Sitting of 8 July 1889

IMPRISONMENT OF MR. CONYBEARE.
MR. SPEAKERinformed the House that he had received the following letter relating to the imprisonment of Mr. Conybeare, Member of this House:—
Lifford,
5 July, 1889.
Sir,
I beg to inform you that on this day Mr. Conybeare, a Member of the House, has been committed on my warrant to Londonderry Gaol for three calendar months, as a misdemeanant of the first division, having been convicted by me, upon appeal, of taking part in a criminal conspiracy to interfere with the administration of the Law.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
THOS. S. WEBB,
County Court Judge and Chairman of Quarter Sessions for Donegal.
The Right Hon. the Speaker.

QUESTIONS.

  THE MAMLUTDARS.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the statement of the Calcutta correspondent of the Times, that the Mamlutdars, who testified on oath that they bad purchased their offices or promotion by bribery, "are still retained in office on full pay, and allowed to exercise jurisdiction in civil suits," (1) whether Balkrishna Govind Sindekar, regarding whom the Crawford Commissioners (page 24) report "that he was, on his own showing, no victim of extortion, but a willing party to a corrupt bargain," still retains office on full pay, and exercises jurisdiction in civil suits;. (2) whether Balvant Narayan Dabir, regarding whom the Crawford Commissioners (page 30) report "that he shows himself in no sense the victim of extortion or oppression, but a man who conceived the idea of offering a bribe for that to which he had no special claims," still retains office on full pay, and exercises jurisdiction in civil suits; (3) whether Daji Ballai Paranjpe, concerning whom the Crawford Commissioners (page 56) report "that, according to his own showing, he was not in any sense a victim of extortion, but a willing party to a corrupt bargain," still retains office on full pay, and exercises jurisdiction in civil suits; (4) whether Ramchandra Krishna Vinze, concerning whom the Crawford Commissioners (page 70) report "that he is a man who confesses to having come to volunteer a 'bribe,'" still retains office on full pay, and exercises jurisdiction in civil suits; and (5) if he would name the "three officers," stated to have been dismissed from Government employment."
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): Sindekar has been retained in office by the Government of Bombay because they are of the opinion that, taking all the facts into consideration, he ought not to be called corrupt, but was a victim to oppression and extortion. (2) Dabir retains his office of Karkan. He has not, and has never had, jurisdiction in civil suits. (3) Paranjpe retains his office, but has no jurisdiction in civil suits. (4) Vinze has reverted from his

  1673
  position of Acting Mamlutdar to his original office of Chitris. He has no jurisdiction in civil suits. (5) The officers are Rao Saheb Binder Gopal; Narayan Shrinivras; Vinayakrao Rangrath Purhandharé.
  DR. CAMERON: Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House if it is true, as stated in the Calcutta correspondence of the Times of the 24th ultimo, and repeated in the Calcutta telegram in the Times of the 1st instant, that the High Court of Judicature of Bombay has pronounced a Judgment affirming that the corrupt Mamlutdars and Magistrates are, by the operation of 49 Geo. 3, c. 126, "disabled persons in law to all intents and purposes to have, occupy, or enjoy the office or offices" for which they have paid bribes?
  SIR J. GORST: There has not yet been sufficient time for the arrival in this country of the Judgment referred to in the question; and the Secretary of State cannot express any opinion upon it until he has seen it.
  DR. CAMERON: I will repeat the question on Thursday.

  OBSOLETE ANCHORS.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many anchors of obsolete pattern are at present housed in Anchor Lane, at Portsmouth Dockyard; how many of similar type are in store at other Dockyards, at home and abroad; and whether it is intended to take advantage of the recent advance in the iron market to dispose of all useless and obsolete anchors now in stock at Portsmouth or elsewhere, replacing them with stockless anchors similar to those now being used in the Mercantile Marine?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): It is hardly correct to describe the anchors mentioned in the question as useless and obsolete; for, though anchors of a newer pattern will be largely introduced in modern ships, the anchors of the older patterns are required as spare for the large number of ships now supplied with these patterns and for moorings, for which purpose a considerable stock has to be maintained.

  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Central Council of the National Teachers' Association in Ireland have recently laid before him a scheme, under which the position of the teachers would be greatly improved, without any serious demand upon the Treasury; and if he can say whether the Government see their way to legislation with this object in view?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It is the case that the Central Executive Committee of the Irish National Teachers' Organization have recently suggested the imposition of a national rate to augment the teachers' salaries. Without entering upon the question of the merits or demerits of the proposal, I was obliged to point out, in answer to the memorialists, that it was quite clear that the Government could not at the present time introduce a measure to carry out any proposal of the kind with the slightest prospect of success. And, I fear, I cannot give a more satisfactory answer to my hon. Friend.

  WAR OFFICE PENSIONS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with regard to the case of Andrew Robertson, new of Girvan, N.B., late acting paymaster sergeant Royal Scots Fusiliers, who was formerly awarded by the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital a pension of 2s. 3d. per day, and which pension has since been reduced by the War Office to 2s. 0½d. per day, if he will state on what grounds and under what authority this pension has been so reduced?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital granted Andrew Robertson a pension which the Exchequer and Audit Department pointed out was in excess of the sum allowed for his service by the Royal Warrant, and the Commissioners thereupon reduced the pension to the authorized amount.

  LAND IN THE TRIM UNION.
  MR. RICHARD POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary

  1675
  to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the Land Commissioners have not yet fixed the rents of plots of saleable land in the Trim Union; and, whether he is aware that the Provisional Order, authorizing cottages to be built, was issued by the Local Government Board on 30th November, 1887; that it was appealed against, and made absolute in April 1888; that cases were sent to the Land Commissioners, and all questions in reference to them answered in March 1889and that since then nothing has been done?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners state that the Provisional Order of April, 1888, relates to the third scheme for the erection of labourers' cottages, in the Union of Trim. The rents payable in respect of the plots taken under the two former schemes have been all fixed, and the orders completed. Under the third scheme applications were lodged in 39 cases, in all of which, with three exceptions, the rents were fixed in May last. In two of the remaining cases it is expected that orders will be made immediately. The third case has been adjourned for Amendment.

  ARKLOW.
  MR. WILLIAM CORBET: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the rateable valuation of the town of Arklow; what is the amount of its present liability in relation to the harbour works; whether he is aware that the south pier is being undermined, owing to the want of protection which a north pier would give; and whether, looking to the inability of the town to bear a further impost, the Treasury will give a small grant to lay down the concrete blocks which were made for the construction of the north pier, and, if necessary, introduce a short Bill for the purpose?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I am informed that the rateable value of the town of Arklow is about £5,500, and that the town is liable for an annuity for a term of 50 years, in relation to the harbour works.

  THE RIVER ROBE.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
  1676
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether complaints have reached him that a large sum has been spent on the drainage of the River Robe, with, as result, yearly flooding of the lands on the banks where the work remains unfinished; whether a comparatively small sum would remedy the evils complained of; and, whether he will now have the drainage of the River Robe completed without further delay?
  MR. JACKSON: On two occasions recently I have answered similar questions about the River Robe. I can only repeat that I know of no intention on the part of the Government to proceed with drainage works on that river.

  ILLEGALLY SHIPPING PAUPERS.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to the fact that two men named Hoey and Brogan were fined £5 each by the Liverpool Stipendiary Magistrate on 2nd July for illegally shipping paupers to act as seamen on board the Adriatic; and, whether the owners of the Adriatic are liable to a penalty of £20 for each man so shipped; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to take any steps to enforce this penalty?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The two men Hoey and Brogan were convicted, not because they supplied paupers, but because they illegally supplied men without first obtaining a license to supply them from the Board of Trade. Owners are liable to a penalty for employing unauthorized persons to supply seamen. Owing to the absence of the ship and the absconding of Hoey and Brogan, no proceedings can at the moment be taken against the owners for employing them, and a prosecution will depend on the nature of the evidence that can be produced hereafter.

  THE SALVATION ARMY.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the sentence passed upon a Salvation Army captain, named Amy, by the Nottingham Borough Magistrates, on 19th June, for drawing a vehicle, that was proceeding on the wrong side of the road, out of the way

  1677
  of a procession, in order that it might not cause any injury to the processionists; and what action he proposes to take in the case, since "Captain "Amy has suffered a term of imprisonment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the justices that the vehicle was not proceeding on the wrong side of the road, but had stopped and was standing close to the kerb opposite a shop to enable the driver to give an order. There is a wide thoroughfare at this point, and there was no other vehicle about, so that it was easy for the processionists to have avoided the vehicle altogether, as the driver signalled to them with his hand to do. Instead of doing this the members of the Army seized the horse and forcibly removed the vehicle from its position. These facts were proved to the satisfaction of the Justices. The defendant was represented by a solicitor, and no notice of appeal was given, and no point of law raised during the hearing. Upon this statement of the Justices I do not propose to take any action.

  MANUFACTURE OF POSTAGE STAMPS, &c.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, although the cost of the manufacture and supply of postage stamps, postcards, &c., is charged upon the Post Office Vote, the administration of these moneys vests in the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; whether, in view of the evidence given last Session before the Committee on Revenue Estimates, Her Majesty's Government intend to allow this system to continue; and whether care has been taken that no clause is inserted in the contract now been entered into between the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Messrs. De la Rue, which would place any impediment in the way of a transfer of the administration of the Post Office Vote, for the manufacture, &c., of postal stationery, to the Postmaster General?
  MR. JACKSON: My answer to the first paragraph of this question is yes. As to the second question the matter has been before the Government; there are considerable difficulties in the way of altering the present system, and
  1678
  the advantages to be gained are very doubtful, but I am not in a position to say what the final judgment may be. I am not aware of any clause in the contract with Mr. De la Rue which will fetter or limit the discretion of the Government in this respect.

  IRELAND—PRISON TREATMENT.
  DR. FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the reason why Irish Members of Parliament going to prison under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act are now conveyed in close prison vans, whereas in the cold season of the year they have been conveyed in open brakes or ears?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There does not appear to be any general change in the mode of conveying to prison Irish Members of Parliament convicted under the statute quoted. But, as I have already explained, in reply to a question asked in this House a few days ago, the practice at Clonmel of conveying such prisoners on the constabulary breaks has been discontinued since May last, owing to the refusal of the hon. Members for East Tipperary (Mr. T. J. Condon), and South Tipperary (Mr. John O'Connor), to enter the breaks when being brought to Clonmel Prison.
  MR. SEXTON: It is true, in regard to Dr. Tanner, that the prison van into which he was forced is one that is not even used for convicts at Clonmel?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask for notice before I can answer that question.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prison van is without ventilation, and is absolutely sickening?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information to that effect.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if so, what instructions or explanations have been issued by the Prisons Board of Ireland or by the Government as to the mode in which the Prison Authorities are to carry out the new rule with reference to the exercise of prisoners, or pointing out the class of persons who are to be

  1679
  relieved from association with other criminals; whether it is a fact that the Reverend Father Stephens and Mr. Kelly. imprisoned under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act in Derry Gaol, have since the passing of the rule been required to take exercise with certain Belfast men who had been convicted of wholesale frauds and forgeries in connection with the lives of inebriates and persons suffering from fatal diseases, and whether, on declining to do so, they were deprived of exercise and confined to punishment cells; whether the Belfast forgers had on their part been relieved under the new rules from wearing the prison dress and from taking exercise with other felons; and, whether such action of the Prison Authorities is in accordance with instructions of the Prisons Board, or meets with the sanction of the Government?
  MR. MACNEILLhad also the following Question on the Paper:—I beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether it is true, as stated in the Daily News of Thursday, that Father Stephens and Mr. Kelly, who are serving a term of imprisonment under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act in Derry Gaol, were ordered on Wednesday morning to exercise with the prisoners convicted for insurance frauds in Belfast, and, on their refusal to do so, were, and are, still confined to their cells; and, whether, having regard to the fact that Captain Wilson committed an error of judgment (which was admitted by the Chief-Secretary) in refusing to allow two female prisoners from Gweedore to wear warm clothing supplied to them by friends for the journey between Derry and Letterkenny, and also, on the 20th May, 1889, remonstrated with the Rev. John Doherty, Roman Catholic administrator and chaplain of the gaol, for calling to see—
  "A certain class of prisoners, such as the Rev. Mr. Stephens, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. M'Hugh, oftener than others confined in the prison;"
  the Chief Secretary, as head of the Prisons Board (Ireland), will take any and what steps to prevent future errors of judgment on the part of this Gentleman?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In regard to the question of the right hon. Gentleman and also of the hon. Member for South
  1680
  Donegal (Mr. Mac Neill) I have to say that I only received a Report just before entering the House, and I shall be obliged therefore if the questions are deferred until to-morrow.

  EMPLOYMENT IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that under paragraph 3 of the regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission on 1st June, 1881, the list of persons eligible for occasional employment as messengers, porters, &c., in Government Departments is limited to persons who have served in the Army, Navy, Royal Irish Constabulary, or London Metropolitan Police, and therefore an ex-Station Sergeant of the Dublin Metropolitan Police having a pension for life, on making application for such employment, was informed by the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission that he was ineligible for registration as a temporary messenger; and whether he will take such steps as will rectify this omission, and in this respect place the Dublin Metropolitan Police on terms of equality with the London Metropolitan Police?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The omission of Dublin Metropolitan Police Pensioners from the classes of persons eligible, under certain conditions, to be placed upon the list of temporary men messengers appears to have arisen through inadvertence, and will be rectified. I may, however, add that it seems that demands for such occasional assistance in Dublin are rare, the total for the past three years numbering six only.

  POST OFFICE AT NEW QUAY.
  MR. BOWEN ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any appointment has yet been made to the Post Office at New Quay, Cardiganshire; whether a memorial has been received by the Government, signed by 623 adult inhabitants of the district, including persons of all parties, in favour of Mr. Hugh Davies, who had been employed under the late postmaster for 16 years, and had for eight of those years done all the indoor work; and, whether testimonials have been received in favour

  1681
  of Mr. Davies from the leading men of the neighbourhood?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): In reply to the hon. Member I have to state that no appointment has yet been made to the Post Office at New Quay, Cardiganshire. A numerously-signed memorial and testimonials have, I understand, been received in favour of Mr. Hugh Davies by the Government, and I have no doubt that Mr. Davies' claims, together with those of other applicants, will be fully considered by the Lords of the Treasury, 'with whom the nomination rests.

  INSPECTORSHIP OF ARMY CLOTHING.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any appointment has yet been made, and, if so, when, to the Inspectorship of Army Clothing; what is the age of the selected candidate and his salary; and, whether in view of the intention of the Government to alter during this Session the regulations as to pensions, any provision was made for bringing the appointment under the new instead of the old scale of pensions?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The appointment to the Inspectorship of cloths, serges, and made-up clothing was made on the 1st May last. The selected candidate was 46 years of age, and his salary is £450, rising to £600 a year. The appointment is to he governed, as regards superannuation, by the new rules.
  MR. HANBURY: Is it the fact that the advertisements issued distinctly stated that the applicants were to be under 40 years of age?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The person selected was considered to be by far the most eligible.

  FATHER STEPHENS' IMPRISONMENT.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the case that during the first month of the Reverend Father Stephens' imprisonment in Darry Gaol he was allowed no books but a Bible and a Prayer Book; whether, from the second month onward, Father Stephens is allowed by rule two books at a time, but that the Governor interprets the
  1682
  rule to mean that these two books must be selected from the Prison Library, and may not he changed during the whole period of the sentence; and, whether the writing materials supplied to Father Stephens in the second month of his term of imprisonment consist of a slate and slate-pencil?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that the reply to the inquiry in the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The prisoner is only entitled during the second and third months to one book for the whole period, which he has received, and which was selected, as required, from the prison library, and which may be changed after the third month in ordinary course. A slate and pencil are only allowed by the regulations during the present stage of his imprisonment.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the regulation is a general one, or whether it has been made by the Governor?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should imagine that it is a general regulation.

  OUTRAGES IN ARMENIA.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the fact that a Report upon the murders and other outrages recently perpetrated by the Kurds in the neighbourhood of Van, in Armenia, has been sent by Her Majesty's Consular Agent at Van to the British Embassy at Constantinople; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will obtain this Report and present it to the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): Reports upon those events have been received and will be included in the papers which it has been resolved to present to Parliament.
  MR. BRYCE: When will the papers be presented?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I cannot name the day, but they are in an advanced state of preparation.

  WOOLWICH DOCKYARD—DISCHARGE OF WORKMEN.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, is he aware that, on 23rd March, 1889, 12 men en-

  1683
  gaged in the Inspection Department at the Royal Dockyard Woolwich, received notice that their services would not be required after 30th March; that one of these men had been identified with the exposure of the appointment of contractors' men as "viewers" in place of mechanics employed by the Government; that, in spite of a printed order to the contrary posted in the workshop, permission to see Colonel Barrington, Superintendent of Inspectors, was refused on the ground that he was too busy; will he inform the House whether it is permissible for properly qualified mechanics to be discharged from the Royal Dockyard after 12 years' continuous engagement on the ground that they are "classed as agitators;" and, whether he will direct that in future all appointments as viewers shall be from among the regular employés of proved ability?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The discharges referred to were not from the Inspection Department, but from the collar-makers' shop, where a reduction of civilian workmen was rendered necessary by service changes. I am informed that there is no ground for the other statements in the question. Appointments as viewers are made, and will continue to be made, from men who are considered most qualified for the purpose, but due regard is always bad to the claims of men already in the service.

  JOBSON'S TIME FUSE.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he could appoint either a Commission or some practical person to examine into the claims of Mr. Jobson in relation to his "time fuse?"
  MR. E. STANHOPE: As I have already stated Mr. Jobson's claim to compensation for the invention of a time fuse has been reported on by a Special Committee appointed for the purpose, by the Ordnance Committee and by the Ordnance Council. They have all reported against the admissibility of the claim, and I do not think it necessary to re open the question.

  MR. P. O'BRIEN, M.P.
  DR. FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Doctors Stephen, Sullivan, and Riordan, of
  1684
  Cork, have issued the following certificate in reference to the condition of the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien):—
  "He has a jagged, contused wound on the left side of his head, on the front bone, and another at the back. The bone in front bared, but not at the back. He is very weak and faint through hæmorrhage;"
  has he been informed that erysipelas, has set in; and, can he give the House any further information as to the condition of the hon. Member?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is not a matter within my official cognizance; nor have I any special means of obtaining information on the subject.
  MR. SEXTON: Was any order given on the occasion of this deadly assult on a Member of the House by any person who was authorized to give an order?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No such order was given to the police to commit an assault. The police were ordered to prevent the mob from surging forward.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give us any information as to the condition of an hon. Member of this House who was injured on the occasion in question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no more information as to the hon. Gentleman than if he were not a Member of the House. This does not come within my cognizance.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Under the circumstances, will the hon. Gentleman take care that it shall come under his cognizance?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware that I have no means of obtaining any information with regard to the health of private individuals, whether they are Members of this House or not.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it alleged that the hon. Gentleman who was injured was guilty of any violence, or any incitement to violence; or whether he was doing anything more than quietly standing by after shaking hands with the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien)?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That question has no relation to the question on the Paper, which, as I understand it, has reference to the physical condition of an hon. Member of this House. I

  1685
  might remind the hon. Gentleman that the police requested the hon. Member for North Monaghan to remove from the place where he was, and he declined to do so.

  THE MAYOR OF CORK.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state why neither the Mayor of Cork, nor any of the local Magistrates, were consulted in regard to the preservation of peace and order in that city on the occasion of a proclamation of a meeting on Sunday last; and if it has always been the custom of the authorities to consult the Mayor, as Chief Magistrate of the city, on occasions when there is any reason to apprehend anything tending to a breach of the peace?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Mayor of Cork is reported to have been one of the chief organisers of the illegal meeting, and it was announced by the public press and by public placards that he had promised to attend the meeting. Had he not been so identified in the promotion of the illegal meeting he would have been consulted in the matter.
  MR. FLYNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether any intimation was given to the Mayor of Cork that the meeting called for last Sunday had been proclaimed by the authorities; if not, why was the usual course departed from; and was any notice of the proclamation served on the secretaries or any of the promoters of the meeting?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that a copy of the proclamation was not handed to the Mayor, or to any of the other promoters of the meeting; but the proclamations were extensively posted throughout Cork city on the previous Friday, and the local newspapers contained announcements to that effect on Friday afternoon and the following day. The proclamations were also largely posted in the county, so that all concerned had full notice.

  THE AFFAIR AT CHARLEVILLE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has seen the statements, reported in the Cork and Dublin papers, made by the two railway officials in
  1686
  regard to the firing by the police at Charleville Railway Station on Sunday last. Timothy O'Sullivan says—
  "I did not hear, and, so far as I am aware, none of the persons on the platform heard of the arrest of Mr. O'Brien, or that he was in the train. … On opening the door I saw the officer sitting, and all the constables standing. They were holding their rifles, and seemed to be very excited. They made repeated thrusts at me when I opened the door. I tried to explain to the officer I wanted the tickets, but he would not listen, and he continued to shove me off the footboard. A small crowd then gathered outside the door, and I turned to keep them back. Seeing that there was no use in remonstrating with the District Inspector I signalled to the guard to start, and the train at once moved on. Just as it began to move a shot was fired from the carriage, and the bullet hit me on the face and knocked me down, and I don't remember anything more O'Sullivan's face shows the marks of where the bullet grazed his face."
  Jeremiah Crowley, railway porter, also made the following statement—
  "I saw the head porter, Sullivan, engaged in checking the first-class compartment that the officer was in. The next thing I saw was the head porter getting out and giving a signal to the guard to blow his whistle. … The next thing I saw was the officer with his revolver-pointed through the window. I saw him distinctly. I heard a shot and saw the head porter fall off the step. Immediately afterwards I heard two other shots fired. The train was in motion at the time, and I think it was the officer fired the three shots. I heard no more than three shots. 'There might have been about three seconds between each shot. I did not notice Nolan, who was shot, until after the train had cleared away from the platform. He bared his leg and showed me his thigh wounded. There was no provocation whatever given by the people. … The people came up to the station to welcome some townspeople who were returning from the meeting in Cork, and they appeared to have no knowledge, as far as I could judge, that Mr. O'Brien was in the train until it arrived at the platform. There was no such thing as an attack on the carriage. Two windows were broken when the train arrived—the side windows of the compartment Mr. O'Brien was in. I saw no stones thrown.. There were no police on the platform when the train arrived. They are not usually there for the night mail;"
  and, in view of the grave allegations, contained in the statements, will he order a sworn inquiry into the conduct of the police on this occasion?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already given the House the substance of the information I have received on the subject, and I see no ground in consequence, of the newspaper report to which the hon. Member draws my attention to alter the opinion I have expressed. If

  1687
  any person thinks that he has just cause of complaint against the police the proper course will be to bring the matter before a Court of Law.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the terms of the police Report of the transaction?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already given the substance of that Report. I have not brought down the Report with me, nor do I know, if I had, that I should give it verbatim to the House, as that would not be the usual course.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman to send for the Report, as I shall call attention to it presently.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the right hon. gentleman lay down the proposition that no duty lies upon the Government to investigate public charges of grave misconduct against the police, and that the only remedy is to proceed by action in the Courts of Law?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I lay down no general proposition of the kind. What I say is that the information brought to my notice satisfies me that there was no cause for complaint against the police, and I see no ground for altering that view in consequence of a newspaper report. If the police are alleged to have acted illegally, the proper course would be to proceed in a Court of Law.

  CRIME IN LOUTH,
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the address of Mr. Justice O'Brien to the Grand Jury of Louth, as published in the Freeman's Journal of yesterday, in the course of which the Judge said—
  "There was no account of crime in their county, either detected or undetected. The total absence of crime, which would be signified by the interesting ceremony now being prepared by the sheriff, was not always to be accepted as certain proof of the satisfactory state of things, and sometimes peace was only the result of tired-out lawlessness. He was happy to say such was not the case in that county, and the absence of crime was the result and expression of a general state of peace."
  His Lordship was then presented with a pair of white gloves; and whether it is for an alleged crime committed in this county that the Parliamentary represen-
  1688
  tative for the county and the hon. Member for East Clare have been called upon to appear before a Court at Drogheda on Monday next?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the newspaper report of the remarks of the learned Judge is substantially correct, except that it would appear he used the words "no crime of account," instead of "no account of crime." The synopsis of the return of crime presented to him by the constabulary showed that since the previous assizes six offences had been specially reported, in addition to which there were 388 minor offences not specially reported. The offence for which the hon. Members mentioned are being proceeded against was not committed in the county of Louth, but in the county of the town of Drogheda, which is never included in the Judge's address to the Grand Jury of Louth.

  DR. TANNER.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) was again, since his last trial, forced with violence into the prison van at Clonmel; whether any other hon. Member of this House has been similarly treated in Ireland during his imprisonment under the Crimes Act; and whether he will state why the hon. Member for Mid Cork alone has been treated thus?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that it is the case that it became again necessary to force the hon. Member mentioned into the prison van, as he refused to enter it. No violence was used, nor any unnecessary force. I am not aware whether there has been any previous case of resistance on the part of a convicted Member.

  DELAY OF TELEGRAMS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General how it happened that a telegram to Mr. Lane, M.P., from John Moloney, one of the bail sureties, was delayed in the Tipperary Post Office for five hours on Wednesday last?
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that I have received by telegraph a report to the effect that the message was accidentally mislaid, and not discovered until an

  1689
  examination was made in the afternoon of all the messages then in the office. There seems to have been inexcusable carelessness, of which I will not fail to take suitable notice.

  THE CIVIL LIST PENSION FUND.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is correctly reported as having said, in reply to the Society of Authors, that
  "Writers of novels (unless historical) were not entitled, under the regulations, to the benefit of the Civil List Pension Fund;"
  and, if so, whether he will state when, and by whom, the regulations in question were made; and, further, whether he will lay a copy of these regulations upon the Table of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The hon. Member for Huddersfield has correctly quoted part of a correspondence; but I would refer him to a further letter, in which the Society of Authors was told that the Civil List Pension Fund was administered strictly under the terms of the Act 1 Vict., c. 2, sec. 6. The section is as follows:—
  "And whereas it was resolved by the Commons House of Parliament, on the 18th day of February, 1834, 'That it is the bounden duty of the responsible advisers of the Crown to recommend to His Majesty for grants of pensions on the Civil List such persons only as have just claims on the Royal beneficence, or who, by their personal services to the Crown, by the performance of duties to the public, or by their useful discoveries in science and attainments in literature and thearts, have merited the gracious consideration of their Sovereign and the gratitude of their country;' and whereas it is expedient that provisions should be made by law for carrying into full effect the said resolution, and for giving an assurance to Parliament that the responsible advisers of the Crown have acted in conformity therewith; be it therefore enacted that the pensions which may hereafter be charged upon the Civil List revenues shall be granted to such persons only as have just claims on the Royal beneficence, or who, by their personal services to the Crown, by the performance of duties to the public, or by their useful discoveries in science and attainments in literature and the arts, have merited the gracious consideration of their Sovereign and the gratitude of their country; and that a list of all such pensions granted in each year ending the 20th day of June shall be laid before Parliament within 30 days after the said 20th day of June in each year if Parliament shall be then sitting, but if Parliament shall not be then sitting, then within 30 days after the next meeting of Parliament."
  1690
  The regulations alluded to should more properly be described as "notes on practice." They were compiled many years ago, and I am not prepared to produce them. The administration of the fund is left to the discretion of the First Lord, subject only to the provisions of the Act above mentioned and to Her Majesty's approval. The hon. Member will see by that Act pensions are to be given only to those who "have merited the gracious consideration of their Sovereign" or "the gratitude of country." In considering the claims of necessitous persons for pensions within the comparatively small amount at the disposal of the First Lord, regard is had to the nature of the services to the Sovereign and the country which constitute the ground on which the claim is based, and in respect to literature it has been held that those departments of study and research which add to the stock of knowledge, but which are frequently unremunerative to the writers, constitute a stronger claim on the bounty of the State than the authors of novels possess, who, while they contribute largely and most usefully to the recreation of the public, are believed, as a rule, to obtain a considerable pecuniary return for those labours if their works possess merit.
  MR. BRYCE: Have any regulations been made within the last ten years with regard to these pensions; and will the right hon. Gentleman produce the particular regulation with regard to novels?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not prepared to lay these notes of private secretaries, which have been made in past years for the guidance of the Minister responsible, on the Table of the House. No new regulation has been made. Great responsibility in these matters rests with the First Lord of the Treasury for the time being, and I trust that it is properly exercised.

  EIGHT HOURS BILL FOR MINERS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it would be possible, before the end of the Session, to give a short time for the discussion of the Eight Hours Bill for Miners.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I believe the hon. Member may find an opportunity,

  1691
  if he desires one, on the closing days of the Session.

  COLDBATH FIELDS PRISON.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether there is any truth in the report that building has already been commenced on the site of the Coldbath Fields Prison for the purposes of the General Post Office?
  MR. RAIKES: The Post Office commenced taking possession of the old prison premises at Coldbath Fields in August, 1887; and the whole of the site and buildings are now occupied for Post Office purposes, except a small strip at the South Eastern corner, which has been sold to the County Council to widen the street. The Department has already, with the sanction of Parliament, expended about £14,000 on the premises.
  MR. LAWSON: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, under the provisions of the Act 26 Geo. 3, c. 55, the Coldbath Fields Prison was erected out of money raised on the security of the Middlesex County Rate; and, if so, whether the land ought not to be devoted to the public use of the Metropolis?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Coldbath Fields was erected with money borrowed on the security of the county rates; but the Prisons Act of 1877 prescribes what shall be done in the case of a discontinued prison, and the refusal of the Justices to acquire the site precluded the application of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885, and left the Government without any power under the statutes to devote the land to such public use as the hon. Member suggests.
  MR. LAWSON: May I ask by what authority any building has been commenced on this land without the sanction of Parliament?
  MR. RAIKES: The money raised on the security of the rates was expended on the prison.
  MR. LAWSON: By what authority has the land been devoted to any other purpose?
  MR. RAIKES: It has been transferred by the Home Office to the Post Office.

  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS IN IRELAND
  MR. MAHONY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state on how many occasions since 17th January, 1889, the mail train, timed to leave Dublin at 7.40 a.m., has missed the train timed to leave Limerick Junction at 10.20 a.m.; whether he is aware that the result of so missing is to delay the mails to Rathkeale, Newcastle, West Abbeyfeale, Listowel, and Tralee at least six hours, and that considerable delay is also caused on the Ennis line; and whether, having regard to the great 'inconvenience caused, he will press on the respective railway companies the advisability of limiting the time by which the departure of the 7.40 a.m. should be delayed owing to the non- arrival of the cross-channel mails, and causing the departure of the 10.20 a.m. from Limerick Junction to be delayed for a similar period when the necessity arises?
  MR. RAIKES: During the period from the 17th January last to the 1st instant the mail train to which the hon. Member refers has on four occasions missed the train leaving Limerick Junction at 10.20 a.m., with the result described. The failure was due on one of these occasions to accidental causes; but on the other three to the late arrival of the 7.40 a.m. train from Dublin. The time by which this train may be kept waiting for the English mails is already limited to half an hour, and it would be highly inconvenient to diminish that limit. The 10.20 a.m. train from Limerick Junction is kept waiting for a short time in the event of the Dublin train being late; and the question whether it might be detained longer, to which course, however, the railway companies are known to see objections, shall be again examined.

  IRELAND—TRAMORE PIER.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what facilities the Government intend giving the people of Tramore, County Waterford, to enable them to provide a much-required fishing pier at that place instead of the one destroyed some time since, which was built partly by local contribution, but constructed by the Board of Works according to plans now

  1693
  generally acknowledged to have been defective?
  MR. JACKSON: No representation as to the necessity of a new pier has been received, nor has any proposition been made as to the liability the locality is willing to assume if it were decided to construct one.

  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION TO ORKNEY.
  MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has considered the desirability of extending the telegraphic communication to Pierowall, Westray, in the County of Orkney; and, if so, can he say when this much desired improvement will be carried out?
  MR. RAIKES: The question of extending the telegraph to the Island of Westray has more than once been brought before me; but as it is estimated that the receipts would not equal the expenses, I am precluded by Treasury Regulations from making the extension unless a guarantee be given to secure the Post Office against loss.

  THE NEATH AND BRECON RAILWAY.
  SIR HENRY HUSSEY VIVIAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is a fact that all traffic was suddenly stopped on the Neath and Brecon line on Saturday last; and, whether he has taken, or can take, any steps to procure the resumption of traffrc, and thus to obviate the great loss and inconvenience to which persons using the line between Swansea, Morriston, and Brecon, and between Neath and Brecon, both as passengers and for the transmission of goods, have been exposed?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Neath and Brecon line was worked by the Midland Railway Company up to June 30 last, when they ceased to carry traffic over the line in consequence of their failure to obtain satisfactory terms for a renewal of the agreement. The Board of Trade have received several complaints as to the inconvenience caused by the discontinuance of traffic. They have no statutory powers in the matter; but I have communicated with the two companies, and I am happy to be able to state that the Neath and Brecon Company have succeeded in establishing a service of goods and mineral trains
  1694
  between Brecon and Ynisgeinon Junction, and that passenger traffic was resumed last Saturday.

  GRANTS FOR POLICE CHARGES.
  SIR HENRY HUSSEY VIVIAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether it is a fact that no contribution will be made by Government in respect of police and other charges for which grants were made to Local Authorities, before the passing of the Local Government Act, for the period between the 29th September, 1888, and the 1st of April, 1889, but that the payment of such contributions will be thrown on the County Councils, although they will not be entitled to receive the proceeds of the taxes transferred to them for the above-named period, being only entitled to such proceeds from and after the 1st April, 1889; if so, out of what funds the County Councils are to pay the arrears which will thus be entailed upon them by the transfer to them of a liability which ought to have been met by the Government; and, whether he will move the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide, by a Supplemental Vote or otherwise, for the payment to Local Authorities of all sums due by the Government between the 29th September, 1888, and the 1st April, 1889, so that the County Councils may commence their administration of local finance without being burdened with a debt which accrued before they came into existence?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,): Questions to the like effect of this have on several occasions been answered during the present Session. No contribution will be made by the Government in respect of police and other charges for which grants were made to Local Authorities before the passing of the Local Government Act for the period between the 29th of September, 1888, and the 1st of April, 1889, and it will devolve on the County Councils to make the payments in substitution for the Parliamentary grant which otherwise would have been payable during the current year. The County Councils have had ceded to them certain License Duties and Probate Duty for the purpose of enabling them to meet the charges in respect of discon-

  1695
  tinued grants which, if they had not been discontinued, would have been paid by the Government during the present financial year. It has always necessarily been the case that the grants have been paid in a financial year subsequent to that in which a portion of the expenditure has been incurred; and no claim will fall upon the County Councils on account of discontinuing grants in the present year, which, if the grants had been continued, would not have been a charge on the current year. No charge will therefore fall upon the County Councils which ought to have been met by the Government, and for the reasons already mentioned the payments in question are not in the nature of arrears. Under the circumstances, it appears to be obvious that the Government cannot undertake, whilst they cede revenues in the current year in substitution for discontinued grants, to also pay the grants in respect of which the revenue has been ceded.

  THE LANCASHIRE COUNTY COURT.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The First Lord of the Treasury will remember that on Tuesday last I put a question to him as to the resignation of the County Court Judge of Circuit No. 5 in Lancashire. I was told that the Judge in question had not sent in his resignation, and that inquiries would be made as to the division of the Circuits, when a vacancy occurred. I find now that the resignation has taken place; that the vacancy was filled up on Thursday; and that the name of the new Judge was announced in the newspapers on Friday.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am informed that the district in which the vacancy occurred is one of very great commercial importance, and that my noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy found himself compelled to fill it up.

  ASSAULTS ON IRISH POLICEMEN.
  In reply to Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid: It is true that a very serious assault was made on two police officers at Waterford on Saturday night, and that seven persons have been charged with the assault before the Magistrates, and remanded, bail being refused. Dr. Conolly reported on Saturday that both officers were in a
  1696
  critical condition; but I understand today that one is better, and that there is no reason to despair of the life of the other.
  MR. SEXTON: Was it an assault of a serious character, or an ordinary brawl?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am unable to add anything to the answer I have already given?

  THE COMMITTEE ON ROYAL GRANTS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to give notice of the names of the Members of the Committee on the Royal Grants; and whether any opportunity will be afforded of putting down Amendments?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope to be able this evening to place on the Paper the names of the Committee, and the Motion for the appointment of the Committee will be taken to-morrow.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that if an hon. Member desires to alter one of the names proposed it will be necessary to give notice beforehand?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Any hon. Member can obtain from the Clerk at the Table the information to enable him to do so if he desires.
  MR. STOREY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to give us such notice of the number of the Committee as will enable us, in accordance with the regulations of the House, to give notice of Amendments thereto?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish to act in accordance with the wish of the great majority of the House, and with perfect fairness to hon. Members who may have any reason to differ from the view of the Government. But it appeared to me, looking at the period of the Session, that it was desirable we should proceed with reasonable speed in the consideration of this question. I will put the names on the Paper this evening. They will be in the possession of the Clerks at the Table at au early hour, and any hon. Gentleman who may wish to see those names will at once be furnished with them. Then it will be in the power of any hon. Member to give notice of any opposition or change he may desire. But if it is desired by the great majority of the House that the nomination should be postponed I should yield, although I think it would

  1697
  be much more to the general convenience that we should proceed.
  SIR J. GOLDSMID: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give the number and the names of the Committee now?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sorry to say that I have not received the names from the usual sources of information.

  THE INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the First Lord of the Treasury say when the Indian Budget will be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am aware of the interest the hon. Gentleman takes in the question; but I am not in a position to make any statement in regard to it.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (PILOTAGE) BILL. (No. 243.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, &c.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 239.)
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. (No. 32.
  Bill, as amended in the Committee, to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 312.]

  NEW WRIT.
  For the Borough of Dover v. Major Alexander George Dickson, deceased.
  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Augustine Birrell, esquire, for the County of Fife (Western Division).
  THE ARREST OF MR. W. O'BRIEN, M.P

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: I beg leave to move that the House do now adjourn, in order to consider a definite matter of public interest—namely, the conduct of the Irish Constabulary in thing upon defenceless persons at Charleville without necessity.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must decline to put that Motion to the House. The hon. Gentleman was good enough a few minutes ago to give it to me, and intimated it was distinctly a new point, different from that which had
    1698
    been raised on a previous occasion. The House will remember that on the 1st of July the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. Sexton) raised the question affecting not only the proclamation of the Cork meeting but the arrest and prosecution of Mr. William O'Brien. But the point now proposed to be raised by the hon. Gentleman was specifically gone into in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and was repeatedly alluded to by hon. Gentlemen who followed; and though it may be alleged the information before the House was insufficient at that time, and that it was desirable to discuss the matter at a subsequent period, it by means follows it is a matter of urgent public importance which should be discussed on the Motion for the adjournment of the House, nor did I even contemplate it could be done in that manner. I believe it would be contrary not only to the form but to the spirit of the Standing Order, and I shall take upon myself the responsibility of not putting it. Of course, on the proper occasion the hon. Gentleman can raise the point he proposes to raise. If any new information has come to his knowledge of course it will be competent to him to raise the whole question on the proper occasion—namely, in Supply.
    MR. SEXTON: Do I understand you, Sir, to rule that because the proceedings at Charleville were incidentally referred to in the debate last Monday, therefore my hon. Friend is now shut out from referring to incidents which were not included in the Motion?
    MR. SPEAKER: I say the proceedings at Charleville were specifically over and over again alluded to. The questions as to who fired the shots, where the shots came from, the responsibility of the Constabulary, and the responsibility of the crowd then assembled, were specifically gone into. It was admitted that full debate could not take place, because full information was not before the House. I say that that having been discussed, it would be contrary to the meaning and spirit of the Standing Order that because more information [has come before the House, or to the knowledge of hon. Gentlemen, hon. Gentlemen should raise the matter in this particular form. I am not at all saying that the matter may not be properly raised. Of course,

    1699
    it can be raised on the proper occasion—namely, on a Vote in Supply.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling; but as there appears no opportunity for me to discuss the question in Supply, I shall ask the leave of the House to make now a personal statement. Inasmuch as I was an eye-witness of the occurrences at Charleville, and inasmuch as my own veracity and honour are very deeply concerned, I shall try to do it as briefly as I can, and I shall confine myself entirely to what occurred at Charleville. Seven armed policemen were in the first-class compartment in which I travelled from Cork, and there were eight more in a neighbouring compartment. When we came to the Charleville platform there was no cheering and no commotion. There was a band at the far end of the train, where some persons belonging to Charleville, who had been in Cork during the day, were getting out. It was to meet these men, and not to meet me, that the band came. If I could go into it I have most overwhelming testimony that it was impossible for the crowd at Charleville that night to have known either that I was arrested, or that I was in the train. I was arrested only at a quarter to ten o'clock at night, and the telegraph office at Charleville had been closed from ten o'clock in the day. The best proof that the people could not have known I was there was that even the Charleville police there did not know it, and there were no Charleville police on the platform. The notion that the bandsmen there that evening knew I was there, or made any organized attempt at a rescue, is demonstratively false, and absurd and impossible, and really it makes one almost despair of proving the plainest truths when such a story can be put forward by the police and seriously defended in this House. The first the bandsmen learned of my being in the train was what they learned from their friends who travelled down by the same train. They had played two tunes on the platform without any cheering at all before they learned I was in the train. Then, when they did learn it they did hurry along the platform to give me a cheer, and to shake hands with me. I cannot imagine how any man in his senses could think for a minute they meant anything more
    1700
    desperate. Arrests of this kind are of every day occurrence in Ireland. Men so arrested are considered as objects of congratulation, and certainly not objects of desperate attempts at rescue. The crowd knew thoroughly well I would be released on bail in a couple of hours afterwards—as, in point of fact, I was. It is really hard to treat with common patience the theory that these few band boys—a hundred at the outside, according to the police estimate—would make a desperate attempt to rescue me from a body of policemen armed to the teeth, with a perfect knowledge that the police would be bound to shoot me rather than give me up. The story the House is now asked to believe, contrary to any distinct public statement, is that these bandsmen played two tunes, and then commenced this desperate rescue by firing shots into a narrow railway compartment in which I myself must have been the first to receive the bullets, if any had been fired. It is a woeful sign of the demoralization of the Irish police that they should attempt to put forward a story of this kind, and obtain credence for it in this House, not only against my statement, but the statement of every civilian present, and against common sense. Let me explain what actually happened. The people tried to get a look at me. The blinds had been fastened down, and they could only identify the compartment by a window having been broken—it was broken at Mallow, where we were within an ace of wanton bloodshed, owing to the excitement of the police officer, Mr.Concannon. When they could not see me, the blinds being down, they opened the door of the carriage in the ordinary way to have a look at me. That was their one whole and sole offence during the night, and that was the offence for which a police officer, in an extraordinary state of excitement, pulled out his revolver and said, "load." One of the policemen said, "We are loaded already." I should like to know whether the police will deny it; and if they do not, what a picture of the state of discipline amongst the Irish Constabulary it exhibits. Two of the policemen fired their revolvers, one without orders, one without the Inspector's knowledge. The very instant the people opened the door the policemen thrust the muzzles of their rifles

    1701
    in the people's faces. The people fell back, the door was slammed to by Mr. Concannon. The people cheered and groaned, but did nothing under Heaven in t he way of violence. A minute or two elapsed, and a ticket collector came and asked for tickets. Mr. Concannon instantly seized him, and said, "We have no tickets." The ticket collector was trying to understand what Mr. Concannon, in his excitement, was saying, when Mr. Concannon throttled him and flung him out with all his force, and the door was slammed to again. It was at that moment, and only then, that the slightest bit of disorder on the part of the people of Charleville occurred. At that moment a pane of glass in the door was broken. It was broken, as I believe, either with a stick or with one of the musical instruments, because no missile of any sort or kind came into the carriage that night. On the instant, without one word of warning, Mr. Con-cannon discharged his revolver through the window right in the face of the people. I had barely time to say, "My God, are you going to murder the people?" when two other revolver shots were fired just beside me—at my ear—by two sergeants of police, whom I can identify. No other shot was fired, and no shot could possibly have been fired from the outside. The train was actually moving when the second and third shots were fired; so that if there had been any danger of rescue, or any danger to human life, there was no excuse for the second and third shots. But, as I hope for mercy from the Almighty, there was not for one instant that night a bit of danger to the life of anyone. It is a shameful and wicked fabrication, and it is a most——
    MR SPEAKER: Order, order! I have given the hon. Gentleman great latitude in making his statement, That statement might fairly be made on the Motion for adjournment; but I think the hon. Gentleman ought to content himself with a plain narrative of his own impressions, and not to make charges which cannot be answered now. It is unfair that he should make anything more than a formal statement at this time.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: I at once accept that suggestion. Perhaps I have travelled outside a mere narrative of the facts. I should like, however, to com-
    1702
    plete that narrative. As soon as the shots were fired—and I shall only tell the House what took place between the policemen and myself—I said, "If human life has been lost, if those shots have taken effect, the most cold-blooded murders ever committed have been committed." District Inspector Concannon then said, "They are after firing at us. I thought at first they were stones. We must search the carriage for the bullet marks." I said, "In God's name, are you really serious? You know well that only three shots have been fired, and that these were fired by your own policemen." "No," he said, "the police only fired two shots." "Ask your men this moment," I said; and he did ask them all round the carriage. The four policemen said they had not fired; and the two sergeants admitted, then and there, that they had discharged their two revolvers as well as the District Inspector. I then said to him, "What becomes of your statement that others had fired?" and then and there I appealed to the policemen in that carriage and said, "If you are honest men I call on you to witness that it is now admitted that only three shots were fired, and that one of them was fired without orders." Not one of them said a word against it. The District Inspector said, "The police do not lie," although he at that moment had been contradicted by one of his own sergeants. I again and again challenged them to point to injury of any sort that any of them had received in the carriage, and the only answer that could be made was that the District Inspector pointed out to me a dent in his helmet. I said, "Do you consider that a sufficient justification for taking away three human lives?" Whereupon one of the sergeants said, "There is no harm done." I said, "If there is no harm done it is no fault of yours." Mr. Concannon said, "We had to defend our lives." I asked what risk they had run, which I had not run also, and he said, "Well, we had to defend your life also." It was almost more than human nature could bear; but I think I did say to him, "You know thoroughly well my life was never in danger, nor yours either; and that I had rather that a bullet had been put through me than that you should fire on these people."
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now certainly preju-

    1703
    dicing the case by the statement he is making, and I do not think be ought to continue that line of argument.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: I am giving a narrative.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must——
    An HON. MEMBER: Shame.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That was a shameful expression to use. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to have sufficient latitude to make a personal explanation.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: Might I——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is snaking charges which cannot now be investigated, and cannot now be answered. And I say there is something unfair in putting forward charges to which there can be no answer now, because of the opportunity he has taken. When the proper time comes these charges may be repeated and may be answered—of course I cannot tell with what result. But it is not fair at the present moment, when the hon. Gentleman is debarred by the Rules of the House from making a statement on a Motion for Adjournment, that he should make the same statement as a personal explanation.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: I respectfully submit, Sir, that I have made no charge whatever.
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make any further personal explanation strictly of that nature I shall not prevent him.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: Certainly, Sir. I am confining myself to a narrative of what actually occurred between myself and the policemen on that night in reply to a statement in the most fearful manner impugning the accuracy of my public statement. I have stated precisely what I mentioned to the police officers that night; and I submit that I have a right, with the permission of the House, to complete the narrative of what occurred between the policemen and myself. If I have not that right I will sit down.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has had full latitude—much fuller latitude, perhaps, than I ought, in the first instance, to have allowed him, inasmuch as he would have been contravening the Standing Order by making the Motion. I have allowed him full opportunity, for a personal explanation; and I think the matter ought to rest there.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: Well, Sir, I will not attempt to pursue the matter further.
    MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the statement which has been made by Mr. Speaker, an opportunity will be afforded of discusssing the question on the Vote for the Constabulary; whether the right hon. Gentleman will take the Constabulary Vote at an early date, so as to give my hon. Friend an opportunity of going fully into this matter and laying it before the House?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I will consider the request which has been made to me by the hon. Member, and give him an answer to-morrow. But, as it appears to me, I should be departing from the arrangement of business which has been laid down if Supply were allowed to interrupt the progress of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. The Constabulary Vote will, however, be taken as the first of the Irish Estimates; and I hope that will be in time.

  MOTIONS.

    AUDIT (ARMY AND NAVY ACCOUNTS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to make provision for the Audit of the Manufacturing and Shipbuilding and other like Accounts of the Army and Navy, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson, Mr. Forwood, and Mr. Brodrick.
    Bill presented and read first time. [Bill 314.]

    REVENUE.
    On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Customs and Inland Revenue, and for other purposes connected with the Public Revenue and Expenditure, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Bill presented and read first time. [Bill 315.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  COURT OF SESSION AND BILL CHAMBER (SCOTLAND) CLERKS BILL. (No. 290.)
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [1st July], "That the Bill be now considered."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. CALDWELL: This Bill has been read a second time, but without any discussion,

  1705
  although it contains some very important principles. Its object is to enable Civil servants in the Court of Session to be transferred from one Court to another without any compensation. In Scotland there are several independent Courts, which are as distinct from each other as the Law Courts in England, although they are practically under the same building. The change proposed is of a very sweeping character, inasmuch as the clerks are at present subject only to the jurisdiction of their own Courts. I am not going to dispute the principle upon which the Bill is based. It may be a very correct principle that the clerks of one Court should be allowed to be transferred to another Court without receiving any compensation. But I say that if this principle is to be applied in Scotland it ought also to be applied in England. The intention of the Government is that these clerks in future are not to receive any remits from the Lord Ordinary; but that they must be entirely dependent upon the salary attached to their appointment. I do not dispute the principle on which the measure is based; but I submit that if that principle is to be applied to Scotland, it should also be equally applied to England. If the principles which the Bill proposes to apply to the Clerks in the Court of Session were applied equally to Civil Servants in all parts of the United Kingdom, I would not object, but this is notoriously not the case. With a view of obtaining some declaration from the Government, I have put some Amendments on the Paper, and I beg now to move the omission from Clause 1 of the word "alterations," in order to insert "arrangements."
  MR. SPEAKER: The Amendments will come on after the Motion is agreed to that the Bill be now considered.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to move the first Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 29, to leave out the word "alterations," and insert the word "arrangements."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word alterations stand part of the Bill."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I am unable to accept the Amendment. At present the staff of clerks in the various Courts constituting the Court of Sessions are upon such a footing that there is no organization or correlation between them in the discharge of their duties. This has involved considerable loss of economy in time and labour. Each clerk is paid a salary, and is pledged to devote his whole time to the public business; and it is most desirable that some managing power should be able to assign clerks to Courts where there is a congestion of work, and remove them from Courts where there is little to do. It is clear that the managing power should be able to alter as well as arrange the distribution of the work, and therefore I cannot accept the hon. Member's Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. CALDWELL: The object of my next Amendment is to provide that the official status of depute clerks of Sessions, as principal clerks in the Courts of the Outer House, shall not be affected by any of the transferences to which the Lord Advocate has alluded; but that the clerks shall be as independent as any of the clerks in the Superior Courts. If there is any transference of the labours of these officials it should be done in such a way as not to interfere with their official status.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, after the word "that," to insert the words—
  "Nothing herein contained shall affect the position of the depute clerks of Session as principal clerks in the courts of the outer house to which they are attached, and that."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I hope that my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to occupy the time of the House by discussing this Bill. I can assure him that he is moved by fears which are entirely without foundation. I agree with what the Lord Advocate has said in regard to the object of the Bill, and the manner in which that object is proposed to be carried. These matters were all gone into very fully by the Grand Committee,

  1707
  and not a single person who was conversant with the subject had the slightest doubt as to the propriety of these clauses. The Bill, as it stands, will not alter the status of these gentlemen.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to move, in Clause 5, page 4, line 26, at the end, to add "or for special duties performed under any remit from Court. "It is a well known fact that at the present moment the Lords Ordinary remit matters to the clerks for investigation, and they receive remuneration for the special services rendered. It is proposed by the Bill to take away the power of making these remits by the Judges to the clerks, and to require every clerk to devote himself to his own particular duties. All I ask is that, if that is to be done, the same principle shall be generally applied.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 26, after the word "Parliament," to add the words "or for special duties performed under any remit from Court"— (Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING,): Allow me to point out to the hon. Member that the Bill as it stands reserves the right of the clerks to receive additional remuneration from the Treasury for extra work imposed on them by Act of Parliament.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

JUDICIAL FACTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 291.)
Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
DR. CAMERON: I wish to point out that a large number of Amendments to
1708
the Bill appear upon the Paper, and I would suggest that as they would probably occupy the House until a late hour it would be better to proceed at once to the consideration of the Scotch Local Government Bill. I, therefore, beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Dr. Cameron.)
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist in that Motion. Although a considerable number of Amendments appear on the Paper, they are mostly of a non-contentious character. The Bill has passed through the Grand Committee very expeditiously, and there is no reason to suppose it will now occupy any great, length of time.
DR. CAMERON: One word of explanation. I have no desire to impede the progress of the Bill, but if it consists of non-contentious matter only it may very well be taken at some other time.
MR. WALLACE: I have not the honour of being a Member of the Standing Committee of Law, but I understand from the Lord Advocate that this Bill passed through the Committee very expeditiously. I am afraid that if I had been a Member of the Committee the expedition would not have been so signal as the Lord Advocate congratulates himself upon. It is to me a matter of some surprise that the Report stage should be proposed to be taken now, and I believe that some important local bodies in Scotland will also be taken by surprise. They have no means of knowing what has gone on in the Standing Committee, but they have taken great interest in the measure, and entertain serious objections to some, of its provisions.
Question, "That the Debate be now" adjourned," put and agreed to.
Debate adjourned till Thursday.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 187) AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS BILL (No. 188).
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 11.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 22, after the word "trustees," to insert the words—
"And the duty of maintaining and protecting all public rights of way over roads, drove roads, bridlepaths, footpaths, ferries, and foreshores."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BUCHANAN: I should like to say a single word on this Amendment to-night. The Solicitor General for Scotland said he doubted the reality of the grievance which exists in Scotland with regard to rights of way. To that I would reply that the Edinburgh Society alone, from whose secretary I had a letter to-day, has had no less than 40 applications in one year to defend rights of way that are being threatened or infringed upon in different parts of the country. The Solicitor General also took the ground that an action for right of way was one which even the poorest could bring. He knows very well, however, that in the Glendale case the proceedings lasted two years and entailed no less than three trials, one before the Lord Ordinary, one before the Inner Division, and one before the House of Lords, and in all of them considerable expense was entailed. The Lord Advocate said that it was not the duty of the County Council to levy war upon private individuals. It seems to me that to speak of the County Council putting in force the duty of defending public rights as levying war upon private individuals was a very unfortunate expression on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. My Amendment does not impose any obligation whatever of promiscuous litigation on the County Council. I have consulted the best authority I can on the subject and am perfectly ready to adopt any form of words which will show that, or to insert 'in the Amendment such words as "if they think fit," so as to give the Council a discretion. I hope, however, the Government will see fit to adopt the Amendment and to impose upon the County Councils a duty which there is a very great demand should be placed upon them.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I should like to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advo-
1710
cate the importance of making some concession to public opinion in this matter. In the Highlands, which are the parts of Scotland with which I am best acquainted, there has been of late years a considerable losing of rights of way. The extent to which this has been done may have been in some cases exaggerated, but I do know of cases where rights of way have been lost, and the movement in defence of rights of way has been accelerated by the formation of deer forests. I have always thought that to place in the hands of the County Authorities the power of seeing that rights of way do not lapse is the most moderate proposal that could be adopted. Of course, the alternative is the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, and I think that in the interests of the landowners themselves it would be an extremely wise measure to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
MR. FIRTH: I am sorry the Government have not seen their way to accede to this proposal. At present the case put forward by my hon. Friends seems to be one of a right without a remedy. It is shown that in many cases in Scotland such rights have been lost, and, that being so, there ought to be some power of enforcing them. I can see no better hands in which to place the power than those of the County Council. We recollect how, in the case of Epping Forest, a great London Corporation succeeded in establishing rights which could not have been established by a private individual. I think the County Council might very well have this power.
SIR D. CURRIE: I venture to suggest to the Government that they should consider the Amendment. In the county which I represent there is a strong feeling on the subject. The County Council ought to have the responsibility of preventing what may be considered wrongdoing in regard to rights of way.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I do not rise for the purpose of detaining the Committee on the general question, because on that I may say at once that my principal reason for opposing the Amendment is that Parliament has not thought it right to give any similar powers to County

1711
Councils in England, and I have not heard any special reason why powers not conferred on the English County Councils should be bestowed on those in Scotland. The point to which I would wish to call attention is the last word in the Amendment—the word "foreshores." I do not think the hon. Member gave any reason for including foreshores in the proposal. In 1866 Parliament transferred the charge of the foreshores from the Woods and Forests to the Board of Trade, and I do not think it will be alleged that the Board of Trade have not exercised their rights over the foreshores in the way the hon. Member who moves this Amendment and those who support him would desire. It has been invariably their rule to maintain the rights of the public to the foreshores as against the claims of individuals. That was, to some extent, contrary to the policy pursued prior to 1866, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests having been charged with endeavouring to make money out of the foreshores. It seems to me some reason ought to be given for intrusting what is practically the same duty to two public bodies—namely, a Government Department on the one hand, and the County Council on the other. There might be differences of opinion between these bodies, and that would lead to conflict, and if there is to be a change at all we ought to impose the duty of protecting Crown rights on one body and not on two. I have not heard any reason for making any alteration in the present law in the matter, and I do not understand why the hon. Member has included foreshores in his proposal.
MR. D. CRAWFORD: I think if the remarks of the President of the Board of Trade indicate a feeling on the part of the Government in favour of compromise they are worthy of attention. I am not sure that I quite acquiesce in the view stated by the right hon. Gentleman as to the effect of the Act of 1866. The Woods and Forests still possess large tracts of foreshore as owners, and it is their constant practice to sell them to private persons, but I should be sorry to travel into a collateral issue. The main point is whether the County Councils are to have the right of vindicating public rights of way, to which the people of
1712
Scotland attach the greatest importance. As to the question why a difference ought to, be made in this respect between Scotland and England, the most ample answer is to be found in the far greater liberality of owners of land in England in the matter of rights of way. In all counties in England the public have footpaths and rights of way innumerable. You can pass through whole tracts of beautiful country without molestation. In Scotland it is different. The traveller, the wayfarer, the naturalist, and others, are confined to the dusty roads, and if they are inclined for the purposes of pleasure or scientific research to leave it for a moment, they are liable to be treated as trespassers. There is no subject on which the public mind in Scotland is more unanimous and more excited than this; and the Government may well take warning from the circumstance that even the thick-and-thin brigade who choose to sit on the Liberal Benches are against them in this matter.
MR. A. ELLIOT: In reference to the last observation of the hon. Member who has just sat down, I would remark that this is not the first occasion by very many on which I have opposed the Government. I would point out to the Government that the Amendment only proposes to preserve to the public rights which they now possess, and which, through the negligence of the people in the management of their own affairs—no one being specially interested—they are now frequently deprived of. I would urge the Government to accept the Amendment, at all events in substance, founding themselves on the position taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1886. In dealing with this very question, the right hon. Gentleman said—
"I am one of those who think this question as to rights of way ought to be one of the duties of the Local Authorities as soon as they are constituted, in such a manner as must generally command the confidence of all the inhabitants of the locality in which they may be established."
As to how the work can be best done is a matter of detail, but I cannot see why the Government should not found themselves on the position already taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and substantially accede to this proposal.
MR. CHILDER S: I spoke on the general question on Friday, and I will not repeat

1713
what I then said. I desire merely to say that on the subject of the foreshores, I very much agree to what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade. The Act of 1866 was carried through the House by myself, and I am well aware of the policy that led us to propose it. The administration of the Woods and Forests in respect to some of the foreshores was very faulty, and in consequence they were transferred to the better administration of the Board of Trade. But in Scotland this transfer was not absolute, and there are serious complications which justify no interference with the present legal authorities. I would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment to omit the word "foreshores."
THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must confess to some negligence in this matter. I ought to have pointed out earlier that "foreshores" can not be included in the Amendment, inasmuch as the rights of the foreshore are Crown rights.
MR. BUCHANAN: Do I understand you, Sir, to strike out the word?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. R. CHAMBERLAIN: If I may, as an English Member, intrude into the sacred domain of Scotch local government, I would appeal to the Government to accept the Amendment. This is not exclusively a Scotch subject. The rights of way in every part of this country are of interest and importance to every citizen, and we should support the Amendment for an additional reason—namely, the one urged against it by the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade, because if these powers are tried experimentally in Scotland, I feel sure that subsequently the same duties will be imposed on the English County Councils, and performed by them with considerable advantage to the public at large. There is every reason why powers should be given to the Scotch County Councils. In the first instance, looking at the sparse population of the country as compared with that of England, and to the fact that the poorer people have not the same opportunity to protect their rights that they have here. We have our Commons Preservation Society, a powerful and wealthy organi-
1714
zation; and we have in every town either a branch of that or some footpaths society, and by these means the rights of the public are jealously watched. But even in this country I know, from personal experience, these societies carry on their functions under great difficulties, and frequently are unable to go as far as they would wish owing to want of funds. The Government should accept this Amendment or some modification of it, to put the custody of popular rights of way and the rights of the public over commons in the hands of a popular representative body.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I desire to point out that not only is this Amendment not in accordance with the English Act, but it is in direct antagonism to the course which the House took with reference to this particular question in the debates on the English measure. An Amendment of a very similar character stood in the name of the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare), but when it came on the hon. Gentleman did not even press it to a Division, and, so far as I remember, there was not one word said in Committee on the proposal. A question somewhat germane to this arose also with reference to roadside wastes, and ultimately the Committee declined to charge the County Councils with any more authority or power in matters of this kind than was already possessed by the highway authority. The Committee declined to make the Local Government Bill the vehicle for imposing large additional duties—duties not imposed on any public authority by the existing law—on the County Councils; and I think rightly so. The Lord Advocate put the case very strongly. He said that if the County Councils were to be charged with a sort of roving Committee to inquire into all asserted rights of way and with the duty of bringing actions in Courts of Law where they believed the rights of the public had been infringed, it would form a popular cry at elections. ["Hear, hear."] Yes, hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to regard such a position with satisfaction, but I must say I should regard it as a misfortune if the County Council elections were to turn upon one particular point.

1715
This question will overshadow all other larger questions which have to be dealt with by the Councils. It cannot be too much borne in mind that we do not profess more in this Bill than in the English Bill, to set at rest all the points that occur to a man's mind in connection with the change in the law. We do not say that the law is precisely what we desire so far as this question is concerned; but we do say that we think the matter one which ought to be dealt with by itself, and not as part of a large and comprehensive measure like this. These are the considerations that actuate the Government in asking the Committee not to accede to this Amendment.
MR. A. L. BROWN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman advances his case very much by stating that if a certain thing has not been introduced into the English Act it ought not therefore to be introduced into the Scotch Bill. Instead of inducing the Scotch Members to agree with the course taken by the Government, that is the very thing to set our backs up. The Solicitor General and the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire have stated that this proposal is not required in Scotland. I do nut wish to offend, but they tempt me to say that they are Scotchmen living in Scotland who do not know what is going on in their own country. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness appears to understand the matter a little better than some other Scotch Members. He was discouraged at seeing an absence in Scotland of the rights of way which you so abundantly possess in England. If any one asks why is it that there are more rights of way in England than we have in Scotland, I would say it is mainly because England is the more populous country, and if any one tries to stop rights of way in England the people object and remove the obstruction that may have been set up; whereas in Scotland, especially in most of the rural districts, the population is so small that perhaps there are only 40 or 50 persons using a particular path or road, and when the laird stops that up they do not care to take action against him, and are consequently done out of their rights. In a populous district it is the same as in England. In a district with which I am acquainted near Galashiels the laird tried to stop a right
1716
of way, and the people took objection to this action, the result being that when they sent a deputation to him for the purpose of placing the rights of the public before him, he being a good sort of fellow took a wise view of the situation, and said—"Very well; let the public enjoy their rights." I desire to see the County Councils entrusted with the duty of looking after the people's rights. It is not proposed they should be a legal tribunal to try such cases. It is proposed they should act as public watch dogs, and take the case of the public before the Courts. I cannot but think that the language of the Lord Advocate was very unfortunate when he spoke about prying into private affairs, and levying war on individuals; and I am of opinion that the Lord Advocate could scarcely have meant what the public will believe his words to convey. I wish to call attention to the great importance of this question. Lord Cockburn says that the way to save property and to humanize the people is to have a footpath through every field. We do not ask anything quite so revolutionary as that; but we think it would be wise to try and prevent the landlords from taking away public rights belonging to the people. I can assure the Lord Advocate, as a Member not often present in this House, but being much among the people in my own county, that this Local Government Bill has, upon the whole, created very little interest in the community; but that having at last come to a point on which a good deal of interest is felt Her Majesty's Government would do well to give the County Councils the opportunity afforded by this proposal, the power to defend the rights of the public, and if he does so he will deserve and get the gratitude of the public.
MR. PHILIPPS: I concur with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in thinking the Government have made a mistake in putting forward the argument that because this proposal was not in the Local Government Act for England it ought not to be in the Local Government Bill for Scotland. But I remember that such a proposal was made in regard to the English Bill by the hon. Member for Camborne, who wished to give such powers to the County Councils, and embodied them in a clause,

1717
which, however, was much too long, the result of it being that some of us voted on one part of the clause and some on another, and so it was lost. The argument that the proposal now made is not in the English Act was urged both by the President of the Board of Trade and the President of the Local Government Board, but I am very glad they did not get the Lord Advocate to employ it; because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has several times prided the Scotch Executive on the difference that exists between this Bill and the English Act, alluding to the fact that the Chairman of the County Council was called the "Convener," and not the "Chairman," and to other variations as between the two measures. I should like to see the Lord Advocate get up and throw his Colleagues overboard on this matter and say, "We are not going to insist on the same things as are found in the English Act," because if we are slavishly to follow the English example the Government might just as well have said—"Here is the English Act; we will put in the word 'Scotland' where necessary and call it a Scotch Bill." It has been stated that if this Amendment were carried, it would expose the landowners to a general menace as to inquiries into their rights of way; but I should like to know how there can be any real or implied menace to those who have not usurped rights which are not their own? Suppose an inquiry were to be made into the tenure of an estate; surely no injury could be done to the person who could show a good title to what he held. The only menace would be to those who were abusing the rights of others, and I say that there ought to be menace, and strong menace too, in such cases. The Lord Advocate has stated that this Amendment would lead to litigation without end. I do not think it would; but I do know that landowners who hold by bad titles very often reckon on the fact that, although the title is faulty, they are not likely to meet with much opposition, inasmuch as the people whose rights they usurp are too poor to indulge in the expense of litigation. The consequence is that the landlord is very often induced to "try it on;" whereas, if there were a public body, armed with the power to resist him, he would be more careful of interfering with public rights. If the Legislature
1718
were to give the County Councils power to stop all invasion of these rights, there would be very few such invasions in the future. The knowledge that such a power existed would be enough to bring the landlords to terms; and I say, therefore, it is because I believe the means to promote such an inquiry as is here proposed would put a stop to many encroachments on public rights, and to a good deal of litigation, that I shall vote for the Amendment.
MR. BRYCE: It has been said that the question here involved is one that ought to have been introduced in a separate measure by any private Member desirous of promoting legislation in this direction; but I would remind the Committee that the Government, by the new Rules of Procedure as well as by the way in which they have appropriated the time of the House, have almost put an end to legislation on the part of private Members. Last year I introduced a Bill, object of which was the protection of public rights of way in Scotland, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh also attempted to deal with the subject in a measure, introduced this Session; but we both found ourselves deprived of the opportunity of proceeding with those measures which we could not oven bring as far as the Second Reading stage; and, consequently, we are obliged to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the Amendment now before the Committee. I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite, among whom there are comparatively few Members representing Scotch constituencies, fully realize how burning a question this is in Scotland. It possesses far more interest in Scotland than such a question could produce in England, because it is one in regard to which Scotland suffers more than England. There are proportionately far fewer rights of way in Scotland, and far more of those rights of way which exist are being absorbed by Scotch than by English landlords, and more feeling is excited by what takes place. Hitherto the landowners in Scotland have had pretty much their own way, because they have relied on the greater length of their purses, which enable them to go to both divisions of the Court of Session, and afterwards, if necessary, to the House of Lords, and in this way they have been enabled to defeat the

1719
public rights. We feel, therefore, that nothing but the concession of adequate power to some public authority can meet the needs of the case. I think the Government, when they see the tendency of public opinion in Scotland as represented in this House, would do well to give way on the question at issue and permit this Amendment to be carried.
MR. A. C. CORBETT: I desire to join in the appeal that has been made to the Government to give way upon this matter. The only arguments I have heard from the other side on this question are, first, the allegation that Scotland is not largely interested in the subject; and, secondly, the allegation that the question is a burning one in Scotland, and will be made a test one at the County Council elections. There may be certain narrow areas in Scotland where the people have been stirred up with reference to particular rights of way. The County Councillor for such a division might be elected on that issue, and might be disposed to promote unfair litigation on the subject; but I cannot believe that the County Councillors for other divisions would be untrustworthy on this matter, and would be willing to risk their own and their constituents' money in protecting rights of way in which their constituents had very little direct interest. It is on these grounds that I venture to urge the Government, either now or on the Report stage of the Bill, to accede to an Amendment that would be exceedingly popular in Scotland, because it would be the means of remedying a good deal of injustice in a most effectual manner.
MR. SHAW STEWART: When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hawick taunted the President of the Local Government Board with not knowing how to manage the Scotch Members, he forgot that the President of the Board is a Scotchman himself. The right hon. Gentleman threw a challenge to his countrymen that was quickly taken up. He said this question might possibly be made the battle-cry of every County Council election in Scotland, and that remark elicited loud cries of "hear, hear!" But I would put it to the Committee—would it really be an advantageous thing that this question should be made a battle-cry at all the
1720
County Council elections in Scotland? If this were so, it is inevitable that candidates for seats in the County Councils would say, "Only return me, and I will procure you a right of way." I do not think this would be a Constitutional manner in which to conduct the business of the county, and there are many matters of greater importance to which the County Councils should direct their attention. I do not stand up in any way for the landlords' interference with right of way; I think it is an iniquitous proceeding. But I do not think it happens so often as hon. Members make out. The only instance quoted in this Committee was that mentioned by the hon. Member for the Border Burghs; but he went on to tell us that so soon as the tenants spoke to him in a reasonable way, the landlord at once said there should be no interference with the public rights at all.
MR. A. L. BROWN: My argument was that where there is a large population it is easy to guard public rights; but that where there is a small population it is not so easy to cow the landlords.
MR. SHAW-STEWART: There is an Association at Edinburgh which has nothing else to do but look after rights of public way, and I recommend it to turn its attention to those thinly-populated districts. Seriously, I think the position of the Government is a logical one. This is a question which should be raised on its merits; and I object to anything being brought into this Bill which might unduly be made a battle-cry at the County Council elections, which ought to be concerned with matters of much greater urgency and importance than some isolated question of a right of way. Though I admit the importance of the subject, I still think that hon. Gentlemen have exaggerated the opportunities which landlords have, in these days of publicity, of closing rights of way; and I think it is a matter which can be dealt with apart from the ordinary business of County Councils.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Mr. Courtney, I should not have intervened in this debate if it had not been that by far the greater amount of speaking has been averse to the course the Government has taken,

1721
and because I think there is at least one aspect of the question which I have not heard alluded to in the debate this evening, and which was not touched upon last Friday. The hon. Member for the Border Burghs was very indignant with my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, and told him that he was incapable of managing Scotch business. The offence of my right hon. Friend was that he quoted the analogy of the English Bill. I am perfectly ready to admit that every Local Government Bill must be framed with a view to the particular condition of the country in which it is to operate, and that, therefore, it was most unsafe to attempt to cast the Scotch Local Government Bill rigidly in the mould found suitable for England. At the same time, I would urge upon the hon. Member for the Border Burghs that to say that there could not be a worse recommendation of any provision of this Bill than that it is to be found in the English Act, is carrying a very admirable spirit of nationality to a very absurd excess. My right hon. Friend asked whether you were not pursuing an inexpedient course when you introduce subjects which may come up for discussion at the elections of County Councils, and which might excite such an amount of ill-feeling as would divert the attention of the voters from the important question of obtaining those representatives who would best carry out the general business of the country, in favour of those who happen to hold very decided opinions upon what after all is a narrow issue. When that argument was used by my right hon. Friend, it was received with jeers below the Gangway opposite. But I think if you reflect you will find that my right hon. Friend was animated by a sound desire to ensure that these new County Councils should be composed chiefly of business men. That was the object which animated us in the case of the English Bill, and may it not well animate us in passing the Scotch Bill? I, for my part, should regret to see introduced into this Bill a provision which might practically result in an inferior class of County Councillors being intrusted with the management of county affairs. The right hon. Gentlemen the Member for
1722
Edinburgh and the Member for Aberdeen, and some other hon. Members, have deplored that there are so few rights of way in Scotland. I also deplore that there are not more rights of way in Scotland. I think that, no doubt, has been partly due to the unjustifiable action of owners of land in the past. It is due also to social circumstances, to which it is unnecessary now to advert. I wish to add that I entirely agree with those who say that the power of the landowner in this respect has been in some cases abused, both in Scotland and in England. But everybody knows that at the present time the land-owning class is not only a minority, but an insignificant minority, and there is not the slightest tendency, so far as I know, on their part to abuse the rights given them by law, and if there was that tendency, the class in question is far too weak to give it effect. I do not think anybody who speaks of Scotland as it is, and does not allow his knowledge of Scotland as it was to interfere with his views of the question, will deny that I have not overstated the case as between the land-owning class and the rest of the community. I, therefore, say that while undoubtedly there are two few rights of way in Scotland, the existing rights are not being abused, nor are they likely to be abused. I venture respectfully to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to one other most important aspect of the case. My belief is that you will not benefit but injure the public if you carry this Amendment. My belief is that you would exclude the public from benefits to which they have no legal right, but which they enjoy by favour of the land owners. Are you wise in compelling an occupier or owner of land to say to himself—"I am allowing the public to pass over my land, but by and by a privilege may be pressed into a right, and the result of my good nature may be that I shall be dragged into a lawsuit by opponents who have behind them all the rates of the county. I think hon. Members will see that to compel the landlords thus to rigidly enforce their rights would deprive the public of many benefits they now enjoy. The rights the public possess were not in danger, but the proposal of the hon. Member

1723
would be likely to deprive them of benefits which they now enjoy by favour.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 149; Noes, 176.—(Div. List, No. 181.)
DR. CLARK: I beg to move the addition of the words—
"To take over and maintain all parish statute labour roads and bridges not scheduled in the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act."
The object of this Amendment is to throw upon the County Council the maintenance of those old parish roads that were not taken over by the Road Trustees under the Roads and Bridges Act, and which, though valuable, are now falling into desuetude; in some cases bridges gradually falling down because it is not the duty of any authority to maintain thorn, the old authority having been abolished and the new authority created by the Act not having control by reason of these roads not having been scheduled.
THE CHAIRMAN: The words as proposed by the hon. Member do not fit in with the context of the clause.
DR. CLARK: I should like to hear what the Lord Advocate has to say on the matter of the Amendment. What I would propose is the addition of such words as these, "and the old powers and duties of the County Road Trusts, and to take over all such parish statute labour roads."
THE CHAIRMAN: That is not in the least grammatical.
DR. CLARK: I think the Government will be disposed to accept the principle of my Amendment. I have not had time to formally draft the Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Probably this will meet the view of the hon. Member: Line 23, to add, "including the maintenance of statute labour roads not scheduled in the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act."
Amendment proposed in those terms.
MR. J. P, B. ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman has indicated what is undoubtedly a defect in the existing Roads and Bridges Act of 1878. That Act provided that a list of roads should be made up, and it was found that, according to the wording of the Act, it
1724
was prescribed that this should be done once for all. In the result certain roads were omitted that ought to have been in the original schedule, and so did not come under the control of the new authority then constituted. I admit this ought to be put right, but I doubt whether this Bill is the proper occasion for the connection, inasmuch as what we are doing is to transfer existing control from one authority to another. I rather think this is an Amendment that should be dealt with on another occasion, though I allow it is a matter that requires attention, and the hon. Member's suggestion is not one to be lost sight of.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, line 21, after "Acts" insert "and the Destructive Insects Act 1877."—(The Lord Advocate.)
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,: Will the right hon. Gentleman take pity on our ignorance, and tell us whit is meant by Destructive Insects?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The right hon. Gentleman questioned my diction the other day, but here it is not open for criticism. I am only quoting the Parliamentary title of an Act that was passed for dealing with sundry insects that commit great ravages among crops, and it is to enforce the operation of that Act by the new authority the Amendment is proposed.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed, leave out "parochial boards as."—(The Lord Advocate.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed, line 26, after "Acts" insert "of parishes so far as neither the county"—(excluding burghs and police burghs).—(The Lord Advocate.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed, after the words last inserted, to insert "and Vaccination Acts."—(Mr. Barclay.)
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: We cannot accept this change. Though vaccination is cognate to the subject of public health, yet it is dealt with by statute on a distinct and different footing. I think there is general agreement that as regards

1725
matters dealt with under the Public Health Act power may well be intrusted to bodies having jurisdiction over larger areas than the parish. But the procedure under the Vaccination Acts is naturally a local duty of the Parochial Board subject to the review of the Board of Supervision, and I do not think it is desirable to introduce this among the County Council business.
DR. CLARK: I think it would he a very inappropriate charge. A special rate would be required and special machinery to carry it out. The duty now devolves upon medical officers for which their salary is partly paid, and you would have the anomaly of officers acting under the control of one body being paid by another.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
COLONEL MALCOLM: I wish to move the Amendment, of which I have given notice, with a view of rather curtailing the power of the Central General Board of Lunacy, for at the present moment they have all the power in their hands, and the representatives of the ratepayers, as the County Council will be, will have no power at all. At present the Commissioners of Supply have simply the power of providing for any demand that the General Board of Lunacy may make, exercising their authority at the expense of the county. The District Boards have only the power of selecting and providing groceries and other stores. The words are taken from the English Act of last year, and although I am perfectly aware that the lunacy laws of the two countries are not similar, that their systems are unlike, I think something of the sort might be very judiciously introduced into this Act. It may have attracted the attention of some hon. Members, that the Lunacy Acts Amendment Bill, which is before Parliament this year, goes very much upon the lines I suggest. The Lord Advocate is perfectly well acquainted with the case that more particularly suggests the Amendment. My hope was that this would have attracted the attention of other Scotch Member s, and the difficulty in which the County Authorities are placed in regard to lunacy questions, but I am afraid under the circumstances I shall not have the assistance I could wish. I, however, move the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, after Subsection 4 insert:—
"The provision, enlargement, maintenance, management, and other dealings with asylums for lunatics."
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am aware that in the case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, there was a certain amount of friction between the Central Lunacy Authority and one of the local bodies which are charged with the duty of maintaining asylums, and I also think it is quite possible that the criticisms made in the course of the discussions upon that incident upon the general system may have more or less plausibility. But I rest my opposition to the Amendment on the ground I took just now. This Amendment is directed to a change in the Lunacy Laws, but the whole scheme of this Bill, as I have said, is directed to taking systems as we find them and handing them over to the new County Authority. To make the change suggested, we should be invading the whole fabric of the Lunacy Laws and altering the relations between the Central and Local Authorities, and the subordination of the various authorities and the Central Authority, a subject wholly distinct from the scope of this Bill. On this ground, as my hon. Friend has anticipated, we cannot accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
DR. CAMERON: The effect of the Amendment I now have to move would be to transfer to the County Council the same powers with respect to licenses, and the control of licenses, as are now enjoyed by Magistrates in burghs in Scotland. As a matter of fact, the power that would be conveyed would boa restrictive power. Under the law as it at present stands, the new licenses in towns are applied for to the Burgh Magistrates, and if they refuse the refusal is final, so that no new licenses can be granted in burghs without the consent of the Burgh Magistrates. If they consent to the application their certificate has still to go for confirmation to the Committee of County Justices, and the confirmation of this body is necessary before the Excise can grant the new license. In the case of old licenses to be renewed, or of

1727
transfers, a right of appeal exists from the Burgh Magistrates to the Quarter Sessions, and that right of appeal would be enlarged and would continue to exist in cases of renewals and transfers if any proposals were adopted. I do not propose to move the Amendment precisely in the form in which it appears on the Paper. I propose that the power of confirmation should be conferred on the County Council, and exercised through a committee to be appointed by the County Council as hereafter provided. I hand you a copy of the words I shall propose, Sir. I propose that the County Council shall exercise all the licensing power exercised at present by Town Councils, and as Town Councils exercise their authority through a Committee, so should the County Councils through a committee elected for the purpose. This will give a certain definite control over licenses, proceeding on the lines of existing machinery, on a system with which the people of Scotland are perfectly familiar, and which has worked well for a considerable number of years. Previously to the passing of the "Publicans' Certificates Scotland Act (1876)," it was a constant grievance that licenses refused by the Burgh Magistrates were on appeal granted over their heads by the licensing Justices. To such an extent was this carried that in Glasgow for a series of years 50 licenses per annum, refused by the Burgh Magistrates were granted on appeal by Quarter Sessions. The result of the introduction of what was not a novel system, but of the English system, into Scotland, which gave to the Licensing Authority in the first instance the absolute right of refusal, and required confirmation from the Licensing Committee of Justices to make the grant of a new license valid, was to exactly reverse the previous state of things. Whereas before, the applicant had two chances of getting his license, under the new system there were two chances of refusal against him; he might be refused absolutely by the Burgh Magistrates, but if they granted the license he might still meet with a refusal from the Licensing Committee. Another effect would be to give the County Council, through their Licensing Committee, if my proposal were carried out, the right of shortening the hours for the sale of liquors as set out in the "Public Houses
1728
Hours of Closing (Scotland) Act." As this Bill proposes to transfer to County Councils the funds derived from the issue of licenses, it becomes a very important thing that the County Councils should have some control enabling them to prevent their districts being inundated by licenses. The Council will be an elected body directly responsible to the electors, but the new licenses will be granted by the Justices of the Peace in Licensing Sessions, and these Justices of the Peace are notorious for the manner in which they grant licenses. Every Scotch Member must have heard complaints of how, when an application for a license has been refused, the applicant and his friends revive the application at the next Session, and whip up every Justice who may be supposed to be friendly to the application, and by persistency and making application year after year, a man at last gets a Bench of Magistrates to decide in his favour and grant the license. It was the admitted evil of this that influenced the House to a large extent when the system of a Confirming Committee was adopted, and the result has borne out expectations that a small committee appointed by the Justices ad hoc would exercise this duty with a greater sense of responsibility, and in a more careful and uniform manner. Now, Sir, the County Councillors are to be responsible to the electors, and they will feel themselves bound to carry out their wishes. But licenses will continue to be granted by County Justices from all parts. In many instances licenses have been granted against the will of the inhabitants. At Pollokshields great indignation was recently excited by the action of the Justices in this matter; and more recently at Hillhead indignation meetings were held again and again protesting against the grant of certain licenses by the County Justices. It is felt that these county gentlemen have no special interest in maintaining the amenities of the burghs which lie within their district; that they have no direct interest or concern in the matter. But on the County Councils there will be representatives of burghs, and we say it is well that they should have a direct voice in this matter. The Government defeated an Amendment by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Lanarkshire, which

1729
proposed to make all burghs, for the purposes of this Act, Royal burghs or the equivalent to them. The effect of the adoption of the Amendment would have been to hand over to the burghs these rights. In the Division on the Amendment, 39 Scotch Members voted for it, and only 18 against it, and that being so, I think we may reasonably ask the Government to re-consider their decision, and by adopting the present Amendment give us a more symmetrical system of licensing in Scotland. To carry the Bill as it at present stands would be to place unprotected populous places in great risk of being inundated with new licenses. The Licensing Bench for such places will be made up of county gentlemen who will not be influenced by local feeling, and who have an interest in getting, in relief of the county rates, as much money for the county in licensing business as possible. We have in the large towns of Scotland a system that has worked well, and I think we ought, by transferring licensing powers to the County Councils, to give the whole of Scotland a simple, uniform, and well-understood method of licensing.
Another Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 37, after the words "thirty-six" to insert the words—
"And to be exercised by a Committee to be appointed by the County Council as hereinafter provided all the powers of granting or refusing certificates for licenses for the sale of excisable liquors in Scotland at present exercised by the licensing authority in a burgh under the Licensing (Scotland) Acts, and for the purposes of this sub-section the expressions Licensing (Scotland) Acts' and licensing authority' shall bear the interpretations given them in sections two and eight respectively of 'The Public Houses, Hours of Closing (Scotland) Act, 1887;' and a grant of a new certificate in any County in Scotland (except in the County of the city of Edinburgh, as provided in 'The Publicans Certificates (Scotland) Act, 1876,' shall not be valid unless it shall be confirmed by the county licensing committee."—(Dr. Cameron.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. J. P. B. BOBERTSON: The hon. Member shows that he hardly appreciates the perplexity which attaches to this matter. The subject of licensing is one of very great magnitude and very great difficulty, and also one capable of exciting the very warmest controversies. The experience of last year, too, showed that the
1730
question is one which it is impossible to deal with merely in passing or incidentally in connection with a measure which necessarily, in its scope and bearing, is so large and comprehensive as the Bill before us. I have little doubt that the whole subject of the Licensing Laws must be treated in a comprehensive spirit and with a due regard to the general feeling in favour of local administration; but the primary ground on which I hold that we ought to refrain from attempting t) deal with this complicated and delicate question now is, that it is so large in itself that if we were to mix it up with the present Bill we should greatly imperil the passing of a measure which, I believe, will prove very useful and give general satisfaction to Scotland.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think that the committee will easily detect in these two speeches on licensing two different currents of thought. On the one hand there is the desire, over and over again expressed, to see this new so-called municipal system in counties assimilated as far as possible with the system which, in the towns, has worked with so much advantage. The difficult and delicate matter of licensing has, so far as the towns in Scotland are concerned, been settled—thanks largely to the interference in past years of my hon. Friend—on a basis which gives considerable, if not entire, satisfaction to the community. My hon. Friend thinks, and I agree with him, no difficulty would have arisen in Scotland if the Government had chosen to constitute the County Councils a Licensing Authority exactly analogous to that prevailing in the towns. Now, the current of thought which seems to me to run through the Lord Advocate's speech, is that we are to he governed more or less by English ideas and precedents. I do not mean to say that the Lord Advocate would hold that we must put nothing in the Bill that is not in the English Bill, or that we should be strictly confined to following the English example. But he says—"Look at our experience of last year; look at the difficulties we had to face." Of course, he referred to the question of compensation. That no doubt is a formidable question in England; but it is not nearly so formidable in Scotland for this reason—that the habit and practice that exists in Eng-

1731
land of large brewers possessing a considerable number of public-houses which are devoted to the sale of drink, does not exist in Scotland, and therefore the question of' compensation, if it was to be entertained at all, would be much more easily dealt with in Scotland than in England. Now, I hold the opinion expressed so well by my hon. Friend, that we should, if possible, give the control of this matter to the County Council who represent the inhabitants of the district, and I believe that it might be done without any great upsetting of existing arrangements. The Lord Advocate, I was glad to hear, does not dissociate himself from the idea that the control of the licensing question ought, if possible, to be given to a popular body such as this; and I can only regret that the Government have been so much alarmed by the supposed formidable nature of the task and by their experience of last year in connection with the English Local Government Bill that they will not attempt a task which might be easily accomplished for Scotland. The Amendment which has already been defeated, and which, if carried, would have secured the control of this matter to the larger police burghs, showed an enormous preponderance of Scotch opinion in favour of the transfer of the licensing powers, and I should have hoped that that would have induced the Government to meet us in this matter. As, however, they will not do so, I am afraid that all we can do is to vote in favour of the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and to trust that when the Government find how strong the feeling is in Scotland they will give way.
MR. FINLAY: I feel unable to support the Amendment. I have no repugnance to the idea of placing the licensing powers under popular control. On the contrary, I have long advocated it. But I have also thought that that control should be exercised by a body specially elected for the purpose. A good many reasons might be given for that view. I do not desire to enter into the subject now; but there is one aspect which I may impress on the Committee, and that is the effect on the elections which would be caused by importing into them the licensing question. What would be the prospect of those elections if this disturbing element were introduced? We
1732
should have elected men holding extreme views on the liquor question on the one side or the other, whereas the object which we ought to have in view in the elections is to secure the choice of as large a number as possible of moderate men—men accustomed to business, and who are likely to manage well the affairs of the county and give the County Councils a good start. For that reason I feel myself obliged to vote against the Amendment.
MR. M'LAGAN: Although the Amendment does not go so far as I should like, I shall support it because I do not see why the County Councils should not have the same power of granting licenses as the Town Councils possess. I have always said, too, that this power should be vested in the people. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member who last spoke that it would be desirable to have a Board specially elected for the purpose; but as we cannot get that, we must take the next best thing, and vest the power in a Board elected by the people for general purposes. I do not deny that the County Magistrates have discharged their duties faithfully and conscientiously; but often the Bench is swamped by Justices who do not know the wishes and wants of people in districts affected by the licensing business under consideration. If the duty is transferred to the County Council, then every part of the county will be represented. I trust the time is not far distant when the people will directly control these matters.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I rise to support the Amendment which has been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow. I quite admit that great difficulty besets the licensing question, and I regret that a subject which caused such conflict of opinion last year in connection with the Local Government Bill for England—I refer to the question of compensation—should have been imported into this debate. But although I cordially join with those who say that the subject of licensing should be placed in the hands of the people by direct veto, I support the Amendment because it is leading up to the same result. It is true that under the present system it is possible to appeal to Quarter Sessions against

1733
the refusal of a license; but an opinion has been strongly expressed in many burghs that that power of appeal is undesirable, and that those who are responsible in burghs for the peace and comfort of the citizens should in themselves constitute the final Court of Appeal as to the number and the quality of the licenses. If we take English borough administration for our model, we must, of course, give licensing powers to the County Councils. What is complained of in the county with which I am now immediately associated is that those interested for or against licenses canvass the Justices over a large area and bring on to the Bench from all districts men who have no local knowledge. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness deprecates the bringing of another element into the electoral discussion. But what are we going to have elections for? Are we going to elect people to decide opinions on which we already agree? There is no use in electing County Councils on a popular basis unless popular feeling is to be brought to bear on important questions such as the licensing question is, and why should not the people be able to say, through their elected Representatives, whether or not licenses shall be granted? I therefore think that the argument of my hon. Friend that there ought to be a quiet election for the first County Councils, and that there shall be no discussion on social questions on which considerable differences exist, is not well founded. In refusing to accept this Amendment, the Government are not going in the direction indicated by Scotch public opinion.
SIR A. CAMPBELL: No doubt there is a considerable amount of difficulty in dealing with this question. We know what took place in regard to it last year, and I think we are still under the shadow of that. I hope that the Government will stand by their declaration, and that the arrangements with regard to licensing will not be interfered with. One reason I have for taking this view is that we are about to constitute a new body in the counties, and it would be a great misfortune if it should at once be called upon to deal with the difficult and vexed question of licensing. As to the suggestion that the County Justices in licensing matters
1734
interfere with the decisions of Borough Justices, my experience has been rather the reverse, as in my own county it has been the universal practice for many years to take the opinion of local Justices, and, unless some great difference of opinion exists, never to reverse the decision of those Justices. That system has been found to work very well indeed. Then, again, we are told that the County Justices know nothing about local feeling. I deny that, because the Justices are drawn from all parts of the county, and they are better able to know what is desirable than would be a man merely elected on the County Council. The Justices also possess a certain amount of independence, and feel able to act solely on the facts laid before them.
MR. R. T. REID: Though there may be a difference of opinion among Scotch Members as to the precise degree and method of control, there is a strong feeling in which many men of all shades of thought agree that there ought to be popular control over the grant of new licenses. For that reason, and for the reason stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, I shall vote for the Amendment. It certainly does not go so far as I am prepared to go, but still it is a move in the right direction. I wish to refer for a minute or two to the arguments advanced by the hon. Baronet opposite, and also by the hon. and learned Member for Inverness—namely, that we ought not to allow this disturbing element in the first elections. That has been the ground urged for not giving the County Council power to protect rights of way, and it has been urged on other stages of the Bill, and the result is that you are constituting County Councils with practically nothing to do. In my view, the merits of the new authority will depend to what extent it will be able to deal with matters in which the public are most deeply interested, and to try and keep the Councils removed from all subjects in which the constituency is most deeply concerned is to treat the members as children instead of as men. For my part, I desire in the public interest—and in the interest of the County Councils themselves, which ought to be as dignified and important as possible—to confer on them the largest prac-

1735
ticable rowers in regard to Local Government.
MR. MARK STEWART: I should like to explain briefly the vote I am about to give. I can see great difficulty in carrying out the object of the Amendment. I heartily go in for a thorough popular control in licensing matters; but when I am asked if I am prepared to burden this Bill with the Amendment before the House, and whether I think it right to institute popular elections on the drink question at the outset, I say at once I do not think I should be doing my duty to my constituency or representing the majority of my constituents if I voted in favour of this Amendment. I am satisfied that there is a large amount of public feeling in favour of it, but I am also satisfied that many thinking persons hold that the licensing clauses should not be introduced into a Local Government Bill, and would prefer to have them postponed until such time as it may be possible to legislate on the subject in a largo and comprehensive spirit.
MR. WALLACE: I wish to support the Amendment. Hon. Members seem to think that this licensing question will exercise such a disturbing influence in the County Council elections that the best men for the general business of the county will not be appointed. I do not share in that feeling. We have had a long experience in the burghs where the municipality has power over licensing matters, but I do not think it can be said that that power has exercised any appreciable influence for evil in the selection of moderate, reasonable, and practical men as members of the Council. If there is any difference in this matter between civic and rural municipalities, I think the danger would be more to be apprehended in the case of the civic bodies, because in towns the drink question is a far more crying evil and more deeply felt than in rural districts. I think the experience we have had in towns should encourage the Government to also trust the people living in rural districts. It seems to me that a great deal of this alarm about the extravagance with which electors will exercise the franchise is rooted in the fundamental difference between Liberalism and Conservatism. One trusts the
1736
people, the other in its modern phase professes to do so, but confines itself to professions.
MR. ALEXANDER L. BROWN: The hon. Baronet the Member for Renfrewshire spoke of the independence of the County Justices, but I think the real reason for the attitude of the Government is to be found in the natural desire of the Magistrates to keep the powers they now exercise. I fancy the hon. Member for Kirkcudbrightshire will find it difficult to reconcile the vote he is about to give with the position he has taken up in that county. Is the Lord Advocate going to give us any concessions at all? He made a great parade on Friday of the spirit in which he was going to deal with the Amendments on the Paper, but the only concession he has yet made is on the point of the Chairmanship of the County Councils; and when we bring up questions on which there is more difference of opinion he refuses to meet us in any way. If this is the spirit which is to prevail it will not facilitate the progress of the Bill. You are bringing Local Government into contempt in Scotland. You are giving the County Councils absolutely nothing to do but audit a few accounts. I would earnestly appeal to the Lord Advocate to drop this attitude of dogged resistance, and to remember that at the next General Election he will have to satisfy the people of Scotland as to his conduct.
MR. PHILIPPS: I know from personal experience that feeling in favour of temperance legislation is much stronger in Scotland than in England, and, even in this House, with a Tory Government and half-Unionist majority in power, whenever temperance Motions are brought forward they are always carried on general grounds. Local Option Motions are invariably successful, and I think it would be a most disgraceful thing, bearing that fact in mind, for the Government to persist in their opposition to this Amendment.
MR. J. WILSON: I rise to support the Amendment. The hon. Baronet the Member for West Renfrew stated that the Justices of the Peace in his county always listened to what was said by the Justices for the immediate neighbourhood for which the license was applied. Well, Sir, that

1737
statement is equally applicable to Lanarkshire. But the fact is that the Magistrates are often influenced from outside sources. Now, I have sat on the Bench for many years, and have never known a case in which people have come to the Court asking for licenses to be granted. We frequently have deputations asking that they shall not be granted, while the forms of opposition which have to be gone through are so difficult that many people rather than take the trouble will let the license go by default. The main street of the town which I have the honour to represent is two miles long, and I believe that every third shop is either a licensed grocery or a public house. By subjecting the people to such strong temptation you do much to demoralise them, and I think this would be avoided if the burgh had control over licensing matters, instead of being subject to County Justices in that respect. A right hon. Gentleman once told this House that the law of the country should make it easy to do good and difficult to do wrong. Now we know that the great bulk of the crime of this country is due to over indulgence in strong drink; and therefore I hold that every obstacle should be put in the way of people getting that strong 'drink. Therefore. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
SIR J. KINLOCH: I rise to support the Amendment, and I do so as a Justice of the Peace. I think it would be a great advantage to have this thorny question removed from the Court of the Justices of the Peace to a central and popularly elected body, which will look dispassionately on the requirements of a district, and will study local wishes. We think the duty of granting licences is the most unpleasant one we have to perform, especially in districts with which we have connection and interests.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 64.—(Div. List, No. 182.)
MR. C. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: The Amendment of which I have given Notice is one to which I believe the Lord Advocate is not unfavourable. To elicit the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman I beg formally to move it.
Amendment proposed, line 41, at end add.—
"And the power of the Commissioners of Supply to appoint Income Tax Commissioners, to impose and levy the land tax, and split and deal with old valued rents, are also all hereby reserved."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I propose to deal with this same subject by an Amendment which I shall have to m we later in a new clause. I think the hon. Member is quite right in his view that this is a duty not of an administrative, but of a judical character, and the clause I shall have to propose will recognize this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, in line 41, after "passed," add—
"The provisions of any Act of Parliament conferring, imposing, or regulating the powers and duties by this Act transferred or regulating the proceedings under any such Act shall remain in full force and effect, except in so far as they are repealed by or are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act."—(The Lord Advocate.)
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am obliged to take this legitimate opportunity of referring to what occurred in discussing the earlier part of the clause. The most important point yet reached in the Bill is the question whether the Commissioners of Supply should be retained, or whether the whole of their powers should be handed over to the County Council. The object I have in recurring to this is to invite the attention of the Government especially to the Division which took place on that occasion. It was, I think, remarkable and almost unprecedented as an expression of opinion on the part of the Scotch Members. On the Amendment which it was my duty to move, that the powers of the Commissioners of Supply should be handed over to the County Council, there were 18 Scotch Members in all who voted against it and supported the Government; there were 43 who voted for the Amendment and against the Government; 11 were absent, and of these eight at least would have voted for the Amendment had they been present. Now, I think, the Government will admit that when they

1739
are supported by only a fourth of the Scotch Members on a full Division they must recognize in that a very significant expression of Scotch opinion. We all know there are peculiar circumstances in the existing Parliament which affect certain of my Colleagues, and induce them to look more favourably on the views of the Government than they would if left to their unbiased judgment. I express no opinion as to those who differ from us in general politics, but of this I feel satisfied, that some who voted with the Government would be quite prepared to accept this proposal. It is a very serious matter when the Representatives of the Scotch constituencies find themselves so completely overborne as they had been again and again on this measure. I fully acknowledge the courtesy of the Lord Advocate and the friendly and conciliatory spirit of the Government, but the concessions made are very small. I am not going again to argue the question of the charge of the police, and the financial duties that are to remain with the Commissioners of Supply, but I would point out that if these are left out the amount of authority handed over to the County Councils is very small indeed. It is not too much to say that the Commissioners of Supply themselves were not overburdened with business, a very few meetings in the year sufficing for the discharge of their duties, which are in a great measure to be withheld from the County Council; and when we make proposals for giving the County Council something more to do we are told of the danger of overburdening the new body. But when we look through the duties that are to be conferred upon them, which relate to gas meters, explosive substances, weights and measures, habitual drunkards, wild birds, and destructive insects, we think that something more might be given to this great Constitutional body about to be created. But I am not going to argue the question over again. I am only going to make an appeal to the Government, and more especially to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. Throughout these debates I have made a discovery. In regard to the Universities Bill and the Bill now before us, the Government, I am bound to say this in their favour,
1740
have generally been in a friendly and conciliatory spirit, but there are occasions when there is no display of that spirit, and those are when we have present here, taking the part of chief adviser of the Lord Advocate, of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The moment the Chief Secretary came into the House on Friday, I said to my friends near me, "we shall have no concessions to-night." The Government then take the narrow and distrustful view of the right hon. Gentleman. I appeal now to the right hon. Gentleman, who with the President of the Local Government Board is always open to reason, to reconsider this point upon which we have made this strong demonstration of opinion. There really is no point of high principle involved, it is merely a question of expediency. The Commissioners of Supply themselves contemplate their absorption in a very few years, and there really is no political principle in the matter; nor need the Government be afraid of any sinister example for England or Ireland if they yield to such a demonstration as we have made on this occasion. I do not go into many other divisions in which the result has been very much the same. I confine myself to this one question upon which the Scotch people have a right to be heard, because it closely affects themselves. It is not unreasonable that we should make an appeal—I will not yet cal/ it a despairing appeal—to the good sense and good feeling of the right hon. Gentleman, and remind him that when we ask for this concession we do so as representing the vast majority of the Scottish people.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I cannot complain of the temper and spirit with which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed the Government and the Committee on this occasion, except in one particular when he thought it right to single out a right hon. colleague of mine as the evil spirit of this Bench and exercising such a tremendous and malign influence over my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate that the moment he came into the House no concession was entertained. Now, I wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are acting together on

1741
these questions, and in refusing any Amendments which have been proposed, the Government, as a whole, must be held responsible for the evil deeds the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to and ascribed to my right hon. Friend. The Government are responsible for the framing of a measure which they believe will be conducive to the safety and good government of Scotland, and as a whole are responsible for what the right hon. Gentleman terms concessions. I dislike the phrase, fur it seems to imply that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite make demands for the benefit of Scotland which we desire to refuse. Our object, as I have said, is to frame an Act for the good government of Scotland, but the Government are also responsible for the peace and good order of every part of Her Majesty's dominions, and we must not take any course which in our judgment would tend to endanger good order in any part of the kingdom. I will not repeat the arguments that were so well used by the Lord Advocate and the Chief Secretary for Ireland on Friday in the name of the Government. I believe those arguments were not met by the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends in such a manner as would justify us in incurring the responsibility of risk to the preservation of peace and good order in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions which we believe would be involved by adopting the course urged upon us. The right hon. Gentleman tells us there is no point of high principle involved. If that is so, surely there is no very great question between us, and we may be allowed, at least for the present, to maintain a system that we, speaking for the present, believe to be essential. As time goes on the right hon. Gentleman may prove himself to be right, and, if so, nobody will be more ready to acknowledge it than we shall. But we are asked to undertake an experiment we do not think we are justified in making, and to incur a responsibility for which we are not prepared. It has been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman or by those who support him that some restriction, some provision for interference might be necessary in some parts of Scotland if County Councils had control of the police. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman put on the Paper his sug-
1742
gestion of an alternate provision which would fortify and strengthen the power of maintaining order which he desires so much to preserve? Again, the right hon. Gentleman has stated his desire to see the rate for maintaining the police divided between the occupier and the owner. How is it that we have not an Amendment on the Paper for that purpose? [Several hon. MEMBERS: You have.] In the name of the right hon. Gentleman? ["No."] This is what I am referring to. He is responsible in a large measure for the conduct of hon. Members opposite in relation to this Bill, and naturally we should attach more importance to an Amendment coming from him than to others. However that may be, I acknowledge the fair spirit in which these discussions in Committee have been conducted, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will recognize that we desire to proceed in a fair and conciliatory spirit. But there are matters on which it is impossible for the Government to give way, and with us lies the responsibility for the measure now under consideration.
SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I am quite sure that nobody who has been present during the proceedings upon this Bill, and the University Bill, can complain of any want of consideration and courtesy across the floor of the House, but it is not only a question of civility in dealing with Members of Parliament, which has been conspicuous. I admit that it is a question of recognition of and respect for the opinion and dignity of the Scotch nation. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the necessity of considering the good government of the whole country, and we have been met frequently with arguments drawn from England, but there is one argument from the experience of England, which has been entirely overlooked. The universal complaint in every county in England, as far as I know, has been about the enormous costs of the County Council elections, and people are asking, why so much expense was laid upon them for the election of bodies which have next to nothing to do? Nothing has so much tended to depopularize the idea of Local Government in Scotland as that circumstance. If that is the case in

1743
England, much more may it be the case in Scotland. In Scotland among all shades of political opinion, Imperial and local, there will be a feeling of dissatisfaction of the disproportion between the expense of the elections, and the small amount of work the Councils will have to do. I am afraid that the decisions on this clause, unless the Government will reconsider their own Report, will take the life and light out of the Bill. An extraordinary argument has been used on more than one occasion against giving control of the police, of the liquor traffic, and other matters to the Representatives of the people, that it would introduce interesting questions and public considerations into the elections, and men would be elected for reasons other than personal qualifications. But I may appeal to English experience, and I say that it was often most difficult to come to any judgment on the claims of a candidate in a district, and frequently the election turned upon whether the candidates belonged to the landlord class, the farming class, or the working class. What is wanted is the introduction into these elections of elements that will broaden and elevate their character, something to interest the people, and surely nothing can interest the people more than their own concerns for which they really care, and upon which they are well able to form an opinion as regards the qualification of a candidate. On all the points put by my right hon. Friend there has not been a sufficient answer from the Government to justify their going against the general feeling of the Scotch people. It was quite at the end of the debate and when the Committee was beginning to think they had had enough of it that my hon. Friend the Member for Govan got up, and I must say that nobody who listened to him could have failed to have been struck with the plain statement of how in a community of 60,000 or 70,000 people there was no popular voice whatever in the selection of men who were to grant licenses in the district, and that licenses far in excess of requirements were granted by Magistrates who, coming from a distance, had no local knowledge or sense of responsibility. This is the sort of argument that has been brought forward again and again throughout the debates, and to which no answer has been given.
1744
No answer has been given to these statements and sentiments that represent Scotch feeling, and unless reconsideration is given, as I hope it may be given, to these questions on the stage of Report, this Bill will teach the people how little is to be hoped for from the Government towards a system of popular Local Government.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I took the liberty of saying when this clause was introduced that it would not be satisfactory to the people of Scotland. It has been my lot to have had a great deal to do both with City and County Local Government, and I must say that I feel the greatest possible astonishment and dissatisfaction that the Lord Advocate and the Government have not seen their way to concede at least something towards Scotch opinion. The First Lord of the Treasury says we are proposing an experiment, but it is no experiment at all; we have had this popular control in large cities in Scotland for a long series of years. How can the light hon. Gentleman say that this cannot be done at the present moment when in the past we have had full experience that the people can be trusted to manage these among their own affairs. The attitude of the Government supplies a strong argument in favour of Home Rule for both Scotland and Ireland. The argument that has told most against Home Rule for Scotland has been that at all events the Imperial Parliament did not interfere with especial Scotch business, unless there were strong Imperial reasons for doing so. What has occurred in the past to justify the assertion that Scotland cannot be trusted to keep its own peace? With regard to the Bill, I say candidly that with this clause standing as it does the people of Scotland, except as regards education, will care nothing for it. I am sure that the people will resent this granting of County Councils with so little to do, on the ground advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, that the people cannot be trusted. In the interests of peace and good government, I make my earnest protest in the firm belief that this Bill, which the Government intended to satisfy the people of Scotland, will only irritate them.
MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I only rise to correct an

1745
error into which the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Trevelyan) fell when he stated in effect that the Local Government Bill of last Session did not cast heavy duties on the County Councils. It is true that only the duties of the County Magistrates were transferred together with the charge of main roads, no slight addition to the duties. But the County Councils and the county generally are beginning to understand how large an amount of business has to be transacted by Committees. In my own county of Hereford, with which I have most acquaintance, I know that the Council have quite as much work on their hands as they can get through.
MR. CHILDERS: Two statements fell from the First Lord of the Treasury that seem to me to require notice. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was the duty of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling to place before the House the Amendments which he would propose for the control of the police in those parts of Scotland which, in his opinion, required exceptional treatment; but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the suggestion came from the Ministerial and not the Opposition side of the House, so that it is not for us to suggest any such Amendments. We are of opinion that the people might be entirely trusted in the matter of the police. The right hon. Gentleman further said it was the duty of the Government, not only to look to Scotland, but to the effect of the changes proposed on the good Government of the United Kingdom. That is the strongest argument in favour of Home Rule that I have ever heard. This is a purely local matter, and under any system of devolution of authority from the central to the local authority these matters would undoubtedly be left to the local legislature. But the right hon. Gentleman argues that this purely local question as affecting Scotland must be considered with reference to the effect of similar provisions in other parts of the United Kingdom.
MR W. H. SMITH: As to the last observation of the right hon. Gentleman it is right I should say that when I referred to the responsibility of the Government for the good order and peace of the whole of the United Kingdom,
1746
I had in my mind the good order and government of all parts of Scotland.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 12.
Amendments proposed, in line 11, leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act;" line 14, after "of," insert "section nine of."—(The Lord Advocate.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, in Clause 12, page 4, line 13, after "Act," insert—
"excepting so much of Section 8 of that Act as provides for the incorporation of the Commissioners of Supply."—(Mr. Hozier.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am sorry to be unable to accept the Amendments. A change is effected by the Bill in the functions of the Commissioners of Supply. Instead of being an administrative body as they have been hitherto, in the future they will be merely an elective body. I do not think, under the circumstances, that they should be a Corporation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. MARK STEWART: I beg to move to leave out the word "May" in line 22, in order to insert "April." There is a strong feeling in Scotland that if it is possible the old statutory day of meeting should be preserved. In many Scotch counties the accounts are made up and audited for the 30th April, and the same thing would still continue if the Government would accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved, in Clause 12, page 4, line 22, leave out "May," and insert "April."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'May' stand part of the Clause."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The practical objection to this Amendment is that the financial year, according to what is necessary under the Bill, begins on the 15th May. I am afraid it would be unworkable to adopt the month of April, though I can very well understand the hon. Member, from traditional reasons, having a preference for that month.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved, in Clause 12, page 4, line 22, leave out from "but," to the end of the sub-section, and insert—
"And for all other purposes the Commissioners of Supply may make such arrangements as they see fit with respect to the summoning notice, time, place, management, and adjournment of their meetings."—(Mr. Bozier.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am afraid this Amendment proceeds on the assumption that there are other purposes for which the Commissioners of Supply shall meet than that of election. We adhere to the view that the Commissioners of Supply shall have no administrative functions whatever. I cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 12, page 21, line 25, after "Committee," insert "appointed as."—(The Lord Advocate).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 (Transfer of police in burghs under 7,000 population).
MR. LYELL: I would ask whether, under the Amendment standing in the Lord Advocate's name, he reserves power to the Scotch Office to interpret the clause freely, so that certain burghs having less than 7,000 inhabitants may not be deprived of the privileges they at present possess?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am under an engagement to so frame the clause so as to provide for those burghs which by some formal process shall be found to have 7,000 population at the time of the passing of the Act. In doing that the Government will be doing all that the hon. Gentleman wants. He desires to know what burghs will come within the definition of this Bill. There is no general power bestowed on the Secretary for Scotland to give to one burgh and withhold from another. As to the question of law, there must be some expeditious method of securing decisions; and we, therefore, thought that if we required reference to be made to the officials, they
1748
would interpret the clause in a liberal way.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 13, page 4, line 91, leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act."—(Mr. P. B. Robertson).
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 13, page 5, line 1, after "duties," insert "and shall have transferred to it the liabilities."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, Clause 13, page 5, line 3, after "county," add—
"Provided that this section shall not apply to any burgh which has maintained a separate police force during the ten years immediately preceding the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Baird).
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I shall be happy to consider this proposal between now and the Report stage; but I could not offhand accept so general an Amendment as this.
MR. S. WILLIAMSON: I would recommend the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. LYELL: I can understand the difficulty the Lord Advocate is under in making exceptions, and, therefore, it was that I asked him whether it was proposed that the Scotch office should retain powers to deal with exceptional cases. I wish to press on the Lord Advocate that the circumstances of the islands in the North of Scotland cannot properly be judged by the standard applicable to the mainland. I would urge that the Town Commissioners of Lerwick, in Shetland, ought not to be deprived of the control of their police, but on public grounds ought rather to be vested with the control of the police of the island. There is a large fishing population there which varies very considerably in the course of the year, and the Naval Reserves come in in the winter.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I admit that the case of Lerwick is a peculiarly strong one; but I do not see how it is to be met without creating greater inconveniences than are involved in the operation of the clause. I will re-consider the case; but I do not expect to be able to find a solution of the difficulty.
Question, "That those words be added to the Clause," put, and negatived.
MR. CRAIG SELLAR: The object of the next Amendment, which stands in my name, is to provide that the computation of the population of the different burghs shall be made at the time of the passing of the Act, and it provides the simple means for that purpose contained in the Scotch General Police and Improvement Act of 1862. The Lord Advocate, I know, contemplates something of this sort; but I do not think he could adopt a more reasonable means of attaining his object.
Amendment moved, Clause 13, page 5, line 3, at end of Clause, add—
"Provided that if the population of such burgh or police burgh, as the same may be ascertained as nearly as possible in the manner described in the seventh Clause of The General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862," within three months after the passing of this Act exceeds 7,000, this section shall not apply to such burgh or police burgh, and the said burgh or police burgh shall, for all the purposes of the Acts of 1889, be in the same position as a burgh or police burgh containing, according to the Census of 1881, a population exceeding 7,000."—(Mr. Craig Sellar.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I differ from the hon. Member to this extent, that I think the proposed method too dilatory. It is extremely important that the Act should be set going immediately after its passing. My view is that the Secretary for Scotland should be authorized, within 14 days or so after the passing of the Act, to state what burghs should come within the Act. If you give an interval of three months, it would throw out of gear the plans for the rapid putting into operation of the Act. I am carefully considering, with reference to that and other clauses, how I can frame a general provision to effect the object the hon. Member has in view.
MR. CRAIG SELLAR: On the understanding that the 7,000 population at the time of the passing of the Act is to be taken as the definition, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. R. T. REID: I now move an Amendment declaring that the police,
1750
acting within the boundaries of a burgh, shall be subject to the Magistrates of that burgh. The purpose is in no sense to interfere with the efficient management of the police. The Lord Advocate will know that the burgh authorities are as anxious to see the peace preserved as anyone; but hitherto some of them have been in the habit of making their own arrangements with the counties as to the police, and what I desire is that this privilege should be continued, and that where the Magistrates are acting within the burgh boundary their authority should not be interfered with. I put the Amendment down at the request of one of the Royal burghs which I have the honour to represent, and I think it is a very reasonable one.
Amendment moved, Clause 13, page 5, at end, add—
"Provided that all police, while acting within the boundaries of such burgh, shall be subject to the control and orders of the magistrates thereof."—(Mr. Robert Reid.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think I can undertake to insert an Amendment to carry out the hon. and learned Gentleman's object. That object will be accomplished by enlarging the limit of 5,000 in the Police Act of 1857 to 7,000.
MR. R. T. REID: I think that would effect my object. If the Committee will allow me I will withdraw my Amendment, and will confer with the Lord Advocate on the subject.
MR. MARK STEWART: I desire to urge on the Government the claims of Maxwelltown, which has hitherto paid for its own police. No doubt the question will arise on Clause 30; but I desire to call the attention of the Government to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, "That Clause 13, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
SIR G. CAMPBELL: Before the clause is passed I should like to have an assurance from the Lord Advocate as to the meaning of the word "burgh." The Lord Advocate, in a letter he has written me, points out that what he means is a "municipal" and not a "Parliamentary" burgh; but I think

1751
the explanation he has given me in private I am entitled to ask for in public, seeing that when I pointed out that there was an obscurity in the clause he treated me with scant courtesy and tried to snuff out the question by silence, as though I was merely an obstructor, who knew nothing about the details of the Bill.
MR. ASHER: The difficulty on the part of my hon. Friend is to ascertain what is the exact object of this part of the Bill with regard to the burghs of which there are here and there throughout Scotland some that are placed in the exceptional position he has pointed out. Take the cases of Banff and Macduff, the first of which is a Royal burgh, while the other is not, these two forming not two burghs, in the Elgin Group, but counting as one in the general arrangement, and under this clause, taken along with the Interpretation Clause, these two burghs would still only count as one. It can hardly be doubted that the proper way would be to leave these towns as separate burghs for the purposes of this Bill, and I should be satisfied with any words the learned Lord Advocate might suggest that would effect this.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I should be happy to meet the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Asher), and have no doubt we shall be able to introduce words providing that places in the peculiar position ho has pointed out shall stand separately. With regard to what has been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell), I am very sorry if what I said on the occasion be has referred to, and said with what I believe to be perfect good humour, should have given him offence. The case he has mentioned is like those referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Elgin; and I can only say to him that in dealing with the various burghs it will be necessary to adopt a clearer mode of definition, which I believe can be done so as to remove any anxiety he may feel on the matter, In the Roads and Bridges Act there is a formula which I believe will meet the case. I think the object we all have in view is the same, and that is, that the municipal or police boundary should be taken as constituting the area.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 14.
Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 6, leave out "seven" and insert "twenty."—(Mr. Barclay.)
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This Amendment, if agreed to, would have the effect of excluding a large number of burghs which at present enjoy the administration of the Acts, and which have shown no desire to renounce that privilege. The Committee on the Police Bill of last year adopted the standard of 7,000 on what was practically the same question, and I hope the hon. Member will not persist in his Amendment.
MR. SINCLAIR: I trust, after what has been said by the Lord Advocate, the Amendment will not be pressed.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I regard this as a very important question, which ought not to be slurred over, because there has been great difficulty in dealing with burghs like Dysart, which, as far as I can gather, are willing to be amalgamated with the counties. Take, for instance, the case of the burgh of Kirkcaldy. That is a burgh which might be included, as it has suffered very much from the increased rates imposed upon it, in consequence of the extent to which cattle within its limits have been subjected to pleuro-pneumonia. When I put it to the people there, would it not be better to be amalgamated with the county, their answer was, "We are afraid the county would not have us." After the opinion which has been expressed, that the present area with regard to cattle diseases is too small, the amalgamation of such places with the counties might be facilitated.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, Clause 14, page 5, line 9, after "Acts," insert "and the Destructive Insects Act, 1877."—(The Lord Advocate.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed, Clause 14, page 5, line 10, leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act."—(The Lord Advocate.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 14, page 5, line 13, after "Acts," insert

1753
"and 'the Destructive Insects Act, 1877.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 14, page 5, line 21, after "county," add—
"Provided also, that if any question shall arise as to the burghs and police burghs to which the provisions of this or the immediately preceding section apply the same may he determined by the Secretary for Scotland."—(The Lord Advocate.)
Amendment agreed to.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed, Clause 15, page 5, line 36, after "burgh," insert "or the trustees of a public navigation or lighthouse trust."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present,
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I have previously informed the hon. Member that I accept this Amendment.
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed, Clause 15, page 5, line 36, after "burgh," insert "Commissioners of police of a police burgh."—(Mr. Craig Seller.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
MR. CRAIG SELLAR: The objec of the clause is to enable the Secretary for Scotland to transfer certain powers, and, among other powers, he may be enabled as the clause stands to transfer his appellate jurisdiction powers. There is an appeal on the part of any householder to the Secretary of State from the Sheriff on the question of boundaries, and it appears to me that it would not do to transfer such a jurisdiction from an official like the Secretary of State to the County Council. It might very well be that a Board wished to extend its boundaries, and the County Council might be the very parties to oppose such an extension. In that case the appeal would lie to those who were specially desirous of preventing the extension of the boundaries. Under the circumstances, I think it is reasonable that the appellate jurisdiction should be retained by the Secretary of State.
Amendment proposed, Clause 15, page 5, after line 42, insert—
"Provided that this section shall not apply to the appellate jurisdiction vested in Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State under The General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862.'"—(Mr. Craig Sellar.)
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: In the case of all these transfers the department from which the transfer would be made must consent; and in the case which he singles out it is exceedingly unlikely that the Secretary of State or the Secretary for Scotland would consent to the transfer of powers of a judicial character to the County Council. I am quite in sympathy with the object which my hon. Friend has in view in moving that Amendment; but I think it would be better to rely on the discretion of the Secretary of State in the matter.
MR. CRAIG SELLAR: I think the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is really in favour of the Amendment;, but, on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that the discretion of the Secretary of State will probably be exercised in favour of the object of my Amendment, I will not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments were agreed to:—Clause 16, page 6, line 17, leave out "relating," and insert "in so far as they relate"; line 20, leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act;" line 27, leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act;" line 42, leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act."
Amendment proposed, Clause 16, page 7, line 2, leave out "shall," and insert "may, if the County Council think fit." (Mr. Hozier.)
MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I hope the Government will favourably consider this proposal, because there are cases of counties, territorially not large, in which division into districts for the purpose of road management is altogether unnecessary, and in which no such division has ever been, in fact, made. One of ten counties, which I have the honour to represent, Clackmannan, is a case in. point. Not only is division unnecessary in such a case, but it would lead to greatly increased cost of administration. All I ask is that the division should not be made compulsory.
MR. CALDWELL: It would disturb the uniformity of procedure under this Act, and would be an exceedingly inconvenient thing, if any newly elected County Council had it in its power to interfere with the division.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I cannot accept the Amendment, especially in the very wide terms in which it is couched. The County of Lanarkshire, part of which is represented by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hozier), stands in an exceptional statutory position in this matter, as it is divided into districts by the Roads and Bridges Acts, and accordingly I think it has a claim for special consideration. Still, if my hon. Friend chooses to identify the exceptional position of his county with a general enactment, I cannot deal with it separately. To a large extent the success of the working of the district system depends upon each county being divided into districts, and I, therefore, do not see my way to accepting the Amendment. If my hon. Friend will bring the matter forward on the Lanarkshire Clause of the Supplemental Bill, I have no doubt we shall be able then to come to an agreement.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments were agreed to:—Clause 16, page 7, line 3, leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act;" line 7, leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act;" lines 10 and 11, leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act;" line 11, after "1889," insert—
"Provided that the district clerk appointed under the Acts of 1889 shall be deemed to be and shall discharge the duties of a district road clerk."
MR. HOZIER: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Sir A. Campbell).
Amendment proposed, in Clause 16, page 7, line 17, after "Committee," insert—
"And so much of Sections 24 and 58 as provides that proprietors only shall vote in regard to the construction of new roads and bridges, and be liable for the cost thereof, shall be repealed in regard to roads and bridges to be made, built, or rebuilt after the appointed day, and the cost of such construction shall be provided for in the same manner as the cost of maintenance of existing roads and bridges."—(Mr. Hosier.)
MR. BARCLAY: This is a very serious matter, and I should like to know what the Government have to say about it.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: We propose, under the stereotype clause, not to distinguish between the purposes of assessments, but merely to distinguish as to incidents. We propose that all the things that at present fall solely on landlords shall be treated among the stereotype rates.
MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I object to this proposal, and particularly to the provision that, whereas in the Act of 1878, passed by a Conservative Government, a scheme was settled which, I believe, was generally accepted throughout the country, under which the cost of new works was to be met by the owners, because their property mainly benefited by such new works, this policy should now be reversed as regards future works.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I should recommend my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment at this stage, on the understanding that it shall be brought up again on the general stereotype question. My hon. Friend was, however, I think, perfectly right to seize this opportunity of bringing his Amendment forward.
MR. BARCLAY: The provisions of the Act of 1878 with regard to road and bridges were framed in accordance with the Report of a Royal Commission; and therefore it is a very serious matter to disturb the settlement then arrived at.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: What I suggest is that this question shall be allowed to be held over, the precise occasion on which it shall be raised being left to the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire, who, of course, I will advise as to the best mode of bringing it forward, in order to meet the convenience of hon. Gentlemen.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. DUFF: I propose to omit Sub-section (d.) The object of the sub-section is to leave the powers in the same position as they are left by the Act of 1878. It is proposed that the County Council shall manage the burgh roads, but no reason has been assigned. I believe the burgh roads are well managed now, and I think it would be better

1757
they should be left as at present. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will say how the roads in populous places which are not burghs are to be maintained. At the present moment the assessments in respect of such roads can only be made in the county assessment, and the Lord Advocate is well aware there are many towns in Scotland which are not police burghs, and which have no means of assessing themselves for the maintenance of their streets. The main object of my Amendment is to leave the main roads which run through police burghs in the hands they were placed by the Act of 1878.
Amendment proposed, Clause 16, page 7, line 18, leave out Sub-section (d).—(Mr. Duff.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'police burghs' stand part of the Clause."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think the point raised by the Amendment is one deserving of consideration, and, I am bound to say, subject to anything that may be said at a subsequent stage by hon. Members having a better acquaintance with the administration of roads, my impression is he is right. But this subject is related to one or two others in which I know the hon. Member for Banffshire has taken a great interest and a leading part, and I should like to have the advantage of conferring with him, and with those who act with him in these matters, in order to arrive at some understanding. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment now and allow it to be dealt with on Report.
MR. DUFF: I take it the hon. and learned Gentleman is willing to have a meeting with Scotch Members who represent counties who have separate Acts; and on the understanding that the meeting will take place as soon as possible, and that this clause will be dealt with in the sense referred to by the Lord Advocate, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I am glad to bear the Lord Advocate is prepared to consider the question. I should like to say, however, that the question does not relate only to the case of counties or localities having separate Acts; there is another and a very important matter.
1758
The effect of this sub-section, if enacted, will be to deprive certain important police burghs of the road administration they now have, and to level them down to the position of rural parishes. What I particularly wish to put to the Lord Advocate is this—whether it would not be better, seeing that the sub-section enacts a change, to omit the sub-section for the moment. Then the matter may be brought up as an open question upon Report, with such Amendments as either the Lord Advocate on reflection, or after conference with hon. Members may suggest.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: My impression is it is better the clause should for the present remain as it is. The hon. Member for Banffshire may rest assured that the matter will receive attention. Although my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. B. Balfour) is quite right in saying that this point rests in most instances apart altogether from Local Acts, in some cases it does rest upon such Acts. I have not the least doubt we shall arrive at some intelligible arrangement.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to move the insertion of the sub-section which stands in my name. This sub-section is intended to fix in a more limited degree than the Amendment discussed earlier in the evening certain responsibility on the County Councils with regard to the questions affecting rights of way. In case any railway company or the promoters of any undertaking wish to obtain or exercise compulsory powers under Act of Parliament, by the exercise of which any particular right of way is interfered with, this sub-section imposes upon them the duty of giving notice of the interference to the County Council. The County Council will then take such action as in its discretion it may deem right. The reasons for introducing the sub-section is that various rights of way have been interfered with by railway companies in Scotland to the great detriment of the public. There is a case well-known to hon. Members—namely, that of the public pathway between Aberdour and Burntisland. The North-British Railway Company obtained powers to construct a railway between the two places. They obtained

1759
power to divert the public pathway. They agreed to maintain a pathway between Aberdour and Burntisland, but there was no public authority who had a right to see in what way this public right of way was taken possession of and used by the railway company. As a matter of fact, the railway company utterly destroyed the pathway for all the purposes of the enjoyment of the people. There have been other cases of the same sort. Undoubtedly it is very greatly to the interest of the public that the County Council should be charged with a certain amount of responsibility for looking after the interests of the public in cases in which it is found necessary to interfere with public rights of way.
Amendment proposed, Clause 16, page 7, line 23, after "county," add the following sub-section:—
"(3). After the passing of this Act, should any railway company, or the promoters of any undertaking' as defined in 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845,' wish to obtain or exercise Parliamentary powers to enable them to close, enter upon, or interfere with the use of any right of way, or to purchase any lands over which the public has a right of way, they shall be bound to give notice of their intention to do so to the Clerk of the County Council within which the right of way extends, and the Council shall take such steps as may be deemed expedient to protect the interest of the public in the right of way."—(Mr. Buchanan).
Question proposed," That those words be there added."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The sub-section is framed on the assumption that the County Councils have been invested by a previous resolution of the Committee with the general duty of maintaining public rights of way. But the Committee has decided that the new bodies are not to be invested with such powers, and accordingly I fail to see the necessity for this Amendment. The Committee will observe that the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) is in this dilemma—either this is to be ascribed to some new powers with which the County Councils are invested, or it is to be ascribed to their position as the successors of the Road Trustees. If the latter then you do not require this clause, because we have already invested the County Councils with the whole of the powers and duties of the Road Trustees. Accord-
1760
ingly, if the undertakers of new enterprises were obliged to give notice to the Road Trustees, they will be obliged to give notice to the County Councils. Then I turn to the other branch. If this obligation which is to be asserted against the undertakers of new enterprises depends upon some new powers to be ascribed to the County Councils, where are they? Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot seriously propose that upon the assumption that the County Councils have no general duties to maintain rights of way other than were possessed by their predecessors, the Road Trustees, they are to have notice given to them of matters with which they have no concern. The hon. Gentleman proceeds to propose that "the Council shall take such steps as may be deemed expedient to protect the interest of the public in the right of way." Why should railway companies be singled out as the only aggressors upon rights of way? In short, I think this is a matter which the Committee decided earlier in the evening.
MR. FINLAY: I would ask my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment. I voted with him on his previous Amendment, and if that Amendment had been carried this would have been a very reasonable clause to add. But it appears to me utterly unreasonable that one particular class of cases with regard to rights of way should be picked out, and if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall be reluctantly obliged to vote against him. I hope the whole matter will be re-considered on Report; but I cannot be a party to introducing random clauses of this kind.
MR. HUNTER: I cannot accept the argument of the Lord Advocate, that because the Committee at a previous stage rejected a very large demand made this very small and moderate demand ought not to be acceded to. That is including the less in the greater with a vengeance. What objection can there be to this clause? How is it going to injure any one? All it provides is that, in emergencies which constantly arise, the persons who are going to take away a notorious and acknowledged right of way shall give notice to the County Council. Why should they not? The second part of the clause gives the

1761
County Council power to take such steps as may be required for the protection of the public interest. Surely that is a most salutary and most proper object for the Committee to enforce. I hope my hon. Friend will press this Amendment to a division, and compel the Government to show that, in small things as in great, they are determined to pay no regard to popular rights.
MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: If we are going to divide on the clause, it is as well it should be properly worded. The antecedent to the relative which is County Council: it should be county. The clause assumes that a right of way extends within one county only, whereas it may extend to many counties. I would suggest that after the word "Council," in line 8, we should insert, "of every county within which the right of way extends."
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, line 8, after "Council," insert, "of every county within which the right of way extends."—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Question, as amended, again proposed.
MR. ESSLEMONT: Surely the clause can do no harm. It is well known that in burghs the Town Councils are the custodians of all public rights with regard to roads and everything else, Why should it be beyond the scope of a County Council to see that in a great pecuniary undertaking such as a railway due notice is given to it with regard to public roads?
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I hope the Committee will accept this very moderate and reasonable clause. Allusion has been made to the destruction of the lovely pathway between Aberdour and Burntisland. In that case we were obliged to resort to public agitation in the newspapers. I certainly think such matters would be much better settled if instead of the people having to resort to newspaper agitation they could rely on a public authority like the County Council.
MR. WALLACE: If this were a repetition in principle of the Amendment which was rejected earlier in the evening I should have followed the hon. and
1762
learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) in the course he proposes to take. But the two cases do not seem to me to run on all fours. In the previous case what was contemplated was a landlord surreptitiously and in a clandestine way endeavouring to take a right of way from the people without their perceiving it. But the ease which is supposed here is of au entirely different description. It is the ease of a railway or other company avowedly proposing to take for consideration an acknowledged and indisputable right of way from the public, in which case they are to be obliged to give notice to the County Council, and then a certain ministerial duty is imposed on the clerk of the County Council. The two cases seem to be just as opposed to one another as any pair of contraries can be.
MR. BUCHANAN: I think it would have conduced rather to the saving of time if the Lord Advocate had addressed himself to the merits of the Amendment instead of directing attention to my consistency, But, in fact, the Amendment discussed earlier in the evening dealt with a different subject. The earlier Amendment was in reference to throwing upon the County Council the responsibility of maintaining rights of way existing, but here we deal with a totally different set of circumstances. There have been many instances, such as that alluded to by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy at Aberdour, in which railway companies have taken possession of and diverted public rights of way and footpaths as they pleased, simply because there was no public authority to see that their power was exorcised with the least possible detriment to the public. It is to rectify such evils that my Amendment is directed. With this provision inserted the railway company will have to give notice of their intention, as I conceive they ought, to some public body. Though the Government refused the Amendment proposed early in the evening, they might very properly accept this which, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, is quite distinct.
MR. ASHER: I should not have been prepared to support the Amendment if the view put forward by the Lord Advocate exactly met the case, but I understand this Amendment deals

1763
with rights of way not under public control now in any way rights to pass over private land of which road trustees have no cognizance. Railway companies under statutory powers may take land with no agreement, except with the owner, and this provision will give a public body in the public interest a voice in the matter. Really, I do not see what harm can come of giving such a power of reference to the County Council.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 140.—(Div. List, No. 183.)
Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
MR. R. W. DUFF: Before the clause is passed I should like to call the attention of the Lord Advocate to a matter which interests the county I have the honour to represent. Before the Act of 1878 passed, certain roads in the county were maintained under local Acts; but these are superseded, and the roads come under the general Act. The trustees have petitioned to have the local Acts continued; but I confess, on looking into the subject, that this is Quite impossible, and so I have assisted the Government to the utmost of my power in this particular. But the matter to which I wish to call attention is that under these local Acts boundaries for rating purposes have been arrived at between Banff and Aberdeen. The matter is, I know, one that might more properly be dealt with under the Supplementary Bill; but I do not wish this clause to pass without eliciting some opinion from the Lord Advocate on this matter, whether he agrees with me that these arrangements entered into between the two counties should be maintained. I will not go into details that would more properly be dealt with under the Supplementary Provisions Bill, but I should like to have some general assurance from the Lord Advocate on the subject.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I can give the hon. Member the assurance that passing this clause will not in any way prejudice the question he desires to raise—a question such, as he says, is more proper for discussion upon the Supplementary Bill, and one that shall be fairly considered and, if possible,
1764
adjusted in accordance with general requirements and local wishes.
Question put, and agreed to. Clause 17.
Amendment proposed, line 25, leave out "parochial boards as."—(The Lord Advocate.)
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I should like to have some explanation of this. In other places the right hon. Gentleman inserted the words, "parishes within the county, excluding burghs and police burghs."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: These are entirely consequential Amendments upon those previously adopted. There are parishes partly burghal and partly rural; and where the burghal and rural authorities compete for the office of local authority, and the arbiter is the Board of Supervision. In some cases we propose to make a complete separation between burghal and rural authorities, and it is necessary to delete the words "parochial boards."
MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: It is a question of general importance. There are parishes in which the burgh occupies the greater part of the area, and pays the greater portion of the rates. It is a question whether it is expedient to make so considerable a change in cases where the present system has worked well for a long series of years.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I do not resist the proposal, but I must express some doubt as to its expediency.
Amendment agreed to.
On Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—Line 30, leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act"; line 32, leave out "the said Acts," and insert "this Act."
MR. BARCLAY: On behalf of my hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron), I beg to move the Amendment in his name.
Amendment proposed, in line 32, after "Acts," insert—
"And such District Committee shall consist of the County Councillors for the Electoral Divisions comprised in the District."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It is impossible to accept this Amendment, which would confine the District Committees to the members of the County

1765
Councils. I think the Committee will hesitate to deprive the scheme of what I think is regarded on both sides as a most valuable feature in the Bill, the combination of representatives of the general body with delegates drawn from the parish. For the due administration of the Public Health Acts two elements are required, knowledge of local affairs which is supplied by the Local Authority, and greater momentum and a wider public spirit which are derived from the County Council.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware with what arguments my hon. Friend would, if he were present, support his Amendment, but I can imagine that my hon. Friend holds, as I do, that the Parochial Boards do not enjoy public confidence to such an extent as to entitle thorn to this degree of representation. I agree with the Lord Advocate that it is desirable that local interests should be fully represented, but then neither under the existing law nor under the Government Bill now before Parliament have we Parochial Boards which we can trust. There is another point which I think at this stage ought to be cleared up, and that is the difficulty presented by the number of Parochial Boards, and the variation in their numbers in different counties. If there are to be two members of each Parochial Board on every district committee, they will in some cases be inadequate, in others they will swamp the County Councillors. There will in various parts of Scotland be the most different results, and, in fact, different results in various parts of the same county. On this point I think it would be well if the Lord Advocate would give us a little information.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the subject-matter of the clause now under consideration. He has spoken as if we were called upon now to determine the question whether the District Committee is to be separate from the Parochial Board, or was to be recruited or formed to any extent from the Parochial Boards. Nothing of the kind is involved in the clause at all. The hon. Member opposite has endeavoured to force the hand of the Government by lugging in this question on a clause which does nothing else
1766
than assert that there shall be District Committees. I object, as a question of logical order, to determining this question now.
MR. BARCLAY: I agree that this is not the proper place for dealing with the Amendment, and I ask leave to withdraw it,
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. MARK STEWARTmoved in page 8, line 1, to leave out "may" and insert "shall."
Amendment proposed, in Clause 17, page 8, line 1, leave out "may" and insert "shall."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CALDWELL: I beg to move the insertion in line 15, after the word "duties" of the word "and," and with the view of in the next line leaving out the words "and tenure, if any." At the present moment there are no offices held by any independent tenure except in the ease of the Inspector of Nuisances, and in the case of smaller parishes that official can only be removed with the consent of the Board of Supervision. This Bill proposes to confer on County Councils the appointment of the Sanitary Inspector, and I say that if the County Council is to appoint the Inspector it should have the same control over him as a Town Council or a parish containing 20,000 inhabitants. If the measure passes as it stands the County Council will have power to remove the Sanitary Inspector in a parish of 20,000 inhabitants, but will not be able to remove him from a parish containing 5,000 inhabitants. I contend that the County Council should have the utmost control over its officials. The whole modern tendency of legislation is against giving fixity of tenure of office.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 17, page 8, line 15, after "duties," insert "and."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'and' be there inserted."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman has by this Amendment raised a subject which I am bound to say, I think, scarcely falls within the clause. He has argued the question as if the Local Authority, under the Public Health Act, was to be the County

1767
Council. That is quite a mistake. The Local Authority, under this Bill, will be a District Committee, acting under the review and control no doubt of the County Council. When the Public Health Act was passed it was thought advisable that officers appointed to discharge often unpopular duties should not be removable except with the consent of the Board of Supervision, and it is perfectly obvious that the invidious duties they have to perform are such as to call for protection from disturbance by those who may be affected by local feeling. The functions of an officer appointed under the Public Health Act are not as a rule attended with local applause or popularity. Nothing would be easier under our elective system than to raise a clamour against individual acts of administration which had tended to diminish an Inspector's popularity. It is most important that officers of this description should be held up by the consciousness that if they do unpopular things they will be backed up by an authority which is at all events independent of local prejudices. I hope the Committee will not take a step which will place the administration of the Act under a now danger by introducing an element of popularity, and excluding the control of an impartial authority free from local prejudice.
MR. CHILDERS: This is an extremely delicate question, and I enter into it with some reluctance; but I should like to understand whether an Officer of Health in a city is not under the complete direction of the Municipality and cannot be removed by it? If so, why should not the Officer of Health in the county be on the same footing in respect of the County Council? I do not refer to district authorities, which should not have this power.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: What the right hon. Gentleman says is quite true as far as it goes, but it will be observed that if you adopt the plan of dividing the country into districts, you necessarily hand over the authority to a comparatively small and local body. I quite understand the comparison between the County Council and the large Urban Authority; but I can hardly understand how we could work a system which involves the setting up of small local authorities, and at the same time gives
1768
the Central Authority the duty of telling the Committee who is to carry out these mandates.
DR. CLARK: I think this matter would come up better upon the 20th Clause of the Supplemental Bill. As to the proposal itself, I could easily understand that it would be desirable where you had a small parish in which the local magnates might try and get rid of an Inspector who was doing his duty, to have an independent authority to appeal to. But it is different where you have a largo body like the County Council. I do not suppose that any laird or man of local influence would have very much influence on the County Council, and I do not think the Sanitary Inspectors would need any other protection than would be afforded to them by an appeal to the County Council. I think you ought to adopt the Amendment, and give the protection when you come to the 22nd Clause.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: This is a most important matter. It turns out that the County Council are not to be masters in their own house, as the sanitary officers can appeal to the Board of Supervision. I hope the Government will give way on this matter. As we are setting up a Local Authority it should be a free Local Authority with same power.
SIR A. ORR-EWING: I do not, for my part, think that the present state of affairs should be disturbed, and I would urge the Committee to be very cautious in dealing with so serious a matter as public health.
MR BARCLAY: This Amendment proposes to carry out the principle of the Public Health Act, under which the sanitary officer in the case of large burghs and parishes is under the authority of the local governing body, but cannot be dismissed without the consent of the Board of Supervision. The districts referred to in the Bill would have a population of at least 20,000, and the proposal the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division provides that the districts in question shall be treated as parishes of 20,000 or as large burghs. The Amendment seems so simple as carrying out the principles of the Public Health Act, that I do not understand the Government opposing it. Surely that would be more conservative

1769
and distrustful of public influence now than when the Public Health Act was passed. I should think that the Local Authority—the District Councils—would have the strongest interest in seeing that the sanitary officers properly discharged their duties.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The Amendment does not raise the question hon. Members are desirous of discussing, because to strike out the words it is proposed to leave out can have nothing to do with subjecting the sanitary officers to the control of the County Councils. That question will come on on a subsequent part of the Bill. There are other points germane to this question which are certain to be dealt with later on. I agree with the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire in thinking that we must be very cautious in dealing with this question of public health, and I hope that in this discussion we shall give ourselves a holiday from the use of a powerful vocabulary. I shall be willing to consider the Amendment with the view of vesting the powers of the Board of Supervision in the County Council, if that is possible; but the promotion of the public health must be the paramount consideration, and ought not to be sacrificed to any theory of popular control.
MR. CHILDERS: If I understand the Lord Advocate aright, he proposes to consider, before the Report, whether the powers in this respect of the Board of Supervision can he safely transferred to the County Councils. I would advise the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. CALDWELL: If the clause is passed in the form in which it now stands, it will stereotype the matter, and the whole thing will be fixed. The Bill says the Board shall have the same powers, duties, rights and tenure as the existing Local Authority; and, under those words, anyone appointed to any particular district will have the same tenure as the sanitary officers at present possess. It is a mistake to say that this question will arise another time, as this is the clause under which the Sanitary Authorities will hold office, and under it they will only be removable by the Board of Supervision. This is the only time to raise the question. If the Amendment is
1770
accepted later on, I shall move that the sanitary officer shall hold office subject to appeal to the County Council in the event of dismissal.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am willing to leave the question of who shall have a veto in the matter of the dismissal of the Sanitary Inspector perfectly open. The hon. Gentleman may take a Division now; but I think an opposite course would leave the matter more open.
DR. CLARK: The Lord Advocate proposes to get rid altogether of the last clause of the sub-section. But the best way would be to postpone Sub-Section 3 until we come to Sub-Section 22, and then take up the case of the appointment of sanitary officers of the county as a whole. Then you can give the County Council power to arrange the District Councils and the sanitary officers appointed by the County Councils, as a whole, may also be the Sanitary Authority under the Act. The earlier portion of the clause gives the District Council the powers of the County Council with certain limitations as to the appointment of medical officers of health and sanitary officers for the county. The whole question will come up under Sub-section 22.
MR. HUNTER: It is quite clear that this clause hampers the tenure which has been taken objection to, and these words will have to come out sooner or later, if we are to carry out our views. The Lord Advocate seems to object to giving a list of personal triumphs to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox, but I should have thought, after his many kind services, the Lord Advocate would hardly have made that a ground of objection.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 160.—(Div. List., No. 184.)
Amendment proposed, Clause 17, page 8, line 17, leave out all after "parish," to end of sub-section.—(The Lord Advocate.)—Agreed to.
Amendment proposed, Clause 17, page 8, line 22, leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act."—(The Lord Advocate.)—Agreed to.
Amendment proposed, Clause 17, page 8, lines 23 and 24, leave out "the deficiency in the county fund," and

1771
insert "any deficioncy."—(Mr. Hozier.)—Agreed to.
Amendment proposed, Clause 17, page 8, line 25, leave out "each," and insert "any."— (Mr. Hozier.)—Agreed to.
Amendment proposed, Clause 17, page 8, line 26, leave out "uniformly."—(Sir A. Orr-Ewing.)
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. In this instance we are carrying out the parochial assessment in the direction of county assessments. Under the Public Health Act, the rates are levied along with the poor rate, subject to the deductions made for certain kinds of property; and while there is something to be said for the Amendment, there is a good deal to be said against it. The general tendency of opinion on the subject is that it would be well to simplify the present arrangement, and to have as little as possible in the way of artificial deductions; and, in simplifying the arrangements in the rural parishes in the counties, we have the opportunity of getting rid of the slight anomaly that exists with regard to the deductions. I do not see how we could have one part of the rate levied uniformly, and the other not so levied.
MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Doubtless there has been much dissatisfaction in Scotland arising from so many deductions being made, and the tendency of opinion is that, any deductions required to be made, should be made before the value of the subject is entered in the valuation roll.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: My right hon. and learned Friend will see that we are not interfering with the valuation at all.
MR. CALDWELL: What is the valuation of the land and hereditaments in this Bill is the rental, and the deductions do not appear on the valuation roll at all. The result is that in the case of land, instead of being assessed on one-fourth of the annual value the assessment will be on the net rental as it appears on the valuation roll. If this is what the Government mean, let them say so, and we shall know what to expect. This clause seems to me to raise a most important question as to rating, and to alter altogether the incidence of
1772
taxation. If the Government want to simplify the rating system let them do so with regard to other matters as well as this.
MR. BOLTON: I object very strongly to so important a change as this being made by the Bill until the Committee can be shown what its effect will be on the present position of affairs. We have gone on for many years on the system which now obtains. Public works, for instance, are rated at one-fourth of the valuation on the ground that it is not necessary to do in their case what is necessary with regard to other classes of property. Under this proposal it will be almost impossible to calculate how we shall stand, and I hope the Lord Advocate will give the Committee some information as to what will be the effect of the clause on lands and hereditaments.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirlingshire should bear in mind that this is a matter which in the main effects railways and other public undertakings. We provide that the County Councils shall be invested with the administration of the law with regard to railways and so forth in the country districts. At present there are districts in many places which are partly town and partly county and which are administered by one local body. The law says in those cases that where work for the public health is undertaken certain kinds of property shall be exempt, but where you draw the line between the town part and the country part the ratio of these exemptions fails. The plan proposed by this clause has the enormous merit of tending to simplification and uniformity and is supported by reason and common sense.
DR. CLARK: I think the hon. Members for Stirlingshire and Dumbartonshire are confusing uniformity of valuation with uniformity of rating. The valuation will not be affected. Whore the valuation is put down on the valuation roll that will be the basis of all rating.
MR. BOLTON: There is no question of valuation here; it is a question of rating, and I say if the proposed change is to be made we ought to be told what the effect will be.
MR. BARCLAY: This is a very important question and raises a new

1773
principle of rating. I understand it is intended to levy all the rates on ono uniform valuation. I think that this proposed change is a very important one.
MR. HUNTER: There is I think very great force in the observation which has been made by the Lord Advocate, that under this Bill a separation will take place between town and country, and that therefore one of the principal considerations will disappear. As far as the counties are concerned the principal defect I imagine will be in connection with railways passing through country districts and upon agricultural lands, considering that the larger part of the valuation in the counties comes from agricultural lands as compared with shops there can be very little difference on this class of subjects. I think that on the whole the considerations which the Lord Advocate has brought forward are so weighty that I shall be very unwilling to see this omission made. I look on thi3 as a great step towards the uniformity of rates.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, Clause 17, page 8, line 33, leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act."—Agreed.
MR. SHAW STEWART: I ask leave to move, as an Amendment, to add at the end of Section 4 of this clause—
"Provided always that the rates to be imposed on the special water supply or drainage district be levied only on the owners or occupiers within such district, in the terms of the Public Health Act as at present enforced."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I have not had time to consider this; but if the hon. Member withdraws his proposal, I will consider it before the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Further Amendment proposed, Clause 17, page 8, leave out "Sub-section 5."
Amendment agreed to.
MR. S. WILLIAMSON: I should like to know how this transfer of powers will affect water supply districts? I have in view the case of a water supply district which includes the large and populous town of Clydebank, which pays about seven-eighths of the rates. Now, surely the
1774
people of Clydebank are quite capable of managing their own affairs without the interference of the Commissioners of Supply. I am anxious to see what the Lord Advocate will do in order to obviate the difficulty in which they feel themselves placed. I, therefore, move the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 17, page 8, line 39, after "parish," add—
"(6) In the case of a parish or water supply district embracing a burgh or police burgh with more than 7,000 of a population, and which burgh contributes more than two-thirds of the water rates, the management of the district water supply shall be transferred to the Commissioners or other corporate authority of said burgh, and not to the County Council."
SIR ARCHIBALD ORR-EWING: I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether those parties who pay one-third of the water rate have been informed of this Amendment? It is hardly fair that the whole power of managing this water district should be transferred to the borough of Clydebank without their knowledge or concurrence. I think it is a most unusual thing to steal a march in this way.
MR. S. WILLIAMSON: I do not desire to steal a march. Their rights can be safeguarded.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This episode fairly illustrates the peculiar nature of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. This is neither more nor less than an attempt to embody a private Act in a public Act. I think that this should form the subject matter of a bargain rather than an enactment in a statute. I would, however, invite the hon. Member to consider whether this is not a case which admits of being brought in under a general rule in the Supplementary Provisions relating to special drainage and water supply districts.
MR. S. WILLIAMSON: I will withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the question can be raised by Amendments on the Supplementary Provisions. I am quite willing that the interests of the district adjacent to Clydebank should be safeguarded.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, "That Clause 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
DR. CLARK: How does the Lord Advocate intend to deal with the cases of parishes which are in more than one county?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think it will be possible to deal with that in Clause 45.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 18.
Amendment proposed, Clause 18, page 9, line 1, leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act."
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment proposed, Clause 18, page 9, line 8, after "day," insert "six shall form a quorum."—(Mr. Hozier.)
DR. CLARK: I think the number to form a quorum should not be less than a majority of the whole body.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think that six is a fairly reasonable quorum in a body of fifteen, but still it is a matter open to consideration.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed, Clause 18, page 9, line 9, after "absence" insert "the Sheriff of the County or."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: There has, on this point, been an expression of opinion, not only from Members of this House, but also from various parts of the country which deserves attention. The proposal contained in the Bill is that the Sheriff of the County shall be the Chairman of the Joint Committee, but objection has been taken to that in various quarters, and in many counties it has been thought better that the choice should be left to the Committee itself. I think that that opinion is shared on both sides of the House. The Government are not wedded to the proposal that the Sheriff shall be the Chairman, and accordingly I propose to accept the Amendment most neatly put by the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire, which will leave the Sheriff or, in his absence, his substitute, a member of the Joint Committee, but allow that body to elect its own chairman.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Further Amendment proposed, Clause 18, page 9, line 9, leave out "and," and insert "or."
Agreed to.
Further Amendment proposed, Clause 18, page 9, line 11, leave out from "chairmann" to end of sub-section, and insert "the Committee shall elect one of their own number to be chairman thereof."—(Mr. Hozier.)
Agreed to.
Further Amendment proposed, Clause 18, page 9, line 17, after "appointed," insert—
"Any member of such Committee may resign office by a writing under his hand, addressed to the County Clerk of the county."
Agreed to.
Further Amendment proposed, Clause 18, page 9, line 32, leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act."
Agreed to.
Further Amendment proposed, Clause 18, page 9, line 35, after "erection," insert "rebuilding."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
Agreed to.
Further Amendment proposed, Clause 18, page 9, line 36, leave out "of new," and insert "reconstruction or widening of."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
Agreed to.
Further Amendment proposed, Clause 18, page 9, line 37, after "works," insert "the erection, enlargement, and maintenance of fishery harbours,"—(Mr. Angus Sutherland.)
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I may point out that the insertion of these words in the Clause, as now framed, would not entitle the County Council to spend money on these objects. If that is to be done it must be by a specific clause directing the County Council to exercise this power. I hardly think it would be desirable to raise so important a question at this stage of the Bill.
MR. DUFF: Does the Lord Advocate undertake that it shall be raised at a later stage?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I merely mentioned that if this object aimed at by the Amendment were to be attained, it must be by a specific clause

1777
directing the County Council to exercise this power.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question, "That Clause 18, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

TRUST FUNDS INVESTMENT BILL.
Order for Third Reading, read.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be recommitted in respect of an Amendment to Clause 3"—(Mr. Sexton)—put, and agreed to.
(In the Committee.)
MR. SEXTON: I may explain in a few words that the Bill already provides that trustees may invest in the stock of railway companies, and in the stock of water companies trading for profit, subject to certain conditions as to dividend, and also in stock of municipal boroughs. Unless the Amendment I moved is inserted in the Bill, trustees will have power to invest in the stock of the Belfast Corporation, but not in the stock of the Water Commissioners, although their powers rest equally on legislative sanction with those of the Corporation.
Amendment proposed, Clause 3, page 2, line 29, after "stock," insert "or in the mortgages or stock of any Board of Commissioners or Corporation established by Act of Parliament for the purpose of supplying water, and having a compulsory power of levying rates, provided that for ten years past before the date of investment the rates levied shall not have exceeded eighty per centum of the amount authorised by law to ho levied."
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. COZENS HARDY: I hope the Committee will agree to the Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

TEMPORARY DWELLINGS BILL. (No. 206.)
Order for Committee read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

OCCUPIERS' DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.
Order for Committee read.
MR. CAUSTON: I beg to move—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision in the Bill for the removal of disqualification of occupiers and lodgers by reason of the change of their occupation."
My object in moving this Instruction is to include in the Bill other disqualifications. I hope the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Whitmore) will approve of the suggestion I make. His object must be the removal of disqualifications, as it is mine. I am prepared to allow the Bill to go into Committee; but I should like to have my Resolution carried beforehand.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"'That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision in the Bill for the removal of disqualification of occupiers and lodgers by reason of the change of their occupation."—(Mr, Cranston.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I am afraid I cannot agreed to the Motion, as it opens up a far wider question than the Bill is intended to deal with. The Bill removes a grievance which many revising barristers feel exists, and if the hon. Gentleman persists with his Motion the effect would be the stoppage of the Bill. I cannot suppose the hon. Gentleman desires that.
MR. CAUSTON: I really do not feel justified in withdrawing my Motion. I must press it to a division.
MR. WHITMORE: I know the hon. Gentleman is most anxious that the Bill should pass into law this Session, and I am grateful to him for the

1779
absence of opposition on his part in the past. But let me point out that he is now taking a course which must prevent the Bill passing into law. I have no objection to the Bill which he is now seeking to graft upon this Bill by the Instruction which he is moving; but I do not think any hon. Member on this side of the House would have thought of moving an Instruction on his Bill going into Committee such as he now moves. It will expand this Bill beyond its proper scope. It must lead to undesirable discussion and unnecessary delay. I beg he will, in a practical spirit, allow the Bill to proceed.
MR. CAUSTON: I cannot accede to the hon. Gentleman's wishes. Perhaps I may point out——
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is aware he cannot go to a division?
MR. CAUSTON: I desire to explain that I did not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill of my hon. Friend, but when I found my Bill for removing other disqualifications was opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I determined to endeavour to get all the disqualifications I desire to see removed inserted in this Bill.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman persist with the Instruction?
MR. CAUSTON: Yes, Sir.
The Debate stood adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.

SOLDIERS AND SAILORS DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL. (No. 24.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

MOTIONS.

  MOVABLE DWELLINGS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Burt, Bill to provide for the regulation of Vans, Vehicles, and Tents
  1780
  used as Dwellings, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt, Mr. Caine, Dr. Cameron, Mr. James Campbell, Mr. Elton, Mr. Matthew Kenny, Mr. John Kelly, and Colonel Makins.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 316.]

  LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Bill to establish Local Registries of Titles to Land in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland and Mr. Arthur Balfour.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 317.]

  REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to the Registration of Deeds and Judgments, and to provide for the Registration of other Assurances, Acts, and Matters affecting Land in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland and Mr. Arthur Balfour.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 318.]

  PREFERENTIAL PAYMENTS IN BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Bill to amend the Law with respect to Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy, and in winding- up of Companies in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland and Mr. Arthur Balfour.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 319.]

  METROPOLIS RATING AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 26.)
  Order for Second Reading upon Wednesday read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
The Earl of MORLEY sat Speaker.
PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL. (No. 71.)
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments.

COAL DUTIES (LONDON) ABOLITION BILL. (No. 143.)
House in Committee (according to order).
Bill reported, without Amendment.
Standing Order No. XXXIX. Considered, according to order.
LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I beg to move, in accordance with the Notice that I have placed upon the Paper, that the Standing Order be dispensed with, in order that at this sitting the Bill may be passed through its remaining stages. The Bill itself is urgent, for the reasons which I had the privilege of stating to your Lordships last Friday; and, as it has passed the Second Reading without opposition, and through Committee without Amendment, and as it is so much in the nature of a Money Bill, which this House could only with great difficulty amend, I think I may appeal with some confidence to the House to regard it as a reasonable proposal to suspend the Standing Order.
Moved, "That Standing Order No. XXXIX. be dispensed with."—(The Lord Balfour.)
LORD DENMAN: I hope that your Lordships will not agree to this Motion. It is absolutely necessary to make some verbal alteration in this Bill. As to the fact of its being a Money Bill, we are not so afraid of Money Bills in this House as is commonly supposed; in fact, the House of Commons very often agree to Amendments bonâ fide made by this House in similar Bills. For myself, I would much sooner have voted for the continuance of the Coal and Wine Dues, which I believe were most useful and kept up the honour of the City, and did not impose any serious tax upon the ratepayers. I beg to oppose the suspension of the Standing Order, and to suggest that the Bill should come before us in Committee to-morrow.
Motion put, and agreed to.
Bill read 3a and passed.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BILL. (No.101.)
Order for Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I have to make an appeal to the noble Lord who has charge of this Bill. I do not wish to express any opinion upon the Bill; but I would appeal to my noble Friend, considering the state of the House this evening, and as many noble Lords who take an interest in this matter are absent, whether it would not be well to postpone the Second Reading.
LORD FITZGERALD: My Lords, personally I do not approve of this Bill, but it deals with what, no doubt, is a very important subject. I apprehend that after the Second Reading it would be the intention of the noble Lord to move that the Bill be referred to one of the Standing Committees. I have only to say that if the noble Lord does not

1671
assent to the postponement of the Second Reading, it will be necessary for some of us to discuss the principle of the Bill.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I hope the noble Earl will consent to postpone the Second Reading. The Bill deals with a matter of the greatest importance, but there are many who entertain great objections to certain parts of it; and I think it would be unsatisfactory, in the present state of the House, to give it a Second Reading.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I am entirely in the hands of the House.
Second Reading put off to Tuesday the 16th instant.

PASSENGERS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 100.)
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.