HL Deb 20 May 1897 vol 49 cc873-93

On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,

*LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said he did not rise for the purpose of moving a hostile; amendment, or to ask their Lordships to reject he Bill. He was deterred from Inking this step not so much on account of the intrinsic value of the Bill, the acceptance which it was likely to meet with in Scotland, or the relief it was likely to afford to Private Bill procedure in Scotland, as from a recognition that the principles on which the measure was based were good and useful and should receive the assent of their Lordships. This Bill was one of a type too familiar of recent years—namely, a Bill founded on excellent principles which were generally accepted in the country, but often only recently adopted by supporters of the Government and agreeable to those who sat on his side, of the House; and when the time came to translate these principles into a Bill they found that the work was undertaken in a timid and hesitating manner. The provisions of the Bill were so hedged in by checks and safeguards, the whole subject, was so 'cribb'd, cabin'd, and confin'd,' that but little benefit was to be obtained from the principles, nor was any additional freedom conferred on those whom it was intended to benefit. He thought that Scotland had some reason to complain of the attention given by the Government to Scottish legislation. Members of the Government were very-fond of pointing out the advance which their opinions had made in Scotland, but so far the Government had not been very ready to recognise that opinion in the shape of legislative coin. Last year Scotland got nothing; this year it had received the promise of a Bill dealing with Private Bill legislation; and he supposed Scotland had to accept this Bill as representing the fulfilment of that promise. He could hardly believe that when the paragraph on this point was inserted in the Queen's Speech this Bill was drafted, or was even in the minds of Ministers, because ths measure did not attempt, to deal with Private Bill legislation affecting Scotland as a whole; it merely nibbled one corner of the subject. He thought that the Secretary for Scott and had shown no small amount of self-confidence in the basis he had taken for the Bill. In 1888 a strong and important Joint Committee of the two Houses sat on this subject, and after hearing much evidence and giving the subject careful consideration they agreed to a report. That report had been put aside altogether. His noble Friend had founded his Bill on a draft report presented to the Committee by himself, though he admitted that his noble Friend had the assent of three other colleagues on the Committee, Lord Colville, Sir Joseph Pease, and Lord Stalbridge. These Gentleman were well acquainted with the necessities of Private Bill legislation, but he thought that they looked at the subject rather from one point of view. They were closely connected with the greater Railway corporations, and it was known that the great Railway Companies had always considered that it was to their advantage to have all private Bills considered in London by Committees of the two Houses. They had always set themselves against any attempt to deal with these matters locally and by means of local bodies. That being the case he thought that his noble Friend should have shown a little suspicion of his supporters on the Committee. He would have done well to pay more attention to the report agreed to by the Committee rather than to have adopted the report presented by the chairman and set aside. He thought that the limited character of the Bill was well shown by its title. It was not even called a bill for dealing with Private Bill legislation. If he understood the use of a Provisional Order a right it was to allow a municipality or corporation through a Department the right to make use of the powers of an existing public Act. That seemed to him to be a very different thing from the requirements of a Private Bill which gave to a municipality or corporation powers which might be entirely novel and which were certainly not necessarily contained in any existing Act. In order to commend this new procedure to the House his noble Friend should have given a greater proof of the gain to be obtained from this Bill. He should have shown more clearly that the procedure would be more simple and less expensive The noble Lord gave no details as to the probable expense of the procedure. He should have shown also that it really would have done something effectual to relieve Members of Parliament from the burdens which at present were put upon them. In looking at the different stages which a Provisional Order or Private Bill would have to pass through he said that first of all notices would have to be given to all parties affected. Those preliminary proceedings were some of the most expensive parts of a Private Bill. Take the Glasgow Improvements Bill recently in the House of Commons. That was a Bill proposing to give the Glasgow Corporation power to deal with certain slums. It necessitated an enormous number of notices to owners and occupiers, even down to monthly tenants. These notices under an Order of the Court of Session regulating fees cost nine shillings each, and the total amount paid by the Glasgow Corporation for these notices alone was close on £1,000. One object of a Bill dealing with Private Bill legislation should be to try to cheapen its preliminary proceedings; and in this case notices might very easily have been sent out by post in registered letters to each individual at a cost of a few pence. He was told with regard to Sewerage, Gas, and Tramways Bills, similar notices were required to be given to all within a radius of 300 yards of the place where the gas works, tramway station, or sewerage place was to be erected, at a cost, also fixed by the Court of Session, of six shillings each. Thus they might have expected to find in this Bill that some process had been adopted of cheapening the preliminary stages in connection with matters only dealt with by Private Bills. Then copies of the Provisional Order had to be served out to all the Departments and laid before both Houses of Parliament. The Chairmen of Committees in both Houses next decided whether the subject was one which ought fairly to be dealt with in this Bill, or whether it should not be dealt with by Private Bill, under the old system. He imagined that this would involve the payment of certain fees to the two Houses. The next stage was that any opponent might claim to show cause before the tribunal composed of the two Chairmen of Committees and the Secretary for Scotland why the Question should not be dealt with under this Bill as a Private Bill. The opponents he imagined, would be entitled to appear before that tribunal by counsel. They would be able to bring their witnesses, and to take full advantage of that stage to show why the old system of procedure should be adopted rather than the now. The proposal having passed through this sifting process, then the Bill again came before the Secretary for Scotland, and he had the power either to refuse the proposal altogether, or he might direct an inquiry as to the propriety of assenting to the prayer of the Commission. That particular provision introduced a new stage in an unopposed Measure, because, as he read the clause, the Secretary for Scotland had no choice whatever except to refuse to allow the order to proceed or send it before the Commissioners for local inquiry. After the local inquiry had taken place, again the Order was reported to the Secretary for Scotland. Again he had the power of refusing it absolutely He had the power of confirming it, or confirming it with alterations, as might seem right to him, and then again, the Order, if so altered, had to be again lodged in all the departments, had again to be sent round to all people interested, and more time and expense in that way must necessarily be involved. After the Bill had received the Secretary for Scotland's sanction, any opponent might again come in. He might claim that instead of the Order receiving the sanction of the Secretary for Scotland by his mere fiat, there should be a confirming Bill in the Houses of Parliament. If that request were made the Secretary for Scotland was bound to introduce a confirming Bill in Parliament, and that Bill had to be referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. Before that Joint Committee the whole procedure now in force before Private Bill Committees came into play. In all this he failed to see that there would be much saving in time or money, or any gain in simplicity of procedure, nor any great saving of labour to Members of Parliament as regards attendance on Committees. And for this reason, that they submitted the proposals under this Bill to a searching sifting in the earlier' stages, a sifting that would cause most, of the more important proposals to be treated as Private Bills and referred to select Committees of Parliament in the same way as at present. Again, would it be possible under this Bill to deal with a number of subjects in one Order, as in the case of an omnibus Bill? His noble Friend had shown ingenuity in setting up a kind of Committee of Selection, which was to select the panel from which Commissioners were to be chosen for local inquiries. If his noble Friend should succeed in finding a Committee of Selection which would have the same recognised authority as the Committee of Selection in the other House of Parliament he would deserve congratulations on his achievement, and he should be glad to help him in attaining it. He entered, however, a word of protest as to including a Sheriff or Judge on the Commissions. His own belief was that they should keep the legal element out of these Commissions altogether. They should be composed of men of affairs, and the nearer they could bring the local committee to the present constitution of Committees of Parliament the better would it be and the greater assent would there be to their decisions. He was sorry his noble Friend had not thought, of a better way of obtaining the opinion of the burghs. The convention of Royal Burghs was theoretically an admirable body no doubt, but its views by no means commanded the assent of the whole of the burghs of Scotland, and, indeed, practically it had largely fallen into the hands of what he might call a clique. The fault he had to find with regard to the whole of the four members who were to act as a Committee of Selection—two being selected by conveners of counties and two by the Convention of Royal Burghs —was that all fonr would almost certainly belong to the Conservative Party. If they had such a Committee of Selection chosen entirely from one Party its decisions would not command the assent of the people of Scotland. Whether they chose rightly or wrongly it would be liable to criticism which would weaken the authority of the panel it would have to choose. What was to be the life of the Committee of Selection?

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR)

Sub-section (d) of Section 4 is intended to cover that point. It is to be re-convened at the end of five years.

*LORD TWEEDMOUTH

thought the point was not made clear. So far as appeared from the section the same four men chosen when the Act came into operation might go on to the end of all time. There had been no time since the Bill was introduced to gather any real expression of Scotch opinion with regard to it. He had endeavoured to do so, and as far as he had gathered it the general opinion of all parties was that the Bill was not sufficient, and would not satisfy the natural desires of the people of Scotland. He therefore appealed to the Secretary for Scotland to give up all idea of passing the Bill this Session. Let it be discussed and referred to a Select Committee, and after that go through its further stages; let the Bill as so amended remain before the country during the autumn, and then the House would be in a better position to deal with the subject next year. He could assure his noble Friend that he should be only too glad in a reasonable manner to give him all such assistance as he could desire, in obtaining a thoroughly good Measure for the reform of Scotch Private Bill procedure.

*THE EARL OF MORLEY (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)

said that he wished to acknowledge the courtesy of the noble Lord in showing him the Bill some time ago, together with the criticisms which he had received with reference to it. He could assure the noble Lord that any remarks which he might make upon the Bill, would be made in no unfriendly spirit. Of course the present system of Private Bill legislation was not ideally perfect. There were complaints, not only that it consumed too much of the time of Parliament—this did not apply to this House so much as to the House of Commons, though he found no burning desire on the part of the noble Lords to take part on Private Bill Committees; but also, and this was more important, as to the expense, delay, and inconvenience which was caused to promoters and opponents. In addition, with respect to Ireland and Scotland, there was the sentimental desire of the inhabitants of those countries to have their Private Bill legislation localised. He was strongly of opinion that with regard to Private Bill legislation generally, there were reforms which might considerably simplify and cheapen the procedure. He argued that it was very-desirable, if possible, to shorten and cheapen the process of advertising and serving notices; but no noble Lord would desire that any person's property should be affected without due notice. ["Hear, hear!"] Then he believed that the system of Provisional Orders might be further extended with advantage. At present that system had been decidedly successful; but of course it covered only a small portion of ground of private legislation. He was very much struck with the increase of the application by small municipalities to Parliament for legislation. He would suggest to those who were responsible for the Local Government and Home Office administration, that some alteration and extension of the present Public Health Acts might render it absolutely unnecessary for many of these costly applications to be made. ["Hear, hear !"] As to the Bill itself, he looked upon it as a step in the direction of increasing the scope and field for Provisional Orders, and he should not be doing his duty if he did not explain to the House, what he thought the result of the Bill would be —and its scope was much wider than Lord Tweedmouth seemed to suppose. He should also suggest certain amendments, as at a later stage he would not be able to address the House. The normal system contemplated by the Bill was that Scotch Private Bills would be dealt with generally by the Secretary for Scotland and the Commission of Inquiry. There would be notices, and there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the Secretary for Scotland and his coadjutors from making such regulations as they thought fit for the issue of such notices. There would be Standing Orders which would have to be complied with, and an examiner to certify that they had been complied with. The Order would go through the local inquiry and then, if approved by the Secretary for Scotland, it became law and had the force of a statute. The only contact which these Orders in the normal state would have with Parliament was at two stages of their existence—at the tme of their birth and at the time that they assumed almost their final form, when they would be deposited in the Private Bill Offices. Bills not dealt with in this simple way would be brought before Parliament under two conditions. The first condition, was when the Secretary of State and the Chairman of Committees of the two Houses should be of opinion that the Order ought to come before Parliament as an ordinary Private Bill; but in the first place an appeal to that effect should have been lodged by the promoters or by the opponents. He did not imagine that the hearings of these appeals would be expensive. The question would be decided by the Secretary for Scotland and the two Chairmen on reading the Bill, and any documents which they might call. Then again, before, the Order assumed its final form, an opponent was to have an opportunity of petitioning the Secretary for Scotland and in that event the Order was to be referred to Parliament to go through the ordinary forms of a Provisional Order Bill, with this difference—that it would be submitted to a Joint Committee of both Houses instead of to a Committee of each House. The Joint Committee would have ample powers to give costs by a simple majority; and that would have a very deterrent effect upon petitioners. The effect of these proposals undoubtedly was to transfer in the case of all Bills that did not come before Parliament, all the power now vested in the Legislature to the Secretary for Scotland. ["Hear, hear" !] It was true that the Orders were to be deposited in the offices of the Chairmen of the two Houses. But the position of things now was that the Departments of the State reported to Parliament; and under these proposals that position of things would be reversed. The Chairmen would have power to report to the Secretary for Scotland, but there would be no obligation on him to attend to their recommendations. Therefore a large part of the power now vested in the Legislature would be transferred to a branch of the executive. Some persons were a little apt to leave out of sight the importance of the present procedure on unopposed Bills and the unopposed portions of opposed Bills. At present all such Bills were read before the beginning of the Session in the office of the Chairman of each House. They were noted, and the agents of the promoters were interviewed on the notes; and exception was taken to anything which appeared to be contrary to the public interest, to the practice of Parliament, or to the usual form in which Bills were presented. Points of the greatest importance almost always arose in connection with unopposed Bills, and under the proposals of Mr. Balfour neither he nor the Chairman of the House of Commons would have any opportunity of seeing the Reports of Public Departments or of interviewing the promoters and their agents. Their reading of the Bills must be much more perfunctory. Too much stress had been laid on the importance of the model Bills. They were good guides to the draftsman, but they were not intended to be-rigid, and their clauses had to be adapted to new circumstances and combinations of circumstances. There was an important series of Bills this year—dealing with the laying down of electrical tramways— and with respect to these, very considerable alterations had been made in the model clauses. Then the model Bills by no means covered the whole ground of private Bill legislation. It was more important to keep to the established practice of Parliament, and to prevent provisions being put into Private Bills which ought not to be there. For instance, attempts were not infrequently made to introduce the punishment of imprisonment for a breach of the regulations of municipalities, and it had always been held that that was not a proper provision for Private Bills. Then, too, clauses were sometimes introduced extending the investments in which trustees might legally invest. All these questions were very important, they were hardly ever opposed, and they had to be dealt with with very great care and circumspection. But he would remind the House that, when he dealt with them as Chairman of Committees, he was absolutely responsible to Parliament. He was acting in large measure on the advice of an experienced legal adviser and on the, reports of the public offices, and if his decisions or the decisions of the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons were wrong, they could always be appealed against in Parliament. That would not be the case with the Secretary for Scotland under this Bill, for the Bill placed him in a position much stronger and more irresponsible. There was another point in regard to the Secretary for Scotland's position—that was his relation to the other public departments. For instance, the Board of Trade had now power to issue Provisional Orders and pass confirming Acts through Parliament, though that power was limited to works the estimates of which did not exceed a certain sum. Under this Bill, as he understood it, the Secretary for Scotland would have power to order such works as the Board of Trade were now qualified to order, of any size, or of any importance; but he would not have the advantage of the expert advice which the Board of Trade enjoyed in those matters. He suggested to his noble Friend, whether it would not be possible to give within their own jurisdiction concurrent power to the Board of Trade to draw these Provisional Orders; otherwise he would be authorised to issue Orders dealing with larger matters than the Board of Trade, though he had neither the staff nor the experience to deal with them possessed by that Department. He would also remind the House that at present Bills were drawn by experienced agents, who were responsible to the House and to him for the manner in which the work was done. In future, if this Measure were passed, Bills would not be drawn by persons so experienced in Parliamentary practice and law. The result would be, that the Orders as presented to the Secretary for Scotland would require a good deal more careful revision and criticism than the Bills which were introduced into Parliament at the present time. He thought it was certain that discrepancies would arise; between the Orders of the Secretary for Scotland and the Bills passed by Parliament. It was a question for Parliament to decide whether the simplification of procedure and the increased economy with which promoters would obtain their objects was not more than a compensation for this want of uniformity and this looseness of procedure. The only suggestion he could make whereby uniformity could be secured, and the control of Parliament, even in a slight degree, retained, was that all Orders, whether opposed or unopposed, should, as at present, pass through Parliament in confirming Bills, but if they had been before subject to local inquiry it should be contrary to the Standing Orders that at any stage in Parliament an opponent should appear against the Bill. He did not believe that would add to the cost or delay, and at any rate it would retain over these Bills a certain control on the part of Parliament, which would be capable of being exercised if occasion required. He was rather afraid that the noble Lord would say that this was contrary to the principle of his Bill. But he threw it out as a suggestion, and it was the only one he could make by which the control of Parliament could be retained to some extent without unnecessary expense. If that was not possible, he would at least suggest that the Secretary for Scotland should report to Parliament the proceedings taken in cases under this Bill. He was strongly in favour of the local inquiry as in matters of small moment a valuable method of getting at the truth; but in the case of large and important bills he did not expect much cheapness. He though it would be found by experience to be far more expensive to transport expert witnesses and legal advisers to distances from London and Edinburgh than it would be to transport non-expert witnesses to those centres. He did not think the experience of the Light Railways Commission was very promising in the matter of making local inquiries cheap. The panel from which the Commission was chosen was to consist of twelve men— six of them were to be versed in the matters to be dealt with and six wore to be men of affairs. Was not the distinction too finely drawn between the two classes of Commissioners? He would suggest whether it would not be well to say "twelve competent persons." The second criticism he had to make in regard to the tribunal was more important. He doubted the desirableness of appointing a lawyer as Chairman of the Commission, especially one of such preponderating influence as a Judge or Sheriff. He suggested that it might be desirable on several grounds to attach a legal assessor to the Commission, who would both act as legal adviser to the Secretary for Scotland, and as a convenient medium of communication between him and The Chairmen of Committees of the two Houses of Parliament. Further, such an adviser would give some element of permanence to the Commission, for he would preserve its traditions, practices, and forms, and they were both numerous and important. Under Clause 7 it appeared to him doubtful whether the Secretary for Scotland would have any power to make modifications in an Order except those which were rendered necessary by the recommendation of the Commission; and he thought it was absolutely necessary that the Secretary for Scotland should have authority to introduce such modifications as might be required to bring a Bill into its proper and regular form. He would also like to point out to his noble Friend that under the Bill as at present the Chairmen of the two Houses would have no opportunity of seeing whether their suggestions as to Orders had been carried into effect or not. He wished to express his strong approval of the suggestion that after an Order had passed through the local inquiry it should only pass through one Committee in Parliament. He would, indeed, be very glad if eventually the system of Joint Committees of both Houses might have larger extensions than it had in this Bill. It would save a great deal of the time of Parliament, and also a great deal of expense on the part of suitors. Another point was that it rested with the opponents or the promoters of Bills to ask the Secretary of State that they should be introduced as Private Bills rather than as Orders, he ventured to think the Secretary of State or some one else ought to have the power on his own initiative to send a Bill as a Private Bill to Parliament. [" Hear, hear !"] He did not think it would occur in many cases. This year Scottish Private Bill legislation consisted altogether of 30 Bills, of which one related to a public company—and that was a class of Bill which he thought should be dealt with by Parliament—three related to large municipalities that were not included now in the Police of Scotland Act, 12 related to railways, and 14 to other matters. His own impression was that there were very few of these which would have come to Parliament; most of them would have come under the purview of the noble Lord's Act, and, indeed, he thought a very large proportion of Scottish private legislation would be so dealt with. The effect undoubtedly would in all ordinary cases to transfer the legislative power from Parliament to the Secretary of State. He quite admitted that it was a very well considered attempt in the direction of the reform which was desired, and that it would very materially assist the Scottish suitors, especially in small and purely local matters. He could not help feeling, however, a little misgiving at so large a transference of power from the Legislature to the executive. ["Hear, hear !"] He confessed he should like to see some control in Parliament over the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and he saw none at all in this Bill, he should like to have seen the process of Scottish as well as English and Irish legislation cheapened and simplified, while retaining Parliamentary control, which might he exercised as the occasion arose, over that legislation. It would be interesting to see what the opinion of Scottish constituencies would be. The Bill was very important and far-reaching, because, if adopted, it would certainly be used as a precedent for other parts of the United Kingdom. He trusted his noble Friend would give them time to consider the provisions of such an important and complicated Measure. ["Hear, hear !"]

*THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said he concurred with almost every word that had fallen from the Chairman of Committees. He thought tins Bill would have a larger effect and wider scope, than seemed to be supposed. He wished to lay stress on the enormous power given by this Bill to the Secretary for Scotland. He quite agreed with the authors of the Bill that it was right to proceed by Provisional Order, and thought that was the only direction that was open to them. But this Bill went further, and placed in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland almost absolutely, and for the first time, the whole Private Bill business for Scotland. Hitherto the Secretary for Scotland, who, of course, changed with the Government, had had nothing whatever to do with Private Bill legislation, which had been in the hands' of the two Houses, and particularly in the hands of the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means. The two Chairmen, however, were placed by this Bill in a very secondary position. Even after an inquiry had taken place, the Secretary of State could refuse to issue an Order at all, and there was nothing to say that he was to give rhyme or reason for such action. He might also make modifications. He was then to send a copy of the Order to the two Chairmen, but there was no power, so far as he could see, to the Chairmen to make any alteration in the Order. He submitted that this control of Private Bill legislation was not a proper sphere at all for the Secretary for Scotland, who had ample occupation at the present time in the general supervision of public measures in Parliament, and in various very important executive duties. The powers which it was now proposed to give him would occupy his whole time, even if he were competent to deal with these mailers, but he submitted the Secretary of State was not fitted to deal with them, and had no experience of anything of the kind. With regard to administrative work of this kind they had very considerable experience of the Secretary for Scotland as an official—he did not refer to the noble Lord himself—and that was by no means of a favourable character. [Laughter.] Moreover, the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means were particularly well fitted to deal with this private business. He would suggest that the Secretary for Scotland should be excised almost entirely from this Bill; he referred particularly to the powers which were given him in Clause 7. Half of the members of the proposed tribunal were to be "persons versed in matters in respect of which Parliamentary powers were wont to be sought." If this meant lawyers or professional persons of some sort, he must enter a respectful protest against gentlemen of that kind being on a tribunal to decide matters of this kind. His personal experience, which he was sure would be confirmed by every Scotch Peer in the House who had anything to do with legal business in Scotland, was that an enormous amount of canvassing would be carried on by gentlemen anxious to have the six paid places for obvious reasons. In the first place, the position would give them a good deal of immediate business and some dignity, and if they obtained a position on the panel their own private business would be indirectly promoted. Everybody would feel that one of these gentlemen must be the person to employ. He would be regarded as a person very much thought of by his Lord Provost, or the Convener of his county, or the Secretary for Scotland. The proposed mode of appointment was all the worse because it was unnecessary. There were plenty of men of business and men of affairs who would be quite prepared to undertake the duties without being paid. Unpaid men were likely to be better than paid men. He hoped this portion of the Bill would be given up in Committee. He deprecated the appointment of a Judge or Sheriff. A large demand on their time would be involved, and he did not think, with every respect for the Bench, that it was necessary that that demand should be made. They did not have legal assessors on Private Bill Committees, and he believed their decisions commanded to a large extent public confidence. He hoped that the Bill would be sent to a Standing Committee. It was most desirable in the public interest that the Chairman of Committees, Lord Morley, should be in a position to advise the House with regard to an important matter of this sort, which was his own peculiar province. If the Bill were considered in Standing Committee, he hoped they would have the assistance of the Chairman of Committees. As far as he could see, the Bill was a very considerable advance. It was not an ambitious Bill. As far as he could judge, it was a sensible Bill in the principle it laid down, and he thought it was likely to confer considerable benefit on Scotland.

LORD BALFOUR

said he certainly had no reason to complain of the manner in which his attempt to deal with tins subject on behalf of the Government had been received by the House. There had been no attempt from any quarter to controvert the proposition that some reform in the present system was required, and the provisions of the Bill had not been strongly criticised except in points of detail by either of the two noble Lords who first addressed the House; and the noble Lord who last spoke distinctly said he thought, after the previous history of the question and the previous efforts made, there was no resource left to those who desired to attempt reform but to admit that reform by means of an extension of Provisional Order legislation. He himself came to that conclusion as far back as 1888. Thin was the Bill alluded to in the Queen's Speech at the commencement of the Session, and there had been no change of intention on the part of those responsible for the Bill. In regard to the shortness of time between the presentation of the Bill and the Second Reading, to get the Second Reading before Whitsuntide it was necessary, for various reasons, the noble Lord explained, to take it that day. It would be convenient that a little time should elapse between the Second Reading and subsequent stages, and no attempt would be made to take any further stage before the Whitsuntide Recess. Lord Tweedmouth was not hostile to the Bill, but exhibited a, tendency to minimise the reform which would be effected by the Bill. He himself did not describe it as a larger Measure than it was, for fear of exciting expectations which it would not be possible afterwards to satisfy. But Lord Morley put the matter on its true basis. It was his intention, and he believed it was distinctly foreshadowed in the Bill, that, if it passed, the system of legislation by Provisional Order would become the rule, and the existing system, as far as Scotland was concerned, would be the exception. Directions were given in the Bill to the Secretary for Scotland and the Chairmen of Committees that if any proposal which came before them raised a question of policy or principle, it should be determined by Parliament, and the procedure would be by Private Bill. They would have to consider, not whether it was convenient for promoter or opponent that that course should be taken, but whether the questions raised were of a character and magnitude which rendered it necessary to deal with them by Private Bill. Those acquainted with the subject knew it was difficult to define all the subjects that came before Parliament in the name of Private Bill legislation, that no course was open but to give some general directions of this kind, and that any attempt to define what proposals should be dealt with one way or the other would be foredoomed to failure. The Secretary for Scotland would be associated with the Chairmen of Committees in deciding the matter. It would tend to give confidence to those in Scotland interested in the subject that the question whether procedure should be by Provisional Order or private Bill should not be decided on the prepossessions of the Chairmen of Committees of the two Houses, but that they would have the advice and the tendency of the Secretary for Scotland to modify their decision in the direction of having more Provisional Orders and fewer private Bills in the future. He would not follow the noble Lord into his complaint that there was no Scotch legislation last year. It was not quite germane to the point before the House, but he would remind him that there was such a Measure an the Agricultural Bating Bill, which applied to Scotland, and Bills which applied to England were equally to the interest of Scotland, which was also included in the Light Railways Act and other Acts passed by the Legislature last year. He thought he had now said enough with reference to the point as to the Report of the Committee of 1888 having been set aside by him. He had put aside these proposals for this reason—on three or four occasions since the presentation of that Report, schemes which were founded upon it had been submitted to Parliament, but only in one case was a Second Reading reached, and in that case when the Bill was referred to a Select Committee of the other House, it was so changed and altered that the Government of the day did not proceed with ii. The real difficulty of the whole question was how they were to obtain the practical benefits of local inquiry, and at the same time preserve the effective supremacy of Parliament, and he agreed with the last speaker that the most hopeful solution of the difficulty was rather to be found in the Provisional Order system than in any other system which had been suggested. Lord Tweedmouth had told the House that the Bill to which he referred must have cost £1,000 for preliminary notices at 9s. a piece. That statement had surprised him greatly, and he thought that there must have been some special reason which they did not know for that heavy expenditure. His own impression was that such expenditure was wholly unnecessary, and that Glasgow, like other large cities employing town clerks, might have done the business at much less cost. But even if it were necessary now under the Standing Orders to spend 9s. upon each of these notices, it would not be necessary under this Bill, because power was given by it to prescribe, the conditions under which notices should be given, and there was nothing to prevent its being prescribed that these notices should be sent by registered letter. One criticism which had been passed on this Measure by all those who had spoken was that there was too much of the Secretary for Scotland in the Bill, he thought that the position which it was proposed to give the Secretary for Scotland was rather misunderstood. It was not intended to give him unchecked power to do what he liked with the Bills submitted to him. As far as the opposed clauses of a Bill were concerned the intent ion was that the Secretary for Scotland should only make such alterations in the draft Provisional Order as were recommended by the tribunal which had heard the parties, and as far as unopposed clauses were concerned his proposal was that the Secretary for Scotland should only make such changes as he was advised by the Chairman of Committees were necessary in order to bring those clauses into conformity with the general practice of Parliament respecting Provisional Orders. If his intentions with regard to this matter were nor clearly embodied in the provisions of the Bill, there would be no difficulty in amending it so as to remove all ambiguity. There was a provision in the Bill which allowed any opponent of a Provisional Order to require that it should be laid before Parliament, and he was, in addition, prepared to consider the propriety of laying the Order before Parliament upon the initiative or demand of the Chairman of Committees of either House, although by this concession he feared that he might be encouraging criticism of the Bill us a measure of reform and relief. He had been asked whether an omnibus Bill could be the subject of a Provisional Order under the Bill, and he saw nothing to prevent it. The intention, in fact, was to include what were known as omnibus Bills. Being made up of a large collection of comparatively small points, omnibus Bills constitued precisely that class of legislation which ought to be the subject of local inquiry, because such Bills seldom contained large questions of principle. The noble Earl who preceded him in the Debate had made some rather severe comments upon the proposed method of selecting the panel from whom those who were to preside over these Inquiries were to chosen, and he had criticised particularly the proposal respecting the appointment of a judge or sheriff. But it surely was desirable that there should be some one upon the tribunal who had a knowledge of the law of evidence and of legal matters. He was, however, quite willing to consider the suggestion that there should be a legal assessor instead. He had been sorry to hear Lord Tweedmouth's remarks concerning the choice of the conveners of counties as a Committee of selection. He trusted that the noble Lord would accept his assurance that when he made that choice he did not give a thought to their political complexion. He might point out that those who elected the County Councils in Scotland were almost the same as those who elected Members of Parliament. If the conveners of counties inclined more to his own political views than to those of the noble Lord, the fact remained that they were the persons best fitted in the opinion of the electorate to till the positions to which they were returned. He could not help thinking that it was unfortunate that the noble Lord should have raised the question of the political complexion of this proposed Committee of selection, because he felt certain that political considerations would not sway the minds of those who would form that Committee, and he always noticed that when people were put into quasi-judicial positions they made fair selections without regarding the political complexion of those whom they selected. But he was not wedded to this particular method of selecting the tribunal, and if a better could be suggested, he would give it most fair and impartial consideration. He was certain, however, that any proposal to submit the matter to the Executive Government of the day would meet with great opposition, because it would at once be presumed that the appointments were to be political. Replying to his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) he assured him that it was not his intention to assume any of the functions of the Chairman of Committees. Lord Tweed-mouth had expressed the opinion that to allow the Secretary for Scotland to remit a Bill to Parliament on the Motion of one opponent was to give him too much power. He should have thought that the question of the power given to the Secretary of State would fade into insignificance when compared with so important a question as that of the right of a party desiring it to appeal to Parliament. Everybody agreed that in some form or other the retention of the ultimate control of both Houses of Parliament must be secured. The necessity for that was recognised in every Report on this subject, and by nearly every witness who gave evidence before the Committee of 1888. It was recognised, for example, by Mr. Pember, Mr. Beveridge, who was a Parliamentary agent, and by Mr. Pym, and all three were in favour of a much larger scheme of devolution than that now proposed. No man's status ought to be interfered with without the sanction of Parliament, and he would not be responsible for any scheme that disregarded that principle. He had now replied to all the points that had been raised. He was not disappointed at the reception given to the Bill. The criticisms passed upon it only proved how great were the difficulties in the way of dealing with this subject satisfactorily. He trusted that ultimately the Measure might receive the sanction of Parliament.

LORD HERSCHELL

, while agreeing without reserve to the proposal that there should be a power of appeal to Parliament, suggested that a single individual ought not to be allowed to render nugatory all the proceedings already taken by the time his appeal was lodged. He also suggested whether, in order to prevent this action from being improperly taken, the Committee should not be enabled to give costs even by a majority against the person failing. It had been found to work extremely well in many cases not to give any absolute right of appeal, and yet not to leave the party without the power of appealing if he had a real case. In certain cases in the Privy Council, in order to be enabled to appeal, the party who desired it must come before the Judicial Committee and satisfy them that he had sufficient ground for appealing. The matter was always very carefully considered, and unless the Committee was satisfied that there appeared to be good ground to believe that the judgment below was wrong, the leave to appeal was refused. This course was adopted in the Clergy Discipline Act, and he believed that where it had been adopted it had worked well. Would it not he possible to adopt the idea embodied in that legislation in such a Measure as this —not to give the individual an absolute right to compel the proceedings in that House to be gone through again as if there had been no inquiry, but to require that there should be a petition presented and an inquiry into it by a Committee. This would be a practical cheek on any improper proceedings to get rid of the work done before, and would be a more effectual one than the mere fear of having to pay costs.

Bill Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.