Lords Sitting of 16 August 1894

BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. 2) BILL. (No. 208.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, this Bill which I ask your Lordships to read a second time has been very carefully considered in the other House. Your Lordships will be aware that attention has recently been called to the very disastrous effects which has been produced owing to the failure of certain Building Societies, resulting in the loss by many of the working classes of this country of the product of many years of thrift. Although the measure has no doubt attracted public attention owing to the recent failures, and although I think it certain that those failures have facilitated the passage of the Bill through the other House by exciting a natural interest in the subject and a desire to see an amendment of the law, yet it does not represent anything that could be called panic legislation, inasmuch as the expediency of legislation in this direction has long been in view, and the provisions which are substantially embodied in this Bill have been long under consideration. The Bill does not propose to interfere with the management of their affairs by the Societies themselves. To attempt this would no doubt be a fatal policy; but it deals with what will probably prevent some of the disasters which we have recently seen. Hitherto, although accounts have been presented to the members and Registrar from time to time, yet on matters most material they have conveyed little or no information. Large sums have often been advanced on mortgage, and owing to the non-payment of interest the Society has entered into the possession of many of those mortgaged properties without any information on the subject being conveyed to the members, and without their knowing anything of what was going on. The
  1154
  extent to which this practice has prevailed will be apparent when I tell your Lordships what is shown by a Return which has been moved for of the value of the properties which have come into the possession of Societies owing to the non-fulfilment of obligations by mortgagors. The Societies are not under any statutory compulsion to make a Return. Two hundred and twenty Societies having £13,000,000 out on mortgage do not make any Return, but 716 Societies which have £28,000,000 on mortgage made Returns showing that they were in possession of properties themselves which had been mortgaged for no less than £7,315,000. No doubt those Societies which made Returns had in their possession mortgages in similar proportion, and this would mean that nearly 1,000 Societies have probably about £5,000,000 of mortgaged property which they have had to take into their own possession owing to the non-fulfilment of obligations. The Bill proposes to require that the Societies should show in their annual accounts what amounts are out on mortgage, not, of course, specifying the particular properties or the names of the mortgagees, but indicating what amounts have been advanced on individual properties, and on how many properties those advances have been made. The original object of these Building Societies was to encourage thrift by enabling advances to be made by means of which working men should become the owners of their own dwellings. But, unfortunately, many of these Societies have departed from the original purpose of their foundation, and they have become lending Societies in connection sometimes with speculating builders on extremely insufficient security. That is the first and probably the most vital provision of the Bill. In addition to this, power is given to 10 members of a Society to call upon the Registrar of Building Societies for the appointment of a person to examine the accounts and report upon them, and one-tenth of the members of a Society may at any time require the appointment of an Inspector, who may examine into the management and proceedings of the Society and the manner in which the Society is carried on. There are also provisions for auditing the accounts of the Society. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships

  1155
  in more detail with the measure. I am sure your Lordships will sympathise with its object. It will not fetter the conduct by the Societies of their own business, while on the other hand it will afford to their members such information as will be likely to induce an amount of care and caution in the management of Societies which has not hitherto always been shown, audit will protect their Members from such losses as those from which unfortunately in the past they have suffered.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I entirely concur with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack upon the propriety of reading this Bill a second time, and of giving it every assistance to enable it to be passed into law without delay. It deals with important matters which have attracted much public attention, and is likely to prevent the repetition of grave abuses. I have been written to in reference to this Bill by a firm of solicitors in whose judgment I place confidence and for whose respectability I can vouch, suggesting some Amendments; but I am bound to say as at present advised, having read the clauses in this Bill, I do not see the exact relevance of the suggestions made, and I have asked for further information. I do not, however, suggest that the noble and learned Lord should change the day he has fixed for the Committee stage on that account, and unless my mind goes with the Amendments I will not trouble your Lordships with them.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, he also had received communications from Scotland in regard to this Bill, one being from a gentleman whom he could trust in reference to one of the clauses as interfering with members of these Societies obtaining small amounts free of Stamp Duty. That privilege was reserved by some Societies, but would not, owing to the peculiar form of the drafting, he given to others. He would be glad to know from the noble and learned Lord whether he would accept; an Amendment which would meet the difficulty?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): The noble Lord has been good enough to communicate with me on this matter. Two points are mentioned:
  1156
  one that the Society referred to would be unable in future to make temporary advances to non-advanced members in respect of subscriptions standing to their credit. This Bill will make no difference, and whatever power existed before will remain after the Bill is passed. The other point is one of some substance. The Society referred to is at present registered under the Act of 1836, and the Stamp Duty for transactions under £500 is small. No doubt that exception is of some value. If the Society were allowed to register as proposed by the Bill under the Act of 1874, it would undoubtedly lose that exception. On the other hand, it would gain the advantage that, whereas the liability is unlimited under the Act of 1836, it would become limited under the Act of 1874, so that if they lost in one direction they would obtain the benefit in the other. If the Society desires to obtain the advantage of that exception, I do not think it is unreasonable that their wish should be complied with, inasmuch as that has been done in the case of certain Societies registered before 1855. I understand that the Society to which the noble Lord refers was registered in the following year, and if he desires to amend the Bill by substituting for the date 1855, that of 1856 or 1857, to meet the case, I should not feel inclined to resist the Amendment in that form.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow.

EQUALISATION OF RATES (LONDON) BILL.—(No. 207)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of ROSE-BERY): My Lords, I do not think that this Bill, which is not long in itself, although it involves some important points of principle and detail, will need a very lengthy explanation from me, for this simple reason—that it comes up to this House with the practically unanimous concurrence of all parties in the House of Commons. The Second and Third

  1157
  Readings were passed unanimously, and there were only two Divisions taken in Committee. Therefore, I am entitled to claim that it comes up to this House with a rare consensus of opinion from the other House of Parliament. Moreover, it represents the outcome of a very strong general feeling that there should be some assistance given from the richer parishes in the Metropolis to the needs of the poorer parishes. And here again I do not think I shall strike any note which is objectionable to the noble Lords opposite, because, as a matter of fact, all the steps which have been taken in this direction have been taken by Ministers who were Members of the late Cabinet. The first step was taken in 1867 by the constitution of a Common Poor Fund, under the auspices of Lord Cranbrook. The next step was taken in 1870 by Mr. Goschen, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced a Bill giving a general contribution of 3d. a day for all indoor paupers of the Metropolis; the third step was taken by Mr. Ritchie in the Local Government Pill of 1888, when he allowed a portion of the Probate Duty Grant from Imperial sources to the purposes of the London County Council. I think, therefore, that the general principle of this Bill is not likely to meet with any opposition from your Lordships. The general principle involved is nothing more or less than this—namely, that we should endeavour by some measure of this kind to reduce the rating inequalities of the Metropolis, which are, as is known to your Lordships, sufficiently glaring, and which I will not trouble the House on this occasion by illustrating in detail. How does the Bill propose to redress these inequalities? It proposes to do so by levying a general rate of 6d. in the £ all over the Metropolis, which is to be handed over to the various parishes in proportion to the extent of their respective populations. I think there is no practical objection to the basis of population being taken, although some have thought that it was too rough-and-ready a method of ascertaining the wants of a parish. But, as a matter of fact, after a great deal of threshing out in Committee in the House of Commons, I think it has been ascertained that population is the only practical basis upon which this assistance can be given. There are two other bases which have a certain plausi-
  1158
  bility about them which have been urged by various sections of opinion; one is, that the contribution in aid should be given in proportion to the sanitary expenditure of the various parishes. Well, I think it is clear that any such provision would tend at once to local extravagance, and would tend therefore to defeat the very object which we have in view. The other principle that has been suggested is this—that a uniform rate should be raised all over the Metropolis and applied generally by uniform management. But uniform management means central management, and there is a great difference between even great towns like Birmingham and Manchester, for instance, and such a vast city as this Metropolis. So long as a diversity exists in our municipal administration, think that uniform management for this purpose would lead to nothing but mismanagement and extravagance. The area of London is too great for it to be treated in that manner, and therefore I think we come, by a process of exhaustion, to the remedy proposed by tins Bill. As a matter of fact, the remedy proposed by this Bill will work fairly enough in practice. All the most wealthy and lightly-rated parishes will pay, and all the poorest and most heavily-rated parishes will receive. But the average rate of parishes receiving will remain above the average rate of the Metropolis, and the average rate of those parishes which will contribute will remain below the average rate of the Metropolis all the same. The average rate in the contributing parishes for the two years ending last year was 5s. l. 3d. in the £1. This will he increased by the Bill on the present calculations to 5s. 4·7d. The average rate for the same period of the receiving parishes was 6s. 3d., and under the Bill it will be reduced to 6s. I will only trouble you with one more figure showing the general fairness and justice of the new arrangement. At present the difference between the average rates of the parishes that will contribute and receive is Is. 1·7d. in the £1; but by the new system that difference will be reduced to 7d., and I believe that you may draw a hard-and-fast line, and say that in all the parishes in which the rateable value per head of population is above £1 18s. those parishes will con-

  1159
  tribute, and where the average rate is below that figure those parishes will receive. I have no hesitation in saying, therefore, again, that from the Lest calculations we can make we believe that the general arrangement under the Bill will work out an extremely fair one. Now the mechanism is this: the levying of the rate will be left to the Loudon County Council. Each year they will fix a general rate all over London and determine the contribution of each parish on the valuation lists, and that rate will be apportioned according to population to the various sanitary districts. Of course, my Lords, it will be in the main a sort of Clearing House arrangement of accounts: those parishes where the rating is above receiving the balance which the other parishes will have to pay. In order to make this apportionment as accurate as possible we have determined not to wait for the next Decennial Census, but have provided for a Census being taken in March, 1896; and by implication it will follow that the next Census, which I suppose will be taken in 1901, will apply as a Quinquennial Census with regard to value for the purpose of this Bill. Now I come to the other part of the Bill which provides for the application of this fund, which of course in one sense is scarcely a less important matter than the relief of the poorer parishes. The first application will be to sanitation. I think no one can doubt that the proper sanitation of the whole of Loudon affects all the inhabitants of this great eit3r to an equal degree. Infection may come from one of the poorer districts and spread over the wealthier districts, and therefore they have all one common sanitary interest. I hope that in many of the districts the sanitary necessities are already sufficiently provided for. The next application of the grant will be to paving and the question of lighting. Everybody knows that the roads in the poorer districts are not so well kept up as those in other districts, and that they are kept up at much greater expense. Then as to lighting, anyone who penetrates the regions particularly in the East End of London knows that the darkness is due to the inadequacy of the funds for the purpose of lighting. The darkness of the streets was mentioned by the police in connection with the Whitechapel murders as a source of actual
  1160
  danger to life in the Metropolis. It may be, however, that in some of the districts which are to receive, all those proposals are already sufficiently provided for. This Bill will come to the relief of these districts, and I shall be glad to see that the proposed reductions are carried out without any sacrifice of efficiency. I think when we compare the roads in some of the parishes with those in the parish, for instance, in which I live, we must admit that there is a margin for considerable reduction and consequent relief to the poorer ratepayers. With regard to sanitary efficiency, I may mention that the Bill also gives power to the Local Government Board to act when the application of the grant is not properly carried out. That is a power which, in the opinion of the Department most interested, it may never be necessary to apply, but it is one which is necessary in such a Bill. I shall not further delay your Lordships, as various Bills have to come before you; but I do recommend the Bill to both political Parties on the ground of its being a boon to those in this great Metropolis, in whom both sides have of late taken so much interest. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  LORD MONK BRETTONhoped the Bill would not go forth to the world with a blemish on the face of it. It was called a Bill for the equalisation of rates, but did not equalise them. It hardly even answered to the Preamble that it "aided in the equalisation of rates." Many inequalities and anomalies would still be left, and others would be created, though it did rough justice, as it took from the richer in aid of the poorer districts. Some years ago he had had to consider carefully what was the best broad and general basis for the distribution of grants in aid, and he arrived at the conclusion that no better basis than population could be adopted, because that insured aid being given where needs and poverty were presumably largest. The reduction of rates had been mentioned as one object of the Bill, but it was not a desirable one. The rates in the poorer districts of the Metropolis were largely and in some cases almost entirely, paid by compounding house-owners. On the

  1161
  other hand, the contributions to those poorer districts would be levied not so much upon owners as upon tenants in the West End. A sufficient answer to that was that the occupiers of houses in those wealthier districts were, as a class, more affluent than occupiers in the East, North, and South of the Metropolis. The weak point in the Bill, how-over, seemed to be that the grants in slid might inure in the poorer parishes to the benefit of the compounding house-owners, and not of the poor tenants, the people who it was desired, in the main, should reap the benefit. If the Local Authorities acted in the spirit of the Bill they would raise the same amount of rates, as at present, and make the same expenditure upon sanitation, lighting, and paving, and then devote the grant in addition for the latter purposes only. By doing so, they would benefit the poorer tenants as well as the whole community. If, on the other hand, they reduced their rates by the amount of the grants, and only spent the same total sum as now upon works, improvements, and sanitation, they would simply he putting a bonus in the pockets of the compound house-owners. Which purpose would the grants be devoted to? If they were divided and applied for both purposes they would be frittered away. Happily, in the latter stages of the Bill in the other House Amendments were inserted defining the purposes to which the grants were to be devoted and the order of their application; and, further, that the Local Authorities should render detailed accounts annually to the Local Government Board of their total expenditure and of the grants separately, power being given to the Local Government Board to order payment? of the grants to be withheld by the London County Council from defaulting Local Authorities. That showed the intention that the grants should be applied for sanitary purposes rather than in reduction of the rates. While approving of the Bill he was afraid that its title would lead to disappointment in the poorer districts, where it would be expected that a great deal more was going to be done for them, while the whole fund distributed would only amount to about £220,000 a year.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It would perhaps be hardly courteous to the
  1162
  noble Lord the Prime Minister if some voice did not proceed from these Benches in respect to the Bill of which he has moved the Second Heading. My own opinion with regard to this Bill is that it does rough justice indeed, but that it is justice on the whole, and I myself shall vote in favour of its passing. The noble Lord who has just sat down has, I think, established the fact that the Bill compelled contributions by the tenants of the West End to the landlords of the East End. I am not a landowner in the East End. I respect them very much, and I am very glad they are to get relief; but whether this will benefit the poor people in the East End I have very great doubt. Again, although I am thoroughly content to accept the Bill, I do not accept the arguments used by the noble Earl in moving the Second Beading. He seemed to me to accept the essential unity of all that is included in the Metropolitan area—that it is not only a constitutional arrangement, but one in actual fact. Now, I doubt very much whether there is any great unity of interest in respect of matters for parochial expenditure between Hammersmith and Mile End or between Paddington and Clapham, which are all deeply interested in many of the subjects for the expenditure authorised under this Bill. It is a constitutional fiction such as we are constantly obliged to employ, that the various parts of the Metropolis are equally interested in the parochial affairs of all or any of them. It is a constitutional fiction to which we must adhere, because it is convenient, and on the whole, as I say, rough justice is done. There is another reason why to myself personally —I wish to include no one else—this particular kind of legislation is grateful. I believe it has a tendency in the direction of a very much larger measure to which, I think, we shall ultimately come. It has a tendency in favour of general centralisation and getting rid of the local levying of rates. In past times the local levying of rates was an exceedingly wise measure, because it tended greatly to economy and did not inflict any particular injustice. But the economy has been growing less and the injustice greater, and I doubt very much whether the time has not come—if it has not come now it will speedily come—when the injustice inflicted by the local system,

  1163
  of which the main effect is to throw the expenditure in which all are interested upon one particular and comparatively small class of property, must be regarded as greater than the convenience resulting from the economy of localisation. I will not undertake to say, and I am far from pledging myself to the opinion, that the time has come when any particular measure ought to be introduced in order to carry these views into effect, for I am fully alive to the difficulties which are involved; but I rather look upon it as a counsel of perfection, to which we ought to adhere, that we ought to work towards that centralisation of expenditure and of taxation of which one of the main effects must be to relieve the particular class of property on which all this expenditure is now most unjustly thrown. The Bill, therefore, tends in a direction with which I sympathise, but I again say that I by no means foresee in the immediate or reasonable future the possibility of giving effect to those views. I believe the tendency of events is in their favour, and that localisation both of expenditure and of levy must gradually diminish both in popularity and availability. When we shall come to such remedy I do not know; but I think in the meantime this is a step, and a safe step, in that direction, and for that reason, as well as for other reasons, I am myself glad that it has been brought before Parliament.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I have only to say one word with reference to what fell from the noble Lord below the Gangway. His reference to the compounding landlord had some atom of truth in it, but I think the noble Marquess in referring to it pressed the point rather further than the case warranted when he said it was contribution by the tenants of the West End to the landlords of the East End, though doubtless the temptation to the epigram was irresistible. At the same time, it must be understood that this is in its essence a rough-and-ready attempt to redress inequalities of rating, and it is as such that the Government presents it. If we were to go into the details of the matter, we should be confronted with innumerable difficulties and anomalies, and it would take a much larger Bill to redress them. I must also protest against the objection taken by the noble Lord below the
  1164
  Gangway to the title of the Bill. "Equalisation of Rates" is the short title of the Bill on the outside, but the full title set out in the body of the measure—namely, "a Bill to make better provision for the equalisation of rates in different parts of Loudon"—is, I submit, an accurate and candid account of the Bill. If the noble Lord chooses for the purposes of his argument to take the short title put on the back of the Bill, that is one thing; but it is not the title of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (BORROWING POWERS) BILL. (No. 209.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HAWKESBURYsaid, this was a very short Bill. Its object was simply to determine a question which had arisen upon a section of the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890. That Act authorised the replacing of the dwellings of persons whose homes had been found to be in an insanitary condition, and the Local Government Board was empowered to direct the Local Authority to carry out its provisions. A question had arisen with regard to the bororwing powers in reference to larger and smaller areas. The Local Government Board had always considered that the necessary power of borrowing was given in the smaller, as it undoubtedly was in the larger areas, and had made orders accordingly. As, however, the point had been raised, it was thought desirable to bring in this Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Hawkesbury.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.—(No. 204.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, although this is probably the largest Bill ever brought before you, I need detain you but a moment in moving the Second Reading. It is a Bill for consolidating all the legislation on the subject. The matter was referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, and was partly proceeded with last Session. The Bill was again brought in this Session, and referred to a Joint Committee, which sat for many days and thoroughly examined all its provisions assisted by representatives of all parties interested in them. In the result a measure has been produced which is likely to give very general satisfaction. I have only to say that a communication was made to me yesterday in which certain persons complained that the Bill had been passed hurriedly through Parliament. I can give an assurance that no Bill was ever more carefully considered. They call attention to two points in which they consider the law has been changed to their disadvantage. I have looked into the matter, and can assure them that they are entirely mistaken; the Bill simply reproduces the existing enactments and makes no alteration that could be to their disadvantage. I trust this explanation may remove any apprehensions that may have been entertained, and I beg to move the Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2il accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

UNIFORMS BILL.—(No. 175.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved an Amendment to include music-halls in regard to uniforms worn in public performances.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 2, line 21, sub-section (b), after ("a") to insert ("music-hall or").
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

CROWN LANDS BILL.—(No. 199.)

  THIRD BEADING.
  The Queen's consent signified; Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I have to move a merely verbal Amendment. When this Bill was first introduced there was a somewhat lengthy Schedule containing a number of Acts which it was proposed should be repealed. Those have now disappeared, except two which come sufficiently under a section of the Act. I move, therefore, an Amendment to leave out Clause 14 and the Schedule, which is now entirely useless.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 210.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to omit Sub-section 4 of the clause, providing that
  "the Board shall comply with any instructions which may be issued by the Secretary to Scotland."
  He took objection to this on the ground that it gave an undue and unnecessary power to the Secretary for Scotland. The danger of enacting such a provision as this was that it would encourage persons to put pressure upon the Secretary for Scotland to decide questions connected with particular cases of administration in their favour.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section 4.—(The Earl of Camper-down.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that if the sub-section remained in the Bill the Secretary for Scotland would be in a very anomalous position. He might find himself in a minority of one on the Board in Edinburgh, and yet on returning

  1167
  to his office in London might overthrow their decision by a stroke of his pen.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he was quite ready to accept the Amendment. He believed the words were surplusage, and had probably been put in by a too ardent admirer of the Secretary for Scotland.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to, with verbal Amendment.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, in moving an Amendment, that it was thought when this clause was first drafted there were no legal proceedings outstanding in which the Board of Supervision were concerned. It had been found that was not the case, and words were necessary to avoid difficulty.
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 20, after ("executed") insert ("or of any action or proceeding raised.")—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 8, 9, and 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved an Amendment in this clause, which enacted that a woman otherwise possessing the qualification for being registered on any County Council or Municipal Register of electors, should not be disqualified by marriage from being registered, provided that a husband and wife should not both be registered in respect of the same property. He proposed to amend the clause by substituting "qualification" for "property." The Bill would then, he said, be an enfranchising instead of a disfranchising measure, though he did not think this clause would greatly increase the electoral roll. There was no reason why two persons, either as owner or tenant, should not be upon the Register. Unless this Amendment were accepted they would run the risk of disfranchising persons unable to subdivide their property and enfranchise those who could do so.
  Amendment moved, in page 5, line 2, to leave out ("property") and to insert ("qualification").—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHopposed the Amendment, which, in his opinion, might give rise to many bogus qualifications. Moreover, the word in the clause was the same as that used in the English Bill. If it would meet the views of the noble Lord to insert "qualified" instead of "registered" there would be no objection.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHthought the proposed change would not be worth making, and as the Government objected to the Amendment he would not press it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwas sorry no Scotch lawyers were present, but his impression was that the noble Lord opposite would not gain the object he had in view by the clause as it stood. The lessee and the freeholder of a house would still be two separate persons.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHwas not sufficiently learned in the law to be able to reply to the suggestion, but he had been advised that the object would be attained by keeping the words as they were.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 12.
  Drafting Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY moved to substitute "sheriff" for "county," as the Registers would be confided to the Sheriff Clerk, who would be the proper person to make them up.
  Amendment moved, in page 6, line 13, to leave out ("county") and to insert ("sheriff").—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the Government were in this case indifferent. The change suggested was not important, but as there seemed to be some difference of opinion between Sheriff Clerks and County Clerks he had no objection.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, the reason for the Amendment was that as the Sheriff Clerk was the official

  1169
  appointed to make up the roll lie should he responsible for circulating it. It seemed unnecessary to divide the work between two officials.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYthought the Amendment would make the Bill more homogeneous.
  LORD TWEEDMOTJTHpreferred to keep the Bill as it was.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved a new clause modifying and altering the Bill in its application to parishes in Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Leith. He said the provisions of the Bill as they affected the larger Municipal Authorities would introduce most serious difficulties and would cause needless confusion and a great deal of unnecessary expenditure. Take Glasgow as a concrete case. That city was divided into five parishes, one wholly burghal and the other four partly burghal and partly landward. The affairs of the Parochial Body were managed entirely apart from the Town Council. The municipal elections for the different wards and parishes took place every year. The Parish Council elections took place once in three years, and yet, under the Bill the Municipal Authorities were obliged to prepare the Register every year. That would put them to great expense. He was informed that the cost of adapting the electoral roll for the purposes of the Parish Council would be greater than the expense of preparing a special roll. Again, in large towns great difficulty would arise from having the elections for the Town Council and the Parish Council on the same day. That would certainly be the case in such places as Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Dundee, where the provision in the 15th clause would cause great confusion. If the contemplated arrangements had been carefully examined they would not have been adopted. It was becoming more and more the custom for working classes in large towns to poll late in the evening, and already great difficulty was experienced in the voting arrangements. If parish elections with their multiplicity of candidates were to be superadded, the difficulties would be increased. Double
  1170
  elections would have to be held with the same Presiding Officer. He had received a letter from Sir J. Marwick, the Town Clerk of Glasgow, pointing out that the scheme of the Bill would introduce great confusion into the elections in that city. The Secretary for Scotland in the other House admitted that the provision in the Bill could not stand, but the right hon. Gentleman suggested that, any amendment should be postponed until some time before the second election took place. It seemed strange to him that when a defect in the Bill was pointed out and recognised it could not be at once remedied. The proposal he now made, which was approved and supported by Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Dundee, would meet the difficulty that was apprehended. He had reason to believe that other large Municipalities in Scotland took a similar view, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment.
  Moved to insert as a new clause—
  "This Act shall apply to the parishes specified in Schedule V. annexed to this Act, subject to the modifications and alterations following (that is to say):—

  (1.) In the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, and in every third year thereafter, simultaneously with the preparation of the Municipal Register in a burgh within which any such parish is wholly or partly situated, the assessor charged with the preparation thereof shall prepare, and shall arrange in the parish wards fixed by or under the provisions of this Act, a separate list of the persons qualified to be parish electors within a burghal parish or within the burghal part of a parish; and the whole enactments of this or any other Act relative to the registration of burgh electors or parish electors, including the provisions relating to officers and dates, and to numbering and placing distinctive marks on the Register or list, shall, with the necessary alterations of notices and other forms, and other necessary variations, extend and apply to the preparation of the said list, and it shall be lawful to object to the insertion or omission of the name of any person in the part of said list applicable to a parish ward as nearly as may be in the same manner, and subject to the same provisions as to appeal and otherwise, as in the case of any entry in or omission from any Municipal Register or list;

  (2.) The nomination of Parish Councillors in such parishes shall take place on the second Tuesday, and the election of such Councillors on the third Tuesday of November, in the year one thousand eight

  1171
  hundred and ninety eight, and in every third year thereafter;

  (3.) The expenditure incurred in the preparation of the said separate list of parish electors in so far as relating to any such parish, and the expenditure incurred in the election of Parish Councillors for such parish, shall be a charge upon the poor rate levied therein.

  SCHEDULE V.
  Parishes.

  Glasgow.

  Barony.

  Govan Combination.

  Eastwood.

  Cathcart.

  Edinburgh City.

  St. Cuthbert's Combination.

  Liberton.

  Duddington.

  South Leith.

  North Leith."—(Lard Balfour of Burleigh.)

  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the proposal of the noble Lord was practically that special treatment in regard to registration and election should be extended to certain places in Scotland. Their Lordships would agree that primá facie this was not a desirable thing to do, but that there should rather be one system of treatment for the whole country. It was true that Glasgow was anxious for the clause; but, so far as he had been able to ascertain, Edinburgh and Leith, two of the other places mentioned in the Schedule, were quite indifferent. The matter, however, was not a pressing one; no real difficulty would arise in the election of 1898, and he thought it would be well to wait until they had practical experience of the Act, and if difficulty arose such as was apprehended it would be open to them to take action to meet it in a way that would apply generally to the country. At present in Edinburgh there were constantly occurring Road, Trust, and Municipal elections on the same day without trouble arising. He did not think the noble Lord had made out a pressing case, and in those circumstances he could not assent to the proposed new clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, it would be absolutely impossible in Glasgow to carry out the provisions of the Bill as it stood without great difficulty and expense. He failed to appreciate the objections of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to special legislation for certain places in order to meet the difficulty, and he hoped that this exception would
  1172
  be made at the request of the Corporation of Glasgow, and that the Amendment would be agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHthought the noble Lord had not sufficiently shown cause against the insertion of the proposed clause, and was afraid he must trouble the Committee to go to a Division upon it.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that Glasgow was one of the greatest cities in the Empire, and had a very large population. It was in peculiar circumstances, because it had been eating up the neighbouring Municipalities for several years. Sir James Marwick was an authority of the highest standing, and nothing could be stronger than his language on the subject in the letter read by the noble Lord, showing that the Bill as it stood would be almost unworkable in Glasgow. He, therefore, could not see why the noble Lord should give way on the point.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYdid not think the matter was one of vital gravity. Still, it did seem a mistake to give exceptional treatment to Glasgow in the matter, especially as such treatment, so far from giving satisfaction to the rest of Scotland, would create a great deal of jealousy, even in adjoining districts in Lanarkshire. Moreover, after the very strong expression of opinion on this very matter by Scotch Members in the other House, and in Grand committee, he did not think their Lordships should agree to the Amendment. It was a matter which might well be left to be dealt with as his noble Friend had suggested; but if the Amendment was pressed the Government must, of course, yield to superior numbers.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYappealed to the noble Lord, in the circumstances, not to press the Amendment. There was a good deal in what the Prime Minister had said, but attention had not been generally called to the matter in Scotland. In Glasgow, however, the mischief pointed out would work more seriously, and in other large towns than in other places. Elections for parishes would overlap ward elections, and the result would be very inconvenient. The matter had not been much considered in Aberdeen, where public opinion would probably be in favour of the noble Lord's suggestion. The proper

  1173
  time to deal with the whole matter would be in 1898 when the elections would take place.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHobserved that, in addition to the cases mentioned, the representatives of the Parochial Board of Dundee—which was not by any means an insignificant body— came up specially when they heard that this clause was to be proposed in order to have their parish put into the Schedule.
  THE EAEL OF ROSEBERY: Why did you refuse?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, that the representatives only arrived to-day, and the notice was only given yesterday; but if the House should pass this clause, he was going to put Dundee down for inclusion in it to-morrow. When it was said that representations had not been made in favour of this clause, he would remind their Lordships that the clause was only put on the Paper last night, so that it was impossible for the exact text of the clause to have been seen by those to whom it had not been specially sent. He sincerely hoped the clause would be adopted, and he believed before the Bill could leave this House there would be additional representations in favour of other places being put in.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, if there was to be exceptional treatment owing to exceptional difficulty, then the same treatment should be extended to all large towns. As the matter referred only to what would take place in 1898, he did not think this was really one of the most vital matters in the Bill.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHobserved that this proposal was moved on the Report stage in the House of Commons when the Representatives of these great towns were in the House of Commons, on whom the greatest pressure could have been brought to bear if their had been a strong feeling among their constituencies in the direction of this clause. What did the Members of the House of Commons do? They did not even divide in favour of their own clause. That showed that the feeling on the part of the Representatives of the large towns in the House of Commons could not have been very strong.
  Clause negatived.
  Clause 13.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY moved an Amendment providing that a copy of every Order made under this section should be transmitted to the Board within seven days after it was made, instead of 14 days as provided in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH*LORD TWEEDMOUTH moved, in line 40, after ("Council,") to insert ("or Town Councillors").
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY moved, in line 41, to leave out ("the principal Act or"). He said his object in putting down the Amendment was to call attention to a rather important point in connection with the Bill. As the Bill was originally introduced, the sixth part dealt with the Local Government Act (Scotland), and brought in certain Amendments to that Act which were considered a most valuable addition to the Bill. Owing to the pressure of time that part was dropped, and Clause 16 was now the only part of the Bill which affected the former Act of Parliament, and it affected it in a very important manner. This clause entirely changed the method of nomination and election of County Councillors, and it was for the Government to consider whether, in a Bill dealing entirely with Parish Councils and from which all matters relating to County Councils had been dropped, it was advisable to bring in a clause the effect of which was entirely to alter the mode of election of County Councillors. He was not at all sure that the machinery provided for the elections by this clause was not better than the present machinery, but it was certainly an anomaly in a Bill dealing with Parish Councils to bring in a clause dealing with the nomination of County Councillors.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHpointed out that the County Council and the Parish Council elections were going to take place on the same day and in the same

  1175
  room, and it would be a very inconvenient thing if one set of Rules was to be enforced with regard to County Councils and another set with regard to Parish Councils. Surely it was better to make the change here, and allow the same Rules 10 be applicable to both elections, which wore held at the same time and in the same place.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: I will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 17 agreed to.
  Clause 18.
  The following two Amendments were on the Paper: —
  Lord BALFOUR:
  "Line 15, leave out from ('thereof') to the end of the clause, and insert ('If an equality of votes occur between two or more candidates whose position on the poll is such that all of them cannot be elected, the Returning Officer shall decide which of such candidates shall be returned as duly elected.'")
  The Earl of CAMPERDOWN:
  "Line 15, to leave out from ('two') to ('can') in line 16, and insert ('or more candidates receive an equal number of votes, being more than.'")
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Has the Government any objection to this Amendment?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he was quite indifferent as to which sot of words were taken, but he preferred those of the noble Earl.
  The Earl of CAMPERDOWN The Earl of CAMPERDOWN moved his Amendment, which was accepted, as was also a purely consequential Amendment thereto.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Is it intended that the Returning Officer should have a casting vote even if he does not happen to be a voter in the parish?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Oh, certainly, that must be so.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 19.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, that before he came to the part of the clause to which his Amendment referred he should like to ask a question of the Government. He thought an under-
  1176
  taking was given in another place that the Government would put down an Amendment to get rid of the determination by lot as to which of certain persons should be chairman in the event of an equality of votes. He did not know whether they persisted in adhering to this gambling method of settling who should be chairman. As he understood an undertaking was given to consider the matter, he should like to ask what had been the result of that consideration?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I am afraid I must plead my want of cognisance of such an undertaking. I will make inquiries about it, and, if necessary, make some change on the Third Reading.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in line 20, after the second ("Council") insert ("sitting as a district committee"). He said, he thought these words were obviously necessary as a matter of drafting. It could be the intention of the Government only to put a representative from the Parish Council on the County Council when it sat as a district committee in those places in which no district had been formed. He thought serious misapprehension might arise if the words were not inserted, and, at any rate, they could do no harm.
  Amendment moved, in line 20, after the second ("Council"), insert ("sitting as a district committee").—(The Lord Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in line 23, at end of the clause, add—
  ("Provided always that, in the case of parishes partly landward and partly burghal, he shall be appointed by the landward committee from among their own number").
  The Amendment, he said, was to provide that where a landward committee was appointed, and which acted as part of the Parochial Board for certain purposes, the representation of the landward part of the parish on the district committee should be made by the landward committee, and not by the whole Parochial Board. This was obviously just, because it was only the part of the landward parish which was interested in the work of the district committee. The matters relating to the roads and public health

  1177
  were under the management of the Municipal Authority; therefore, the interests of the municipal and the landward part of the parish often conflicted, and it was not fair that an overwhelming number of the Parochial Board should appoint representatives who might often properly have to decide things against their interest. Many instances had been sent to him, but he would only cite one. Paisley was in this position. So far as the Abbey parish of Paisley was concerned, there were at the last Census more than 25,000 people within the burgh, 9,000 within the burgh of Johnstone, and 7,000 in the landward part of the parish. The valuation of the landward parish was very large in proportion to the population. The valuation of the landward part was £55.000, whilst that of the two burghs concerned was about £150,000 or £160,000. It seemed to him not arguable that the whole Parochial Board under these circumstances should appoint a representative to the district committee. He hoped the Government would accept both this and the consequential Amendment upon the Definition Clause.
  Amendment moved, in line 23, at end of the Clause, add—?
  ("Provided always that, in the case of parishes partly landward and partly burghal, lie shall be appointed by the landward committee from among their own number.")—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the Government saw no objection to the insertion of the words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in line 33, at the end of the clause, insert—
  "Provided always as follows: —A. Where relief has been or shall be granted to any person otherwise than upon an order or judgment of the Sheriff pronounced under section seventy-three of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, it shall be lawful for any two Parish Councillors, or for any live ratepayers of the parish, to lodge a written complaint with the Sheriff of the county in which the parish from which such person has claimed relief, or any portion of such parish, is situated, complaining that such person is not legally entitled to relief, and set-
  1178
  ting forth the ground of such complaint, and the said Sheriff shall forthwith, if he be of opinion that such person is, upon the facts stated, not legally entitled to relief, order intimation of such application to be made to such person, and also to the clerk of the Parish Council, requiring them, within a time to be specified in the order, to give in a statement in writing showing the reasons why the relief was granted, and the Sheriff, after such procedure as he shall deem necessary, shall make an Order finding such person to be legally either entitled or not entitled to relief, and such order shall be final and binding on the Parish Council: Provided that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enable the said Sheriff to determine on the adequacy of the relief, or to interfere in respect of the amount of relief to be given in any individual case."
  "B. Where relief has been or shall be granted to any person, it shall be lawful for any two Parish Councillors, or any five ratepayers of the parish, to lodge a written complaint with the Board, complaining that the relief granted is excessive in amount, or is of a kind that should not have been granted, and setting forth the grounds of such complaint; and the Board shall, after such intimation as shall be deemed proper, investigate the grounds of the complaint: and if upon inquiry it shall appear to the Board that such complaint is well founded in whole or in part, the Board may order the Parish Council to reduce the amount or to vary the kind of relief granted as may be specified in the Order, and the Parish Council shall make such reduction or variation accordingly: Provided that where any such complaint has been, made and disposed of no subsequent complaint touching the same poor person shall be competent unless either (1) such poor person has in the meantime ceased to be in receipt of relief, or (2) such a material change of circumstances is I averred as in the opinion of the Board warrants a further investigation."
  He said, that the two clauses raised a matter the importance of which would not be questioned for a moment by the Government, whatever their views might be about the merits of the proposal. The real object of the clauses was to prevent maladministration of the Poor Law. So far as the general part of Scotland was concerned, they on that side of the House had accepted with perfect cheerfulness the proposed change in the body which was to administer the Poor Law. The Government themselves would not doubt it was a very great change that, for the first time in the history of Scotland, the administration of the Poor Law-was to be put into the bauds of a purely and entirely popularly-elected body. They had accepted that proposal of the Government because they had perfect confidence in their fellow-countrymen that they would not make a bad use of the power so entrusted to them, and they

  1179
  also felt that the system of rating in Scotland gave them very considerable freedom in the matter. But there were in Scotland parishes here and there where this proposal would be very dangerous, and it could not be denied that very considerable apprehensions did exist in the minds of persons well qualified to judge as to the dangers which might arise. There was an exact precedent in the existing law for the proposals which he made. The Poor Law of I84o, which was the first Poor Law as such known to Scotland, put the administration of relief into the bauds of bodies which largely represented the owners of different parishes, and so anxious were the promoters of that measure to secure fairness and justice to all concerned that they put two provisions into it, one of which gave to anybody who had applied for relief and had been refused it the right of appeal to the Sheriff. If the application was altogether rejected the appeal lay to the Sheriff under the existing law. Then, again, if the Parochial Board gave relief, but in the opinion of the applicant did not give sufficient relief, the appeal lay to the Board of Supervision. The reason which underlay the difference was not-far to seek. In the first case, it was considered to be a matter of law whether the person was really entitled, under the Act, to relief at all; but if the Parochial Board admitted the right to relief, the question of the adequacy of the relief was a matter of administration rather than of law, and, therefore, the appeal lay to the Central Authority and not to the Law Courts. He had already admitted that there could not be danger all over Scotland, but when there was danger of insufficient relief under the old constitution of Parochial Boards it would be pedantic to deny there was not the same danger here and therein the opposite direction. The proposals he made were these: The first proviso (a) provided that if two members of a Parish Council or five ratepayers in a parish thought that relief was wrongly given to any person they might appeal to the Sheriff. The proviso (b) provided that if the right to relief was admitted, but was considered to be wrong in kind, an appeal might lie to the Board. He knew that the existing circumstances had worked absolutely without friction and difficulty, and it seemed to him it was
  1180
  not difficult to establish that under the constitution of the Boards as they were now proposed there would, in some cases, be representation without taxation, and the duty of administering the Poor Law would be admitted to be about as delicate and difficult a duty as could be entrusted to anybody. The people in many parishes who would never have to pay a farthing of the rates directly would not only influence, but have the absolute and complete control of the elections. He put forward his proposals in no spirit of hostility to the Bill, but simply and solely from a desire that there should be a means of redress, inoffensive in its nature, but perfectly effectual should difficulty and danger arise. He hoped the Government would accept his clause. He was quite aware he might be told that when it was proposed to discuss them in another place they were ruled out of Order. But doctors apparently differed, because they were admitted by the Chairman of the Grand Committee and discussed at considerable length, and it came as a great surprise upon those who were advocating a proposal of this kind when it was found impossible to take the judgment of the other House upon it. When they transferred the whole administration of the Poor Law from the bodies who at present administered it to popularly-elected bodies it was only right and reasonable that some such safeguards as these should be put in. He had framed the Amendment in a slightly different way from the form in which the matter was discussed in the other House, although the merits were not substantially different, and he now proposed that the clauses should be inserted as a proviso to that part of the Bill which dealt entirely with the transference of powers and duties to the Parish Councils.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the clause moved by the noble Lord referred to the administration of the Poor Law, but the Bill did not touch the administration of the Poor Law in any way whatever, but simply transferred the Poor Law from the existing Parochial Boards to the new bodies—the Parish Councils. Mr. Speaker in the other House ruled this proposed clause out of Order, and ho should like to ask the Chairman of

  1181
  Committees whether they were in Order?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): The noble Lord cannot do that.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that at any rate he would not discuss the details of the clause. He would merely say that in the view of the Government it was not desirable to enter into the question of the Poor Law on this Bill, which proposed only to transfer the powers as they were from the Parochial Boards to the Parish Councils, and therefore they could not accept this Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLdid not wish to speak upon the technical question of Order, but, it was really a little strong to say that this Bill did not touch the question of the Poor Law. It changed and completely revolutionised the body and the principle on which the body was constituted to administer the Poor Law. There were parts of the country where a very small part of the rental was paid by a very large part of the constituency, and along the West Coast of Scotland there were parishes where the whole power of rating would be put into the hands of a very poor class of voters who would pay a mere fraction of the total rates they imposed on their neighbours. Setting aside any accusation of a disposition to job, the noble Lord must have observed the extreme kindness of small crofters in the West of Scotland with regard to their neighbours. They were most amiable towards them; they were generally in close connection with them, and nothing could be more amiable than their disposition towards them. He had lately had repeated application from the holders of crofting townships to allow persons to squat upon their lands, and although they knew that had led to grievous evil in former times yet their infinite benevolence and good feeling towards their neighbours made them uniformly willing to write letters of recommendation that people should be allowed to squat on their farms. The same disposition would undoubtedly prevail in the constitution of the new Parochial Board, and he could not help thinking that not only was there a danger, but a very high probability that in many cases persons would be admitted to relief who by law were not entitled to it, and
  1182
  even persons who were entitled to it would be given a larger benevolence than was their duo. All his noble Friend wished to obtain was the security of the existing law in which they had an appeal in regard to the legality of persons entitled to relief, and also to the Board as regarded the more than sufficiency of the relief. In his opinion, loosely or lavishly administered poor rates by persons not really responsible for any great share of the rates was one of the greatest calamities that they could inflict upon any county, and it undoubtedly discouraged enterprise and the taking of laud in those parishes. In such circumstances, reasonable precautions ought to be taken by Parliament in giving extensive powers to a body which was entirely new, and ho hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he had a little more confidence in the small holders in the West of Scotland than the noble Duke seemed to have, and he had no fear that they were going to be unduly lavish with their poor relief. But was it really worth while proceeding with these clauses? If they put them in the Bill they would, on reaching the Commons, be ruled out of Order without discussion.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: How do you know that?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The Speaker has already ruled them out of Order as going beyond the scope of the Bill. Any safeguards there are with regard to the administration of Poor Law relief by the Parochial Boards are still retained. Nothing is lost in the way of appeal or otherwise, and, further, the Parochial Boards in Scotland are already to some extent elective; and, therefore, the difference between the two bodies is not so great as the noble Duke would have us believe.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHdid not see how the clauses, if put in by this House, could be summarily ruled out of Order in another place. Those who had discretion there might refuse to accept them, but it seemed to him the claim put forward that because the authorities of one House had ruled a certain proposal out of Order, such ruling was, therefore, to govern the decision of another House was a very dangerous claim in a matter of privilege, and, so far

  1183
  from thinking not to divide on that ground, it made him rather more inclined to divide, for fear that they should be giving way to a most unusual claim put forward in a matter of privilege, which was always somewhat difficult and delicate to determine. On the merits of the case he regarded his proposal as of the highest importance. The welfare of the communities was so closely bound up with a fair and intelligent administration of the Poor Law that they must do all that lay in their power to keep up the good sense of responsibility in regard to it. He hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that if they were discussing a Bill about the Poor Law itself he should almost certainly vote with the noble Lord, for there was a great deal to be said in favour of the change he proposed. But the Amendment, at the present time, hardly seemed to him germane to the Bill, which was simply a Bill creating Parish Councils.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): Is it perfectly certain that this is a matter we should be entitled to deal with? It has been recognised in this House more than once that where there is a provision for rates that it is contrary to privilege to deal with or alter the constitution of the body that disposes of the rates. That is the view maintained and submitted to by this House more than once. It is true that in this case, although you enable the new body to interfere with the disposition of the money it can never be by way of increase. Possibly that may make a difference, but I do not think it is perfectly clear.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must demur to the statement that it had ever been admitted that it was contrary to privilege for this House to deal with such matters as these. Whether it was desirable to do this or not was a matter on which he felt he ought to submit to the judgment of the Scotch Members; but he did not think the House of Commons had any right, or the Lords would have any right, to bar the consideration of any clause by saying it was out of Order, or was not germane to the Bill. He could not
  1184
  imagine that if the Amendment were sent down it had any chance of life, although there was a great deal to be said for it. He was in the position of the fox in the fable who had lost his tail. They had already accepted the principle that those who did not pay the rates were to fix the amount of the rates to be paid by those who did, and that was the law of England at the present moment. It was proposed that Scotland should be exempted from that state of things, and he should be very glad if they should succeed. He confessed, however, he was not very sanguine of their being able to do so, and his own impression was that it was not worth while to challenge the decision of the House; but if a decision was challenged, he should certainly vote for the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN,though rather against putting forward the clause, did not think it open to the objection that it interfered with the rates, for it merely treated of the conditions under which the relief was to be given.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that as the noble Marquess opposite had pronounced the epitaph of the clause by saying it had no possible chance of acceptance in the other House, and although it was quite obvious that the question it raised of administration whilst important was not really relevant to the main object of the Bill, he did not think the noble Lord would wish to press the Amendment. It did seem to him that unless the noble Lord was anxious, like a knight of old, to challenge the House of Commons in his own person, for the mere pleasure of doing so, it was hardly worth while pressing the Amendment.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, the appeal of the Prime Minister was a very forcible one. He would point out that the Government had said absolutely nothing against the merits of the proposal, and he withdrew it now on the understanding that such withdrawal did not prejudice his action on any future occasion.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 23 agreed to.
  Clause 24.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved, in line 42, at beginning of Subsection (a) insert ("subject to the consent of the County Council"). He said, sis the sub-section stood it stated that the Parish Council might provide or acquire laud for building public offices and for meetings or other public purposes whatsoever. There was no limitation upon their powers, and there was nothing like this in the English Act. He proposed by his Amendment that the discretion of the Parish Council should be subject to the consent of the County Council. There was another Amendment down by the Marquess of Huntly, and he should be quite content if that were given effect to instead of his own; for while he had to distrust of the Parish Council, he thought that in one form or other it was necessary to have some means of controlling the Parish Council.
  Amendment moved, in line 42, at beginning of sub-section (a) insert ("subject to the consent of the County Council.")— (The Earl of Camper-down.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHadmitted the force of the argument as to the section going beyond the English Act. He thought, however, it would be better not to take the noble Lord's Amendment, as it might have the effect of bringing the County Council and the Parish Council into conflict, and ho thought of the two proposals it would be better to adopt the words of the noble Marquess.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY moved, in line 43, leave out ("other public purposes") and insert—
  ("And for any purposes connected with parish business, or with the powers or duties of the Parish Council.")
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY moved to omit Sub-section (c), which empowered the Parish Council to provide or acquire land for the erection of workmen's dwellings. This, he said, was a most dangerous power to put into the hands of the Parish Council, and was not germane in any way to the Bill. The Parish
  1186
  Council under this sub-section might acquire land, and then let it to a speculative builder, who would put "jerry" buildings upon it; and the Parish Council might continue such speculations as long as they kept within the rates. It was not advisable to deal with the question of workmen's dwellings by means of a sub-section in a Bill relating to au entirely different matter, and he begged to move the omission of the sub-section.
  Amendment moved, to leave out Sub-section (c).—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHasked the House to maintain the sub-section. He did not think it was a serious or revolutionary power to give to the Parish Council. After all, the Parish Council's powers were strictly limited by its borrowing powers, and the Scotch Local Government Board would also offer a useful check upon reckless or extravagant schemes. On the other hand, in many a parish where there was great difficulty for workmen or fishermen to get sites for cottages, the provision would be a great boon.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsincerely hoped the Committee would not pass the sub-section. It seemed to him a most dangerous thing to do, and this seemed to be admitted by Sir George Trevelyan in Committee, who said that if the Amendment were accepted the alterations required in the law would be much increased, and he could not accept the Amendment. That Amendment, however, in the Committee was carried against the Government. He objected to an abstract power of the kind being given when no machinery was provided. He did not agree that the borrowing powers furnished an adequate control. A Parish Council might buy a bit of land and re-sell it, and again with another bit of land, until they bought up a very large place.
  On question? whether sub-section (c) shall stand part of the clause,
  Their Lordships divided: —Contents 16; Not-Contents 38.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY moved, in line 29, leave out from ("Act") to the end of the sub-section. He said, this

  1187
  sub-section enabled the Parish Council to secure the enforcement of the Public Health Act. That was a wise power to give, and one he desired to see exercised, but the last part of the sub-section which contained the words he proposed to leave out would confer upon the Parish Council the powers which at the present moment were conferred on the Public Health Committee of the County Council. Thus there was given to a Parish Council, with a view to the due enforcement of the Public Health Acts, the same powers as were conferred upon a County Council by Sub-section 2 of Section 53 of the principal Act. The sub-section overrode the Public Health Committee of the County Council, and put the matter into the hands of the Parish Council. His objection to this was that the two bodies would be exercising the same powers, and that this might lead to friction.
  Amendment moved, in line 29, to leave out from ("Act") to the end of the subsection.—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, there was no intention of allowing the Parish Councils to override the County Councils in this matter. But the Parish Council was the body to whom the existence of nuisances and any violations of the Public Health Acts within the parish would be clearly brought home, and the clause merely gave that body power to approach the Local Government Board on the subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, the ground of his objection was that the Parish Council and the County Council would be doing the same thing. He would not, however, press the matter.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 25.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in line 37, after ("may,") insert ("if they think proper.") He said, this was a mere drafting Amendment. He supposed the promoters of the Bill wanted to give the County Council perfect option. But in one case they said "may make an order," putting in force &c, and then four lines lower down they said "if they think proper." Whichever form of words was adopted ought to be the same in both instances, for fear of misapprehension and difficulty arising.
  Amendment moved, in line 37, after ("may,") insert ("if they think proper.") —(The Lord, Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHwould prefer the second form ("if they think proper"), as that would be in strict conformity with the English Act.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLasked whether it was the fact that "may" had a compulsory meaning?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I should say that, as a general rule, "may" gives discretion. It is only in certain circumstances that it is considered compulsory.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, that for the first time in any Act of Parliament affecting Scotland it was proposed to give this new Board supreme power, there being no provision for the revision in the Courts of Law of any of its decisions. He was quite aware that the words in the Bill were the same as in the English Act: but ho questioned the wisdom of following the precedent in that direction. He should prefer an arrangement by which an interested party who felt that the Board had acted ultra vires in any of its decisions should have the right to appeal to the Court of Sessions. He, therefore, hoped the Amendment he had on the Paper to that effect would be accepted.
  Amendment moved, in page 17, line 28, leave out from ("made,") to ("and,") in line 29.—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he was surprised at the quarter from which this Amendment came, because the sub-section which the noble Marquess proposed to leave out was part of some carefully adjusted words which were, in the case of a controversy between the two Houses on the English Act, the result of negotiations conducted between the noble Marquess's leader—the Duke of Devonshire —and the Government; and were by common consent inserted in the English Act. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would not make a new precedent in the Scotch Act, but would keep the Scotch Act on all-fours with the English Act. If the Board were not left the final decision in the matter the in-

  1189
  tention of Parliament would be frustrated.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, that perhaps the Government would accept his Amendment, raising the same point, which stood next on the Paper. The procedure proposed in that Amendment was well-known in Scotland, was extremely cheap and thoroughly effective. The proposal had been copied from the Educational Endowments Act which was passed by Parliament under the guidance of a Liberal Administration: and as he had been Chairman of the Commission that worked under that Act, he could tell the House that when the procedure was resorted to a decision was obtained at the expense of only a few pounds, and within a week. It seemed to him that the power which the Bill proposed to give to the Board was an extraordinary and dangerous power to give to a body which would really be controlled by the Secretary for Scotland, who was a political official; and which would be an interested party in some of the matters which would come before it for final decision. Why should the Board be given the power to interpret the Act in disputed cases when a simple and cheap procedure for obtaining the, opinion of the Court of Session, and satisfactory to everybody, could be provided? The noble Lord alluded to the proceedings on the English Act when this clause was passed, after a great deal of heated controversy. But he did not want to raise again those disputed questions. If the Government did not see their way to accept the Amendment before the Committee he hoped they would accept his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he preferred the moderate and wise proposal of Lord Balfour to the Amendment before the Committee, and he hoped the Government would accept it. He thought recourse would only be made to the proposed procedure in cases where it was believed that injustice had been done by the Board.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the proviso standing in the name of Lord Balfour was less objectionable than the Amendment before the Committee. But it seemed strange to find Scotchmen expressing want of confidence in the Scotch Local Government Board
  1190
  which Englishmen had not expressed towards the English Board. [Cries of "We did!"]
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I expressed it in the strongest manner.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Your Lordships may have expressed it, but you did not act upon it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We did not wreck the Bill on account of it.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he thought that on matters of procedure the Scotch Act should run on all-fours with the English Act.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, the English Local Government Board was a well-known Board, with well-known traditions and a well-known policy. But here they were starting an entirely now Board for Scotland, in which he might toll the Lord Privy Seal he had no confidence at till. So far as the constitution of the Board was concerned, it was the worst that could be devised, and he did not think a good word could be said for it.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment in favour of the Amendment of Lord Balfour.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I think it exceptional that powers given by Statute to anybody should be substituted for the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law. It is contrary to the British Constitution. The words in the Bill make this new Board, which is absolutely under the control of the Secretary for Scotland, the supreme judge, whether it has or has not violated the law in the exercise of its power. The Queen's subjects have the right of appeal to the Courts of Law on questions whether the new powers given by Parliament to Bodies have been exorcised according to the Act.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Amendment moved, in page 17, line 30, at the end of Sub-section 7, insert—
  "Provided always that the Board may, and, when required by any party interested who has presented a Memorial against the Order, shall, state a special case on the question whether the proposed Order is within the powers conferred by this Act for the opinion of either divisions of the Court of Session who are

  1191
  hereby authorised finally to determine the same along with any question of expenses."—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to leave out "Board," in line 13, and insert "Sheriff of the County." The object of the Amendment was to secure that the arbitrators should be appointed by the Sheriff, who was a neutral person, and not by the Board, which was an interested party. He did not wish to pass Amendments offensive to the Government more than was absolutely necessary; and if this Amendment was objected to he would not press it.
  Amendment moved, in page 18, line 13, leave out "Board" and insert "Sheriff of the County."—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he did not need the assurance of the noble Lord that he would not press any Amendments offensive to the Government. He thought it would be necessary to keep in the word "Board," because it was in harmony with other precedents. In the Scotch Allotments Act it was the Secretary for Scotland who appointed the arbitrators, and lie thought it was better that the arbitrators should be appointed by an Administrative Body rather than by a judicial personage.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, there was a difference between the two cases. In the ease of the Allotments Act the Secretary for Scotland was not an interested party; but under this Bill he was the representative of one of the interested parties.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN*THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved to insert in the clause, as a new subsection—
  "The Parish Council shall make and maintain sufficient fences for separating the land taken, whether by purchase or on lease, from the lands not taken, and also all necessary drains of such dimensions as will be sufficient at all times to convey the water as clearly as before from the adjoining lands not taken; and also, in the event of existing watering places for cattle being interfered with, to make and maintain watering places equally suitable and convenient."
  If the Bill had not been compulsory he would not have moved such an Amend-
  1192
  ment. But when land was taken compulsorily it was only fair that no unnecessary expense or trouble should be placed on the shoulders of the owner from whom the land was taken away. It would be seen that his Amendment dealt with fences, drainage, and water supply. With regard to fences, the general—though not the universal—Scotch law was that boundary fences should be put up and maintained by the owners at each side. Under the Bill, however, it was not clear that fences were to be made and maintained by mutual expenditure; and in order to protect a landlord, who had some of his laud taken away, from the injustice of being at the sole expense of putting up the necessary fences, he proposed that that the Parish Council should make and maintain sufficient fences for separating the land taken from the land not taken. Then with regard to drainage, it might be that the drains of the entire field might run through the portion of the land taken away; and if those drains were interfered with, or were not kept up, the remaining portion of the field might become a swamp, without any power in the owner to remedy the defect except by consent of the Parish Council. With regard to the water supply for cattle, it was still more necessary that some protection should be given to the owner of the laud; because the portion of the field taken from him might be the portion that was best supplied with water. Nowadays it was extremely difficult to provide a water supply for lands. Landlords had often to provide water from a distance at great expense; and it was only fair, if au owner was deprived of his water supply with his land, that the Parish Council should provide another supply. For those reasons, he trusted that the Government would accept his Amendment.
  Amendment moved, in page 18, line 24, after ("compulsory") insert as a new sub-section—
  "The Parish Council shall make and maintain sufficent fences for separating the land taken, whether by purchase or on lease, from the lands not taken, and also all necessary drains of such dimensions as will be sufficient at all times to convey the water as clearly as before from the adjoining lands not taken; and also, in the event of existing watering places for cattle being interfered with, to make and maintain watering places equally suitable and convenient."—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the Government could not accept the Amendment. In the first place, English Parish Councils were not required to make and maintain those fences; and ho did not think they should throw on the Scotch Parish Councils a burden the English Parish Councils were not asked to bear. With regard to the drainage question, he was advised that by the ordinary Common Law of Scotland the maintenance of necessary drains would be a servitude which would naturally go with the land, and that the Parish Council, therefore, would be bound to look after the drains. Again, if existing watering places for cattle were interfered with, it would be a damage by severance for which a remedy was provided by Scots law. That portion of the Amendment dealing with drainage and watering places, was, therefore, unnecessary.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, the remedy provided by Scots law for damage to water supply was by way of compensation only. That would not meet the difficulty, for money compensation would not make up for the loss of the water.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNcould not see why it was a hardship to make the Parish Councils fence their allotments. Supposing two acres of a six-acred field was taken by the Parish Council for allotment, and that the four acres remaining with the proprietor were in grass with a cow or two, or a bull, grazing on them, was the proprietor to be made liable for any damage done by the bull in the absence of fences when, if the proprietor had been left undisturbed in his land, the bull would have six acres fenced in on which to roam about quietly? Surely it would lie treating the proprietor harshly to compel him to fence the land that was taken from him by the Parish Council.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the Government were willing to place on the Parish Council the duty of making sufficient fences for separating the land taken.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, that would not meet the difficulty. It seemed to him that unless there was also some provision for the mutual maintenance of the fences the obligation would rest solely on the owner from whom the land was taken.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I should think the natural person to maintain the fences would be the allotment holder and not the Parish Council or the proprietor.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not know what the Scots law may be; but in England the occupier has to make and maintain the fences.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Scots law is different. It provides for the mutual making and maintenance of fences. I do not think I can accept the noble Lord's proposal as sufficient.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the words of the Amendment were taken from the Railways Act. It was first suggested that the clause of the. Railways Act, covering those matters, should be inserted in the Bill; but it having been pointed out that those clauses were cumbrous, it was decided by a few of their Lordships who had considered the subject to draft from those clauses a short sub-section which would meet the merits of the case. That subsection was the Amendment before the Committee; and he thought its insertion, in the Bill was very desirable and very, just.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am: advised that the questions of drainage and water supply are already met by the Common Law of Scotland. I think there is a grievance with reference to the making and maintenance of fences, and that the Earl of Camperdown's amusing apologue of the bull has some foundation for it. Would the noble Marquess drop the portion of his Amendment which deals with drains and water supply, and. take such words as these—
  "The Parish Council shall make and maintain jointly with the proprietor sufficient fences for separating the land taken,"
  &c.? If so, Ave will agree to them.
  THE MARCHESS OF LOTHIAN: I will accept the words if they run in this way—
  "The Parish Council shall make and shall; jointly with the proprietor maintain sufficient fences.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Yes; the idea is that the Parish Council shall make the fences and maintain them jointly with the proprietor.
  Amendment moved, in page 18, line 24, after ("compulsory") insert, as a new sub-section—

  1195
  "The Parish Council shall make, and shall jointly with the proprietor maintain sufficient fences for separating the land taken, whether by purchase or on lease, from the lands not taken."—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved, in page 18, line 40, after ("purchasing") insert "the whole or any part of.")—(The Lord Bafour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH*LORD TWEEDMOUTH moved to amend the clause by excluding from its operation any land which in the opinion of the County Council or Board is being held and may be required for the extention of a factory or public work.
  Amendment moved, in page 19, line 2, after ("undertaking") insert—
  ("or any land which in the opinion of the County Council or Board is being held and may be required for the extension of a factory or public work.")—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsuggested the substitution of "or" for "and" in the phrase "is being held and may be required," with a view to enlarge the scope of the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked why land for the extension of a factory only should be excepted from the operation of the clause? He did not see why land attached to a shop should not also be excepted. Then he would like to know the meaning of "public work." In Scotland a "public work" was a work that had nothing to do with the public; it was a work that belonged to a private manufacture. He suggested the words "any other commercial undertaking" instead of "public work."
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he could not consent to the change of "and" for "or," as it would make two conditions against the taking of such land. What the Government wanted to exclude from the operation of the clause was land that was immediately required, and not land that might be required 20 years hence. He also thought it would be dangerous to extend the Amendment to commercial undertakings. It was difficult to say what was not a commercial undertaking in those days.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Do you propose to take land that is behind a shop?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Yes; if it is not required for the purposes of the shop.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 26.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANasked for a definition of the words "near the parish," in line 24. If the Parish Council had power to take land for allotments "near the parish" it might mean that they could go roaming all over the country side looking for land.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I should think the words mean "contiguous to the parish."
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the Bill as it stood provided that the Parish Council might permit to be erected on an allotment any stable, byre, or barn, and give the allotment holder compensation for such buildings at the end of the tenancy. He proposed to amend that provision by adding the words—
  "but such stable, byre, or barn, shall not, unless erected with the assent in writing of the landlord, be the subject of compensation, but may be removed by the tenant on the determination of the tenancy."
  In the case of a small allotment, a stable, byre, or barn which the allotment holder might erect on the land would be useless to him; and vet the clause said that he must pay the compensation for it when the tenancy came to an end. That was distinctly in the teeth of the Agricultural Holdings Act, which provided that no building was to form the subject of compensation unless the building had been erected with the assent in writing of the landlord. His Amendment, therefore, declared, in the first place, that the owner should not be required to pay unless he gave his assent to the building in writing. In the next place, his Amendment sought to remove a possible hardship to the tenant. A man might put up a stable on his allotment, and it was hard to say that at the end of the tenancy that stable belonged to the landlord. He thought it was only fair to allow the tenant to remove the building if he could.
  Amendment moved, in page 20, line 31, after ("barn") insert—

  1197
  ("but such stable, byre, or barn, shall not, unless erected with the assent in writing of the landlord, be the subject of compensation, but may be removed by the tenant on the determination of the tenancy.")—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had spoken very frequently of the virtues of the English Act. Well, the equivalent of the clause in the English Act specially provided that when an allotment holder claimed compensation for buildings the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act should be strictly followed in settling the claim. He therefore hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I think the words are harmless, and an improvement to the clause. I therefore accept them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I have not given notice of any Amendment, and perhaps I have no right to press the point I am about to raise. But I desire to direct attention to the effect—I think the unforeseen effect—of the words at the end of the 8th sub-section of the clause. They provide that no land shall be taken on lease which is already occupied or owned by small holders within the meaning of the Small Holdings Act, 1892. That is quite reasonable. The object of Parliament is to increase the number of small holders; and it would be inconsistent with the intentions of Parliament and with public feeling to arbitrarily interfere with those who have already got small holdings. But the sub-section goes on—
  "or under the Crofters' Holdings Act, 1886, or any Act amending the same."
  That places it, absolutely out of the power of the County Council, or the Parish Council, to take for allotments or small holdings land held by crofters. That provision would be reasonable if crofters were small holders, but they are not; they are quite different. In the West of Scotland there are large tracts of pasture land, oftentimes including the whole side of the country—a townland, as it is called in Ireland, or a township as it is known in Scotland—occupied by crofters which is very suitable for allotments, but which the Parish Council will not be authorised to take if this provision
  1198
  remains in the Bill. I will give the Committee an illustration. I own an island, which is largely populated by crofters. A large part of the island—I think 10,000 acres, including a large part of the sea-shore—is used by the crofters in common; and not a single acre of that large tract of country will be available for small allotments for the labouring classes if those words are allowed to stand in the Bill. Beside the crofters there are on this island cottiers who are also fishermen. They often apply to me for small possessions, but I cannot comply with their request, because under the Crofters' Act I cannot deprive the crofters of any of their possessions. I would, therefore, suggest the omission of the words—
  "or under the Crofters' Holdings Act, 1886, or any Act amending the same,"
  in order to allow the Local Bodies to give small possessions to labourers or fishers, when they ask for them, out of the pasture lands held by the crofters.
  Lord TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he could not agree offhand to the omission of the words suggested by the noble Duke: but, speaking for himself, he thought there could be no objection to some method being devised whereby pasture land held by crofters which was suitable for allotments might be made available for that purpose. But he did not think it would be wise to allow arable land on a crofter's holding to be broken up for allotments. He would consider the matter before the Report stage, and endeavour to find some method of meeting the difficulty.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord that the restriction should apply to arable land, but thought the pasture land of the character he had described should be available for allotments. He was satisfied with the promise of the noble Lord, and would not press the matter further.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to amend the sub-section which reserves the rights of the landlord with respect to lands for working and winning mines, minerals, or surface minerals thereunder by including "feuing." Constant complaints were made that there was great difficulty in the community getting land for feuing round some of the populous places of Scotland, and he rather feared that the clause as it stood

  1199
  would create further difficulty. In addition to that, he thought the clause in itself was unjust. The time for which land might be taken for allotments was extended to 35 years. Anyone who could look back for 35 years could appreciate what the effect of this provision, if it then existed, would have been on certain communities that had greatly extended within that time; and it seemed to him that this was a matter in which they might legitimately draw guidance from the experience of the past. He did not think that the English Bill was a fair precedent in this case as the system of feuing was unknown in England; and as really no injustice would be done by his Amendment he hoped it would be accepted.
  Amendment moved, in page 21, line 16, after ("thereunder") insert ("for feuing").—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHthought the noble Lord was introducing into the section a matter to which it had no reference whatever. The section referred purely to mineral rights and the working of mineral rights below the surface by retaining the use of those rights to the landlord. He did not think the Government could assent to the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLpointed out that under the Crofters' Act the landlord had power to resume possession of bind for feuing, and he thought a similar power should be given in this Bill. The matter was very important. Land on the Western Coast of Scotland which a few years ago had little value had greatly improved in value for feuing purposes owing to the desire of large and increasing numbers of residents in the large towns of Scotland to spend a portion of the year by the sea. Yet the clause would deprive the landlord of the value of his property in that respect for 35 years. Ho thought that unreasonable and quite unnecessary for the purposes of allotment. It was all very well to say that the clause dealt with a different matter. Ho did not see why the subsection should not be made to include other rights of property as well as mineral rights. Over a large portion of Scotland there were no valuable minerals—no coal mines and no metalliferous mines; and therefore the clause gave no
  1200
  benefit to landowners, while it denied him the benefit of being able to resume possession of his land for building, purposes.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that if the clause were not amended they would have in the immediate vicinity of a large town the Parish Council taking land for the purposes of allotments and preventing the owner from making any better use of the land, and that state of things might go on for ever.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Motion of Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Line 17, after ("winning"), insert ("or feuing").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
  On Motion of Lord TWEEDMOUTH, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 23, line 13, leave out ("of such roads or ways").
  Line 15, leave out ("such road or way") and insert ("any such way").
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHasked what was the meaning of "public way" in the clause? The language was not known in the Scots' law, and there was no definition of it in the Definition Clause.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the definition of "public way" was really given at the beginning of the clause. It said—
  "Not being highways or footpaths at the side of a highway within the meaning of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878."
  The particular public ways referred to were such as the not very well kept ways over moors used by children going and coming from school. It was a good thing to enable the Parish Councils to look after those ways; but if the noble Lord thought it was necessary that there should be an absolute definition of "public ways," the Government would be quite ready to insert such a definition in the Definition Clause.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, he did not doubt that the object was excellent; but he doubted whether the way proposed in the Bill was the

  1201
  legal way to carry out that object. However, if the noble Lord's advisers said it was all right, and that there would be no dispute about it, he had no more to say.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: We do not think there will be any dispute.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 30.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, this was one of the most extraordinary clauses he ever saw, and it was a case in which the English Act would not help the noble Lord in charge of the Bill at all. There was no limitation in the clause, and he was advised that it would be technically possible for the Parish Council to appoint additional trustees to assist the trustees already appointed under a marriage settlement. For instance, a modest amount of his means was in marriage settlements, which were managed by trustees for the benefit of himself, his wife, and his children, who were, of course, inhabitants of the parish in which they resided. The clause said—
  "When trustees hold any property wholly or mainly for the benefit of the inhabitants of a single parish or any of them;"
  and he was advised that under those words it would be quite possible for the Parish Council to appoint additional trustees to help his trustees to manage his marriage settlements. He, therefore, moved the insertion of the words "as such inhabitants," so that the clause would read—
  "When trustees hold any property wholly or mainly for the benefit of inhabitants of a single parish or any of them as such inhabitants," &c.
  Amendment moved, in page 23, line 17, after ("them,") insert ("as such inhabitants.")—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I have no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY moved an Amendment to Sub-section 2 of the Clause, providing that in the event of a charitable bequest to the parish the number of additional persons that the Parish Council might appoint under the powers of the clause to act along with the trustees of the property, should "not
  1202
  exceed the number of such trustees." He pointed out that the object of the Amendment was to prevent the Parish Council from swamping the existing trustees.
  Amendment moved, in page 23, line 34r after ("persons,") insert ("not exceeding the number of such trustees ").—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHhoped the Amendment would be accepted, because in Scotland they were not in the same position as they were in England. This clause was one of the most contentions clauses in the English Act; and by way of compromise an Amendment was inserted to put certain powers into the hands of the Charity Commissioners. There was no body analogous to the Charity Commissioners in England, and he was not prepared to accept the Local Government Board, controlled by the Secretary for Scotland for the time being, as an equivalent.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHthought it was rather hard that the inhabitants of Scottish parishes should not be allowed to exercise a similar discretion in regard to the appointment of trustees as the inhabitants of English parishes, simply because the noble Lord had not confidence in the Scotch Local Government Board. He did not think it was the least likely that any Secretary for Scotland would sanction a scheme which would create injustice in the administration of charities in any particular parish.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The power given to the Parish Council was wider than in the English Act. He asked if it was wise or fair to pass a clause which had this effect: that no human being could give£500 to his nearest friend for the benefit of the inhabitants of a parish without the Parish Council coming in and putting trustees over their head? It seemed to him bad in policy and certain to dry up other sources of benefactions. For that reason he must ask the Committee seriously to consider whether they should not have not only this Amendment, but the other one giving them the same limit as in the English Act—namely, 40 years.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, he preferred his own words to those proposed by the noble Lord.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I will take the Noble Marquess's words.
  On question? their Lordships divided:—Couteuts 34; Not Contents 17.
  On Motion of The Earl of CAMPERDOWN, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Page 23, line 35, after ("property") insert—
  ("as the trustees and the Parish Council may agree on in default of such agreement").
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The next Amendment I suppose the Government will treat as the last—dealing with the number of trustees.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Yes, it is consequential.
  On Motion of Lord TWEEDMOUTH, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 24, line 9, after ("persons") insert ("not exceeding three").
  Page 24, line 21, after the second ("shall") insert ("hold office until his successor is appointed and shall").
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The next Amendment consists of words quoted exactly from the English Act, which has been often appealed to this evening—I mean the words down to "surviving donor or donors." The other words are so obviously suited to the circumstances of Scotland that until I hear that it is so I shall not believe that this Amendment will not be accepted.
  Amendment moved, in page 25, at the end of the clause, insert the following:—
  "The provisions of this section with respect to the appointment of trustees shall not apply to any charity until the expiration of 40 years from the date of the foundation thereof, or, in the case of a charity founded before the passing of this Act by a donor, or by several donors, any one of whom is living at the passing of this Act, until the expiration of 40 years from the passing of this Act, unless with the consent of the surviving donor or donors. Nothing contained in this section shall apply to the funds derived from the ordinary church collections in parish churches, but such funds shall belong to and be at the disposal of the Kirk Session of each parish, and the portion of the same to lie applied in relief of the poor shall be in the discretion of the Kirk Session."—{The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: As to the first part of the Amendment, I should be inclined to make him an appeal. He has been a distinguished member of the Commission which has had to work the
  1204
  Endowment Act of 1882. In that Act the limit of 10 years was put in, and a great many schemes have been dealt with under that condition. What I would suggest is that we should follow the precedent of the Endowment Act of 1882, and put in 10 years here. If he would consent to that I would accept the Amendment.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Ten years for the past—nothing for the future?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: For the past.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Act the noble Lord mentions undoubtedly did refer back from 1882 to 1872, but there was a special reason for that—namely, that in 1872 a very large change had been made in the educational arrangements of Scotland; therefore there was a special reason for coming down to 1872; but when that was done great care was taken to hedge round any change in administration or in the number of trustees. We were successfully appealed against more than once for having gone beyond the terms even of that limitation. But that Act is no precedent for what is asked for now, for this clause not only deals with endowments that have been given, but endowments that may be given. The modest request of the clause is that the section shall not apply to charities until the expiration of 40 years from the date of the foundation.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I will take 10 years both ways.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am sorry I cannot accept that. I must stand to the terms of the clause. This clause is word for word the clause of the English Act passed at the end of last Session. We have had appeal after appeal to the terms of the English Act as binding on us. In some cases, such as allotments and soon, we have given in to it, but we cannot allow this Act to be pleaded against us when it is against us and disregarded when it is in our favour. On the merits this is so fair that I hope the Committee will agree to the clause. The second part of it will be taken afterwards.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Would it not be well to divide against both together?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I had hoped that the Government would not divide against the second part of the clause. There is a Statute enacting that there shall he a weekly collection at the church doors in Scotland for the poor. The practice is a very old one, and is no doubt alluded to in various Acts of Parliament. There is a reference to it as an existing practice in an Act of 1672 and in a Proclamation of the Privy Council of 1693. That Proclamation has not been strictly adhered to, and under the Poor Law Act of 1845 there was a good deal of litigation on this matter. The Act of 1845 put the whole circumstances of the case on a different footing, and though it disfranchised the Kirk Session as those who had special charge of the poor along with the heritors, it gave the Kirk Session representation on the Parochial Board. It is proposed to do away with that. I accept it, but surely if you are going to do away with our representation you are not going to keep our money. You certainly do seem to me to be treating the Church with an extremely scant amount of courtesy and fairness. I am not contending that the representation should be maintained. I would not desire that it should be under all the new circumstances that are being brought in. But it docs seem to me unfair to change a thing when it is for our disadvantage and not to give us a corresponding advantage. I am certain that if that is not done there will he a great deal of bitter litigation on the subject, and for the sake of that it is desirable that we should settle the matter once for all. There is no intention—and I think I am entitled to speak on that—on the part of the Church of Scotland or its Kirk Sessions to do anything which is unfair, but the clause in the Bill takes away every endowment we hold for the poor, and apparently you would prevent us from devoting part of our Church collections for the poor without the intervention of a Public Authority. That seems to me most unfair, and I hope that even at this late stage the Government will reconsider their decision.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he did not think the noble Lord need be under any fear that they would have any of these church-door collections to dispose of under any circumstances. It was only
  1206
  a small amount of the collections which wont to the poor. It seemed to him that the second sub-section came under the head of change in the administration of the Poor Law, and that, therefore, the objection previously raised applied to it.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, that nothing had ever astonished him more than the answer which had just been given. He would remind noble Lords that one of the ways in which the revenues of the Church of Scotland were raised was by Church-door collections. They were advised that the law was uncertain, and that if this clause was not inserted there would be litigation, and perhaps bitter litigation. He thought his case so fair and reasonable that he believed the Government would have raised no objection to it. He was surprised that the Government should oppose that which was designed in a simple way to set right what would cause a great deal of dispeace and bad feeling.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that what it came to was, that if they belonged to anybody except the Established Church they might collect as much money at the doors as they liked without being interfered with, but that if they belonged to the Established Church the money so collected would be taken away from them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, there was nothing unintelligible in that, so long as it was an Established Church. The doctrine was that all the parishioners were entitled to the benefits of the Church's administration of money. He knew nothing about Church collections, but he could not accept the doctrine of the noble Earl that the Established Church was in respect of its funds in the same position as any other Church.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLprotested against such doctrine being applied to Church-door collections, which were purely a congregational fund. They might just as well say that they could appropriate to some parochial object all the offertories in the Established Church of England. This Church-door collection in Scotland was strictly an ecclesiastical fund. Possibly when the Church represented everybody in the parish, it was for certain purposes a public fund, but it was now strictly a congregation fund. He had had no

  1207
  notion that this Bill contemplated the confiscation of this fund or the submitting of the management of it to any other than the members of the Church.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)explained that he had assumed that the Amendment referred to funds which, though collected at the Church door, were in some way held on trust for the parish; otherwise, they did not come within the clause at all. What was the use of putting in the section if it did not apply to these funds?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked if it was certain that these funds were not held by a trust? Was not the minister in Kirk Session in each parish the trustee?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, that these collections were funded for the year, and were given at the end of the year in clothes, coal, and other necessaries to the poor who were not paupers. The clause in the Bill was so very wide that they ran a serious risk of having the law more against them than they had at present.
  LORRD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the noble Lord proposed to solve a doubt in the law in his own way. He (Lord Tweedmouth) did not think that was quite fair. What, he was prepared to do was to insert words to keep things as they were—namely, that nothing in this section or in this Act should affect existing rights.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, that upon that understanding, and subject to the consideration of the proposed words, he would withdraw the second paragraph of his Amendment.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 36; Not-Contents 16.
  Amendment moved, in page 26, line 33, leave out from the first "the" to "Board" in line 34.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in page 30, line 41, at the end of Sub-section 3, insert—
  "Within 10 days after the date of such resolution it shall be competent for any person interested to appeal against the resolution in so far as it defines the boundaries of such special district to the Sheriff, and the Sheriff being the Sheriff Depute of the county may enlarge or limit the special district as defined by the district committee, and the decision of the Sheriff shall be final."
  Will the noble Lord opposite accept the Amendment?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: No; I think it better that the Administrative Board should decide the matter rather than a judicial officer.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, that interference with private property was involved, and he did not think the proposal was very drastic. However, if the noble Lord would not accept the Amendment he would not press it further.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved the deletion of Clause 46, which, he said, gave additional drastic power to the Secretary for Scotland to alter parish areas. Most important questions, including valuation, depended upon parish boundaries, and it seemed to him that the clause placed a great deal too much power in the hands of an Executive Board. It gave the Secretary for Scotland power to unite parishes and alter boundaries. There was existing machinery in the County Council Act of 1889 which provided that in the ease of serious opposition there should be an appeal. The clause was objected to by several large communities.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 46.—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh).
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he was afraid he could not accept the proposal. One of the great difficulties they had was to name some ready or easy method for the adjustment of areas, and that stood in the way of the success of this Bill. The idea of going back to the cumbrous system of Provisional Orders seemed to him to be entirely out of the question. These were powers which were well administered by the Local Government Board in England, and they must insist on the power being given to the Secretary for Scotland, as the Bill proposed.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that under this clause the Secretary for Scotland would have very large powers indeed, and to him it appeared that the balance of advantage was with the clause. Unless these powers were conferred on the Secretary for

  1209
  Scotland the power of altering areas would be practically inoperative altogether. This power had existed under Clause 51 of the Local Government Act, and it had scarcely ever been attempted to put it in force, the real reason of that being the expense attendant upon obtaining a Provisional Order. Just see what might happen. In the case of a parish in the neighbourhood of a large town if there was any proposal to alter the area it could not be carried out without a very expensive appeal to Parliament. If this power extended to matters Parliamentary he certainly would not give such power to the Secretary for Scotland. Parliamentary and ecclesiastical matters were withheld from the clause. There was a reference in the last line but one to Sections 95 and 96 of the principal Act. Therefore, as it simply related to local matters, on the whole he thought it better to take the cheaper and more efficient course.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  On Motion of Lord TWEEDMOUTH, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 34, line 23, leave out ("eleventh day of December"), and insert ("fifteenth day of May in the year").
  Line 24, leave out ("ninety-four"), and insert ("ninety-five").
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY moved the following proviso:—
  "Provided that in the case of the medical officers holding office under this Act and the former Acts, any arrangement as to their duties and remuneration shall be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board."
  He thought those who had had experience of local matters in Scotland knew that it was necessary in some way to protect medical officers from dismissal without some appeal. Ho had known cases where injustice had been done owing to local feeling, and it was necessary that there should be some appeal against the decision of the Parish Council. In the case of medical officers under the Board of Supervision there was an appeal at the present moment, he believed. He desired to make a verbal alteration in the Amendment—namely, to
  1210
  substitute the word "resolution" for "arrangement."
  Amendment moved, in page 34, line 38, after ("passed") insert—
  ("Provided that in the case of the medical officers holding office under this Act and the former Acts, any resolution as to their duties and remuneration shall be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board.")
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he did not think there was any great objection to the Amendment, though he did not quite like the form of it. He should prefer words to the effect that any rearrangement of the duties and remuneration of a medical officer holding office under the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, should be subjected to the approval of the Board.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: Does that give an appeal in case of dismissal?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: That is equally outside the noble Marquess's Amendment and mine.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: Not with the word "resolution."
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I prefer my own words.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  On Motion of Lord TWEEDMOUTH the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Page 34, line 38, after "passed," insert—
  "Provided that any rearrangement of the duties and remuneration of the existing medical officers holding office under the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, shall be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board."
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to add to the clause a proviso to the effect that in all matters relating to the Poor Law administration the Inspector of Poor should act as clerk to the Parish Council. The Inspectors of the Poor were well known in Scotland, and it was acknowledged that they discharged their onerous and difficult duties with a great deal of tact and efficiency. Under some clauses of the Bill they were being rather hardly treated. He would not go the length of some of their number and propose that in all cases they should act as clerk to the Parish Council. He would not advocate that, but it seemed to him that in matters so strictly within their province as the administration of the poor if they were not made clerks to the

  1211
  Parish Council a great deal of difficulty and friction would take place. They would have two officers where one would do, certainly in all rural parishes.
  Amendment moved, in page 35, line 2, after ("Council"), insert—
  ("Provided always that in all matters relating to the Poor Law administration, the Inspector of Poor shall act as clerk to the Parish Council.")—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHthought the Amendment would fetter too much the power of the Parish Council. The Parish Council should have the right to select their own clerk, and his Amendment would secure the existing officer from any hardship or grievance. He would propose to amend the clause by providing that—
  "If any existing Inspector of Poor is aggrieved by such distribution of business, or by the imposition or withdrawal of any duties, he may within one month after the date of any resolution of the Council distributing such business, or imposing or withdrawing such duties, appeal to the Board, whose decision shall be final."
  He believed that those words would amply secure the existing officers from any hardship or grievance.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, the administration of the Poor Law was very technical, and in some respects a difficult matter. His proposal, if carried out, would be greatly valued by the Inspectors of the Poor themselves. In the position of clerk they would be able to advise the Parish Councils and give those bodies the benefit of their experience and knowledge of Poor Law administration. No doubt the Government were supreme in this matter, and if the Amendment were inserted here, if the Government were hostile to it, it would be rejected elsewhere. He put it on the grounds of equity to the Inspectors and efficiency in the administration of the law.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he was afraid he must persist in his objection.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that no doubt under the Amendment of Lord Balfour of Burleigh the Poor Law would be administered in the most efficient manner. It stood to reason that the Inspector of the Poor would be the best clerk for dealing with Poor Law matters. If anyone else were appointed the first thing he would have to
  1212
  do would be to set to work to learn the Poor Law. At the same time, the Government proposal would give the Inspector of the Poor an appeal if he felt himself aggrieved.
  Amendment negatived.
  on Motion of Lord TWEEDMOUTH the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Page 35, line 2, after ("Council") insert—
  ("Provided that if any existing Inspector of Poor is aggrieved by such distribution of business, or by the imposition or withdrawal of any duties, he may, within one month after the date of any resolution of the Council distributing such business or imposing or withdrawing such duties, appeal to the Board, whose decision shall be final.")
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved an Amendment to add the following words at the end of the clause:—
  "Provided always that, on the retirement of an Inspector of Poor, the Parish Council may, with the consent of the Board, grant to such Inspector a superannuation allowance not exceeding two-thirds of his existing salary and emoluments."
  The Poor Law officers in England and Ireland were entitled to superannuation, and it was not fair or just that the Poor Law officers in Scotland should be debarred from the privilege. That they were so debarred had long been felt by them to be a real grievance, and especially so now, when they entertained a strong feeling that their positions would be unfavourably affected by this Bill. He asked for no special or exceptional treatment on behalf of the Poor Law officers of Scotland, but simply that their claims in this matter might be impartially considered.
  Amendment moved, in page 35, line 11, at end of clause, insert—
  ("Provided always that, on the retirement of an Inspector of Poor, the Parish Council may, with the consent of the Board, grant to such Inspector a superannuation allowance not exceeding two-thirds of his existing salary and emoluments.")—(The Lord Bulfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, this was an Amendment dealing with money. The Leader of the Opposition had given the House some advice as to (heir action in regard to matters arising out of the rates, and besides, the Amendment was ruled out of Order by the Speaker of the House of Commons as not coming

  1213
  within the scope of the Bill. Moreover, when that Amendment was divided upon in the Scotch Grand Committee only 13 voted in its favour, while 43 voted against it. It could hardly be said, therefore, that there was a very strong feeling in favour of introducing the proposal in this Bill. He thought it would he undesirable, in the interests of the officers themselves as well as in those of the Parish Councils, to press the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  On Motion of Lord TWEEDMOUTH the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Clause 54 amended, so as to provide that the expression "Town Clerk" includes the clerk to the Burgh Commissioners of a police burgh.
  Page 37, at the end of clause, insert—
  ("the expression 'district committee of a County' Council shall include a County Council sitting as a district committee under Sub-sect ion 3 of Section 78 of the principal Act")
  Page 40, line 25, insert—

  52 & 53 Vict. c. 50.

  Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889.

  Section twenty-eight Sub-section (2). (i)', the words "who is not married, or who being married is not living in family with her husband,"

  The commencement of this Act.

  14 Vict. c. 13.

  Municipal Elections Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1881.

  Section two, the words "who are not married, and married females not living in family with their husbands."

  Other Amendments agreed to.
  On Motion of Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH, Clause 55 was amended, in order to provide that
  1214
  ("the expression 'district committee of a County Council' shall include a County Council sitting as a district committee under Sub-section 3 of Section 78 of the principal Act."
  THE MARQUESS of LOTHIANasked when the remaining stages of the Bill would be taken?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that, if the Report stage and the Third Beading were taken to-morrow, the Bill could lie sent to the Commons and then dealt with in the Lords again on Monday.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 212.)

  CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) (BRIDGE-WATER, &.C. CANALS) BILL.—(No. 185.)
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) (CANALS OF CALEDONIAN AND NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY COMPANIES) BILL—(No. 190.)
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) (GRAND CANAL, & C.) BILL.—(No. 191.)
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]—(No. 178.)
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  QUARRIES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 149.)
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to he considered To-morrow.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11.) (LAGAN, &c CANALS) BILL, now CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10.) (LAGAN, &c. CANALS) BILL. (No. 197.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) (BIRMINGHAM CANAL) BILL.—(No. 198.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) (RIVER LEE, &c.) BILL.—(No. 211.)
  Moved, That the Order made on the 19th day of March last,
  "That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next,"
  be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  HERITABLE SECURITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 202.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow. (No. 215.)
  JURIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow. (No. 216.)
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow. (No. 217.)
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow. (No. 218.)

  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered (on Motion), and agreed to.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Three o'clock.