Lords Sitting of 11 March 1895

SAT FIRST.
Lord Basing—after the death of his father.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT, 1880, AMENDMENT BILL.— [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

SEED POTATOES (IRELAND) BILL.
On the Motion to go into Committee,
LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, he wished to reply to one or two points raised on the Bill the previous week by Lord Ashbourne, which he was not able at the time to give specific answers upon. Lord Ashbourne asked what remuneration it was proposed to give the inspectors under the Act; how many it was contemplated to appoint; and whether there would be any objection to lay on the Table or publish in the Dublin Gazette or the Press the names and previous occupations of the inspectors? Fifteen inspectors had actually been appointed, and it was not expected that any further appointments would be necessary. It would be inconvenient to publish the names, &c., of the inspectors, and it was not deemed necessary to do so. He might also point out that the late Government in 1890 did not publish the names of the inspectors then appointed by gazetting or otherwise. The remuneration of the inspectors would be three guineas a day, which included hotel expenses; if Sundays were charged for, the charge was not to exceed one guinea. The inspectors were to be reimbursed for the actual expense of locomotion, including first class railway fare.
Passed through Committee, and reported without Amendments.

ALTERATION OF SCOTTISH BOUNDARIES.
LORD BALFOUR*LORD BALFOUR rose—
"To call attention to the Orders issued by the Secretary for Scotland regarding the alterations of boundaries in the case of the burgh of Stirling and the parish of St. Ninians; and in the case of the burgh of Ayr, and the parish of St. Quivox; and to ask what instructions were issued to the sheriffs who held the inquiries; and whether the Secretary for Scotland will have any objection to making public the reports he received in these cases?''
He said he would state briefly why it was necessary to raise the question. With regard to the burgh of Stirling and the parish of St. Ninians, he knew the whole circumstances of those places intimately, and he considered he was not going too far when he said that there was no necessity whatever for the change which had been made, or was proposed to be made, by the Order issued by the Secretary for Scotland. In the case of the burgh of Stirling, there was absolutely no allegation whatever that any benefit could possibly arise, either with regard to the administration of the Poor Law relief or facilitating the work of the Parish Council in the future. Every authority in the district had objected to the alteration of the boundaries. The Parochial Board and the Kirk Session had objected, and petitions had been signed by over 500 ratepayers in the district against the change proposed. Amongst the anomalies which would be created, if the Order was carried into effect, was, that the Church and churchyard of the parish of St. Ninians would cease to be in the civil parish, and would be transferred to the burgh of Stirling. Many of the inhabitants of the parish believed that their claim to certain local endowments would be seriously prejudiced by the alteration, and a very strong feeling had been aroused in respect to the rate. The Boundary Commission, which was appointed under the Local Government Act of 1889, was asked to make this very alteration, and at that time it was refused. He thought it was a little hard that, without their knowing the reason which had actuated the Secretary for Scotland, so radical and violent a change had been made as to take one-sixth of the valuation from St. Ninians and add it to the burgh of Stirling. The point he wished to put was, if the Order were in accordance with the report of the Sheriff

743
who held the inquiry, surely it would strengthen their hands to publish the report and if it were not in accordance with the report; it appeared to him that that Enquiry was a delusion and a sham. The main question with regard to the burgh of Ayr was very much the same. He did not desire to call in question the alteration of the boundaries of the burgh, but what his friends in the locality did not understand was, why the landward parishes—the parish of Ayr and the parish of St. Quivox—had been united. They were separated throughout their whole length by the river Ayr, and there was no community of feeling between the people of the two landward parishes. It would cause the greatest confusion in educational matters. The county clerk of Ayr had written to him to the effect that in the case of Ayr landward, as denned for School Board purposes, the School Board of that part of the parish, and of the quoad sacra parish of Alloway, were joined together by the Order so far as it related to School Board purposes could not easily be understood.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord TWEEDMOUTH), in reply, said, that the instructions to the Sheriffs who held the inquiries were purely general. They were requested to hold a local inquiry on terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act into the various applications, and to report upon their general expediency or otherwise, the adjustment of the financial details being reserved for subsequent arrangement if necessary. There was no special instruction to the Sheriffs at all. The Secretary for Scotland did not see his way to publish the reports of the Sheriffs. The Secretary for Scotland was himself responsible for the decision as to the division or junction of these parishes. The reports received from the various Sheriffs and other gentlemen who had conducted inquiries, were confidential documents submitted for the information of the Secretary for Scotland, and had in no case been communicated to the public. The course adopted in these particular cases was in accordance with that which had been followed in other cases where applications had been made to place the whole of a burgh within a single parish. In the case of Stirling, the 40 days' notice within which representations might
744
be received, expired on 6th instant, and representations from St. Ninians Parochial Board, arid from certain ratepayers, were receiving careful consideration. In the case of Ayr (where the Poor Rate was 5d. in Ayr parish, 1s. in Newton-on-Ayr parish, and 1s. 5d. in St. Quivox parish), the 40 days had not yet expired, and certain representations as to the educational aspect of the proposed Order were now under the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland, in consultation with the Law Officers. The reason for joining St. Ninians with Stirling was that at this moment, for all purposes except Poor Law relief, St. Ninians was part of the burgh of Stirling. Stirling supplied it with water, gas, and police, and one street ran down two portions of the burgh and a portion of the one side of the street was in Stirling and a portion in St. Ninians. He could not agree with the noble Lord as to the universality of opinion in favour of St. Ninians remaining separate. On the contrary, he should like to quote the following extract from a letter from the county clerk—
"To those who are on the spot, and really know how matters stand, nothing would be more ridiculously wide of the mark than the statement that the Order is regarded by anybody as injurious to their interests and those of the poor. The village part of the parish of St. Ninians is already part and parcel of Stirling for every purpose, save only that of Poor Law relief, and it is absurd to suppose that anyone can believe that to make poor Law relief follow every other phase of civic life will prove injurious. So far as the village population is concerned, the real feeling is one of indifference whether the village is merged in Stirling or not. In the landward part of the parish, on the other hand, the feeling in favour of the Order is practically unanimous. There is entire absence of community of interest between the two parts of the parish, and now that elective Parish Councils are about to be established, the landward people desire the management of their own affairs. I am convinced that there is not a case in Scotland in which an Amalgamation Order would be more beneficial.
The Secretary for Scotland had other information to the same effect and he (Lord Tweedmouth) was bound to say he thought the proper course had been followed.

DISTRIBUTION OF PARISH COUNCIL LORS, SCOTLAND.
LORD BALFOURasked, why the Local Government Board for Scotland

745
altered the distribution of Parish Councillors agreed upon between the parishes of South Queensferry and Dalmeny; and whether the Board will make public any representations they received, and upon which they acted, either in that case or in the case of the parish of Bathgate. He said that these two questions had reference to the action of the Local Government Board for Scotland and not that of the Secretary for Scotland. The direction given in the Act of last year was that regard should be had to—
"the powers and duties of the Parish Council under this Act, and to the population and special wants and circumstances of the parish."
His case was, that in regard to the parishes of Dalmeny and Queensferry, the Local Government Board for Scotland had disobeyed that instruction, and had had regard to nothing but population. The two parishes were amalgamated by order of the Secretary for Scotland, in spite of strong objections urged by the County Council and by the parish of Dalmeny. A conference took place between the County Council and the Town Council of Queensferry, and, at the suggestion of the Town Council, the number and allocation of Parish Councillors was fixed at nine; and they were allocated—four to Queensferry and five to Dalmeny. That was actually proposed by the Town Clerk of Queensferry, and was agreed to unanimously by all concerned; and it was a reasonable arrangement, because the population of the borough was only about 150 in excess of the landward district, the valuation of the parish was four and a half times as much as the town, and the area 5,890 acres as compared with about 100 acres. On the agreement being reported to the Local Government Board, they wrote that they were unable to approve of the allocation—
"in respect that the larger proportion of Councillors is assigned to the landward part of the parish, which has a smaller population than the burghal area."
The Local Government Board themselves confessed in that letter that they had regard to nothing but population, whereas they were enjoined by the Act to have regard to the special wants and circumstances of the parish. Surely, in a case of that kind, when four and a half times the amount of money would be
746
raised from one part of the parish as compared with the other, and when the populations were so nearly equal, it was only fair that the landward portion should have the deciding voice. It was a fact that, out of every pound which would be raised for Parish Council purposes, the landward part would have to find 16s. 3d., and the borough of Queensferry only 3s. 9d. Yet the latter was to have the preponderance of the voting power, which was not only unjust but was absolutely in the teeth of the plain directions put in the Act of Parliament. In the case of Bathgate the Local Government Board had gone wrong in the same way. There was, in the first instance, an agreement between the boroughs of Bathgate and Armadale, and the County Council of Linglithgow. The population of Bathgate was a little over 5,000; the valuation was £14,000; and the number of electors 790. The population of Armadale was 3,190; the valuation was £5,500, and the number of electors 491. The landward part of the parish had a population of under 3,000; the valuation was nearly £26,000; and the number of electors 415. It was proposed, and at first agreed to, that there should be seven Councillors for Bathgate, three for Armadale, and five for the landward part of the parish. This agreement was afterwards departed from by Armadale, which asked for four Councillors; and the Local Government Board, instead of abiding by an arrangement they had assented to, without any reference to the County Council, issued an order giving Bathgate eight Councillors, Armadale four, and five to the landward part of the parish; and he was informed that the Board absolutely refused to listen to any representation on the subject by the County Council. This was not only a flagrant disregard of the provisions of the Act, but it was contrary to the Circular which the Local Government Board had issued. According to that Circular, there ought to have been only 15 Councillors for the parish; and the Board made it 17 without making any communication with any local authority. It seemed to him that the Local Government Board had not acted quite fairly in this matter, and he should be glad if the noble Lord, who would answer for the Government, could see his way to make public the grounds on which the Local

747
Government Board had come to their decision.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he did not anticipate that the noble Lord would go fully into the case of Bathgate, and he was not prepared to enter in detail into the points that had been raised with regard to that parish. As to the cases of Queensferry and Dalmeny the Local Government Board had endeavoured to meet the wishes of all parties concerning the distribution of Parish Councillors as between the burghal and the landward parts of the new parish. The Local Government Board had laid down the principle that where the population of one portion of a parish considerably exceeded the population of another portion, they would not give a greater number of councillors to the smaller portion than was given to the larger portion. In this case the population of Queensferry was 200 greater than that of Dalmeny. Therefore the Local Government Board objected to give five councillors to Dalmeny and four to Queensferry. A proposition had now been made by the Town Clerk of Queensferry that there should be six burghal and five landward members—that Queensferry should have six and Dalmeny five. The Secretary for Scotland was willing to accept that proposal as a compromise. The whole matter was still under negotiation.
LORD BALFOUR: How is that a compromise?
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he understood the principal reason why the landward part of the parish objected to the number was that they thought four, as an even number, was inconvenient, and if they were given five members that would satisfy them. It was not so much a question of having a majority as of having a sufficient number of councillors. The proposal mentioned had been made, and it was the desire of the Local Government Board to meet the views of the various parishes on the adjustment of these matters.
LORD BALFOURasked whether there was any hope of getting from the Local Government Board or the Secretary for Scotland their idea of what they were intended to consider, under the terms of the Act, as the special wants and circumstances of a parish? In what circumstances could a
748
clear case be made out for equality, or for a majority, on one side or the other than had been made out in the cases submitted?
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he had told the noble Lord that the Local Government Board had laid down as one principle on which to act that the parish with the largest population should have a majority of councillors.

LARCENY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL), in moving that this Bill be read a second time, said that it had already been before their Lordships' House. The object of it was to enable a person who knowingly received stolen goods in this country to be convicted of crime, although the goods had been stolen in foreign parts.
Bill read 2a.

PERJURY BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved the Second Reading of this Bill, the object of which, he said, was to consolidate and amend the law of perjury. This Bill was also before their Lordships last Session, when it was referred by the Standing Committee to a Sub-committee, and the form in which it was finally settled by the Sub-committee was that in which it now came before the House.
Bill read 2a.
House adjourned at Five minutes to Five o'clock.