HL Deb 16 August 1894 vol 28 cc1171-214

Parishes.

* LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said, 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 LOTHIAN

said, 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 be made at the request of the Corporation of Glasgow, and that the Amendment would be agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

thought 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 ARGYLL

said, 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 ROSEBERY

did 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 HUNTLY

appealed 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 time to deal with the whole matter would be in 1898 when the elections would take place.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

observed 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 BURLEIGH

said, 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 CAMPERDOWN

said, 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 TWEEDMOUTH

observed 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 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 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 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 TWEEDMOUTH

pointed out that the County Council and the Parish Council elections were going to take place on the same day and in the same 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, he was quite indifferent as to which sot of words were taken, but he preferred those of the noble Earl.

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 BURLEIGH

said, 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- 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 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 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 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, 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 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- 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 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 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, 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 Committees whether they were in Order?

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)

The noble Lord cannot do that.

* LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said, 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 ARGYLL

did 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 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, 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 BURLEIGH

did 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 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 CAMPERDOWN

said, 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 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 ROSEBERY

said, 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 BURLEIGH

said, 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 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 TWEEDMOUTH

admitted 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 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 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 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 TWEEDMOUTH

asked 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 BURLEIGH

sincerely 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 moved, in line 29, leave out from ("Act") to the end of the sub-section. He said, this 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, 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 HUNTLY

said, 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 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 TWEEDMOUTH

would prefer the second form ("if they think proper"), as that would be in strict conformity with the English Act.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

asked 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 HUNTLY

said, 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, 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- tention of Parliament would be frustrated.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said, 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 CAMPERDOWN

said, 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, 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 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, he thought that on matters of procedure the Scotch Act should run on all-fours with the English Act.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said, 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 HUNTLY

said, 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 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 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, 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 LOTHIAN

said, 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 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- 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, 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 LOTHIAN

said, 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 CAMPERDOWN

could 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, the Government were willing to place on the Parish Council the duty of making sufficient fences for separating the land taken.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said, 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 CAMPERDOWN

said, 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— 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 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 BURLEIGH

suggested 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 CAMPERDOWN

asked 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, 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 LOTHIAN

asked 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 CAMPERDOWN

said, 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— ("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 HUNTLY

said, 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 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, 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 ARGYLL

said, 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 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 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 TWEEDMOUTH

thought 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 ARGYLL

pointed 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 benefit to landowners, while it denied him the benefit of being able to resume possession of his land for building, purposes.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said, 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 BURLEIGH

asked 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, 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 BURLEIGH

said, he did not doubt that the object was excellent; but he doubted whether the way proposed in the Bill was the 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 BURLEIGH

said, 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 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 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 BURLEIGH

hoped 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 TWEEDMOUTH

thought 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 HUNTLY

said, 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 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, 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 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 BURLEIGH

said, 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 CAMPERDOWN

said, 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 ARGYLL

protested 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 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 CAMPERDOWN

asked 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 BURLEIGH

said, 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, 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 BURLEIGH

said, 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 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 BURLEIGH

said, 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 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, 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 CAMPERDOWN

said, 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 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 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 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, 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 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 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 TWEEDMOUTH

thought 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 BURLEIGH

said, 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, he was afraid he must persist in his objection.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said, 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 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 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 TWEEDMOUTH

said, 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 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 ("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 LOTHIAN

asked when the remaining stages of the Bill would be taken?

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said 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.)