PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

HC Deb 04 July 1899 vol 73 cc1426-63

As amended, considered.

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,) Buteshire

The House will remember that when we were in Committee on this Bill, a certain agreement was arrived at on Clause 5. The object of the clause, of which I now have to move the Second Reading, is to carry out the arrangement that as far as possible the Commission should be formed out of Parliamentary material, Members being drawn from each House. But it is perfectly obvious that it would be necessary, whoever selected the Commissioners, they should not have to go cap-in-hand to every one of the twelve hundred Members of the two Houses of Parliament. The hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow has put down on the Paper some Amendments in which he embodies the idea of having what I may call a Parliamentary panel. I confess that that idea struck me with favour, because it would not only shorten the labours of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, but it would provide a body from which it would be possible to select the members, and a body which would not be too large. It would, in fact, be a process of winnowing the material from which the members of the Commission could be selected during the succeeding period of twelve months, and it would also always leave a sufficiently large number of Members available for the work. But I could not accept the Amendment for two reasons. In the first place, it so far departed from the scheme which which we had arranged as to make the tribunal consist of five Members instead of four. It will be within the memory of the House that in Committee we stated that we thought five would be too cumbersome. And again, there is the further disadvantage that he suggested that the panel should consist of exactly fifty Members.

SIR CHARLES CAMERON (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

I did not say exactly fifty, I said not more than fifty.

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

Be that as it may, I am stating what I think are the objections to the hon. Gentleman's proposal. We wish to make the provi- sions as elastic as possible, and the clause of which I am now moving the Second Reading is the outcome of our consideration of the subject. This clause, as hon. Members will see, without exactly prescribing the panel, gives a very strong hint in regard to the manner in which it should be constituted. We provide that the Commission shall consist of four members, and, in the first instance, we suggest that two shall be taken from each House of Parliament; but, in the event of that being impossible, we make it permissible for three to be taken from one House and one from the other. In the last resort, all four may be taken from one House. Then, if all that fails, it is left to the Secretary for Scotland to select a member from the extra Parliamentary panel. There is also power given to him to fill up casual vacancies. I hope hon. Gentlemen will see that I have done my best to carry out the agreement to which we came in Committee, and that I have done so on common-sense lines. There must be some limit in this matter, and I repeat it should not be necessary for the Chairman of the Selection Committee to go cap-in-hand to every Member of the two Houses before he can fill up the Commission. At the same time, we do make it possible that the Commission shall consist entirely of Members of Parliament.

New clause:— Formation of Parliamentary Panels: Appointment of Commissioners, in lieu of Clause 5, to be omitted subsequently:— (1) When it is determined that Commissioners shall lie appointed for the purpose of inquiring as to the propriety of making and issuing a Provisional Order or Orders under this Act, the chairman shall, with due regard to the character and magnitude of the provisions in the proposed Order or Orders, appoint four Commissioners for that purpose, and shall at the same time nominate one of the Commissioners as chairman. (2) Standing Orders may, if the two Houses of Parliament think fit so to order, provide for the formation of panels of Members of the two Houses respectively to act as Commissioners under this Act (hereinafter referred to as the Parliamentary panels). (3) Subject to Standing Orders as aforesaid, two of the Commissioners shall be taken from the Parliamentary panel of Members of the House of Lords, and two shall be taken from the Parliamentary panel of Members of the House of Commons. (4) Subject to Standing Orders as aforesaid, if the chairman shall be unable to appoint Commissioners as in the immediately preceding sub-section mentioned, three, or if need be all, of the Commissioners may be Members of the same Parlimentary panel. (5) Subject to Standing Orders as aforesaid, if the chairman shall be unable to appoint Commissioners as in either of the two immediately preceding subsections mentioned, so many persons as are required to make up the number of Commissioners shall be taken by the Secretary for Scotland front the extra-Parliamentary panel hereinbefore mentioned. (6) Any casual vacancy among the Commissioners, or in the office of Chairman of Commissioners, caused by death or resignation, or inability to give attendance, such resignation or inability to attend being certified by a writing under the Commissioner's hand, shall be filled up by the Secretary for Scotland by appointing a member of the extra-Parliamentary panel, and in the case of a vacancy in the office of chairman, by nominating as chairman one of tile remaining Commissioners. (7) Notwithstanding a dissolution of Parliament, any Member of either House of Parliament may continue to act as Commissioner in any inquiry for the purpose of which he has been appointed to act. (8) The persons appointed as Commissioners shall have no personal or local interest in the matter of the proposed Order or Orders, and shall, as a condition of such appointment, make a declaration to that effect, provided that Scottish Members of either House of Parliament, shall not be disqualified front acting as Commissioners to deal with proposed Orders in which they have no personal or local interest,"—(The Lord Advocate.) Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made and Question proposed— That the clause be read a second time."—(The Laid Advocate.)

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

I quite recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has fully adhered to the general principles which we insisted upon when we were considering this Bill in Committee, and to the understanding which was agreed to at that time by the Government. The right hon Gentleman has not accepted the clause proposed by my hon. friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division, because he prefers words of his own, and in regard to that I think he is right, if only on the ground that, as he is the architect of the measure to which we are now placing the copingstone, it is only right that he should furnish the design of the ornamental part of the structure. I think his general conception is the right one. There would be an obvious inconvenience in saying that the whole of the list of Members of both Houses of Parliament must be exhausted before a nominated member could be appointed, because, if that list had to be gone through, it might possibly occur that, when the last name was reached, the first one or two who had accepted might have changed their minds on the subject. The arrangement which the right hon. Gentleman proposes is a much better one. He leaves it to the Committee of Selection, and gives them a discretion which, having, as I have, a knowledge of the way in which they perform their duties, I think is thoroughly justified. I have, in fact, the utmost confidence in that body. I think the right hon. Gentleman's proposal will prevent a great deal of useless labour, while it will fully carry out the intentions of the arrangement winch was agreed to in Committee between the two sides of the House. I recognise fully, not only the spirit in which the clause has been proposed, but the skill with which it has been drafted, and I think the House is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for having brought the clause forward.

* SIR CHARLES CAMERON

I quite recognise the spirit, also, in which the right hon. Gentleman has framed his proposal, although I do not agree with my right hon. friend as to the manner in winch he has carried it out. I hold that if there was any possibility of defeating the intention of the agreement by mere drafting, that possibility has been seized upon in the present instance. What I wish to point out is, that under tins clause, as it is now framed, it might be possible never to have recourse to the Parliamentary panel at all. If hon. Members will look at the Bill, they will see that, under Clause 4, it is provided that from the 1st day of January there shall be an extra-Parliamentary panel. Now that provision must be read along with the new clause. The extra-parliamentary panel is constituted definitely and at once, but before the Parliamentary panels can have any existence it is necessary that Standing Orders shall be passed in both Houses. What guarantee have we that the exigencies of Government business will not prevent such Standing Orders being passed. It may be that the passing of them will be postponed until the end of next session, when, if opposed or criticised, they may be allowed to drop. But, without these Standing Orders having been passed, the Committee of Selection can do nothing in the matter. I think this is a decided retrogression. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he cannot accept my Amendment. I do not care what Amendment is accepted, or in what words it is couched; all I want is that we shall have machinery which will enable this work to be done. What I wish to point out is that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment does not compel this Parliamentary panel to be formed. He may, it is true, give hints as to what is to be done, but, on the other hand, those hints may be taken no notice of, or in the absence of a standing order the Committee of Selection may never have an opportunity of considering them at all. It is not my business to make the Bill a workable one, but it is the business of Members on both sides of the House, at all events, to see that the Amendments put upon the Paper carry out the agreement which has been come to. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury gave a most sweeping undertaking on tins point. He said the intention was that the Commission should be composed of Members of Parliament, and my complaint is that the constitution of the new Commission from Members of Parliament is not secured under this clause. I trust my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition will look into this matter a little more closely. The clause, as it stands, embodies an absolutely incorrect principle against which we protested when the Bill was in Committee, and its drafting exactly reverses the compromise and understanding at which we arrived with the First Lord of the Treasury.

MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT (Durham)

I am one of the oldest friends of the proposal to hold these local inquiries, and on the motion for the Second Reading of this Bill I gave it my support. But, now we have reached the Report stage, I find that a great transformation has been effected, and the Bill which I supported is utterly and entirely gone. This is an entirely new measure, which rests far more on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition than it does on the authority of my right hon. friends the Lord Advocate and the Leader of the House. We had before a Bill winch set up a tribunal which was to be a paid tribunal, and which was to hold local inquiries, and to do judicial rather than administrative work such as is now conducted by the Private Bill Committees upstairs. That tribunal was to send the result of these inquiries to Westminster. But now we find it is proposed to substitute for it something in the nature, not of an established tribunal, but a system of sending down four legislators—two Peers and two Commoners—to Scotland to hold inquiries on the spot. And this is done with the assent of the Leader of the Opposition. It has been represented time after time, for many years, that an admirable principle adopted by the Chairmen of Committees of the two Houses was to discourage the appointment on these committees of local politicians; but in the clause of the Lord Advocate there is a provision, amounting, as he says, to a hint, that Scottish Members shall be appointed as members of the Commission. That is a great departure from the principle which has always been laid down. No doubt it is desirable that the members of the Commission should be gentlemen experienced in the examination of witnesses, but instead of that it is merely proposed under this clause to send two Peers and two Commoners to conduct the inquiries. You will get a far more limited number of Members to select from than if the present system were continued of conducting the inquiries upstairs. The extraordinary character of this proposal is only appreciated when we look a little further into the Bill. What was wanted was to set up a strong tribunal which was to report to this House, and was to have the same authority, and even more authority than that possessed at present by the Committee upstairs. But now we find that it is proposed to establish a Court of Appeal from the decision of this new Commission, and it will be quite possible, if the decision of the local inquiry is not satisfactory, for all the witnesses to be brought up to London and to be again examined here.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! I must remind the hon. Member that he is now discussing the Bill generally, whereas the question before the House is as to the form of the tribunal.

MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT

I feel that I was going a little wide of the mark.

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

We are making no change in respect of the power of appeal.

MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT

I think there is a considerable difference being made. My objection is to your giving an appeal from a Parliamentary inquiry to a Parliamentary Committee upstairs. If these proposals had been made in the Bill originally, I confess that I should have let the measure alone. But we have to deal with things as we find them. I must confess that the right hon. Gentleman has taken all taste for the Bill out of my mouth, and has robbed me of a good deal of the pleasure with which I contemplated it. I do not think that in its new form it is calculated to give general satisfaction.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I very much regret that we only had laid before us the terms of this new clause this morning. We certainly ought to have had more time to consider it. I am afraid that the Chairmen of the Selection Committees will never have the power it is proposed to give them of appointing Members of this House on the Commission. I further object to the proposal for filling up casual vacancies. The power of filling up these vacancies is to be taken away from the Chairmen and given to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and our contention is that the Chairmen, and not the Secretary for Scotland, should have this power. I certainly cannot understand why these changes have been made, and I am astonished that my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition has not seen their importance, and has not realised that they are entirely contrary to the principle of the agreement at which we arrived when the Bill was in Committee.

MR. CRIPPS (Gloucestershire, Stroud)

I am heartily in accord with the proposals of the Lord Advocate, because the changes which have been made really bring the Members of this House into greater prominence than they were under the original scheme. I support the clause for three reasons—first, that without some such clause the Bill would never have been workable. It is absolutely essential that a private panel should be formed from which the Chairmen may make their selection. In the second place, I am very glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is only brought in in order to fill casual vacancies. I think it is right that he should have power of that kind, as it might possibly occur that the whole proceedings of the Commission would be stopped because of the inconvenience of communicating with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection in the event of an emergency. Thirdly, I have always objected to putting a procedure of this or the other House under Statutory obligations. I think each House should be at liberty to deal with its procedure in its own way. That is the true constitutional principle, and it has always been acted upon in the past. I heartily congratulate the Lord Advocate on having recognised and given effect to this doctrine, and I therefore give his proposal my cordial support.

MR. CROMBIE (Kincardineshire)

I somewhat disagree with the hon. Gentleman, the last speaker. I do not think he attached sufficient importance to the question of filling up casual vacancies. I think it is important that the Secretary for Scotland should be removed as far as possible from this Bill, and I certainly do object to the provision that any vacancy that may occur on the Commission shall be filled up from the extra Parliamentary panel. I hope the Lord Advocate will see his way to alter that arrangement.

MR. COLVILLE (Lanark, N.E.)

I also hope that some arrangement will be made by which vacancies will be filled up from the Parliamentary panel. I think that the Commission should be composed exclusively of Members of Parliament, and I trust that the Lord Advocate will do his best to secure that end.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR CHARLES CAMERON

I beg to move an Amendment to this new clause of the Lord Advocate's, in order that the Commissioners may be, as nearly as possible, alternately Members of the House of Lords and Members of the House of Commons.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause— In line 6, after the word 'Commissioners,' to insert the words, 'being alternately, or as nearly as may be alternately, a Member of the House of Lords and a Member of the House of Commons.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.)

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

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

I really think this is unnecessary. The hon. Member will remember that the two selecting persons are the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means in this House, and the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, and it would be extremely unlikely that the claims of either House would be disregarded. It seems to be almost ludicrous to suggest such an Amendment as this. I should have thought it would become a question of choosing the man with the most experience. I do not think there is the slightest chance of there being a run, so to speak, on either House, and in my opinion it is almost degrading to suggest it.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I am also disposed to believe that no unfairness would be exercised by the selecting persons, but at the same time there is a little ambiguity about the word "alternately." Two or three of these tribunals might be appointed at the same time, and they are not to be appointed in sequence, and I do not see, then, how they could be alternative. I think we had better leave it to the good sense of the Chairmen of the Committees.

SIR CHARLES CAMERON

I do not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR CHARLES CAMERON

There is another Amendment which I beg to move upon this new clause. The Lord Advocate has said all along that these tribunals should be, as much as possible, taken out of the hands of the Secretary of Scotland, and left with the Chairmen of Committees; but the proposal here is that if a vacancy occurs the Secretary for Scotland should fill it up from the extra Parliamentary panel. I propose that the Chairmen of Committees should fill up any such vacancy, not from the extra Parliamentary panel, but from the Members of this House. It is very desirable, in the interests of all parties concerned, that the selection of the tribunal should be made by persons who could have no interest in the matter. Amendment proposed to the proposed clause— In line 29, to leave out the words 'Secretary, for Scotland,' and insert the word 'Chairmen' (Sir Charles Cameron)—instead thereof.

Question proposed—"That the words 'Secretary for Scotland' stand part of the proposed clause."

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

I do not know whether the hon. Member's memory carries him back to the Committee stage; if it does, he will recollect that he made a speech diametrically opposed to his present remarks. He then thought that the Secretary for Scotland should select from the Parliamentary panel. This power now comes in only in case of a casual vacancy at the last moment, after the date of the inquiry has been fixed. If the vacancy occurs before that, it would, of course, be filled up by the Chairmen; but after the date of the inquiry despatch is essential, and then the Secretary for Scotland should act, because he is responsible for the carrying out of the Provisional Order. I am perfectly willing to meet hon. Members by allowing members to be selected from any of the panels; but if I do so, it must be under-stood that it shall not be taken as a test of bad faith if the Secretary for Scotland should select from the extra Parliamentary panel, because I intend that he shall take the man who is ready to his hand.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause amended— In line 29, by leaving out the words 'the extra Parliamentary panel,' and inserting the words 'any of the panels.'—(The Lord Advocate)—instead thereof.

Clause, as amended, added.

MR. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid)

This Amendment is one of a series, and the object of it is that the Chairman should decide, before the meeting of Parliament, when notice is given in November, whether a Bill shall be proceeded with under the Scotch Procedure or as a Private Bill. The result of this Bill is that you have practically two different systems of notices. But you get rid of all complication if you determine in the first place whether a Bill is to proceed as a Scotch Bill or as a Parliamentary Bill. If it is to proceed as a Parliamentary Bill the notices must be given in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House. If, on the other hand, the Bill is to proceed under the Scotch Private Legislation Procedure, let the notices be given under that procedure. It would facilitate matters very much to have this distinct procedure, because it would give more room for cheapness of procedure. Whilst my Amendment is practically to leave out the sub-section, it is afterwards put in as, applicable to Scotch Procedure; and then I have a subsequent Amendment in the case of Bills which must proceed by Order in this House. That makes the whole procedure uniform so far as regards any Bill which, ultimately, must come to this House.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 20, to leave out Sub-section (3) of Clause 1"—(Mr. Caldwell.)

Question proposed, "That the words of the subsection, to the word 'give,' in line 21, stand part of the Bill."

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

I will put before the House just what we wanted, and explain what the difficulties of the situation are. We all feel that under the present procedure there is a great deal of unnecessary expense in the matter of notices and advertisements, and we were very anxious in the new procedure to remedy that if possible. Also, if the Chairman decided that a proposal should proceed by Private Bill instead of by Provisional Order, we wanted that whatever steps had been taken should not be wasted. Keeping those objects in view, there were, obviously only two ways of proceeding. One is the method proposed by the hon. Member opposite, and the other is that proposed by the Amendment which stands in my name. The idea of the hon. Member for Lanark is a very good one so far as it goes. He says:— Let the Chairman decide this question, and after he has decided let the procedure be either the modified notice for a Provisional Order or the other notice for a Bill. The difficulty about that is this, that it is almost impossible for the Chairman to decide unless he has some sort of notice to begin with. He must, in deciding these questions, give some heed to such representation as may be addressed to him by opponents to the Bill. But opponents can hardly make their representations unless there has been some notice. Obviously the question of time is also of great moment. The other plan is what may be called a modified form of notice, which would do everything necessary to begin with. If the Chairman then decided that a Provisional Order is to be the method of procedure, all that is necessary will have been done. If, on the other hand, it is decided the matter must proceed by Private Bill, let what has been done be available; but, of course, leave it to the House to prescribe by Standing Order what more they want done. I certainly think the latter is the better plan.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Other Amendments made.

Another Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 16, after the word 'Order,' to insert the words 'or relate to any matter which had already been refused by the Secretary for Scotland in any previous application for a Provisional Order under this Act.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.)

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

* MR A. GRAHAM MURRAY

I am afraid I could not accept this Amendment. In the first place, it would be one that would be very difficult to bring to the test—" or relate to any matter which had already been refused." That is rather a difficult question sometimes to determine, and it would really open the I door to getting out of the provisions of the Act altogether. If the Secretary for Scotland was impervious, and was refusing everything, I think the way would not be altogether blocked, because that would be quite a proper matter to bring before the Chairmen on the next occasion, with a view to influencing their decision as to whether it should be by Private Bill or not.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CRIPPS

The House will remember that there was a Division on this point in the Committee stage. This Subsection 5 is not necessary as regards the procedure, because it is safeguarded by the word "shall" in Sub-section 1, Section 1. It is not possible to foresee what possible conditions may arise in the future. I do not want at this stage to start a prolonged discussion, because it was discussed on the Committee stage; but I should like the Lord Advocate to explain how it is that, after the promise was made that this constitutional point should be considered, no steps have been taken. I should like the Lord Advocate to explain why he wishes to retain this sub-section.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 29, to leave out Sub-section (5) of Clause 2."—(Mr. Cripps.) Question proposed, "That Sub-section (5) of Clause 2, stand part of the Bill."

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

I confess that the matter has been really overlooked; but if the hon. and learned Member will be content with another promise, I will see what can be done to meet the case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

DR. CLARK

An inquiry may be required, or may not be required. If it is not required, there is no need to send it up; but if is required, then it can be carried on. I beg to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 26, to leave out the word 'shall,' and insert the word 'may.'"—(Dr. Clark.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'shall,' stand part of the clause."

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

I accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR CHARLES CAMERON

I think that if the Commissioners and the opposing parties desire to hold the inquiry elsewhere, it is only reasonable that their wishes should be respected. I beg to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 17, after the word 'relate,' to insert the words, 'or they may hold such inquiry elsewhere as the Commissioners may, with the consent of the parties promoting and opposing tile Order, fix.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.) Question proposed—" That those words be there inserted."

* Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

I think if the hon. Baronet will look carefully at the clause, he will see that it has been carefully framed to guard against the difficulty he has raised. Of course, the holding of these inquiries will be regulated by common sense.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Other Amendments made.

SIR CHARLES CAMERON

The object of this Amendment is to meet a case in which a condition may be attached to the issue of an Order to which neither the promoters nor the opponents agree, and in such a case it is proposed to allow an appeal.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 34, after the word 'held,' to insert the words '(c) or Amendments have been nettle on the Order since it was originally submitted.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.)

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

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

This Amendment introduces what I may call an absolutely cross division. Under Clause 7, where there is no opposition, or where the opposition has been withdrawn before inquiry held, then the Secretary for Scotland issues the Order. Of course, if there has been no inquiry, all the Secretary for Scotland has to go on is the Order as it is put before him. Under Clause 8, although there may be no opposition, the matter may be thought of sufficient importance to have an inquiry, and the Secretary for Scotland shall refuse to issue a Provisional Order if the Commissioners report that the Order should not be made. He is therefore bound by the result of the inquiry. The Amendment, however, introduces a new consideration altogether, and would make the section unreadable. Where we have divisions of this kind we must work them out on the lines of the division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments made.

SIR CHARLES CAMERON

Unless some such provision as this Amendment is inserted in the Bill, the Secretary for Scotland will be an absolute autocrat, and there will be no getting past any refusal on his part. He will, in fact, be a despot in matters of Private Bill legislation.

Amendment proposed— In page 6, line 11, after the word 'prescribed,' to insert the words, '(2a) If the Secretary for Scotland shall refuse to issue any Orgler under either of the two preceding sections of this Act, the promoters may, within ten clear days after the date of such refusal, present a petition to either House of Parliament praying that the Order so refused may be referred to the Joint Committee provided for in the next succeeding section in the same way as is provided with respect to a Confirmation Bill under the said section.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.) Question proposed, "That those words be there insetted."

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

Of course, there are two positions under which the Secretary for Scotland will act. First, where there is no inquiry and no opposition, and I think I have already dealt practically with that. But really that is not the important case. Second, when the Commissioners report against the Order. This Amendment would give an absolute right of appeal to Parliament, and that is entirely against our Parliamentary traditions in such matters. If a person loses his Bill before a Committee of the House of Commons at the present moment, he has not the right to appeal to the House of Lords, but has to wait for another year and then start again, and we propose that that should continue. I would remind the hon. Member that the very fact that we have now a tribunal practically consisting of Members of Parliament is an additional reason why the Amendment cannot be accepted. I think the House will see that it would be an innovation on our present practice which is not needed in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. THOMAS SHAW (Hawick Burghs)

I think it will be necessary for me to trouble the House with a Division on this Amendment, because it goes to the root of the question as to whether the Bill, as framed, will in its operation be successful or not. The blot on the Bill as it now stands is undoubtedly Section 9. After the elaborate provisions in the first eight sections for an inquiry on the spot as to the merits or demerits of a Provisional Order, we find there comes a section for subsequent procedure in Parliament, and we ask ourselves the question, What was the use of all our attempts to save expense and to simplify procedure in the preceding sections? It seems to me that if Clause 9 remains in the Bill, we might have saved all our time and trouble in enacting this measure. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that, while I am proposing a certain Amendment as an addition to Sub-section 3 of Clause 8, it is really a substitution for Section 9, regarding which I have a further Amendment to delete it altogether. I come now to the precautions already taken in the Bill now before us. The new system which is to be introduced has a variety of conditions and restrictions. In the first place, it applies to Bills which are mainly or wholly Scotch; in the second place, there are to be excluded from the advantages of the measure all cases except those which are small and relatively unimportant; and in the third place, it is expressly provided in the Bill that no Provisional Order with the advantage of this procedure can be carried through the House if there is any question of public policy involved. With all these conditions and restrictions we ask ourselves, What more can anyone desire to make it quite clear that the measure is only applicable to what I might call relatively trivial and unimportant Scotch Private Bills. Parliament itself has, in the previous sections, sufficiently asserted its power to deal even with these matters by providing for an inquiry on the spot in which both Houses shall be represented. I would call the attention of the House to the following express provision in Section 6, Sub-section (3): "Commissioners may hear and decide upon the preamble before discussing clauses." What I want to put to the House is this. If you have a local inquiry by a Parliamentary tribunal which shall pass the preamble of the Bill and discuss its clauses, and which will frame suggestions and Amendments ultimately to be adopted by this House, what more does anyone want in the shape of an inquiry? Surely the Government will take this view into consideration. Supposing the Bill had practically concluded at Section 8, and supposing we had proposed an equivalent to Section 9, and had said that, notwithstanding all that was done in the first eight clauses, yet there should be an elaborate subsequent procedure in Parliament, and that an Order which had already been inquired into on the spot should be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and that the opponent should, subject to the practice of Parliament, be allowed to appear and oppose by himself, his counsel, agent and witnesses—I wonder what the Government would have thought. That is the view I take, from whatever quarter this clause has originated. I say that Section 9 is a provision under which the real object of the Bill is to be completely undone and obliterated, because the most obstinate and fastidious and overbearing opponent has all that he can desire or deserve under the Parliamentary procedure up to Section 8. Therefore, what I propose is to substitute for Section 9, that there shall be power to bring in at once a Confirmation Bill, but with a reserve power to either House of Parliament, when the Bill stands as an Order of the Day, to refer the Bill back to the Commissioners for further inquiry and report, either generally or with special instructions. Now, a good deal has been said in regard to reserving the powers of Parliament. I ask if this is not sufficient reservation of the powers of Parliament. First, Parliament may visit the spot and make inquiry; and, second, when the Bill returns here it may be thrown out on the Third Reading, or when any new point has emerged, Parliament may refer that point back to its own Commissioners for further inquiry and report. There are only two objections which can be made to the proposal I now venture to make. The first is, that the Government is committed by precedent; and the second, that the opinion of Scotland is in favour of this wrecking proposal or scheme in Clause 9. In regard to precedents it is wholly wrong. I may frankly tell the House that I have framed the language of the Amendment from the language of the Bills of 1891 and 1892, introduced by the Unionist Government of that day, in which this very provision for the re-remit upon a particular point was reserved. And it was emphatically declared by these Bills that there should be no power to remit to a Select Committee of either House or a Joint Committee of both Houses. I say that instead of the Government sheltering themselves under precedents, I am sheltering myself under precedents formed by the Government themselves or their predecessors in title in 1891 and 1892. The further question is: "Does Scotland want this wrecking proposal?" Scotland has not had very much time to consider it, but we have two very important pieces of evidence as to the feeling of Scotland, which we can bring before the House. The first is, that the best friends which this measure ever had—the Convention of Royal and Parliamentary Burghs—seems rather aghast at the idea that Section 9 is to be enacted by Parliament. In a memorandum which the Convention has been good enough to furnish to the Members of the House it is said: Probably, too, since Parliament clearly means fairly to try how Local Inquiry and Report would work, as coining in the place of the present Private Bill Committee's Inquiry and Report, the Bill will emerge shorn of Clauses 8 and 9, and containing only the provision for a public Confirming Bill, to be held on introduction as at the Report stage, and requiring only a formal rendering in all cases of Provisional Orders, whether these have been opposed or unopposed. I had not seen that when I framed my Amendment. I have shown that the Convention of Royal and Parliamentary Burghs is in favour of my Amendment, and that it follows the precedents made by the predecessors of the Government themselves. But the Convention of Royal and Parliamentary Burghs has not stopped there. It has petitioned this House, and in that petition, which was presented by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh, it is said: Your Petitioners are of opinion that the privilege conferred on opponents by that Section (9) should not be given, as in opposed measures it virtually deprives the public of the benefits which it is the object of the present Bill to confer. I do not want to refer to Section 9 in any stronger language than is here employed. I do not shut my eyes to the fact that there is a representation of Scotland in this House. I have already raised this identical question in the House, and I ask the impartial consideration of the House of Commons to the result. We had a Division substantially on this question, and we had in favour of Her Majesty's Government's wrecking proposal, thirteen Unionist Scotch Members, while we had against it 25 Liberal Scotch Members and 6 Unionist Scotch Members—in all, 13 against my proposal and 31 representatives in favour of it. Now, I am bound to say that we have had just a little too much this Session already of suffering from adverse decisions on purely Scotch questions. On a non-party question of this kind, why will not Her Majesty's Government allow the Scotch Members to have some say in the government of their own country? And I do not for the life of me see why Her Majesty's Government should be so obstinate in a matter which is going to make the Bill positively ridiculous and useless. We have got to the fact that Parliament is going to the spot to make inquiry and to report, and why then should there be brought in afterwards all the paraphernalia of an opposed Bill before the two Houses of Parliament, with counsel and agents and no end of a plethora of expense involved before a Select Committee or a Joint Committee of both Houses? Every man who wishes well to this scheme of reform will support this Amendment, and I know that every man who wishes to hamper that scheme and make it absolutely useless for the purpose it is designed to serve will oppose the Amendment. I wish Clause 9 to go out of the Bill, and that the local inquiry should be first and final; and in order to I do that, I call on all hon. Members of the House to support the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 6, line 15, after the word 'and,' to insert the words, 'said Bill after introduction shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages up to and including Committee, and shall be ordered to be considered in either House as if reported from a Committee. (4) Either House may, when the Bill stands as an Order of the Day, refer the Bill back to the Commissioners for further inquiry and report, either generally or with special instructions, but shall not be entitled to refer the Bill to a Select Committee or a Joint Committee of the two Houses."—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

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

MR. CRIPPS

The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member would really alter the whole framework of the Bill as introduced. He has stated that Clause 9, which has been part of the Bill from the commencement, would render the whole of the Bill useless. But before I go into the merits of that, I should like to refer to another statement of the hon. and learned Member. He seems to think that only Scotch Members have an interest in this Bill. I deny that altogether, and it has been denied over and over again in the course of the Debate. What we are dealing with here is the right method of dealing with Private Bill legislation, and almost every Member has admitted that we ought to see whether the scheme is in itself a good scheme, not only in regard to Scotland, but a scheme which will fit any devolution that may be made of the powers of Parliament to other parts of the United Kingdom. From that point of view every Member of this House may, and ought, to express his opinion, and give the weight of his opinion, if there is any Division, on any subject connected with it. There is another point on which I differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman. He talks about precedents; but I question whether he can really say that a Bill formerly before the House is a precedent in the way he used the term. I say that you cannot have any precedent in regard to legislation unless the Bill has been actually passed into law.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

The Bills I cited were the Bills which a Unionist Government introduced as expressing their views.

MR. CRIPPS

I maintain that no one can suggest that any proposal in a Bill which does not get beyond the Bill stage is a precedent at all. It may be valuable as exhibiting the opinion of a certain Government or of the hon. Member who introduced it, but it is not a legislative precedent. Besides, matters are not to be decided merely by questions of precedent. We undoubtedly entertain new principles from time to time. This Provisional Order system, in one form or other, is not new; and at the present time there is an appeal both to a Committee of this House and to a Committee of the House of Lords. I totally disagree with the hon. and learned Member that it is in accordance with experience that you get a large number of appeals in regard to Provisional Orders of this class. It is comparatively seldom that you get a point of sufficient importance to make it a matter of appeal either before this House or a Committee of the House of Lords. But why should it always be thought necessary to have appeals of this character? With matters of large pecuniary interest to be settled, it is most necessary, to ensure against the miscarriage of justice, that you should in certain cases give the right of appeal. I recollect the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Monmouth, who discussed these matters very much in the past year, always pointing out the necessity of some appeal of this kind; and here you put the appeal in a form which will cause the least expense to the suitor, and at the same time guarantee the best possible tribunal when the appeal comes to be heard. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will not say, if he has had experience of these local inquiries, which, after all, are held in a rough-and-ready manner, that where you may have very important issues involved, you ought to have no power for their reconsideration. That would be contrary to the experience of everyone who has dealt with questions of this character. It is carrying the idea of economy too far, unless yon can ensure the administration of justice. Although, of course, everyone wants all judicial inquiries of this kind to be as economical as possible, you must not sacrifice the interests of justice to the interests of economy. When there are important issues, you must have some tribunal where they can be ultimately discussed after the true issue between the parties is thoroughly understood and appreciated. We have an illustration of that in the practice of this House in regard to other legislation. It sometimes transpires, when matters reach the Report stage, that they have been insufficiently considered in the Committee stage, and require further consideration. I must say that I hope the Government will not at the last moment alter what really is the framework of the Bill. I hope they will preserve this right. It is necessary, to my mind, in the first instance, in order to ensure a proper system under which justice can be done in what may be a complicated inquiry; and, secondly, in order that this House may have a reasonable and just control over all the more important questions with reference to which objections have been made. On these two grounds I hope the Lord Advocate will retain his position.

MR. HEDDERWICK (Wick Burghs)

I regard this point as one of the utmost importance. I am perfectly satisfied that if this clause is retained the measure will be almost rendered nugatory. As far as I understand the desire on the part of my fellow-countrymen for a measure such as this, it was founded upon certain definite grounds. One was, that Scotch matters, in the nature of private Bills, should be settled by the local decision as far as possible in Scotland; in the next place, that that settlement should be achieved with despatch; and, in the third place, that it should be accompanied with as great a saving of expense as possible. Now, the hon. and learned Member for the Stroud Division seems to labour under the hallucination that we object altogether to the great interest which he has shown in this Amendment. I do not think that that is the case. I think we have been very grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the experience and the amount of light that he has cast upon the whole subject. Nor do we object to the expression of opinion which has been heard very freely, I confess, upon this measure, which really, however, concerns Scotland alone. If I may, without offence, say so, I think the hon. and learned Member for the Stroud Division seems to be under the misapprehension that if this clause is withdrawn, the whole of the Parliamentary control which would be left in this Bill would be purely nominal. So far from that being the case, under the Bill as it now stands the whole of these proceedings are, in the first place, to be before the Commissioners, who are to be appointed by the Chairman of this House and the Chairman of the House of Lords; and when these Commissioners have done their work, no Order under the Secretary of State is to be of any validity at all until it has been confirmed by Parliament and become what is known and referred to in the Bill as a Confirmation Bill. But what the Lord Advocate now proposes is that when the Confirmation Bill is intro- duced if anyone chooses to present a petition seven days before the Second Reading, all that has taken place in Scotland under those selected Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords is to become absolutely of no effect, and the whole of the proceedings are to be rendered absolutely nugatory. And, more than that, the Joint Committee before whom the proceedings are then to come are to have a new power, namely, a power of loading one or other of the parties, as they may think fit, with the whole of the cost, from the initiation of the proceedings. That, I think, is a very serious consideration. If the object of the Lord Advocate is to satisfy the genuine and honest desire on the part of the people of Scotland to have such matters as would come before the House under existing circumstances, in a private Bill, decided locally, after a competent inquiry, before two selected Members of this House, and to have that done with despatch and at small cost, then I say, this Section 9, if it is to remain, will be absolutely fatal. But why should the hon. and learned Member suppose that the Amendment of my hon. and learned friend proposes that the control should not be left in the hands of this House? What is the Amendment which my hon. and learned friend proposes to substitute? After the Commissioners inquiring into the matter in the locality have made their report, and after the Order which the Secretary for Scotland has to lay upon the Table of this House has, in due course, become a Confirmation Bill, the House, if it were to exclude the Amendment of my hon. and learned friend, would then be able, if it thought fit, to send back that Bill to the Commission from whom the Report emanated, with instructions for a further report, or with instructions for further information upon any point which this House thought necessary or desirable. What more does the hon. and learned Member for the Stroud Division desire? Does he desire at one and the same time, in one and the same measure, to give to Scotland the pretence of deciding upon its own affairs, and then, after the cost of the inquiry has been incurred,—a cost which, I am afraid, will be by no means small; probably very much more than the promoters of this Bill anticipate—that it shall be rendered of no effect, but that the matter shall be inquired into and gone over before a Joint Committee of this House, as if no local inquiry had ever taken place before? I must say that this matter seems to me to be more absurd when yon consider the number of Orders that are likely to be applied for. I understand that the average number of Bills from Scotland that come before the Committees is something like twenty-two yearly, and out of those twenty-two one might, I think, very fairly say that there is not one which does not involve property of very great value. But if these twenty-two Bills are of great value, and if we are to take the Provisional Orders that are likely to approximate to that number, or even exceed it, how absurd it would be to suppose that any one of the parties to the application for a Provisional Order would rest satisfied with the decision, no matter how fair or how just it might be, arrived at by the Commissioners appointed by the Chairmen of the two Houses of Parliament, when he was aware that the whole matter would be tried again before a Joint Committee of this House? I venture to think that there is scarcely an opposed Bill at the present moment which, if it came before the new tribunal which the learned Lord Advocate is about to set up, and if it were defeated, would not again be brought before the Joint Committee on the chance of getting the decision of the court repealed. I am confident that if this section is retained it will not only have a nugatory effect, but will create a feeling of great dissatisfaction throughout Scotland. In illustration of that, I think the paragraph which has been quoted by my hon. and learned friend, coming from so well-known and so representative a body as the Royal Convention of Burghs in Scotland, is the best evidence that could be obtained of the measure of approbation that is likely to be meted out to this particular section.

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

I do not know that I have really anything to add to what I stated on this matter in Committee. I gave the reasons then which made it impossible for me to withdraw this clause, and I have not heard of anything since to make me change my position. But I am bound to say that in the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech he used words which I must say were either somewhat exaggerated, or show his soul to be filled with dismal foreboding as to the effect of the clause. He spoke of this clause as a "wrecking clause." That phrase would lead one to think that it referred to something new that had been sprung upon the House. But that is not the case. On the contrary, this clause has been in the Bill since the very beginning, and it was also in the Bill of last year. The hon. Gentleman also said that Scotland has had little time to consider it. Scotland has enjoyed two years in which to consider it, in addition to which the existence of this clause was made a great matter of argument during the Second Reading discussion. The hon. Member for Wick said that hon. Members were really afraid that the result of this clause would be to render the whole matter nugatory. Hon. Members will please remember that at this moment, under the Provisional Order system, any opponent who thinks that his interests are damnified by the Provisional Order has the chance of coming to Parliament and taking the opinion, not only of one House, but of both Houses. How has that been taken advantage of? We have the figures of 1888 to 1897 inclusive. During that time there were 1,980 Provisional Orders dealt with, only 75 of which were brought by way of appeal to Parliament. Now, 75 is something less than 4 per cent., and what was the fate of the 75? Of this number the decision of the original tribunal was confirmed in every case except seven, or less than .04 per cent. Apply this percentage to the figures which the hon. Member for Wick gave. He said that on an average there are 22 private Scotch Bills a year. If the experience of the future, however, is the experience of the past, what will happen to the 22 Bills is that there will be one appeal a year, and only every four years will one appeal be successful. Under this Bill the Government propose to give the Joint Committee a power of awarding costs by a majority. The reason of that is to check anything like undue appealing. I should be going back on the pledges given to the other sections of the House, and going against the right of individuals to secure justice, if I yielded on this question. I have treated the matter all through as a Parliamentary, and not as a Scotch question.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the fact that this matter was very fully discussed in Committee, and those hon. Members who take an interest in it at all have no doubt said all that there is to be said for and against the Amendment of my hon. and learned friend. But there is one argument which has arisen since the Debate in Committee which deserves a little consideration. I was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman put that aside on the ground that it was a time-honoured argument. I should have thought that a time-honoured argument would have had all the greater weight; but that argument, obscure and perhaps useless according to the view of the right hon. Gentleman, is the decisive expression of opinion of the Scotch representatives in the Division on this matter, the proportion being 13 to 31, and a great many going out, in the manner with which we are so familiar because they could not get their own way, but did not like to vote against a Member of the Government for whom they have such very high respect as the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We none of us like voting against him, but we have to do it sometimes. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Stroud referred to this as being a Scotch question, and said that he did not wish to look at it from a Scotch point of view. I quite understand that; but let me say that we have welcomed all through the discussion of the Bill the right of the hon. and learned Gentleman to take the part he has in the discussion, because, although we have often been obliged to take an opposite side on some Amendments, we all recognise his great knowledge of the subject and the great desire he has shown to make this a thoroughly practicable and useful measure, and we appreciate the benefit of his assistance in maintaining from first to last the authority and competence of Parliament in this matter. But although that is true, and although it is natural that the hon. and learned Gentleman should consider rather the larger question of Parliamentary expediency, we have to consider the Scotch aspect of this question, namely, the desire to have a thorough local inquiry into these contentious proposals. Well, how in the world, if your object is to make that local inquiry as good and as effective as possible, can you think that you assist that object in saying that the inquiry and all its results shall be subject to be overruled by a Committee here? The Lord Advocate spoke of the existing and past system of Provisional Orders, and to the fact that there have been few appeals in the cases of these Provisional Orders; and my hon. and learned friend the Member for Stroud spoke of these local inquiries as being inquiries of a rough-and-ready kind. The local inquiry under the Provisional Order system was undoubtedly an inquiry which might deserve that name; but here we are going to set up a great constitutional tribunal, and to import to Scotland Members of the House of Commons and Peers from another place in order to give dignity, as well as stability, to the tribunal which we are setting up. That cannot be a rough-and-ready inquiry. It will be as thorough and complete an inquiry as was ever held in any of the Committee-rooms upstairs. And then, having had this joint Committee of the two Houses going down to Scotland, you are going to have another joint Committee of the two Houses to review all that has been done. I cannot understand the pertinacity with which the Government adhere to this proposal. We must consider the effect of this upon the attitude of the Members and Peers who are to go to Scotland to conduct the local inquiries. I am sanguine that they will be glad to go. If they consider their own health and pleasure they will go, but in any case I think there will be little difficulty in filling this tribunal from the two Houses of Parliament. But if they are to go down for the mere purpose of having their work done over again, and their decisions reversed by another Committee in London, they will say, "No, if I am to do this thing I will do it up here in my own way. I will wait until it comes to me instead of going down to it." There would be less disposition to go to Scotland than if this new tribunal had the duty upon it of ultimately deciding the matters submitted to them, subject, of course, to the general review of Parliament in the two Houses. I am surprised that the Lord Advocate should be so stubborn, because he has been so reasonably and pleasantly plastic on some other matters of importance, and there is an unmistakable verdict in favour of this Amendment of 31 to 13, which are figures which we must never forget in connection with this matter. These figures are a clear indication of the opinion of Scotch Members on both sides of the House, because this is not a Party question. The Lord Advocate pointed out how few of these Bills would come up, and said there would be little or nothing for the Committee to do. Therefore, we are to set up this Committee in order that it may do nothing! It seems such a novel argument to use. But the right hon. Gentleman is so persistent in his adherence to the proposal in the Bill, that there is nothing left to do—after a few more fervid Scotch Members have discharged their emotion on the subject—but to repeat and, if possible, better the 31 to 13.

SIR MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)

here are two reasons for bringing forward this Bill, to my mind. One is the development of railways to a larger extent than has hitherto been found to be expedient in Scotland; and the other to avoid the great expense of coming up to Parliament to obtain the Acts of Parliament necessary for the making of new railways. I am satisfied, from my own experience, and from what I know of the opinion of Scotland on the subject, that this Bill is weakened and marred by the ninth clause. You cannot develop railways in these districts if you are opposed by the wealthy landowners, and though you may be successful at the local tribunal, you have another tribunal to face at Westminster, and that fact will deter many promoters from endeavouring to extend the railway system. I much regret that the Government have not given way in this matter, as the purpose for which this Bill is wanted is to save expense.

MR. R. WALLACE (Perth)

The hon. Member for Stroud is asking the House to reject this Amendment, upon the ground that it alters entirely the framework of the original Bill, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten that the Bill we are now dealing with is not the Bill which received a Second Reading in this House—it has been entirely altered in its character. This clause was necessary in the original Bill for the purpose of preserving the control of Parliament, because the local inquiry was to be conducted by Commissioners outside of this House. Now, the proposal is that the inquiry is to be conducted by a Joint Committee of the two Houses, which is to go down to Scotland for that purpose. In the original Bill the inquiry was to be held by an outside Committee. Now it is proposed to do a thing which has never been done before, and that is to have an appeal from a Joint Committee of the two Houses sitting in Scotland to a joint Committee of the two Houses sitting in London. That is a great disappointment to Scotland. We believe if that is allowed the Bill will be deprived of its chief recommendation. Instead of cheapening proceedings, this will add to it expense. Money having been spent in Scotland to begin with, this simply drags the promoters up to London to spend more. I earnestly urge, in order that this Bill shall be a great success, and that it may enable the people of Scotland to promote schemes for the benefit of the country, that he will reconsider the determination he has come to and accept this Amendment in some form.

MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

I think we ought to adhere to the provisions of the Bill, because Parliament must have the right ultimately to say whether a Provisional Order shall become law or not. It is only going to be asked to say so in opposed cases. If this Amendment is passed, opposed Orders could only be dealt with on the Report stage or upon Third Reading. On these stages the representatives of the promoters on the one hand, and of the opponents on the other hand, will make statements absolutely contradictory to one another, the relative value of which the House will be totally unable to try; and in cases of that kind the House ought to be able to refer the matter to a Committee upstairs. It may be said that the Joint Committee should have the power of sitting locally. Well, for my part, I do not see that it should necessarily sit at Westminster; but for the purpose of trying cases where the facts are in dispute, I certainly think we ought to have the power of ordering the Committee to hold a second inquiry.

MR. CROMBIE

The difference between the contention of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and the Amendment is infinitesimal. The reason why we Scotch Members wish this clause to be taken out is solely that of expense. That, indeed, is the sole raison d'être of the Bill. There is no objection to the present procedure except on the ground of cost. If it was not for the expense, we should not be here considering this Bill. The paramount argument is that if it is an expensive procedure then it is a wrong one. The whole question is a very small one, and I hope when the Lord Advocate comes to reconsider the matter he will adopt a more conciliatory attitude upon this particular Amendment.

MR. JOHN WILSON (Falkirk Burghs)

Many of us would like to see this Bill carried through, and I, as a supporter of the Government, am sorry to see the Lord Advocate so stiff-necked on this Amendment. I should like to urge upon him the opinion of Scotland with regard to this matter. The whole idea is to save expense, and we are going by this clause to increase the expense. I shall be bound to vote against the Government in this matter, and I believe I am voicing the opinion of many Scotch Unionist Members in supporting this Amendment. If there is to be a local inquiry and a second one at Westminster, the expense will be greater than ever, and I appeal to the Lord Advocate to reconsider his attitude.

MR. J. P. SMITH (Lanark, Partick)

I hope the Government will adhere to the line which they have taken up. The Lord Advocate is on sound ground when he shows how this clause is likely to be used. Our principle has always been to have a chance of appeal, but my hon. friend talks as if it were an appeal from one Committee to another. I cannot see the difference between an appeal to a Joint Committee, and an appeal to a Committee of the House of Lords and Commons. I think the Government are perfectly right in the stand they have taken.

DR. CLARK

I should like to know whether the Government are willing to accept any compromise on this subject.

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

I have gone as far as I can upon the matter, and cannot accept any compromise.

MR. C. M. DOUGLAS (Lanark, N.W.)

I think the argument of the hon. Member for Partick is tantamount to a defence of the present system of Private Bill procedure. What he said in defence of the Amendment is simply that this clause is against the principle of simplicity and economy which this Bill is supposed to advance. It is not as an attack upon the Bill, but as a justification and defence of it, that we desire to omit this clause. What has been said on the subject of Provisional Orders appears to me rather to miss the very point of the purview of this Bill. The Bill is intended to deal with a class of business which is not really identical with that dealt with by Provisional Orders. The proposal in the clause is not in any true sense an appeal. The Amendment really gives an appeal in the same sense as the original clause; in either case you have a possibility of a recommittal, but in the clause as it stands you do not have that which I believe is essential, viz., a tribunal different it in its character from that the decision of which is appealed against.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 114; Noes, 159. (Division List, No. 218.)

AYES.
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)	Harwood, George
Allen, W. (Newc-under-Lyme)	Crombie, John William	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-
Arrol, Sir William	Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.	Dalziel, James Henry	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.
Austin, M.	Davies, M. Vaughan(Card'g'n)	Hobhouse, Henry
Bartley, George C. T.	Davitt, Michael	Hogan, James Francis
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Denny, Colonel	Holland, Wm. H. (York, W.R.
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Dewar, Arthur	Horniman, Frederick John
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Dilke, Rt Hon. Sir Charles	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.
Billson, Alfred	Dillon, John	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Donelan, Captain A.	Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Doogan, P. C.	Joicey, Sir James
Caldwell, James	Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Kearley, Hudson E.
Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Kilbride, Denis
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Evans, S. T. Glamorgan)	Lambert, George
Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton	Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Langley, Batty
Channing, Francis Allston	Flynn, James Christoper	Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)
Clark, Dr. G.B. (Caithness-sh.)	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Leng, Sir John
Clough, Walter Owen	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Lewis, John Herbert
Colvile, John	Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley	Lyell, Sir Leonard
Macaleese, Daniel	Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
MacDonnell, Dr. M.A. (Q'n'sC	Paulton, James Mellor	Tennant, Harold John
M'Ewan, William	Pearson, Sir Weetman D.	Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
M'Killop, James	Pickard, Benjamin	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
M'Laren, Charles Benjamin	Power, Patrick Joseph	Wallace, Robert
M'Leod, John	Price, Robert John	Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe.	Randell, David	Wedderburn, Sir William
Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand	Richards,J.(Durham,S.E.)	Weir, James Galloway
Molloy, Bernard Charles	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)	Williams, John Carvell (Notts)
Moss, Samuel	Robson, William Snowdon)	Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)
Nicol, Donald Ninian	Schwann, Charles E.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Nussey, Thomas Willans	Shaw, Charles Edw.(Stafford)	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)	Wilson, John (Govan)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)	Smith, Samuel (Flint)	Yoxall, James Henry
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Oldroyd, Mark	Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart	Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.	Mr. Munro Ferguson
NOES.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	FitzWygram, General Sir F.	Morgan, H. F. (Monm'thsh.)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Fletcher, Sir Henry	Morrell, George Herbert
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford
Baird, J. George Alexander	Garfit, William	Mount, William George
Balcarres, Lord	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)	Murray, Rt. Hn. A.G. (Bute)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W.(Leeds	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Murray, Chas. J. Coventry)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. J.B. (Clackm.	Gilliat, John Saunders	Newdigate, Francis Alex.
Banbury, Frederick George	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir H. M.(Bristol	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Pollock, Harrick Frederick
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Goschen, Rt Hn GJ (St.George's	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bethell, Commander	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Gretton, John	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Blakiston-Houston, John	Gull, Sir Cameron	Purvis, Robert
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George	Pym, C. Guy
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Brassey, Albert	Heath, James	Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Helder Augustus	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson
Bullard, Sir Harry	Henderson, Alexander	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Butcher, John George	Hill, Arthur (Down, West)	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Carlile, William Walter	Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)	Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenh.)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Howard, Joseph	Rutherford, John
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Bir.)	Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)	Seely, Charles Hilton
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r	Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry	Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton	Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Spencer, Ernest
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready	Jolliffe, Hon. H. George	Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.	Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Kenyon, James	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.	Keswick, William	Stock, James Henry
Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cranborne, Viscount	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Strauss, Arthur
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L.pool)	Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Unic.
Cruddas, William Donaldson	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Valentia, Viscount
Currie, Sir Donald	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Curzon, Viscount	Macartney, W G. Ellison	Welby, Lieut-Col. A. C. E.
Dalkeith, Earl of	Macdona, John Cumming	Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)
Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)	Maclure, Sir John William	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Doughty, George	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh, N.)
Douglas, Et. Hon. A. Akers-	Maple, Sir John Blundell	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)
Doxford, William Theodore	Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath
Drucker, A.	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Ellis, John Edward	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward	Milner, Sir Frederick George	Young, Commander (Berks, E.
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Milton, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Fisher, William Hayes	Monk, Charles James	Sir William Walrond and
Fison, Frederick William	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)	Mr. Anstruther.

Question put and agreed to.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

I had given notice to omit Clause 9, but I shall loyally accept the decision of the House, and not move it.

DR. CLARK

Seeing the result of the last Division, and knowing the feelings of Scotch Members on both sides of the House, perhaps the Lord Advocate will consider the permissive aspect of the case, and give the House the option of either having a second inquiry or referring it back to the Commissioners. The Government might consent to one of two things—either to give the House the option to which I have referred, or, by Statute, to permit the new Joint Committee to sit in Scotland, and by that means carry out the principle of always having a local inquiry.

Amendment proposed— In page 6, line 23, after the word 'orders,' to insert the words, 'and if the petition has already been considered and reported on by a Commission of two Members of each House of Parliament, either House may refer the Bill to the Commissioners.'"—(Dr. Clark.) Question proposed,—" That those words be there inserted."

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

I think I must adhere to the Bill as it is in this respect.

DR. CLARK

As certain Standing Orders have to be drafted, and this point can be dealt with then, I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 6, line 26, to leave out the word agent.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)

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

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

I am willing to consider this point, and, if necessary, alter it afterwards.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments made.

MR. CALDWELL

I desire to move to leave out Sub-section 3. The Lord Advocate claimed that the object of this Bill was to protect the man with the smaller interests. But what would be his position under this Bill in the event of an appeal? The present practice is that, so far as the Committee are concerned, there must be unanimity on the question of awarding costs. If you put in here a clause that the Joint Committee by a majority may award costs, what is to become of the man with the smaller interests? It new mean ruin to him. I can perfectly well understand how the Lord Advocate may wish to discourage appeals, but he cannot have it both ways. He cannot leave in a clause like this and still say his scheme is intended for the benefit of the smaller interests in Scotland. The smaller interests, as a matter of course, would be overborne by the larger, because the larger interests would threaten the smaller that, in the event of their appealing, costs would be awarded against them. If a clause of this kind is put in, the Committee would necessarily consider that they ought to award costs. It would be said "Why did Parliament put the clause in, unless it was an indication that costs were to be awarded?" I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 6, line 36, to leave out Sub-section 3, of Clause 9."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'the Joint Committee,' stand part of the Bill."

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

I really practically dealt with this question in the discussion just over. I am sorry I could not go so far as the hon. Members desired, but certainly part of my argument was based on the provision to give costs, and I cannot possibly accept the Amendment.

SIR CHARLES CAMERON

In the case of a Private Bill Committee, if the Committee are unanimous, costs may be awarded in the event of vexatious and unreasonable opposition. The Lord Advocate proposes to go two steps further. In the first place, he does not require unanimity on the part of the Commissioners, but a majority may award costs; and in the second place, he takes away the safeguard of "vexatious and unreasonable opposition." I am quite certain this section with regard to costs will deter the small objectors from coming forward. My Amendment does not go so far as that now before the House, in that it proposes to allow the Commissioners by a majority to award costs, but safeguards the proposal by requiring that they should be awarded only in the case of unreasonable or vexatious opposition. I shall, however, support the Amendment of my hon. friend.

DR. CLARK

I cannot agree with either of the Amendments of my hon. friends. As the clause stands, it really means that a three-fourths majority will be required. This clause seems to me to be one of the wise clauses in the Bill to prevent corporations who do not care about spending money from coming here and putting the smaller men to great expense. I hope the House will adopt this clause in its present form. If, after the matter has been fully threshed out at a local inquiry, anyone is going to come here and thus double and treble the cost, then they should do so with the fact before them that they may possibly have to pay the whole of the costs.

Other Amendments made.

MR CALDWELL

In the case of county districts, it is generally found that it is not exactly a court of justice but simply a court of inquiry, and therefore it is advisable that these duties should be performed also by a man who occupies the position of a notary public. I hope the Lord Advocate will accept this Amendment, and I move.

Amendment proposed— After the words last inserted, to insert the words, 'any notary public.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

I do not know exactly what are the duties of a notary public, but I have heard that official described as "something a little lower than an agent." A notary public, as a rule, has had no practical experience in courts, and I think it is necessary that we should not have persons who have not had some experience in the conducting of these inquiries.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR CHARLES CAMERON

The object of my Amendment is to bring up this question for review at the end of five years. The whole thing is an experiment, and if it works satisfactorily there is no reason why the Act should not be permanent; but if it should be found unsatisfactory, it should be amended. It is intended, if the measure prove successful, to extend it to other parts of the Kingdom. I beg to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 9, line 34, after the word 'and,' to insert the words, 'shall remain in force until the expiration of five years from the passing thereof, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament. It.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.)

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

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

The hon. Baronet will remember that I could not see my way to accept this Amendment at the Committee stage. We do not intend that this Bill shall be a temporary measure. If there is any reason at any time for an Amendment, there is no reason why an Amending Bill should not be brought in in the ordinary way. I am anxious not to give an incentive to any class of persons to make this measure work badly during the next five years, and therefore I cannot accept this Amendment.

MR. COLVILLE

I think it is very advisable that tins Bill should be tried as an experiment for five years, and therefore I shall support the Amendment.

DR. CLARK

This is an important question, and we have some very important laws carried out in this way. The Irish Coercion Act is still continued in this fashion, and I think you ought to try an experiment of this kind for five or seven years, and then reconsider it. At the end of five years you would not necessarily be compelled to bring in a new Bill to amend it, but the House would then have an opportunity of reconsidering the measure. I think you ought to try this Bill for five years. I know any Member may bring in a Bill to amend, but he cannot always get a chance, and he has to run the risk of the ballot. If this Amendment is accepted, then we shall have an absolute right to reconsider this measure, and compel the Government to place it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which would give us power to bring pressure to bear upon the Government to amend this measure if we should find that it requires it. This Amendment is simply to give the House a chance of discussing the measure at the end of five years.

Question put and negatived.

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

I would suggest that we should take the Third Reaching now.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

So far as I am concerned I have nothing more to say, but I think there are other hon. Members on this side who desire to say something further.

Motion made and Question proposed—"That the Bill be now read the third time."—(The Lord Advocate.)

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

I object to the Third Reading being taken at this hour, and I think I should be in order in moving the adjournment of the debate.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Although I think we might have taken the Third Reading now, as this is an important Bill, I will not now press the motion.

Debate adjourned till Thursday.