§ House in Committee (according to order.)
§ Clauses 1, 2, and 3 agreed to.
§ Clause 4.
§ THE EARL OF MINTOMy Lords, the perhaps rather impertinent Amendment which I have to submit to your Lordships has for its object the correction of two faults as they appear to my mind in the construction of the County Councils, and in the position of the County Councils. The first fault which I think exists in regard to these Councils is that, under the present constitution, there is likelihood of too little variety in the character of the representation under the system proposed, because there is too great a uniformity in the electoral divisions under this Bill, and the persons returned from them I think are likely to be too much of the same class and description. I think if you add to such electoral divisions under the 448 Bill the duty of electing one member for the County Councils in country districts the representatives from those electoral divisions will be of a very monotonous and uniform class, and I think a little variety in the representation would be desirable. In that point of view I suggest that the Parochial Board of each parish should nominate one representative to the County Council. The words by which I propose to effect this object are the identical words which are used in the Bill itself in regard to the constitution of the District Councils. I think, my Lords, by adding that to the representation already proposed by the Bill, you would give variety of the representation. Then I have this other object in view, and I think it is the more important object of the two; in my opinion the County Councils are too narrowly restricted in point of number. In proposing to reform old institutions, I think it is desirable that you should as much as possible found your reform on the old lines which have prevailed in the country before. We have had County Government in Scotland for a great length of time, only not of the popular description now in vogue; but as a matter of fact the County Government in some counties has been under the superintendence, at all events, of a very considerable number of persons. The numbers have not been very greatly restricted. So long ago as the last century, and down to 1832, the persons entitled to take part in the County Government were all the freeholders, large and small, if I am not mistaken. It is quite true that, practically, only a small number of those freeholders did trouble themselves with the county administration, but there were no disabilities or restrictions upon the whole number taking part in it if they chose, and, in fact, the governing body was rather a numerous body than a very narrowly-constituted body such as is proposed by this Bill. Up to the year 1832 the whole of the freeholders were what one may call the governing body of the county. In 1832, in the Reform Bill of that year, a clause was inserted handing over the duties and functions of those freeholders to what were called Commissioners of Supply. The chief qualifications of the Commissioners of Supply at that time was the possession of land or heritages to the value of 449 £300 a year. This went on for 22 years. Far from being alarmed in those days at the number of persons who were qualified to take part, though they frequently did not all do so, in the County Government, in the year 1854 the numbers of those persons were very largely extended. The qualification of Commissioners of Supply up to the year 1854 was the possession, as I have mentioned before, of lands or heritages of the value of £300 a year. At that time, by a Valuation Bill applying to Scotland, the qualification was lowered to £100 a year, and so I believe it remains at the present time. There are many reasons why it is not desirable to limit the number of these County Councils. I cannot understand the alarm which seems to be felt by the Government in so narrowly limiting their number. It is very undesirable, I think, that you should prevent people, who have a right to take part in County Government, participating in it. I am not acquainted practically with more than one or two counties, but I am perfectly certain that I have never seen the least inconvenience arise from the fact of the numbers of the Commissioners, though they are considerable, being so large as they are. I think as regards counties you should consider that you have to take your members for the counties from long distances, and that it is sometimes extremely inconvenient for them to attend; and it is on that ground inconvenient, I think, to limit the number of persons who might devote themselves to the business of County Government. Then you may often have a difficulty in finding persons to do Committee work, and sometimes difficulties may even be experienced in finding a quorum. Those occasionally are matters of difficulty, and the result is that persons in the immediate vicinity of the town are more called upon to act, and that those who live at a greater distance do not take the part which it is desirable that they should do in carrying on the work of County Government. I wish to show, my Lords, how very large and serious the reduction of numbers is according to the scheme under this Bill. It is very possible that persons who are connected with the large and populous counties may have an experience different from mine, but I wish merely to show how great the change is in 450 point of numbers under this Bill. I will go to the largest county, though I admit it is scarcely a fair test, as it is quite an exceptional county, and that is Lanarkshire. The number of Commissioners of Supply there is 674. The proposal under this Bill is that the Councillors shall be 90 in number. According to my proposal, which is that one representative should be added to the Council for each parish within the county, that would add 40 more members to the County Council, and even adding that number would only bring such a county as Lanarkshire up to the total of 130 instead of the 674 persons who are at present privileged to take part in the County Government. Then in the other counties the same contrast prevails. In Ayrshire there are 310 Commissioners of Supply, and the proposal under this Bill is that the Council shall be only 62 in number henceforth. I would, by my proposal, add 40 representatives of parishes, and that would bring up the total to nearly 100. I maintain that nearly 100 Commissioners for so large a county as Ayr is not too numerous. It is, in fact, a very small number to appoint. I will not go through all the other counties, but I may mention that in the county of Perth there are 263 Commissioners of Supply, and the proposed number of Councillors for that county is 50. Fife has 242 Commissioners of Supply, and the proposed number of Councillors is 60, and so on in the same rate of proportion. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a very large diminution indeed. Then for the less populons parts in the South-East of Scotland, in which I am more interested personally, and which I have greater knowledge of than other parts, the county of Berwick has 92 Commis-missioners of Supply, and it is only henceforth to have 34 County Councillors. If my proposition were accepted, 32 more would be appointed, making 66 in all. Then the county of Roxburgh has 155 Commissioners of Supply, and the number of Commissioners will be 36. So that you are to choke off two-thirds of those who have already had the duty of attending to this county business, and unless there is some very good reason for such a large diminution I venture to think that the proposal which I make to increase their numbers is a very desir- 451 able one, and accordingly I move the Amendment which stands in my name.
§ Amendment proposed, page 1, line 16, to leave out "the Councillors of."—(The Earl of Minto.)
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)My Lords, I have listened with the greatest interest to the remarks of the noble Earl in moving his Amendment, but I am bound to say that all he has stated might, it seems to me, have been much better said on the SECOND READING of the Bill, because the whole of his proposal would go directly against the principles of the Bill as it has passed the House of Commons and in this House the other evening. The whole principle of the Bill is that the counties of Scotland should be divided into single electoral divisions, and that each one of them should return a single member. The noble Lord's first remark was that there would not be sufficient variety under the proposals contained in the Bill. I do not know that the proposal of the noble Earl—namely, that in every single district there should be members from the Parochial Boards, that is to say, from every parish, would introduce variety. I think no variety would be added by that; and not only do I think so, but I think that under the proposals of the Bill there will be sufficient provision for variety in the representation on the Councils. I do not think, therefore, that the proposal of the noble Earl would have any beneficial effect. Then the noble Earl objects also to the reduction in the numbers of the County Councils. As I said just now, the whole principle of the Bill is not directly to reduce the number of those who would have to administer County business, but, as a matter of fact, the principle and object of the Bill is to transfer the powers at present exercised by existing to new bodies, and I think the figures given by the noble Earl himself go rather to show that the proposals in the Bill will have rather a beneficial effect. He stated that in the county of Lanarkshire there are 674 Commissioners of Supply. Now, the House of Commons consists of only 670 Members, and does the noble Earl really mean to say that to administer the county business of Lanarkshire requires as many representatives as to 452 administer the entire business of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? I think in the County of Lanarkshire, at any rate, it is very desirable that the business of the county should be administered by a smaller body than now exists, and, as I have indicated before, I am quite unable to accept the proposal of the noble Earl. It would be quite contrary to the spirit of the Bill, and it would entirely upset the constitution of the County Councils; because, if that were carried out, the leading members or some of the most important members of them would be those not selected by the county, which is the intention of the Bill, but those selected by the parochial bodies. As I have said, that would be entirely contrary to the principle of the Bill, and on those grounds I am afraid I am unable to accept the proposal of the noble Earl.
§ THE EARL OF MINTOI may remind the noble Marquess that on the SECOND READING of the Bill I took occasion to pronounce a strong eulogium on the manner in which the present system has been worked in Scotland, and that system was one by which much larger numbers were qualified to take part in the county business than actually did take part in it. The tendency of that was that the persons who did participate and give their time to the business of the county, did their work well and efficiently, though the great majority of the 674 were absent. The great majority of the Commissioners of Supply in Lanarkshire stayed away, but others did the work exceedingly well. I have the noble Marquess's own voucher in support of that statement.
§ Amendment negatived.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKMy Lords, in moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I have only to point out that the principle adopted by Her Majesty's Government in framing this Bill, is that there shall be one Member for each electoral division. I think, in this respect, it may be regretted that there is the disadvantage attached to this system, as it appears to me, that in Scotland, at least, it will make a contest, in the first instance, almost inevitable in every place, and if you had larger electoral divisions each represented by two members, a door would be 453 opened to conciliation and compromise between different parties and different persons representing different interests, and I think that there would be very likely, in some cases, at least, a harmonious agreement to elect representatives to represent the different interests. At the present moment there will be certainly a greater number of contests under this system as proposed by Her Majesty's Government. Contests are to be regretted in themselves, they are a positive evil, first, inasmuch as they will be productive of a considerable amount of expenditure, and secondly, because they will leave animosities and misunderstandings behind them. But in addition to this, I agree with my noble Friend behind me that the result of the various contests of this nature in Scotland will very possibly be the election of persons of a very inferior character. In these small electoral divisions contemplated by this Bill in Scotland there will probably be in numerous cases—in almost every case—a majority, sometimes perhaps a small majority, but still a majority, of a single complexion. I think it likely that the result in many cases will be the election of a uniform class of persons in whom there will be a very inadequate representation both of Conservative feeling and of proprietary interest. My Lords, I do not wish to embark on the perilous course of political prediction, in which persons of much better judgment than myself are apt to be confuted by the event, and I trust the results of the present measure may be better than those which I anticipate from the want of variety in the character of the persons elected. But, at any rate, the Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper does not contemplate any radical alteration of the principle which has been adopted by Her Majesty's Government. I do not attack the general principle here of one Member for each electoral division. My Amendment contemplates conferring a discretionary power upon the Secretary for Scotland to meet a difficulty which I am afraid will be found in framing these electoral divisions. I think there are small counties in Scotland in which the persons charged with the duty of framing the electoral divisions will not find it possible to so constitute a sufficient number of those electoral divisions if 454 they are properly constituted as to give a sufficient number of persons to form an efficient County Council. I instance, as examples of those small counties, the County of Selkirk, the County of Peebles, the County of Nairn, the County of Kinross, the County of Bute, and some others. I will take the County of Selkirk as an example with which I am more particularly familiar, as I am connected both by birth and property with that county. My Lords, I understand it is the intention of the Secretary for Scotland to adopt 20 as the minimum number of members of the County Council. Let us see how that principle will be applied to the County of Selkirk. The noble Marquess proposes, I believe, to have 12 electoral divisions in the county, and he intends to add to those, eight delegates from a single Royal and Parliamentary burgh in order to complete this minimum number of 20. Now what is the constituency in the County of Selkirk? There will be approximately 759 voters who are to select 12 County Councillors. Divide 756 by 12 and you will find there will be only 63 electors for each electoral district, a very inadequate number as it seems to me. But I would ask the noble Marquess to consider this. The complement of 20 in the County of Selkirk is filled by sanctioning eight representatives from a single Parliamentary burgh, and that Parliamentary burgh at this moment has less than 7,000 inhabitants. But my Lords in a very short time, probably before two years have elapsed, the Burgh of Selkirk will have more than 7,000 inhabitants, and then that burgh will have a claim—I do not know whether that would be so absolutely, but certainly an equitable claim—to be withdrawn from the county and to become a perfect municipality by itself in all respects. The eight representatives must therefore be struck out of the County Council, and then how will the noble Marquess get eight representatives to make up the 20 from the County? He will have to divide this little thinly populated county into 20 electoral districts, and in that case each representative will be elected by 38 persons! Now I think that is really reducing matters to an absurdity, and the same result will, more or less, be discovered in other counties. I do not think I need go into particulars on the subject. My proposal is to give to the 455 Secretary for Scotland a discretionary power of sanctioning the election of two representatives for one electoral division when he finds that properly-constituted electoral divisions cannot be formed and that the proper number of competent Councillors cannot be elected upon that system. The power given to the Secretary of State is simply a discretionary power only to be used in case of necessity. I beg, my Lords, to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
§
Amendment moved in sub-section 1, page 1, line 20, after "electoral division," insert—
Incase, however, the Secretary for Scotland should he satisfied, after due inquiry, that under the foregoing provision, in consequence of exceptional conditions affecting any county, a sufficient number of County Councillors for the efficient transaction of business would not be obtainable, it shall be competent for the Secretary for Scotland to direct the election of two County Councillors for each electoral division in that county."—(The Lord Ettrick [Lord Napier.])
§ * LORD WATSONMy Lords, I should have thought that there was a great deal to be said in support of the Amendment of the noble Lord if this Bill had not already made provision against the evil which he anticipates. He fears, apparently, an absorption in course of time of part of the county constituency in burghs. If that should be the case it would be competent for the Secretary for Scotland at once to double the number of the County Council by directing that two County Councillors should be elected for each division instead of one. My Lords, the 50th section of the Bill provides that
On the representation of a County Council—which I apprehend will be the first to experience the want of members—or of a Town Council the Secretary for Scotland may at any time, after the expiry of the powers of the Boundary Commissioners, by order provide for all or any of the following things:"—I need hardly read them all, but the first Sub-section (a) is—For altering the number of County Councillors, the number, contents, and boundaries of electoral divisions, and the assignment of Councillors to counties and burghs.It appears to me that these provisions are amply calculated to meet the evil which is anticipated should it ever exist, and that it gives a discretion of a much more unlimited kind than the noble 456 Lord proposes, because it does not direct that the Council shall be at once doubled, but that such number of members shall be dded to it as shall be necessary to make it an efficient body.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKAs I read it, this clause does not authorise the election of more than two representatives for each electoral area.
§ * LORD WATSONThat is so, but that it seems to me is not an unqualified evil. Power is given to deal with electoral divisions as well as with the number of representatives.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKThen you will reduce the constituency to so small a number that there will be a representation for 10, 20 or 30 electors; so that you will produce this inevitable result that in the County of Selkirk there would be a representative for 38 persons. It seems to me that would be a ridiculous result, and I would ask whether it would not be better to have more representatives for a larger area than a single representative for so small an area.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, there is, no doubt, a great deal to be said in regard to the force of some of the remarks of the noble Lord opposite. But at the same time, I must point out that in introducing his remarks he at once traverses the principle of the Bill that there should be one representative for the area. That is the principle which he objects to having enforced.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANIn a Bill of this kind it is undesirable to have exceptional cases, and I think it is very much that the principle of the Bill should be carried out throughout from beginning to end. With regard to the county of Selkirk, of which the noble Lord has spoken, he is perfectly right in saying that 20 would be the minimum number of Councillors, but, at the same time, I have pointed out that there is nothing final in that number, and that the Secretary for Scotland has power to increase or decrease those numbers to whatever may be thought desirable in the interest of any County Council. If it turns out that the representatives for the County of Selkirk are too small in number, it is quite in his 457 power to divide that county into smaller districts with a larger number of representatives. With reference to what the noble Lord has said with regard to the possibility of there being only 38 electors for each County Councillor under the Bill, I have pointed out that as the Bill stands there is no provision for taking out of the county a burgh which may increase its numbers. At present the burgh which he refers to has less than 7,000 inhabitants, and it will continue therefore to remain in the county; so that I think his fear will not be realised. With regard to the districts, if the districts are to be so lessened as to be reduced to the number of 38 electors, it would come to this, that instead of 38 individuals electing one County Councillor, under the noble Lord's proposal 76 electors would elect two County Councillors; it would be very much the same thing. I do not think there is any great difference in the result. Having pointed out that it is entirely in the discretion of the Secretary for Scotland at any future time to settle the number of the County Councillors, so that if there appear to be too many he can reduce the number, and if they are too few he can increase them; I think, under the circumstances, as that can be done, it is undesirable to alter the principle of the Bill. I would, however, point out this, that should it appear desirable in any future case to empower the Secretary for Scotland to deal with differences under his powers, there is nothing to prevent his powers being added to if necessary by future legislation. If the noble Lord objects very much to the position of the County of Selkirk in particular, I would suggest this to him, that the whole of his remarks would tend to the County of Selkirk being added to one of the neighbouring counties.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 5.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, this clause gives to the Secretary for Scotland the power of determining the number of Councillors to be elected to the County Councils, and on this I only propose to say one word. The noble Lord has referred us to a paper which contains his first idea of 458 the numbers which he thinks are the proper numbers for the Councils of the various counties. I could not have supported either of the Amendments which have just been moved, but at the same time I am bound to say there is a good deal of argument to be put forward upon both of them, because your Lordships will remember that the Commissioners of Supply are the body who have hitherto conducted the administrative business of the counties. In every case the Commissioners of Supply enormously exceeded the numbers of the Councils which are proposed for the future. One does not expect, of course, that all the Commissioners of Supply should take an active part in the business, or that they should have an understanding of all local business; but there is a great difference between such a body as was spoken of by the noble Lord in Lanarkshire—namely, 674 Commissioners of Supply—and such a body as 55, which is proposed for the Council by this Bill. I wish to point out to your Lordships my reason for thinking that the noble Lord has cast his figures a good deal too low with regard, I might say, to all the counties. I take this objection here because I think it is the most useful course that I can take; and I hope the noble Lord will take some means of ascertaining what really are the wishes of the people in the various counties upon this matter. I do not mean for a moment, of course, to suggest that the wishes should be studied of unreasonable people who consider that their county will be distinguished or otherwise in proportion to the number of County Councillors elected. I do not say that their opinion ought to be listened to. But, on the other hand, I am quite certain that the numbers at present proposed will not give popular satisfaction, and I must say that I think myself that they are too small. I hope the noble Lord will take some means or other of ascertaining this, and that he will, at all events, listen to any representations which may be made to him. For instance, I can quite conceive that the Commissioners of Supply, after seeing this paper, will themselves meet or will appoint a Sub-committee to make a representation with regard to its contents. Of course, the Commissioners of Supply represent owners only, but there are other public bodies such, for instance, 459 as the Road Trustees, who represent tenant farmers as well as owners. Again, I may take such an authority as the Local Authority with regard to the administration of the Cattle Diseases Acts. I hope the noble Lord will listen to any representations which may be made by any public bodies of the sort; because, after all, we have only one object in view now that we are giving a largely increased popular representation in this matter of county government—we want the Bill to be such as will satisfy the country, and I would point out that, while it is perfectly true that the numbers of the County Councils might be made too large, yet, on the other hand, if we make them too small, as is proposed by this paper, I am confident we should have a number of most unnecessary and objectionable contests. I think that is a very important point indeed, because in the counties of Scotland we have a number of men who have been in the habit of attending to county business, and have distinguished themselves in that Department, such as the business of the Road Trustees, and other business of local importance of a similar character; and it is most important, I think, that those men should be on the new Councils. It is most important they should not be opposed, if possible, but if we restrict the number of seats there will be a great many persons who, for the first time, will see a chance of getting on the Councils, and who will come forward not caring whom they supplant. The result will be a large number of contests, and in many cases possibly, the election of most undesirable County Councillors who ought not to have obtained seats. I have thrown out these remarks for the purpose of inducing the noble Lord to consider this matter, and to consider whether he is not putting the limit of numbers too low. I think it would give general satisfaction in Scotland if he found himself able to say that if representations are made to him by public bodies or by individuals such as I have suggested he will give them consideration.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLBefore my noble Friend answers, I should like merely to say this. I have not studied very closely the Paper which he has laid on the Table of the House, and which is to be obtained in the Vote Office, but 460 I believe it gives a résumé of the intended numbers for the counties. I would earnestly suggest that the noble Marquess should not be in too great haste to fix the numbers, but that he should hold himself open to listen to recommendations from the various counties, public bodies and persons interested. We must remember that the whole of this is an experiment. We have had a stereotyped system in Scotland which has worked admirably. We were not there as regards County Government in the same position as they were in England. We were not in a state of chaos. Our County Government powers were not scattered among half-a-dozen different bodies. Undoubtedly this system is somewhat of an experiment. I confess I do not quite sympathise with my noble Friend, Lord Minto, who seemed to wish, to have the numbers of these bodies increased, so that they would be almost like great Local Parliaments. He mentioned the case of the County of Lanarkshire, which, under the existing system, has between 600 and 700 Commissioners of Supply, but I should like to know from him, whether he can give the House any information as to the numbers of those Commissioners of Supply who have really attended to the county business. I apprehend that a very small number of those 600 or 700 Commissioners of Supply have ever attended or given their attention to the business of the administration of the county. I may say that I am acquainted with what goes on in one of the largest counties in Scotland—namely, Argyll. We have there a very large number of Commissioners of Supply, but I know that the business of the county has been conducted by very few of them. I do not think I ever saw more than 40 members assembled at Inverary to conduct the county business, and generally the business was conducted by about 30 to 35 gentlemen. And why did not the others attend? Simply because they had perfect confidence in those who did attend. But I am afraid that confidence will not be given in the new Councils at first. Undoubtedly it is an experiment. There is, I think, a good deal to be said upon the suggestion of my noble Friend that as such large powers are given to the Secretary of State he should add to the districts, and not cut up the counties into districts as proposed. But in many 461 cases that would be ridiculous. I will take Selkirk as an instance. A large part of the County of Selkirk is purely pastoral. It is a mountainous district. People talk of the Highlands as being cleared of population, but in that respect they do not compare with Selkirk. My noble Friend himself has not a single crofter on his property in that county. The whole county is divided out in large farms, and it would be impossible for it to be cut up into smaller divisions. I do, therefore, urge very strongly that the noble Marquess should not be in a hurry to make up his mind conclusively on the question how many Councillors should be appointed, and how many divisions there should be for each of the Scotch counties.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKIn Selkirk the work is usually done by some 50 or 60 Commissioners of Supply; but when a vacancy has to be filled up a large number of them attend.
§ THE EARL OF ELGINMy Lords, I should like to say one word with regard to the County of Fife, with which I am intimately connected, because I see the number of Councillors put down by the noble Marquess for Fife is 60, which I quite admit is large enough for a County Council. I do not agree with the noble Earl in wishing to see these Councils composed of very large numbers. But what I should like to point out to the noble Marquess is this—that of those 60, 44 only represent the county itself, 16 being representatives of Royal and Parliamentary burghs. I will point out to the noble Marquess that there is a portion of these bodies—namely, the District Councils, on which the parochial representatives are to sit. When you come to that part of the Bill you will find that in the County of Fife we shall have considerably fewer representatives than those from the parochial bodies. Under those circumstances, we shall find that what was intended to be the superior body—namely, the County Council, will be in a difficult position as regards their relation to the District Council. I mention this matter to the noble Marquess for his consideration. In the County of Fife there are 63 parishes; therefore, the whole 60 members whom he has allotted to it would not give one representative each to the parochial bodies. I think it might be well to consider before the number is 462 absolutely fixed whether that number should be increased or not.
§ THE EARL OF MINTOWith regard to what the noble Duke has said, I think he rather misapprehended my Amendment. I stated that Lanarkshire is an exceptional county, and that there are at present 674 Commissioners of Supply in that county; but even if the proposal I make were adopted, that every parish in the county should send from its Board one representative, in that very large county that would only amount to 130 persons. Now, I do not think 130 representatives are too numerous for such a county as Lanarkshire.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, the main object, as I understand, of the observations of the noble Lord, is that in many instances the number of the County Councillors would be too few as compared with the number of Commissioners of Supply. That point really arises upon the principle proposed by the Bill; but that proposal and principle not only affect Scotland but England. The Local Government scheme for England of last year had exactly the same effect; the number of Councillors now is not at all equal to what the number of Magistrates had been under the previous system. In. answer to the appeal of the noble Earl and the noble Duke, I would merely say that this proposal which I have laid on the Table of the House is purely a provisional one. So far as the observation of the noble Duke goes, as he has anticipated, I have taken the opinion, of those who are really responsible for the government of the counties in the matter; but, at the same time, as I have said, the proposal is purely provisional, and I should be glad if, as has been suggested by the noble Earl, the Commissioners of Supply or other bodies or individuals would send the Government their views as to what they consider the proper number for constituting the Councils. I may say that the principle on which I went in drawing the provisional plans now before your Lordships was this. First I took the number of parishes in the county, and having ascertained the number of the parishes I proposed to give one representative to each parish. Having then taken the population of the parishes into consideration I proposed, as nearly as possible, to give a proportionate repre- 463 sentation to the burghs which, sent representatives. That was the general basis upon which I proceeded in accordance with the views of the counties themselves. As the noble Earl has stated, the number of representatives from the County of Fife does not quite coincide with the number of parishes, and this affords an example of a case in which, on the representations of those loyally interested, I have made a variation in the original proposal.
§ LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, as the noble Marquess has referred to the case of England, I should like to say a few words with regard to the county representation here. I was in several of the English counties last autumn, and I found considerable dissatisfaction existing with regard to the number of County Councillors. It was thought they were fixed too low. It may be that the people in the counties have since become reconciled to the smaller numbers, but I think it would be worth while if the noble Marquess would ascertain what has been the expression of feeling generally upon that point.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)I cannot entirely join with the noble Lord in that view. My impression is that the feeling he has referred to will become very materially modified after the first meetings of the Councils have been held. It is a very different thing wishing to become a member of a large body, and afterwards finding that the room is, perhaps, too small for their accommodation. I think that might be found to be the case, and that prudence would cause them to deprecate any increase in their numbers.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
§ Clause 8.
§ THE EARL OF MINTOBefore Clause 8 is finally disposed of, I should like to hear from the noble Marquess generally what his views are as to the destiny of that class of burghs which are contemplated by this clause. Burghs having more than 7,000 inhabitants at this moment are endowed with the whole constitution and privileges of independent communities; but burghs having at the present moment less than 7,000 464 inhabitants are incorporated, and perhaps wisely, for certain purposes with the counties in which they are situated, retaining, however, their independent Town Councils for their internal and domestic affairs. Some of the burghs in Scotland having more than 7,000 inhabitants are comparatively stagnant or reactionary burghs, places which have, in fact, no distinctive industrial character, and which are not in a state of progress; but some of those burghs which have very nearly 7,000 inhabitants are burghs which are extremely active and progressive, and their populations are increasing very rapidly; and I would like to know from the noble Marquess what is to become of them when they shall have more than 7,000 inhabitants. Why are they not to have all the privileges which are accorded to burghs of 7,000 inhabitants at the present moment? Supposing a burgh having only 7,000 or less than 7,000 inhabitants acquires in two or three years' time a population of 8,000, 9,000, or 10,000 inhabitants, with every indication of progress in population and constitution. Are they not to have the power of acquiring the independence and the status accorded to other burghs which would then in those respects be inferior to them? The noble Marquess has under Clause 50, as Secretary for Scotland, very large powers of altering and of giving new limits to co-institutions; but I would ask ought not the burghs themselves to have some claim to a more perfect constitution? Does he intend to keep these burghs of more than 7,000 inhabitants as part of the counties in future?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANThe question raised by the noble Lord is a very wide one. As the Bill stands there is no power to do what he suggests, namely, to give to burghs of less than 7,000 inhabitants, but which are likely to increase in population, additional powers so as to put them in the position at present of Royal burghs of above 7,000 inhabitants. I presume the noble Lord is referring only to the Royal burghs?
§ THE EARL OF MINTOYes, to the Royal burghs.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANThen I would point out that 7,000 is the number which has been fixed by the Bill in consequence of a recommenda- 465 tion of a Committee of the House of Commons in regard to the Burgh and Police (Scotland) Bill of last year. They fixed 7,000 as the number under which it was desirable that boroughs should not have their police management. At the same time 7,000 is a very low number, and while that number has been adopted as regards existing burghs; I think there is no reason why the number should be altered even if the population increases. In England the number where the burghs have their own police management is fixed at 25,000. However, that is the provision in the Bill, and there is no power to make any alteration in it at present. Of course, if any burghs should increase in wealth and population so far as to make it desirable that there should be a change made with regard to having the control of their own affairs, there is no reason whatever why a Bill should not be brought into Parliament for that purpose.
§ THE EARL OF MINTOIt would require a special Act.
LORD HAMILTONThen I would point out that he has just put an Amendment into the Bill which uses the words "any burgh." He does not say "any Royal burgh." I merely want to know whether that is a mistake or not.
* LORD BALFOURThere are a certain number of burghs which are not Royal burghs, but are Parliamentary, and under this Amendment they are put under the same category.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANThat is so. The Royal and Parliamentary burghs are put in the same category.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
§ Clause 11.
LORD HAMILTONOn this clause the Amendment which has been put 466 down by me on the Paper is with regard to the levying Income Tax. It is, to insert the words—
And provided that nothing in this Act contained shall affect the powers and duties of the Commissioners of Supply with respect to the appointment of Commissioners for general purposes under the Property and Income Tax Acts, the assessing and levying of the Land Tax, and the division and allocation of old valued rent.We have a very good system for that purpose in Scotland, which works well and economically, and I am told that, without some Amendment in this Bill, that system will be upset. I am also told that, unless some means are taken for filling up the Returns to the Income Tax Commissioners, we shall be in the happy position in Scotland of not paying Income Tax at all.
§
Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 26, after ("mentioned ") insert—
("And provided that nothing in this Act contained shall affect the powers and duties of the Commissioners of Supply with respect to the appointment of Commissioners for general purposes under the Property and Income Tax Acts, the assessing and levying of the Land Tax, and the division and allocation of old valued rent.")—(The Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI think what the noble and learned Lord has stated answers the objection. Under the Bill the body of Commissioners of Supply is kept up for one purpose only, namely, that of electing members to the Council and this would give them other powers not contemplated by the Bill. The noble and learned Lord has pointed out that the powers and duties are transferred under section 101, and therefore the fears expressed as to the non-payment of Income Tax will not be verified
§ Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 12.
§ THE EARL OF ELGINMy Lords, on Clause 12 I confess I should almost have preferred to take exception to that clause altogether, because it appears to me to be one of the blots remaining on the Bill. But this matter was discussed in another place, and the Government seem so determined to stand by the arrangement that I think it scarcely worth while to move an Amendment for 467 the omission of the clause. At the same time I desire to enter my protest against this particular arrangement. With regard to the clause as it stands, it appears me to that it is almost unworkable. The noble Marquess on the Second Reading of the Bill pointed out that the Commissioners of Supply at present were the chief administrative body in the county, and he paid what I think was a very fairly deserved compliment to the manner in which they have discharged their duties. All those powers of administration are now swept away from the Commissioners of Supply entirely by this Bill, because, although there is a reservation as to those powers in Clause 11, that clause is not with regard to the Commissioners of Supply in the future, but with regard to the Joint Committees. Therefore the Commissioners of Supply will not be in future as in the past, members of an administrative body, but their representative will only be one of an electoral body. The Commissioners of Supply simply become an electoral roll. I venture to say there will be considerable difficulty experienced in the management of this electoral roll of the Commissioners of Supply. It is an entirely voluntary arrangement, and as it stands, I think it will not answer. I know from experience that gentlemen do not take the trouble to enrol themselves on such a roll, because I know many eases which have occurred within my own knowledge in which gentlemen whom it was desirable to have on certain committees in the county could not be put on those bodies, because they had not taken steps to enrol themselves on the list of Commissioners of Supply. There is no public official to do it, and it is left entirely to the Commissioners of Supply themselves. I do not see why that should be the arrangement under this Bill, and the more so as the Government themselves under the measure with regard to parochial bodies which they introduced into the other House, had an arrangement which would have been perfectly sufficient for the purposes of this Bill, that is to say that there should be a separate column under the head of "owners," in which would be placed only those who had that qualification. I do not see why if the Government insisted upon having a list of those owning 468 a certain franchise they should not have done the same in this Bill, and thereby have obtained a regularly-framed roll. The only reason I can suggest for the course the Government have taken is that they wish to shelter themselves to some extent behind the time-honoured name of the Commissioners of Supply, and so give the Joint Committees to be established a little more dignity than they would otherwise have. At any rate there is this to be said about it, that the Commissioners of Supply, as the noble Marquess has just stated, will in future have no existence whatever except for an electoral purpose; and therefore, my Lords, there will be no one to act for them or to make arrangements on their behalf. That is the reason why I have put down the Amendment standing in my name en this clause. I do not see whether the meeting is to take place before or after the meeting of the County Council. I am told that under the English Act the same thing occurs, but in that case it applies to the Justices who have a separate existence for other purposes as well; but as the Commissioners here have no separate existence I do not see who is to act for them. If the matter had only had reference to this clause it might perhaps not have been worth while to add these particular words; but the same objection will occur upon a subsequent clause of the Bill where the Joint Committee is instituted, because in Clause 18, which appoints the Joint Committee, it is left in doubt what the number appointed by the Commissioners of Supply and the County Council respectively should be. There again the same question will arise as to how that matter is to be decided. I understand that it has been done in England by the County Councils. A deputation was appointed to wait upon the Justices on the subject, but as the Commissioners of Supply are only to meet on one day, and that the day of election, I do not think that would be a satisfactory arrangement. It seems to me the only way you can get out of the difficulty suggested is that you should lay down in the interests of all concerned, that one body should meet before the other. In that case it seems to me the administrative body of the county, that is to say, the County Council, should meet and determine what number of members should serve on the Joint Committee 469 and that the Commissioners of Supply should elect a like number. The only other way out of the difficulty that I can suggest at all—I do not know whether it will be approved by the noble Marquess—is that he should undertake another of those arithmetical problems which he has been grappling with, and should lay down the numbers as I have suggested; but I think the better way would be to omit the words which have reference to that matter.
§ Amendment moved in page 5, line 34, to leave out "either before or" (The Lord Elgin.)
LORD HAMILTONMy Lords, I feel so very strongly against this clause that I do not like to let it pass without saying a word against it. I understand County Councils in England have worked well because those who have hitherto taken part in county business have worked with the Councils. But in Scotland the Commissioners of Supply, who have done the county work hitherto, and who are therefore ear-marked, as it were, in connection with it, are put aside in order to carry out the mere purpose of electing a member with the view of controlling that which is to be done by the other body. I think if we do not have class feeling manifested to a certain extent, if such a distinction is made, Scotchmen are more forbearing than I take them to be. In this way those gentlemen will only be a check on the body which really does the work. I confess I do not see how it is to act.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI think, my Lords, this discussion has turned away entirely from the Amendment which is proposed before the Commitee. The question upon the Amendment is whether certain words should be struck out, or not. We have diverged from that matter now, and got into a discussion as to whether it is not a right thing that there should be a body of Commissioners of Supply maintained, as well as of County Councillors. I really do not know which of the two questions we are discussing. I am perfectly prepared for my own part to discuss the second question, but I think that anything I could say in answer to the objections made would be better postponed until the discussion upon the clause referring to the Joint Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI will follow the example which has been very properly set by the noble Lord, and decline to go now into the general discussion raised, and I will deal simply with the Amendment itself. The noble Lord says this must be taken in connection with the Amendment upon a clause which occurs later on. The whole of his objection goes to this—that the number of the members of the Commissioners of Supply should be the same as those appointed by the County Council, that is to say, if the County Council appoint only three, the Standing Committee of the Commissioners of Supply would only appoint three.
§ THE EARL OF MINTOI understand that is the proposition in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANNo; the proposition in the Bill is that they are to be appointed in numbers not exceeding seven, but each body is entirely independent as to the numbers they may appoint. The Commissioners of Supply might appoint, for instance, two, and the County Council seven, or vice versâ. It is entirely in the option of each body to appoint up to seven members, but not more. I think it would be exceedingly undesirable that the number should be less than that proposed by the Bill—namely, 15. There are seven to be appointed by the Commissioners of Supply, seven by the County Councils, and then there will be the ex officio Sheriff, who would make the number altogether 15. If, for any reason, the County Council desire to have a similar representation to the Commissioners of Supply, they would have nothing to do but to appoint a like number of their own representatives. I think it is very desirable that the number should be kept up to 15 as proposed by the Bill; and holding that view I am not disposed to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord. As regards getting over the difficulty mentioned by the noble Lord at the beginning of his remarks, I do not see that in omitting the words as to the time of meeting, whether before or after the meeting of the other body, would solve that difficulty at all. The difficulty as to the members elected from the Commissioners of Supply or any one officially acting would remain just the same. I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment.
* LORD BALFOURI would call the noble Lord's attention to the proposal in Clause 82, Sub-section 2, which provides that the Commissioners of Supply may continue to perform the duties which they have up to the present time carried out in that respect; therefore the Commissioner elected may act as the Convener just as he does now. The system provided by the Bill is, I think, more elastic in providing that the Commissioners of Supply may meet either before or after the County Council than if they were bound only to meet afterwards.
§ * LORD WATSONI think, my Lords, the course which is being taken is undesirable. We are discussing a future clause upon this Amendment.
§ LORD ELGINThe object, I suppose, is that there should be seven and seven appointed, and the Sheriff acting ex officio. The remedy which the noble Lord suggests to us is that one of the bodies need not appoint the whole number of seven, but the only result of that would be that the body so acting would thereby be merely placing itself in a minority on the Committee. My object was to point out that one body should meet first, and that there should not be an unseemely competition which of them should meet first in order to settle what the numbers on the Joint Committe should be.
§ THE EARL OF MINTOI would point out that there is another Amendment prohibiting the election of the Convener on the day on which the Council meets. I think the noble Lord had better consider whether the insertion of the words "on that day" would not be advisable, so that the Commissioners might be competent to transact business of various kinds which might come before them.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANThe words seem to me to be harmless, and I should not object to them probably, but I think they would be surplusage, and therefore I do not think there is any necessity to insert them in the Bill. I do not think that the danger the noble Earl contemplates is likely to arise.
§ THE EARL OF MINTOIt appears to me there might be a doubt whether the Commissioners of Supply are competent to undertake these duties.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANIf the noble Earl wishes to insert the words 472 in order to make it clearer, I have no-objection.
§ THE EARL OF ELGINSurely the-noble Marquess has misunderstood the Amendment. It is not merely a question of making the clause clearer. It seems to me plain that the Amendment means that the Commissioners of Supply may transact other business than the convening of the Committee. That is as I understand it.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANThen if that is the explanation of it I cannot accept the Amendment. I do not know whether that being so it will be withdrawn by the noble Lord.
§ Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
§ Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
§ Clause 14.
§ THE EARL OF ELGINUpon Clause 14 I wish to draw attention to the-proviso that nothing in this section shall transfer to the County Council any powers under the Contagious Diseases Act. This proviso deals with the question of the inspection of dairies as I understand it, though it is not very clear under the 4th sub-section of Clause 11. The inspection of dairies is transferred with the other powers of the Local Authorities under the Public Health Act to the County Councils, or rather they are to be administered by the District Committees; but this clause retains the inspection of dairies in burghs of under 7,000 inhabitants in the authorities of the burgh. This-takes us back to a question which arose in 1886, when this amendment of the law was passed. Before that the inspection of dairies was under the Act which was passed in 1878 vested by the Privy Council in the Local Authority, which acted under their instructions; but by the Act of 1886 it was transferred to the Local Government Board in England—which means the Board of Supervision in Scotland and to the Parochial Authorities. My Lords, this is considered rather a serious matter by those who take an interest in the work of the Local Authorities. In the County of Fife, for instance, we have been very much of late subjected to outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia, and the history of those outbreaks is rather instructive. Since the-beginning of this year there have 473 been no less than 15 outbreaks of pleuro, and all those 13 have taken place in dairies. It seems to me that raises a very legitimate question, and that for the protection of the counties against the ravages of this disease it is very important that the Inspectors acting under the Local Authority should have powers of inspecting dairies and the cattle in them; because the Act of 1878 distinctly laid down that the inspection not only of the dairies themselves, and of the milk vessels, and other things, but also of the cattle should be under regulations carried out by the Local Authority. I think I might, perhaps, venture to illustrate the inefficiency of the present system by stating that when the Act transferred the duties from the county with which I am more intimately connected it had appointed regularly qualified Inspectors to the Board. Well, the result was that the Parochial Board in my parish appointed its own Sanitary Inspector to inspect the dairies. He was a very excellent man, no doubt, for he held the respectable position of town plumber, and he carried on those duties till he died. I do not suppose he knew much about cattle disease, but no doubt he did his best. Since then we have appointed a veterinary surgeon as Sanitary Inspector in order that he might inspect the dairies. I venture to think that with many of these smaller authorities there is practically no inspection worth the name at all, and the result is that if we leave out of the Bill these small burghs under 7,000 inhabitants we shall leave hot-beds for promoting this disease which the counties are incurring great expense in trying to stamp out. In my own county we have spent between £4,000 and £5,000 in compensation under the Acts referring to Contagious Diseases, and we, therefore, feel very keenly if we are to be subject to outbreaks, notwithstanding all we may do, in places which are not under proper inspection. I, therefore, move that this proviso be omitted from the Bill.
§ Amendment moved, in page 6, line 35, to leave out from "provided," to "1886," in line 38.—(The Earl of Elgin.)
* VISCOUNT CRANBBOOKThe noble Lord has adverted to a change made in 1886. The first is a very simple one. I can only say that the powers to which 474 he refers were vested in the Local Government Board, and taken from the-Privy Council, because the cleanliness of dairies and the effect of the want of it upon human food are matters for the Local Government Board, but I am not aware that the Privy Council is deprived in any way of the superintendence of the law relating to diseased cattle and their inspection.
LORD HAMILTONThe question which really seems to me of importance is, by which authority these duties will be performed, whether by the County or the Burgh Authorities. It seems to me they would be better discharged by the Burgh Authorities within the limits of the burgh. The burghs are intimately connected with the discharge of the duties imposed under the Public Health Act, and I think they are more likely to perform the duties in connection with these Acts than the County Councils would be. I would therefore strongly support this proviso, thinking it best under the circumstances.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANThe question raised by the noble Earl is of great interest, and one in regard to which in the County of Fife there has been a great difficulty in consequence of a want of proper supervision over dairies. But what I should like to point out to the noble Earl is, that this Bill does not propose to deal with any question of that kind; all it does is to continue matters as they are. No doubt a very great deal might be said for some alteration of the system, although I gather that the noble Lord prefers that the system should remain as it is. The effect of the Amendment would be simply to transfer the powers of inspection of cattle in dairies, and to secure the cleanliness of milk pails and other duties of that description. The noble Earl has stated that this power was taken from the Local Authority under the Contagious Diseases Act, and given to the Public Health Authority under the Act of 1878. All this Bill does is to keep things as they are. I am sorry to be continually declining Amendments proposed by noble Lords, but it appears to me I should not be justified in going into matters which affect the Public Health in a Bill of this kind. I would therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment.
§ Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 15 agreed to.
§ Clause 16.
§ * LORD WATSONOn Clause 16 I have to move an Amendment which has for its purpose to ascertain whether the Chairman of the Body when it is formed, is to be the Convener of the County. There is no provision in the Bill for the election or appointment of a Chairman.
§ THE EARL OF ELGINIs it not better that the Road Board should elect their own Chairman? It might very easily happen that the Convener of the County would be a very fit person, but he might not be willing to undertake the duties; therefore it seems to me better that the Chairman of the Road Board should be treated as the subordinate of the Council.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI think the Convener should be ex officio Chairman, but in his absence they would elect their own Chairman.
§ * LORD WATSONDoes it necessarily follow that the Convener would be on the Council at all? There is nothing to secure that the Convener is to be a member of this Road Board. The noble Marquess says that the Convener is to be the Chairman?
§ THE EARL OF ABERDEENYou cannot make Chairman of the Board a man who is not on the Board at all.
§ THE EARL OF ELGINI would suggest that the better way would be to appoint a Convener who should be ex officio Chairman.
§ * LORD WATSONAfter what has taken place I desire to withdraw my first Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF ABERDEENThen there is to be no Chairman at all?
§ * LORD WATSONI do move the second Amendment which stands in my name, because I think this unfortunate body should not be entirely without a Chairman.
§ Amendment moved, in page 8, line 27, after the word "Act," to insert the words, "and shall appoint their own Chairman."—(The Lord Watson.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI will not object to that Amendment now; but I should like to consider it on Report.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 17 agreed to.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKThe object of the Amendment which stands in my name is to provide an agency by which the benefit of telegraphic and telephonic communication may be extended to the more remote and isolated districts in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and to other parts of the country where those benefits are not at the present moment enjoyed. It is known to many of your Lordships that there exist many inhabited places in the Highlands which are from 20 to 30 miles from the nearest telegraphic station. In the border districts, too, there are many inhabited places which are between 10 and 20 miles from the nearest telegraphic station. Those districts suffer considerable inconvenience and disability. They have need, of course, for summoning medical assistance, they require access to the markets and intelligence concerning the markets—and it is in these latter respects that the fishing districts are principally affected. This matter has reference also to all ordinary circumstances of life and social intercourse. Those disadvantages affecting the wilder and more isolated districts of Scotland are being now more generally felt by the inhabitants, when they compare their condition with that of people in the more populated districts of the country. The evils attached to this state of things were strongly presented to the Crofters Commission in which I took part, and their existence was confirmed by the Report issued by that Commission. Those evils were warmly represented to the Government, which has not been insensible to them, I am glad to say. The same evils have not attracted so much attention in reference to the pastoral and other districts of the country. But I desire here to say the Amendment which stands in my name is a 477 recommendation of the Commissioners of Supply of the county with which I am connected. I doubt not that those evils are fully recognised by the noble Marquess, who has become well acquainted with the condition of the Highland districts by recent inquiry, and who is familiar with the wants of the Border Districts by the ties of birth, property, and hereditary association. The noble Marquess may contend that the instrumentality of the agency which I recommend on this occasion is not the right remedy, and I therefore ask your Lordships to put to yourselves the question what are the alternatives before us. If the districts, which are now without telegraphic and telephonic communication, are to be furnished with those facilities which are so necessary in modern life, it must be either by voluntary combination on the part of the people, or by the action of the Government, or by the action of some Local Authority, acting in co-operation with individuals, and with the Government. I wish I could believe that those disadvantages and disabilities affecting extensive portions of the country are likely to be remedied by simple spontaneous action. I think that action must either be on the part of the proprietors, or the tenants, or it may be both. As far as I have been able to ascertain, we cannot expect to obtain a general facility or remedy of this character from the proprietors. In some cases, no doubt, an opulent proprietor, or a rich shooting tenant, may of his own motion, or for his own purposes, obtain telegraphic communication either by paying down a round sum to Government, or by engaging his property or his credit for a certain number of years. But so far as I have been able to ascertain much is not to be hoped from the proprietors. In the district to which I have referred, many of the proprietors are not resident, that are not therefore keenly alive to the necessities of the case. In others, the proprietors are suffering from great pecuniary disabilities and discouragements, and they are either unwilling or unable to subscribe, and even those who would be able or willing to subscribe to such a purpose, cannot join in such contracts, as they would be unable to transmit them to their heirs and successors. The proprietors cannot form 478 an incorporated body which would be able to make engagements, and undertake contracts with the Postmaster General, or with the companies which are concerned in these constructions. With regard to the tenants, the case is even worse, because the position of the tenantry is at this moment so precarious and transitory in some parts of Scotland that one could not expect they would pledge their credit or their property for any prolonged period. Now it may be said that the duty should be undertaken by the Government. Government has not remained, I am glad to say, insensible to the claims of the Highland districts in this matter, but I do not think it would be possible to expect that Government should supply this want entirely at their own risk. The Government I think would do well to come to the assistance of localities which cannot help themselves. They would do well to incur some temporary loss if necessary, but they could not be expected to do everything. Their action would be facilitated no doubt if some co-operation were afforded to them on the part of the County Councils. There should be, in fact, some local agency which would have power to enter into contracts and engagements with the Postmaster General, to afford guarantees, it may be, against loss, to raise a rate or to have the power of raising loans, though I think that would not be necessary for this purpose. If this power were once conferred upon a recognised authority the rest would be easy. It may be urged that in principle it would be unjust for the Local Authority to tax the whole area of the country for the benefit of the more distant and the less favoured portions of it. I admit it would be necessary, perhaps, if the Council undertook this duty, that they should undergo some partial loss and some burden for a short period. I contend, however, that the burden put upon the ratepayers would not be an excessive one. I do not think too much is to be expected from voluntary agencies in the way of entering into direct contracts with the Government for the execution of such works; but I do think if the County Councils were empowered to enter into such contracts, the execution of those works within the county might be carried out much more economically than would be the case if the works were 479 executed simply by the Post Office. It may be also said that the people in the more populous districts of the country, although not directly interested, are indirectly interested in this matter, inasmuch as it is to the interest of the inhabitants of villages and remote places throughout the country to have facilities of intercourse with their neighbours and customers in other districts. It may be pointed out that if those facilities of intercourse were extended to the remoter parts of Scotland there would be a very considerable increase in the value of property in the districts so improved. Even now the first question asked if anybody is taking a property or renting a shooting in the remoter parts of Scotland is "How far is it from the Post Office?" or, "How far is it from the nearest Telegraph Station?" I think, therefore, it is to the common interest of the County Councils to promote works of this nature, and I do not think it can be affirmed that in the terms of my Resolution there is any financial danger attached to the proposal. The power which I propose to confer upon the County Councils with the view of enabling them to enter into contracts with Government for the execution of these works would be entirely voluntary on their part. If they chose to undertake this duty they might do so, if not they might abstain. But I entirely agree with the remark which fell from the noble Lord on the Second Reading of this Bill that one of the dangers we have to apprehend from the passing of this measure is, that when the County Councils meet for the first time they may be compelled to justify their existence and their action, by undertaking perhaps, rashly, a number of improvements, and so increasing their scale of county expenditure, which was so wisely limited in former times by the Commissioners of Supply. In ease there should be any inclination to extravagance of this nature, I have guarded my proposal by inserting a proviso that the power, which would be discretionary on the part of the Councils, shall only be exercised with the assent in all respects, first, of the Joint Committee which includes the Representatives of the old Commissioners of Supply and, secondly, the Secretary of Scotland. I beg to move the insertion of the clause which stands in my name.
§
Amendment moved, after Clause 17, to insert the following new clause:—
18. In addition to the powers and duties transferred or transferable to the County Council under the foregoing clause and under other provisions of the present Act it shall be competent for the County Council to raise money by rate or loan for the contraction, maintenance, and working of lines of telegraphic and telephonic communication, to contract engagements with the Postmaster General, with other County Councils, with companies, and with other parties for these purposes, and to acquire and lease lands, houses, and other property requisite for the same, subject, however, to the consent of the Standing Joint Committee of the county constituted under the provisions of the present Act, and subject also to the sanction of the Secretary for Scotland."—[Lord Napier and Ettrick.)
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLI think there is a great deal primâ facie to be said for this proposal of my noble Friend. When he was kind enough to mention it to me a moment ago it did not occur to me that there was any objection to it, but on thinking the matter over it seems to me that I may suggest one objection. I do not know whether he has had much experience of dealing with Departments of Government which are under the control of the Treasury, bat if he has I think he will see that the result of his Motion would be to arrest the telegraphic communication of the county. I feel sure of that. It is a terrible Department. I will mention a case which will be familiar to my noble Friend. He has visited the Hebrides, which have long wanted telegraphic communication. In those Islands some years ago proposals were made to us that if we guaranteed a certain return the Government would agree to lay down a submarine telegraph. After making inquiry I found it was extremely probable that the guarantee would be a very onerous matter, and looking forward like a Scotchman I had a shrewd suspicion that the number of people interested in that demand for the telegraph would very soon compel the Government to take the required step without any guarantee whatever being given. And it, in fact, turned out to be so, for in the course of a couple of years the submarine telegraph was extended to those islands; it is now in full operation there, and not a shilling has been guaranteed by anybody. Look at the operation of this clause. The Treasury Department would say at once that they 481 would not expend a shilling unless you would give a guarantee, which, of course, would give the Treasury a pull upon you in that respect. I have had the honour more than once of being Postmaster General, and I know very well what the pressure has been from various Local Authorities to get local accommodation, and I know the strength of the veto which has been placed by the Treasury on every attempt which was likely to be a loss to the Treasury. We at the Post Office were constantly vetoed by the Treasury because the proposed improvement was not likely to pay. I remember on one occasion Lord Palmerston said to me, "I hold that the Post Office is not a Department at all; I hold that the revenue of the Post Office ought to be expended on further improvements." I said, "I agree with you, my Lord, but you hardly know what the difficulty is." If propositions of this kind were acceded to the people in every little village would consider that money should be expended upon them. I feel quite certain that if such a clause as this was passed it would be a weapon in the hands of the Treasury, and that not one shilling would be given without the assessment of the parish.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANYour Lordships will not expect me to enter into the controversy which has arisen between noble Lords on this matter. It is not possible for me on the one Hand to enter into the action of the Treasury, or on the other to discuss the action of the Post Office. I think you will be content to accept from the noble Duke his experience as Postmaster General, and I think that the difficulty which has arisen in his mind is one which will commend itself to the judgment of your Lordships. Apart from that question I am not surprised that the Chairman of the Crofters Commission has taken this opportunity of doing what he thought to be in the interest of the inhabitants of the Western Islands. I agree with what he has said, as evincing a desire to improve the position both of the landlords and tenants, and as to the very great difficulty in either landlords or tenants combining, together or separately, for providing such guarantees as might be required for carrying out the necessary works. As the noble Lord has referred to me personally, I should like to say that I 482 fully appreciate what he has said. I entirely endorse all he has stated about me—namely, that I am fully acquainted with the evils which exist in those districts, and I can only add that it is my earnest wish to remove them. But the difficulties which have been suggested by the noble Duke may serve to show what my difficulties have been in that and other matters. Apart from what has been said by the noble Duke, I am again under the necessity of asking the noble Duke not to press his Amendment, because, as I will again remind the House, the object of this Bill has been to transfer from the Commissioners of Supply to the County Councils simply the powers which they already have. I think your Lordships will consider that it is certainly not desirable to give to the County Councils an increased power of expenditure at the beginning which might be more than the rates of the county could probably bear. I can quite appreciate what the noble Lord has proposed as a safeguard—namely, that any such expenditure should be subject to the sanction of the Standing Joint Committee, and also of the Secretary for Scotland. But I do not think that would be an efficient safeguard for this reason—looking at it from the pecuniary point of view, both the Standing Committee and ultimately the Secretary for Scotland might say the expenditure was not justified by the rates which would follow. Yet on the other hand, the plea ad misericordiam would be so great that neither the Joint Standing Committee nor the Secretary for Scotland would feel justified in refusing the application. It is my most earnest desire to do what I can for those districts, but I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment to a Division.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKAfter what has fallen from the noble Duke and from the Secretary for Scotland, I do not intend to press this Amendment, and I trust I may be permitted to withdraw it. At the same time I must confess that I do not admit the cogency or validity of the arguments of the noble Duke. I am forced to believe that the Post Office Authorities may be actuated by greater liberality at the present time than they were at the time when he presided over that Department. At the same time I do firmly believe, after con- 483 siderable reflection and calculation on this subject, that considerable development and great advantages might be attained by the co-operation of private parties or Local Authorities with the Postmaster General in these matters; and that telegraphic communication might be prudently and gradually extended in a variety of directions with no material charge to the counties. However, after what has fallen from the noble Duke and the noble Marquis, I cannot do otherwise than withdraw this Amendment.
§ Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn, and Clause 17 agreed to.
§ Clause 18.
§ Amendment moved in Sub-section 2, page 11, line 6, to insert, "The convener or in his absence the vice-convener, and."—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
* THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYMy Lords, the object of this Amendment is to provide that the convener of the county who is appointed to the County Council shall be ex officio a member of the Standing Joint Committee. In a few words I wish to explain my reasons for this proposition. You are going to have a popularly elected body, which elects its own chairman to be called the convener of the county. You then also empower that body to elect members not exceeding seven in number to the Joint Standing Committee along with the representatives of the Commissioners of Supply and the Sheriff, or the Sheriff-substitute in his absence is to be the ex officio member of this Committee. That makes up the number to 15. As a matter of working I think the convener of the Council should be an ex officio member, and in his absence the vice-convener of that Committee. I press this very strongly, because the experience which I have had on a County Council in England has shown me that it is most desirable that the chairman presiding over the meetings should be in touch with all that goes on at the meetings. We have appointed the Chairman of this Council to be a member of all committees to be appointed from time to time, and we found this has certainly facilitated the procedure and facilitated business in a very marked degree. Supposing the Chairman of the Council does not 484 know what is going on in Standing Joint Committee, I think there might perhaps be a certain amount of friction, which, would be avoided if the convener acted ex officio as member of the Standing Joint Committee. I should certainly prefer that course if we are to have ex officio members from the outside, and I also prefer to have the convener as an ex officio member. For those reasons I hope the noble Marquess will agree to my proposal.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, I am afraid again I must ask the noble Marquess not to press his Amendment. Of course, I do not say a word theoretically against the convener being ex officio the Chairman of the Standing Committee; but that Committee is a very important body, and the composition of the Committee was a matter of great consideration before it was proposed as it is now in the Bill. That provision was made in the way which was thought most desirable for the advantage of the counties. If the convener were made ex officio a member of the Standing Committee it would raise the number from 15 to 16, and there might be a deadlock, because the Chairman has no casting vote. The reasons I gave at first are those which would induce me now not to assent to the proposition of the noble Lord—namely, that the provision was very carefully considered, and that any addition to it would throw it entirely out of gear.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYI will not press my Amendment, but I think it shows some hesitation in accepting the verdict of these popular bodies—that you cannot trust the convener whom they might elect.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI must protest against the words which has been used by the noble Marquess. There is no "distrust" whatever.
§ Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
§
Amendment moved, in page 11, line 70, after "thereof," insert—
Provided that such Sheriff shall not he entitled to vote on other subjects than those that come within the cognisance and jurisdiction of the Standing Joint Committee in its capacity of Police Committee, in succession to the Police Committee under the Police Act of 1857."—(The Earl of Minto).
§ THE EARL OF MINTOIn regard to Clause 18, Sub-section 2 which provides that the Sheriff of the County is to be ex officio a Member of the Standing Joint Committee, in so far as the Police Committee is concerned, nothing could be more proper than that he should be on that Committee. But it does not stop there. The Sheriff being ex officio on the Standing Joint Committee has jurisdiction beyond what is at all reasonable. He is one of the Standing Joint Committee which has to raise money for the construction of roads, widening of bridges, and other public works. I think it is quite inconsistent with the principle of this Bill that he should have jurisdiction in these measures. Accordingly the proviso which I beg to propose is that the Sheriff shall not be permitted to vote in regard to these public works.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANThe noble Lord who spoke previously referred to the distrust of the Council shown by not making the Convener an ex officio Member of this body. What is now proposed would show, I think, considerable distrust of the Sheriff who is practically the head of the police, and the highest authority in the county. To ask him to take part only in measures which are to be decided by the Joint Committee of which he is a Member would put him in an extremely doubtful position.
LORD HAMILTONI cannot help thinking there is a great deal in the Amendment proposed. It does not follow at all that the Sheriff resides in the county. He frequently resides in Edinburgh, and never goes near the county at all. What you are proposing to do is this: you place him on this Committee, and give him the power of going into all these questions, of laying out the money of the county upon various works, and you put him in the same position as any Councillor or Commissioner of Supply who is directly interested in the work in question. Of course, if it is impossible to persist in the Amendment it would be useless to divide the House upon it, but I think there is a great deal to be said in principle for it.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI think what the noble Lord has just said is an argument in favour of having the 486 Sheriff on the Committee. If he is there the suggestion does not arise, and I do not think the argument strengthens the case of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThe noble Lord has missed the point. It is perfectly right that the Sheriff should be a Member of the Police Committee. He always has been a Member of it, and a moat important Member, and I should not at all desire to depose the Sheriff. But when you get to questions of spending money, that introduces quite a new question into the business, and for that purpose I cannot see any necessity or object for putting in the Sheriff. The noble Lord has spoken of the great powers of the Sheriff. We have the Sheriff in everything in Scotland, and it may be said that we have too much of him in this case. The Sheriff is a ubiquitous individual, but perhaps you may have too much of him.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKI have the greatest respect for the Sheriff in Scotland. He is the highest Executive Authority and Head of the Police. He is responsible for the police management and peace of the county. That he should be responsible for the peace of the county is an excellent arrangement; but when it comes to be a question of expenditure, the question then arises that the Sheriff has no property there, and he may have no special knowledge of the economical position of the county. Though he might advise, I think he ought not to have any power of voting. In fact, from what I know of Sheriffs generally, I do not think that the Sheriff would vote, and if he has the power of voting I think he will abstain from doing so, and that he would withdraw should occasion demand.
§ THE EARL OF ELGINThis is an example of the inconvenience of mixing up two things in the same question. It is not very easy to find out of what proportions this Committee is to consist. The noble Marquess told us that there was no obligation on the members to elect the full number; but in his remarks just now he says the Sheriff is to be the fifteenth person, and that for that purpose it is necessary he should vote on all subjects. But if members did not elect their full number, the balance for voting purposes would be disturbed. 487 It seems to me a strong matter that, on a question of finance, upou which, as I pointed out, the Sheriff may have no knowledge, he should be the absolute arbiter between what I am afraid in some cases may be two opposing parties. I think, therefore, there is a great deal to be said against the Sheriff voting on measures of finance; but, at the same time, my Lords, I venture to think that the manner in which the noble Earl proposes to carry out this proposition is not a very convenient one, and it is not a very convenient thing that one member of a Committee should be restricted, and he alone, as to the subjects with which he is to deal. I do not know that I should be prepared, therefore, to support the noble Earl in that particular Amendment; but I think it does show that the position of the Sheriff on the Finance Committee is a very inconvenient one.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLI very much agree with the general tone of the observations of my noble Friend who has just sat down. The Sheriff is not a ratepayer necessarily on the one hand, and on the other hand it would, I think, be invidious in the form now proposed to exclude him from voting on the Committee of which he is a member. I do not agree with the noble Marquess in the suggestion that the Sheriffs have no knowledge in these votes. I think they have. They are in communication with all parties in the county, and they have by virtue of their office and position a judicial and impartial mind. Speaking generally of the gentlemen who occupy the position of Sheriffs, I feel sure that they are well qualified and I should always be very glad to have their opinions even on questions connected with expenditure. I hope, therefore, the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKI would submit to the noble Duke that it is not a question of giving an opinion merely. Let the Sheriff retain his seat. He would be at liberty to give his opinion, he would be there as a member though not as a voter. Up to the present time the Sheriff has been a member of the Commissioners of Supply; he sits there as I have often seen him. He is frequently referred to there by the members of the Commissioners' Body, but I think he abstains a great 488 deal from voting. He is a Consultative officer and he does not vote. When there is the least suspicion of any question of his being afterwards called upon to act in his judicial capacity he does not vote, and I do not think practically he would vote, at least in my county, on money questions.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI sincerely hope this Amendment will not be agreed to, because this seems to me to be a very valuable provision. I think the noble Lord is mistaken if he supposes that the Sheriff is not there acting with the Commissioners of Supply with as full powers as the rest. It is certainly not my experience that if present he abstains from voting. But if the suggestion were carried out to make him merely a Consultative member and not to vote, the Sheriff would go away if he could not back up his opinion by his vote. I venture to think in the great majority of cases, if there is to be any serious conflict between the Commissioners of Supply, the Members of the Committee, and the Electoral Members, which I certainly hope will not be the case, that to have gentlemen of this description—these judicially minded persons—on the Committee would be a most valuable thing, and though the Sheriff might not, if he felt there was a pinch, record his vote, still I venture to think he would give his vote upon broad general grounds, and really I have every confidence that if it comes to contests, which I hope it will not as I have said before, between the County Councillors and the Commissioners of Supply, you could not put the decision of any questions which may come before the Committee in safer or better hands than those of the Sheriff or his substitute. I hope, therefore, the clause will be adhered to.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANThe noble Lord (Lord Elgin) talked of the opinion I expressed upon this matter; but I think he was mistaken in what he said. What I recollect to have said was that it was not incumbent either upon the Commissioners of Supply or the County Councillors to appoint the full number of seven. If the noble Lord will look at the clause it says, "such number not exceeding seven." That shows that the numbers need not come up to seven. It also states that six shall form a quo- 489 rum of the Committee, and that also shows that the whole number need not be present. On the other hand I particularly pointed out what one object was of not making the election of the Commissioners of Supply depend upon the election by the County Council. It was in the hope of keeping them quite separate that it was provided the full number should not be appointed up to seven. I would also refer to what I said as to the odd number 15 being best. That was in view of the full number being appointed.
§ THE EARL OF ELGINMay I ask one question? If one body appoints four members, must the other only appoint four?
§ THE EARL OF ELGINThen the numbers will not be equal.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANThat is their own fault. Of course if there is a, very small number present there will be no quorum.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNYou might have this anomalous state of things, that the quorum is to be larger than the body actually sitting.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANOne really cannot anticipate all the exceedingly improbable difficulties which occur to noble Lords.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThat is rather an important point I think if you happened to have a larger quorum than your entire body.
§ * LORD WATSONIn that case it simply lays a statutory duty upon those two bodies of electing a number larger than the quorum.
§ THE EARL OF MINTOI want to ask how the Commissioners of Supply are to be dealt with? I see the numbers are given, and in those numbers the ex officio members are stated. In the county of Lanark, which has been already referred to, I think there are 36 ex officio Commissioners of Supply. I think the noble Marquess ought to give an explanation of that, and state whether all those Commissioners are qualified to vote.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANAll those who are qualified Commissioners of Supply would have the power of voting.
§ THE EARL OF MINTOThat is to say the whole Commission?
§ Amendment negatived.
§
Amendment proposed, Clause 18, page 11, line 17, to insert at the beginning of the sub-Section the words—
The Standing Joint Committee shall meet on such days 'and at such intervals as may he determined at the first meeting of the Committee in each year, and."—(The Earl of Elgin.)
§ THE EARL OF ELGINAccording to this sub-section no meeting can be held except upon six days' notice to be sent by registered letter. It was pointed out on the Committee of the County to which I belong, by the Chairman of the Police Committee, that at present there are statutory fixed sittings of the Committee, and that it would be inconvenient, to say the least of it, if no meeting of the Standing Joint Committee could be held except upon six days' notice supposing they were not statutory fixed meetings. It is in order to meet that difficulty that I have proposed the Amendment which stand in my name. Of course, the noble Marquess might object to the words, and might prefer to introduce them in another shape; but I think it is necessary that there should be fixed regular meetings of the Standing Committee of Police at any rate.
* LORD BALFOURIs not that rather a matter of arrangement for the Committee? If the Committee wished to do so they could do it under such bye-laws or standing orders as they choose to adopt for themselves. Notices can be sent on the days which have been previously arranged for.
§ Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
§
Amendment moved, to leave out Subsection (7) and insert—
Capital works shall include the erection or re-building of buildings, the construction or re-construction of roads and bridges, the construction or extension of drainage or water supply works, and the acquisition of land, or of any right or intesest or servitude in or over land or water for the purposes of any capital work."—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
* THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYMy Lords, I have an Amendment to omit Sub-section 7, and to insert another section in its place. This is the point which I called attention to on the Motion for the Second Reading. Under 491 this Bill all the highways in Scotland will in future be managed. Up to this time there were a number of Local Acts still in existence in Scotland which were not touched generally by the Roads and Bridges Act of 1878, although in one direction they were touched, that is to say, that the Roads and Bridges Act of 1878 enabled the counties which enjoyed the benefits of Local Acts to have extended powers of rating. In most of the Local Acts which I am aware of, there was a limit fixed to the rating. In Aberdeen it was 6d. in the £1, 3d. on the landlords, and 3d. on the tenants. The Roads and Bridges Act extended this provision, and Section 103 of that Act enabled those acting under it to exercise unlimited powers of rating. By this Bill, all those Local Acts are done away with, and although I deprecate it very much for old associations sake, still, it is necessary, no doubt, in a Bill of this sort. You repeal the provisions with regard to the method of election of Road Trustees, and you provide in the first place that the County Councils shall be elected; then, that the District Committee shall be formed; then that the District Committee, with one member nominated from the Parochial Board, shall be the Board to manage the roads and highways. These District Committees elected in that way will have the entire rating powers which the Act of 1878 confers. You give them full and absolute powers in that direction, and in Sub-section 6, which has just been carried, you say that no works involving capital expenditure shall be carried out without the consent in writing of the Standing Joint Committee. Now you come to Subsection 7, which defines what these capital works are, and you find they include the erection and enlargement of buildings, bridges, and so on, and any large works the expenditure upon which is not wholly provided for out of the rates for the current financial year. What is the position into which we are now to be launched? Before 1878 we had a little hold over these Road Trustees. My noble Friend pointed out the extravagance which in some counties they were guilty of; but I can say, from my own experience, that we have carried out economically the system under which we worked. You will now have these works carried out by a small Body, with 492 one nominee from the Parochial Boards, able to raise whatever rates they like, and able to carry out enormous works and even to acquire land. I do not know what works they may not launch into. This is a very dangerous power to give these District Committees, and my proposition is to leave out the words with regard to the enlargement of buildings and widening of roads, and to limit their powers as to providing for these works out of the rates for the current financial year, leaving these District Committees to come to the-Joint Standing Committee if they really wish to get these capital works carried out.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI concur with the noble Marquess that perhaps the powers given under this clause are too wide, and therefore I am quite willing to accept the principal part of his Amendment. The only reason for including the enlargement of buildings and the widening of roads-was that the expenditure upon them, may, on the one hand, mean almost nothing at all, though, on the other, a large outlay of capital may be involved by them. With regard to the latter part of the noble Marquess's Amendment, I am willing to accept it.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYIs the noble Marquess willing to strike out from the words "water-supply works"?
§ THE EARL OF ELGINSurely, my Lords, that is a very important alteration. As I understand the clause as it stands in the Bill, the matters which come under the cognizance of this Joint Committee are simply these matters-which are to be provided for out of borrowed money, and not matters which can be met out of the current rates of the year. The words which the noble Marquess now proposes to strike out are exactly the words which keep them to that matter only. That is as it stands in the Bill. Beyond that I do not see that there is so much objection to be taken to it; the District Committees could carry out any similar works which it might be necessary for them to do, so long as they do not exceed the amounts which they get on the current rates of the year, but if all capital works are to come under the cognizance of the Joint Committee I ven- 493 ture to say that very serious inconvenience will arise. Under these words as they stand now, without the Amendment, you could not rebuild a culvert without coming to the standing Joint Committee and getting their consent. It seems to me the principle of the clause, as it stands in the Bill, is a correct one. If I may make a suggestion on the clause, it would run:—
Capital works shall mean works, the expenditure on which is not wholly provided for out of the current rates of the year.
§ * LORD WATSONIt appears to me that to adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl would simply import into this clause a new element, and convert into capital expenditure that which ought not, under any circumstances, to constitute capital expenditure. The words are:—
Any works, the expenditure on which is not wholly provided for out of the rates for the current local financial year.That means, according to my understanding, that whenever works which ought to be met out of current rates are constructed and the expenditure is not so met, it shall be at once charged to capital. If a large sum is spent in one year, on maintenance or repair of works, instead of being spread over three or four years, then expenditure which is chargeable on owners and occupiers and is in no sense capital, would be converted into capital outlay which is made chargeable upon landlords. Certainly it appears to me that the words which the noble Marquess has agreed to strike out ought never to have been in the Bill.
§ On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," agreed to.
§ Moved that Clause 18, as amended, be added to the Bill.
* THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNOn this question I desire to say a few words. In the discussion upon other matters attacks have been made on these County Joint Committees. I think my noble Friend Lord Hamilton went so far as to say that if you established anything in the nature 494 of a Joint Committee you would establish class feeling. I cannot help feeling that my noble Friend must have imagined he was back again with his constituents, and descanting on a public platform upon all the woes and injustice, under which they labour. I cannot believe that when he used words of that sort he was really considering the Committee which it is proposed to appoint under this Bill, for if he was so considering it, all I can say is that I am afraid he did not understand what is contained in the Bill. For what is it? In the first place, you have these rates. These rates are of two kinds. One is to be paid wholly by the owner, the other is the consolidated rate, of which the owners are to pay half, and the other half is to be found by the occupiers. There is now a new body constituted, the great majority of whom will contribute little or nothing to those rates—namely, persons who have the Service Franchise, and those who have holdings under £4, for which the rates are commuted. Those will be the large majority of the ratepayers. Now, what is the moderate proposal which is put forward by this Bill? It is this—that whereas property is to contribute three-fourths of the rates, and a large proportion of the contituency are to be persons who will contribute very little, or in some cases-nothing at all, when it comes to a question of borrowing or of making large outlay on capital works, there is to be a committee, composed one-half of representatives of property in the county, and the other half by the persons representing these large constituencies, and they are to say whether it is right or not to undertake this borrowing, and to make this capital outlay. That is the whole proposal. May I ask, is it not the most ordinary course to avoid doing this; and, in a sense, would it not be utterly ridiculous if you were to give borrowing powers to a constituency which we all agree contributes very little to these rates? But when you talk of class feeling, I cannot imagine any term which would be more inapplicable. These 14 men, or less than 14 men, whatever their number may be, will all be persons who have the strongest reasons for wishing to expend the money of the ratepayers in a frugal and sensible manner. I 495 think, too, that the noble Lord has entirely forgotten that when it is proposed to lay out public money, precautions of this kind are always used. When a parish wants to lay out money, they have to go and obtain the consent of the Board of Supervision. Take the present Road Boards. When there is any question of capital expenditure, that is not allowed to be decided by the ordinary trustees, but it is decided by the Road Board, which you are really continuing in this Bill. Then if you consider the Public Health provisions, they are exactly on the same basis. In England you have to obtain the consent of the Local Government Board. This course is invariably followed, and I must say I have never seen anything to justify the attacks upon these Joint Committees.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSEI would point out that there is no similar Committee in England in regard to capital expenditure.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLBefore this clause passes I desire to say that I entirely agree with the observations which fell from my noble Friend Lord Camperdown. The great danger of all municipal Government is pecuniary jobbery. It has been terrible in the United States of America. Your Lordships probably have no idea of the extent to which pecuniary jobbery has gone in the municipalities of the United States. In New York it is not merely that there are corrupt officers of the constituencies; it is not merely that office-bearers under the Municipality are corrupt—that is not the kind of corruption to which I allude; it is that the whole constituencies are corrupt, and that they elect men on purpose to perpetrate jobs. I believe that the Municipalities of England and Scotland have hitherto been on the whole corrupt. Within this week a most stringent Bill has been assented to by this House against popular corruption. Nobody apparently took any notice of it. It was under the charge of Lord Herschell. It has gone back to the House of Commons, and I suppose it will pass this Session. That Bill provides that if any public body is guilty of what is defined by the Bill to be corruption, every member of it should be considered under the Act as having committed an offence. I hope, in the atmosphere of comparative purity 496 which has existed in England and Scotland, that our Municipalities will be as pure in the future as they have been in the past, but surely it is a matter of common sense in establishing a new system which should make a bridge between the old and the new order of things, that we should secure in the new Administration, a strong element of those who have hitherto conducted the county business so well in Scotland. It is quite possible that this enactment which is proposed by Government may be of a beneficial character; it is quite possible that a more united, a more homogeneous system, may ultimately supersede the former system; but the question is with regard to the time now, whether we should take this leap in the dark without any precaution against pecuniary corruption. There are numerous temptations to corruption, and you ought to secure with regard to those bodies that they shall be free from that corruption which prevails elsewhere. That is the ground on which I support this clause. Although I quite admit there are theoretical objections to it, on the whole, it is nothing but a wise precaution against possible evils which are widely prevalent at this moment all over the world. I do not know whether your Lordships' attention has been directed to the state of Italy. The state of Italy just now in regard to its municipal institutions is, I believe, nothing short of disastrous. A great eulogism has been lately passed by Mr. Gladstone on the state of Italy, and, no doubt, since the unity of Italy has been accomplished, great progress has been made in that country; but if we go a little behind that ostensible progress, and investigate its financial condition and its general condition, both municipal and commercial, we shall find it is in a most dangerons condition. A paragraph appeared in the newspapers this week, I do not know what weight is to be attributed to it, stating that the ancient city of Pisa is absolutely bankrupt and unable to pay its creditors, and, it was added, half the cities of Southern Italy are in the same condition. What has that resulted from? It has resulted to some extent, no doubt, from keeping up an enormous Army and an enormous Navy; but besides the Imperial taxes there are the Communal taxes, and they are, I understand, the 497 most oppressive of all. We ought not, I think, to give unlimited powers of taxation to any public body, without taking such precautions as wisdom suggests, to maintain the comparative administrative purity which has hitherto existed locally in this country.
§ THE EARL OF ELGINI should like to say in regard to this matter that although the noble Duke has given us illustrations from America and from Italy, it does not appear to me that those illustrations exactly meet our objections to this clause in the measure now before the House; because he has at the same time admitted that in England and Scotland we are able to boast, at any rate, of a comparative absence of corruption in regard to local finances. What I should venture to think is the real ground of objection taken to this clause, and I think it is the feeling prevalent in Scotland, is that the restrictions which are put on Local Government in counties by the institution of these Joint Committees is a restriction which is not found in the similar measure with regard to Local Government in England, nor, as matters stand in the great cities of Scotland, and which will be the position next year, when these local bodies will meet. I think I am correct in saying that no Town Council is subject to any check of this kind in the management of its finances, nor are the large cities subject to checks of the kind which are introduced by this clause in the matter of their Police. If we are to accept the view of the noble Duke that the Government look upon this Bill merely as a provisional matter, and that we may look forward at some date, perhaps, not far distant, to the abandonment of these provisions, and that the County Council will then be entrusted with the full management of their own concerns, our objections with regard to these clauses might be very materially modified. But I do say, as the matter stands, this clause does introduce what I venture to call a change in local affairs, because it introduces a feeling of suspicion on the part of the Government, who have in so many ways consulted the wishes of the people of Scotland as to the extent to which they are to be trusted with the management of their own affairs.
* LORD BALFOURI shall not detain the Committee more than a few moments, and I should not have risen at all, but for the remarks of the noble Lord who spoke last. He seemed to make it a special grievance that in this particular matter the people of Scotland are less trusted than were the people of England in the Act which was passed with regard to Local Government last year. As I am somewhat familiar with that Act, I may be, perhaps, permitted to point out that the conditions are not quite the same. In the first place, though not the most important matter, there are no Aldermen in Scotland as in England, and there are not any, therefore, proposed to be created under this Bill. It was suggested in England that maintaining the Aldermen would have a steadying effect on the Town Councils. But that is not the chief reason why I object to the parallel. I object to it on account of the differences between the two countries as regards the incidence of rating. In England the occupier pays the county rates; in Scotland the rates are to be divided between the owner and the occupier except in the case of the stereotyped rate. That does not mean that the rate is divided equally, say, 4d. in the £1 upon one, and 4d. in the £1 on the other. It means that if £2,000 has to be raised, the owners must find £1,000 and the occupier £1,000. It seems to me that that being so, any temptation should be removed from the occupier to unduly rate the owner for his own advantage. The occupier, if he finds the rates heavy, may move away, after he has burdened the owner's property in the district in which he lives, but the owner must stay. The owner is fixed, to a certain extent, where he is, and he will have to pay the burden imposed upon him by the vote of the occupier. There is a further point to which I would call attention. I venture to think your Lordships will agree that, at any rate in the last resort, it is the owner who pays the rates. The occupier, when he goes from one place to another, naturally takes into consideration the rating as well as the rent which he will have to pay. If the rating is less heavy he can afford to pay a larger rent, but if the rating is heavier than he has been accustomed to pay, he will only be able 499 to offer a smaller amount of rent. I venture to think it is really not a mistrust of the people of Scotland, but a simple and ordinary business-like precaution which is imposed, and whatever noble Lords opposite may say, it has really a much larger amount of sympathy than they would appear to make out among the constituencies of Scotland. I almost owe the House an apology for intruding at this stage, but I do think that the attempt to draw a parallel between the two cases will not hold water for a moment.
§ THE EARL OF MINTOI do not like to allow this subject to pass away from your Lordships' consideration entirely without giving a short expression to my opinion upon it. That opinion substantially coincides with the opinion which has already been expressed by my noble Friend below me. Although I perhaps would not have used quite as strong language in speaking on the subject as he did, I fully concur in the opinion which has been so warmly expressed by the noble Duke and others that it is desirable control should be extended in some matters over the local expenditure and borrowing powers of the new Councils, which are now being called into existence, especially in the inception of their authority. I am inclined to regret that this control has been deposited in the hands of a different class belonging to the same community; but I do not believe that that authority will be the less exercised—I trust it will even be exercised with sympathy for the large portion of the community. Still, there does appear to me to be something rather obnoxious in the principle. It is like setting one class of the community as a controlling body over another, and I think in Scotland there will be some feeling on the subject, which I hope will not be a durable or a strong one. I should have been satisfied myself if the control over capital expenditure and borrowing powers had been deposited with the Secretary for Scotland alone.
§ Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 19 to 26 agreed to, with Amendments.
§ Clause 27.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNIn the absence of Lord Aberdeen, I rise to 500 propose the proviso which stands in is name. The reason of this Amendment is that in certain counties where works entailing large expenditure have been carried out, in certain cases it has been done by extra assessment instead of by borrowing, and under the arrangements of this Bill it will be necessary to calculate what was the "average rate" (those are the words of the Bill) paid by the owners during the last 10 years. In cases of this sort it is obvious that the average rate of owners will be much higher than it would have been if the expenditure had been defrayed in the ordinary way—namely, partly by rate and partly by borrowing. The object of the Amendment is to provide that in cases of this sort the Sheriff shall use his discretion and decide how much of this expenditure should be provided in the ordinary way.
§
Amendment moved, in page 18, line 31, after "rate," add—
Provided further that where such branch of expenditure, or any part thereof, has been provided for by assessments instead of by borrowing, the Sheriff shall include in the average rate such proportion only of those assessments as, in his opinion, would have been levied if the sums necessary to meet such expenditure had been raised by borrowing."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI admit at first sight there appears to be a good deal to be said for this Amendment, but I would ask your Lordships to consider that the proposal under the Bill, as it now stands, is purely in the nature of a compromise under the Bill as it was first introduced into the House of Commons. There was at first no provision in the Bill applying to cases of this sort. It was proposed in the other House that these rates should be exempted altogether from the stereotyped rate, and this Bill, as it stands, is the result of a compromise on this question. I would ask your Lordships further to consider that in rating for expenditure year by year there are very few counties (I am not sure that there is more than one) who have considered that the expenditure is expenditure which ought to fall upon the rate of the year. In adding to the rates year by year for any capital expenditure they have thought that it was a proper yearly expenditure and it was done entirely by their own action 501 there was no force upon them, and if they thought that they would do better by borrowing money and paying it by instalments, they would have done so; but they thought it right in their own interests that the capital expenditure should be put upon the rates of the -current year. Apart from that I see a practical difficulty in the way of the proposal of the noble Lord. It is proposed that the Sheriff shall include in the average rate such proportion only of those assessments as in his opinion would have been levied if the sums necessary to meet such expenditure had been raised by borrowing. Does it not occur to the noble Lord that that is an almost impossible duty to throw upon the Sheriff? You would have no data to go upon by which to judge accurately what the proportion should be. I would like the noble Earl to suggest any way by which the Sheriff could come to a just decision. For these reasons, first, that I do not think it is expedient that the expenditure which has been made out of the annual rate of the county should be deducted from the stereotyped rate; and, secondly, because I think that if such a proposal were carried it would be impossible for the Sheriff to carry out the duties imposed upon him, I do not propose to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI admit there is some force in the second reason that the noble Lord has just given; but with regard to the first, I do not think he meets the case at all, and after all that is much the most important of the two. The case which Lord Aberdeen puts is this. Take the case of a county which for reasons best known to itself, thought it was better, having certain capital expenditure to make, to make that by paying the money down at once, instead of by borrowing. The noble Lord says: then they determined that that course was for their own interest. Yes; but they did not see that the noble Lord was going by this Bill to stereotype rates against the owners which would tell against them for all time to come. The noble Lord will remember that this formality which he proposes in this Bill is without any precedent whatsoever. The reason for it we all know is that hitherto these rates have been borne entirely by the owners, whereas now they are to be divided 502 between the owners and occupiers. There has never been anything like this proposal in Local Government Acts or anything else. You say the Sheriff shall calculate what these rates have been during the last 10 years, and upon that he shall base a charge for all time to come. When the noble Lord says that this is a most difficult task to impose upon the Sheriff, I merely reply that the noble Lord has already set the Sheriff a task which is nearly equal in difficulty. The whole arrangement is one of the most extraordinary character, and moreover the ratepayers of the county, if they had foreseen that the provisions of this Bill were going to come into force, would never have adopted that form of paying the capital expenditure. That is the case as it appears to me for Lord Aberdeen's Amendment, and it seems to me that what the noble Lord has said is no answer to that case at all.
* LORD BALFOURThe duty cast upon the Sheriff by the Bill as it stands will surely not be much more than putting into practice some very simple rules of arithmetic. By the Amendment a large amount of what would be conjecture is imported into this matter. I have not heard the exact amount which is supposed to be involved, but as far as I know, in any county which is interested in this matter it is only a very small amount. I have heard it put for one county, and I believe it to be the county which is most affected, Renfrew, and in that case I believe the utmost that is involved is ½d. in the £1. I speak from good information, but I do not put it forward absolutely. I believe there is another objection to it, that the real object of stereotyping has been to prevent any burden which has hitherto been fully borne by owners being transferred to the occupiers; but in any possible reading of this Amendment, if put into the Bill, the first effect of it would be—I admit to a very small extent, but to some extent—to put a burden on the occupier next year and in subsequent years which has hitherto, rightly or wrongly, as a matter of practice been borne by the owner. On this account I think it would be undesirable to accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI will not press the Amendment at this present stage, but I would like to ask the noble Lord to consider this matter 503 before Report. The noble Lord said just now that hitherto this rate has been borne by the owner, and, therefore, he should not like to make any change. You are doing a great deal more than that, you are saying that because a county has acted for prudence sake in a particular way, therefore the owners are to be fined to that extent. I do not know what county Lord Aberdeen may have in view, but there are two or three counties in which they have actually levied rates—I know in Forfarshire there is a balance actually in band of £2,000 at this moment, which has been levied by rates. If that money is not expended in some way the result will be that for all time to come there will be an additional charge upon all owners in that county. There is the same thing in Renfrew and in Linlithgow and other countries. I quite admit that we must do everything we can to prevent anything falling upon occupiers which has hitherto been borne by owners, but there is an equal duty to prevent the owner having burdens which he would certainly not have taken upon himself if he could have foreseen that this Act was going to come into force.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLI should be very glad if the noble Marquess would consider this matter before Report. There is no doubt that the principle of the Bill is not carried into effect unless the clause is rectified in this particular. There is no reason why you should deduct rates which have been expended upon public property if borrowed and not deduct also the same rates when, instead of being borrowed, they have been paid by the ratepayers. I cannot conceive any difficulty in ascertaining the sum, and as regards the amount it would be simply a matter of calculation, because the sums are usually borrowed for so many years, and the Sheriff will have nothing to do but to ascertain the amounts to be levied in this particular manner and to calculate when upon the usual rate of borrowing they would have to be repaid.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANAlthough I still adhere to the opinion I have expressed, I cannot resist the request that I should at least consider this question before Report. I will do so, and will be very glad to have any suggestions that noble Lords may make upon the subject.
* THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYAs the noble Marquess is so congenial I venture to hope that he will recognise that the principle that is embodied in this clause, or, as I think he called it, the arrangement that had been come to, the compromise, is a very good one. The object of my Amendment is to fix some date at which it will terminate. As I caught the expression of the noble Lord (Lord Balfour) he said that this rate was really a matter of arrangement between the owner and the occupier. The effect of this clause will be-that for ever and for ever the estate of an owner will be practically mortgaged with this average rate; it will be stereotyped upon his property; the Sheriff under Sub-section (1) will fix the 10 years' average that the owner will have to pay in consideration of this rate, and this average rate will be absolutely fixed and for ever stereotyped upon his estate. According to Sub-section 3 the demand note will state the average rate and the increment thereof, that is—the increment which is to be demanded by the tax collector is to be paid equally by the owners and occupiers. If we acknowledge that sooner or later these rates do come to be a question of arrangement between the owner and the occupier, why do we not fix a term at which the arrangement under this Bill will come to an end. In Scotland the usual term is the 19 years' lease. I have proposed to take 10 years as the term of ending. I would remind the House also that every other rate in the Bill is proposed to be paid equally by the occupiers and the owners—the road rate, the sanitary rate, the public health rate. Yet you are going to stereotype for ever and ever the owners of the property with this rate.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI am afraid the noble Marquess will not find me in the conciliatory mood to which ha referrd at the beginning of his remarks. I can understand noble Lords' objection to stereotyped rates, and that is an objection which will probably be felt by a very great many owners throughout Scotland. At the same time, the provision that there should be a stereotyyed rate upon owners is one that has been most carefully considered, and it is part of the Bill, and to accept the noble Marquess's proposal would be 505 to alter one of the main parts of the Bill, so far as the rates are concerned. Under the Bill it is proposed that this stereotyping should be, as the noble Marquess has said, perpetual. It is a rate which will be under the Act, when it becomes an Act, a perpetual obligation upon the owners, although I understand that this proposal of the noble Marquess is that there should be a revision after 10 years. I would put it to the noble Marquess that if the principle is sound it is much better to enact it once and for all, because if there was any prospect of any such revision either of the amount of the stereotyped rate, or the abolition of the stereotyped rate altogether, it would necessarily create an indefiniteness in the stereotyped rate, which would be unfortunate in the interests both of the owners and the occupiers. I think it much better, as proposed by the Bill, that the stereotyped rate should remain a fixture, although I quite understand the disinclination of the noble Marquess and others to having a stereotyped rate on the property. The only indefiniteness now is the increase above the stereotyped rate which would be put upon owners by the action of the County Council. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
* THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYI wish to ask the noble Lord whether this has occurred to him: Suppose this average rate is fixed upon a county at the present rateable value, and suppose the rateable value of that county were to increase enormously; the rates would be fixed then, without any power of increasing or altering that rate. I think the County Council of Lanark, at any rate, would not know what to do.
* LORD BALFOURIf the rateable value increases, there will be a less amount per £1 required. Therefore, if the rateable value increases, the whole present rate will not be required, and the owner will get the benefit.
§ THE EARL OF ELGINThe object of the Amendment, of which I have given notice, is to deal with the case of detached portions of a county in which there might be a difference between the average rate as between the county from which it is detached, and that to which it is attached; but, as I 506 understand that the noble Lord has not had time to consider this Amendment, perhaps he would consider it before Report.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANIt did not appear to me to be necessary, but I prefer to consider it on Report, as I have not yet seen the Amendment of the noble Lord.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 28.
§ * THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALEThe object of the Amendment which stands in my name is to confer on Corporations representation in consideration of contribution to local rates. As the law stands at present, Corporations, such as Railway Companies and others, are entitled to very substantial representation on all the Local Boards of Scotland. Under the present Bill this representation is denied them altogether. I frankly admit that I do not anticipate a very hearty reception to this Amendment from the noble Marquess, but having in consideration, the fact that the contribution of the Railway Companies amount to £200,000 a year, and the fact that in many counties they are the largest ratepayers, I think the noble Lord will not deny that they have a very large interest in the proper collection of rates, and in the efficient disposal of them. The representation which I ask for them is a very small one indeed, but it does recognise a principle which appears to me to be departed from in this Bill—the principle that where rates are paid representation should go hand in hand with them. At any rate I shall ask my noble Friend if he will explain on what ground, on what principle the representation is altogether denied to these bodies who, as I have said, contribute so largely to the local rates in Scotland.
§
Amendment moved, in page 21, line 10, after "county elector" add—
And every company or corporation owning or occupying property shall be entitled to have the name of their chairman or secretary or other official placed on this supplementary register and that he be thereby constituted a county elector."—(The Marquess of Tweeddale.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANIn. answer to the last question of the noble Marquess, I think the burden of proof rather rests upon him than upon me. He asks that I should consent to put a 507 certain position, under this Bill, upon persons who do not otherwise have it Tinder the Bill, and which position would be entirely exceptional. I do not quite understand the object of the noble Marquess unless it is this, that in every district there should be some direct representation of some Corporation, or the particular Corporations, if I may say so, which he represents—namely, the Railway Companies, as the direct representation of the parish in every electoral district. In the first place, I should say that one single voter in each electoral district would not probably make very much difference one way or the other to the interests of a great company such as that which the noble Marquess represents. On the other hand, if there was special representation given to the interest he represents it would be going, as I said just now, against the principle of the Bill, for the electorate is based upon the Paliamentary register, and you will have to introduce another register to meet the proposal of the noble Marquess. But if the object is to have direct representation upon the County Council, then, of course, there comes a rather more important question. But I ask the noble Marquess to consider this—that it is not only the very large Corporations which would come under such a clause as that which he proposes, but Corporations of all sizes. Very large and important Corporations would be represented; but, if so, even small and unimportant Corporations would have to be represented also, and the question of gradation between the large and small Corporations would be quite inconsistent with the existing principles both of Imperial and local representation. I do not think the noble Marquess need be very much alarmed as to want of representation, because surely in the cases of Corporations such as that he represents there would be no difficulty in finding proper representatives in every district for the County Council. In his own county I have no doubt that the noble Marquess, as Chairman of the Company, would easily find a seat upon the County Council, as indeed I hope he will. However, I should say that there will be no difficulty whatever in any district. That remark would refer not only to such an interest 508 as that of a Railway Company, but of all other Corporations of a large and important description. I think what the noble Marquess asks me to do is to introduce a new principle into the Bill altogether, and one which I do not think the object which he would seek to obtain would justify me in agreeing to, and therefore I am afraid that in this case I must also decline to accept his Amendment.
§ Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 29 to 39 agreed to.
§ Clause 40.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI beg to move the omission of this clause. I may explain to your Lordships very briefly the history of these two parishes, which rejoice in the names of Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch. They belonged, some time ago, to a noble Lord, and I think it suited him that those parishes should be comprised within the County of Dumbarton, and he arranged accordingly; and these two parishes, although they are not adjacent to the County of Dumbarton, and are separated from it, were, and still are—for all purpoposes except that of roads—part of the County of Dumbarton. When the Road Act of 1878 was passed no special arrangement was made with reference to these parishes, and, in pursuance of the terms of the Act, it came to pass that the County of Stirling—of which these two are the largest parishes—became the county to which, for road management, they belonged. Inconsequence of that arrangement, the County of Stirling has made a road district of which, I believe, these parishes form more than a half. A good deal of expenditure has fallen upon the county in consequence. This Bill proposes to take these two parishes, and to take them out of the County of Stirling, in which they have been for the last 10 years, and to put them into the County of Dumbarton. To that arrangement the County of Stirling strongly objects. With regard to the merits of the case, I do not wish to say anything, but the case which I have to present to the House is this, that by the clauses which come a little later in the Bill the Government is establishing Boundary Commissioners, whose duty 509 it is to consider and to settle questions of this very sort, and it seems to me that this question which is contained in 1 Clause 40 is exactly one of the questions which the Boundary Commissioners are appointed to settle. The County of Stirling complains very bitterly that it has not been heard on this Bill. It says that the clause was not in the Bill originally, and at a comparatively late stage in the progress through the House of Commons the clause was inserted, and the County of Stirling against whose interest it militates had no opportunity of stating their case against the clause. I do not think I need say anything further. Perhaps there is one little remark I ought to make. Suppose that this clause is struck out of the Bill, it is represented (and I think this is the strongest argument that can be produced against me) that these two parishes, which are now part of the County of Stirling for roads only, and are part of the County of Dumbarton for health and all other purposes, will become part of the County of Stirling for all purposes. I admit that that appears to be something of a case against me, but I would point out that the only effect really would be this, that it would make it imperative for you to delay this clause, and imperative upon the Commissioners O settle and decide this question, and that is exactly what I think ought to be done, and exactly what the principle of this Bill lays down as the duty of the Commissioners.
* THE DUKE OF MONTROSEI rise to support the Amendment of the noble Lord. I may say I live in Stirlingshire, and am conversant with county business, and know how detrimental it will be to the County if these two Parishes are taken away too summarily by Act of Parliament. I do not suppose for a moment that Stirlingshire wishes to retain these two Counties if it is considered advisable that they should be handed over to Dumbartonshire, but there are financial questions of considerable importance, and, besides, there are several other parishes in the County of Stirling which are more or less on the same footing as those two, and it is for those reasons that the county considers that the question should be decided by the County Commissioners, and that no good cause has been shown 510 for singling out those two Parishes out of the whole scheme for this special legislation. I hope the noble Marquess will see his way to omit this clause.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLAfter the two speeches we have listened to one would think that the tedium of discussions in this House is likely to be relieved by a revival of the battle of the clans. I rise on the part of the County of Dumbarton to protest against the Government agreeing to this amendment. There are very curious historical matters in connection with this clause. The County of Dumbarton is one of the oldest and most interesting historical counties in Scotland. It, has a strong esprit de corps of its own; it has a history of its own. The ancient County of Dumbarton, as the noble Duke well knows (for a considerable part of the ancient territory belongs to him) was the Lennox, one of the old and most important historical divisions in Scotland, giving one of its oldest titles to the Royal Family of Scotland. The word Lennox is derived from the Valley of the Leven; it is a mere corruption of Levenax. As long ago as the 14th or 15th century there was a division made owing to certain circumstances of convenience at that time, in which two large divisions (parishes now) were annexed to the Parish of Dumbarton to the eastward of its old boundary, and in exchange for that no less than seven parishes were detached from the ancient Lennox, and given to the County of Stirling. It is an old bargain, 300 or 400 years old, and what is gravely proposed to this House now is that this old bargain should be revoked, and that the County of Stirling should annex the two great Parishes of Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld in order to get their assessment within their own boundary without giving up the corresponding parishes.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLThat is the effect of the repeal of this clause. My noble Friend has also stated it rather broadly to the House when he speaks of this as a change from the existing state of things. The effect of the 40th Clause is to keep the existing state of things. I have read with much astonishment the statement made by the Com- 511 missioners of Supply of the County of Stirling. They say distinctly that—
The position of the Parishes of Kirkintillock and Cumbernauld is exactly identical with the Parish of Kelenore and in former Acts of Parliament concerning Local Government, have been treated accordingly.That is quite at variance with the fact. The two last important Acts which have been passed for Local Government in Scotland, one in 1857 and the other in 1868, had a clause precisely similar to this. The one was an Act of 1857 for regulating the police in counties and burghs in Scotland, and the other in 1868 was for levying the general County Assessment. In both these Statutes there was a corresponding clause the two parishes of Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld, and preserving them in their ancient historical connection with the County of Dumbarton. This will be a serious matter for the County of Dumbarton. The two parishes of Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld originally at the time of the old contract were empty moor land and very poor land. They are now full of mineral riches and afford a large field for assessment by the County of Dumbarton, and the only pretence for leaving out this clause is that for road purposes these two parishes were created a separate district in connection with the County of Stirling. That is quite natural. For road purposes they are surrounded by two different counties, and it would be inconvenient that they should be separated from their coterminous boundaries. But as regards judicial work and police they have always preserved their connection with the County of Dumbarton, and the County of Dumbarton objects to having so large and accessible an area withdrawn from its ancient boundaries. The Government in putting in this 40th Clause have followed precisely the precedent followed by the two last Local Acts connected with the Government of Scotland, and I object exceedingly to the Amendment, and I hope the Government will resist it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI omitted to state what was really the very strongest argument I possessed, which is this, that if this Clause 40 is allowed to stand in the Bill the Commissioners will have no power to settle questions of expenditure which may arise, because 512 the matter in question will have been disposed of. But it seemed just now as if there was going to be a regular Battle of the Clans. I thought Loch Lomond was going to rush down from Stirling to Inverary. But after all, the noble Duke and I are not so very far apart. He says he only wants to keep the existing state of things—that is all I want to keep. For the purposes of road management, these two parishes, in despite of all ancient history, have been part of the County of Stirling for the last 10 years. For the purposes of police, health, &c., they have been part of the County of Dumbarton. We do not want to change either of these things, but it is the noble Duke's friends who put into the Bill a clause which summarily removes these two parishes from Stirling, and settles the question in favour of Dumbarton. Our proposal is simply this. We say hand the existing state of things, both with regard to roads and police, over to the Boundary Commissioners as you proposed to do with all other questions. Let them settle the question in the manner which seems to them best; they are the only people who can settle it satisfactorily and fairly, because they are the only people who have power to settle financial questions between the two counties.
§ * LORD WATSONHaving had something to do with the Roads and Bridges Act of 1878, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make an observation with respect to this question. I thought at that time that Dumbartonshire was somewhat severely treated, but with necessary severity, because there were certain great turnpike roads that ran through the two counties of Lanark and Stirling, and traversed this outlying part of Dumbartonshire. It was very expedient in the state of matters at that time that the road authorities of Stirlingshire should have charge and control within this district, but I must say that it never entered into the mind of anyone who had to do with the Measure that they ought in the least degree to impair the integrity of the somewhat small County of Dumbarton. I believe that owing to the spread of railway communication in Scotland and the cesser of long-distance traffic over these main lines of road, the causes which rendered it very proper to incorporate for road purposes only these two 513 parishes with the County of Stirling in the year 1878, have been gradually disappearing, and that the area now contains district roads only properly so called. At the same time there is a good deal to he said for part of the observations of the noble Earl. These two parishes have hitherto been dealt with as an integral part of one of the Stirlingshire Road Districts. There may have been liabilities incurred by Stirlingshire with respect to this part of Dumbartonshire, which for road purposes Dumbartonshire ought not to retain without taking over its due share of liabilities, and if the noble Marquess who has charge of the measure could see his way to it, I think the present clause might stand, with an addition to the effect of making a reference to the Boundary Commissioners under the Act to settle any question of disputed compensation between the two counties.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLI do not understand the 40th Clause to prevent the existing arrangement in regard to roads only continuing. I do not think it will.
§ * LORD WATSONIt puts an end to the existing road arrangements and is intended to do so, I believe.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLI have no objection myself, personally—I do not know what may be the opinion of the whole body of the Commissioners of Supply of the County of Dumbarton, but I see no objection to the continuance of the existing state of things as regards the roads only, but the striking out of this clause would be practically the annexation of these parishes to the County of Stirling.
THE DUKE OF HAMILTONNone of the noble Lords who have spoken have informed us what are the wishes and sentiment of the inhabitants of the two parishes upon this point. Would not the Boundary Commissioners be able to inform us upon the subject?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANThis is apparently a very difficult question. I have given a great deal of consideration to it, because the question has been brought very strongly before me in the interests both of the County of Stirling and the County of Dumbarton. First of all I would like to say, in reference to what has fallen from the noble Lord who has just spoken as to the feelings of the two parishes of Kirkintilloch and 514 Cumbernauld, that I think that what their views are may be fairly taken for granted from the course which they have hitherto followed. In 1857, as the noble Duke has said, under the Police Act, the position of these two parishes was maintained, but there was a proviso enabling the two parishes to be transferred to the County of Stirling if the ratepayers wished. The ratepayers never took advantage of those powers, and we may judge from that of what their wishes were. In 1868 an identical clause was inserted, and the ratepayers followed the same course. Therefore we may take it for granted that they do not wish to be transferred, but wish to remain part of the County of Dumbarton. With reference to what the noble Duke said just now as to these two parishes remaining in the County of Stirling simply under the Road Act, I do not think that that is possible. The effect of this clause as it stands would he to transfer the whole power both under the Road Act, and the Police Act, and all the other Acts to the County of Dumbarton. With regard to the financial aspect of the question the noble Earl seemed to confine his observations to the matter of roads only; but it must be recollected that the financial aspect also touches Dumbarton at this moment with reference to all the rates. The rateable value in these two parishes is enormous. Out of £450,000 the annual value of the whole county, these two parishes account for £81,000, or 18 per cent of the whole. If that wa3 taken away from Dumbarton, as it would be according to the proposal of the noble Earl, it would make an enormous difference to the County of Dumbarton. With reference to what the noble Earl said just now as to the financial arrangements between the two counties with reference to any capital which might have been spent under the Road Act in these two parishes, I think there is very great force in what the noble Earl has said. I understand that the County of Stirling has spent about £2,000 of capital upon the roads in these two parishes of Dumbartonshire, and it certainly would be a very strong thing to transfer the two parishes to Dumbartonshire for road purposes without some compensation by which this £2,000 or 3ome equivalent sum might be given back to 515 Stirling. The whole question before the Committee is whether really these two parishes should be placed within the jurisdiction of the Boundary Commissioners. My own opinion is that, under the Bill, the Boundary Commissioners have powers to deal with these parishes, but the clause, as it stands, does not take them out of the administration or powers of the Boundary Commissioners; but if there is any doubt upon that point, I should like to make it clear that it is not the intention of the Bill that they should be taken away for reference to the Boundary Commissioners, and I propose, therefore, at the end of Clause 40, to introduce words to this effect—
That nothing in this section contained shall affect or limit the powers and duties of the Boundary Commissioners or the Secretary of State for Scotland under this Act.I think if those words were introduced, leaving Clause 40 as it now stands, it would give an indication to the Boundary Commissioners that in the opinion of Parliament these two parishes ought to remain as they now are, part of the County of Dumbarton, and to give to the Boundary Commissioners the right to take evidence and to make any arrangement they think fit as to pecuniary matters between Dumbarton and Stirling.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLI do not quite understand the proposal of my noble Friend. Does he mean that the Boundary Commissioners may transfer these parishes wholly, for all purposes, from Dumbarton to Stirling, because that I should certainly object to. To give the Boundary Commissioners power to trace boundaries between parishes, and arrange as to deviations and so forth, is a very different thing to giving power to such a body to cut off what has been a substantial part of a Scotch county from all its history and associations.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI am afraid that would be the effect of my proposal—it would give that power to the Boundary Commissioners, although I do not think that would be the result, but I do not see how otherwise it would be possible to make provision for payment of compensation for the differences between the two counties.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy object is not to withdraw this question 516 from the cognisance of the Boundary Commissioners, and I am quite prepared to accept the proposal which has-been made.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLIt seems to me that the Amendment of my noble Friend is virtually the repeal of this clause, because this clause runs on all fours with the clauses in the previous Act of 1878. What I suggest to my noble Friend is that the Boundary Commissioners should, have special power to make special arrangements in any case that may arise, but that they should not have the power to disintegrate altogether these two parishes.
§ * LORD WATSONI entirely sympathise with the observations made by the noble Duke. If the clause has the meaning which the noble Marquess seems to attach to it it ought to have run thus:—
The Commissioners in exercising their powers under this Act shall treat the County of Dumbarton as if it had contained these two parishes within its limits up to this date.That seems to be the view which he takes of this clause. I cannot so read, it. It is a substantive enactment to the effect that for every purpose in this Bill these two parishes shall be considered as forming part of the County of Dumbarton, and after enacting that substantively in the first part of the clause, it is-proposed to add a contradiction in terms—namely, that these shall not be for the purposes of this Act part of the County of Dumbarton if the Commissioners under the Act shall so will it.
* LORD BALFOURI can see nothing in the Bill to prevent the Boundary Commissioners dealing with these two parishes as the Bill now stands; all the Bill does is to alter the first presumption. The presumption throughout the whole Bill is that the contents of counties for the purposes of this Bill shall be the contents according to the Roads and Bridges Act. The effect of this clause as it stands is in respect of these two parishes to alter the presumption, and to put it the other way; but there is nothing in this clause, as I read it, to withdraw the matters affecting these' two parishes from the cognisance of the Boundary Commissioners. I think it is fair to consider the great importance to the County of Dumbarton that the presumption should be put with them in respect of these parishes. The ancient connection of these two parishes 517 is with the County of Dumbarton; so far as we can judge of the feelings and wishes of the people their wishes go with the County of Dumbarton. But, on the other hand, it would be obviously unfair, and everybody has admitted that the Stirlingshire people should get no compensation for the outlay at which they have been in regard to these two parishes if they are to be taken for road purposes out of their present district and put into the County of Dumbarton. Surely, the Bill as it stands is intended to operate thus, that while the presumption shall be with the County of Dumbarton, the Boundary Commissioners, under Clause 48, shall consider the whole circumstances of the case, and make such arrangements as shall seem to them fair. It may be that the Boundary Commissioners shall pay a money compensation to the County of Stirling. It may be that they will decree that these parishes should become part of the County of Stirling. It may be, on the other hand—at least I think there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it—that for all purposes except roads they shall be considered to be in Dumbarton, but that for road purposes they shall go Stirling. I think that is possible. We are simply considering on one side what the presumption shall be, and upon the facts stated by the noble Duke opposite, and on account of the historical connection with the County of Dumbarton, and of the great value of these parishes to that county in proportion to the whole value of the county, it is fair that the presumption should be in favour of Dumbarton. But I think the noble Marquess behind me who has charge of the Bill made it quite clear that even the Bill as it stands does not withdraw these two parishes from the cognisance of the Boundary Commissioners.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLI should like to have the opinion of the noble and learned Lord as to the construction of this clause. As it stands I certainly read it as a substantive clause, and so does the noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches, and as he is one of the Judicial Members of your Lordships' House, I think his opinion on the construction of the clause is more relevant to this discussion than eyen the opinions of my noble Friends opposite, although they are responsible for the drafting of the Bill. What I 518 would like to know from the noble and1 learned Lord is whether he adheres to the interpretation he puts on it, that it does withdraw the case of these two parishes from the free discretion of the Boundary Commissioners?
§ * LORD WATSONI am not fond of giving, and indeed cannot pretend to give, judicial decisions in Committee of your Lordships' House; but I do not hesitate to say that, in my opinion, the enactment is absolute, and that the County of Dumbarton would be much better off under the clause as it stands than under the clause as the noble Marquess proposes to extend it.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLI hope that before Report the noble Marquess will do this, which I think will be a fair compromise—that he will maintain the principle of the two previous existing local Acts, that there should be a distinct declaration on the part of Parliament that these two parishes are an integral part of the County of Dumbarton. They have been so for 400 years; they are an important part of the assessable value of the county; but with regard to the management of roads, and all the applications connected with it, the Boundary Commissioners should have full power over it.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI have no desire to change the presumption in this Bill, that is to say, that the two parishes should remain integral parts of the County of Dumbarton; but in consequence of the difficulty which has arisen, I am quite ready to consider the proposal of the noble Duke, and to state upon Report what conclusion we arrive at.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 41 agreed to.
§ Clause 42.
§ THE EARL OF ELGIN, in rising to move the insertion of a new clause, said: This clause is to meet the local circumstances of Fife. The Commissioners of Supply of the County of Fife do not possess any county buildings; they are all held under local Acts by the Court House Commissioners; and, as this Bill proposes to throw upon the County Council the duty of providing rooms for the meetings of the Commissioners of Supply, the Justices, and other Bodies, it is thought it would be necessary that they 519 should have possession of the county buildings. There does not seem to be any reason for maintaining the separate existence of the Court House Commissioners, and therefore, by this new clause, I propose that all their duties and obligations should be transferred to the County Council.
§
Amendment moved, in page 30, after Clause 41, insert as a new Clause—
With respect to the application of this Act to the county of Fife, there shall be enacted the following provision, namely: The Acts fifth and sixth William the Fourth, chapter sixty, intituled 'An Act for providing in or near the burgh of Cupar more extensive accommodation for holding the courts and meetings of the sheriff, justices of the peace, and commsisioners of supply of the county of Fife, and for the custody of the records of the said county,' and the Act tenth Victoria, chapter thirty-two, known as 'The Dunfermline and Cupar Court Houses Act, 1847,' are hereby repealed, and all the powers and rights conferred by said Acts, and the duties, obligations, and liabilities imposed by said Acts or otherwise upon the commissioners for whose appointment said Acts provide, and all lands, buildings, funds, effects, and property of whatever description belonging to or vested in said commissioners, and all debts and obligations of whatever nature of said commissioners, are hereby transferred to the county council of the county of Fife."—(The Earl of Elgin.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause added, and numbered 42.
§ Clause 43 (in the Bill 42) agreed to.
§ Clause 44 (in the Bill 43).
§ THE EARL OF ELGINIf I am right in understanding that the sub-section of this clause will have the effect of attaching every detached portion of a county as it is attached under the Roads and Bridges Act for all purposes, and, at the same time, that that will not withdraw it from the cognizance of the Bonndary Commissioners hereafter, to determine whether it would not be better to attach it to some other county, then the Amendment which I have on the Paper would not be necessary.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANThe interpretation which the noble Lord has just put on the sub-section is quite correct, and I was going to ask the 520 noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, because it is not necessary.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Remaining Clauses to Clause 76 (in he Bill 75) agreed to.
§ Clause 77 (in the Bill 76).
§ LORD ELGINI wish to point out to the noble Marquess that it appears to me he has omitted to provide in this clause for the case of a County that does not divide itself into districts. The proviso states that a county, if it think it expedient, need not divide itself into districts in certain cases, but if that happens what is to be done with regard to the powers and the duties of the district itself? The following clause, which lays down the constitution of the district itself, is specially limited to that denomination, and I imagine that under this constitution, if a County Council resolves that it would not divide itself into districts there would be no means of introducing into the County Council for the management of the roads and the administration of the Public Health Act, the representatives of the Parochial Board and the representatives of the burghs, who are admitted under the next following clause. Now I do not quite follow how the administration would be carried out. Under these circumstances I beg to move the proviso of which I have given notice, unless the noble Marquess would like to consider it further.
§
Amendment moved, in page 53, after line 27, insert—
Provided also that where a county is not divided into districts the County Council shall, for the purposes of this section, be constituted in like manner as a District Committee under this Act."—(The Lord Elgin.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI think the suggestion of the noble Lord is a very reasonable one, but it has only just been put into my hands, and I would like to consider it before Report.
§ Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses to Clause 80 (in the Bill 79) agreed to.
§ Clause 81 (in the Bill 80.)
§ * THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALEIt would appear that if a special water 521 supply district became included in a district formed under this Bill, which will include several parishes, the District Council would be entitled to levy a rate upon the whole district, and not upon the special water districts. Suppose a special district is formed in one parish, and that parish forms part of one of the new districts about to be formed. The rate for the special water district would be levied on the whole. That would be unfair to the parishes which it is proposed to unite in forming districts under the Bill. I beg therefore to move the following Amendment
§
Amendment moved, in page 55, at end of clause add as new Sub-section—
(4.) All expenditure incurred by such Local Authority in any water supply or drainage district, including repayment of debt and interest, shall be assessed as hitherto on the lands and heritages within such water supply or drainage district. Clause 82, page 55, line 32, leave out from the first "the" to end of line 9, page 56; Sub-section 3, page 56, line 10, leave out "may" and insert "shall."—(The Marquess of Tweeddale.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI think the noble Marquess has pointed out a difficulty which may exist under the wording of the Bill, but I cannot say at this moment that 1 am prepared to accept the exact words of the Amendment, and I would like to have an opportunity of considering this with the other matters which have been postponed and putting it right upon Report.
§ Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 82 (in the Bill Clause 81) agreed to.
§ Clause 83 (in the Bill Clause 82.)
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLThe Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord Elgin is much the same as an Amendment which I have put down on the Paper, and my noble Friend has asked me to state our reasons for it. In some observations which I addressed to your Lordships to-night, I referred to the Treasury as a terrible Department. I am afraid we have here an example of the effect of the Treasury influence upon the drafting of Bills. I believe these clauses were put in in the other House of Parliament at the last moment and attracted very little notice or atten- 522 tion. I have not spoken to any one person connected with Scotland who has not most seriously objected to them. The state of the matter is this: In 1857, Parliament passed an Act enabling the Commissioners of Supply of all the Scotch counties to appoint a Revenue Officer as their County Valuer, and holding out to them the advantage that if they did so the expense of the valuation would be borne by the Treasury. That is more than 30 years ago. A very large number of the counties of Scotland have taken advantage of that provision. It so happens that the county with which I have chiefly the honour of being connected did not adopt it. We have an Assessor of our own who conducts all the valuations for public purposes; he is a very able officer, and I trust the County Council will not be likely to change him. Out of all the counties of Scotland, all but four did take advantage of this Act of 1857. For 30 years they have been in the habit of appointing as their own Valuer some public officer of the Revenue, and I believe the arrangement has worked most satisfactorily. I have often heard Mr. Gladstone in former days, when I was his colleague, speak of the effective manner in which these matters were conducted in Scotland, and the punctuality with which public taxes were paid. Very much of this depends on the unity of action between the County and the Treasury in these matters. This has been going on for more than 30 years and given great satisfaction, and yet now in this Local Government Bill comes this formidable proviso,
Provided that where the Assessor is an officer of Inland Revenue any regulations made by the County Council with respect to his duties and conduct shall be subject to the approval of the Treasury.That is to say that we can no longer appoint a Government officer without making ourselves, through him, the servant of the Treasury obliged to receive any orders the Treasury may issue in respect of valuations, I suppose, or in respect of the duties of that, office. That is a very serious demand, and it is quite possible that it may lead to the abandonment by the Scotch counties of that happy system under which the two authorities have been working together, of employing officers mutually appointed for all 523 common purposes, at least for purposes which are common to them in a very large extent. Now, what is the object of this new arrangement? I cannot conceive it. Of course, under the present system, when we appoint a Revenue officer we do not withdraw him from the cognisance and superintendence of the Treasury. The Treasury may dismiss any of their officers whenever they please, and the County would then have to look for another Assessor, but practically I believe such a disagreement has never happened. On page 57, at the top, there is another proviso—Provided that where the Assessor is an officer of Inland Revenue, the amount of the salary, wages, and allowances awarded to him shall he subjeet to the approval of the Treasury.Now, I am unwilling to ascribe to the Treasury any object which is not openly avowed; but it looks uncommonly as if the Treasury wished to withdraw the advantage which, under the present Act of Parliament, we now enjoy, and which was held out to us by the Act of 1857, that in such case the expense attending the assessment by such officers should be defrayed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. It is quite clear that if the Treasury have an absolute power of dictating what the salary shall be, they may exact a bargain from all the counties that the salary shall be such as to relieve them of half the expense which they now pay on the cost of valuations. If that is the object of the Treasury I think it should be avowed and provided for in a special clause; but as the Bill now stands it is dissociated from any public purpose of any value, and is open to grave suspicion as regards its object, and certainly may be construed as exercising an effect upon the future position of the County Councils. If the Government wish to deal with this question separately I have nothing to say—if they wish to revise the bargain which was made in 1857 with the Scotch counties on this subject I have no objection; but it is hardly fair to introduce into this Bill a clause which will have this effect without its having been really discussed or contemplated by the counties of Scotland.
§ THE EARL OF ELGINAfter what the noble Duke has said I will say nothing further than that I was myself going to move to delete the last part 524 of this clause, and that I was asked to do so by the Town Council of the Burgh of Inverary, and also by the Bills Committee of the Commissioners of Supply of Aberdeen. I believe that a Select Committee is sitting at the present time to inquire into the valuation of rating in Scotland, and I think it would be very much better to wait at all events till that Committee had reported, and then to deal with the whole subject.
§ Amendment moved, in page 56, line 19, to leave out from "provided," to "Burgh," in line 28.—(The Duke of Argyll.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThere is no subject more interesting to a well-constituted Parliamentary mind than examination into the motives which, guide the Treasury. A perfect wealth of interesting problems are suggested by that study; but I must say I think the noble Lord has in this case attributed too grave and sinister a meaning to these clauses. I think that they are simply the thought of the draftsman to protect the Treasury from any exceptional diminution of the functions and powers which it already possesses; because if the noble Lord will consider, he will see that according to our present conception of the law every one of the things which is enacted by these provisoes the Treasury can secure itself by threatening to dismiss the man unless they are fulfilled. Therefore I conclude that the draftsman has been afraid that the language of the clause would oust the Treasury of this natural jurisdiction. That jurisdiction must remain to it. The Treasury must have the power of dismissing its officers if it chooses, and of course if it can dismiss its officers when it chooses, it can insist that any regulations made with respect to their duties and conduct are such as it approves of. In the same way it insists that the amount of the salaries and allowances shall be such as it approves of, or the officer goes; and either that they thought it a more respectful mode of dealing with County Councils, or as I think is more probable, that it is one of those things which the-draftsman put in ex abundanti cautelâ in order to prevent in legislative action that which is not necessary, they have put in what to the lay mind seems mere surplusage. I am afraid I cannot say 525 that I have any message from the Treasury; but the Treasury do not live very far from here, and are in a state of vitality in the course of the day, and their view can be easily ascertained, but I am convinced that it has no such dark and sinister meaning as the noble Lord attaches to it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNAll that is asked by those who oppose this clause is that the position with regard to the Assessors in the Scottish counties should be left exactly as it is. That has existed, as the noble Duke has pointed out, for 30 years, and I suppose that during that time the Treasury have had control over their officers in all respects as the noble Marquess opposite would desire for them. I wish also to emphasize what the noble Lord opposite has said, that this matter is one which was specially brought before a Select Committee of the other House last year, which was appointed for the very purpose of inquiring into the valuation question in Scotland. This question was brought before the Committee by the representatives of the Inland Revenue in Edinburgh, and the very proposals which are now embodied in this Bill were brought forward by that officer as an alteration which he desired to make in the law. Therefore, I think the particular provisions cannot have been introduced as the noble Marquess has said by accident.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI did not say that. I said ex abundanti cautelâ.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNExactly; but they must have been introduced by the Treasury in order to bear out the views which their officer expressed before the Select Committee. That Select Committee has been reappointed this year; it has not presented its Report, and under the circumstances I think it is only fair to the Scotch counties that, as the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Argyll) suggested, the whole subject should be left over to be treated separately if the Government were so advised, after the Report of the Select Committee.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYI think it would obviate the objections to this clause if these words were added:—
That the Commissioners of Supply in counties and Magistrates in burghs in appointing the Inland Revenue Officers as Assessors in 526 their respective spheres, should retain the privileges given them in so doing under the Land Valuation Amendment Act of 1857, 17 and 18 Victoria, Chapter 88.It seems to me that that would be a solution which would meet the views of everybody.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLBefore my noble Friend answers I would suggest that these clauses, which I believe to be unnecessary as regards the power of the Treasury, should be struck out until the Committee of the House of Commons, which is now sitting upon this very subject, has reported. If my information is not incorrect, the officer of the Treasury who recommended to that Committee some change of this kind did not conceal that his desire rested on the ground of reconsidering and altering the financial arrangement between the Treasury and the counties, and that he would, in fact, throw again the whole expense of valuations upon the counties. As I have already said, that is a matter for consideration in any general arrangement, and I think it should not be introduced in the way it is in this Bill. With regard to the suggestion that these words are merely put into the Bill ex abundanti cautelâ, I would point out that in line 55 there is a proviso saving existing appointments, which shows that it does contemplate an alteration in the present state of things. Under the present state of things the Government may dismiss any man they like, but there is a special provision that in the case of men now holding office, this clause should not apply.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI think after what has been said by the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, it is unnecessary for me to go in any detail into this question, because he suggested, and I understood that the House has accepted the proposal, that the question should be further considered on Report after the Government had ascertained more distinctly what are the views of the Treasury. The noble Duke seemed to think that the Treasury by this proposal have some sort of idea of altering the financial arrangements as between the counties and themselves with reference to the payment of their officers for making up the valuation of the county. I would like to say with reference to that, that I am quite certain that it is not the intention 527 of the Treasury in the smallest degree to take advantage of anything under this Bill to make any change of the kind; not only is it not their intention, tout I am firmly convinced that it is not in their power to do it, because under the Act of 1857 the Commissioners of Supply were enabled to appoint an officer of the Inland Revenue as Assessor for the Valuation Roll, and the arrangement with the Treasury then was that the Treasury should pay the whole of the salary of that officer for making up the Valuation Roll. By this Bill that Act of 1857 is not repealed nor any portion of it; and, therefore, I think that so long as that Act remains in force the Treasury are bound, by the arrangement and the obligations under which they came in virtue of that Act. I only wish to say that, in reference to what has fallen from the noble Duke with reference to the other question raised toy the Amendment, I think that had better be deferred till Report.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI suggest that course because it is quite possible that we may introduce some formal words which may meet all the views which have been expressed.
§ Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses down to Clause 108 (in the Bill Clause 107) agreed to.
§ Clause 109 (in the Bill Clause 108).
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI beg to move the omission of this clause. The object of the clause is to insure that the Lord Lieutenant of the County, the Convener of the County, the Chairman of the County Road Trustees, and the Chairman of the Local Authority of the County, shall be placed upon the first County Council. I believe that if the clause is carried, it will have an effect exactly contrary to that which the framers of the Bill intend. Certainly these officials will be members of the first County Council, but they will be placed in a position of very great difficulty after that time, because when their term of office expires they will have no seat of their own, and unless some of the existing members of the Council wish to resign, these officials, who are manifestly some of the most prominent men in the county, will find themselves placed in 528 the disagreeable position of having to oppose some other person who has a seat. It is very probable, too, that some of these four officials may prefer to stand on their own merits instead of on their ex officio qualifications. If they do, they will almost to a certainty not be elected, because the electors will say—"Why, these four officers have seats found for them by the Act, and yet they are not content, but must also aspire to have a seat of their own as well," and many persons will vote against them for that very reason. The feeling which underlies this clause, and which has dictated it, is one which is very reasonable indeed—that these four persons ought to be on the new County Council. I am exactly of that opinion, and I do not believe that the persons who have discharged any of these county offices with credit, will find any difficulty in obtaining a seat upon the new Council, always provided that we have a reasonably sufficient number of County Councillors. I think the clause is rather an invidious one, and that it will have an effect quite different from that which the framers intend, and for that reason I beg to move its omission.
§ Moved, "To omit Clause 108."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI am sorry that the noble Lord has thought it necessary to move the omission of this clause. I quite appreciate the difficulties which he has suggested, but I do not anticipate that they will be realised to the extent which he fears. The noble Earl speaks as if it was absolutely certain that these four persons who are included in this clause as the ex officio members, will be elected on the General Council at the first election. I do not know what guarantee the noble Earl has for that. I think it is quite possible that persons who have shown great aptitude and great interest before in county business would be elected at the first election, but on the other hand there is no guarantee whatever for that. The noble Lord rightly understands that the object the Government have had in view in inserting this provision is to ensure that these four ex officio members should be added to the County Council for the first term of its existence. There is no guarantee whatever as to who will be elected on 529 the County Councils, they may be altogether, or a large number of them may be and are very likely to be those who have had any knowledge or taken any part in county business and in the interests of the work of the County Councils, in the future it is very desirable indeed that certain members of the existing administration, who have had great experience, and have great knowledge, and have taken a great interest in the affairs of their counties shall be placed upon the County Council without the possibility of their being excluded. I think your Lordships will require no argument to appreciate the desirability of there being some sort of connecting link between the old system and the new one. I do not believe that there will be the difficulty which the noble Lord seems to anticipate with regard to the future election of members who are ex officio upon the first Council. Surely these four representative persons in the County Council will find, some means of standing for an election without displacing anyone whom they would wish to see still upon the Council at some future election. I do not anticipate these difficulties. I feel perfectly certain, in the interests of the future work and future conduct of business by the County Councils, that it is of the greatest possible advantage to them that they should have the advice and guidance of those who are intimately acquainted with the county business as it has hitherto been carried on. On these grounds I think your Lordships will he advised well if you agree to the clause as it stands.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI would like to say with regard to this clanse that I have had communication with a good many gentlemen who will come under its operation, and I have not found one who is in its favour. No doubt it is extremely desirable there should be a connecting link between the old administration and the new, but the question with regard to this clause is whether that connecting link is introduced in the manner that will make it of the greatest advantage. It appears to me that the introduction of the connecting link by means of ex officio members is to place it under the greatest possible disadvantage, because those members who are put on a footing of that kind will be or may be regarded 530 by others on the County Council as suspected individuals—that they are introduced into a body by a method which is devised specially for them, and that they are not able to undergo the free election which the other members of the Council submit to. Besides that I think there is a real grievance that the members themselves are put under as regards the second election. It is all very well to say they can stand at the first election. The difficulty will certainly arise that the noble Earl has pointed out—if they stand at the first election they will certainly be told by anybody who opposes them that they have already got a seat and, therefore, need not be elected, and if they come forward at the next election they will have to look all round the country to find somebody whom it would be expedient for them to oust. I think this is one of those clauses in the Bill in which the Government, unfortunately, introduce a provision which is of very little value in itself, and must give rise to great inconvenience and dissatisfaction.
* LORD BALFOURI admit there is a certain amount of difference of opinion on the part of those who are supposed to be privileged by this clause; but, upon the whole, the balance of advantage is in favour of keeping the clause as it stands. The idea which has been put forward, both by the noble Lord who has last spoken and the noble Lord who moved to reject the clause, that at the second election persons privileged at the first election will have a difficulty in finding a seat, seems to me to be quite without foundation. It would be the case, perhaps, if you were bound to be elected only for the division of the county in which you reside; but for the purposes of county elections, provided you are registered as a county elector, you may stand for any division. To suppose that everybody who is in the first County Council will desire to stand for the second is, I think, obviously a mistake, and it will surely not be difficult for those of the nominated Councillors, who wish to go on to the second election, to to find one at least of the divisions in which there would be a retiring Councillor. I quite admit that a difference of opinion exists about this provision; it is a clause which has had a good deal of discussion both in Scotland and in "another place." It was challenged in 531 the other House of Parliament, and, on a division, it was resolved to be adhered to; therefore, upon the whole, I think it would be unwise to take the step of rejecting it at this stage, especially having regard to the fact that no previous notice has been given of the intention to move the rejection of it.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended.