they were not elected by the ratepayers, but appointed by the Parish Council.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

said, he did not admit that they were delegates. He had been surprised to hear the hon. Member support the theory of delegation, as the whole of his Parliamentary career had been a worthy testimony in favour of the opposite theory. There was nothing more to be deprecated than the setting up of friction between different popularly-elected bodies, and yet, if Parliament were to allow the Parish Council's representative to be changed annually in order that the Parish Council might send to the County Council a person not to represent the views he formed from a practical experience of the working of the district committee, but simply to represent the views put into him by the Parish Council, that would be nothing more nor less than giving the Parish Council an indirect control of the work of the district committee. The testimony of those who had been practically engaged in administrative work had been all one way, and, as far as the theoretical result was concerned, lie thought it would be very often fruitful of friction and dissension. Even in the past friction between district committees and County Councils had not been absolutely unknown, and ho thought that any provision which at all made likely a repetition of that state of things in the future was a bad one. Under these circumstances, he should certainly support the Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided: — Ayes 106; Noes 37.—(Division List, No. 219.)

MR. RENSHAW moved, in page 12, to add at the end of line 18— Provided always, that, in the case of parishes partly landward and partly burghal, he shall be appointed by the landward committee from among their own number. He said the landlord representatives on the district committee were elected not to represent the interests of the Parish Council, but to represent the interests of the landward part of the parish. In the ease of a parish partly landward and partly burghal the people within the burgh did not contribute to the cost of maintaining the roads in the county or to the public health rates, and it was only those represented by the landward committee who did contribute to them. It was only fair to ask that those who were appointed by the Parish Council to give votes which might decide the expenditure on the formation and maintenance of roads and the manner in which the public health laws should be carried into effect should be those who had the responsibility of paying the rates for maintaining the roads and carrying out the Public Health Act.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 18, after the word "number," to insert the words— Provided always, that, in the case of parishes partly landward and partly burghal, he shall be appointed by the landward committee from among their own number."—(Mr. Renshaw.)

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

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the Amendment was not necessary. By the Act of 1889 it was provided that in the case of parishes partly landward and partly burghal, the representative must be a ratepayer, and he would, therefore, have county interests. It appeared to the Government that this was a sufficient safeguard of the interests which it was desired to represent.

* MS. HOZIER

remarked that there wore a good many people connected with parish and county government who, as the Lord Advocate had said, liked to have things "writ large," and who might make terrible mistakes if they had to refer from one Act to another. It would therefore be well to assent to the Amendment.

MR. MAXWELL (Dumfriesshire)

said, that, now that a division had been formed between the members representing the landward part of a place and the members representing the burgh, it was only right that the landward committee should have the appointment of their representatives on the district committee. The Parish Council might in certain cases not altogether represent the landward part. It was desirable that the matter should be made quite clear in the Bill.

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the effect of the Local Government Act of 1889 was to limit the representation to county ratepayers, and, that being so, the object of the Amendment was very much met.

SIR C. PEARSON

thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not apprehended the exact bearing of the Act of 1889. The only distinction that was drawn in 1889 was between the burghs on the one hand, and the county on the other, and it was considered expedient to enact that care should be taken that it should be a county ratepayer who was appointed a representative. In the present Bill, they were subdividing the Parish Councils. The landward part of it was the only part of the parish and of the Parish Council which was directly interested by way of having to pay money in the shape of Public Health rates, the Roads Management Acts, and so on. In a parish in the County of Renfrew, the population of the burghal portion was over 34,000, and the landward population 7,907. That parish was united for Poor Law purposes, for the purposes of this Act, and all purposes; but the only part of the parish which had a direct interest in the roads, and in the Public Health administration of the parish as a whole, was the landward part of it with a population of 7,907. He submitted that it was not fair, or justified by any reference to the existing Local Government Act of 1889, that the selection of the persons who were to have the administration of road matters, and matters relating to Public Health, should be left not to those who alone were interested in these matters in the parish—that was the landward population—and that the landward population should be absolutely swamped by the 35,000 population, who had nothing in the world to do with it in the way of management or ratepaying. That was a simple fact which the Lord Advocate had failed to appreciate in the remarks he he had made. This was by no means a solitary instance, and he hoped the Government would reconsider what he trusted he might term the provisional decision they had already announced, and accept the Amendment which had been moved.

DR. MACGREGOE

thought they might very well trust the Local Bodies in this matter.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 112.—(Division List, No. 220.)

MR. COCHRANE moved, in page 12, line 38, after Sub-section (d.), insert— In any contract with the Council for the supply from land, of which he is owner or occupier, of stone, gravel, or other materials for making or repairing highways or bridges, or in the transport of materials for the repair of roads or bridges in his own immediate neighbourhood; or. He pointed out that a similar clause to this appeared in the Roads and Bridges Scotland Act, it being enacted that a road trustee should not be disqualified by reason of having any interest in the land from which stone, gravel, or other materials were supplied. Under the County Councils Act of 1889 road trustees were abolished, and, at the same time, this provision against disqualification was not re-enacted in the Scotch County Council Bill. The same thing happened in the case of the English County Councils Act, but in 1891 there was an amending Act for the English County Councils in which this sub-section was re-enacted. It was Sub-section 5, c. 63, of the Act of 1891, and it enacted that no person should be disqualified, if elected a member of the County Council, by reason of having any share or interest in any land from which materials were supplied for the repair of highway roads, and so on. In England a man was not disqualified under the County Councils Act, but in Scotland he was. In England, under the Parish Councils Bill, a man was not disqualified from being a Parish Councillor on account of supplying metal for the repair of roads and bridges, and so on. He instanced cases which had occurred where men who had previously supplied road metal had to discontinue doing so, so as not to disqualify themselves from a seat in the County Councils, the consequence being that the material had to be obtained at a much greater distance from the locality, and also at a much greater cost. If the Government would give any support to this proposal of his he would be glad to introduce a small Bill to amend the law relating to County Councils in the same respect. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 38, after Sub-section (d), insert— In any contract with the Council for the supply from land, of which he is owner or occupier, of stone, gravel, or other materials for making or repairing highways or bridges, or in the transport of materials for the repair of roads or bridges in his own immediate neighbourhood; or."—(Mr. Cochrane.)

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

SIR J. FERGUSSON

observed that a much stronger case for introducing this provision existed in the case of a Parish Council than in the case of a County Council.

SIR G. TREVELYAN

said, that the analogies from England in the matter of County and Parish Councils appeared to be analogies which held here. If this-question was introduced into a County Council Bill, which he hoped to see before they were many years older, the Government would not resist it.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Sir G. THE VELVAN the following Amendments were agreed to:—

Page 13, line 10, leave out "eleventh day of December," and insert "fifteenth day of May."

Line 11, leave out, "ninety-four," and insert "ninety-five."

Line 20, leave out "constituted as at the passing of this Act."

Line 21, after "thereof and," insert "a Parish Council."

Line 23, leave out "thereof," and insert "of a Parochial Board."

Line 37, after "committee," insert "of the Parish Council."

Page 14, line 7, after "purpose," insert "and for the purpose of The Public Libraries Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1887."

Line 8, before "may," insert "which."

Line 10, leave out "without," and insert "outwith."

MAJOR DARWIN moved, in page 14, line 20, to leave out from the word "increased," to the word "Council," inclusive, in line 21, and insert the words— (or, if the election takes place by wards, the members elected for each ward as a separate body) shall appoint to the Parish Council from their number according to rules to be framed by the Board. He said, his Amendment was designed to meet two certain points. They were dealing with a case where the landward part had to be increased because the number of Parish Councillors was very small. Take the case of a landward part with three wards each returning one Parish Councillor and one additional member of the landward committee. Suppose also—which he hoped would not be the case—that the elections took place upon Party lines,it might well happen that two wards would return Conservatives and one Liberals. These six men, four Conservatives and two Liberals, might proceed to appoint three Parish Councillors. What he wanted to know from the Secretary for Scotland was whether, as the Bill stood, it gave these six men power to appoint three Conservatives, because, if so, he thought that would mean that the division of the parish into wards for the purpose of the election of Parish Councils was absolutely futile. He proposed, therefore, in order to secure minority representation, that the representatives should be elected to the Parish Council by the members of each ward. He also proposed that they should be elected according to Rules framed by the Board. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 20, to leave out from the word "increased," to the word "Council," inclusive, in line 21, and insert the words— or, if the election takes place by wards, the members elected for each ward as a separate body) shall appoint to the parish Council from their number according to rules to be framed by the Board."—(Major Darwin.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'shall appoint' stand part of the Bill."

SIR G. TBEVELYAN

said, the Bill laid down a system under which there would be a sufficient landward committee to form a respectable minority, and to that part of the enactment he did not imagine the hon. and gallant Gentleman took exception. Now they came to the duty of this landward committee. They had to send probably only one representative—at the outside two or three—to the Parish Councils, and these representatives were to be chosen by the entire body. He thought this was a case of de minimis non curat. He was not afraid of a majority of Conservatives sending three Conservatives to the Parish Councils, and he was not afraid of a Liberal majority taking the same course. The representatives would be sent merely for the purpose of Poor Law administration. It was not such a very inviting or acceptable office that any great partisan feeling would be exercised. He thought the election of one or two, or at the outside three, members of a Parish Council might he very safely left to the higher body, which in all only consisted of five or six members.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Sir G. TKEVELYAN', the following Amendments were agreed to:—

Page 14, line 21, after "appoint," insert "from their own number."

Page 14, line 22, after "Act," insert— And shall fill any casual vacancy occurring in the number of such Parish Councillors or in the landward committee.

Page 14, line 25, to leave out from "Council," to end of sub-section, and insert— The provisions of sub-sections two, three, five, and six of section nineteen of this Act shall apply to a landward committee with the substitution of the expression 'landward committee' for 'parish council' occurring therein.'

Line 33, leave out "clause," and insert "section."

Line 34, after "of," insert "not fewer than."

Line 35, leave out "the," and insert "such."

Line 35, leave out "thereof."

Line 36, leave out "in addition to any powers conferred or transferred by other parts of this Act."

MR. PARKER SMITH moved to strike out, in Clause 24, the words "or other public purposes," and to insert instead the words, and for any purposes connected with parish business or with the powers or duties of the Parish Council. He explained that the Amendment had reference to the powers given to Parish Councils to provide buildings for parish and general local purposes. He urged that while the Councils should have perfectly full and free powers in this respect they should not go further, and therefore he proposed to substitute the words in the English Act for what he considered the somewhat vague words, "or other public purposes," now in the clause. Those words exactly defined the powers which Parish Councils should have. Nobody wished, of course, that they should have power to acquire buildings for a vast number of general public purposes which might be entirely outside their functions.

Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 40, to leave out the words "or other public purposes," and insert the words— and for any purposes connected with parish business or with the powers or duties of the Parish Council."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)

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

SIR G. TREVELYAN

said, the clause as it stood gave the Council all necessary latitude to erect buildings for general purposes conducive to the advantage of the parish. He certainly would be unwilling that any Parish Council should have power to acquire buildings except for strictly parish purposes. The question was fully discussed by the Committee, who concluded that the words referred to in the clause were sufficient for the purpose in view, and they would provide a guarantee against any dangerous excess.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

admitted that while it would not be right to follow the English Act word for word, yet in cases where the circumstances of the two countries were alike, surely the same wording might be used in both measures. In this particular regard there was no distinction whatever to be drawn between Scotland and England as to providing buildings for parish purposes.

MR. CALDWELL

said, that Scotch parishes were larger than parishes in England.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, if that was so their larger area afforded greater reason against spending large sums upon central buildings from which, in the very nature of the case, people distant 20, 30, 40, or even 50 miles could derive but little benefit. The right hon. Gentleman had, in defending the wording of the Bill as it stood, told the House that the Parish Councils would be the best judge of their own wants, and that they were restrained from recklessly disposing of their funds by the fact that they could not levy beyond a 6d. rate. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot that they might borrow beyond that limit, and that a Parish Council while in power during a few months might mortgage their future funds for many years, and indulge in building speculations altogether beyond good policy, and their requirements. Surely that was a result which the House ought not to promote, and should provide against. The point in question as to the powers of Parish Councils with regard to expenditure in the erection of public buildings was fully examined into and discussed in the progress of the English Act, and he thought it would be well in this case to follow the precedent furnished in that measure.

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, that the words adopted had satisfied the Scotch Grand (Committee, who knew the require- meats of Scotch life. They heard a good deal about the use of parish rooms during the Debates on the English Act, but he was sorry to say that they had no parish rooms in Scotland. He feared there might be a risk of its being held that buildings erected for a specified purpose must not be used for any other purpose, and he thought it was for the Parish Council rather than for Parliament to say for what purposes buildings should be acquired.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

protested against the construction put on the Amendment by the Lord Advocate. As a much humbler member of the Scottish Bar Ire would venture to say he thought the suggested construction perfectly fantastic. There was a conspicuous experience to the contrary in the daily life of Scotland, for political meetings were upon many occasions held in schoolrooms. The words selected by the Government wore conspicuous for their vagueness. Who was to say what "other purposes" were? It was for Parliament to lay down for what purposes public money was to be spent, and that having been effectively done in the English Act surely the Government was not going now to throw darkness upon the scene by putting in these words.

MAJOR DARWIN

said, that, in moving a similar Amendment in Committee, he had asked for definite instances to be cited on the other side, and had challenged the hon. Member to state any single purpose referred to in the clause which would not be covered by those words. No one ever supposed that a parish would be justified in expending money on illegitimate objects which would not be covered by the language used. The reason given by the Lord Advocate was one of the most curious he had ever heard. If there wore any real objection to this Amendment he hoped that some hon. Member would cite a definite instance in support of the contention that any real harm would come from the introduction of these words.

MR. CALDWELL,

in opposing the Amendment, said the clause would not confer upon the land committee of the Parish Councils powers to erect buildings for the purposes of speculation, or to expend money for any purposes not for the benefit of the people.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 114; Noes 49.—(Division List, No. 221.)

SIR C. PEARSON moved the omission of Sub-section (c) of Clause 24—namely, To provide or acquire land for the erection of workmen's dwellings. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland would make in this case an exception from the rule he had laid down, that he would adhere to the Bill as it left the Committee. This power was not in the Bill as proposed by the Government. This sub-section was not part of the original Bill, but was introduced after a discussion originated by the Member for Elginshire. The Secretary for Scotland treated the Amendment of the hon. Member as one of the most important Amendments that had been tabled against the Bill, and he said that if it were added to the Bill the Bill would be lost. The hon. Member for Elgin was a little hard on the right hon. Gentleman, for in a subsequent speech ho accused the right hon. Gentleman of having treated the subject with a most unjustifiable levity. On the Division the Amendment was opposed by all the Members of the Government present, but, nevertheless, it was carried. On these grounds he appealed to the light hon. Gentleman to stand by his original proposition and reject the Amendment. The sub-section was a strange incongruity, and was utterly out of place in this Bill. It was quite out of place to confer powers of this kind when no machinery for carrying them out was provided in the clause. At present this sub-section stood a mere abortion, incapable of being carried out. The Parish Council was to provide or acquire land for the erection of working men's dwellings. He did not mean to detract from the importance of improving the housing of the working classes, whether in town or country; and he did not think that anyone would say that the matter had not been sufficiently attended to by the last Conservative Government. His objection to the proposal was that though the Parish Council had power to provide or acquire land for workmen's dwellings, they were given no power to erect workmen's dwellings; and all the Parish Council could do, having acquired the laud, was to treat indirectly with some speculative builder for the erection of the dwellings. He, therefore, hoped the Government would strike this inoperative provision out of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 3, to leave out paragraph (c), of Subsection (1), of Clause 24. — (Sir C. Pearson.)

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

SIR G. TREVELYAN

said, it was quite true that the provision which the right hon. Gentleman wanted to omit was not in the Bill originally, and that it was inserted in Committee against his wishes. But what was the use of sending this Bill to the Grand Committee, largely composed of Scottish Members, if they intended to leave the Bill in exactly the same state as it was when it went before the Committee? That argument might be exactly applied to Committees of the House. The indubitable intention was that the Bill should be considered and amended by those best acquainted with the circumstances. It was perfectly ridiculous that in a measure of this kind a Minister should have his own way in regard to all the clauses. He might say that he was decidedly in favour of giving Local Bodies the power, under due restriction, of obtaining land when it could not be obtained by free contract. But he asked hon. Members not to put the Amendment in this Bill, not because he objected to the proposal in principle, but because the clause contained a good deal which was very important, and if it was put in the Bill the clause would be overweighted. His advice was not taken on the matter; but he was bound to say that it was the one single exception in which attention was not paid to the expostulations of the gentleman, coming from his mouth. He had advised a number of Amendments to be withdrawn, and this was the first of them in which his advice bad been disregarded. But his advice was carried out in regard to many others which followed. The sub-section having been introduced into the Bill in Committee, he advised that the House should now accept it. He did not see why an exception to the rule he had laid down should be made in this particular case, and why the Government should say— "This and this alone is the Amendment which in principle we are going to leave out of the Bill." The power that was given by the Amendment was not very large, because it was confined within the limits of the 6d. rate; but if the principle was asserted, only in very extreme cases it would be perfectly possible, even within this limit for the Parish Council, to purchase a portion of land, and afterwards sell it for the purpose of erecting workmen's dwellings. At any rate, it would be inducement to those people, who for reasons every one must deplore, refused to sell land for this purpose, to act somewhat more reasonably than they would do otherwise.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

said, it was curious to see how the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland alternately remembered and forgot the English Bill, according as it suited the view of the Government at the moment. He opposed this in Grand Committee upstairs, where the proportions of the Government were much more in their favour than in the House, and allowed himself to be beaten, and now ho refused to use his power in the House which he would have if he exercised his authority in a proper way in order to remedy his defeat. It reminded him of another historical person, who "whispering she would ne'er consent, consented." But he entirely repudiated the right hon. Gentleman's own version of his own speech upstairs. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman warned the Committee that the insertion of this sub-section would mean the wrecking of the Bill; but he did not in any way couple that with a warning that other innovations might be made. The whole brunt of his argument was that the clause would be perfectly unworkable, and that they would need proper and complete machinery to deal with that laud if it were so acquired. Even a few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman spoke of restrictions, but there were none in the Bill. Then, showing probably his desire to conciliate the Member for Elgin and Nairn on the limit of the 6d. rate, the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the Parish Council would be able to take land under this section, and, buildings having been erected, could sell it again and buy more with the 6d. rate. Now, that was what he pointed out at the time in Committee, that they are giving power to any small Parish Council to sell the whole of the land in that parish. If there were a proper proposal, and instances to show it was necessary for providing land for workmen's houses where they might reasonably want it, this House would willingly consider it, but not on such vague assertions of people being unwilling to part with their laud. There were circumstances in which such power was abused. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt represented Glasgow, but perhaps he had been near enough to Edinburgh to hear of Tynecastle. Did the right hon. Gentleman know why workmen's dwellings were erected there? If not, ho had better study that very interesting chapter of history. All kinds of abuse would be possible if there were no restrictions on a sub-section like that now under consideration. The Secretary for Scotland had given no good ground for suddenly executing this volte face against his own declarations in Committee, and allowing the sub-section to remain in the Bill.

MR. PAUL (Edinburgh, S.)

said, that the Government were observing the rule they had laid down of adhering to the Bill substantially as it left the Committee, and when the Secretary for Scotland enunciated that course of action he was cheered by the Leader of the Opposition. On a former Amendment, when it was sought by a follower of the Government to introduce something that was in the English Act, the Government refused the Amendment, and gentlemen opposite voted against making the Bill like the English Act. What was sauce for the goose was sauce for that much more nobler animal—the gander. He thought they had a right to expect that the House would adhere to the proposal deliberately carried against the Government in the Committee upstairs.

MR. SEYMOUR KEAY

said, that hon. Members opposite had studiously avoided making any reflection on the character of the sub-section. Since the Amendment was passed in Committee, although weeks had elapsed, he thought they could not point to a single Scottish newspaper—although the Liberal Party in this House had very strong and extreme opponents in Scotland—which had had a word to say against this Amendment. Although the Government might be twitted about not putting the subsection in the Bill originally, yet the fact that the whole press of Scotland had been united since then, either in dumb silence or strong approval, was surely a sufficient justification for the Secretary for Scotland now adhering to the subsection. It was said, too, that there was not a full meeting of the Committee on the occasion the Amendment was carried. But at all events every Liberal Member present, without one single exception, voted for the Amendment, and that was something to say. If there had been an absolutely full meeting of the Committee the probability was that the majority in favour of the Amendment would have been greater. This provision was necessary, because it was notorious that land could not be got for workmen's dwellings on any terms in the rural districts of Scotland, and because it was the fixed policy of many landlords to depopulate the rural districts. The hon. and learned Member had not said a word against the principle of the sub-section, for he knew as well as The Scotsman newspaper did that nothing could possibly he said in refutation of this enormous public question, which would interest every parish in three-fourths of the area of Scotland.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

thought it rather hard on the Government that the hon. Gentleman should have been allowed to say that not a single Liberal Member had the courage to vote against the Amendment in the Committee. There were seven Members of the Government on the Committee, all of whom voted against the Amendment, and he should have thought that those gentlemen had some right to be described as Liberal Members. But though he did not wish to quote against the Government their own speeches in Committee, he must say a word against the two kinds of arguments to which they had been listening on this subject. The Government thought it was a sufficient argument to urge against the Amendment that a definite decision was come to upstairs, and when it suited their purpose they supplemented that by saying that a similar course was taken on the English Bill. But then a Member for one of the Divisions of Edinburgh got up and complained of the course taken by the Government, and called attention to the fact that early in the evening an Amendment, the object of which was to bring the Bill in a certain respect into conformity with the English Bill, had been rejected. The principle which ought to regulate the House in the consideration of this Bill as compared with the English Bill was very simple. It was that wherever the circumstances of Scotland were parallel to the circumstances of England, the English Bill should form a very strong precedent. If the circumstances of Scotland and England were different, there was no precedent for their conduct, and they might, with an easy conscience, depart from the precedents set by themselves, even though they were only six months old. He might remind the hon. Member (Mr. Paul) that distance from a parish, which should give a qualification to a man in the peculiar circumstances of Scotland with regard to the size of parishes, was a relevant circumstance which might operate.

MR. PAUL

The limit was omitted from the Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that in that case the arguments of the hon. Gentleman fell to the ground, because he thought the hon. Gentleman was basing his argument on the ground that they were departing from the English Bill. Apparently he wished to depart from it himself. Was there anything in the nature of the case which made it more necessary to enable Scottish Parish Councils to enter into building speculations with regard to labourers' cottages than the parallel case of England? The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had been good enough to suggest that the Scotch owners of land were occupied in depopulating the rural districts by refusing to repair cottages. That would be an admirable argument if the Amendment sought to give the Parish Councils power to repair. If the laud-lords were occupied in the benevolent undertaking of turning out the people on whom they depended for the cultivation of their land, the House ought to begin by giving the Parish Councils power to repair the cottages.

MR. CALDWELL

said, they could not repair other people's property.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, they could not unless they had the power. He thought, however, they might put aside as an invention the argument of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Seymour Keay). The Government had told them that they might make this power what they liked, but no serious abuse could follow, because there was this precious 6d. limit. But he would point out that the result of their 6d. limit, in conjunction with these illimitable powers, was that the whole money might have been spent upon objects upon which no money should have been spent at all. If they put it in the power of a Parish Council elected in a particular year under accidental circumstances of local pressure to spend not merely the 6d. rate for the year for which it held office, but to mortgage the rates in the future, it was perfectly clear that they would not increase the powers of Parish Councils, but gravely curtail and limit them, and that, in his judgment, was one of the most powerful arguments which ought to induce the House to refuse to give such a liberty to individual Parish Councils. They were told that one of the vital necessities of Scotland was that there should be a great extension of building accommodation for the labouring classes. If those powers were really required—a point upon which he had received no fact to confirm the statements of the hon. Gentleman — they ought to begin by conferring them on the great Burgh Councils. To begin with the landward parishes was too ludicrous an inversion of the equities and expediency of the case to commend itself to any body of reasonable men. It was absurd to give these powers first to small districts which, compared with large centres of population like Manchester, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, with large working-class populations, one could not help describing as twopenny-halfpenny parishes. And when they introduced powers of this kind, which could not be carried out because no machinery was provided, they did not give a substantial increase of power to those bodies which they created, and they made the Bill ridiculous. He earnestly hoped the Government would revert to their better sentiments which they defended in the Committee, and would follow the parallel, set by this House and their own colleagues when they were dealing with the Bill relating to England and Wales.

MR. D. CRAWFORD

said, be hoped it would be noted in Scotland that the Leader of the Opposition had contended that a very great boon was to be conferred upon "twopenny parishes" in Scotland that were quite undeserving of such consideration.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he thought that when a comparison was made in certain cases between the landward parishes and the great Municipalities like Glasgow and Edinburgh in point of population, wealth, and experience, the colloquial expression "twopenny-halfpenny parishes" was not inappropriate.

* MR. D. CRAWFORD

said, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman with his usual courage adhered to the expression. He (Mr. Crawford) did not agree that the large towns were more entitled than the rural districts to good houses for the working classes. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know, and, he thought must know, that in practice and by the letter of the law as it stood at present, the urban population had facilities under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts which were wholly inoperative in rural districts. As to the right hon. Gentleman's observations on the maxim of the Secretary of Scotland as to dealing with the English Local Government Act, the right hon. Gentleman accepted an Amendment by the Member for North Ayrshire, although it was contrary to the decision of the Committee, upon the ground that it was a provision of the English Act. It could not be maintained that the particular power proposed to be given to the Parish Councils was either different in kind or less necessary than those other powers which the clause conferred upon them. Objection had not been raised to those other powers conferred upon County Councils, such, for example, as their power to provide recreation grounds and the like. He maintained that no one could deny that a good house was of far more importance to a working man than providing him with amusements. The right hon. Gentleman said that those powers would be used in a reckless way by these "twopenny parishes." He did not agree with him, and pointed out that before a parish could use them it would be necessary to submit the proposal to the County Council. He was glad the Secretary for Scotland had taken the magnanimous line of up- holding the decision of the Committee, which was arrived at contrary to his own advice. He was quite certain it was the right decision, and that it would be approved by the country.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 46.—(Division List, No. 222.)

*CAPTAIN HOPE moved, in page 15, line 29, leave out from "Act," to end of sub-section. Ho said he offered no apology for bringing this matter before the House. The decision arrived at by the Committee upstairs could not be expected to prevent another discussion arising in that House. The words he wished to see left out of the sub-section were words which brought into the duties of the Parish Councils certain duties which had been conferred upon the County Councils of Scotland by the Local Government Act of 1889. The provisions of this sub-section gave the Parish Councils powers, such as the power of appeal against the action of the District Council, which under the Local Government Act of 1889 was invested in a certain number of householders or ratepayers. This he did not object to, but when it came to investing Parish Councils with the same powers as were conferred upon a County Council, it was time to give careful consideration to what they were doing. The right hon. Gentleman opposite told them that evening that it was the desire of the Government to frame a consecutive sys tem of government, starting with the County Council—

It being Midnight, Further Proceeding stood adjourned.

Further Proceeding to be resumed Tomorrow.