COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 12 June 1899)

HC Deb 12 June 1899 vol 72 cc910-89 910

§ Order for Committee read.

§ CAPTAIN SINCLAIR (Forfar)
I rise to move the Resolution which stands in my name, i.e.— That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the scope of the Bill to include the remainder of the United Kingdom. 911 I wish to extend the benefits of this measure beyond the confines of Scotland. I desire that it may apply to the remainder of the United Kingdom. I do not think that this proposal is in any way in conflict with the principle of the Bill, for the Lord Advocate has told us that it can be so extended without any infringement of the principle embodied in it. I do not see anything in the circumstances of Scotland, or in the expression of Scottish opinion, to justify the limitation of such a measure as this to Scotland alone. The Bill confers no distinct enlargement of powers upon Scotland, and does not in any way interfere with the existing procedure in regard to Provisional Orders, but it does propose, practically, to place Scotch Private Bill legislation in the hands of people not connected with Parliament. I think it is exceedingly unfair to lay upon Scotland and Scottish opinion the responsibility for this measure. An attempt has been made to justify the application of this Bill to Scotland alone by pointing out that it is only from that country that a desire for it has come. Moreover, while you are adding nothing to the privileges of Scotland, you are directly taking away, by this Bill, the power of Parliament over legislation of this kind. You are saying that in future, instead of going to Parliament as hitherto for these powers, you must in the first instance go to the Secretary for Scotland. You are going to give no option whatever of making use of the new procedure or of proceeding under the old system. I do think that such option ought to be reserved to the promoters of Scottish Private Bills. You are making a serious change in the present system, and there is no doubt that these local inquiries will involve increased expense. It is, therefore unfair, that the whole responsibility for the change should be thrown upon public opinion in Scotland. The root of my objection to the Bill is its limitation to Scotland. I wish to rebut the claim which has been put forward that the expression of public opinion in Scotland has been sufficient to justify the making of this experiment in that country alone. Of the Scottish local authorities, which number from 200 to 300, there are only about 50 which have expressed any opinion at all on this measure, and I do not think that the expression of opinion at all justifies the proposal of the Government. Further, I 912 would like to point out that the Bill is extremely vague upon the most important and crucial points of its procedure. For instance, there is the question of the tribunal.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! The hon. Member is discussing the merits of the Bill as it applies to Scotland. That point does not arise at present. The question under debate is whether the Bill should be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom.

§ CAPTAIN SINCLAIR
It was not my intention to express any opinion on the merits of the tribunal. I only wanted to remind the House that this very crucial point has not been adequately dealt with. I believe that the Lord Advocate, representing the Government, has put down an Amendment in regard to this.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the Amendment.

§ CAPTAIN SINCLAIR
I am extremely sorry if, through ignorance or ineptitude, I have transgressed your ruling, Sir; I only wished to point out the extremely vague character of the measure. I would ask hon. Members to notice that it places an increased burden on Scotland, while it gives no adequate relief to this country. It substitutes for the machinery which at present exists for dealing with Private Bill legislation a procedure which will be more costly, and which, at the same time, will afford very little relief to this House, to which, of course, the Commission will have to report all business of this kind. The question is whether the machinery you are setting up by this Bill can safely and properly be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom, and, while I am perfectly willing to see a system of devolution carried, I doubt whether this is machinery which can be safely extended. The whole burden of the report of the Joint Committee which thoroughly considered this subject in 1888 was that any scheme which should be brought forward dealing with Private Bill legislation should not be a piecemeal scheme, but should be one general and common in its application to the whole of the United Kingdom. In that way only can we do justice to the various interests of the 913 different parts of the United Kingdom, and give this House that relief which should be not the least of the benefits of any measure of this kind. It is ridiculous to say that in Scotland there is any spontaneous demand for this measure, or any desire to have it as distinct from any other part of the United Kingdom. I have no wish, however, to defeat it. I only ask the House to seriously consider that it is proposing a great change, and I therefore beg to move the Instruction which stands in my name.
Motion made, and Question proposed— That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the scope of the Bill to include the remainder of the United Kingdom."—(Captain Sinclair.)

§ MR. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.)
I desire to second the Instruction. I do so, first, on the ground that the grievance is the same whether in England, in Scotland, or in Ireland. That grievance, I take it, is the expense of the present system, and it is felt just as keenly by municipalities in remote parts of England and Ireland as it is in Scotland. The absence of local inquiry is also as strongly objected to, and the demand for it comes just as strongly from Ireland as it does from Scotland. Therefore, the grievance is the same, and the remedy is the same. My second point is that the bulk of the precedents in recent Parliamentary history have been in favour of general legislation on these matters, and it would not, therefore, be wise to limit to Scotland alone a proposal which should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. In 1883, and again in 1888, when this question was discussed, it was generally agreed that the subject should be treated as one which concerned the whole of the United Kingdom, and it is only since then that Bills have been introduced dealing with Scotland alone. In 1892 the First Lord of the Treasury recognised the fact that the question was one which affected Ireland in an equal degree; and we have even had from the Lord Advocate himself, in the course of the Second Reading Debate on this Bill, a virtual admission of the principle for which I am contending, as he told us he agreed that this was a House of Commons question rather than a Scottish question. Upon the grounds, then, of the similarity of the grievance, and that precedents hitherto have been in the direction of not legislating for Scot- 914 land separately, I strongly urge the Government to agree to extend the provisions of this Bill to the rest of the United Kingdom. If the measure is a bad one, it should not apply to Scotland at all; and if it is a good one, why should not the rest of the kingdom have the benefit of it?

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
I think that both the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Instruction and the hon. Member who seconded it will recognise that I have always been very much in sympathy with a great many of the remarks which they have made, and I quite look forward to the time when it will be found that the procedure initiated by this Bill will have met with so much success in Scotland as to justify its adoption by the rest of the United Kingdom. As I said in my speech on the Second Reading, we have been careful to so cast the Bill as to enable us afterwards without difficulty to adapt its procedure to other parts of the kingdom. There is a very high authority for the proposition that there is a time for all things; but I do not think the time has yet arrived for extending this Bill as proposed by this Instruction. I do not know any course by which the Bill could be more effectively wrecked than by the passing of this Instruction. The idea of some reform of Private Bill procedure has long been in the forefront of discussion in Scotland; it has there occupied a practical position which it has not occupied in other parts of the United Kingdom. Perhaps I should make some little exception on behalf of Wales. But this I may say: the mind of the English people is not familiarised with the proposals contained in the Bill, and until that comes to pass I think hon. Members must be content to take what is admittedly to a certain extent an experiment in Scotland alone. That country is ready for this Bill, and I do not think that that can be said of any other part of the United Kingdom. I hope the two hon. Members, after the Bill has proved to be a success, will have the satisfaction of saying that Scotland has been the pioneer in this matter.

§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)
The right hon. Gentleman thinks apparently he is paying a compliment to Scotland by his action in this matter, when he declares that this is 915 an experiment to be tried in Scotland for the benefit of the other portions of the United Kingdom. Whether it is called doing things piece by piece or is regarded as the insertion of the thin end of the wedge, at all events the proposals of the Government as embodied in the Bill are open to the observation that, on a matter which is common to the three kingdoms, one part has been selected for the experiment, and for no very obvious reason. The subject is a very large one, and ought not to he dealt with in a Bill exclusively relating to any particular part of the United Kingdom. There is, I think, from that point of view, some force in what my hon. friends have urged. But, while I have a great deal of sympathy with what they have said, I confess that I do not see that their arguments, after all, very strongly support the Instruction which we are discussing. The Motion before us is to extend the operation of this Bill to the rest of the United Kingdom. If my hon. friend had made the speech he has just delivered on the Motion for the Second Reading, and if he had then suggested that no Bill would be satisfactory which did not apply to all three parts of the United Kingdom, I could have understood his position. But he now desires to extend the operation of a Bill which he does not like to the rest of the United Kingdom, and although he and his colleagues may be quite justified in pointing out the disadvantages of the methods which the Government have chosen to adopt, I hardly think that they have made out a strong case for this Motion. No doubt there has been a strong desire in Scotland for action in this direction, but the difficulty has been as to the machinery to be decided upon. There are certain classes of people in Scotland who have acclaimed each of the successive Bills as almost the work of superhuman wisdom, and they have loudly denounced all those who have thought it necessary to point out the least fault. As to this particular Bill, let us hope that in the course of the discussion we may improve it and bring it into harmony with our desires to a greater extent than it is now. If we do so, ultimately we may extend the same system to the rest of the country. I am not at all sure that it is capable of that extension. There is another point, which is that in choosing Scotland as the field of experiment the Government have chosen the very quarter 916 where there is less of this sort of business than elsewhere. The amount of this sort of legislation in Scotland is very small as compared with England, and in that respect this Bill can hardly be a very conclusive experiment. I notice that in the Convention of Royal Burghs, which have always been strong advocates of this new system of legislation, the best that has been said of it is that it would he well to take it with its faults, that it may be amended, and that at least we shall be able to see how it will work. That is not very inspiring, I should imagine, for the supporters of the Bill. I can only express the hope that my hon. friend will allow us to get into Committee on the Bill in order that we may make the best measure we possibly can of it.

§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy)
I confess I cannot understand why this Bill has been brought forward at all, and I am sure that if it had been intended to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom it would not have had a ghost of a chance. Still, I am glad it has been brought forward. But I am also glad that it does not apply to other parts of the United Kingdom. The principle of the Bill is good, and all Home Rulers are really in favour of it, because it embodies the principle of decentralisation. Our whole case in Scotland in regard to such questions as Local Veto, the land question, and other matters in which we are interested is that we should be dealt with separately, and therefore our position ought to be "a separate Bill for Scotland." If we can make the Bill good enough to be extended to the other parts of the United Kingdom, that is their business and not ours. There is good enough in the Bill to induce us to support the Government at the present stage, but when we get into Committee let us all do our best to harmonise the Bill according to our views.

MR. D.LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon)
As a Member for a Welsh constituency, I must oppose this Instruction. This boon which it is sought to confer on the other nationalities of the United Kingdom is a boon for which they are not exceedingly eager, and there has been no expression of opinion in favour of it. The only argument in favour of the In- 917 struction that I have heard of is that the Bill is such a very bad one that Scotland ought not to have a monopoly of its disadvantages, and that the other nationalities ought to take their share of the burden. I quite agree that it is a thoroughly bad Bill, and it is amazing to me how any Scotchmen can possibly support it. That, however, is a matter for Scotch Members themselves, and I would not have entered on the discussion had it not been for the suggestion that the Bill should be extended to Wales. I do not want this Bill to be extended to Wales, and I am sure there is not a parish council in the whole of Wales which would pass a resolution in support of it. I admit that there is a very crying grievance. The expense of Provisional Orders for water, gas, piers, &c., amount to several hundreds of pounds. The tariff is practically prohibitive. But that is not peculiarly a Scotch grievance; it is a grievance that we want to redress in the House of Commons. Something has been said by the Lord Advocate in regard to the fact that the principle is good, and that there was as great a grievance in Wales to which the principle might at some future date be applied. There are a larger number of Private Bills and Provisional Orders from Wales this session than from the whole of Scotland; but I do not think there is a single Welsh Member who has suggested that this is the way to deal with the grievance. There are two alternative plans for dealing with this question. The one is to constitute some sort of judicial tribunal. Well, that is a plan which would commend it-self undoubtedly to several Members of the House, and there is a great deal to be said for it, for many of the questions to be decided in Provisional Orders are purely judicial. The alternative plan is to refer the matter to a democratic tribunal. But this Bill is neither the one thing nor the other; it is a sort of mongrel half-breed measure. For my part, I cannot see how the Scotch Members can bring themselves to support the Bill; but I venture to say that if the Instruction is carried the only result will be that every Welsh Member will devote the whole of his spare time to drawing up Amendments to the Bill in order to obstruct its passing through the House.
Question put, and negatived.
918 Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1:—

§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
My object in moving the omission of the words "public authority or," in line 6 of page 1, is really to get some kind of definition of the words "public authority." I do not know whether "public authority" has been already defined; but it certainly has not been defined in the Bill itself, and I should be surprised to find it defined in the Interpretation Act. I would remind the Lord Advocate that there is this special reason for great care being taken on this point—namely, that by this Bill we are going to set up a subordinate legislative authority, whose decrees or orders are to have the effect of an Act of Parliament, but only if they have complied absolutely with the conditions laid down by the Bill. An order of theirs would be in the same position—a position that does not apply to anything in our present system—as an Act passed by a State Legislature stands to the Supreme Court of the United States. It might turn out after the lapse of ten or a dozen years that it was no statute at all because it did not comply with the conditions of the original Act. It might, in fact, prove to be absolutely ultra vires. For that reason, at this stage, we should be particularly careful that we are not laying down words which may upset what people have been taught to believe is, in effect, though not form, a statutory law. Therefore I ask the Lord Advocate what it is he holds is meant by "public authority," and whether there are not other words which would more fully express the meaning. I have been asked, for instance, if a railway company is a public authority. I do not know whether it is meant to be included in "public authority or persons." "Person" would be included under the Interpretation Act, because railway companies under that Act are incorporations, and "person" includes incorporations. "Person," as I understand it, is either natural or artificial, and an artificial "person" is an incorporation. But all other groups of human beings who are not incorporated are simply collections of individuals. The words "public authority" would appear to he surplusage, and I would suggest that it would be better to strike them out altogether. I beg to move. 919 Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 6, to leave out 'public authority or.'"—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Question proposed— That the words 'public authority or' stand part of the clause.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
I was a little bit puzzled in reading the Amendment of the hon. Member to know whether it was really a drafting Amendment or whether he wanted to raise a substantial question as to whether the Bill should or should not apply to any public authority. I now find that it is a drafting Amendment, and so viewing it I am somewhat indifferent on the matter. I think the word "person," in the singular, would be sufficient, because, with the aid of the Interpretation Act, either in its natural sense or as relating to a body corporate or incorporate, it would include every body. The object of the hon. Gentleman is that this Bill should apply to every body that has been hitherto, and is at present, able to apply to Parliament for leave to introduce a Private Bill.

§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
That is everybody.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
Yes, that is everybody. The reason why the draftsman put "public authority or" into the Bill was that, as the hon. Member is aware, there has been a familiar cry against legislation by reference to other Acts as to what is intended, and the man in the street reading the word "person" might think for a moment that it did not include "public authority." Therefore it was more by way of indication than definition that the words "public authority" were included. The words, however, are not really necessary, as the word "person," in the singular, would cover everything desired. On the other hand, for the convenience of the ordinary individual the words "public authority or" would probably be more intelligible, and therefore the Bill has been framed in that way. If, however, there is a strong objection against them, I am perfectly willing that the words "public authority or" should go out.

§ MR. CRIPPS (Gloucester, Stroud)
I doubt very much whether the word "person" includes a body corporate in the sense of a local authority.

920

§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
It has been pointed out to me that there may be unfortunate entities who are neither "public authorities" under the Act nor "persons." For instance, there are Water Commissioners and River Navigation authorities. The Clyde Trustees is a large case, but there was also the Board of Navigation of the Forth, and after that large body ceased to exist there was at Alloa a Board of Navigation for the area between Stirling and Alloa. It has been pointed out to me that it is doubtful whether that body is a "public authority" in the proper sense of the term.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
The 19th Section of the Interpretation Act states that in every Act passed after that Act the expression "person" includes any body or person corporate or incorporate; and, so far as I know, there is no body which is not corporate or incorporate.

§ DR. CLARK.
I trust the hon. Member for Dundee will not press this Amendment, because if it is carried it will prevent the discussion of my Amendment, which is to omit the words "or persons," in order to limit the Bill to public authorities only. If we are to introduce a system of this kind tentatively, I think we ought to begin with the public authorities.

§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
The hon. Member asks me not to press my Amendment, in order that he may have an opportunity of moving his Amendment. I will not therefore proceed with it further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. CRIPPS
I beg to move— After 'authority' in page 1, line 6, to insert 'other than a public authority seeking powers inconsistent with, or in addition to, the general law.' The Amendment is a very important one, and I trust the First Lord of the Treasury and the Lord Advocate will consider it. As the Bill stands, any matter which can now be dealt with by Private Bill legislation comes under its provisions. What I propose is to prevent matters which are inconsistent with or an addition to the general law being dealt with. It is very important that this House should not delegate to any subordinate authority 921 whatever the power of making any alteration in the general law. The matters which it is proposed to delegate include many important topics. During the recent discussions on the London Government Bill very many important questions were raised, and there is not one of them which could not be dealt with under this Bill. For instance, the criminal law might be altered as regards any municipality without this House being able to decide one way or the other. It is a very important matter that this House should not give up its power to legislate to any other tribunal. The House has taken extra care in this direction in connection with sanitary matters, and appointed the Police and Sanitary Committee to report if any provision were introduced into a private Bill inconsistent with or extending the existing law. Then, again, with reference to franchise, proposed alterations might be relegated under the Bill to a Department—in this instance the Secretary of State for Scotland for the time being—and the same applies to difficulties that might arise between public interests on one side and private property on the other. Let me go further. Surely the Committee ought not to pass this clause in its present indefinite and indeterminate form. Let us ask ourselves if we intend to give an outside tribunal power to alter the general law. If we do not, we ought to make it clear now. We ought to say that it is inconsistent with our privileges and duties to delegate any such power to any such tribunal. What is the character of this proposed tribunal? Practically, as far as this House is concerned, it means the Secretary of State for Scotland. Of course, I am aware that the Chairmen of Committees have the power to decide whether a particular matter ought to he reserved, but that is no reason why we should delegate those powers to an outside tribunal. There are various matters connected with Private Bill legislation on which this House has more than once expressed its difference of opinion from that of the Chairmen. As this Bill stands many questions arising on unopposed Bills might be decided by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and by no one else, and his fiat would have the power of an Act of Parliament. Are we going to allow the criminal law to be altered in that way, or questions of fran- 922 chise and sanitary and rating questions? If not, then of course my Amendment ought to be accepted. Surely this House ought to distinguish carefully between judicial, administrative, and legislative questions. The proper duty of outside tribunals is administrative, and, although certain judicial and legislative work may incidentally be conferred upon them, they are not proper bodies for purely judicial business, and a great deal of Private Bill business is judicial. As far as legislation is concerned, we ought to keep that power in our own hands with reference to what may be extremely important points of principle. When this Bill was discussed on the Second Reading there was an opinion expressed on both sides of the House that the area within which we intended to delegate our legislative powers ought to be most clearly defined. But there is no definition in the Bill, and it seems to me to be one of the worst instances of the House not taking the care and trouble to find out what it intends to do, but simply leaving it to the Chairmen or to the outside tribunals to define for themselves instead of taking the definition from us. As to the question of devolution generally, I have always been in favour of proper devolution, don, and I have been misinterpreted more than once when it was said that I was in favour of the present system and opposed to any reform at all. It is, however, to my mind, a question of great importance whether this House should give up its privileges and decline to carry out its duties. Many important principles have been introduced in connection with Private Bill legislation. For the Amendment which I now move I ask the support of all who think that we ought to keep our legislative authority in our own hands, or clearly define what we intend to delegate to any outside authority.
Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 6, after 'authority,' to insert the words, 'other than a public authority seeking powers inconsistent with, or in addition to, the general law."—(Mr. Cripps.) Question proposed— That those words be there inserted.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
I think the hon. Member must feel that I cannot accept this Amendment. The practical reason against it has been very well put 923 forward by the hon. Member for Dundee. If there were cases where something was proposed to be done absolutely different from the existing law, then the Chairman would say that they were matters which could not be determined by the tribunal, and that they should be reserved for consideration. But under the hon. Member's proposal, where the whole thing had been gone into and passed, an action might be raised in a court of law, and it might be contended that the Provisional Order was not worth the paper on which it was written because it ought not to have gone before the tribunal at all. That is, I think, a very practical objection. We are really not touching the privileges of Parliament at all in this matter. The hon. Member will remember that if a Bill is opposed the parties can come up here and have the matter submitted to the Chairmen of Committees of the two Houses. What is the security at the present moment that something totally inconsistent with the general law is not introduced into a Private Bill?

§ MR. CRIPPS
The Police and Sanitary Committee was instituted for that very purpose.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
The Police and Sanitary Committee has nothing to do with opposed Bills unless it is discovered that they contain something inconsistent with the existing law. The Police and Sanitary Committee has no say in the matter at all, although if they had they would have taken the same view as the Scotch Office has taken. So far as this Bill is concerned, there is the same position upon the Report of the Government Department as there is in unopposed Bills. For all practical purposes I do not see any difference between the system to be set up by this measure, as to unopposed Bills, and the present system. I believe there is a proper check in this matter. I am not in favour of a subordinate tribunal introducing any matter inconsistent with Parliamentary procedure in unopposed measures, and I think we are safeguarded against any such contingency.

§ MR. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid.)
There is one important safeguard which is entirely overlooked. If any unopposed Bill comes before this House, there are the Second and Third Reading stages, and I 924 have known Bills to be rejected which were practically unopposed because attention has been called by hon. Members to some important principle contained in them. What would be the effect of this measure? The Secretary for Scotland might pass a Provisional Order which would have the full effect of an Act of Parliament; it would never come before this House at all, and there would be no opportunity to call attention to its provisions. You make no provision whatever as to the Orders and central Instructions which are to have the effect of an Act of Parliament. You make no provision to have them laid upon the Table of this House, even after Twelve o'clock. You give all the power to the Secretary for Scotland, and there is nothing to prevent him passing Bills of the most drastic character. That is the difference between this procedure and the present system of dealing with Private Bills which are unopposed.

§ MR. J. P. SMITH
The formal objection which the Lord Advocate raises to this Amendment is entirely without grounds. There are many things which ought not to be done at all here, among others the handing over of the duty of overlooking these measures to an outside authority, without having the safeguard of the general observation of Parliament upon them. The duty of the Chairmen of Committees and the Speakers' Counsel is to look through each Bill and see in what points it may alter the general law, and to bring such matters before the Unopposed Committee, who have to say whether that Bill shall come before the House or not. This House is extremely jealous of parting with these duties and relegating these matters to an outside tribunal. We have been extravagantly jealous of giving any fresh power, and now it appears to me that we are going to put all this power into the hands of the Secretary for Scotland. I think we ought to specifically and in terms reserve to ourselves the right to overlook these measures.

§ MR. CRIPPS
I would just like to say one or two words in respect of what was said by the Lord Advocate, because he appears to have failed to appreciate my argument. There is no question but that this House of Parliament does exercise some power over unopposed Bills. It is constantly exercised, and 925 what I desire is that this House should keep that control, not in isolated cases, but in every case. If this Bill passes, these matters will be taken away from the cognisance of the House and put under the control of an outside tribunal, and the machinery will be administered by some outside court. Do not let it it be thought that you can give up by degrees your legislative authority without the power and prestige of this House suffering; that prestige is based on our having this authority, on our keeping our privileges, and exercising the duties which are entrusted to us. The most important authority entrusted to this House is undoubtedly legislative, and I suggest that the Lord Advocate or the First Lord of the Treasury should see that at a future stage of the Bill there should be some decision in order to show that we are not parting with our legislative authority on matters of general law. I cannot help thinking—though I do not wish to be disrespectful to the Lord Advocate—that the Committee will be led unconsciously astray if they allow the Bill to be passed in its present form, and give up their legislative authority on a most important point.

§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
I think the argument of my hon. and learned friend who has just sat down is a very strong justification for the position which some of us have assumed with regard to this matter, viz., that the House of Commons must not loosen its grip over Private Bill legislation, whether it be opposed or unopposed. It is obvious from the conversation which has passed that the danger is of substantial changes in legislation being introduced, perhaps unwittingly or in an underground manner, without the knowledge or assent of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the necessity of our doing something to maintain the prestige of Parliament. I do not care so much about the prestige of Parliament as the actual efficiency of Parliament in doing the work it is appointed to perform. Then, when I come to the words of the Amendment of my hon. friend the Member for Caithness, I think there is a good deal of force in what I understood the Lord Advocate to say, viz., that if you do insert these words it would give rise to any amount of wrangling and litigation afterwards on questions 926 as to whether this power is or is not inconsistent with, or in addition to, the general law. It seems to me to be almost impossible to find any definite words to convey what we mean, because there are always loopholes for different views to be taken of what is to be done. The only protection we can have is, while maintaining all the other machinery, to reserve to the House of Commons, which peculiarly represents the general interests of the community, its legislative authority in these matters.

§ *MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)
It seems to me that the object my hon. and learned friend seeks to attain, would be best attained at a later stage of the Bill, when we proceed to the task of defining what are to be the powers of the Chairman of both Houses in respect of these matters. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate certainly surprised me—and I think some other Members of the House—when he described the present procedure as regards Bills containing proposals in excess of the general law, because the Sessional Order under which the Police and Sanitary Committee exists distinctly says that these Bills shall be committed to a special Committee if certain proposals exist in those Bills, and that independently of the existence or non-existence of opposition. We ought to be very careful that we do nothing whereby we sacrifice Parliamentary control.

§ MR. URE (Linlithgow)
It appears to me that the Amendment is open to three objections, one of which, at all events, seems to be fatal. In the first place, if it is carried, then public authorities will be precluded from taking advantage of the new procedure whenever the powers they seek are said to be in any particular inconsistent with the general law. But "persons" would not be so fettered. The proposed limitation would obviously not apply to "persons" at all. As the Amendment stands this would be the inevitable result; and therefore I am glad the Lord Advocate refused to give effect to an Amendment which would at least be an absurdity. In the second place, the hon. Member does not say what tribunal is to determine whether or not the powers sought are inconsistent with the general law. And this would result, possibly, in resort being made to a court 927 of law to set aside an order after all the trouble and expense of securing it had been incurred. In the third place, the result of accepting the Amendment would be to shut out from the new procedure any Order, however important and extensive in its operation, if, in the opinion of some tribunal unnamed, it proposed, it may be in some small particular quite subordinate to its main purpose, to innovate upon the established law. Obviously, therefore, if the Bill is to be a really useful and valuable measure, the Amendment must be rejected.

§ MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, N.)
I should like to warn the House against allowing any Committee to pass a Bill without reference to this House, because I am quite convinced that unless a particular clause in a Bill is opposed neither the Chairman of Committee nor the Members take the trouble to go into it at all. As I understand it, this Committee, consisting of Scotch Members, will pass these matters—and very important matters, too, to Scotland—and there will be no opportunity for this house to assert its legislative independence whatever. I hope, therefore, the Lord Advocate will provide an opportunity for bringing any Bill, whatever it may be, back to this House subsequently, so that if any alteration should be required the House may have an opportunity of making the necessary amendment. I think myself that it is a great change in our procedure to take away the legislative power of this House. I admit that there are many matters that might be satisfactorily conducted by Committees, but at the same time I do not like this House to lose touch of legislation altogether; and if the Lord Advocate can see his way to put in some Amendment that will bring the Bills back to this House, so that the House may have an opportunity of amending them where necessary, I think it would be well to introduce such an Amendment.

§ MR. CRIPPS
If the Lord Advocate will give the Committee an assurance that it is the intention of the Government to preserve as an ultimate resource the authority of this House when the general law is being altered, whether opposed or unopposed, I will at once withdraw the Amendment. If neither the Lord Advocate nor the First Lord of the Treasury will give us that assurance, I shall be 928 bound to go to a Division, because I think the principle involved is one of great importance.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)
I hope my hon. friend will not go to a Division. I agree that the matter is one of importance, but the method proposed by the hon. Gentleman is the very worst way to deal with it. Even those who most sympathise with the hon. Member must admit that he has raised the question in the wrong way and the wrong place. The matter must come up again on the second clause, and certainly the Government will be disposed to put in words to make it perfectly clear that one of the things which the Chairmen will have to do will be to see that if any new principle is raised that principle is referred to the House. Nobody is committed neither my learned friend nor anybody else, by the withdrawal of the Amendment, but if the House or the Committee is eager to come to a decision that decision should be upon the second clause rather than upon the first.

§ MR. CRIPPS
After what the First Lord of the Treasury has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ DR. CLARKE
I now move an Amendment to limit the subjects to be handed over to this Committee to the class of people who desire to have them so handed over, so that the Bill will not apply to those who are strongly opposed to it. According to the last Return, from 1887 to 1897, 297 Bills came before the House from Scotland, practically 30 per year. Of those, 92, or about one-third, were railway Bills, 57 were from insurance, tramway, water, and various other companies, Church funds, universities, and charities; 147 of the Bills came from local authorities, and local authorities have long been anxious to have local inquiries. They think local inquiries will be less expensive than inquiries held in London. I, for one, would be very glad to see this experiment again tried. It was tried forty years ago, and was a failure; and I am afraid that unless you modify your plans you will try it again and have another failure, because you will have local inquiries and local costs, and 929 then you will have another fight and more costs here. Under these circumstances, why not permit the people who desire this change to have it? During ten years town councils and local authorities applied for 70 Bills; railway, docks, and similar companies, for 20; and the conforming Provisional Orders issued under various Acts were 15. Nearly all these were from local authorities, and if this Amendment were adopted you could begin the system by giving it to the people who are very anxious to have it and try it tentatively. Railway companies do not desire it; they think the inquiry here is much cheaper and more desirable than local inquiry; but people complain that town councillors, baillies, and provosts come up here as deputations at large cost when they are not required. For the last 20 years the agitation has been going on in Scotland to have local inquiry by local authorities for their purposes. The principle has been already adopted to a very large extent in three or four Acts which we have passed in the last ten years, in which sheriffs in Scotland have been empowered to do what previously was done only by this House. The principle of local inquiry is carried out more in Scotland than in England, and I do not at all object to its being carried out as far as possible, except that you must not, by giving these powers, change the law, unless with the sanction of this House. When you are beginning a great change of this kind, why not do it in conservative fashion—bit by bit—and then, if it he successful, and the railway and other companies discover that, after all, local inquiries are as efficient as and cheaper than the present system, it can be extended. When you are beginning such a system of devolution, you ought to begin with those who ask it, and not thrust it upon those who are opposed to it. I have never read any evidence that anyone except the local authorities desire the change, and if the Lord Advocate or the Government have such evidence I would be very glad to hear it. There was no such evidence brought before the Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons in 1888. The Lord Advocate has said that very often upstairs in our Committees the local people are wiped out, and are not considered. That is a reflection on the Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and I am not 930 at all certain that your new Committees will consider them more. The way in which Committees of both Houses have heard, not only witnesses, but also counsel, has been the wonder of all who have knowledge of it. I hope the Lord Advocate will accept this Amendment, and confine the Bill to the class of people who are desirous of having it. There is a further point to consider. The local authorities ask for Orders, not for private gain, but for public purposes; while all the other people that go for Orders do not want them for public purposes, but for private gain. Speculators in Scotland ought not to he placed in a different position from speculators in England, Wales, and Ireland. For public bodies who come for powers for public purposes which all can enjoy we ought to make the procedure as easy and as cheap as possible, but Concessions and privileges should not be given to monopolists for private gain. A future Amendment will compel the Lord Advocate to have all these Orders made him laid on the Table, and then we will be able to raise any question upon Orders which for any reason may not be satisfactory. This Amendment is merely to limit the Bill to the class of people who desire it, and I beg to move it.
Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 6, to leave out 'or persons."—(Dr. Clark.) Question proposed— That the words 'or person' stand part of the clause.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
One great object of this Bill, as we very well know, is to cheapen Parliamentary procedure, but it is said it will cheapen it for persons who are well able to pay. No doubt there are persons who would like to go for a Private Bill, but are deterred by the expense in one year, and they do not come forward for several years afterwards. The Amendment would greatly limit the application of the Bill, and although, no doubt, roughly speaking, public bodies more than private individuals would take advantage of this procedure, yet there is really no reason for leaving private individuals out. Therefore I think the clause should stand as it is.

931

§ DR. CLARK
I do not know much about the financial portion of the Bill, but I can see nothing in the Resolution which we have passed in the Committee to-day which will permit you to change unless ridiculous fees are being charged. Perhaps this will come up in another Amendment to make it permissive. I shall be very glad to further debate the matter then, so that perhaps it would be better to withdraw my Amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. CRIPPS
There are only two points I need mention in moving this Amendment, to insert "other than railway companies." As far as railway companies are concerned, they desire convenience of procedure and cheapness. As regards the Light Railway Commissioners, as far as the schemes are small ones there is provision already made for dealing with them.
Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 6, after 'persons,' to insert 'other than railway companies.'"—(Mr. Cripps.) Question proposed— That those words be there inserted.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
This matter has very often been debated before. I certainly object to deal with railway companies as privileged bodies. There are plenty of representatives in this House who are fully aware of the merits of railway companies, and I have no doubt railway companies are quite certain of not being done any injustice. Railway questions are so far-reaching that I can scarcely conceive a railway Bill which would not, in the judgment of the Chairman, be more appropriate for a Private Bill than for this procedure. But, at the same time, there might be Bills of such a simple character that no big interests are involved, and such might go forward. I prefer to leave the Bill as it is, feeling quite certain that these questions of railway policy would never be sent down by these Committees, but would be dealt with by the House, as they ought to be.

§ MR. CALDWELL
The case of railways is provided for in two different ways. 932 You have got certain important concessions as regards the management of the railway with reference to signals and other things, and with regard to the purchase of land, and I cannot conceive of any persons in Scotland who are anxious to promote a local railway not adopting the Light Railways Act procedure in order to construct a local line. When you come to deal with any railway, every other railway company at once feels interested in any possible extension, for they see in it the thin end of the wedge for increased competition. On these grounds, seeing that the whole consensus of opinion is entirely against including these railway schemes, and that no good object would be served, I think they should be excluded from this Bill during its experimental stage. If you find afterwards your system works well, arrangements can then be made to include these railway schemes; but whilst things are in this experimental stage, and looking to the views which have been expressed on both sides of the House, I think we might fairly exclude them for the present.

§ *MR. RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.)
Following the remarks made by the Lord Advocate, it seems to me that he admits that very few railway Bills will ever be dealt with under this Bill and by the new system; but as the new system will apply to all these Bills in their earlier stages, at all events the promoters will have to go through the conditions laid down by this Bill, and they will certainly be affected to that extent. Their notices and all matters of that kind will be affected, and it will really make a change in regard to the manner in which the railway companies have to deal with the questions they wish to bring before Parliament. I remember the evidence which you, Mr. Lowther, and the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords gave in Committee on Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill, 1898. I do not remember what the precise number of Scotch Bills was, but I think it was something like 22, and in all the railway cases both Chairmen agreed that they would have to be dealt with by Parliament and not by the Commission. In answer to a question by myself, you, Mr. Lowther, gave the following evidence. Here is the question and answer:— (643.) I suppose you are actuated in that decision to some extent by the fact that it is 933 exceedingly desirable that the railway questions should be dealt with on the same lines all over the United Kingdom?—Yes, partly that, and also because of the magnitude of these railways. I do not say that our decision would be the same in the case of a small railway asking for power to construct a small piece of line; but here we have the Caledonian, the Glasgow and South-Western, the Great North of Scotland, and the North British, three of whom run into England, and have stations in England, and have enormous connections and lines which are worked by them, and running powers over other lines and so forth, and therefore all sorts of interests are or may be affected in connection with those Bills, which I thought could be better dealt with here than they could be at a local inquiry. The right. hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin also put the following question to the Earl of Morley, the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords— (1368.) So that the proposed system under this Bill, you think, could not be applied to railways with any security?-No. I would almost suggest (but it is not a suggestion I make with absolute confidence) whether all railways might not be taken out of the Bill. I should not have made that suggestion if the Light Railways Act was not in operation. But, putting it only as a suggestion, would it not be sufficient to allow the smaller branches to be dealt with, if the promoters like, under the Light Railways Act, and take all the railways out of the Bill? Those were the views expressed by the two Chairmen in regard to this matter, and I think, from the point of view of simplifying procedure and of making it easier for those who are promoting Bills in regard to railway matters, and who have now two courses open to them—either to come under the Light Railways or come directly to this House—I think it is desirable that these railways should be excluded. I should certainly welcome the exclusion of railway Bills from the provisions of the Bill which we are now considering, because I do not believe that railway legislation ought to be dealt with separately, but ought to be dealt with as a whole and not simply as it affects the various parts of the United Kingdom. The conditions in regard to railway Bills ought to be the same for England, Ireland, and Scotland, and if a separate Commission deals with questions with regard to the working of our big railways in Scotland, I think difficulties might arise in regard to their operations with English companies which would be very undesirable, and would not be in the public interest.

934

§ MR. ROBERT WALLACE (Perth)
I wish to join with other hon. Members in supporting the system recommended by the Government, and I should regret exceedingly to see the operation of the Bill cut down in any way. The first clause is quite general, and it deals with all public authorities and all kinds of subjects. If any limitation be necessary, let us have such limitation placed upon the second clause, and leave the first clause in its present form, so that either the authority or a private person may apply for this order. If you wish to have this qualified in some way, you have the opportunity to do it upon the second clause, when you set out the conditions upon which the Chairmen are to refuse to make these Orders. Why are the railway companies to be placed in any exceptional circumstances in regard to other companies or persons? If a railway company wish to pass some small measure and avoid the expense of coming to this House, why are they not to be allowed to take advantage of a Bill like this and obtain their Order in that way? I quite agree that, as a general rule, railway Bills will not come under the operation of this measure, because they are generally of such a magnitude that they will require to be dealt with by a Private Bill, and not by a Provisional Order; but there is a clause which protects and safeguards the interests of the railway companies, and I see no necessity in this clause for cutting down its operation, and I trust that the Government will stand by the clause as it is.

§ MR. CRIPPS
In moving this Amendment my view was that this House ought to keep its control over these matters. There are a great many matters affecting the public interest in regard to railway Bills which ought not to be taken away from the cognisance of this House. As has been pointed out, and as has been given in evidence before the Committee, nearly all these railway Bills affect not only Scotland, but also England. But, quite outside that, I would not allow any railway company to take these Bills without the control of this House. If you once allow this power to go outside of this House, we shall have no effective control as regards railway companies. What has this House done in this respect for the last 40 or 50 years? Why, it has had a contest with these railway companies, and the result has been 935 that the House has put into railway Bills a large number of provisions in the public interest, and I want to preserve that power as against the railway companies, and I do not want them to have the power to go to the Secretary for Scotland or anyone else and ask him to give his consent to these schemes. When these concessions, which are of great value, are required the companies ought to be under an obligation to come to this House. Let ale deal with the matter mentioned by the Lord Advocate. He asks, "Why do you want this, because, under any circumstances, these railway Bills will all be sent to this House?" If that is so, all we desire to do by this proposal is to make sure that our wishes are carried out. I believe a vast majority of the Members of this House are of the opinion that each railway Bill ought to be kept under our control. We ought to make that certain by legislation, but if you pass this Bill in its present form you have no further control. Under this Bill the Chairmen or the Secretary for Scotland might pass all these Bills without the slightest control by this House, and such measures might introduce new principles as regards the rates to be charged to any particular trade, and this House would have no power to deal with the matter at all. If the Committee is of opinion that these railway matters ought to come before the House, then the Amendment which I propose ought to be adopted.

§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)
I think the persons who are brought here by the railway companies are those whom we have most of all to consider. The railway companies are able to bear the cost of coming to Parliament, but the people for whom we desire to cheapen this procedure are those persons who are compelled to come to Parliament to protect their own rights and interests when they are threatened by a railway company, and they are put to great expense in consequence. As regards many of the other arguments of the hon. Member for Stroud, they apply equally to other bodies as well as to railway companies. It is quite true that we part with some of our control, but the House has affirmed by the Second Reading of the Bill that it is agreeable to part with that control. I should say that upon the balance of the evidence upon the whole matter it is perfectly clear that all important railway Bills must be 936 sent here under the second clause of this Bill, and it is also clear that light railways will be obtained from the Light Railways Commissioners. Consequently there remains only a comparatively small number of cases, such as questions of small extensions of a railway system, which, if desirable, might be dealt with under this Bill. Therefore, the balance of argument appears to me to be in favour of the contention of the Lord Advocate.

§ MR. CALDWELL
It should he borne in mind that, as regards large railway Bills, everyone knows perfectly well that they must come before this House. I think it is a very unfortunate thing that the notices awl advertisements provided by the Standing Orders are no longer to apply to a single railway Bill in Scotland, no matter how important, although that Bill must in the nature of things come before this House. Every Bill, however important, must go through this procedure and must have its notices and advertisements, and if you adopt the Amendment you avoid all that complication as to notices and advertisements between the procedure under the Bill and proceeding under the Standing Orders of the House. You are establishing a new precedent which is simply to be an experiment, but I think that every railway company, whether in Scotland, England, or Ireland, ought to be under the same law with regard to notices and advertisements, and the procedure ought to be uniform in all cases.

§ *MR. HEDDERWICK (Wick Burghs)
Upon this subject I find myself in agreement with my hon. friend the Member for Perth. It seems to me that a great deal of fuss is being made about a comparatively small matter. I do not deny that this Bill contains principles of great magnitude; but the operation of the measure will be very limited indeed. I do not suppose that there will be probably more than some 20 Bills affected if this measure be carried out in its entirety. I will state my views upon this point with extreme brevity. In my opinion, so long as an innovation upon the general law is guarded against, I see no reason why Bills of the character objected to by the hon. Member for Stroud should not be referred to the tribunal which is about to be set up by this Bill, always assuming that that tribunal is composed of a panel 937 which has the confidence of this House. That is my opinion, and I hope that the Lord Advocate will resist this Amendment, and any other Amendment of a similar character which proposes to cut down the scope of this Bill. The people of Scotland know very well how to manage their own affairs; and, if I may say so with respect, I think they can manage them better than people who are not in sympathy with them, and who have not the same knowledge of local affairs.

§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
Before the House disposes of this Amendment I should like to say that I think the strongest argument is that which was mentioned in the concluding part of the last observation made by the hon. Member for Stroud, for I think there is a good deal of force in what he said. There may be such a thing as an unopposed railway Bill. I will ask my hon. friends who are opposing this Amendment whether they think it is desirable that an unopposed railway Bill should become law without this House intervening in any sort of way, possibly without any inquiry, and simply by the consent of the Secretary for Scotland and the Chairmen of Committees. It may seem that I am speaking now rather selfishly, and in the interests of an Amendment of mine lower down on the Paper, but my contention is that unopposed Bills ought to be excluded from this Bill altogether. I hope my hon. and learned friend will insert some provision to provide for what I consider is the strongest part of the case which he has laid before the Committee.

§ MR. DALZIEL
We are very desirous that these tribunals shall become more important and more powerful as time goes on, and while I do not want to shut the door against any railway company, I want to leave it open so that when the time comes when this system works well it will be possible to give greater powers. I cannot understand why my hon. friend should want unopposed Bills to come to this House. So far as I am concerned, I think the opinion in Scotland is that we want as many facilities as possible to get Bills through without coming before this House; and I think this is a sound democratic principle.

§ MR. J. P. SMITH
There is one thing which detracts a great deal from im- 938 portance of this Amendment, and it is that nearly every railway Bill will not go through tinder this procedure, but will go to the Chairmen of Committees, and the ultimate control will be reserved for them. I agree that it is not satisfactory to cut out one particular class of Bills in the manner proposed by the Amendment, and I suggest to my hon. friend that the object which he has in view on the point he is raising might be better proposed on an Amendment which stands in my name, which gives the promoters of all Bills the option of coming before the House.

§ MR. COLVILLE (Lanark, N.E.)
There might be private individuals who would certainly object to having their cases dealt with in this way, and I am sure that this proposal would effect a very drastic change.

§ DR. CLARK
In regard to the question of cost, you do not consider at all the cases of poor persons who are compelled to come to this House to defend their interests, and who are dragged here by the action of the railway companies.

§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
I agree that the grievance is not so very great as far as the chief Scottish railway Bills are concerned, for they are nearly always opposed by one or other of the competing lines. Therefore I do not think, in this respect, there is much of a grievance to the general public so far as these railway schemes are concerned. I cannot, however, bring myself to vote for words which would absolutely shut out all railway Bills from the operation of this measure, for there might be some case arise in which it is conceivable that a railway company would not compete with or excite the opposition of any of the great Scottish railway companies.

§ MR. CRIPPS
Having regard to the course of the Debate, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ DR. CLARK
I do not wish to propose the Amendment which I have on the Paper, but I should like to ask the Lord Advocate why it is proposed to limit the clause to the right which we have at present, for there may be future rights.

939

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
We only deal with the present when we define the scope of the Bill.

§ MR. CALDWELL
It might be held that there was a limited power here. I can conceive of certain things which Parliament does not deal with, and which are not dealt with by Private Bill legislation at the present moment. I think you ought to make the powers as wide and comprehensive as possible, and I move to leave out the words "at present." I would leave out the words "at present" so as to cover the future in the event of the powers under the Bill being extended by Parliament.
Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words 'at present.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.) Question proposed— That the words 'at present' stand part of the clause.

§ Mr. A. G. MURRAY
It really cannot make the slightest difference.
Question put, and agreed to.

§ MR. J. P. SMITH
The object of my Amendment is to make the adoption of the procedure under the Bill optional. It is clear that there are many cases in which this Bill would be a great convenience, but there are a great many other cases in which it is confessed, on all hands, that it will not be suitable and that a return will have to be made to the present procedure. The question is, how you are going to decide these two classes of cases. According to the scheme of the Bill they are to he decided by the Chairmen of Committees. It seems to me that, in the first instance, at any rate, it would relieve a great deal of the complexity and difficulty if you were to leave the matter optional, and allow those who wanted to proceed by Private Bills to do so. Last year the strongest objection against this proposal was that it would deprive the new tribunal of its importance if you took away from it what would probably be the largest measures that could come before it. The evidence before the Select Committee last year went to show that under the Bill as it stands at present more than a third of the measures, comprising all the largest, would not go before 940 the new tribunal, but would be brought here under the present course of procedure, and that 8 out of the 21 Bills promoted last Session would have been kept here. Seeing that in most of the cases the views of the promoters of the Bill would correspond with the views of the Chairmen of Committees, that the Bill is suitable to be dealt with here, why not allow the promoters their choice from the first, and so avoid all complications, and different sets of notices and deposits? Another objection to making the scheme optional was the argument used by the right hon. Member for Aberdeen, who spoke on behalf of the small objector; but we know, as a fact, that large railway schemes, and other big improvement schemes in which the small objector is concerned, would certainly be brought here, and his position would remain exactly as it is at present. I think it would remove a great deal of the difficulty which besets the Bill if we began, at any rate, by making it optional. Moreover, we are accustomed to have optional schemes, and you would not have the risk of bringing under the new tribunal Bills that are not fitted for it. The Parliamentary Bills Committee of the Glasgow Corporation are strongly of opinion that the Bill should not be compulsory in the first instance, and that it should be in the option of the promoters to proceed by Private Bill procedure. Following the very frequent course of this House, we should begin by making the procedure optional, and then after some experience the question could be decided whether it was wise to make it compulsory. I therefore move that the word "may" be substituted for "shall."
Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 10, to leave out the word 'shall,' and insert the word 'may' instead thereof."—(Mr. Parker Smith.) Question proposed— That the word 'shall' stand part of the clause.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
This matter was discussed both last year and the year before, and I do not think my opinion of it has ever wavered. The clause as it stands has been drawn entirely in the interest of the small objector. We were never under the hallucination that there would not be many Bills reserved for consideration by Committees in this House. 941 and where the small objector will be constantly brought up to Westminster. That is a misfortune to the small objector, which, however, is inevitable. It is a principle of this Bill that there are certain subjects that ought to be proceeded with not by Provisional Order, but by Private Bill before this House; but there are other subjects that can be proceeded with by Provisional Order, and we would be giving up one of the greatest benefits of our measure if we allowed anyone who is strong enough to do it to avoid the Provisional Order, and to proceed by Private Bill.

§ SIR CHARLES CAMERON (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
I have an Amendment to the same effect as that of the hon. Member for Partick, and I shall support him and go to a Division on the point. As to the small objector, the big corporation Bills will never come before this tribunal at all. The Bills that will come before it, as was stated by my hon. friend, will be very few. Not more than 12 measures would have come before the new tribunal last year had this Bill been law. I imagine that probably that number may be increased if a good tribunal can be set up; but the Bills to be brought before it will be small Bills. I had a conversation with the Chairman of the Light Railway Commission the other day, and he told me that they had got through 38 inquiries in 40 days. I myself should have a very strong objection to come before a tribunal such as is sketched out in the Bill as it stands. It is most important that at first, at any rate, the working of this Bill should be optional. During the Second Reading of the Bill, one of the strongest representations which I quoted in favour of making the Bill optional was that from the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow, which is a body not influenced by Mr. Vary Campbell, and which can take an independent view on the subject.

§ MR. CROMBIE (Kincardineshire)
I hope the Government will not consent to this Amendment. According to your own evidence, Mr. Lowther, before the Select Committee last year, only 60 per cent. of the present Bills would come under the new procedure proposed by the Bill; and if you are going to allow any corporation the option of proceeding by Private Bill, of what use will this Bill be? If the Bill is to be of any use at all 942 it is to compel corporations to adopt this cheaper method. I hope the Lord Advocate will make the tribunal a good tribunal.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
The hon. Baronet the Member for Bridgeton misread the evidence last year, when he said that out of the 21 Bills introduced only 12, according to his view, would be subject to the Provisional Order scheme. None of these Bills were corporation Bills.

§ MR. CALDWELL
It is perfectly true that corporations have promoted a number of Private Bills, but the Lord Advocate leaves out of view that corporations can proceed by Provisional Order under the present system. What is the procedure under the present system? There is the local inquiry, which costs practically nothing, as there are no agents. Then the Department to which the Bill belongs passes the Provisional Order, and it comes on here, where the Government Department is at the whole expense of carrying it through the House. The only expense ever incurred by the local authority is when there is opposition at the Committee stage. So completely successful has been the existing Provisional Order system that there has hardly been the rejection of a Provisional Order. Moreover, where they have been opposed in one House, they have very frequently not been opposed in the other. There could be nothing simpler or cheaper to the local authority than the powers under the present Provisional Order system. In England local authorities resort almost exclusively to that system, whereas in Scotland some have proceeded by Private Bill, when, according to the evidence of the Chairman of Committees, they might have proceeded under the present Provisional Order system. There is much misconception among the public in Scotland about this Bill. They believe that under this Bill local authorities will be able to get legislative powers cheaper than under the present system. The fact is that the process will be much dearer. Under this Bill they will have to pay fees in the local tribunal, as well as the fees in this House, and therefore this Bill, instead of being an advantage to corporations, will be a decided disadvantage. There is another important point that has to be borne in mind. Supposing 943 anyone comes to this House with a Bill, which is considered by a Committee and rejected; he can come in a succeeding session of Parliament and have the Bill remitted to a new Committee. By a very little alteration of the Bill he may get it passed, although it had been rejected by the former Committee. But under the procedure proposed by this Bill the Secretary for Scotland has full power. The principle of the Provisional Order must be approved of by the Secretary of Scotland first before he sends it to a Committee of his own selection. No one would have the remotest chance, therefore, of having his Bill re-considered.

§ MR. THOMAS SHAW
The Amendment would restrict the operation of the Bill in a most important particular, and I hope the Lord Advocate will stick to the Bill as it stands. The case which I personally want to protect is where a large corporation is dealing by Bill with a variety of interests, each of which is unable to defend itself before the Committees of this House or the House of Lords. In such a case, if the subject matter of the Bill is suitable for a Provisional Order, then the Provisional Order procedure ought surely to apply. That would be the more economical method. A second reason for the rejection of the Amendment is that under Section 2 of the Bill I find very careful provision is made for protecting the very cases aimed at by the Amendment. I think the value of the Bill would be diminished if we were to allow the option to promoters to proceed by Private Bill in all cases, for it would put the small objectors to great disadvantage.

§ MR. SOUTTAR (Dumfriesshire)
I do not know whether hon. Members who stick by the word "shall," and absolutely refuse to consider the word "may," realise that they are depriving Scotland of the very ancient and valuable right of petitioning Parliament by Private Bills. It is a right which has been enjoyed for centuries, and has been of immense consequence. As we know, in early times that right was used by private individuals to oppose violence and oppression. It is now used largely by local authorities and commercial companies. It is a very valuable and precious right, and I cannot understand how Scotchmen are so willing to throw it away. The case is worse when 944 we consider that this Bill applies to Scotland only. If Welshmen, Englishmen, and Irishmen were all to be tarred with the same brush, it would not matter so much. But if the Bill passes and the word "shall" is adhered to and "may" is refused, while Englishmen, Welshmen, and Irishmen retain their ancient privileges of being able to apply to Parliament for a Private Bill, Scotchmen will be precluded, and be forced to go in humble fashion to the Secretary for Scotland and ask his kind consent.

§ DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)
This Amendment raises an important constitutional principle, namely, the right of public bodies or private individuals to petition Parliament. Under this Bill, as it stands, the Secretary for Scotland is to be the ultimate court of appeal. Hon. Members who are familiar with the evidence given before the Select Committee last year must remember the very strong statement made by the Chairman of Committees on this point, who said: It is an entirely new thing to say to a man, 'You shall not petition the House of Commons.' And Lord Morley, speaking from his great experience as Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, gave expression to sentiments equally strong and equally decided. It seems to me that, if there is really so strong a desire for the Bill as is said, the promoters need not fear its optional character. I hope my hon. friend will stick to his Amendment, and give us the pleasure of having a Division. We must remember that although, as stated in the Debate, this may be a very small Bill looking at it at first, it will have far-reaching consequences. Unless we take our stand now on principles, we shall have very little chance of having them adopted by the authorities later on. No doubt the Bill is an experiment, but it should be so framed as to render the experiment probably successful.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
The Lord Advocate has defended the measure on the ground that it is a tentative measure. If it were so, then the direction in which the Amendment goes is to make it of a tentative character. I object to the constituency I represent being made the object of an experiment. 945 With reference to the question of economy, if the Bill acts in the way that is expected and is the most economical method of procedure, corporations desiring to obtain powers will proceed by it. But if it is admitted that the Bill is purely experimental, I think an option should be left to the corporations of Scotland. I will support the Amendment, because I do not wish any disability to be put on Scotland which is not also put on England and Ireland.

§ DR. CLARK
If you pass the clause in its present form and also Clause 16, you take away all power to obtain Provisional Orders. Scotland occupies a very different position in connection with Provisional Orders from that of England, because it has a right to adopt by Provisional Order quite a number of things which English corporations cannot adopt by the same means, under the Burgh Police Act and also the Public Health Act of 1897. The Scotch corporations can acquire land by compulsion, can amalgamate burghs, and reconstruct their corporations as far as the number of councillors and wards is concerned, all by Provisional Order. In England those things can only be done through Parliament. Under this clause and Clause 16 you are taking that power away from us. You are taking away the cheap and easy method conferred on us by the Burgh Police Act and the Public Health Act, and you are giving us a more cumbersome and costly method. Why should we be compelled to accept what we do not require? I withdrew my Amendment some time ago in order to have a Division on this point, which will show whether we are going to compel people to give up a cheap and easy method for a costly and cumbersome one.

§ MR. ROBERT WALLACE
I wish to ask the Lord Advocate whether what my hon. friend has just said is really so or not. I understand by Section 16 that the present powers are conserved, and that the chief inquiry will still take place under the statute regulating Provisional Orders. My hon. friend says not, but I read the section entirely differently.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
The hon. Member is quite right. The powers as to Provisional Orders are kept intact, and 946 the only question is whether we should substitute "may" for "shall."

§ MR. CALDWELL
The point is that if a local authority wishes to proceed by Provisional Order it would require to have the consent of the Government Department. Suppose, for instance, the Local Government Board refuses to give a Provisional Order on the terms desired by a corporation, the corporation can now come to this House with a Private Bill. It is obvious, therefore, that it is a great advantage to Scotch corporations that, if the Local Government Board, or any other Department, refuses to give them a Provisional Order, they can come to Parliament, but according to this Bill they will not be able to come to the House by Private Bill. They must go to the Secretary of State for Scotland, probably the very man who has refused to give them the Provisional Order. Of course if they can convince the Chairmen of Committees, they might get their Bill through; but supposing the Chairmen happened to belong to the same political party as the Secretary of State, there might be some doubt as to whether the corporations would get fair play. At present they will have the opportunity of getting the judgment of this House by a Private Bill, apart altogether from the opinion of the Secretary of State for Scotland, or of the Chairman of Committees of either House. We ought not to close the door, as this Bill does, to local authorities coming direct to petition this House.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
I think this discussion would really be far more germane to Clause 16. The question raised by this Bill and the method of treatment raised by the Amendment go to the very root of the rights of property in this country. It is a tremendous change in the procedure of this House in the application of laws to the rights of property. It is admitted it is an experimental measure, and if that be so surely it ought to be tried experimentally. If it does all that is claimed for it, it will not be refused by anybody, but people desiring to proceed under the old method should be allowed to do so. It would be very ill-advised to make it compulsory in all cases, and, for my part, I support the Amendment proposed by my hon. friend, and if necessary I shall vote with him.

947

§ DR. CLARK
I would ask the Lord Advocate what he means by Section 16. It reads as follows— Nothing contained in this Act shall affect the power of the Secretary for Scotland to make Provisional Orders under the provisions of any Act in force at the passing of this Act, or the procedure therein specified, save only that in the case of Provisional Orders which at present require confirmation by Parliament the provisions of Sections 7, 8, and 9 of this Act shall, with the necessary modifications,

948

§ apply as if they were contained in any Act in force as aforesaid.

§ But we can now apply to the Local Government Board under the Piers and Harbours Act, the Electric Lighting Act, and other statutes.

§ Question put.

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 80. (Division List No. 183.)

949

AYES.
Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.	Doxford, William Theodore	M'Calmont,Col.J.(Antrim,E.)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	M'Killop, James
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.	Maple, Sir John Blundell
Arnold, Alfred	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Asher, Alexander	Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)	Milton, Viscount
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.	Finlay, Sir Robert B.	Monk, Charles James
Atkinson, Rt Hon. John	Fisher, William Hayes	Montagu, Hn. J. S. (Hants)
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Fison, Frederick William	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man.)	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Morgan, Hon. F.(Monm'thsh.)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G W. (Leeds)	Fletcher, Sir Henry	Morley,RtHonJohn(Montrose
Banbury, Frederick George	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Morton, Arthur H.A. Deptford
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute
Barton, Dunbar Plunkett	Gedge, Sydney	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin	Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir MH (Bristol)	Giles, Charles Tyrell	Nicholson, William Graham
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Gilliat, John Saunders	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John	Oldroyd, Mark
Bigwood, James	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Peace, Herbert Pike Darlington
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Percy, Earl
Bolitho, Thomas Bedford	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Pierpoint, Robert
Bond, Edward	Goschen, RtHnGJ(StGeorge's)	Pilkington, R. (Lanes, Newton
Brassey, Albert	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Pretyman, Ernest George
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Pryce-Jones,Lt.-Col.Edward
Bullard, Sir Harry	Gunter, Colonel	Purvis, Robert
Burt, Thomas	Hamilton,Rt. Hn.Lord George	Pym, C. Guy
Butcher, John George	Hanbury,Rt.Hon.RobertWm.	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Hardy, Laurence	Ridley,Rt.Hn.SirMatthew W.
Cecil, E. (Hertford, East)	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Ritchie,Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson
Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)	Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Henderson, Alexander	Robertson, Herbert, (Hackney
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)	Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Round, James
Charrington, Spencer	Hill, Arthur (Down, West)	Russell, Gen. F.S.(Chelten'm)
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.	Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Hobhouse, Henry	Rutherford, John
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Howell, William Tudor	Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle	Savory, Sir Joseph
Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole	Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)	Sharpe, William. Edward T.
Colville, John	Johnson-Ferguson, JabezEdw.	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew)
Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)	Kay-Shuttleworth, RtHnSirU	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.	Kemp, George	Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)
Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J.H.	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Cranborne, Viscount	Kenyon-Slaney, Colonel Wm.	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (St'nd)
Crombie, John William	Kinloch, Sir J. Geo. Smyth	Spicer, Albert
Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Knowles, Lees	Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)
Curzon, Viscount	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw.H.	Stock, James Henry
Dalziel, James Henry	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)	Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)	Strauss, Arthur
Digby, John K D. Wingfield-	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)	Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon	Lowles, John	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Dorington, Sir John Edward	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Ox. Univ.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Macdona, John Cumming	Tennant, Harold John
Thorburn, Walter	Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.	Wyndam, George
Thornton, Percy M.	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon.	Wyndam-Quin, Major W. H.
Tomlinson, Wm. Edw.Murray	Whiteley, George (Stockport)	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Tritton, Charles Ernest	Whitmore, Charles Algernon	Young, Commander(Berks,E.)
Ure, Alexander	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Valentia, Viscount	Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm	TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Wallace, Robert (Perth)	Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)	Sir William Walrond and
Warde,Lieut.-Col.C.E.(Kent)	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm	Mr. Anstruther
Webster, R.G.(St. Pancras)	Wylie, Alexander
NOES.
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Barlow, John Emmott	Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)	O'Malley, William
Bartley, George C. T.	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.	Palmer,SirCharlesM.(Durham
Billson, Alfred	Holden, Sir Angus	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Birren, Augustine	Holland, W. H. (York, W. R.)	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Horniman, Frederick John	Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)
Bowles,T-Gibson (King'sLynn	Joicey, Sir James	Rickett, J. Compton
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Lambert, George	Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb.)	Robertson, Edm. (Dundee)
Burns, John	Leng, Sir John	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on Tees)
Caldwell, James	Lloyd-George, David	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Channing, Francis Allston	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Souttar, Robinson
Clark,Dr.G.B.(Caithness-sh.)	Logan, John William	Steadman, William Charles
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Lougn, Thomas	Strachey, Edward
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	Lyell, Sir Leonard	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan	Macaleese, Daniel	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Davitt, Michael	MacNeil, John Gordon Swift	Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds S.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	M'Dermott, Patrick	Wedderburn, Sir William
Dillon, John	M'Ewan, William	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Donelan, Captain A.	M'Ghee, Richard	Wilson, H. J. (York, W.R.)
Doogan, P. C.	M'Kenna, Reginald	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Dunn, Sir William	M'Leod, John	Wilson, John (Govan)
Evans, SamuelT. (Glamorgan)	Molloy, Bernard Charles	Woods, Samuel
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Morris, Samuel	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Fenwick, Charles	Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Moss, Samuel	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gold, Charles	Moulton, John Fletcher	Mr. Parker Smith and Sir
Griffith, Ellis J.	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)	Charles Cameron.

§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
I beg to move— In Clause 1, page 1, line 11, to leave out from 'by' to the end of the clause, in order to insert 'Private Bill according to the existing practice of Parliament, unless and until there is opposition to the Bill, in which case only the procedure established by this Act shall apply.' The object of this Amendment is to restrict the application of this Bill to opposed business. The principle of the Bill is simply to substitute for the inquiry now conducted at Westminster a local inquiry in the spot affected. That is the whole of the demand in Scotland. Legislation of this kind is founded on the notion that the inquiry at Westminster is by comparison with the local inquiry dear and dilatory. Accepting that as the principle of the Bill, all I propose is that it should be limited to the purpose for which it is demanded, and that we shall have a local inquiry only in cases where there is an inquiry now. There is no inquiry at present where the Bill is un- 950 opposed. Why, therefore, should we alter the existing practice in a matter in respect to which, from beginning to end of the whole controversy, there has not been the smallest atom of complaint? Has anybody ever heard from any responsible Scotch authority any complaint whatever on the ground of expense or delay in connection with the system adopted by this House and the other House in relation to Private Bills not contested? It seems to me that this Bill has failed to take account of the fundamental difference between opposed and unopposed business. It is simply with reference to opposed business that there is any complaint at all, and it is to opposed business that I venture to bring the Bill back. That is the object of the Amendment which I now propose. There is no need to disturb the existing system as regards unopposed Bills, and there has never been any demand for any change in it. I will add another consideration. Bills now unopposed in the sense of not being petitioned against by 951 private parties may involve large questions of public interest. Under the system now proposed they will be withdrawn altogether from the cognisance of Parliament. I would ask the Lord Advocate what reason he can give for that proposal. I will mention one particular case. Two or three Sessions ago an unopposed Bill—a Cambrian Railway Bill—came before this House, and many hon. Members must remember that strong objection was taken to it on public grounds, the hon. Member for Aberdeen leading the opposition to the Bill on that occasion. What earthly reason can there be for taking away a Bill of this sort from the cognisance of the House and leaving it entirely to the two Chairmen of Committees and the Secretary of State for Scotland? It cannot be too often repeated that the demand in Scotland has been that a local inquiry should be substituted for an Imperial inquiry. I do not think the Committee is sufficiently impressed with the fact that of the Private Bills coming before Parliament year by year the large majority are unopposed. In the ten years ending 1897 there were 352 Private Bills from Scotland brought before Parliament. How many of these were opposed in one House or the other? The Return includes all cases where petitions were presented against Bills, although no opposition was offered afterwards, so that the number of opposed Bills as compared with unopposed Bills is really too large. Of the total number of Bills introduced only 168 were opposed, and 184 passed through both Houses without any opposition except such as was offered on the floor of this House, without any inquiry in Committee, and without expense or delay attributable to inquiry in this House. Why is not the present Bill confined to the 168 cases in which there was an inquiry, leaving both Houses of Parliament free to deal with the considerably larger number of cases in which there was no opposition and no inquiry? We have heard a great deal about railway Bills, but I have a Return here which entirely confirms the general conclusion I have drawn from the larger Return. In 1897 the total number of Private Bills sent up from Scotland was 39. Of these 17 were opposed in one House, 12 in both Houses, and 19 out of the 39 were unopposed. Of these 19 Bills no less than ten were railway 952 Bills. It may be said that if my Amendment is accepted the scope of the Bill will be limited. That is true, but it is no answer to my proposal. By this Amendment you leave untouched the present procedure regarding unopposed Bills. It would involve, no doubt, a change in the structure of the Bill. We shall proceed as we proceed now up to the stage when opposition is offered, and then, and only then, should we begin by substituting a local inquiry for the existing inquiry. What I propose is absolutely consistent with the principle of the Bill. Nay more, it carries out the principle of the Bill better. It absolutely meets every demand made in Scotland for a change in the Private Bill system, and I venture to submit it to the consideration of the House and to ask the support of hon. Members from Scotland for it.

§ Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 11, to leave out from the word 'by,' to the end of the clause, and add the words 'Private Bill, according to the existing practice of Parliament, unless and until there is opposition to the Bill, in which case only the procedure established by this Act shall apply' instead thereof."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)

§ Question proposed— That the words proposed to be omitted to the words 'a Provisional,' in line 12, stand part of the clause.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
There is one assertion of the hon. Gentleman's at which I must say I was rather surprised. He said he had never heard any complaints about the expense of unopposed Bills.

§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
I said I never heard any complaints of the system except as regards opposed Bills.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
A great many of us have heard complaints both long and loud as to the cost of unopposed Bills. No doubt fees form a great part of that expense, but they are not the whole of it. A firm of Parliamentary Solicitors has to be employed, in addition to the local solicitors, which means, of course, two separate sets of solicitors; and I am sure my memory is not deceiving me when I say that one hon. Gentleman after another, on the Second Reading, referred to the enormous expense of unopposed Bills. The point of there being objection to the present system as entailing un- 953 necessary expense and labour has, I think, bulked very largely in public opinion in Scotland. I submit it would really very much truncate this measure of reform if I were to accept this Amendment. It would, of course, have a far-reaching effect on the other provisions of the Bill, because it would turn the general theory of the Bill upside down. I cannot accept the Amendment, because if I did I would be really taking away from the people of Scotland half the benefit which they expect to get from this Bill, and I shall be surprised if that view is not supported by hon. Members.

§ MR. THORBURN (Peebles and Selkirk)
I think the cost of unopposed Bills is one of the greatest and most crying evils complained of by the people of Scotland. Solicitors have first of all to be employed in Scotland, and then another set has to be employed in London, and the entire expense constitutes an evil which we should endeavour to cure.

§ DR. CLARK
The probability is that if this clause is retained in the Bill the cost of unopposed Bills will be greater. Glasgow Aberdeen, and other parts of Scotland, will be exactly in the same position as they are now. They will have to employ a firm of solicitors in Edinburgh, who would charge more than Messrs. Beveridge or a few other firms in London. I happen to have had a great deal of litigation in Edinburgh and London, and I found that in London the costs were less than in Edinburgh. Under the new system you will not want a London Parliamentary agent, but you will want an Edinburgh one, and general experience has shown that the latter will want as much, if not more, than the former. I see no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. Instead of getting what we asked for, we are getting a most revolutionary system winch the Lord Advocate is endeavouring to carry through without any Amendment.

§ SIR MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)
The hon. Member who moved the Amendment appears to be under a misconception with regard to the expense incurred on unopposed Private Bills. My experience is exactly the reverse of his. A few years ago it was my fortune to promote a Bill which was unopposed in every sense of the word, yet it cost some- 954 thing like £1,400 to get it through this House. That is a preposterous expense Under the new system it will be necessary no doubt, to employ an Edinburgh agent; but what is that compared with the fees of this House? The Private Bill to which I have referred had, owing to several disasters, to be withdrawn, and it cost £400 to do it. That is a very good illustration of the cost of unopposed Private Bills. The sole object and aim of this Bill is to avoid expense. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment is utterly mistaken, and I hope the Government will not give way in the matter.

§ MR. DALZIEL
I myself am inclined to sympathise mote with the Government than with my hon. friends. They compare the cost between Edinburgh and London, and it has been said the cost is more in Edinburgh, but they should give some consideration to the fact that the money is spent in the country. I support the Government because when we have considered Scotch Private Bill legislation we have invariably attached importance to the question of unopposed Bills, and we have shown that under the present system the cost is immense and ought to be radically dealt with. We are setting up new machinery, and I look to the arena being widened, because I think we may be able to deal with other matters. Certainly on the present occasion we ought to include unopposed as well as opposed Bills.

§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
May I be allowed to make clear what I have said with reference to the cost of unopposed Bills. I never said there were no complaints regarding the system. We all know there are. I have figures with reference to the cost of Bills promoted in 1897. One unopposed Bill cost in fees alone £237, and does anybody suppose that Scotland does not object to such an enormous expenditure? What I said was that the great demand on which this Bill was founded was the expense of the Westminster inquiry. I see nothing in the Bill which will alter the state of things as regards the expenditure on fees. The Lord Advocate has not shown us in what way any reduction will follow in that respect. Will he tell us where the preliminary proceeding is to take place? I see no reference to that in the Bill. Then, again, the two Chairmen have to take most important action and I do not 955 suppose we can avoid employing a London agent as well as an Edinburgh agent.

§ DR. CLARK
Let me bring two specific instances before the Committee. Three or four years ago there was a question of the union of two parishes in Edinburgh, and the local inquiry cost £3,500. Another question in which the Edinburgh Corporation was concerned was determined by arbitration, and the costs of the Corporation in that matter were £5,000. Those two cases support what I have previously stated, that an inquiry in Edinburgh is more expensive than an inquiry in London.

§ CAPTAIN SINCLAIR
It may be quite right to say that the new procedure will be cheaper than the old, but we have no facts or figures laid before us as to how that will be. It is perfectly true that in

956

§ exceptional cases the cost of unopposed Bills is very considerable, but the fees of this House form the greater portion of the expense, and the point which seems to me to be before the Committee is, having regard to the question of fees, whether it is wise or not to remove unopposed Bills from the control of this House.

§ MR. J. P. SMITH
I think it would be a matter of very considerable importance if we had the rules of procedure to be prescribed under this Bill before we reach the Report stage. Of course, the Committee stage will show the form which the Bill itself will take.

§ Question put.

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 184.)

957

AYES.
Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	M'Arthur, Charles (Liv'rpool)
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Doxford, William Theodore	M'Calmont,Col.J. (An'rim,E)
Arnold, Alfred	Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	M'Killop, James
Asher, Alexander	Dyke,Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis	Elliot, Hon. A. RalphDouglas	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Fellowes,Hon.AilwayEdward	Milton, Viscount
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy	Feuguson,R.C. Munro (Leith)	Monk, Charles James
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man.)	Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)	More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)
Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W.(Leeds)	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Morgan, Hn. F. (Mourn'thsh.)
Barnes, Frederic Goren	Fisher, William Hayes	Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Bartley, George C. T.	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)
Bathurst,Hon. Allen Benjamin	Giles, Charles Tyrell	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bristol	Gilliat, John Saunders	Nicholson, William Graham
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Bigwood, James	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Pease, Herbt.Pike(Darlington
Birrell, Augustine	Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StGeo.'s)	Pierpoint, Robert
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Pilkington, R. (LancsNewton)
Bond, Edward	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Powell, Sir Francis Shary
Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Pretyman, Ernest George
Bullard, Sir Harry	Hamilton,Rt.Hn.Lord George	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Butcher, John George	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Purvis, Robert
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.	Pym, C. Guy
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Henderson, Alexander	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Charaberlain,JAusten(Worc'r	Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter	Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matt. W.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hill, Arthur (Down, West)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Charrington Spencer	Howell, William Tudor	Round, James
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.	Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Johnson, William (Belfast)	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Kennaway,Rt.Hon.Sir.J.H.	Savory, Sir Joseph
Colston, Chas. Edw. H.Athole	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Cranborne, Viscount	Knowles, Lees	Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn	Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Curzon, Viscount	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh	Long, Rt. Hon. W. Liv'rpool)	Stock, James Henry
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Dalziel, James Henry	Lowles, John	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Davies,SirHoratioD(Chatham	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Denny, Colonel	Macdona, John Cumming	Tennant, Harold John
Thorburn, Walter	Warde,Lieut.-Col.C.E.(Kent)	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Thornton, Percy M.	Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-	Younger,CommandertBerksE.
Tritton, Charles Ernest	Williams, Colonel B. (Dorset)
Ure, Alexander	Williams,JosephPowell-(Birm	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Valentia, Vicount	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm	Sir William Walrond and
Wallace, Robert (Perth)	Wylie, Alexander	Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Griffith, Ellis J.	Oldroyd, Mark
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Hayne,Rt.Hon.CharlesSearle-	Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)
Burns, John	Healy, Timothy M.(N.Louth)	Rickett, J. Compton
Burt, Thomas	Hemphill,Rt.Hon.Charles H.	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Caldwell, James	Horniman, Frederic John	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Cameron,SirCharles(Glasgow)	Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Channing, Francis Allston	Lambert, George	Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Clark,Dr.G.B.(Caitlines-sh.)	Leng, Sir John	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Collery, Bernard	Lloyd-George, David	Steadman, William Charles
Colville, John	Macaleese, Daniel	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Crombie,John William	M'Ghee, Richard	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	M'Laren, Charles Benjamin	Wedderburn, Sir William
Donelan, Captain A.	M`Leod, John	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Doogan, P. C.	Minch, Matthew	Wilson, Hy. J. (York, W. R.)
Dunn, Sir William	Molloy, Bernard Charles	Wilson,John.J.(Durham, Mid.)
Evans, SamuelT.(Glamorgan)	Morley,Rt.Hon.J.(Montrose)	Woods, Samuel
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Morris, Samuel
Fenwick, Charles	Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Moss, Samuel	Captain Sinclair and Mr.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Moulton, John Fletcher	Billson.

§ MR. J. P. SMITH
The Amendment which I have to submit regards the title of the Order. The Bill calls the Order a "Provisional" Order. I do not think "Provisional Order" would be quite the name for Orders issued by the Secretary for Scotland. I submit that "an Order" would be a far better title than "Provisional Order."

§ Amendment proposed—

§ "In page 1, line 12, to leave out the words 'a Provisional' and insert 'an.'"—(Mr.J. P. Smith.)

§ Question proposed—

§ "That the words a 'Provisional' stand part of the clause."

§ MR. CALDWELL
I think it is unfortunate that we should have the words "Provisional Order" introduced in this Bill. A Provisional Order, as it is understood in this House, is always confirmed by a Confirmation Bill, and I therefore think it would be better if we could invent some other name in the present case, and thus save conflict with what are at present understood as Provisional Orders.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
was understood to say that he thought the use of the word "Provisional" in the present case desirable.

958

§ Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

§ MR. DALZIEL
I desire to move an Amendment, which I think the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept, namely— In page 1, line 21, to insert after the word 'advertisement' in at least two newspapers circulating in the locality interested.' As the Bill stands it would be within the provision of the Act for the local authority or any promoter to simply print a Bill and stick it on a hoarding. Now, Sir, the custom has been with regard to Private Bills, and I believe it is the law at the present time, that you should publish them in one of the local papers circulating in the locality. I therefore beg to move the Amendment.

§ Amendment proposed—

§ "In page 1, line 21, after the word 'advertisement,' to insert words 'in at least two newspapers circulating in the locality interested.'"—(Mr. Dalziel.)

§ Question proposed—

§ "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
I cannot accept the Amendment. We do not desire to put into the Act a matter which is purely one for the regulations. I have no doubt the regulations will be such as to preclude such modes of advertisement as the hon. Member has referred to, but I 959 think it would be a mistake to make this one matter of advertisement a subject of the Bill.

§ MR. DALZIEL
I understand the right hon. Gentleman practically admits the point, and contemplates the introduction of regulations to provide for the insertion of advertisements as I propose. That being so, I will withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Amendment proposed—

§ "In Clause 1, page 1, line 24, to leave out 'prescribed,' and insert 'required by Standing Orders.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)

§ Question proposed—

§ "That the word 'prescribed' stand part of the clause."

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
said he did not think any mischief could arise from the adoption of the wording of the Bill as it stood.

§ MR. J. P. SMITH
One of the matters complained of very much by the smaller corporations in regard to smaller Bills is the very great complexity of these notices, and it is one of the things which very much needs simplification. I would suggest that a much more effective way of meeting the difficulty than that proposed by the Amendment would be to give promoters the option of either going through a Provisional Order with a much more simple set of notices and advertisements for things that pass under this Act, or of having the more elaborate set of notices and advertisements which are a necessary condition in the case of a Bill before the House of Commons. I would ask the Lord Advocate whether he would not favourably consider an Amendment giving an alternative.

§ MR. CALDWELL
It is obvious that you could hardly have these notices made available for the Private Bills of a large railway company unless practically they were the notices prescribed by the Standing Order. You cannot make the proposed procedure do for Bills which are eventually to come to this House as Private Bills. Such a proposal would show absolute ignorance as to the procedure to be adopted. The procedure, notices, and advertisements must be such 960 as would be required for the Acts of a railway company. Therefore you are going to make all the small undertakings practically undergo the same serving of notices and advertisements as to occupiers and owners as in the case of the larger undertakings. I do not see where the saving can come in.

§ MR. THOMAS SHAW
I desire to call the attention of the Lord Advocate to the effect of the statement he has made, which practically comes to this, that the preliminary advertisements should be equivalent in all respects to the procedure presented by Standing Orders in regard to Private Bills.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
The hon. Member has misunderstood my observation. The notice I was speaking of is limited to certain land proposed to be taken in the clause.

§ MR. THOMAS SHAW
May I point out that in Section 2, line 23, when to proceed by Provisional Order is declared to be impossible or inexpedient, then it is declared that the proposed Provisional Order should be subject to the Standing Orders as regards Private Bills. I suggest that "subject to the Standing Orders" should go out, and that it should be subject to such further advertisements as shall in the circumstances be considered necessary. I am entirely of the opinion that it would be most inexpedient in a Provisional Order of a comparatively trivial character to have it encumbered with the very heavy expense of newspaper advertisements and so on, simply because subsequently there might be a transmutation of the Order into a Private Bill. The important thing is to have the procedure cheap and prompt to begin with. We may then prescribe that if that event takes place such further advertisements as are necessary may be issued.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
I agree very much with what my hon. friend has said, but, of course, I dealt with the Amendment actually before me. I shall certainly note the observations which have been made. There are two suggestions—one contained in the Amendment on the Paper, and the other which has been made by my hon. friend. I would not like either of them in the Bill, because "under the Standing Orders" does not necessarily mean under 961 the present Standing Orders; it means the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, as those Standing Orders may be amended. It is perfectly obvious that if this Bill passes two things may happen—not only that we shall have to make General Orders under this Bill for this private legislation procedure, but also to a certain extent the Standing Orders of this House will have to be amended to meet the altered circumstances of the case, because it will be something they have not had to deal with before—viz., matters beginning under this procedure, and afterwards going on as Private Bills. Matters of great detail are not really appropriate for discussion in a deliberative body such as we are, and it would be very inappropriate to put such points in the Bill, but they will necessarily have to be considered. The present Amendment, however, would not mend matters at all, but rather make them worse. On the other hand, I am certainly prepared to give an undertaking to very carefully consider the suggestions which have been made.

§ DR. CLARK
I think, in addition to the General Orders which will be issued under Clause 15, we should have before us the modification of the present Standing Orders, so that we should be able to discuss the procedure next year when the Bill comes into operation. What we ought to do now is to determine upon one form or the other, either as shall be prescribed under the Standing Orders, or to adopt the optional form of the hon. Member for Partick, and give the suitors themselves the choice of beginning either under the cheaper form or under the old form. If it is a Bill which, either on account of its magnitude or otherwise, will probably come before the House, why should they not take the old form? It is certainly expensive and cumbersome, but if they so choose I do not see why we should not permit them. The best thing for the Lord Advocate to do would be to adopt the form suggested by my hon. friend, and then on the Report stage, or even later, he might be able to bring forward some other method. Nobody knows yet what kind of Orders will be drawn up by the Secretary for Scotland under Section 15 of the Bill, and it would be better that the petitioners should have the choice as to which procedure they will start under.

962

§ MR. CALDWELL
As to the rules which are to be laid before the Houses of Parliament, we know perfectly well that that means nothing. We will have no power whatever in regard to those rules. They will be brought on en bloc after Twelve o'clock at night; there will be no opportunity of going into detail, and therefore this is the only point at which we can have any control over the procedure. The Lord Advocate has pointed out very clearly that there will have to be amendments of the Standing Orders of the House to meet the altered circumstances, and supposing my Amendment were carried, we could just prescribe that the procedure, the notices, and advertisements, should be as required by the Standing Orders, instead of having the Secretary for Scotland proceeding to make Orders under this Bill. The thing will be then prescribed by the Standing Orders of this House. It is very important that this House should retain power over the Standing Orders relating to what may come to be Bills promoted through this House. All matters as regards the preliminary procedure of Bills obviously must come, and ought to come, and ought never to go anywhere else than through this House. Why should we allow any outside authority whatever to determine the notices and advertisements to be served upon owners and occupiers, which this House requires should be done in the case of every private Bill that comes before the House? If you are going to make any modification, make a modification in accordance with the Standing Orders. It is quite competent under the Standing Orders to prescribe that certain notices shall be required in the case of all Bills that are ordered to come into this House as Private Bills, lint let it be this House which prescribes the Standing Orders. If the hon. Member for Partick will press his Amendment to a Division I am willing to accept it, as the principle is the same; but if not, I will go to a Division on mine.

§ MR. J. P. SMITH
I am very much obliged to the Lord Advocate for his promise to consider these matters, but I think we ought to ask him to put it more formally. This matter of notices is so important to those concerned in bringing forward Bills, that I think we are entitled to ask for some definite decision. If the Lord Advocate does not wish to decide at 963 once, perhaps at the Report stage he will be able to give some decision. I think that would be sufficient, but certainly those who are bringing in Bills ought not to be hampered by a double set of advertisements and regulations. I submit that the suggestion I have made is the simplest manner of doing the thing. It may be taken for granted that the preliminaries enforced under this Bill will be more onerous than the House of Commons imposes upon this point.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
I am rather inclined to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend, but I do not wish to tie my hands at the present moment. I am not at all desirous of making the regulations, but I think the alternative of the hon. Member will find a proper place in the rules and regulations. If the hon. Member is satisfied with that, I am perfectly willing to give him an undertaking that we will consider by the Report stage whether we cannot at once make up our minds upon the matter and accept it.

§ MR. ALEXANDER CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)
It appears to me that we are now debating an attempt to simplify this procedure, the success of which, as has been confessed in the Committee, largely depends upon details and not so much upon the general principle. If that be so, however much confidence I may have in the Scotch Office, I do not feel inclined to hand over to it the power which is here proposed. The rules will be brought up after Twelve o'clock, and necessarily will be subject to but the most cursory examination. If we are to understand from the Lord Advocate that these rules are to come up for discussion on Report, that will be more satisfactory. It appears to me that it is essential in considering these matters that they should be simple and easily understood, even by those who are not lawyers.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
I do not quite understand what my hon. friend means. I have already said that I am perfectly willing to consider by the Report stage the Amendment which the hon. Member for Partick has suggested. As to the remarks about lawyers and the Scotch Office, neither of the two Chairmen of Committees as far as I know is a lawyer, nor is the 964 Secretary for Scotland a lawyer, so where the lawyers come in I absolutely fail to see.

§ DR. CLARK
The hon. Member is confusing two things—the general regulations and the Standing Orders. At present it is determined by Standing Order, and always should be determined by Standing Order, what should be announced by public advertisement. The notices served upon owners, lessees, and occupiers are now determined by the Standing Order, and why should not that continue? Lastly, there is the question of deposit. Why should it change? There is no need to change it; it should be as prescribed by Standing Orders. The only point is that these regulations which are to be made under Section 15 will practically be made by the Scotch Office. We know that the Chairmen have other duties to attend to; they will be called in now and again, and the thing will be put, cut and dried, before them. But the whole work will be done in the Scotch Office—probably they will call in the Lord Advocate. All that my hon. friend the Member for Mid Lanark is contending for is that the conditions as to the important matters of advertising and the serving of notices upon the people affected, and as to deposits, shall be determined by Standing Order and not by anything that can be varied now and again as by regulation. These are matters for the Standing Orders of the House, and have been for centuries. The proposal in this clause is to take away from Parliament the right of discussing these alterations, because if you modify the Standing Orders they have to come before us, but if you have the two Chairmen and the Secretary for Scotland amending the Standing Orders in the form of regulations we will not be able to discuss or amend their proposals, because they will come up after Twelve o'clock, and whatever Government is in power they will keep sufficient Members here to carry them through. I think my hon. friend is perfectly right in his Amendment.

§ MR. CALDWELL
We are not speaking of the procedure prescribed by the General Orders. The point we are referring to is that, in the event of the Chairmen deciding that a proposal should proceed by Private Bill instead of under the procedure here proposed, the notices and advertisements shall be available as 965 notices under the Private Bill procedure of this House. We decline to allow any outside authority to interfere and determine what the notices, advertisements and deposits shall be, in regard to what has to proceed through this House as a Private Bill. We must have those points determined by Standing Order, and not left at

966

§ the disposal of an outside authority so far) as this House is concerned.

§ Question put.

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 55. (Division List No. 185.)

967

AYES.
Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Pease, Herbert P.(Darlington
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Penn, John
Asher, Alexander	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Pierpoint, Robert
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis	Gilliat, John Saunders	Pilkington, R. (Lancs.Newton)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Balfour,Rt.Hn.G.W.(Leeds)	Gorst,Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Purvis, Robert
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Pym C. Guy
Bartley, George C. T.	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.	Hamilton,Rt.Hn.Lord George	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Hedderwick, Thos. (Charles H.	Savory, Sir Joseph
Blakiston-Houston, John	Henderson, Alexander	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter	Sidebotham, J. W. Cheshire)
Bond, Edward	Hill, Arthur (Down, West)	Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)
Bullard, Sir Harry	Howell, William Tudor	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Hutton, John (Yorks N. R.)	Smith, James Parker(Lanard)
Chamberlain, J. A (Worc'r)	Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart
Charrington, Spencer	Kennaway,Rt.Hn. SirjohnH.	Stock, James Henry
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth	Strutt, Hon. Chas Hedley
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Knowles, Lees	Thorburn, Walter
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Lawrence,SirE.Durning-(Corn	Thornton, Percy M.
Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw.Murray
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Liverp'1)	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Cornwallis,FiennesStanleyW.	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Ure, Alexander
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Lowles, John	Valentia, Viscount
Crombie, John William	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Macdona, John Cumming	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Curzon, Viscount	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Warde, Lieut.-Col.C.E.(Kent)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	M`Calmont,Col.J.(Antrim,E.)	Webster, R.G. (St. Pancras)
Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)	M'Killop, James	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Denny, Colonel	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton	Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Milton, Viscount	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Doxford, William Theodore	Monk, Charles James	Wylie, Alexander
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart	Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Mount, William George	Young, Commander(Berks,E.)
Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edw.	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)	Newdigate, Francis Alexander	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Nicholson, William Graham	Sir William Walrond and
Fisher, William Hayes	Nicol Donald Ninian	Mr. Anstruther.
Flower, Ernest	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
NOES.
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)	Macaleese, Daniel
Billson, Alfred	Farquharson, Dr. Robert	M'Ghee, Richard
Birrell, Augustine	Fenwick, Charles	M'Laren, Charles Benjamin
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Leod, John
Burns, John	Griffith, Ellis J.	Minch, Matthew
Cameron,SirCharles(Glasgow)	Hazell, Walter	Morley,Rt.Hn.John(Montrose
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh)	Hemphill,Rt. Hon.Charles H.	Morris Samuel
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Hogan, James Francis	Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	Horniman, Frederick John	Mose, Samuel
Dalziel, James Henry	Kay-ShuttleworthRtHnSirU.	Oldroyd, Mark
Donelan, Captain A.	Lawson,SirWilfrid (Cmb'1and)	O'Malley, William
Doogan, P. C.	Leng, Sir John	Pixie, Duncan V.
Dunn, Sir William	Lloyd-George, David	Price, Robert John
Provand, Andrew Dryburgh	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Rickett, J. Compton	Steadman, William Charles	Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)	Wilson, John (Govan)
Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)	Tennant, Harold John	Yoxall, James Henry
Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)	Wedderburn, Sir William	Caldwell and Mr. Colville.

§ DR. CLARK
My object in moving to leave out Clause 1 has reference not only to the character of the clause, but also because I have put down a new clause, which I will move when it is reached, and which will carry out all the objects the Government state they desire, and all the objects that the people of Scotland had in view when they asked for the introduction of legislation of this kind. Under the new clause I propose that "where under the present practice any opposed Private Bill is referred to a Committee in either House of Parliament, every such Bill shall, from and after the passing of this Act, be referred to the Commissioners appointed under this Act." The first sub-section is practically similar to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dundee, that where there is no opposition, or if the opposition has been withdrawn, the Bill shall be dealt with as an unopposed Bill, according to the present practice. Then the next subsection provides that the Report by the Commissioners shall be laid before either House of Parliament in which the Bill originated, and the procedure in the remaining stages shall follow the present practice. Under this plan there would be local inquiries by Commissioners, and their Report would be sufficient for the Committee stage in both Houses of Parliament. I cannot agree to Clause 1 as it stands at present, because it introduces a number of novelties which have never been asked for, and which are contrary to the practice of Parliament.

§ Amendment proposed—

§ "In page 1, to leave out Clause 1."—(Dr. Clark.)

968

§ Question proposed—

§ "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

§ *SIR CHARLES CAMERON
I have heard the explanation of the Lord Advocate with reference to this clause and Clause 16, and I must confess that I cannot make head or tail of it. Under this clause a man wishing to get a Provisional Order under the Board of Trade—say for electric lighting—must present a petition to the Secretary for Scotland. He is forbidden to do anything else. Therefore he cannot apply to the Board of Trade, and, although by the subsequent clause all the powers of the Board of Trade are safe guarded, the right of initiating proceedings on the part of the applicant is by this clause taken away.

§ MR. SOUTTAR
I have pleasure in supporting my hon. friend in his Amendment. As the clause stands it is most injurious. It deprives Scotchmen of their ancient right to petition Parliament for a Private Bill, and that is a very great deprivation indeed. In the second place, it deprives Scotch Members of their right to legislate in regard to the affairs of their own country. It is true that Committees on Scotch Bills are not composed exclusively of Scotch Members, but we have always the right to call the action of these Committees in question, and that right will be lost. For my part, I fail to see, if the Bill becomes law, of what use it would be for Scotch Members to come to the House of Commons. It will not be because of Public Bills, because these are few and far between. It is true that it is proposed that the panel should include two Members 969 of Parliament, and some of my friends seem to think that that is going to balance the evil effect of this clause. But I do not think the inclusion of two Members in the panel will in any sense take the place of Scotch supervision of Scotch Private Bill legislation. I think the clause, by putting the power into the hands of the Secretary for Scotland, really introduces Castle government into Scotland, and I cannot understand why my hon. friends, whom I generally esteem, can so readily accept such a provision. We have been for a long time opposed to Castle government in Ireland, and why should we approve of its introduction into Scotland? My hon. and right hon. friends think, perhaps, that at a later stage they will be able to so improve the Bill as to make it palatable; but the Bill as it stands is a bad Bill, and I support with all my heart the Amendment of my hon. friend the Member for Caithness.

§ MR. CALDWELL
This is a Bill that starts upon the principle of Home Rule. It is the first decisive attempt of the Government to devolve legislative powers on a body outside Parliament altogether. In so far as the Bill proceeds upon national lines, in so far as it separates Scotch business from Imperial business, and proceeds on the footing that Scotch business ought to be done in Scotland, in so far as it gives legislative power to a body in Scotland whose measures will have the effect of an Act of Parliament without coming to this House, I do not see how any Home Ruler could desire a more extensive programme than that. This clause acknowledges that purely Scotch business should not be dealt with by the imperial Parliament. It is true that the business is confined to Private Bill legislation, but I would remind hon. Members that Private Bill legislation is co-extensive with Public Bill legislation. There was, for instance, the Glasgow Police Act, which modified in essential cases the general criminal law of Scotland so far as it applied to Glasgow. Then there are questions of taxation, and we might, if we had a Scotch Secretary of our own way of thinking, get the taxation of land values passed in Private Bill legislation. Practically, there is nothing we can get under the general public law which we cannot get under this Bill. It is very hard on us therefore to ask us to refuse a Home Rule measure of this kind, and 970 the lever which the Bill will give us. There are certain details of the Bill to which, of course, we object, but the Bill as a whole will give us a splendid lever. I remember, at the time when the Government introduced differential death duties on estates above £10,000, which were to pay 1 per cent. extra, it was said they were introducing the principle of graduation, which another Government would extend. The result was, that another Government did extend the principle of graduation. Again, when free education was introduced into Scotland, it was opposed on the ground that if it was introduced into Scotland it would be extended into England; and it was so extended to England. Depend upon it, every principle which we can get insinuated into a Bill for Scotland will be made a lever for extending it not only in Scotland, but in other parts of the United Kingdom. But the Bill has been brought forward under false pretences, so far as the local authorities are concerned, for its supporters insist that it will save expense to local authorities in promoting Private Bills. Nothing could be further from the case. The procedure will be much more expensive than under the present Provisional Order procedure. If you eliminate from this Bill the local authorities who ought to proceed under the present Provisional Order system, and if you also eliminate the case of railways in Scotland, you will have hardly anything left at all—three or four Bills of a general character, or the Bills of some private individuals who want to get certain monopolies. But if they want monopolies let them come here and have their case sifted, and let them pay for these monopolies. One great object we have in view in regard to police and sanitary matters is that we should have uniform legislation throughout the country. We have a Police and Sanitary Committee which deals with the whole of the United Kingdom. It is obvious that that Committee has far more experience and is better fitted to deal with such cases than three or four persons deciding on an isolated case. You are therefore throwing away the opportunity, if you pass this Bill in its present shape, of securing uniformity in police and sanitary legislation. The only reason why the Bill has been supported in Scotland is, that it has got a large support from the advocates in Parliament House in Edinburgh, who are, almost to a man, 971 opposed to Home Rule in everything else.

*THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is making a Second Reading speech. The question is, whether Clause I shall stand part of the Bill.

§ MR. CALDWELL
This measure is merely being promoted by those who have practically an influential interest in

972

§ having a devolution of this kind. It is not a measure which is in the interest of the local authorities, for the present Private Bill and Provisional Order system is better and cheaper than that which the Bill provides.

§ Question put.

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 62. (Division List No. 186.)

973

AYES.
Allhusen, A. Henry Eden	Flower, Ernest	Nicholson, William Graham
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Folkestone, Viscount	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Arnold, Alfred	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Asher, Alexander	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Ashmead Bartlett, Sir Ellis	Gedge, Sydney	Pease, Herb.Pike(Darlington)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Penn, John
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Pilkington, R. (Lancs Newton)
Bagot, Capt. J. Fitzroy	Gilliat, John Saunders	Pollock, Harry Frederick
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Baird, John George A.	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Balfour, Rt.Hn.A.J.(Manch'r)	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Purvis, Robert
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W.(Leeds)	Gorst,Rt.Hon. Sir John Eldon	Pym, C. Guy
Banbury, Frederick George	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Grey, Ernest (West Ham)	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Bartley, George C. T.	Gretton, John	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.	Hatch, Ernest F. George	Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)
Beach, RtHnSirM. H. (Bristol)	Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.	Round James
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Helder, Augustus	Russell, Gen.F.S.(Cheltenham
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Blakiston-Houston, John	Henderson, Alexander	Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Bond, Edward	Howell, William Tudor	Savory, Sir Joseph
Bullard, Sir Harry	Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Burt, Thomas	Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Butcher, John George	Johnson, William (Belfast)	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSir U	Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)
Cavendish, VCW(Derbyshire)	Kemp, George	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.	Smith, JamesParker(Lanarks)
Chaloner, Captain R.G.W.	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)	Kinloch, Sir J. George Smythe	Stewart, SirMarkJ.M'Taggart
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Knowles, Lees	Stock, James Henry
Charrington, Spencer	Lawrence, Sir E. Dorning-(Corn	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Strauss, Arthur
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Tennant, Harold John
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)	Thorburn, Walter
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. A.	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Thornton, Percy M.
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.	Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Cox, Irwin Edward B.	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Ure, Alexander
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Lowles, John	Valentia, Viscount
Crombie, John William	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Lyell, Sir Leonard	Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Macdona, John Cumming	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Curzon, Viscount	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Warde, Lieut.-Col.C.E. (Kent)
Dalkeith, Earl of	M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	M'Killop, James	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)	Mellor, Rt.Hn. J. W. (Yorks.)	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Denny, Colonel	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton	Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.
Dorington, Sir John Edward	Milton, Viscount	Wodehouse, Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Monk, Charles James	Wolff Gustav Wilhelm
Doxford, William Theodore	More,Robt.Jasper Shropshire)	Wylie, Alexander
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Morgan, Hn.Fred.(Monm'ths.)	Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.
Dyke, Rt.Hn.SirWilliamHart	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)	Young, Commander(Berks,E.)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.	Mount, William George
Furguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Muntz, Philip A.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)	Sir William Walrond and
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Mr. Anstruther.
Fisher, William Hayes	Newdigate, FrancisAlexander
NOES.
Barlow, John Emmott	Ffrench, Peter	Pirie, Duncan V.
Billson, Alfred	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Price, Robert John
Birrell, Augustine	Griffith, Ellis J.	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-	Richards, Henry Charles
Burns, John	Horniman, Frederick John	Rickett, J. Compton
Cameron, SirCharles(Glasgow)	Joicey, Sir James	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Cameron, Robert (Durham)	Lambert, George	Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)
Channing, Francis Allston	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cumbland	Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)
Clough, Walter Owen	Leng, Sir John	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Collery, Bernard	Lloyd-George, David	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Colville, John	Logan, John William	Souttar, Robinson
Cummins, Andrew	Lough, Thomas	Steadman, William Charles
Crilly, Daniel	MacAleese, Daniel	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	M'Ghee, Richard	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Davitt, Michael	M'Laren, Charles Benjamin	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Dillon, John	M'Leod, John	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Donelan, Captain A.	Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand	Wilson, John (Govan)
Doogan, P. C	Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)	Yoxall, James Henry
Dunn, Sir Williams	Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose.)
Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)	Morton, Edw. J. C. (Dvnpt.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Moss, Samuel	Dr. Clark and Mr. Caldwell.
Fenwick, Charles	Oldroyd, Mark

§ Clause 2:—

§ DR. CLARK
The Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper is taken from the last Bill introduced by the Government in 1892. It proposes that the determination of these matters should be not by the two Chairmen of the Committees, but by a standing Joint Committee of both Houses, composed of two peers and two commoners and the two Chairmen. The two peers and two commoners should be appointed every session, and every Provisional Order applied for should be sent to this Commission to be determined, and they should consider the procedure. In the present edition of the Bill this joint Committee is entirely dropped, and this work is relegated to the two Chairmen of the Committees. So far as the Chairman of Committees of this House is concerned, in my opinion he has quite enough to do. At the present time he is engaged all the morning on Private Bill work and all the evening ill this House, and cannot be expected to give a great deal of time to this work. I much prefer the form proposed by the right hon. Gentleman in 1892, which gives us a body who will meet and discuss these matters.

§ Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 2, after the word 'Commons,' to insert the words 'and two Members of each House of Parliament appointed at the beginning of each session in manner provided by Standing Orders shall be a Standing Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament."—(Dr. Clark.)

§ Question proposed—

§ "That those wools be there inserted."

974

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
The hon. Member forgets that the scheme of the Bill of 1892 is radically different to the scheme of this Bill. The scheme of the Bill of 1892 was a scheme for Private Bills, and there was no radical change at all in the initial stages of those Bills. The Joint Standing Committee was then created in order to deal with the Bills in the House, and see whether, when they had got to the Committee stage, they should go down for local inquiry. The present Bill is not a Private Bill scheme at all, but a Provisional Order scheme, and it was thought right to reserve the control of this House over these matters. It is desirable that there should be somebody to determine what is fitted to be proceeded with as a Private Bill and what is fitted to be dealt with as a Provisional Order, and it was felt that the two Chairmen would be a proper tribunal for that purpose. There would be a great disadvantage in adding two Peers and two Members of this House to the tribunal, because a great deal would be done when Parliament is not sitting, and they would not be here. The two Chairmen, on the other hand, are obliged to be here in the Autumn to deal with Private Bill matters, and it is felt that they could do this work at the same time. I therefore do not propose to accept this Amendment.

§ MR. CALDWELL
The difference between this Bill and the Bill of 1892 is very small. True, that Bill was to deal with Private Bills, this is to deal with Provisional Orders; but, call it whatever you like, it is the same thing, and the Provisional Order has the full effect of an Act of Parliament. The whole question which 975 the Joint Committee of 1892 had to determine was whether the Bill was one that should be relegated to local inquiry or not, and that is the scheme of the present Bill. The small changes in the Bill are immaterial. What is the effect of this tribunal? When a Conservative Government is in power the Chairman of Committees, the Secretary for Scotland, and the Chairman of the Committees of the House of Lords are Conservative, and they can say whether the Bill shall come to this House or not. They hold the strings, and the Secretary for Scotland can say "Refer it to me," and if he in his discretion sends it away we have no control over it whatever. There is a little difference if a Liberal Government is in power, because then, though the Chairman of Committee in this House and the Secretary for Scotland are Liberals, the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords is a Conservative, and he has power to prevent such a thing being done. It is a strong order to deny the right of a Private Bill to come to this House and to relegate it to a Scotch tribunal. I think that matter ought to be determined by an impartial Committee.

§ MR. RICHARDS (Finsbury, E.)
I thoroughly sympathise with my hon. friend the Member for Mid Lanark in the views he has put before the House. To my mind nothing is more unsatisfactory than the procedure with regard to Provisional Orders, as it amounts to nothing less than an attempt by permanent officials to smuggle through the House—

*THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! I do not think that is quite the question that is now before the House.

§ MR. RICHARDS
Of course, if you rule that, Sir, I cannot go into it. I can only say I intend to support the hon. Member opposite, because in my opinion if the Bill is carried as it stands it will be clearly an injustice to Scotland, and so long as the Scotch people desire to take the opinions of Committees of this House it is not right of this or any other Government to attempt to deprive them of that constitutional right.

§ DR. CLARK
I am somewhat surprised that my Amendment is not accepted. I have taken that clause out of the Bill of 1892 which it was proposed to bring in after three years' consideration. The tribunal was proposed because it did 976 not matter whether the initial stages of a Bill where taken at Edinburgh or Westminster, but it was thought proper that they should be determined by a Joint Standing Committee of this character, and that the matter should be considered by some independent Members. I believe that if the Government only express their willingness to appoint a Joint Committee of the two Houses they will get through this Bill to-night.

§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
In the course of this evening's discussion I said with regard to the Instruction that was moved before we got into Committee that I doubted whether there was full justification for the hope entertained by the Lord Advocate that this Bill would be found applicable to other parts of the United Kingdom besides Scotland. This was one of the points which I had in my mind when I said that, because here we are putting a great work and an immense responsibility upon the Chairmen of the two Houses. I may be told that the existing Chairmen have come before the Committee and said that they were willing and able to do this work, and I have no doubt that they would patriotically perform these duties if they were imposed upon them. But let us consider what the Chairman of this House has to do. He is the most laborious member of the House during the session, not excepting the Speaker himself, and during the autumn he is engaged to a very considerable extent in the preparatory steps of Private Bill business. Now we are going to ask him, together with the Chairman of the other House, to decide the very delicate question as to which of these proposals shall be dealt with as Private Bills and which shall be dealt with by way of Provisional Order. They are in effect to be the tribunal to deal with matters which will involve the employment of London agents, which rather disposes of some of the arguments, especially that rather fallacious argument of taking as much money for Scotland as you possibly can. I think if we consider the amount of work that this will impose upon the Chairmen, if the Bill is extended to the three kingdoms, we shall see very little prospect of this particular machinery being applied. I forget exactly the figures quoted, but there is a very small proportion of Scotch business before the House, and most of the Scotch Bills are unimportant—the 977 most important are the railway Bills, which occupy a great deal of time. There are 145 Private Bills for England and 25 for Scotland, and supposing the same machinery is applied to the 145 as to the 25, we can form some opinion approximately of how heavy and difficult the duties which are laid upon the Chairman would be. After all, I think it is rather too much if we contemplate extending the provisions of this Bill to other parts of the kingdom. My hon. friend proposes to constitute a Joint Committee, and though his proposal may not be complete, it is one which would give a great relief to the Chairmen, and a tribunal which I think would be most satisfactory—it would introduce into that stage of the proceedings that control of Parliament which we desire to see so far as possible from first to last. The point which particularly struck me, and drew from me a few words earlier in the evening, was the alteration of the status of the two Chairmen. It is a very serious step to take, and I think they ought not to have this work imposed upon them if it can be avoided.

§ MR. CRIPPS
I believe if this proposal could be carried out it would be a distinct improvement in the Bill. But first of all, are we to understand that, at any time of the year when an application is made to proceed under the new Bill, the two Chairmen are then to be got together in order to investigate the importance of the measure under Clause 2? I do not think that is at all a practical proposal. I do not think the decision of the Chairmen in itself would be a sufficient guarantee that the rights of this House are preserved, because it is notorious that in many points in Private Bill legislation there is a great difference of opinion between the Chairman and the House. But if you have two Members from each House elected from time to time, you would get a true representation of the opinions of this House. As regards the present suggestion of only the two Chairmen, I certainly think the effect of this Bill would be to greatly increase the departmental power as against this House, and upon that point I am anxious to protect the power of this House. I cannot help coming to the conclusion that the increase which will be made will be really a departmental increase of power in the office of the Secretary for Scotland, and that is a thing we ought to guard 978 against. We ought to be at one upon this point, that we should preserve the legislative faculties of this House as far as possible.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
I should be glad if hon. Members who are so hostile to this Bill would do me the honour to read its clauses, as it is impossible to listen to the speeches made by hon. Members without discovering that they have not done so. If they look at the clause they will see that the Secretary for Scotland has nothing to do with it, and therefore it is ridiculous to say that the whole thing will fall into the hands of the Scotch Secretary. This is a Bill to the principle of which the House has agreed. The principle is that it is a Provisional Order Bill, and if hon. Members do not wish to wreck it they must face the fact that this is a Provisional Order Bill, and not a Private Bill Procedure Bill. I do not think that we can gain anything at all by the election of these hon. Gentlemen. In the ordinary course that would not add much to the control of the House, and there would be the other disadvantage that you would not be able to get hold of them after the rising of the House. Therefore you would not be able to proceed with any of these measures. You can get the two Chairmen together, and you have the benefit of getting their determinations during the months of October, November, and December upon these questions. As to whether they have time to do the work, both of them have said before a Select Committee that they have the time, and therefore the suggestion of adding two Members of this House, in my opinion, is an empty suggestion. Under the circumstances, I do not see my way to accept the Amendment.

§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
I do not think the Lord Advocate has addressed himself to the most formidable argument against him. The Leader of the Opposition takes his stand on the immediate intention of the Government to extend the scheme and machinery of this Bill to the whole of the United Kingdom. Even if the Chairmen are willing and able to perform these duties with regard to Scotch Bills, they must recognise that if all the Private Bills that come before this House are to be considered by them they would not be able to deal with them. I have now the figures for the last seven years upon this question, and beginning 979 with 1887 I find that the average annual number of English measures is 158, Irish 12, and Scotch 27. Is it reasonable to suppose that the Chairmen of both Houses will be able to undertake these duties with regard to them all?

§ MR. DALZIEL
This is a point upon which I should like to ask the Lord Advocate to keep an open mind until the Report stage. Not one hon. Member who has spoken has opposed the Amendment; all have taken the same tone. This proposal is one which was introduced in the Bill of 1892 by the Leader of the House, and in face of the fact that there is no evidence of any need for change. I think the proposal which is put forward is a good one which ought to be accepted. Everybody has spoken in favour of the Amendment, and I put it to the Lord Advocate that if he wants the Bill to go through it can be only be got through by a give-and-take policy.

§ MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)
The reason that I have not spoken up to now is that I considered that if this Bill passes this Amendment is not likely to give it the authority of law. The hon. Member says these words appeared in the Bill of 1892. But everybody knows that the Bill of 1892 was only intended to deal with the procedure on Private Bills, which it was intended to facilitate. If these Provisional Orders are to be brought up at any time of the year, it will throw the onus of considerable labour upon the Chairmen. Would it be more difficult to get two Members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons to assist them? I myself do not see how we can expect the two Chairmen to do all this work themselves.

§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
I should like to supplement my statement by referring to the evidence of the Chairmen of Committees before the Select Committee. It is true they said that they could perform the duties which the Bill imposes upon them, but they stated that so long as their work was limited to Scotch or Irish Bills it could be done satisfactorily, whereas if it was to be extended to all Bills, including Welsh and English Bills, their work would be of a very difficult character. I hope that due weight will be given by the Government to that opinion.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
I am perfectly well aware of the evidence given before 980 the Select Committee, but sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof; and when we find that the burden under this Bill presses too heavily upon the Chairmen, it will be time enough to consider this question. We should not do any good by considering it now.

§ MR. SOUTTAR
I wish to say, with regard to the answer given by the Lord Advocate, that it would be impossible to get two Members of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords to join this tribunal, that I do not think there is much in it—I think it would be quite easy, but there need not be any difficulty as to that. The salient point before the Committee in my opinion is this: that from the Chairmen's point of view this is a desirable Amendment. I think that for that reason the Chairmen themselves would be exceedingly glad that this Amendment should be accepted by the Government, and for my part I cannot see the slightest shadow of reason why they should refuse to accept it.

§ MR. J. P. SMITH
I cannot see why there is such a desperate hurry in getting these Provisional Orders through. I think it is of great importance that there should be more individuals concerned in the decision between the two Chairmen. You want to have more continuity in your position, and that continuity you will get if you have a small committee such as is suggested. It seems to be thought that a Chairman can be got hold of at any time during the summer recess or autumn. My own opinion has been that he was free during the recess to go wherever he pleased, and do whatever he pleased. I think therefore the decision of the Chairmen will necessarily have to be waited for during those months, but I do not see how any serious harm can come to the promoters.

§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
The arguments used in favour of this Amendment seem to be absolutely unanswerable. I can remember many occasions when a Chairman, even backed up by the opinion of the Committee, has been overruled by a large majority in the House itself. It is therefore a strong thing to urge that the House should be deprived of the power of review in the case of Private Bills, which may involve public issues of the greatest importance, and rely on the ipse 981 dixit of the Chairmen of Committees. Irish Members naturally take a very great interest in this Bill, because we are promised some measure for Ireland to deal with the very same subject, and the Irish measure may be drawn somewhat upon the same lines as this Bill. I must confess that, although I am very anxious indeed to see some scheme devised by which the present inconvenience can be spared to Irish suitors and Scotch suitors also, as well as to the witnesses, I view these proposals for transferring the present jurisdiction for dealing with private Bills with the greatest possible suspicion. I confess from my own point of view the remedy to apply to these admitted grievances would be in a totally different direction. It would be some really representative local body sitting, either in Edinburgh or Dublin. I think the hon. Member for Caithness is perfectly right in endeavouring to add to the Chairmen of the two Houses two independent Members of the two Houses. We all remember occasions again and again, when, under the cloak of a Private Bill, a matter of the utmost importance has been introduced, and it appears to me that the protection proposed to be given by this Amendment is quite reasonable and moderate.

§ *MR. HEDDERWICK
I desire to join in the forcible appeal that has been made to the Lord Advocate to reconsider his attitude with regard to this Amendment. I think it is much to be regretted that the Lord Advocate should show such an unyielding disposition in regard to Amendments which do not affect any vital part of his Bill. To pursue that course is not calculated to facilitate the passage of the measure. Now, Sir, there are some considerations which ought, I think, to weigh with the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, I should like him to reflect upon the fact that the acceptance of the Amendment which is being proposed will in no wise affect the principle of his measure. In the second place this Amendment, which he has refused to consider, is an Amendment which has been approved by the right hon. Gentleman's own leader, the First Lord of the Treasury, and coming from such a source I should have thought it might have been treated with a little more respect than has been shown to it by the Lord Advocate. In the next place, the acceptance of this Amendment would satisfy the 982 feeling which has been very generally expressed, not only on this side of the House, but upon both sides—the feeling that there ought to be left to the House some remnant of control over measures which the House has hitherto fullly and completely controlled. I am perfectly well aware from the expressions which have fallen from the Lord Advocate that he attaches no importance whatever to that feeling, but at the same time he cannot deny the existence of the feeling, and the fact that it has been very generally expressed; and that being so, I think he would do well to reconsider his position.

§ *MR. STUART WORTLEY
I would have preferred a solution of the whole problem by a short Bill providing that a Committee on a Scotch Private Bill might sit at any time elsewhere than at Westminster. By the plan proposed in the present Bill the only security the House has that Private Bills shall be properly classified is the qualities of the Chairman so rightly exercised at present, and the objectional feature of the proposal is the new-fangled creation of a statutory officer outside the House, and over whom the only control the House would have would be by the supersession of its Chairman. I cannot see that any real or fundamental damage would be done to the Bill by associating two members with the Chairmen of the two Houses. I do not think that the important question of the classification of Bills should be left to officers selected in a circuitous manner and given a status novel to Parliamentary procedure.

§ DR. CLARK
During the hour and a half we have been discussing this Amendment only one Member has supported the Lord Advocate, i.e. my hon. friend the Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochrane). We have been told that under the Bill of 1892 there was a different scheme, but the difference makes my Amendment all the more necessary. The fifth section of the 8th clause takes away the right of appeal to the House on the question of classification, for the Chairmen, with the sanction of the Secretary for Scotland, may refuse such an appeal. My hon. friend the Member for North Ayrshire opposes the Amendment because he thinks it will "dish" Home Rule for Scotland. Our idea, however, is that it will help Home Rule for Scotland. Unless we can get some stronger arguments 983 against the proposal, I shall be compelled to go to a Division and take the feeling of the House.

§ COL. DENNY (Kilmarnock Burghs)
I am opposed to any such power being given to the Chairmen as is proposed by this Bill, and I feel compelled to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Caithness.

§ MR. DALZIEL
I am sorry the learned Lord Advocate has shown so little disposition to meet the views of the critics of this Bill, as well as those of its supporters, because if he expects to carry this Bill in a reasonable time he will have to show a little more consideration for the arguments brought forward in favour of Amendments than he has to-night. We have had five speakers from the opposite side of the House, some of them Scotch Members, in favour of this Amendment, and we have only had the speech of one private Member in support of the Lord Advocate. I do not wish to under-rate the importance of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire, but he will excuse me if I say that he is in an official atmosphere. He is so close to the Treasury Bench that I cannot conceive the possibility of the hon. Member taking any view hostile to that of a Member who sits upon that bench. I see the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has returned to his place, and I think it would be an ad-advantage to know what are the reasons which have induced him to depart from his own proposal. I rather fancy, as the right hon. Gentleman has remained silent, that we have converted him, and I shall listen with interest to hear him defend his later position, because, after all, he is somewhat of a democrat, and he would be the last to argue, when there is practically a unanimous opinion in favour of an Amendment which raises a point to which we attach great importance, that that point should not have the fullest consideration. I beg, therefore, to appeal once again to the Lord Advocate. I think in the interests of the Bill he had better adopt the suggestion which I made some time ago, which was that he should leave the matter open and bring it forward again on Report, and see if he cannot do something to meet the unanimous expression of opinion to which the Committee has listened. The right hon. Gentleman has shown no disposition to concede anything, and I am rather afraid 984 that it will interfere with the speedy progress of this Bill.

§ MR. A. G. MURRAY
My difficulty has been, first of all, with regard to the matter of time, because of the Chairmen being here in London in November and December, and they are in a very favourable position to give a decision upon the points put before them. This position would not be shared by private Members. My hon. and learned friend has asked why have we changed from the Bill of 1892? He forgets that this position with regard to the Chairmen is the position entirely approved by the Select Committee of last year. My principal difficulty is that a great many of the speeches have not really dealt with the question of whether private Members should be added so much as with the somewhat larger question of whether there is sufficient control by this House over the legislation here proposed. A great many Members have spoken as if, once the Chairmen have come to a determination that a particular subject should be dealt with as a Provisional Order, the matter disappeared from the control of this House altogether, and never came back to it. They always ignore the fact that it must come back. ("No.") Yes, if there is opposition it must come back, providing the opposition is not merely frivolous. I will consider whether there should not be some method of giving this House a still further control in all these matters, and also whether there may be any practicable way of adding some other Members besides the Chairmen for the consideration of this particular fact, treating it as a branch of what is really the larger question of the control of this House. I hope hon. Members will also consider that really time is the essence of the question.

§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
The right hon. Gentleman has shown a disposition to meet what was the general feeling of the Committee; but the promise he has made has not been quite so explicit as we desire. There has been a very strong case indeed made out. Not only have we had a number of Members on this side of the House desiring to have some Members of Parliament added to this Committee, but we have had the Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs intimate that it was deliberately accepted as a solemn necessity by all the Scotch Unionist Members of Parliament, and that 985 there was an objection entertained to the proposal to confer these powers on the two Chairmen. In these circumstances I think the right hon. Gentleman might go a little further. Why should he not accept the Amendment of my hon. friend, subject to the opportunity of correcting or altering it on the Report stage? That would be a more definite step to take. All that has been said has been not with any desire to wreck the Bill, as has been suggested, but with no desire except to make it as effective as possible for the purpose for which it is intended. We all know the immense difficulty in providing machinery for dealing with private legislation. The proof of that is the number of Bills which have been introduced again and again to this House and proved inadequate. This Bill is full of difficulties, and we wish to help the Lord Advocate, if he will allow us, out of those difficulties, and it is in that spirit I urge upon him to accept the Amendment.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
No doubt it is perfectly true that this House has been year after year occupied with one variation after another of this one theme. No less than four Bills have been brought forward by different gentlemen—one of them by myself—attempting to deal with this problem. The right hon. Gentleman assumes for that reason that all these Bills have been of equal value. I am not quite sure that I agree with that. The truth is that this is a change in our procedure which may be carried out in many different ways; and probably any one of those four ways which, after careful consideration, have been proposed is, if not quite as good, not very much worse than any other. But all ways are, no doubt, open to objection; and I have noticed in dealing with these proposals that there is always some gentleman to be found on one side of the House or the other, and usually a gentleman from each side of the House, who has an alternative to suggest. The result is we lose ourselves in this perpetual balancing of alternatives, which, after all, do not differ much front one another, discussing then in immense detail, at a great cost of time, until the Bill is likely to be smothered. I trust the Committee will endeavour to avoid that danger which has proved so serious, and even fatal, to proposals which have preceded that which my right hon. friend 986 now has in charge. I am sorry I have not been able to listen to the whole discussion upon this present proposal—it is through no fault of mine—but I gather that all this anxiety, which has been expressed in different parts of the House, really arises from a fear—a natural fear, and, up to a certain point, a legitimate fear in my opinion—lest under the guise of reforming our Private Bill legislation we should permit the House to be deprived of real control not only over the details of this scheme or that scheme, but over the general principles of legislation which ought to govern not merely public Bills, but private Bills also. This is only one of a set of Amendments proposed by different gentlemen in different quarters of the House, all having the same object, namely, that of keeping the control which this House has over the private legislation of Scotland, or any other part of the United Kingdom, which may come under the scope of this Bill or any future Bill framed on like principles. I sympathise with that desire, and unless we allow our desire to see that object carried into effect smother and destroy what ought to be the governing principles of legislation of this land, namely, to reduce the cost, to reduce the trouble, and to prevent that great burden which some of these inquiries have necessitated, I see no objection to any reasonable provision being put into the Bill by which that object may be attained. But the Amendment before the House is not the best way for carrying it out. My right hon. friend has explained that if you insist that two unpaid unofficial Members should be here through October, November, and December—

SEVERAL HON
. MEMBERS: No!

§ MR. CRIPPS
Bills must be deposited by December 21st.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
We will not quarrel over the months; it does not affect my argument whether it was November or December; it is at any rate some months which are not in the session.

AN HON. MEMBER
Two days will be enough.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
It may be, but it will be a tax upon either the Chairman of this House or the Chairman of the other House, or upon any Member who may 987 have to deal with the matter, and to require unofficial and unpaid Members to attend in our holiday appears to me to be—

AN HON. MEMBER
There are legal Members of this House who are always in London in the late autumn, and who would be available.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I do not think the House wants a legal man. I think the House must be glad to have two private Members, who are not of the legal profession, who are quite willing to give their time in the public service. It is a serious thing to insist that it should be a necessary and integral part of our machinery that unpaid Members should be here out of session. That would be an objection which would be very serious, if not fatal. I would suggest as a far more complete alternative than anything that is done before a Bill goes to these local tribunals that this House should have a more complete control than it has under the Bill of the Government for dealing with the measure after it has left the local tribunal. I was very much struck by some arguments brought forward by my learned friend the Member for Stroud and others in the earlier part of the discussion, in which it was explained that there might be changes in our law introduced unknown to this House in unopposed Bills. That danger would not be prevented by the proposal before the House.

§ MR. CALDWELL
That is provided for afterwards.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
My suggestion is that we should not try by this means simply to strengthen the Chairmen or the Members who are asked to do things which this House has never asked its Members to do before, but that we should endeavour to strengthen the grip which this House has upon proposed Private Bill legislation before it actually becomes law. If the Committee will let this Amendment slide, I will consult with my right hon. and learned friend whether some machinery of a far more effective character cannot be devised. The suggestion would not be open to the objection to asking Members to sit out of session and do unpaid work, and it would at the same time have the effect of carrying out the policy which I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Leader 988 of the Opposition, has expressed his desire to see carried out, and it must meet the views of many English Members not interested in the details of Scotch legislation, but extremely anxious that the control of this House should not be lost of the general principles under which Private Bill legislation in this and all other parts of the United Kingdom ought to be conducted.

§ Mr. CRIPPS
If the Committee had all along been met in the sympathetic spirit of the First Lord of the Treasury, a great many of our difficulties would have been removed. I certainly should agree with him that if this Amendment did necessitate the attendance of Members of Parliament out of session to deal with work of this kind it would be a very strong objection. But there is no such necessity, because Bills are deposited by December 21st, as we all know. Probably this tribunal would want to consider this matter about twice a year, and that could be done about the time when Parliament met and when it rose—that is, about the beginning of February and the beginning of August—thus giving two periods in the year when the matters could be considered conveniently for all concerned. It is also very important that at the outset we should get a proper distinction made as to what matters should come before the House. I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will see that the objections to which he has referred do not really apply to this Amendment; but I must thank him for the sympathetic way in which he has dealt with the matter.

§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
We all fully recognise the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has dealt with the subject, and we are grateful for the promise he has given with regard to the larger question of maintaining the control of Parliament over what may be important legislation contained in these private proposals. But that does not affect the particular proposal before the Committee, which is whether the tribunal to be composed to determine the initial question whether Bills should proceed in one way or in another should consist solely of the two Chairmen. We have urged many arguments against leaving the Chairmen to do this work alone. We have asked that two Members 989 —not chosen by the Party Whips, but appointed by the Committee of Selection or some other impartial body—should be put upon the tribunal as assessors or assistants to the two Chairmen. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has met our proposals, and we are not content to leave the matter as it How stands. On the other hand, after the disposition which the Government has shown to meet us, I should regret very much having to go to a Division I would therefore suggest that we should now report Progress, and when we meet again next week at the same point in the Bill, the Government will have had time to consider the question and to see whether our desire can be carried into effect.

§ Mr. A. J. BALFOUR
I do not think any good would be gained by resisting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, though I regret, giving up even ten minutes of public time. I hope the House will consent, when we resume the discussion of this clause, to remember that what we have to deal with is the question of Parliamentary control. whatever we decide, we shall do our best to meet the general views of the House.

§ Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again,

§ put, and agreed to.

§ Committee report Progress; to sit again Upon Thursday.