(NO. 157.) COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 22 July 1878)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
took exception to sub-section C. He said, the Bill proposed to re-value the debts on turnpike roads; and he wished to submit that the proper course to be taken was, that after the debts were re-valued any 2045 assets belonging to the trusts, in the shape of toll-houses, gates, and other property, should be sold, and the proceeds applied to the diminution of the debts, as far as such proceeds would go, the nett debt being then divided, as the Bill proposed, between the counties and burghs interested. But the proposition made by sub-section C appeared to him to be highly objectionable, inasmuch as it proposed a very different distribution of the assets of the turnpike trusts. It proposed that the assets should be given freely to the new trustees, or managing bodies of the roads, in the counties, and the municipal authorities in the burghs, and divided between the two simply according to the principal of local situation. It seemed to be forgotten that the property was not theirs; that the toll-houses were not built by them; and that neither of the two new bodies had been called on to maintain them. The road trustees, who were the landowners in counties and burghs, were called on to pay the debts; and, therefore, it appeared to him the proper course that the usual method should be observed in this matter—the plan which he believed had been followed in England—namely, that all the assets should be realized, and applied to the reduction of the debts. He would put a case, with the view of illustrating what he meant. Let them suppose an instance in which there was a debt of £1,000 on a turnpike road, and that there were toll-houses and gates on the road to the value of £300. The natural supposition would surely be, that when the trust came to an end the £300 should be realised, and the £1,000 debt thereby reduced to £700; whereas the proposal contained in this Bill was to give the £300 away to the new bodies, and to assess the whole of the £1,000 on the landowners. This proceeding appeared to him to be a most extraordinary one, and he submitted that it ought not to be sanctioned by the House.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
regretted that he could not altogether agree with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camperdown). To a certain extent he saw the force of the objection the noble Earl had raised; but to accept the principle which he had put forward with reference to this point would be to entirely depart from the lines on which the Bill had been drawn. By Clause 44 the landowners would get 2046 the benefit of the toll-houses and property sold; but the noble Earl's proposal, as far as he could gather, was to provide that all those houses should be sold compulsorily. Now, the provisions of the Bill were based on the proposition that it might be in some cases useful and advisable that the toll-houses should be retained; and it should be remembered that the exact proportion of the debts and the money that might be produced was to be decided by the Debt Commissioner, who was to be called in for that purpose. He thought that on reflection the noble Earl would see that in some cases it might well happen that the road trustees ought not to be required to sell at once, but should act voluntarily and justly between all parties.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said, that according to the Bill as it stood, the toll-houses would be sold, and the purchasers would purchase from whom? Not from the turnpike trustees, nor the persons who had to pay the debt, but from the new managing body, and the result would be that the money paid for the toll-houses would go, not in the reduction of the debt, but simply to the bodies to whom they were to be transferred.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH
quite agreed with the noble Earl opposite; and thought it never could have been intended that when the toll-houses were sold they should go towards the ordinary yearly expenses of the new body, but that any sum realized by their sale should be applied to the payment of the debts due from the trustees. He wished to add that some alarm had been expressed by different persons as to the wording of the clause. The sub-section said— All lands, heritages, works, and buildings belonging to the trust locally situated within any county or burgh shall be the property of the trustees of such county or local authority of such burgh, within which the same are so situated, or the trustees having the management of such road, as the case may be, and shall be applied and used or may be sold and disposed of under the powers and for the purposes of this Act. His understanding of the nature of the Bill was that all the property of the old trustees should be transferred to the new trustees, not as their absolute property, but merely as a transfer in trust to them, and that then they should exercise the powers given by the Bill, 2047 He would, therefore, propose to strike out of the clause the words "shall be the property of," and insert the words "shall hereafter be transferred to."

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, he was willing to accept the Amendment of the noble Duke.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
pointed out that, as the clause stood, the result would be that any roads added to the list of public roads within the last two years would not be maintained out of the public funds. He, therefore, moved to omit the words "for not less than two years."

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, he had no objection to the omission of the words referred to.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
said, he had set down upon the Paper a variety of Amendments to the clause; but he was of opinion, on reading them over thoroughly, that they would not stand against the previous ruling of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He would, however, ask the House to pass one Amendment. If they would not consent to restore the Bill to its original state, he hoped they would agree to strike Clause 89 out of the Bill. He had noticed that the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Buccleuch) had that evening presented another Petition against the clause; and if it were omitted the counties of Lanark and Renfrew, and the City of Glasgow and the adjacent townships, would be left to be dealt with in the same way as other counties and burghs in Scotland. If the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) still objected to this measure of 2048 justice to the people of Glasgow, he had only to say that he (the Earl of Rosebery) should not again put the House to the trouble of dividing upon it.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, he could not agree with the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) in thinking that the omission of the clause would be a measure of justice to Glasgow; because he believed the effect of it would be to prevent the Bill from passing through their Lordships' House that Session, and, consequently, would have to be brought once more under discussion, a measure to which everybody had been looking forward as a settlement of a much vexed question. The noble Earl must be fully aware that the subject had been before the public for many months, and that it had been discussed and considered in every possible shape. The other House had agreed to the insertion of the clause now under discussion, believing that it would put an end to a state of things which all persons connected with Scotland were of opinion should be settled with as little delay as possible. He was not quite certain whether, even if he were to satisfy the noble Earl by striking out the clause, it would not be a breach of the Privileges of the other House to do so; at any rate, though he thought this proposition quite capable of being argued, and of being argued successfully, he based his opposition to the Amendment on the fact that such a mode of dealing with this very complicated question of the roads in the vicinity of Glasgow was one which Her Majesty's Government thought not conformable to the interests of all parties. Therefore, he regretted that he was obliged to disagree with the proposal of the noble Earl.