Sitting of 3 June 1891

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ROADS AND STREETS IN POLICE BURGHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 12.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2.
    MR. JOSEPH C. BOLTONmoved, in page 1, line 7, after "burgh," to insert "the population of which is not less than five thousand according to last Census." The hon. Member said: A clause to this effect was inserted in the Bill of 1888, and I have no doubt that if that Bill had been proceeded with it would have become law. I think that the Amendment which I now propose may be fairly accepted by the House as a settlement of the question. It will then become a matter of arrangement between the burghs and the counties as to whether the localities shall take on themselves the expense of maintaining the roads within their own burghs. There are some burghs, which are small in extent, where it is of importance that they should not only have good roads in the burghs themselves, but very good roads outside. This question of roads, however, cannot be taken up without reference to the other financial arrangements between the burghs and counties. I have here before me a statement which shows that the assessment for police within a burgh in one rural parish amounted to £82, while the expenditure upon the police was £187. If the expenditure were less than the assessment the burghs would not take advantage of the Act, but would leave the county to pay the excess; but there are other rural parishes in which the figures are reversed. For instance, there is a parish which is assessed at £208, whereas the
    1550
    actual expenditure is only £45. This, I think, will show how unfairly the rural parishes have been compelled to contribute to a large assessment for police, while the burghs have escaped with practically a very moderate contribution indeed. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 7, after "burgh," insert "the population of which is not less than five thousand according to last census."—(Mr. J. C. Bolton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. H. ELLIOT: I think we have a right to complain of the course which the hon. Member has taken. This Bill was read a second time several months ago, but the Committee stage was deliberately delayed, at the request of the Lord Advocate, so that the counties should have time to consider their position in regard to the Bill. The hon. Member now proposes a most important Amendment, which certainly ought to have been placed upon the Paper much earlier, so that the different police burghs might have had time to consider the matter. I, for one, cannot accept the Amendment, principally on the ground that it would really fail to be a settlement of the question. I am confident that if the Amendment were accepted it would be no settlement. The population limit proposed is utterly unworkable and arbitrary, and would be likely to lead to inconsistency and incongruity. That would be the state of matters in the county which the hon. Member himself represents. There are two police burghs there, one with a population of 5,200, and another—the Bridge of Allan—with a population of 4,970. The hon. Member proposes that the Bill shall apply to one of these burghs and not to the other, while royal burghs, with a much less population, are to be allowed to manage their own affairs. If this Amendment is accepted all police burghs with a population above 5,000 will be taken entirely out of the county.
    MR. JOSEPH C. BOLTON: No.
    MR. H. ELLIOT: If that is so I rest my case on the principle that every burgh,

    1551
    great or small, when it becomes a burgh, should have the management of its own streets, although it may be required to make some contribution to a fund for general purposes.
    MR. ASHER: The effect of the Amendment will be this: that the benefit proposed to be conferred on the burghs by this Bill will be taken away from all burghs with a population of less than 5,000. Every police burgh having a population of less than 5,000 will be altogether excluded from any benefit whatever under the Bill. I hope the Committee will not accept such a proposition, which, if it were adopted, would go a long way towards destroying the advantages contemplated in the introduction of the Bill. There are at present in Scotland 88 police burghs which do not enjoy the administration of their own roads, and if this Amendment is adopted it will exclude from the benefits of the Bill 42 police burghs. This population limit has no principle whatever to justify it, and it is absolutely impossible to state any principle that will make it right and proper that a burgh with a population of 5,000 should have the management of its own roads, while another burgh with a population of 4,800 should not. In the police burghs, which it is proposed to exclude, all the grievances exist which have led to the introduction of the Bill— a double administration, double assessment, and the Commissioners of Towns having control of one part of the burgh while they are excluded from any control in the other. These are grievances which exist without reference to population at all, and if they are grievances why should they be regulated by a population limit? The circumstances of the Scotch police burghs are infinitely various. No doubt if the Amendment were carried it would exclude some which desire to come under the Bill, as well as those who do not; and it takes no notice of the fact that at different periods the population of Scotland varies in accordance with the seasons. The only argument which my hon. Friend put forward in favour of the Amendment was the financial one. He said, "You are dealing with the financial arrangements with regard to roads, but not with the other
    1552
    financial arrangements which exist between the counties and burghs." But there is no relation between a population limit of 5,000 and the financial objection which has been brought forward. As the Amendment is entirely against the principle of the Bill, I hope the Committee will not accept it.
    COLONEL MALCOLM: I think it would not be difficult to meet most of the objections which have been urged. The fact is that the Amendment which stands in my name, taken in conjunction with others which stand on the Paper further down, does not exclude any burgh from having charge of its own roads and streets, but all that it does is to lay down certain conditions. I have a clause on the Paper which proposes to place all police burghs, having a population exceeding 5,000, in the same position as burghs under the Act of 1878. I do not propose to make that a stereotyped condition, but simply to provide that when the population of any burgh reaches 5,000 it may take over its own roads and streets. We have, I think, to a certain extent afforded a justification for such a proposal by the clause which we inserted in the Scotch Local Government Act of 1889, which allows the Sheriff of a county to take a Census and determine whether a burgh, having reached a population of 5,000, shall be allowed to have the control of its own roads. Below the limit of 5,000 I think the provisions of Clause 2 may be applied, and I have a further Amendment to provide that where the population of a police burgh does not exceed 3,000, a resolution of the Commissioners to undertake the management and maintenance of the highways shall have no effect without the consent of the County Council of the county or counties within which such police burgh is situated. I throw out this suggestion, which I think may meet the general feeling of the Scotch Members better than the fixing of a hard and fast line at a population limit of 5,000.
    MR. DUFF: I think there can be no doubt that if this Amendment is parried it will be tanta-

    1553
    mount to throwing out the Bill. According to the figures which I have before me, and which have already been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. H. Elliot) if the limit is to be a population of 5,000, the provisions of the Bill will only be extended to eight burghs. Since 1878 there has been a considerable extension by Parliament of the principles of Local Self -Government, and I fail to see any relation between the police assessments and the maintenance of the roads. Each stands upon a different footing, and, therefore, I cannot help regarding the Amendment as something that would amount to the rejection of the Bill. But I wish to know what course the Government propose to take in regard to the measure. From what passed on the Second Reading I believe that it has their approval. The Lord Advocate supported it; all he said was that before it went through Committee the House ought to know the opinion of the County Councils in regard to it. It is now something like three months since the Bill was read a second time, and the Government have had plenty of time for obtaining the opinion of the County Councils. The Banff, Kincardine, Caithness, Wigton and Ayr, County Councils have petitioned in favour of the Bill, while several other counties support the Bill with amendments; the County Council of Perth being the only Petitioners against the Bill. I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend will be guided by their opinion. As a county Member I support the Bill, and I have no doubt the majority of Scotch Members will do so also.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling not to interfere with the compromise which has been come to in the Burgh Police Bill. If it is well to give these aggregations of population the power to manage their own affairs, I appeal to my hon. Friend whether it is worth while to boggle about the roads. In my opinion, it is not "worth while to carry on a litigation in regard to the rating of gas pipes and water pipes, and other municipal matters, as between the road authority and the police authority. My hon. Friend is raising a difficulty which will
    1554
    make the Bill inoperative. I hope the question will be settled on broad, lines, and I suggest to my hon. Friend that he would do well to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. SOMERVELL: I am also opposed to the Amendment, which I believe will have the effect of entirely emasculating the Bill. There are 85 burghs whose roads are managed by the counties, and when we passed the Second Reading of the Bill it was on the distinct understanding that while counties were to be treated fairly, these 85 burghs were to obtain the benefits of the Bill.
    MR. JOSEPH C. BOLTON: My Amendment was nothing more than a clause in the Bill of 1888, which was a compromise between the counties and the burghs.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: But there has been a great change made in the administration of the county roads since that time under the County Council.
    MR. JOSEPH C. BOLTON: At that time the roads were managed by an elected Road Board, and now they are managed by the County Councils, which are also elected Boards. In effect, therefore, the roads in Scotland are under the same control now as they were in 1888. [Mr. ESSLEMONT: No.] I believe there is not a burgh in Scotland that has not a representative on the County Council, and in all probability on the Road Board too.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): This question is purely a matter of social and administrative convenience. The competition, if there be competition, arises between a rural popular Body and an urban popular Body, and in considering the matter we must not leave out of sight the unfortunate roads which are the subject of controversy. The proper object of legislation should be to secure the efficient administration of the roads which are continuous roads—main roads passing through certain burghs, and through the counties which surround them. I must own that I do not entertain a very strong opinion on this subject; but I have looked at it fairly from the point of view of convenient administration. I

    1555
    am a strong supporter of the Bill, and I think it is very desirable that something should be done in the direction proposed by the hon. Member for Ayrshire. I am bound to say I am not a supporter of the view of the hon. Member for Stirling, and cannot support his Amendment. There are one or two general questions which arise upon the Amendment, and which must be considered. Does the hon. and learned Member for Elgin (Mr. Asher) mean to say that the smallest burgh should have power of its own motion and without the consent of the County Council to assume the management of every scrap of highway which passes through that burgh?
    MR. ASHER: I said, "May have the power."
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: That virtually means that they shall have the power. I am not prepared to give my consent to that proposition, and I do not think it will conduce to the convenient or efficient administration of the roads. We have police burghs which at the last Census had a population of under 800. I think it is rather a strong proposition that a highway passing through a county is to be subject to the management of a great number of Bodies, some of which represent a very small population. I sympathise very much with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Argyllshire and the hon. Member for Forfarshire, who desire to discriminate between the circumstances of the burghs according to their size. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire makes a distinction as regards burghs of 5,000, and he proposes the universal condition that all burghs under 5,000 are not to have the management of their roads, even if they wish it, unless they get the consent of the County Council. I shall be prepared to support the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Argyllshire proposes as regards those burghs which have a population of 5,000. The hon. Member for Argyllshire also proposes that all burghs below 5,000 should be entitled to go out on the payment of some compensation to the county. I see great fairness in that. I think that the County Council who have the manage-
    1556
    ment of the roads in small burghs are entitled to some say in the matter. There is a great deal to be said for the proposal that in the case of burghs between 5,000 and 3,000 the provisions of the Bill should apply as they are. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire in his Amendment proposes to fix a hard-and-fast line—that, against the wish of the County Council, which represents the enormous preponderance of the population, there should be a separate administration of a burgh of, say, under 1,000. I think 3,000 is perhaps a fair limit. It has been said that the Royal Burghs already share in the administration of these roads. There is a number of privileges which these burghs enjoy, still I do not think they constitute a reason for perpetuating an anomaly. I shall individually support the words from this point of view. I wish to do more for these boroughs with 5,000 of population than this Bill does, and I would distinguish between those with a population of 5,000 and those with a population of 3,000. It is not a matter in which I desire to express more than the opinion of an individual who has given some attention to the subject and considered all the representations which have been put forward, and it is certainly a matter which ought to be settled by the canons of good sense of the Committee.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I think it would be convenient, before continuing this discussion, to settle this Amendment.
    MR. JOSEPH C. BOLTON: I shall have no objection whatever to withdraw my Amendment in favour of that of my hon. Friend, if the act of withdrawal will not exclude that Amendment. On that understanding, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    COLONEL MALCOLM: I now beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. The reasons in support of it have been clearly expressed by the Lord Advocate, and I need not take up time by going over the ground again. It will practically allow all burghs, whose population does not

    1557
    exceed 5,000, to have the benefits of this Bill in their entirety. Afterwards I shall propose a slight alteration with regard to burghs under 3,000.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 7, after the word "Burgh," to insert the words "the population of which does not exceed five thousand, ascertained as herein mentioned."—(Colonel Malcolm.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I understand this Amendment to be introductory to those which my hon. Friend will shortly propose. As the Lord Advocate discussed not only the Amendment, but also other parts of the Bill, I desire to say a few words on the general question. I am one of those who are averse to any limit of population being introduced, because it appears to me that any limit, which must necessarily be arbitrary, will involve a departure from a sound and intelligible principle. The modern police burghs are very much the successors of the old Royal burghs; and when they are constituted they acquire a practical local autonomy, with the exception of the main roads. That necessarily implies a double administration within the burgh as regards roads. At the first blush it is an objection to have, within, one territorial area, two administrations, when one would suffice. It seems to me that any risk of unfairness to the counties is amply guarded against by the provisions in the Bill, because it is not proposed to allow a burgh to assume the administration of the highways passing through it except upon terms which may be agreed upon, or, failing agreement, to be settled by the Sheriff. There is ample provision for justice being done. It is extremely difficult, by fixing a population limit, to say that there may not be considerations that would make it desirable that certain burghs should, upon fair terms, assume the administration of their own roads; and when they have the safeguard of terms being allowed, a burgh will not put itself under obligations to the county if it is better or cheaper or more advantageous to it that the main highway should remain under county administration. I do
    1558
    not know that there is any body which has a greater, or as great, an interest in having the main street of a burgh in good order as the inhabitants themselves, and not only is provision made for justice being done to the county on the assumption by the burgh of the care of its roads, but it is contemplated that the burgh may have something to pay on settlement of terms for the use of the highways outside. There are many burghs in Scotland, some of them county towns, which have not a population of 3,000, which are yet important places, and which have a strong desire to secure the management of their own roads, and may very well be entrusted with it. I submit the Bill is founded on a thoroughly intelligible principle, is duly safeguarded, so that there shall be no injury done to any interest external to that of the burgh, and that, practically, the good sense of all interested is the best security against the assumption of the right of administration of highways in cases where it is not for the general advantge.
    MR. BARCLAY: I have an Amendment to the same effect as that before the Committee, only I have put the limit at 4,000. After the concessions the Government have made I do not intend to move it.
    MR. A. ELLIOT: It strikes me that hard measure is being dealt out to the counties if the Amendment is accepted. The provisions in the Bill have been very favourably received by the greater part of the County Councils in Scotland, and now it is proposed for the first time to withdraw the burghs of 5,000 without the consent of the County Council in any way, and without terms being considered by the County Councils or the burghs themselves. I do not know how many such burghs there are.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: There are eight of them.
    MR. A. ELLIOT: At any rate, it is a great change to the prejudice of the County Councils, and I protest against such a change, as I hold that notice should have been given of such an important alteration. As other matters which have been referred to by previous speakers will probably come up on sub-

    1559
    sequent Amendments, I will not now take up the time of the Committee by referring to them.
    MR. CRAWFORD: I think there is a good deal of justice in the observations of my hon. Friend. Undoubtedly, this point is an entirely new one. It has never before appeared in the Bill—
    MR. SOMERVELL: I rise to a point of order. Is it in order, in a discussion upon an Amendment fixing a limit of population, to discuss subsequent provisions of the Bill?
    THE CHAIRMAN: As these matters are closely linked, I think it is convenient to allow the discussion.
    MR. CRAWFORD: What I wish to say is that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that this point is so new that it ought not to have been introduced without ample notice to the County Councils, so that they might have given their opinions on it. The County Councils, as a whole, have dealt with this Bill in a very generous spirit. They have not shown any desire to oppose the burghs by the management of their own roads. But I would like to point out, not only to the Mover of the Amendment, but also to the Lord Advocate this: It seems to me the proposal might produce a very serious anomaly in practice, as we might have burghs with a population of just under 5,000, which, on reaching that limit, would at once be free from the payment of contributions to the county. I think it is quite unfair to draw this sharp distinction between a burgh of 4,900 population and one of 5,000, and make one pay a heavy contribution to the county while the other will go free. For these reasons, I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I desired to call attention to the same point. There are two burghs— Bridge of Allan and Crieff—both within 100 of the population of 5,000. Bridge of Allan is within 24 of that limit, and within a month or two of the passing of the Bill it might be discharged of all liability to pay the county contribution.
    MR. BARCLAY: The principle of this Amendment has been already
    1560
    embodied in the Roads and Bridges Act, 1878, and I do not see how we can now place burghs of 5,000 population in a worse position than they occupied in that year. After all, this Amendment is merely carrying out the principle of the Act of 1878, and I see no reason against it.
    MR. ASHER: I assent to the view that we must consider the interests of the burghs in the roads. It has been urged that if no limit of population is introduced, then the Bill will be applicable to police burghs, however small. Reference has been made, too, to the Royal burghs; but it is an undoubted fact that some of these very small Royal burghs have successfully administered their own roads, although they have a population of less than 2,000. No doubt many hon. Members are personally acquainted with some burghs in which the roads are infinitely better kept than in the county adjacent. I have not the slightest doubt it will be found that in those burghs it is much better the main street should be administered by the Local Authority and not by the county. What has been well done in the Royal burghs should be allowed in small police burghs.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I do not agree with my hon. Friend as to the condition of the roads in the small Royal burghs. If he will do me the honour to accompany me to Fife, I think he will come to a very different conclusion. Bat whether or not the Royal burghs have the power of maintaining their own roads, it does not at all follow that, under the new system of county administration, it is desirable that the plan should be continued and extended. What is wanted is to preserve an efficient Local Authority, and that, I think, is best to be secured by placing the management of the roads in these burghs in the hands of Parish Councils acting under the County Councils. In Fife we have recently purchased some steam rolling apparatus, and if you are to restrict its use to the county district the main roads through the burghs will suffer. I think the compromise offered by the Lord Advocate is a reasonable one. Any burgh which seeks to take charge of its

    1561
    own roads should come to terms with the County Council. Unfortunately, there is a disposition on the part of the inhabitants of comparatively small areas to use the roads of their neighbours without contributing to the cost of maintaining them, and, therefore,I think safeguards are required.
    (1.55.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 47; Noes 71.—(Div. List, No. 260.)
    Amendments made.
    MR. BARCLAY: I beg to move to leave out the words—
    "And as to the cost of maintaining the highways in the neighbourhood of such burgh."
    I object to these words because they seem to me to indicate a bias against the burghs, and to amount almost to an Instruction to the Sheriff, that the burghs are to bear a part of the cost of maintaining the roads outside of their areas. I do not know of any case where there is any excessive traffic on the roads outside burghs, in the neighbourhood of the burghs, which is not due to the counties and not to the burghs; such traffic is due to the wealth of the counties, to quarrying, the cutting, of timber, or mining. If a burgh has the misfortune to stand between the county and a railway station, or a port of shipment, it suffers the disadvantage of having its streets cut up by traffic from which, practically, it derives no benefit. I do not wish to make the passing of the Bill any more difficult than is necessary; but I must point out that it is proposed in the clause subsequently to give the Sheriff power to take all the circumstances of the case into account. I think the matter should be put into the hands of the Sheriff without prejudice, and with a general direction that he is to consider the whole circumstances of the case. If the words I propose to omit are retained, the Sheriff may consider them an indication that Parliament thought that in all cases burghs should pay part of the cost of maintaining the roads outside their own areas.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 15, to leave out "and as to the cost of maintaining the highways in the neighbourhood of such burgh."—(Mr. Barclay,)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'and as to the cost of maintaining the highways in the neighbourhood of such burgh' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. H. ELLIOT: I am not very favourable to this Amendment, and for the reason that it seems to strike rather at the counties. This Bill has been considered by the counties, and to a certain extent has been approved in its present condition by the police burghs. I, therefore, do not like the proposal to omit these words. Perhaps it would be agreeable to the Committee that these words should be struck out, and that the words—
    "Including the cost of maintaining the highways in the neighbourhood of such police burgh,"—
    which stand in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Malcolm), should be inserted in line 20.
    COLONEL MALCOLM: I think that the words ought not to be omitted altogether. They would, in my belief, come in better after "case," in line 20, the place I have indicated in my Amendment. If they are omitted here, I will move my Amendment later on.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendments made.
    COLONEL MALCOLM: In accordance with what I said just now, I beg to move to insert, after "case," in line 20, "including the cost of maintaining the highways in the neighbourhood of such police burgh." As it has been pointed out, this Bill has been considered both by burghs and County Councils, and it is well this provision should be made to avoid any heartburning.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 20, after "case," to insert "including the cost of maintaining the highways in the neighbourhood of such police burgh."—(Colonel Malcolm.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. BARCLAY: I should like to hear from the Lord Advocate what, in his opinion, would be the effect of the insertion of these words on the mind of the Sheriff.
    MR. LYELL: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how far the roads are to extend? is it to be a few hundred yards, or a mile, or what? The terms are very indefinite.
    MR. LENG: In many cases the roads within these police burghs are really of great value to the county. In the case of the burgh where I reside—that of Newport—the whole traffic of a large district of Fife converges at the ferry. One of the elements of consideration also ought to be the value of the roads within the burgh to the rest of the county.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think it is better that those words should stand part of the clause. I rather think, if they do not stand part of the clause, it is doubtful whether this was a consideration which the Sheriff might ultimately have. The words merely permit the Sheriff to have regard to these things; they do not prejudge the question. The hon. Member for Forfarshire asks me to express an opinion on a statement of facts which are entirely specific and local. I am afraid I cannot do so.
    MR. BARCLAY: On the assurance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the insertion of these words will not prejudge the question, I shall not press my objection.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendments made.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3 amended, and agreed to.
    Clause 4.
    Amendments made.
    (2.20.) Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 24, leave out all after "burgh," to "same," inclusive, in line 29, and insert "means a popular place the boundaries whereof have been fixed and ascertained under the provisions of 'The General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862,' or of the Act first therein recited, or have been determined by or under any local Act."—(Mr. Hugh Elliot.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ASHER: I have an Amendment to move to the Amendment. The clause as it stands defines police burgh as a populous place, the boundaries of which have been fixed under the Act of 1862 or under a local Act. There are some police burghs, however, the boundaries of which have been fixed by charter. I myself represent a police burgh the boundaries of which were so fixed. I move that the words "charter or" be inserted.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, after the word "under," to insert the words "charter or."—(Mr. Asher.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I really want some information on the subject. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will communicate with me before the Report stage, and if I am not then satisfied with the Amendment it may be omitted.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Further Amendments agreed to.
    MR. A. ELLIOT: I beg to move the following clause:—
    "In the event of the Commissioners of any police burgh not resolving to undertake the management and maintenance of highways as aforesaid within the police burgh, it shall be lawful for such Commissioners to claim annually from the County Council of the county within which such police burgh is situated a fair and reasonable contribution towards the expense of managing and maintaining such streets and roads within the police burgh as are maintained by the said Commissioners; and it shall be lawful for the said County Council, if in its opinion the said claim is a reasonable one, to agree with the said Commissioners as to the amount of the said contribution, and to pay the amount so agreed upon to the Commissioners out of the rate levied for the management and maintenance of highways within the division or district or parish (as the case may be) in which the said police burgh is situated."
    The object of the proposal is to enable an old practice to be reverted to. It will enable a County Council to give a contribution to the Police Commissioners of a burgh, which does not wish to be

    1565
    constituted a separate Local Authority, to assist them in the maintenance and management of their streets. In the police burgh of Kelso the position of things is such that it is probable the Police Commissioners will not care to make use of this Bill, because there are there certain important bridges, and they will be very much afraid, in case of anything happening to those bridges, that they will be saddled with the whole cost of maintaining them. Up to 1878 it was every year agreed between the county and the burgh that so much should, be paid to the latter by the former in respect of the streets. Doubts arose as to whether the practice was thoroughly in accordance with the law, and counsel agreed that such payments could not be continued any longer. The clause I now propose is purely permissive, and cannot damnify the county in any way.
    New Clause (Agreement between Police Commissioners and County Council,)—(Mr. A. Elliot,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONI see that there are cases in which an arrangement of this kind would be convenient enough. The Committee has, however, hitherto been dealing with highways, and it has been decided that all police burghs have a right to assume the management of highways. But this clause proposes that the county, which has nothing to do with the streets of burghs, should be entitled to grant what is nothing more or less than a subsidy to a burgh in respect of the streets. The House will bear in mind that under the Act of Parliament the powers relating to these matters are vested not with the County Councils, but with the Police Commissioners. This clause, however, now proposes to deal, not with highways generally, but with roads within the burghs, and that the County Council, which has nothing to do with the burgh streets, should be entitled out of pure good nature to grant what would be neither more nor less than a subsidy to the burghs. If my hon. Friend will allow me to say so, this seems to be a
    1566
    very strong proposal to be brought for ward at so short a notice, a point with regard to which my hon. and learned Friend has complained with respect to other clauses.
    MR. DUFF: I would suggest to my hon. Friend that he should agree to leave out of the clause the word "streets," and insert the words "roads and bridges."
    MR. A. ELLIOT: The question of bridges is only of importance in affecting the willingness of these burghs to come in or keep out of the Statute. It is purely an enabling clause, and I cannot find that any substantial objection has been taken to it. I must press it upon the Committee.
    MR. SOMERVELL: I must oppose this clause, which I think will have the effect of inducing burghs not to adopt the Bill. It is said to be hard that the burghs should have to keep up main bridges in the county, and with that I quite agree. But this clause does not remedy that grievance.
    MR. A. ELLIOT: It seems to me that the hon. Member does not understand the object of this clause, which is not to enable the County Authority to give money to the Police Commissioners to keep up their bridges. It merely enables the Police Commissioners to come in or to stay out from the operation of the Act in certain cases. Where the two parties find a certain course extremely convenient and the representatives of the county outside deem it just that they should pay a certain sum for the purpose, not only of bridges, but also of maintaining the streets of the burgh, what argument in the name of common sense can be urged against their doing so? Until some such argument is found, I think I have the advantage of the discussion on my side. I must, therefore, insist on pressing this clause, which is a perfectly innocuous one, and which, while it may do much good, can by no possibility do any harm.
    MR. ASHER: No doubt it is correct, as stated by the learned Lord Advocate, that the notice of intention to introduce this clause was only given this morning; but, at the same time, I think the clause is one

    1567
    that can do no harm, while it seems to me to be likely to do much good. If I thought it would operate to the prejudice of the counties I should not support it, and I cannot but think that the meaning and effect of the clause has been somewhat misunderstood. The clause, as I understand it, provides that in the event of a police burgh not wishing to exercise the powers given to it by the Act, the Commissioners may claim a reasonable contribution from the County Council in whose district the burgh is situate towards the maintenance of its streets and roads. There may be cases where the assessment of the burgh to county rates is very large, and that, no doubt, will form an element of consideration in determining whether the Police Commissioners shall adopt this Act. I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh to propose this clause as an alternative arrangement. Where a Burgh Authority thinks it pays in excess of what it should pay, this clause will enable the burgh and county to come together and effect an arrangement. The clause seems to me to be of a purely permissive character; at any rate, it imposes no obligation on the burghs, and can by no possibility do any harm. If my hon. Friend presses the clause to a Division, I do not see how I can refrain from supporting it.
    MR. THORBURN: I hope the hon. Member for Roxburgh will press his clause to a Division. He has referred to the county he represents as an illustration of the manner in which the clause will operate. The hon. and learned Member for the Elgin Burghs has already referred to the permissive nature of the clause, and it is therefore unnecessary that I should enlarge on that subject. I believe I am correct in saying that the County Council of Roxburgh are perfectly willing to contribute towards the maintenance of the streets of Kelso if permitted to do so under this Act. For my part, I cannot see any objection to this clause, and I trust that, even now, the Lord Advocate may see his way to its acceptance.
    MR. J. P B. ROBERTSON: The initiative in this matter is not with me, but with my hon. Friend who is in charge
    1568
    of the Bill. The point is, whether Parliament will sanction County Councils using the ratepayers' money for the purpose of extraneous burghs. I have already pointed out the serious character of the precedent it is now proposed to establish; but as I understand that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill is willing to assent to this Amendment, and as he is supported by a number of Scotch County Members, I do not propose, as far as I am concerned, to carry further my opposition to the hon. Member's clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 350.]

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCOTLAND) LOANS BILL.—(No. 57.)
  (3.0.) Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 351.]
  RATING OF MACHINERY (No. 2) BILL. (No. 18.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to move, Mr. Courtney, that you do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. I do so for the reason that there has been no Second Reading Debate on the Bill. The Bill came on for Second Reading most unexpectedly, and was rushed through at 9 o'clock with no Debate whatever. The hon. Member who intended to oppose the Bill, and who had a notice of opposition on the Paper, was unfortunately absent when the Second Reading was reached; and, more than that, it was not altogether his fault, because just two minutes before the Bill was reached the measure standing immediately before it on the Paper was taken off without notice. We are now in this position: that we are asked to go into Committee on a Bill of a most

    1569
    technical character—a Bill which changes the character of the law with regard to the rating of machinery—
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: No, no.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Yes; we are asked to go into Committee on a Bill which changes this law in favour of rich manufacturers, and throws a heavy burden on the poorer classes of ratepayers, without having had a Second Reading Debate.
    MR. TOMLINSON: I rise to order. I wish to ask, Mr. Courtney, whether the hon. Member is entitled to discuss the principle of the Bill on a Motion to report Progress?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the Bill, but he is allowed to give reasons of a general kind in support of his Motion.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: My object is to show the importance of this Bill, and to try and induce the Committee not to proceed with it without having a Second Reading Debate. The Bill would place very large charges on the poorer class of the community. It would alter the law, and there is at the present moment an appeal pending in the House of Lords on the very question to be decided by the measure. The Bill would have the very largest consequences in regard to all ratepayers, and is promoted in the interests of certain rich manufacturers.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton)
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I think, when the hon. Member understands the number of misstatements into which he has no doubt unintentionally fallen, he will not feel inclined to persist in his Motion. There is no appeal on this question before the House of Lords, the case having been compromised because the manufacturers concerned could not carry expensive litigation further, and prefer to rely on this House for justice. The question has been for a long time before Parliament. The Second Reading of the Bill was carried last year by 237
    1570
    votes against 89. The hon. Gentleman complained that there was no Debate on the Second Reading. That was not our fault. Some 70 Members came down to support the Second Reading, but there were no opponents. The Bill is supported on both sides of the House, and is much required both by traders and manufacturers. It does not alter the law, but only interprets it as it has always been understood in Scotland and Ireland, and in the manufacturing districts of England up to a recent decision in the Chard case.
    SIR E. BIRKBECK: I shall certainly support the Motion to report Progress. This matter was debated yesterday at the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and a Resolution in opposition to the Bill was carried, with only one dissentient. That dissentient was a retired manufacturer, an interested party, although an agriculturalist. So far as the agricultural community are concerned, they are unanimous in condemning this proposal, and I hope that, although the agricultural party are taken by surprise, this Bill coming on unexpectedly at this hour, I hope that every means will be taken to delay the passing of the measure this afternoon. It is a very serious matter to the agricultural interest. The Local Taxation Committee have had the matter before them, and it has been condemned on every occasion when it has been considered. I will only ask my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill, as he was present at the Central Chamber of Agriculture yesterday, to confirm me when I say that there was a very strong feeling expressed by Members present in condemnation of this proposal. An hon. Member has just said that if opponents of the Bill were not present when the Second Reading was taken that was their own fault. But on that day—the 7th of April I believe it was—it was well-known that a Motion was down for discussion at the Evening Sitting, and this being unexpectedly withdrawn, the Bill was called and the Second Reading disposed of in a few minutes without Debate. The opponents of the Bill were not aware of any intention to withdraw the Motion standing first, and I must say that it appeared to me to be a case of

    1571
    jockeying. However that may be, it is an absolute fact that the Motion was unexpectedly withdrawn, and none of the opponents of the Bill were present to raise a Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill.
    SIR H. JAMBS: The hon. Baronet says he hopes that every step will be taken to delay the Bill, but I presume he means every fair step in accordance with the usual practice and Rules of the House. The objection made to proceeding with Committee now, by the hon. Gentleman who has made this Motion, is that there was no Second Reading Debate; but suppose we do now report Progress, when are we to have a Second Reading Debate?
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Next Session.
    SIR H. JAMES: Then the intention is to prevent the Bill proceeding at all this Session?
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Quite so.
    SIR H. JAMES: Then because the opponents did not attend when the Bill was called for Second Reading they claim all the advantage of a victory on a Division, though they did not even raise a Debate on that evening. It is an extraordinary demand that a Bill should be thrown out because no opposition was raised to the Second Reading. The Bill has been read a second time, and its object is not to alter the law, but simply to declare it. An hon. Member opposite has notice of an Amendment to retain the law in the condition it was always believed to be until within the last 12 months, and if, instead of taking this course, the hon. Gentleman supports that Amendment, he will assist the Committee towards arriving at a decision in accordance with his view of what the law is. If we agree to this Motion, we show that we are not in a position to assist those whose duty it is to administer the law, and who ask us to declare what the law is.
    SIR W. HOULDSWORTH: It has been said that this is a Bill promoted by rich manufacturers, but the fact is, it is a Bill which is heartily supported by Assessment Committees in the North of
    1572
    England, and I believe in many other parts of England. Assessment Committees are in the difficulty of not knowing what their duty is. They feel that day by day they are neglecting their duty; but the law is not so clear as to enable them to perform their functions without exposing themselves to the dangers of litigation. It is a measure urgently required, not by rich manufacturers, but by Assessment Committees, and I trust the Committee may be allowed to proceed.
    MR. JOICEY: I shall support the Motion for reporting Progress, and I can bear out what has been said as to the means by which the Second Reading of this Bill was obtained. It was well known that a large number of Members were opposed to the principle of the Bill. We expected that the Motion standing as the first business would be moved in the usual course, but the hon. Member in charge of that Motion was induced to withdraw it, and because, I believe, it was found that there were no opponents of this measure present at 9 o'clock. I came down to the House at 10 minutes past 9 and met many hon. Members leaving, who recounted with glee how cleverly we who opposed the Bill had been "done" in the matter. I maintain that an unfair advantage was taken of a large proportion of hon. Members who were known to be opposed to the principle of the Bill, and seeing that there has been no Second Reading Debate I object to proceeding now in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury has stated that the Bill will make no change in the law, and I am not prepared to debate that point with a Gentleman of his legal experience, but as a simple layman I have always understood the law is what the Courts construe it to be. What have the Courts construed the law to be?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. JOICEY: I only wished, Sir, to answer a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury, but if you rule that my doing so will not be in order, I will not pursue it. But I confess I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill should come to the

    1573
    House to have the law defined, when we have the Courts, whose function it is to do that. I am strongly opposed to the principle of the Bill. The position as I understand it is this: A decision has been given, evidently not to the minds of a certain number of manufacturers in England. Now, I speak as a colliery owner, and I believe I have always been rated on my machinery, and I do not wish for any change.
    An hon. MEMBER: Collieries are exempted.
    MR. JOICEY: That shows the disadvantage of not having a Second Reading Debate. Upon the principle of the Bill, however, I am tongue-tied now, and I shall support the Motion for reporting Progress.
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I support the Motion for reporting Progress. I have no great belief in Amendments moved in Committee, and have faith in the adage, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." I do not know whether it is competent for me to state the reasons why I support the Motion, but it seems to me that what has been stated by those who have spoken in support of the Bill must be at variance with the fact3. It seems to me self-evident that if manufacturers expect relief from this Bill, then that relief must come from someone else, and that someone is the poor ratepayer, more especially in the agricultural districts precisely that class least able to bear the onus of additional taxation. I was glad to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Joicey). It may be taken as an axiom that we must not expect much assistance in democratic measures from large employers and manufacturers.
    MR. KELLYThough I am opposed to the principle of the Bill I would appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion. The contention is that there has been no Second Reading Debate, but let me point out that practically the Bill consists of one clause, and upon the discussion of this clause there must be what is tantamount to a Second Reading Debate. Without trenching now on a question of order I may say in reference
    1574
    to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury that I have an Amendment, the object of which is to declare what the law was believed to be 12 months ago, and if the desire of those who advocate the Bill is to declare the law and lay it down in' express terms I think they may accept this Amendment, and the discussion in Committee need not occupy much time. Meantime, I appeal to the hon. Member for Oswestry not to proceed with his Motion.
    MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I am not going to enter into the merits of the Bill except to state my opinion that it does but declare the law. But whatever opinion there may be upon this, it is certainly a poor excuse to attempt to throw out the Bill now, by a side wind of this kind, merely because the opponents of the Bill did not think it worth while to attend in their places when the Bill was down for Second Reading. If that is to be a ground for throwing out a Bill on the Committee stage it will be impossible to carry on Parliamentary business at all. Another answer to the hon. Gentleman who has made this Motion has just been given. The hon. and learned Member opposite has said with perfect truth that the Bill consists of one clause practically, and so, to all intents and purposes the discussion of that clause will afford ground for a Second Reading Debate.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R.WEBSTER,): I sincerely hope we may be allowed to proceed with the Bill in Committee, but at the same time I cannot concur in the view of my right hon. Friend that no alteration of the law is made by the Bill. The opinion I have expressed on several occasions is that the law has been unequally administered, and it is most desirable that the law should be declared. In that I am at one with my right hon. Friend, but I cannot allow the dictum that there is no alteration in the law to pass unchallenged—
    SIR H. JAMES: As generally understood.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I know that in many counties the law has been ad-

    1575
    ministered in the way it is now proposed to declare it, but I do not want to enter into debate now. My position is that it is an alteration in the law, but it is desirable that the law should be declared, and so I hope the Bill will be proceeded with.
    MR. GOURLEY: My view is that the Bill certainly does alter the law, creating certain exemptions from the payment of rates, and that it is promoted by manufacturers for the protection of manufacturers and against the interest of ratepayers generally. I shall support the Motion for reporting Progress
    (3.48.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 27; Noes 166.—(Div. List, No. 261.)
    MR. KELLY: In the absence of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. James) I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name. It will be seen that in view of the great change in the law the Bill proposes it should not come into operation the moment it passes. I therefore suggest that the operation of the Bill should date from January the 1st next. Practically it would come into force with the new assessments in April.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, after "from and after," to leave out "passing of this Act," and insert "first January one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two."—(Mr. Kelly.)
    SIR R. WEBSTER: There is no fixed date for a new assessment, the assessors can make up the valuation list when and as they please. The poor rates are made at unequal periods, and I do not think the date in the Bill makes any difference.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. KELLY: I have now to move the Amendment to Clause 1 which stands first in my name. Its object is to make the Bill really declaratory of the law. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury said that the object of those who were responsible for the Bill was to make the law certain, and secure that it was uniformly administered. Those who have any knowledge of the rating of machinery must admit that
    1576
    there is anything but uniformity in the matter. In London, for instance, there are two Unions adjoining: In one the machinery is rated, and in the other it is not. Then, again, the methods of assessing it vary considerably. One Union assesses it at so much per horse power. One might just as well assess on the basis of the height of a stack of chimneys. It is exceedingly unfortunate that this Bill should have been introduced by a private Member. Considering the importance of the question it ought to have been introduced by a Member of the Government.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot go into that. The Committee is now discussing a specific Amendment.
    MR. KELLY: So far as I can see, the Amendment will do nothing but declare the law as it exists. Different constructions have been placed upon the law, the real meaning of which consequently depends on a series of judgments delivered in the Courts upon the rating of machinery. Now, the object of the clause is to exclude manufacturing machinery from rating. I would alter it in such a way as to make all machinery attached to a hereditament rateable as enhancing its value, so long as the premises are devoted and applied to any trade, business, or manufacturing purposes. The advocates of the Bill, as far as I understand, represent only wealthy manufacturers, and I fail to see how, if the Bill passes in its present shape, anyone except the owners of expensive machinery for textile manufactures will get any advantage from it. The small owners of machinery will get no advantage. This Bill, instead of being a Rating of Machinery Bill, is really a Bill for the exemption of machinery from rating. There are few trades outside the textile trade in which machinery is merely fixed to the ground for the purpose of steadiness, and, therefore, we are justified in saying that this Bill is almost exclusively promoted in the interests of the large manufacturers of Yorkshire and Lancashire. If the Amendment is passed, unquestionably a good deal of machinery will be rated which is not now liable to be so. I know of

    1577
    no good reason why it should not be so rated. Do those who are in favour of the exemption of machinery from rating propose that all personal property of every class shall also be exempted? It seems to me desirable that every species of property should contribute its fair quota towards the relief of local burdens. If hon. Members hold that all classes of the community should contribute to local burdens, surely it is very unfair to exempt the most valuable description of property. One argument in favour of the clause as it stands is that some such amendment of the law is necessary in the interest of trade, otherwise trade will be driven from the country. But trade has not been driven away from Gateshead, where machinery is rated. Why, then, should it be driven from Lancashire if machinery is rated there? I ask hon. Members to show where trade has suffered from the taxing of machinery, to quote a single example of the terrible effect they anticipate from the rating of machinery, to name any district where trade has suffered vital injury from it. There is an argument which might well be advanced by the hon. Member for North-West Lanark in support of the Amendment. Machinery unquestionably takes the place of labour, and is used by manufacturers for that purpose, and for cheapening the production of goods and increasing the manufacturers' profits. Those who think it is not desirable to drive away the strongest and best of our artisans may have a good deal to say against exempting from its proper and natural burden the most labour-destroying and most valuable of all classes of machinery. There is an alteration proposed in the Bill with regard to the rating of motive power, and I see no need for it. Probably we shall hear a good deal of the Chard case, but the number of factories affected by the decision in that case is not very large. I invite the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury to point out anything in my Amendment which does more than declare the law. No doubt the advocates of this Bill are perfectly sincere when they say it is a declaratory Bill; but if we are to declare what the law is we ought to see that the law is uniformly administered, Why is the
    1578
    burden to be taken off the shoulders of the wealthy manufacturers of Lancashire and Yorkshire and allowed to remain the same so far as the small manufacturers are concerned? I ask the right hon. and learned Member for Bury to consider well this Amendment, the object of which is to carry out the law as laid down in the Higher Courts.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 13, to leave out from the word "purposes," to the end of the Clause, in order to insert the words "all machinery which is placed thereon for the purpose of making such hereditament complete and fit for the particular purpose for which it is used, shall be taken into consideration as enhancing such gross estimated rental or rateable value,"—(Mr. Kelly,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'any increased value arising from machinery' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. H. S. WRIGHT: The effect of this Amendment would be to quadruple the rating on movable machinery. Let the Committee bear in mind that this machinery may be in one place one week and in another the next week: that one week it may be worth £500, and the next week owing to the change of fashion, or some new invention, worth scarcely £100. We cannot possibly accept the Amendment, which would destroy the object of the Bill. We do not wish to relieve any of the wealthy manufacturers, who are pretty well relieved by foreign competition already, and who have more than enough to do to pay the week wages and keep their factories going. The promoters of the Bill appeal to the Committee on behalf of the wage-earning population not to allow machinery to be assessed in the way proposed by the Amendment, which would have the effect of driving away a large proportion of our trade.
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Hon. Members opposite have delivered themselves of generalities. I want to have a clearer understanding of what it is that is contemplated by the Bill. If the non-rating of machinery is to be a relief to manufacturers, what is not paid by them must be paid by somebody else. By ceasing to rate

    1579
    machinery there will be a loss of Revenue. How is that to be made up? If relief is to be afforded, where is the burden to fall?
    MR. TOMLINSON: The Bill proposes to put the law in England on precisely the same footing as in Scotland, and it will better enable us to compete with foreigners.
    SIR H. JAMES: I desire to recall the Committee to the Amendment, which, if carried, will unsettle everything that is now settled. If the Assessment Committees attempt to carry out the Amendment they will relieve from rating many things which ought to be rated. The Amendment is really unworkable; but possibly something might be done to meet the views of the Mover by amendments of the clause.
    MR. C. GRAHAM: In reply to the hon. Member for Preston, I may say that time after time I have had brought before me the objections of working-men to the law as it is settled in Scotland, because it operates with great injustice to the working classes and the poorer ratepayers. I wish emphatically to place on record my protest that those pseudo professions of a sympathy with and desire to do something for the working classes have become absolutely sickening.
    MR. GOURLEY: I feel bound to support the Amendment. Unless it is carried there will be no limit to the exemptions, and manufacturers after placing a boiler on a bedding of brick will claim exemption from the Assessment Committee.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: This Amendment goes to the root of the whole Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury has only dealt in generalities, and has not descended to details such as those on which the Amendment rests. There may be two smiths' shops of equal rateable value to begin with—say £50. Now, suppose machinery to the value of £10,000 is put into the one, while the other is worked by manual labour alone. The output of the former would be as 20 to 1 as compared with the latter. Yet, according to this Bill, the engine only of the shop in which the machinery was placed would be rateable.
    1580
    That is to say, about £50 rateable value would be added. So that although the output of the one would be 20 times greater than the other, the rateable value would be only twice as much. The difference, of course, will have to be made up by mechanics and other persons who are rated in the neighbourhood, while £9,000 worth of machinery, which is earning the owner a large sum, will go scot-free. The Bill is a Bill for the protection of manufacturers, to exempt them from paying what they ought to pay; and I therefore support the Amendment, which will put the question of rating on a proper basis. I am astonished that hon. Members who represent popular constituencies should venture to propose to relieve rich persons from rates which by law they are now called upon to pay, and to throw the burden on the poorer classes.
    MR. KELLY: The hon. Member for South Nottingham spoke of the value of machinery falling in a week from £500 to £100. Does he wish us to infer that that was the common fate of valuable machinery?
    MR. H. S. WRIGHT: I said it might occur through a change of fashion, or through the introduction of a new pattern.
    MR. KELLY: I know there have been cases in which the value of machinery has suddenly fallen; but the life of ordinary machinery is from 20 to 25 years. A Nasmyth hammer cannot lose its value by any change in patterns, and certainly lives more than four or five years. I know some machinery which has been working for a quarter of a century, and is still being employed. It is unfortunate that the form of the Bill has not encouraged any Member to put down an Amendment fixing a rate at which machinery shall be valued. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury will allow me to read a few extracts from two important Judgments delivered on this question. In the case of "Laing v. The Overseers of Bishopwearmouth," the late Lord Chief Justice Cockburn laid it down that it was only reasonable that where a freehold was rendered more valuable by the introduction of machinery the owner

    1581
    should pay upon the increased value. Perhaps I had better quote a passage from the Judgment. Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said—
    "It appears to us, after having carefully considered the character of the machinery in question, that the whole of it, though some of it may he capable of being removed without injury to itself or to the freehold, is essentially necessary to the shipbuilding business to which the appellant's premises are devoted, and must be taken to be intended to remain permanently attached to them so long as those premises are applied to their present purpose."
    That is the opinion of a Judge who was noted for his learning, and to whose opinion, I am sure, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury will attach some weight. Then Lord Esher, the Master of the Rolls, in the case of "The Tyne Boiler Works Co.v. The Overseers of Longbenton," said—
    "I believe the rule really to be that things, which are on the premises to be rated, and which are there for the purpose of making, and which make the premises fit as premises for the particular purpose for which they are used, are to be taken into account in ascertaining the rateable value of such premises. Of course, it is not all things on the premises, or that are used on the premises, which are to be taken into account; but things which are there for the purpose of making and which do make them fit as premises for the particular purposes for which they are used."
    Lord Justice Lindley and Lord Justice Lopes agreed in that Judgment. Lord Justice Lopes said—
    "It is clear that personal property such as machinery is per se not rateable, but, if attached so as to be either a landlord's fixture or a tenant's fixture, it is equally clear that it is rateable as increasing the value of the premises, and the rent which a tenant from year to year would give for them. But then there are things which, though they may not be- physically attached, or may be removable without damage to themselves or the freehold, are so placed on the premises, and so essential to their use for the purpose for which they are used, and so much intended to be used with them for that purpose, that they have practically become, for the time being, part of the premises. -The question is whether such things are to be taken into account in estimating the rateable value of the premises. I am of opinion that they must be so taken into account."
    Only one word as to the effect that this Bill will have where machinery is rated. There are towns—I will mention one in particular, Gateshead—in which, if this Bill passes and machinery is relieved from the liability to rating, the rates
    1582
    will go up 4d. in the £1 at once. When hon. Gentlemen laugh at the idea of the artisans paying the rates, I remind them that there are other people besides artisans who deserve to be protected against unnecessary burdens in the shape of local taxation—there are small tradespeople and others who will suffer.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I want to make clear to the Committee the fallacy two or three Members seem to cherish, and that is that the Bill is brought forward in the interest of rich manufacturers. If thathad been so I, for one, would have had nothing to do with it. It is no exaggeration to say that in nine-tenths of the manufacturing districts of the United Kingdom, machinery, under the existing law, is not rated, and never has been rated; therefore it is not at all a question of taking the rates off rich manufacturers and putting them on others. Those who speak for the working classes surely must remember that the wages which are earned by the use of machinery are divided between the capitalist and the labourer (I admit sometimes to an unequal extent) and anything which takes away from the earnings of machinery, or prevents its use, must affect the earnings of labour. No less than 25,000 working men have petitioned in favour of the Bill. Where is a single working men's Petition against it? The words of the decision in a certain well-known case refer just as well to the furniture of an hotel as to the fittings of a mill, as much to the harrows and ploughs of the farmer as to the tools of the manufacturer, and if we are going to refuse the act of justice that is now asked for we cannot stop here — we must rate all personalty and all chattels of every kind.
    MR. JOICEY: The hon.Gentleman says this is not a Bill in the interest of rich manufacturers. I did not hear in his speech any proof that that is a correct statement. I cannot see how if machinery is left untaxed in a locality in which it formerly was subject to taxation—["No"]—I am speaking of what I know, and in the district I refer to machinery was always taxed. What my hon. Friend alludes to is that light machinery which is used in

    1583
    large mills in Lancashire and Gloucestershire. That has been exempt from taxation. I cannot see why machinery with immense productive power if small instead of large should be exempt when those whose trade requires them to use large machinery are taxed. I knew a case on the Tyne in which an application was made to some Corporation to support the Bill. They said they would not, for it would mean that increased taxes would have to be put on the ordinary householder to the extent of 6d. or 7d. in the £1. It is no use saying it is not a question of taxing the rich manufacturer, because I contend that every penny that is taken off the rich manufacturer in the way of taxation must be placed on the ordinary householders. They are the workmen of the manufacturer, and the taxes must necessarily fall on their shoulders if taken from the shoulders of their employers. If, as the hon. Member says, nine-tenths of the machinery of the United Kingdom is not taxed, that does not say much for the assessors. Instead of being thankful that they have been exempt so long, the manufacturers are now trying to get exemption altogether. I support the Amendment, because it defines the matter and brings the arrangements more into harmony with the existing law.
    MR. MORTON: I desire to support the Amendment, which I understand will make the law very much as the custom is at present, that is to say, that fixed machinery is assessable. ["No!"] I know that in London all machinery is not taxed. We are told by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire (Mr. Winter-botham) that there are no Petitions against the Bill. Last year my constituents petitioned against 'the Bill, and my constituency is very largely composed of working men. The only argument in favour of the Bill is that it will enable the manufacturers to compete better with other countries. That cannot be an argument in favour of relieving them of the rates. It might bean argument in favour of relieving them of charges and taxes of all sorts, but it is no argument in favour of asking other ratepayers to pay the rates that these manufacturers now pay, or
    1584
    that they ought to pay. Machinery is exactly in the same position as regards rating as a counter or other fittings of a shop which are assessable. I think manufacturers already get as much relief from taxation as they ought. They now get on allowance of one-third, whereas other property only gets one-sixth off the gross value. Thus these rates are already reduced by one - fifth. We should only be doing the proper thing in the interest of the general ratepayers if we insist, upon this Amendment.
    THE EARL OF CAVAN: As Chard happens to be in my constituency, I hope I need not apologise to the Committee for saying one or two words in regard to this Bill. I have myself presented several Petitions from hundreds of working men in favour of the Bill. It was well known in my constituency that the Petitions were being signed, and I made several speeches in which I referred to the Bill, so that any who were opposed to it could have taken action. I have not presented a single Petition against the measure.
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: It is clear that in some parts of the country machinery is almost directly rated, while in other parts it is not rated at all, and in some parts the Rating Authorities have taken into consideration the value it has added to the premises. It may be desirable that the law should be defined clearly. But the Bill does not do that in any comprehensive or satisfactory way. It proposes that machinery shall be exempted from rating, and that the rating authority shall not take machinery into account in assessing any increased value given by that machinery to the rateable premises. It is, therefore, a measure to exempt certain property which is now rateable, or which has to be taken into account for the purpose of rating. We have heard a good deal from Representatives of Lancashire and Yorkshire constituencies as to the necessity of this Bill in the interest of the working classes. I am sorry that they should use that sort of clap - trap argument. To suppose for a moment that a manufacturer will give any more wages to his workmen because he gets some of his

    1585
    property relieved from rates is sheer nonsense. In truth, he will give his workmen neither more nor less than he can get their labour for. But the matter assumes an entirely different complexion, and must certainly be considered in a different light when workmen come to understand that the relief the manufacturer asks for is at their expense, that the rates he saves by the exemption of his machinery from rating will fall directly upon their shoulders, that the rating authorities will be compelled to levy a higher rate upon ratepayers generally. The rates are levied for necessary purposes, and the rates must be paid by somebody. They have to be apportioned, and if, in the course of the apportionment one class is relieved then, to that extent, another class must have its burden increased; and to suppose that workmen who in some towns will have to pay Id. or 2d. in the £1 more for rates will get compensation by increased wages, because their employer will be better enabled to carry on his business with a reduced burden of rates, is complete nonsense. If workmen have any idea that they are going to get any benefit they are vastly mistaken. The relief will go directly into the manufacturer's pocket at the expense of the general ratepaying community. I am not prepared to vote for a Bill of this kind. We have heard a great deal about landlords putting their hands into the public pocket to be relieved from their share of rates, but if a landlord were to come here and ask to have a portion of his rateable property relieved from liability to, rates, why, language would be inadequate to enable some hon. Members to sufficiently denounce such a proposition. But here the law has declared that certain rateable manufacturing premises ought to bear an increased rate, because they have an increased value attached to them, and the occupier asks to be relieved from this increase. Sir, the proper designation of this Bill is a "Manufacturer's Relief Bill," and if this is thoroughly understood in the country, I believe there will be no lack of Petitions from the working classes against the Bill. I am quite sure that rating authorities throughout England generally would be opposed to any such exemp-
    1586
    tions as the promoters of this Bill desire to attain. I except such rating authorities as happen to be controlled by manufacturers who are influential ratepayers. I can quite understand such exceptional cases, and I am only surprised that more Petitions have not come in in favour of this Bill originating in such influences. The truth is rating authorities have not fully realised the practical effect of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) referring to the Amendment, has said it would be mischievous inasmuch as it would lead to the exemption of considerable property now rateable, and he mentioned vats in brewhouses. Now I must confess, although I have the greatest possible respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion, and pay the greatest deference to anything he says, that I fail to see how the Amendment would relieve vats in breweries from liability to rating if they were fixed to the premises, and were considered to be rateable. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to some Amendment that might be made in the Bill, but I do not see any further Amendments on the Paper which would make the Bill more satisfactory. No man is more competent than the right hon. Gentleman to put the Bill into an improved shape, and certainly it needs a good deal of improvement. If he would put some Amendments on the Paper for the purpose, I am sure we should all be deeply indebted to him. I am obliged to you, Sir, for allowing me to travel slightly beyond the immediate scope of the Amendment, but inasmuch as there has been no Second Reading Debate on the Bill this Session a little discussion of this general kind is very desirable. I shall vote for the Amendment because it declares the law substantially as it is, instead of giving, as the clause now does, a large measure of relief to a class of persons who, I think, are least entitled to relief from taxation.
    MR. HEATH: I support the Amendment, because I wish to see the law declared; but if it is carried in its present form, the Bill will inflict the greatest injustice upon constituencies such as that I have the

    1587
    honour to represent, constituencies chiefly agricultural. I fail to see why small freeholders, small householders and shopkeepers, should have to pay still further local taxation than they now do, in order to relieve the large manufacturers in the counties. I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division on the Amendment.
    SIR J. DORINGTON: I have listened to the Debate on the Amendment, and I do not think my agricultural friends, who oppose this Bill, duly appreciate the gravity of the position created by recent judicial decisions. It is urged that the effect of the Bill will be to increase the burden of rates in agricultural districts, but that is not the fact. I represent a purely agricultural constituency, and I am quite ready to say that justice requires that some such measure as this should be passed. What are the actual circumstances of the case? It is said the law has not been altered from what it has been for many years, and, technically, that is so. No doubt the law can only be changed by Act of Parliament, but it can be differently interpreted. Looms, for instance, by a decision of 20 years ago in the Halstead case, were declared to be non-rateable; by a more recent decision, in the Chard case, they were declared to be rateable. Now, these are totally different interpretations, and result in an upsetting of the principles of rating throughout the country, and the gravest inequality and injustice. Assessors will have to follow the law as laid down in the Chard case, and the result will be an enormous increase in the rates imposed upon manufacturers. Such an increase in the rating of mills and other manufactories may in certain cases lead to the closing of some of them, and thus seriously injure the interests of the working people. As connected with these rating questions in the position of Chairman of an Assessment Committee I hope the Bill will pass, and that the law will be thus distinctly declared. This Amendment would stereotype this last decision, which really involves a change, if not in the law, certainly in the practice as to rating and the incidence of taxation.
    (5.3.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 149; Noes 91.—(Div. List. No. 262.)
    MR. RANKIN: The Committee having decided not to accept the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend, I now propose an Amendment which will make the law work more evenly than it can as the clause now stands. As the words of the clause run, they exempt from rates machinery used for manufacturing processes; but machinery used in agriculture should equally be exempted; and to secure this, I propose to strike out the words "for any manufacturing process," so that machinery set up in farm buildings may be exempted. As I understand the promoters of the Bill accept this, I need not argue the case, and I simply move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 14 and 15, to leave out "machinery for any manufacturing process."—(Mr. Rankin.)
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: This Amendment shows the danger of the whole Bill. Originally intended to exempt manufacturing machinery, of course in fairness you must include farming machinery in the exemption; and I really cannot see the limit of the exemptions. Many other persons may make out claims for exemption; all sorts of persons, all sorts of classes, will complain of being rated; and with this Amendment you will have to carry many others. I do hope the Committee will carefully consider the course upon which they are embarking.
    MR. POWELL J. WILLIAMS: Before we accept this Amendment, I should be glad if the Attorney General will tell us what effect this will have upon the law as it is. I do not venture to express my own opinion, but it is possible this may have a more extended effect than is supposed.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: With merely a difference in phraseology, the effect of the Amendment will be similar to that which stands on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Manchester, to extend the clause to all machinery used in any "trade business"

    1589
    or manufacturing process. I have already expressed my opinion that there is no objection to the words; and the present Amendment is only another way of arriving at the same object; it is simply a question of drafting.
    MR. KELLY: It seems to me our choice should be in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Manchester. If we are going to exempt all kinds of machinery let us do so. If we are going to pass an Act on this vexed question let it be in as simple a form as possible. We know how litigation has sprung out of the wording of the old Act, and this may lead to further litigation. Would it not be wiser to go the length expressed in the form proposed by the hon. Member for Manchester instead of accepting this Amendment?
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR W. HOULDSWORTH: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I believe the object I have in view is already accomplished by the Bill, but I desire to make the clause perfectly plain. I propose to insert at the end of the clause a proviso that steam engines, boilers, and all machines used for producing motive power shall continue to be rated as they have hitherto been.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, after "is," to insert "not fixed or is."—(Sir W. Houldsworth.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HENEAGE: It is very difficult to deal with this Bill at all, as it proceeds on almost entirely different lines from that of last year, and we have no assistance from the Government. If I recollect aright, the whole contention before the Select Committee was whether heavy machinery in beds which were not bolted down was rateable, and it appears to me that these words raise the whole of that question again. I wish to see the machinery that is rated defined, but defined fairly; and I do not want to see put on the Statute Book a Bill which is even more complex than those now in force. I should like the Attorney General to tell us what difference will
    1590
    be made by the insertion of these words.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: The insertion of the words would not exclude machinery of a heavy character which is not fixed, provided that it cannot be removed without injury to itself, and I shall subsequently propose to provide also that there is a special foundation for it. On the other hand, they would exclude sewing machines, and so on, which stand by their own weight.
    MR. POWELL J. WILLIAMS: Would the words provide for the rating of a gas engine?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I think the hon. Baronet said he had put down an express proviso that any machinery producing motive power should be rateable.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    (5.25.) Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "the hereditament," and insert "or sunk in the tenement or premises." —? (Mr. Kelly.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR R. WEBSTER: It seems to me that "sunk in the tenement" is a somewhat ambiguous expression. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend can suggest some better form of words.
    MR. KELLY: I will move them on Report.
    SIR H. JAMES: You have struck out the words in the clause, and something must be inserted in place of them.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    It being half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday next.

  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACT (1860) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 160.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. CRILLY: My hon. and learned Friend the Mem-

    1591
    ber for Cavan (Mr. Knox) takes a very great interest in this Bill, and he is absent at the present moment. I do not think the Bill should be proceeded with in his absence, and I beg to move, Sir, that you do report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Crilly.)
    SIR E. HARLAND: I would submit that when this Bill was before in Committee nearly all the Amendments were dealt with, so that, practically speaking, there are now none before the Committee. The Irish Attorney General explained that the Amendments have no reference to the subject-matter of the Bill; and, under the circumstances, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan, if he were present, would agree that we should proceed with the measure. I hope my hon. Friend will not persist in his opposition.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Bill reported, without amendment.
    SIR E. HARLAND: I would ask the House to allow the Bill to be now read a third time.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Gentleman, for a new Member, is very ambitious. I must object to the Motion.
    Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

  BILLS OF SALE ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 215.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.—(No,. 72.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND CHARGES [PAYMENTS.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament and, so far as those moneys are
  1592
  insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any sums lent by the National Debt Commissioners for the commutation of annuities under "The Light Railways (Ireland) Act, 1889," in pursuance of any Act of the present Session, to amend certain provisions of the Law with respect to money charged on or payable out of the Consolidated Fund, and with respect to Public Accounts.—(Mr. Jackson.)
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  CORK (COUNTY AND CITY) COURT HOUSES BILL.—(No. 306.)
  Read a second time and committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented four clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Fifteenth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RATING OF MACHINERY (No. 2) BILL. (No. 18.)
  On the Motion for Adjournment,
  MR. CRAIG: I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether we may expect to have the Rating of Machinery Bill reprinted with the Amendments before we make further progress with it in Committee?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The Bill is not through yet.
  MR. CRAIG: Can we have it reprinted so far as it has gone?
  MR. JACKSON: It is not customary to do that.
  MR. CRAIG: It has been done.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.