Sitting of 12 February 1894

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  That they do not insist on one of their Amendments to the Employers' Liability Bill to which this House has disagreed; and insist on certain other of their Amendments, for which they assign their Reasons; and have made an addition to one of the said Amendments, to which they desire the concurrence of this House; and propose Amendments in lieu of others to which this House has disagreed, to which they desire the concurrence of this House.
  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments and Lords Reasons to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 482.]
QUESTIONS.

  THE PATRIOTIC FUND COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN (Westmeath, S.): On behalf of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund have informed any relatives of the Irish sailors lost in H.M.S. Victoria that their allowances will only begin in January, 1895; and does any provision exist to

  277
  enable helpless widows or orphans to subsist until then?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,)(who replied) said: Although the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund informed five relatives (not being widows) of Irish sailors lost in the Victoria that the allowances would commence in January, 1895, they have since been informed that payment will commence on 1st July next. Gratuities ranging between £34 19s. 7d. and £38 6s. have already been paid to these relatives, who were parents of the deceased, by the Admiralty. Every widow and orphan of a man lost has, since 1st November last, been in receipt of a pension from the Admiralty and allowance from the Patriotic Fund.
  MR. KEARLEY: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the Return recently made to this House by the Patriotic Commissioners discloses to this House the fact that out of every £1 subscribed towards the Victoria Fund the Commissioners have only administered l1s. 8d.? Also I should like to know whether there is any justification for the Commissioners deferring the payment of benefits to dependent relatives, because the Admiralty have made payments to such dependent relatives?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: As to the question of fact, my attention has not been called to that. As to the question of policy and justification, it is obvious I can give no answer without communicating with the Patriotic Commissioners. I will, if a question is put down, lay the matter before them.

  SALMON POACHING PROSECUTION AT DINGWALL.
  MR. WEIR: I bog to ask the Lord Advocate if he can explain the reason why the witnesses for the prosecution were prevented from appearing to give evidence for upwards of five months, in the salmon poaching case heard at Dingwall, on 12th December last, against John M'Lean, fisherman?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR, Clackmannan, &c.): I am informed that one of the witnesses for the prosecution was not available during the months in question, not being subject at that time to the control of the prosecutor. It was on that account that the
  278
  prosecution was delayed. As has been stated before, the prosecution was not one for which the Crown is in any way responsible.

  SILVER IMPORT DUTIES IN INDIA.
  MR. MOLLOY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Sunderland, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can state how far the rumours are correct or otherwise that the Government of India intend levying a duty upon the importation of silver, whether in bars or coin, into India and Burmah?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, North Beds.): My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the proposals of the Government of India with regard to the taxation of the year are announced by the Finance Member of Council when he makes his annual statement; and he will, I am sure, understand that even if the financial policy of the year were already decided upon, it would be impossible for me to give any information which would have the effect of anticipating that statement.

  THE ROYAL YACHTS.
  MR. MOLLOY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Sunderland, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the amounts expended and proposed to be expended in alterations and refits of hulls, cabins, and engine-rooms of the Royal yachts Victoria and Albert, Osborne, Alberta, and Elfin, for the financial years 1893–4 and 1894–5?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,): The cost of altering and refitting the hulls, cabins, and engine-rooms cannot be readily separated from the total expenditure on the four Royal yachts. This expenditure for the current year to 31st March is estimated to be about £8,800. It is not certain whether that amount will be reached or exceeded in 1894–5.

  FLOATING DERELICTS.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade will he explain why there is no notice of floating derelicts made in the Board of Trade Notices to Mariners which is issued monthly; and

  279
  will he supply this deficiency by quoting from the wreck charts published at Washington, U.S.A.?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): It is not correct to suppose that the Board of Trade Monthly Notices do not include information as regards floating derelicts. Numerous notices are received by the Board of Trade regarding such vessels, and they are sent immediately for publication to The Shipping and Mercantile Gazette and Lloyd's List, which has a large circulation. I propose to continue this system, which works satisfactorily; but I am advised that it would be misleading to encumber the publication with information as to the precise position of floating derelicts, which change their position in consequence of winds and currents.
  MR. MACDONA: Is it not a fact that within the last few days a derelict, during the recent storm, was noticed on the north-east coast? Is nothing to be done, in the interests of our sailors, to remove that danger?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am unable to answer the question as to fact. This is the first I have heard of it. But if it is the case it is the duty of Trinity House to clear all derelicts out of British waters; and they do that duty more effectually than the authority of any other nation.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask whether it is the duty of Trinity House to discover derelicts?
  MR. MUNDELLA: No. Trinity House remove them when they are reported to them. They take great care to discharge their duty.
  MR. MACDONA: Will the Government report to Trinity House that there is a derelict off the coast of England?
  MR. MUNDELLA: If the hon. Member will give me particulars I shall be happy to send them to Trinity House.

  FATAL ELECTRIC FATALITY AT BOURNEMOUTH.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a serious accident which occurred in a public street in Bournemouth on the afternoon of the 8th instant, by which one horse was instantly killed and another seriously
  280
  injured, and the lives of passengers endangered who were in the omnibus to which the horses were attached; whether the accident was caused by a leakage of high tension electricity from the electric wires laid under the street; and whether steps will be taken to prevent similar accidents occurring in the streets of London, where so many high voltage systems are in constant use under the thoroughfares?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir. The electrical adviser of the Board of Trade was instructed on the day of the accident to make inquiry on the spot. I shall be happy to hand to the hon. Member a copy of the Report which discloses the Inspector's opinion of the probable causes of the accident. The Board of Trade are now considering whether any additional Regulations are necessary in order to prevent similar accidents in future.
  *MR. WEIRasked whether the high tension or low tension system is in use for lighting the House of Commons; and whether, seeing that the floor of this House is composed of an iron grating, precautions have been taken to prevent a similar accident to that which took place at Bournemouth occurring to Members of this House?
  MR. MUNDELLA: That question must be addressed to the First Commissioner of Works.

  BANBRIDGE EDUCATION COMMITTEE.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Louth, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why the Commissioners of National Education in making appointments for the local education committee under the Compulsory Education Act in Banbridge have passed over the Presbyterian managers and patrons of schools-and nominated three Episcopalians, two of whom have no connection with education, and one of whom occupies a subordinate position; is he aware that the Banbridge Town Commissioners have refused to recognise the appointments; and have the Education Commissioners received a strong protest from the Presbyterians of Banbridge?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): (1.) The proportions of

  281
  the religious denominations of the population of Banbridge are:—Roman Catholics, 22·8; Protestant Episcopalians, 39·5; Presbyterians, 29·3; Methodists, 2·5; others, 5·9. The number of members of the School Attendance Committee as determined by the Local Authority is 10, and the constitution of the committee as finally settled by the Commissioners is—Roman Catholics, 2; Protestant Episcopalians, 4; Presbyterians, 3; Methodists, 0; others, I. The percentage, as above shown, of Presbyterians in the population is 29·3: hence, the Presbyterians, having three places on the committee, are adequately represented. The Local Authority had in the first instance appointed those three, thus leaving the Commissioners powerless to add another Presbyterian to the number. (2.) The Commissioners of National Education have no information on the second paragraph beyond an expression of surprise and regret on the part of the Local Authority at the Commissioners' action. (3.) Protests have been received from Presbyterian meetings in Banbridge in reference to the non-appointment by the Commissioners of particular Presbyterian clergymen. But, as shown, there was no room for the appointment of any more Presbyterians on the committee.

  GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AS PRIVATE LAW AGENTS.
  MR. WEIR: J beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that Mr. Middleton, solicitor, Dingwall, who acted for Sir Arthur G. R. Mackenzie, of Ross-shire, in a salmon poaching charge heard at Dingwall on the 12th December last against John M'Lean. fisherman, and two others, was acting at the same time as County Clerk; if so, will the Government consider the desirability of restricting persons engaged as public officials in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland from acting as private law agents or factors?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): My hon. Friend is misinformed. Mr. Middleton does not hold the office of County Clerk, and he was not acting as such on I2th December. It is true that at a meeting of the County Council in January be was authorised to act as clerk during the temporary illness of the holder of the office, but under no
  282
  circumstances is the office one over which the Government has any control.
  MR. WEIRasked if, when the Liberal Party was in Opposition, the Leaders did not pledge themselves that Government officials should not be allowed to engage in such prosecutions?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)replied that at that time the Liberal Party had no power to take any action in the matter. If any pledge bad been given it would undoubtedly be fulfilled, but he must repeat that the case referred to in the query was not one of a prosecution by a Government official.

  BELL'S MATCH FACTORY. BROMLEY-BY-BOW.
  MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at whose request, and by whose orders, a force of police was stationed at the gates of Messrs. Bell's Match Factory, Bromley by-Bow, on Monday, 1st January, when the employes were proceeding peaceably to work, and when there was no strike and no disturbance; and whether it is to be understood that the police can be used in this way at the instance of private employers?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that on December 30th a letter was received at the Low station from Mr. Edwin Bell saying that his firm expected a number of hands would strike on Monday, January 1st. and they thought it advisable to inform the police in order to prevent any danger to the peace. Inquiry was made of Messrs. Bell, and they repeated what they had written and referred to a former dispute with their hands in July, 1893, when Mr. Bell, on leaving his works, was alleged to have been followed by about 200 men and girls, who hooted and yelled at him on his way to Bromley Station, and the police had some difficulty in protecting Mr. Bell from molestation. Two constables at each relief were directed to patrol St. Leonard Street, in the neighbourhood of the works, on January 1st, but they were not placed at the gates, and never entered the factory at all. Only two constables went near the gates at all; one went down at 7 a.m. on the 3rd, and asked the gate-

  283
  keeper a question, but did not remain two minutes; the other did the same when some girls left, and asked if all was quiet, but came away at once. It is a general practice when information is given at a police-station of any event such as an anticipated strike, or ball, or large dinner party, or any occasion likely to bring a number of people to a given spot, to send one, two, or more police, as circumstances may demand, to see that there is 110 obstruction to the traffic or breach of the peace.

  THE FACTORY ACTS.
  MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any new Rules have been issued by the Factory Department to the effect that persons who have complaints to make of evasions of the Factory Acts have to give their names to the Factory Inspectors?
  MR. ASQUITH: NO, Sir; anonymous complaints always have been, and still continue to be, treated with the same consideration as if the name of the complainant was given.

  VISITS TO SICK PAUPERS.
  MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board by what authority the chief medical officer at Kensington Infirmary refuses to allow a special visit to an inmate aged 80 unless the inmate is dangerously ill, or unless the clerk to the Guardians intervenes; and why this power is relegated to the clerk of the Union, as the doctor's refusal implies?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): The Local Government Board have been in communication with the Guardians of Kensington, and they are informed that in the particular case which is believed to be referred to in the question the applicant requested leave to visit an inmate of the infirmary, who was in no way related to him, at other than the ordinary visiting times fixed by the Guardians, and that the medical officer withheld consent as there appeared to be no special reason for making an exception to the ordinary rule. Knowing, however, that there had been considerable correspondence between the applicant and the Guardians as regards
  284
  similar requests, the medical officer referred him to the clerk to the Guardians if he was dissatisfied with his decision. The clerk states that it would only be under extremely exceptional circumstances, to be subsequently reported to the Guardians, that he would feel justified in interfering with the medical officer's discretion in such a matter.

  EDINBURGH AND THE SEA FISHERIES REGULATION BILL.
  MR. PAUL (Edinburgh, S.): I wish to ask the Secretary for Scotland, with regard to the first Order of the Day, the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, whether he proposes to persevere in his Amendment incorporating the City of Edinburgh in the Schedules of the Bill; and, if so, will he alter the phraseology of the Bill by describing Edinburgh as a separate county, which it is, and not as a part of Midlothian, which it is not?
  *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): For reasons which I shall give later on in the evening the Government are unable to exclude Edinburgh from the operation of this Bill, but I am quite prepared to insert the words "county or city" before the name Edinburgh, and perhaps that will meet the wish of my hon. Friend.
  MR. PAUL: I beg to give notice that I shall oppose the inclusion among the seaboard counties of a county which has no seaboard.
  MR. R. T. REID (Dumfries, &c.): Is it not the case that when we were discussing this Bill previous to the Recess it was stated by a Member of the Government and assumed by everybody that Edinburgh was already included in the Bill?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Yes.
  MR. R. T. REID: And therefore this is a matter of formal phraseology.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Yes.

  POST OFFICE CONTRACTS.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.): I wish to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the report in the newspapers of the 6th instant, in which a man in the employ of Messrs. Macnamara, Post Office contractors, was summoned for being asleep

  285
  while in charge of a horse and cart, and in which the defendant stated that he had been at work 2,j hours with only four hours' rest? If the facts are as stated, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to secure that Government work shall be done under such conditions as will prevent this system of sweating?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): I very much regret to say that, though the whole of the statements, to which my hon. Friend draws my attention, are not accurate, there is no doubt that Livermore was most unduly overworked. Messrs. MacNamara are in the habit of allowing those of their drivers who desire to he relieved from Sunday duty to make arrangements with other men for undertaking their Sunday duty. In accordance with this custom, Livermore—who is what is known as "an odd man" in Messrs. MacNamara's employ—undertook at 11.30 p.m. on the night of Saturday, the 27th ultimo, the work of another driver. At the time at which he was—most improperly—allowed to undertake this duty, Livermore had been working, with very brief intervals of rest, since 2 a.m. on the Saturday morning. Messrs. MacNamara have now issued instructions that none of their drivers, who have been employed during the preceding 12 hours on the Saturday, shall be permitted to relieve another driver for Sunday work. But I am not satisfied that this instruction alone is sufficient, and I am making further inquiries, with a view to securing a more satisfactory condition of things.
  Mr. J. ROWLANDS: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, I should like to point out that attention was called to this contract on the Estimates.

  BRITISH SHIPPING AT RIO.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign affairs a question of which I have given him private notice. It is, whether British merchant ships at Rio now enjoy the same facilities for discharging their cargoes as those of any other country; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps, in any settlement of the present civil struggle in Brazil, to secure
  286
  that British commerce is not loss favoured than that of any other country?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): British merchant vessels at Rio enjoy the same facilities as those of any other nation. The Government will neglect no favourable opportunity which may present itself of securing to British commerce generally the same advantages as are given to any other nation.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: As to the future.
  SIR E. GREY: No opportunity that may present itself in the future will be neglected.

  SIR GERALD PORTAL'S REPORT.
  MR. HULSE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Report of (ho Mission to Uganda by the late Sir Gerald Portal was revised by him prior to his decease; and when such Report will be laid upon the Table of the House? May I be allowed to state, on behalf of many personal friends as well as for myself, how deeply we regret the irreparable loss at this juncture of so able and gifted a, public servant of the Crown.
  SIR.E. GREY: I will ask the hon. Member to postpone this question till to-morrow, when I may be in a position to give a more definite answer.

  PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.): I observe that on the Notice Paper (here are a large number of Bills and Motions standing in the name of private Members. I desire to know whether the Government propose to continue the practice—which, I think, they adhered to with general advantage during the earlier par of the Session—of moving the adjournment when the Government Business is terminated?
  THE: FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): Yes, Sir. The adjournment will be moved after the Government Order is disposed of.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Gilbert Heathcote Drummond Willoughby, commonly called Lord

  287
  Willoughby do Eresby, for the County of Lincoln (South Lindsey or Horncastle Division).

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Clause C (Establishment of fishery district committees),—(Sir G. Trevelyan,)—proposed on Consideration of Lords' Amendments [10th January]:—
  And which Amendment was, in line 58, after the word "thereafter," to insert the words,—"Provided always, that in any county, burgh, or police burgh where the distinctive mark has not been affixed to the names of more than two per cent. of the electors, the county clerk or town clerk shall certify this to the Secretary for Scotland, who shall then nominate the fishery members in respect of such county burgh, or police burgh for the ensuing three years."—(Mr. Renshaw.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Debate resumed.
  *MR. RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.)said, that before he withdrew this Amendment in favour of the one given notice of by the Secretary for Scotland, he should like to ask, on a point of Order, what effect the provision already made in Sub-section (b) of Section (3), in which it was provided that the election of fishery members should be by all persons on the County and Borough Registers, would have upon the proposals now formulated in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland.
  THE"SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): I conceive that this point of Order will not hold good. The Register of Voters is laid down in Subsection (b), and the Amendment of which I have given notice is, in certain cases, to dispense with elections, but in all cases where elections are held they will be held on this Register.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the words "as hereinafter provided" were in the original clause, so that the question will come under that saving clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper is intended to meet a state of circumstances of which a great deal was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, on the last occasion that this Bill was before us. The English Act established no representative Fishery Board or fishery committee, and so far as I understand there is no desire in England for a representative Board. But in Scotland the strongest desire has been unanimously expressed for a representative Fishery Board, and amongst the fishing communities in Scotland there is no doubt that there is a very strong desire for direct representation on committees. Without that representation the Bill in their eyes would be comparatively worthless. But in the other parts of Scotland, while there is a wish to be represented and an intention to be represented both on the committee and on the Board, there is a great difficulty as to direct representation, and in certain parts of the country there is a positive unwillingness to incur elections, which must be troublesome and maybe expensive. In those districts the voters would, I believe, trust the Town Council or the County Council to nominate their fishing representatives, and I think their wishes in this respect should be attended to, but under no circumstances whatever, in any community, where there is a strong fishery element, should it be in the power of anyone, whether the Secretary for Scotland or not, to deprive them of direct representation. To meet those two demands, both of them legitimate, we have placed on the Paper the present Amendment. The Secretary for Scotland will in the order nominate the districts, choosing those in which there is a large fishery population, and in those cases elections will be as imperative and as natural as election for County Councils, Town Councils, and Boards of Guardians. It will come once only in three years, and will be carried out simultaneously with the town, county, and Poor Law elections. The fishing communities will, therefore, be quite sure of their right to direct representation, but with regard to other communities the House does not wish to force elections upon them. It shall be in the

  289
  power of the County Councils, Town Councils, or Police Commissioners respectively, of the counties, burghs, or police burghs concerned, to apply to the Secretary for Scotland for authority to nominate the fishery members, and upon such authority being granted it shall not be imperative to hold an election. They may nominate the men who will represent their views, and they will have a large field to choose from, because they may choose their fishery members not only from their own district, but from the entire fishery district or county. That will make the Scotch fishery system representative, which in England it is not, and, at the same time, it will prevent that representation being burdensome or troublesome. I consulted hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and in all parts of Scotland, and this proposal met with unanimous agreement. I beg to move:—
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause 6—
  In line 58, after the word "thereafter," to insert as a new paragraph to Sub-section (3) the words—"(1) In the order creating a fishery district, the Secretary for Scotland may distribute or apportion the fishery members among such portions of counties, and among such burghs and police burghs, as he shall determine. The Order shall also specify the portions of counties, and the burghs and police burghs, in which, having regard to the extent and amount of the fishing interests, it shall be imperative that the fishery members shall be directly elected by the electors. In all other portions of counties, and in all other burghs and police burghs, it shall be in the power of the County Councils, Town Councils, or Police Commissioners respectively, of the counties, burghs, or police burghs concerned, to apply to the Secretary for Scotland for authority to nominate the fishery members, and upon such authority being granted it shall not be imperative to hold an election. Such authority shall have effect until recalled by the Secretary for Scotland, on a like application.
  (2) Any person to whose number or name a distinctive mark is prefixed as aforesaid in the Register applicable to any part of a fishery district, shall be eligible to be elected or nominated as aforesaid, for any county, or portion of a county, or for any burgh or police burgh, within such fishery district."—(Sir G. Trevelyan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause."
  *SIR C. PEARSONmoved to insert in the proposed Amendment, after counties, in line 3, the words "whether
  290
  constituting the entire counties or not." He desired to raise the question whether, under the right hon. Gentleman's proposed clause, it would be open to the Secretary for Scotland to exclude absolutely from representation any given part or parts of a seaboard county. That obviously was a very important question, and it would be doubly important if the proposals with regard to assessment were carried. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to take power to restrict assessment to portions of counties, and if that wore carried there should also be power to correspondingly restrict representation.
  Amendment proposed to the Amendment to the proposed Clause,
  In line 3, after the word "counties," to insert the words "whether constituting the entire counties or not."—(Sir C. Pearson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Order will include the whole of every county, but that county may in the Order be divided into districts for the purpose of apportioning the rate more highly on some than on others. With regard to the election of ordinary members I conceive that they will be numerically elected under the Order in proportion to the population of the different districts or parts of counties, but as regards fishery members, under the Order—and I gather it is the intention of some hon. Members opposite—they should be apportioned in some ratio to the incidence of the rate.
  MR. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.)said, that the Amendment moved by the Government seriously altered the character of the Bill. As originally framed the Bill made the Committees strictly elected bodies, and they directly represented fishery interests. He understood that by the now sub-section it would be possible that in a county there would only be elected representatives of the maritime margin of the county, while in the interior of the county there would be numbers of fishery members nominated by the County Council. Under this arrangement, in Aberdeenshire, where there were large fishing communities, the non-fishery members might be in an overwhelming majority. That was a substantial alteration in the Bill, though it was, no doubt, wise and prudent for the Government to make it for the sake of

  291
  progress. He was not disposed to object to it, but be thought a difficulty had been pointed out by the right hon. and learned Member opposite. They might have parts of a county excluded from having nominated fishery members, and yet rated; and other parts of a county not rated and yet having nominated fishery members. If these anomalies "were possible under the sub-section as it stood it would be desirable to take measures to prevent them occurring.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There was a question raised by my right hon. and learned Friend near mo, and by the hon. Gentleman opposite in the latter part of his remarks, which we should clear up. In the original proposals of the Government it was proposed that there should be power to apportion the rates on districts in proportion to the interest the people have in fishing; but the Government did not propose that any part of a seaboard county should be wholly relieved from rating. I put down an Amendment, which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland thought so much of as to put down another in the same sense, by which it would be possible altogether to relieve parts of counties from the rates if they have no interest in fishing. But if you do that, you must also remove from these parts of counties any privilege of sending members on the fishery committees. Under these circumstances, there is considerable divergence of policy between the clause we are now discussing and the next clause, which is proposed to be amended by the Government, and I hope the Government will modify their first clause so as to carry out the policy on which everyone on both sides of the House is agreed—namely, that taxation and representation should go together, and that portions of counties which have no fishery taxes should have no fishery representation.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR, Clackmannan, &c.): My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire fears that the effect of the Bill will be to give rise to inequality of numbers between fishery members and ordinary members. That is not so. It is provided that ordinary members and fishery members are to be equal in number. The point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend opposite is founded on a
  292
  misapprehension. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland intends to propose as an Amendment in line 85, after "Counties," to insert "or portions thereof." The effect is not intended to be, and I submit would not be, to exempt any portion of the territorial area from the whole of the rate. If the words "or portions thereof" were not introduced it might be suggested that the gross rate was to be divided county by county; but the object of these words is to provide that there may be a differential rating corresponding to the differential representation, but not wholly to exempt any portion of the territorial area which has a representation, more or less. Under these circumstances, I submit that there is no necessity for the Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend, because it would have the effect that certain portions would be entirely exempted from rating, and therefore from representation.
  MR. J. PARKER SMITHasked whether the right hon. Baronet would accept an Amendment containing some such words as the following:—
  "Having regard to the direct fishing interests of such portions of counties, burghs, and police burghs."
  Those words would express the principle upon which he understood the right hon. Baronet proceeded. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had gone some way towards giving relief to districts of counties, but he did not think they would be satisfied unless he went a great deal further, and relieved the upland districts both of taxation and of representation. He wished to move an Amendment of this kind when the present Amendment was out of the way, and he hoped that Amendments would be moved that such districts as Paisley and others should be removed both out of taxation and representation.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 130.—(Division List, No. 429.)
  *SIR C. PEARSONsaid, he desired to move the omission of the words "and among such" in the same line. As the sub-section stood, the Secretary for Scotland would have power to split up a county, but he would have no power as

  293
  regarded representation to split up a burgh or a police burgh. It might be said that there was less reason for doing so in the one case than in the other, and that was quite true. He ought in every case to have power to split up a county, but the power to split up a burgh would only apply in those cases where burghs were already divided into wards, as many of them were. As an illustration, he might refer to a paper which had been circulated among Members — Scotch Members, at all events—in reference to Aberdeen. The passage in the paper occurred in the course of an interview which certain gentlemen of Aberdeen had recently with the Chancellor of the Duchy. Treasurer Bisset, of the Town Council, said—
  "Of course he saw that Sir George Trevelyan had, at the eleventh, or the eleventh and three-quarter hour, brought forward a proposal allowing certain counties to make application to him for power to nominate the fishing members; but in the great bulk of cases they had the election over the whole district for this small matter. Even supposing the Amendment given notice of by Sir George Trevelyan was given effect to, how would it affect Aberdeen? If in Aberdeen they had a contested election for fishery committee purposes, it would necessitate an election taking place in every ward in the City, although for the business of the Town Council there might not be a contest in more than one or two."
  It was quite obvious that this was a survival of the old objectionable method. He submitted that his Amendment would not compel the Secretary for Scotland to do anything, but that; it would enable him to act for the advantage of a burgh and apportion the representation. It would also save elections for a comparatively unimportant matter.
  Amendment proposed to the Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause,
  In line 3, to leave out the words "and among such."—(Sir C. Pearson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause."
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR),who was indistinctly heard, said, he was afraid the Government could not accept the Amendment. It seemed to him that it involved the forget fulness of the very different condition of a county and a burgh. There might be more burghs and police burghs
  294
  than there were members available, but if the phraseology of the sub-section were not adopted it might seem to be obligatory to appoint a member for each burgh and police burgh, though their numbers exceed that of the available members.
  MR. R. T. REID (Dumfries, &c.)said, it seemed to him that the real object of both right hon. Gentlemen was the same. He thought the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was well founded, because he could well understand that it might be convenient that huge burghs should be split for the purpose; therefore, he thought the object of the right hon. Gentleman was right, but he was afraid that the method proposed was not. The effect of the omission of words would be to make it impossible for the Secretary of State to group burghs together which were small burghs. He submitted that the object might be attained if after the words "police burghs" the words "or portions thereof" were inserted.
  SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, ho was quite ready to adopt these words.
  Amendment to the Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment to the proposed Clause amended, by inserting
  In line 3, after the words "police burghs," the words "or portions thereof."
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, he rose to move the Amendment which he mentioned a few minutes ago—after the word "determine," at the end of the third line of the sub-section, to insert the words—
  "Having regard to the direct fishing interests of such portions of counties, burghs, and police burghs."
  He said, that that was very much what was the obvious and reasonable intention of the right hon. Gentleman, but it was not expressed in the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of line 3, after the word "determined." to insert the words, "having regard to the direct fishing interests of such portions of counties, burghs, and police burghs."—(Mr. Parker Smith)
  SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, that was certainly the intention of the Bill, and it was the effect of the English Act. The words were not contained in the English Act, but it worked perfectly well. But,

  295
  on the other hand, the words were perfectly innocent, and they might prove to he of some guidance, and he would accept them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.)moved, after the word "counties," in line 7, to add the words "included in the order." It seemed to him that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman in Section (6), Sub-section (a), where it was provided that the expenses were to he apportioned among the counties, which, he understood, was to be amended by the insertion of the words "or portions thereof," would have the effect of limiting the expense to certain portions of the county. He thought it would he a most unfortunate circumstance if that should he the case, and that it was very desirable that taxation and representation should go absolutely together.
  Amendment proposed to the Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause,
  In line 7, after the word "counties," to insert the words "included in the order."—(Mr. Renshaw.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, he could not accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Paragraph, as amended, inserted in the proposed Clause.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN SIR G. TREVELYAN moved—
  In line 68, to leave out the word "ordinary."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. RENSHAWproposed, in line 74, to leave out the word "county" before "electors," so that the clause should read—
  "The electors within such police burgh shall not be entitled to vote in such election."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed clause,
  In line 74, to leave out the word"county"before"electors."—(Mr. Renshaw.)
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. BUCHANANexpressed the hope that the Secretary for Scotland would not accept the Amendment, the effect of
  296
  which would be to say that where an election took place no county elector should be entitled to vote.
  SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, the Amendment would not have such an effect as the hon. Member seemed to anticipate. This was taken with a subsequent Amendment for the purpose of clearing the matter up and providing that no
  "Elector within such burgh shall vote for the election of fishery members for the county."
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN SIR G. TREVELYAN moved—
  In line 75, to leave out the words "such elections," and insert the words "the election of fishery members for the county."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause."
  MR. R. T. REIDdesired to say one word. He confessed he had tried to follow his right hon. Friend in dealing with the Acts of Parliament concerned, but the right hon. Gentleman had been quite too nimble for him. He did not know what would be the effect of the Amendment which had not been put down on the Paper, and which had just been accepted by his right hon. Friend, and still less did he know what was the effect of the consequential Amendment which his right hon. Friend had proposed. He would accept, with all humility, the assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that it was perfectly right, and would offer no further objection, but he begged respectfully, as an independent and private Member of the House of Commons, to submit that they ought to have, not a lengthy, but a sufficient time to consider the effect of the varying Amendments to this clause.
  SIR G. TREVELYANexplained, that the effect of the Amendment was this—that where fishery members were elected in the terms of this section for a police burgh, and the police burgh might, for other purposes, form part of the county, the electors in that, police burgh should not be entitled to vote for fishery members who were elected for a county outside.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrews)thought the adoption of the Amendment would make confusion more confounded in the minds of the elec-

  297
  tors. He had had an opportunity of consulting with some of his friends in the East of Scotland, and they had been almost unable to follow the various changes that had been made in the Bill. He hoped the words proposed would not he adopted.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. MAXWELLproposed—
  In line 82, after the word "clerk." to insert the words "and making up and auditing of the accounts of its receipts and expenditure."
  He said, all those who were cognisant of local business in Scotland knew that it was laid down in the Local Government Act and the Education Act that the accounts must be made up previous to Whitsuntide, and it was very desirable that the accounts of this body should be made up on the same date. The question of audit was very important with regard to the fishery district committees if they were to spend money provided by parties whom they did not directly represent. In the Local Government Act it was laid down that the Government was to appoint an auditor. He thought it was very desirable that some of these county auditors should be employed for the purpose of auditing the district fishery committee's accounts, and something ought to have been done in this sub-section towards providing for the submission of these accounts to the different contributing bodies. It was essential they should have annually presented to them a copy of the accounts of the district fishery committee. He begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause,
  In line 82, after the word "clerk," to insert the words "and the making up and auditing of the accounts of its receipts and expenditure."—(Mr. Maxwell.)
  Question proposed., "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause."
  SIR G. TREYELYANsaid, there were considerable numbers of Orders entrusted to Local Bodies in which all cases of detail were left to the common sense of those bodies, and he had equal faith in the common sense of the bodies who would be nominated and elected under these Orders. On these committees would be members of Town Councils
  298
  and Burgh Councils quite competent to deal with sums infinitely greater than those they would have to deal with on the fishery committees. The other members would be practical men elected by the same constituencies, and it would only be showing distrust of these bodies and hampering them with elaborate and probably, in the long run, expensive conditions—because every condition of that sort, sooner or later, meant a salary —if they were to adopt the Amendment. He thought they ought to leave this body to deal with their own clerk and their own little budget as they thought proper.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. RENSHAWsaid, he desired to move—
  In line 83, after the word "expenses," to insert the words "other than those which may be incurred in connection with mussel fisheries."'
  DR. R. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)DR. R. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.) rose to a point of Order. He desired to know whether this Amendment would interfere with his Amendment, which stood next?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member should move his Amendment first, and as to save that I will so put the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  *DR. R. FARQUHARSONsaid, his Amendment was of a thoroughly straight and easily understandable character, and had been on the Notice Paper ever since the Bill had been introduced. He wished, in the first place, to disclaim all hostility to the Bill itself, which in many respects was a good one, and appreciated and desired by the people of Scotland. He did not agree with the statement made by some that if his Amendment were adopted the Bill would be destroyed. His is Amendment only struck at the particular method of raising the money which had been proposed by the Government, and if adopted they might very fairly leave it to the ingenuity of the Government to find some other means of getting the whole of the money essential to carrying out the Bill. Nor did he wish to leave the impression on the House that he was not full of sympathy with the fishermen themselves. They were his neighbours in the county in which he lived; he knew many of them, and he was aware of the bravery and

  299
  industry with which they carried on a difficult, uncertain, and frequently a dangerous occupation. The only excuse for a rating clause of this kind would be the overwhelming necessity of a depressed industry, and the agriculturists he represented were not convinced that the fishing industry, depressed as it was at present, was as depressed as their own industry, which had got to be taxed for the benefit of the fishermen. His constituents, therefore, objected to pay this tax, and they were backed up in this case by the Municipality of Aberdeen, and by the County Council of Aberdeenshire, representing the whole agricultural district by means of its elective members. The agriculturists he represented objected to paying this tax, because they had no fishery interests and could have no advantage in any way from the operations of this Bill if it became law. The Government had admitted the force of this contention in the case of other counties, because there were numerous exemptions of those parts of Scotland which were not in any way likely to come under the beneficial influence of the Bill. If they exempted a large portion of the county, then the tax on the remainder became greater and more oppressive. His contention was that there should be no rating at all, but that the money should be got in some other way. He might say a word or two about the special conditions of his own county. Aberdeenshire was a large county, and was sharply divided into two parts, one purely agricultural and the other of which contained a considerable fishing population. The Western Division, which he represented, was entirely detached from the fishery part; they took no part in the fishing industry, and had very little opportunity of obtaining any of the fish from these seaboard places. They heard the other day a bitter cry from the neighbourhood of Inverary, where it turned out that even His draco himself could not got a fresh herring for breakfast; and if the Duke could not obtain this, what must be the condition of the crofter fanners in Aberdeenshire? What chance was there of their getting any share of the harvest of the sea? From no point of view did his constituents get any benefit from this Bill, or from this rating clause. He thought it was rather a new departure to tax any part of
  300
  a county, or country even, to supply plant for any industry, and he did not think it had ever been done before. He did not say it was a bad principle; but in his part of the country the people liked to have reciprocity, and if the agriculturists had to pay for fishermen's boats and other articles, then they would be glad if the fishermen would contribute towards their artificial manures and other requisites for their industry. They were told that this tax would be a very small one; that even the penny in the pound would not be wanted, and that only about one-sixteenth of a penny would be called up. He was very sceptical indeed about this. Looking to the objects for which this money was to be applied they might be sure that every penny of the rate would be called up, and that in a very short time it would be found to be not enough, and the authorities would be coming back to Parliament asking for sanction to borrow more heavily. It was no part of his duty to suggest an alternative means by which this money could be raised. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire had suggested that the tax should be a national one, but that had already been decided in the negative. It might also be argued that, as the benefits of the fishing industry were largely general though out the country, an Imperial tax might meet the necessities of the case. He should like to press that point of view; but it would be merely an act of presumption on his part to suggest to the superior wisdom of the Government how to find the money if this rating clause were dropped out, and he should therefore content himself by moving the Amendment, which he hoped would meet with the favourable consideration of the Government.
  *MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member could only move to omit the first paragraph of Sub-section (a).
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause,
  In line 83, to leave out paragraph (a) of Sub-section (6).—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'The expenses' stand part of the proposed Clause."
  *MR. PAUL (Edinburgh, S.)desired to support the Amendment, and said that as it really went to the root of the Bill

  301
  this would be a, convenient opportunity of endeavouring to elicit from the Government some explanation of the manner in which they had treated the County of the City of Edinburgh under this Bill. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries suggested that Edinburgh was included in the County of Midlothian. It was not necessary for him to set his authority, which was so small, against that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which was so high; but he could appeal to the action of the Government themselves, because they had inserted in the Schedule words which were expressly intended to include Edinburgh. To these words the Government had declared their intention of adhering, and he must take it, therefore, that Edinburgh was now, for the first time, included in the Hill. He was sure there was no class of persons less anxious to evade the discharge of their just obligations than the ratepayers of the City of Edinburgh. They only asked for justice and fair play; and if under this Bill a rate or tax were levied for the whole of Scotland, in no part would it be more cheerfully paid than in Edinburgh. He knew that the House had decided—and he thought on very reasonable grounds— that a rate which was in its nature a local and not a national tax should not be imposed upon the whole of Scotland, and the Government had adopted the principle of rating the seaboard counties. He should not argue against that principle, which had its advantages and disadvantages; hut he wished to point out that that principle did not apply to the City of Edinburgh, which was a county of its own, which always had been a county of its own, which had a separate Lord Lieutenant, which had no seaboard, and which had no professional fishermen. And if it was to be argued that Edinburgh had fishing interests because of the consumption of fish for which it was responsible, he should like to know why was the City of Glasgow not similarly rated!' He had been told that Edinburgh was rated because it was in the County of Midlothian, which had a seaboard, and that Glasgow was not rated because it was in the County of Lanark, which was not a seaboard county. But Edinburgh was not in the County of Midlothian, and Glasgow was not in the County of Lanark. Edinburgh had
  302
  always been a separate county, and Glasgow was made a separate county a year ago; therefore, that argument fell to the ground. Glasgow was a very fortunate city, and in no respect more fortunate than in being represented by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland. He was sure that nobody in that House would suggest that his right hon. Friend would intentionally do injustice to any constituency of Scotland, or any individual in Scotland or elsewhere. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman approached this question in the most absolutely impartial spirit; but there was such a thing as unconscious bias, and it was possible his light hon. Friend might be led to take the Glasg-we-ian point of view. The population of that great city must consume more than double the amount of fish that the population of Edinburgh consumed; they had constant opportunities of besieging the right hon. Gentleman's attentive oar, and be had no doubt that not only his constituents but the whole of Glasgow would not find it a deaf ear. He did not suppose that, except London, there was such a, fishing mart as Glasgow. Glasgow had direct access to the sea: there were people in Glasgow owning boats on Loch Fyne and bringing down herrings to the market, and it had all the signs of the fishing industry in every sense of the word. But Edinburgh had no more interest in the fishing industry than any inland county of Scotland which was exempted from this Bill. He knew there was one strong reason for including Edinburgh. It was worth rating. Its rateable value was £2,000,000. A penny rate on £2,000,000 would produce a sum of more than £8,000a year, which, no doubt, was worth Inning. But Glasgow would produce a good deal more. He knew the Secretary for Scotland had said that it was practically impossible that a penny rate would ever be imposed on the City of Edinburgh. As he understood this rating clause, it was for the fishery committee—on which, no doubt, the Town Council of Edinburgh would be represented—to say what money they wanted, and for the Secretary for Scotland to apportion how the rate necessary to raise that money should be distributed. No doubt his right hon. Friend would apportion it with absolute justice; and he bad no doubt that every

  303
  Secretary for Scotland who had yet held office would do the same. But they did not know about the future. The Secretaries for Scotland in the future might be, for all they knew, a totally different race of men, and, at all events, his constituents objected to having their rates apportioned by the Secretary for Scotland, whosoever he might be. The practice to which they had been accustomed was to raise and apportion their rates themselves. He sincerely hoped the Government, by making a reasonable concession, might make it unnecessary for him to vote for this Amendment, which he knew would have a serious effect on the Bill. But he was bound in that House to watch over, as far as he could, the interests of his constituents; and if the City of Edinburgh was to be included for no intelligible reason, so far as he could see, he should be compelled to support his hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURNsaid, he would like to say a few words in reference to the attitude of the hon. Member for West Aberdeen. So doubt that hon. Gentleman's constituency was one that was interested in the Bill, and he had very forcibly brought forward the case on its behalf. But his constituency was a little one-sided. He (Sir W. Wedderburn) had the honour to represent a constituency which was also deeply interested, and which might be said to occupy an impartial position. ft was a constituency in which one-half of the population was seaboard and one-half agricultural. This constituency had not raised its voice against the Bill, and he was glad to say that when the matter was brought before the County Council, and that body was pressed to adopt Petitions against the Bill, they decided against doing so. He thought this decision was a wise and a neighbourly one. In these matters they must not be too pedantic as to representation going with taxation; there must be a certain amount of give and take, both as to the past and future. With regard to what had been said as to the crofters, he thought it would be found that the opposition did not originate with the crofters or the workmen, but with the capitalists and others in Aberdeen, and he thought they should be very careful and not allow themselves to be made a
  304
  cat's-paw for the wrecking of the Bill—
  Several hon. MEMBERS rose, and
  MR. SPEAKERwas understood to call upon Mr. Anstruther.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURNsaid, he begged hon. Members' pardon; he had not finished. He hoped hon. Members would excuse him if he delayed them by stating his views. He thought the direction he had mentioned was not the only one from which the attack came. It was an attack on a part of the Bill. It was as if they were to set up a machine and not provide the means by which it was to he brought into operation. Other ways had been suggested than that which the Government proposed. The hon. Member who led the attack proposed other ways. There were different ways — the rating of the coast parishes, the rating of the maritime counties, or the rating of the whole of Scotland, or by drawing upon the Imperial Revenue. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) proposed that the money should be raised from the maritime counties or else from the Imperial Exchequer.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)said, the hon. Member must not suppose that he suggested every maritime county should be rated. His idea was with regard to those practically interested.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURNthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the correction. But he would point out that if only fishery villages were to he rated, the amount produced would be less than he had supposed, and it would have to be supplemented from the Imperial Exchequer —which was one method, at any rate, of relieving the expenses in such cases. Those were two means which, in his opinion, they should not wish to draw upon. There were two other means, and he did not say there were not difficulties and objections to both; but, on the whole, he believed the Secretary for Scotland had given the question very careful consideration, and he had taken the method which was fairest and the only way in which they could get the money they wanted. There was only one other point to which ho wished to refer, and he hoped the House would be indulgent, because he was speaking on

  305
  behalf of a very energetic fishing population. He spoke on behalf of 500 men, who did not wish to have the least misunderstanding in regard to this Bill. It was said in another place that this was a charitable arrangement in regard to them, and that they would ask for further concessions. They did not wish to encourage such an idea. They wished to he taken at their reasonable market value, and treated accordingly. It had been said that the Petitions in favour of their Bill came from insignificant villages; but he could instance one town in his own constituency which had taken a leading part in regard to the matter, and which was shown by the last Report of the Fishery Board to have boats valued at a- very considerable rate, £14,000, and it was said that the nets used would cover ten square miles. Such a place as that could not, he insignificant, and those who spoke in that way must he ignorant of the facts. They heard of the scare about the Navy; but what was the use of having a Navy if they had not trained men—what was the use of a weapon if they had not men trained to use it? They knew that the Mercantile Marine had many foreigners—there were no foreigners here. He appealed to all Scotch Members in the House not to assist in the wrecking of this Bill, hut to help in carrying it as a charter for their fishermen.
  *SIR H. MAXWELLsaid, he agreed with the hon. Baronet opposite in the views which he had expressed with regard to the charge which had been made against the fishermen. He did not believe that if they got this assistance they would go further and ask to have nets and boats provided for them. Hie thought such an assertion was scarcely worthy of notice by the hon. Baronet. It came to this—that the bounty was a bounty being conferred upon a special industry — [Cries of "No!"]—and the question was what was the source of that bounty to be? [Cries of "No!"] Hon. Gentlemen said "No"; but he would like to have pointed out to him in what respect the proposed expenditure differed from a bounty conferred upon different industries by various Governments? He did not sec the difference, and he did not think the great majority of his fellow-
  306
  countrymen would see the difference. The hon. Member had traced the opposition to these proposals as coming from Aberdeen-shire. He (Sir H. Maxwell I had been in consultation with his own constituency and persons in other parts of the country, and one and all had expressed dismay at the provisions under this clause, and he could not understand that a, city like Glasgow should be exempted from rating for the purposes of the fishery industry while Edinburgh was included. One would have thought that anyone going along the Broomielaw at Glasgow any morning, summer or winter, and seeing the herring steamers from Loch Fyne, would have felt that Glasgow was entitled to bear its share. Hundreds of thousands of tons were brought in as part of the ordinary commerce. Therefore, he repeated, Glasgow should bear her share. He did not see any distinct ion between the proposed expenditure in this case and a bounty upon a special industry. He believed, however, that all parts of the country were willing and content to contribute the rates required — provided they were fairly levied. Let every district be rated in proportion to its interest in the industry. He did trust that although, as the hon. Member for Dumfries had said, the proceedings on this Bill had been very confusing, they had not yet reached a stage at which the Government could not reconsider their position on this question.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I would wish to point out what it is important to understand—that the question before the House is not whether there should be a national rate over the whole of Scotland. That is not what we are discussing. The question that is before the House is a very serious one—whether means should be afforded for carrying out the provisions of this Bill. What are the provisions of this Bill? The English Act has been in operation during the last five years. Scotland is a country in which the fisheries are more important than they are in England; yet Scotland has been deprived of the advantages of the English Act, and we have brought in a Bill which resembles the English Act in many important particulars. It ordains that Orders shall ho made by the executive authority for different portions of Scotland, and, as in

  307
  the English Act, those orders are to he compulsory. In another respect the Bill resembles the English Act in that it includes only the seaboard counties. The Bill, however, differs from the English Act in two most important particulars. It creates a representative Fishery Hoard. Every one of the district committees will send one member to the Board to manage fishery interests, and until very lately it had been maintained that that power is not an injury, but a privilege to the district. The English Act does not give facilities for making and preserving mussel-beds, whereas the House and the Government have recognised that the Scotch mussel-beds are running to waste and ruin, and, therefore, the Bill provides that the title to the mussel-beds must be shown, by which the beds will be acquired by the fishery committees, while bye-laws are to be passed for the preservation of the beds, and penalties imposed for violation of those bye-laws. Such a Bill is the only hope for Scotch line-fishing in the future. In dealing with the question of these Fishery Boards we were obliged to draw upon some source. We could not have recourse to the Imperial Treasury. Scotland is very well used, as compared with other parts of the United Kingdom, in matters of grants from the Imperial Treasury in the case of fisheries. The grants are very large—larger, at any rate, than those given to England; and it is quite impossible, in the present state of national finance, to go to the Treasury and ask for a sufficient sum of money to put the Bill in force. Well, we were obliged to draw the no somewhere, and we drew it at the seaboard counties—the counties that are interested. The counties of towns and cities are included where interested. Hon. Members ask me whether Edinburgh is interested. One of the most important matters is that of dealing with trawlers. Is that not a question of interest to Edinburgh? Is Edinburgh not interested in mussel-beds? She has a very considerable interest in mussel-beds. She actually possesses a bed of her own, though it is leased—for the same reason as other beds in Scotland are leased—at a very small sum of money; but if, as we propose, the bed were under the control of a fishery committee, it would soon become extremely valuable. Edinburgh is a county
  308
  of a city, and she is interested, as I have shown. In the Lancashire Order Bury, Salford, Manchester, and Wigan were included, because they are within the confines of Lancashire. One of my hon. Friends has asked, "Why not include Glasgow?" In the same way an English Member might say, "Why not include Birmingham?"
  SIR H. MAXWELL: It is not a seaport.
  *SIR G. TREVELYAN: Birmingham was not included because Warwickshire is not a seaboard county, and Glasgow is not included because Lanarkshire is not a seaboard county: but, though Edinburgh and Aberdeenshire are included in the Bill, the Government can understand that their inhabitants may well feel some uneasiness. I wish, therefore, to place before them what the safeguards are which are in the Bill. I trust hon. Members will listen to the next few sentences, as I hope they will clear away all misunderstanding. In the first place, the Secretary of State had to apportion the rate according to the interest of each district. In the Lancashire Order Cheshire and Cumberland were included, and the rate was apportioned to each according to its interest. Cheshire, with its immense rateable value, was apportioned only l-62nd part of the burden. It will be the same in Scotland. The Secretary of State will have power to apportion the expenses so that the burden upon each district will be in exact proportion to its interest in the fishing industry. Hon. Members talk of maximum rates. I must ask them what will be the maximum rate in the City of Edinburgh? If this rate is according to the city's interest in fishing industry it will be very low. Something has been said about a rate of 1d., but in the circumstances I have stated it will be long before 1d. rate, or even ¼d. rate, will be levied. In heavily-rated Lancashire the rate comes to only 1–16th of 1d. In Cheshire it comes to next to nothing. Putting aside the question of the representation which Edinburgh and Aberdeenshire would have on the Board the next safeguard is that the Order will be laid before the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and if either House thinks that there is any injustice in it they will be able to strike it out of the Order or will be able to annul the Order.

  309
  When the Order has been passed and the assessment has been made, any single body, from the Comity Council downwards, that is interested will be able to lay before the Secretary for Scotland a remonstrance against the execution of the Order on other grounds, and especially on the ground that undertakings have been taken in hand which do not give a promise of ultimate recoupment. If a Secretary for Scotland does his duty he will absolutely refuse to recognise any scheme from taking over a mussel-bed in which there is no chance of ultimate recoupment. I believe that when the Hill comes into operation all these apprehensions will prove to be unfounded. Such apprehensions have never been heard of in England, where the system is all but the same, except in particulars in which I think the Scotch Act is preferable. We have done our best to meet objections in "another place." Of course, we have had a good deal of chaff and have been subjected to some invective on account of the changes we have made in the Bill; but that is the regular lot of Ministers who carry Bills through the House of Commons and submit them to the House of Lords. I have done all in my power to meet the wishes of hon. Members: but I must point out that if this Bill, which is so important to the fishermen of Scotland, is to be of the slightest value to them funds must be provided for carrying it out. Under our scheme such funds will be provided more hugely by those districts which are largely interested in fishing, and in a very small degree by those districts which are not so interested in it. The necessary funds, however, must be provided, and I am afraid that this will be a vital amendment to the Bill.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER (Edinburgh, W.)said, he wished to associate himself in every way with the case put for the City and County of Edinburgh so clearly and so ably by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Paul). He could not think that the Secretary for Scot-land (Sir G. Trevelyan) had answered that case. Edinburgh did not want to be excused from being rated for this great Scottish industry, and was perfectly willing to take her share in a national rate. It must, however, be a national rate, and the case of Edinburgh was that Glasgow, which was infinitely more interested in fishing than Edinburgh, was, for some
  310
  reason at present unexplained, totally excluded. The light hon. Gentleman had repeated the worn-out argument that Edinburgh was part of the seaboard County of Midlothian, whilst Glasgow was not part of a seaboard county. Edinburgh was not part of the County of Midlothian, but was a county in itself, just as Glasgow was, and there was no argument for the exclusion of Glasgow which did not extend in a threefold manner to the exclusion of Edinburgh. The right hon. Gentleman had compared Glasgow with Birmingham. He (Viscount Wolmer) could think of only one point of similarity between them— namely, that they both consumed a great quantity of fish. Glasgow was a great port, whereas he did not suppose that there was anyone in Birmingham who earned his livelihood directly by means of the fishing industry. Fleets of fishing boats went out from Glasgow to Loch Fyne, and Edinburgh was not half as much interested in the Firth of Forth as Glasgow was in Loch Fyne. The interest of Edinburgh in the fishing industry was purely national, whilst that of Glasgow was both local and national. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Trevelyan) said that Edinburgh owned mussel-beds. The right hon. Gentleman was totally misinformed on that point. Edinburgh owned no mussel-beds, but it owned some oyster-beds, which brought in £15 a, year. As he had said before, Edinburgh did not wish to be excluded from a national rate, but she did protest against the gross favouritism which was shown to Glasgow.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.): The interesting and able speech of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has been a strange illustration of the topsy-turvey fashion in which this measure has been discussed, or, rather, has not been discussed. The right hon. Gentleman appears anxious by his management of this Bill to crowd the stages of Second Beading and Committee into the discussion of the Lords Amendments. Practically upon the Lords Amendments this House has for the first time taken the Bill into consideration, as in the ordinary course it would have taken it into consideration in Committee, and on this stage also the right hon. Gentleman has delivered a very excellent Second Reading speech upon the general

  311
  merits of the Bill. I do not mean to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the survey he has made of the English and Scottish Acts, and of all the points in which the two Acts differ, and in which the Scotch Act is superior to the English Act. I shall confine myself to what is, after all, the central point in this Amendment. We have had from hon. Members for Edinburgh, and from one Member for Aberdeen, an earnest protest on behalf of their constituents against the injustice of taxing them for an industry in which they are in no way concerned, and that protest has brought from the right hon. Gentleman a really very strange apology for the course the Government are pursuing. He tolls us that Edinburgh is interested in the fishing industry because it is on the Firth of Forth, and because the Firth of Forth is closed to trawling. The City of Edinburgh overlooks the Firth of Forth, but is not on it, and I think it would be neither better off nor worse off if the Fishery Board were tomorrow to open the Firth of Forth to trawling. How the effect of the trawling industry near the Bass Rock can touch the interests of Edinburgh I am at a loss to understand. As to the statement about the mussel-beds, that has been disposed of by my noble Friend (Viscount Wolmer), who pointed out that -Edinburgh did not own a mussel-bed. If it did, this is not the occasion on which we should interfere with the free exercise by Municipal Authorities of the management of their own property. I pass to the point of the inclusion of Edinburgh and the exclusion of Glasgow. The right hon. Gentleman based his argument on that point entirely on the English Act. He said that in England the great Municipalities within the area of seaboard counties were rated, but that large Municipalities not within such area were not rated. I will adopt than principle, however crude and unjust it may be, and apply it to Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman in another part of his speech was boasting of the great superiority of his Bill in this matter of local rating over the English Bill, and saying that he had found means by which the unfairness and crudeness of the English measure had been excluded from the Scotch measure. Why did he not go a little further and find some means by which the difference in treatment between Edinburgh
  312
  and Glasgow might have been avoided— the difference between a town on the seaboard and a town not on the seaboard; between a town which is a port and a town which is not a port—so as to prevent a town not on the seaboard paying for the fishing industry when a town that is on the seaboard does not pay for it? I desire neither that Edinburgh nor Glasgow should be rated under this Bill; but I say that if you are to rate Edinburgh it is impossible to avoid rating Glasgow. It is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to help feeling the innuendo that has been used, that his connection with Glasgow has biased his views on this matter, but something extreme is necessary to make us understand the policy of the Government. I should, however, be very unwilling to argue this question on the merits of Aberdeenshire, Glasgow, or Edinburgh. I would venture most respectfully to lay some general considerations before the House which I think ought to influence them on this Amendment, or on some Amendment proceeding on general lines. I do not want to lay down general principles as regards subventions to industries. I say that there may be circumstances and industries which do justify, on the part either of the Local Authorities or of the general public, something in the nature of a subvention, and I go further, and say that if there be an industry which it would be most dangerous from a national point of view for us to permit to languish, if there be an industry which naturally excites the sympathy of the general English and Scotch public, that industry undoubtedly is the fishing industry. The House has from time to time shown its sympathy with that industry by voting subventions to piers and harbours out of national funds. I hope, therefore, that the House will not suppose that I am laying down any doctrinaire views about subventions, or that I am otherwise than of opinion that probably of all industries the one which most deserves a subvention is the special industry whose interests we are considering to-day. My objection to this proposal is of an entirely different character; it is not to the nature of the subvention, but to the source from which it is to come. It appears to me from that point of view to be of itself illogical, and to be of itself unjust, and none of the pro-

  313
  visions inserted in the Bill appear to me to have removed the injustice. The Government had made it a special merit of their Bill that it introduces into the management of the fishing industry what they call, and what is, the elective principle. A more perverted form than that in which the principle appears in this Bill has never, I think, been conceived by a Parliamentary draftsman in his wildest moments. What do we commonly understand by the elective principle? It is that those who pay the taxes should vote the taxes, and that the body which represents the taxpayer should control the money which is raised by taxation. These have hitherto been regarded as fundamental points in any system of representative Government I have ever heard of, and I do not think that any analogy for the Government proposal can anywhere be found. I may be wrong in this, for the Statute Book covers a very wide field, and very eccentric legislation occasionally passes this House. But, speaking generally, it will not be denied that the main principles I have laid down are principles which we have hitherto regarded as essential to any system. The system of this Bill is that one set of people should pay, and another sot of people should raise the taxes; the principle of this Bill is that those who pay the taxes do not administer the taxes, that those who contribute the rates have no controlling voice as to the manner in which they should be expended. But there is another point on which I think the Bill violates all sound principle. I see no objection to a rate being raised for the benefit of a portion only of the community which raises it, provided always that it be the larger area which deliberately and voluntarily taxes itself for the benefit of the smaller area. Take the ease of Imperial funds. We think we are not, and we are not, suspending any principle of justice or equity or sound policy when we vote part of our taxes for the benefit of a small portion of the community—when, for example, we lend our credit for the construction of a, particular railway in the North of Scotland or the West of Ireland. I out to allow the North of Scotland to tax us for its railway, or the West of Ireland to tax us for its harbour, would be the grossest absurdity that could be conceived. Yet that is, in effect, what you are doing under the Bill.
  314
  You are allowing a body which does not represent the whole county to tax the whole county not for the benefit of the whole county, and I say that such a proposal is a violation of every sound principle which has hitherto guided, and ought in the future to guide, our legislation. I do not desire to deal minutely with the English analogy. The English Bill may or may not be open to criticism; but it is not open to the criticism I have directed against the proposals of the Government. Even if it be true, as I think it is not, that you can find some obscure analogy for the strange course you have now insisted on pursuing, I say that ought not to divert us from the broad path of constitutional procedure, and induce us to allow a minority to tax a majority for its own benefit, and to depart from the principle that those who pay the taxes should vote the taxes, and should control the expenditure of the Bill. All these principles you violate by this Bill, and all these principles we ought to safeguard. The plain solution, although the Government shy at it, and will not accept it, is that we ought to contribute out of the general funds of this country to carry out purposes which you think to be of national importance. You allege yourselves as one of the justifications for this Bill—the Chancellor of the Duchy, who had an evil hour-and-a-half with his constituents the other day in the Aberdeen Town Hall on this measure, himself urged—that if the fishing industry is one of national importance requiring a subvention from other sources to make it a prosperous industry, then lot the subvention be a national one. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has told us in carefully measured terms that the burden his Bill will throw on the ratepayers of the seaboard counties of Scotland will be in most cases absolutely infinitesimal. If it is infinitesimal when it is distributed only over the seaboard counties of Scotland, excluding Glasgow, what would it be when distributed over the Imperial Exchequer? The right hon. Gentleman's argument bears against his own policy; therefore, I hope that in the interest of sound justice the Government will even now retreat from the position they have taken up.
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MARJORBANKS,): The

  315
  Leader of the Opposition charged the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill with having made a Second Reading speech on the consideration of the Lords' Amendments. Well, I really would put it to the House whether the right hon. Gentleman has not himself exactly followed the example which ho charges to my right hon. Friend, for his speech has gone to the root of the whole Bill. He has stated the principle which, he says, governs this Bill, and he has objected to the whole Bill on the assumption that his statement is accurate. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, he says the principle under which it is proposed to raise money for the purposes of this Bill is this—that a body which does not represent the whole county is to tax the whole county for the benefit of a portion of the county.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is quite true.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I object to that argument entirely. I say that the body which is going to ho the taxing body under this Bill does represent the whole county, and that the taxation that it raises will be expended' for the benefit of the whole county. I do not think that it is at all a proper thing to separate one particular industry of the county from the general interests of the county, and to say that because a certain industry is going to receive a greater advantage from particular taxation that, therefore, the general interest of the county is not advanced by any benefit that the particular industry may gain. On the contrary, I say that the particular industry is so much wrapped up in the interest of the county that the whole county is benefitted by the advantage of the particular industry. The right hon. Gentleman says that the taxing body does not represent the whole county. I say that in that statement he entirely misrepresents the facts. The fishery committee which cares for the whole district (which will include several counties) in the first place is made up of representatives of every County Council and every Town Council in the district. Secondly, it is constituted of fishery members, but these members though they are to be chosen out of a certain limited number of people—namely, those interested in the fishery—are elected by the constituency of the whole county. They are elected by the same body as
  316
  the County Councils, and at the same time and on the same paper. If that is the case, surely this Elective Body is one that does represent most fully the whole county, and is, therefore, justified in raising this taxation on the whole county. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that the proper way to find the money for these Local Bodies is to give a subsidy out of the National Exchequer. Now, I must say that that is a strong proposition to be made. It does seem to me that if you are setting up Local Bodies to deal with local affairs, the proper course is that those Local Bodies should raise the money out of the districts affected. You draw a distinction between the district committees and their work, and the Scottish Fishery Board and its work. The Scottish Fishery Board deals with the whole of Scotland, and therefore, very rightly, draws its money from national sources; but these new bodies you are going to set up deal only with fishery matters within the district in which they are elected. It seems to me that the only proper course is to require the districts with which these new bodies deal to raise the money. My right hon. Friend has shown that the rate will be allocated in a way which will only throw a very small charge indeed on those portions of a district which are not much interested in fisheries. I think that those who have objected to the proposal have said that they were willing to contribute towards the interest of the fisheries. I think that under the proposal of my right hon. Friend the amount that these various portions of the districts that are not directly interested in the fisheries will have to pay will be so small that really there is no great need to object to the burden to be thrown on them. The real burden will be thrown more on the fishery portion of the districts. I hope, therefore, that the House will give support to my right hon. Friend in resisting this Amendment, which, if carried, would destroy this Bill altogether.
  *MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith, N.)said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said as much for the system of rating under the Bill as it was possible to say in its favour, but still he (Mr. Ferguson) felt obliged to support the Amendment. One reason why he supported the Amendment was because he believed that were the system

  317
  of rating under the Bill put into force it. would be extremely unpopular, and would bring with it a great deal of dissatisfaction with the promoters of the Bill. Since the measure was last discussed in the House it had been brought before various Town Councils in Scotland, and in every case where objection had not been taken to the whole principle of the Bill objection had been taken to the fact that they specially were rated. It would be all very well if Edinburgh were omitted from the scope of the Bill with its £2,000,000 of rateable value— Leith would be in no better position. He had had an interview with the Leith Town Council on the matter, and he thought theirs a reasonable view. They said they had no objection to contribute towards the encouragement of fisheries; but if they were called upon to do so the whole country should contribute, and contribute equally. He must say he saw great difficulty in apportioning the rates according to the interests of different localities. He thought that in practice that would be a difficult thing to carry out, but he was certain that the exclusion of Glasgow and the inclusion of Leith would be altogether indefensible. The fish from the Forth were landed at New haven, and the great bulk of it was despatched by train to Glasgow. Leith had no special interest in it, and if Leith and Edinburgh had an interest in the Forth being closed to trawling they might say that Glasgow had an interest in the Clyde being closed also, or any other place in the neighbourhood where she drew her fish from. There was another reason which induced him to support the Amendment. He believed that a considerable sum of money might be advantageously spent in the development of fishing, and by the inclusion of Glasgow and other places in the Bill they would draw their money from a larger area. The primary idea in Scotland was that the money should come from Imperial sources. The Secretary for Scotland stated that they should not ask for money from the Treasury, because they had so much for fishing purposes already as compared with England, but in saying that, the right hon. Baronet pointed out very justly that in many ways Scotland was at a great disadvantage in its contributions to revenue, and its receipts from the National Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman might have
  318
  pointed out that the fishing industry of Scotland was greater than the fishing industry of England, and, therefore, they might have expected for a double reason that an even larger contribution than was at present received from Imperial sources would be given for the protection of Scotch fisheries. Supposing the money could not be obtained from Imperial sources, he did not suppose that anyone would object to a rate being applied equally and equitably over the whole country. It was to the interest of the whole fishing community and everybody concerned that the clauses relating to the mussel-beds should be as speedily as possible embodied in legislation. Assistance in cultivating these beds would be highly remunerative, and hardly any burden would be placed on the committees or the Imperial Exchequer in the matter. He failed to perceive the principle upon which certain portions of Scotland had been excluded from the Bill. The interest of the man who ate the fish was as great as that of the man who caught it. Much of the opposition which had been offered to the Bill had been based on narrow interests and unpatriotic sentiment. But that was certainly not the case with the opposition which was now being offered. The great Corporations were opposing the Bill because the principle upon which their districts were going to be taxed could not be justified. On that ground, while he recognised to the full the importance of the Bill, not only from a national point of view, but from the point of view of his own constituency, whore there were a considerable number of fishermen, he intended to vote for the Amendment.
  MR. R. T. REID (Dumfries, &c.)said, that supporting the Amendment was equivalent to voting against the Bill altogether. For his own part, he did not intend to support the Amendment. This seemed to him to be the crucial part of the Bill. Where was the money to come from by which alone the machinery of the Bill could be worked? The hon. Member for East Aberdeen had pointed out that there were only four sources from which it could come. The first was an Imperial subvention. For his own part, he sympathised much with the view that an Imperial subvention ought to be conceded in this case, and there would have been

  319
  no difficulty raised to this from the other side of the House, because the Leader of the Opposition had declared that it would be the best method. But a private Member could not propose an Imperial subvention, and the Government were not prepared to make such a proposal. The next alternative, which was one which he believed was about to be proposed by the Leader of the Opposition— namely, that the parishes on the seaboard interested in fishing should alone be rated, would be destructive of the Bill, because it would be impossible to raise the money on so narrow and restricted an area. Of the two remaining alternatives one was that the whole of Scotland should be rated; and the other was that the rating should be levied on the seaboard counties of Scotland, which numbered 24 out of the 32 counties of the country. The first of those alternatives was proposed by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire months ago, and he (Mr. Reid) had supported him. He did not know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh had supported the proposal. He did not make that a matter of reproach, but it was supposed at that time that Edinburgh was included within the Bill and was not protected, although he (Mr. Reid) suggested that Edinburgh would require to be expressly included. It was absolutely impossible to justify the imposition upon 24 out of the 32 counties in Scotland of rating for purposes which were common to the whole country. He could not understand how it could be suggested that Edinburgh ought to be included in the Bill while Glasgow was excluded. It would have been more reasonable to, say, include Glasgow and exclude Edinburgh. He knew there was great jealousy between the two places—["No, no!"]—well, emulation. He came from a part of the country equi-distant from the two, and he did not wish to take a side in the controversy. But it seemed monstrous to suggest that little villages in Inverness-shire, for instance, should be rated, whilst the powerful City of Edinburgh should contribute nothing. No amount of argument would satisfy him that that would be fair play. They had proposed that the whole of Scotland should be rated, but what had been the result? The decision had been given against them. The House had decided that the whole of Scotland should not be rated, and,
  320
  therefore, the only remaining alternative was that proposed in the section. He did not like that alternative. Ho liked the other far better; but the House refused that constructive Amendment, and now they were met with a destructive Amendment, and it was because it was a destructive Amendment that he proposed to vote against it. It was impossible to doubt that if the Amendment was carried three out of the four possible methods of providing the money would be closed to them. The only one which would remain would be one which was practically no real proposal, though he admitted that it was captivating—namely, that of taxing the parishes. They had come to the point, therefore, that in this Bill they were absolutely precluded by a past Resolution of the House, and the effect of a Debate, from any method except the method now proposed, and in proposing to destroy that method the hon. Member for West Aberdeen was, in fact, proposing to destroy the Bill root and branch— to inflict upon it a blow from which it could not rally. Notwithstanding its defects, he could not take the responsibility of destroying the Bill.
  *MR. RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.)said, that in supporting the hon. Member for West Aberdeen, ho did so not because he did not appreciate the difficulties the Government would be placed in if the Amendment was passed, but because it expressed precisely the views expressed, not only by the County Council of Renfrew (of which he had the honour to be a member) in a Petition they had presented to the House, but in the burghs of Renfrew, Paisley, Greenock, and Port Glasgow. In regard to the exclusion of the City of Glasgow, if the Bill had been introduced two or three years ago, it would have been a much more difficult question to deal with, because Glasgow was then partly in the County of Renfrew and partly in the County of Lanark. At present they had in the County of Renfrew some burghs that were practically part and parcel of Glasgow. Those burghs were to be rated for fishery purposes, while the great City of Glasgow, the largest consumer of fish, escaped. He observed that the Lord Advocate in addressing his constituents at Kincardine minimised as far as possible the probable rate under the Bill. He had said that it would begin with a small

  321
  amount, and that by-and-by there would be no rate at all. That, of course, was a most seductive prospect to the ratepayers; but unfortunately they had experience to guide them in these matters. Whenever an attempt had been made to minimise the amount which would be levied under a particular statute the ratepayers had found that the maximum rate was speedily reached. They were told that any possible rate under the Bill would be a very small sum. Well, a 1d. rate in the seaboard counties, including the County of the City of Edinburgh, would realise £60,000. That was a large sum, particularly having regard to the fact that the money partly derived from the herring brand and partly from the Imperial Exchequer at the disposal of the Fishery Board only amounted to £23,000, or one-third of that sum. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick had said that though the District Committee was to consist of so many fishery members and so many ordinary members they would all be connected with the counties paying the rates. That was perfectly correct, but what would be the position of matters in the particular district in which his own county would probably be included? A population of 667,000 would elect half the district committee, and 870 fishermen would elect the other half.
  *MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, that it was true that the fishery members would be selected from those connected with the fishing interest, but they would be elected by the whole body of County Council electors.
  MR. RENSHAWsaid, that the ordinary members would represent 667,000 people, whilst the fishery members would have to be selected out of the 870—
  *MR. MARJORIBANKS: Not necessarily. They would be selected from any persons interested in the fisheries, including fishermen, fish salesmen, boat-builders, net-makers, and so on.
  MR. RENSHAWsaid, that the fishery members would have a preponderating decision as to the expenditure of money, and for that reason he felt bound to support the Amendment.
  SIR D. MACFARLANEsaid, he was willing to admit that he should have preferred an Imperial grant; but it was no use discussing such points now, as they had got past them. The question for them now was, would they pass the rate
  322
  as it was proposed by the Government or would they wreck the Bill? He was no great admirer of the Bill It was a very small Rill, but better than no Bill at all, and for that reason he was determined to support it. He could not sympathise exactly with the hon. Members for Edinburgh and Leith, for they did not object to the payment of the rate, but to the fact that somebody else was excluded. But the Government had drawn a certain line, and in following that they were bound to exclude Glasgow, as it was not a maritime county. They were there, if they could, to pass the Rill. They had been told that it was a non-contentious measure, and when he first read it he was inclined to think that it was. He understood non-contentious measures to he measures of little use to those for whose benefit they were brought in, and of very little interest to any one. But such as the Bill was, with all its defects he Wits prepared to support it through thick and thin, so that it might be passed. Stress had been laid on the (dosing of the Firth of Forth to trawlers. He understood from that that there was a power somewhere in the Secretary of Scotland or the Fishery Board to close the Firth against trawlers. He wished that power could be further extended to the north and west. There was not a week passed that he did not receive piteous complaints from fishermen of the destruction caused by trawlers. He wished the Secretary of Scotland to extend his benevolence from the Firth of Forth to the Firth of Clyde and other places.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 115.—(Division List, No. 130.)
  MR. RENSHAWsaid, he had next to move an Amendment the object of which was to take from the district fishery committees the power of incurring any expenditure in connection with mussel-beds. He had, he said, followed with great interest the remarks which had fallen from hon. Members opposite, and especially from the hon. Member for Dumfries, in regard to the difficulty they experienced in supporting the Amendment on which the House had just divided, in view of the fact that the carrying of that Amendment involved the wrecking of the Bill, but he ventured to suggest that his present Amendment would not have that effect. It would merely enable

  323
  them to discriminate between the proper and legitimate local expenses that might be incurred under the Bill in regard to the election of representatives to sit upon the Fishery Boards, while it would exclude from the expenditure to be incurred by the Boards when they came into existence any outlay upon mussel-beds. He thought that that was a wise and proper course to adopt in regard to the Bill, because it was in regard to the mussel-beds that, in all probability, considerable expenditure would be incurred on various parts of the coast of Scotland. When on a previous occasion this Bill was before the House the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it admitted that the expenditure in connection with mussel-beds would be the main item. No doubt, his colleague had since sought to minimise that statement, but it could not be doubted by any one who had taken the trouble to look into the matter that the cultivation and development of mussel-beds was an exceedingly risky and hazardous business, whether carried on either on a large or small scale. It was open to peculiar risks, and it was quite possible that operations carried on under the Act would prove an unremunerative investment. Yet the rates were to be made liable for this purpose, and also to be pledged for the repayment of any loans incurred for capital expenditure on the acquirement of mussel-beds. It was quite possible that the various fishery committees throughout Scotland would, in their respective districts, proceed to develop mussel-beds, with the result of largely increasing the production of mussels and creating a competition which would end in reducing prices to so low a point as to make the cultivation of mussels absolutely unprofitable. Under such circumstances, expenditure in connection with them might place upon the ratepayers a very serious and improper burden. No doubt, the Government attached considerable importance to the manner in which the Bill dealt with the question of the mussel fisheries, but he was bound to point out that under the existing law it was possible to obtain any protection that was necessary for mussel-beds at a small cost. In their Report for this year the Scotch Fishery Board notified a case in which a protective order had been obtained, and they mentioned that the expense of obtaining such an
  324
  order usually amounted to about £10. They thus had already a cheap and inexpensive method of securing protection for mussel-beds and, that being the case, there was no reason for imposing on the ratepayers of the seaboard counties the responsibilities and expenses that would fall upon them under this clause. He wished especially to draw the attention of the House to the fact that if his Amendment were carried, and if, in consequence, expenditure on mussel-beds by the district fishery committees was not allowed, the duty of dealing with the question would naturally devolve on the Fishery Board, and he believed it would be well if that Board were given the opportunity of developing some mussel-beds by way of experiment. By that means they would obviate undesirable competition between different districts in respect of the development of mussel-beds, and economical administration would be secured. He would ask the House to consider for a minute or two the case of one special district. Under the scheme proposed in the Bill a rate was going to be levied on the ratepayers of one district for the benefit of the ratepayers of another. The case he wished to refer to was that of the great mussel-bed of the Clyde. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire would admit that that was the largest, the most important and most productive mussel-bed in the whole of Scotland. It was situated in the county which he (Mr. Renshaw) had the honour to represent in that House; it extended over 4,000 acres; it gave employment to 40 or 50 persons; and the destination of the mussels gathered there was almost invariably the east coast of Scotland. Under the Bill as it stood the cost of developing these beds would fall upon the County of Renfrew and the counties grouped with it, but they would derive no appreciable benefit from what was done. Some few years ago the bed produced 10,000 tons of mussels per annum; but in a recent year the production sunk to something like 50 tons, and that was undoubtedly a strong proof of the necessity for this Bill. Last year about 4,000 tons were taken from the bed, and no fewer than 3,786 tons went to Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Nairn, Aberdeen, and adjoining districts. Thus, although Renfrew, Ayrshire, Wigtownshire, and the other counties in the group were to bear

  325
  the expense of developing the beds, the people to reap advantage would be the Aberdeenshire fishermen, who would obtain their bait at a reduced price. And that was not the only injustice, because the fish caught with this bait went almost wholly to Glasgow and to England. Thus grave injustice was done to his constituency, and he appealed to the House, therefore, to accept his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause,
  In line 83, after the word ("expanses,") to insert the words ("other than those which may he incurred in connection with mussel fisheries").—(Mr. Renshaw.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: For reasons I largely explained to the House during my speech on the last Amendment, and which I do not propose to again inflict on hon. Members, I have to say that it is quite impossible for me to accept the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend. The Resolution on which this Bill is founded lays down the principle that the district fishery committees should regulate the management and development of the mussel-beds within their several districts. I am of opinion that great pecuniary advantage would be derived from well-managed mussel-beds, and I may point out that great care this been taken in the Bill to insure the satisfactory supervision of proposals for acquiring mussel-beds by district committees. The Secretary for Scotland is, in fact, distinctly enjoined not to sanction such proposals unless the schemes seem likely to be remunerative. As to the Clyde beds, I am informed that if properly managed they could be made to supply nearly the whole of Scotland. In a Paper laid before the House it is stated that during 10 years 130,000 tons of mussels, valued at nearly £24,000 a year, were obtained from them. The beds however, are now rapidly deteriorating: but if they were properly attended to they would be a source of immense wealth. It is to secure the preservation and utilisation of this class of bed that this Bill has been brought forward.
  *MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid, he did not think the hon. Member opposite had any right to assume that the mussel-beds would become a tax on the
  326
  ratepayers. He was acquainted with beds from which considerable profit was derived, and he was confident that it would be a great advantage to the fishing industry and afford a field for further employment were the mussel-beds largely extended. There was no form of property from which a good return could be got more easily than from mussel-scalps. Much jealousy existed in regard to private rights in mussel-scalps. It had been easy enough in the past to get a lease of the foreshore for a Public Department, but there had been no corporate power to secure that the beds were properly dealt with, and he felt it was very necessary that they should be protected. He therefore approved the proposal that the beds should be under the control of Local Authorities, such authorities would be in a position to safeguard the interests of fishermen, and he consequently held that these constituted some of the most valuable provisions of the Rill.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, the business of establishing mussel-beds irrespective of the wants of particular districts, and solely with a view on the | part of the fishery committees of making an income for themselves, was one which be was not inclined to approve. Ho was not surprised that the hon. Member for Leith supported the provision, because he was reminded of a resolution passed at a meeting in an east coast village, in which the Hill was strongly supported in the interests of the line fishermen of that district, who would by reason of its provisions be enabled to get their boat at a much reduced cost at the expense of the west coast. The circumstances of the east and of the west coast varied very considerably, and the provisions in the Bill affecting mussel-beds would benefit chiefly the east coast line fishermen. Little or no benefit would be derived by the inhabitants on the west coast, where mussels were not used for bait, to nearly the same extent as on the east coast, and where, moreover, there was a superabundance of them. He did not think they ought to allow the committees to incur heavy expenses in the development of an industry which after all assumed the character of a financial speculation, especially when the burden would fall on the west coast people, and the advantage be reaped solely by the east coast fishermen. Under these circumstances,

  327
  he should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
  MR. HALDANEsaid, he should like to give the hon. Member for Renfrewshire the real history of the ease he had cited in which protection was secured for a mussel-bed. The chief reason for obtaining Provisional Orders was to secure the protection of beds against the ravages of outsiders, but in this particular case the main mischief was done by a local fisherman who had had the enterprise to familiarise himself with the law on the subject, and having ascertained how long it took to secure a Provisional Order, set to work and took away tons of mussels while the inquiry was proceeding. He, in fact, nearly ruined the beds. Steps were promptly taken by himself (Mr. Haldane) to put an end to the proceedings; he applied to three Public Departments and expended an enormous amount of time on he question, but the conclusion arrived at was that it was necessary to institute legal proceedings before the mussel-bed could be effectually protected pending the making of the Provisional Order. Thou arose the question as to whose duty it was to institute the proceedings. The result was that in the absence of such a provision as this the fishermen were exposed for four or five months to the trial of seeing the mussels taken away without the slightest possibility of any legal step being taken to prevent the marauding. He was consulted whether, in the absence of any better provision, it would not be well for the fishermen to go out in their boats and capture the persons who were removing the mussels and throw them into the sea. He told them ho could not take the responsibility of giving them that advice. Fortunately a Provisional Order was obtained, but only after a good deal of delay, and the practice was stopped. He, therefore, resolved that as far as he was able he would not allow any Fishery Bill to pass, except some powers of regulation, such as those in the present Bill, were put into it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 138.—(Division List, No. 431.)
  MR. RENSHAW MR. RENSHAW moved to insert after the word "committee," in line 84, the words "to be made on or before the 31st day of March in any year." In line
  328
  116, the representation on behalf of the County Council, or of the Town Council, to the Secretary for Scotland, to consider the amount claimed as excessive, was to be presented "on or before the 1st day of August," whilst no date was fixed for the requisition with regard to the expenses of the district committee to be laid before the Local Authority who would have to levy the rate. As the County Council held a statutory meeting in May, usually to take into account the expenses of the year, he thought the 31st of March should be inserted as the date for making the requisition.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause,
  In line 84, after the word "committee," to insert the words "to be made on or before the 31st day of March in any year".—(Mr. Renshaw.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I do not see any objection to the insertion of the words.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I beg to move—
  In line 85, after the: word "counties," insert the words "or portions thereof, or among the".
  As I explained to the House very fully, the great desire which the Government have in conferring on the Secretary for Scotland the powers of apportioning the rate in the smallest portions in the districts that are influenced is in order that the very different fishing interests that exist between one portion of a county and another portion between the upland districts and the fishing villages should be duly taken into consideration. This Amendment would enable that object to be carried out.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause,
  In line 85, after the word "counties," to insert the words "or portions thereof, or among the".—(Sir G. Trevelyan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the House is aware, I have an Amendment on the Paper which to all appearance is identical with the right hon. Gentleman's, but we have different objects in moving them. I would be glad if the Lord Advocate

  329
  would explain how it is that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would not have the effect of laying the duty on the Secretary for Scotland, to relieve from any taxation whatever portions of a county which have no direct industry in the fishing industry. That is the effect of the Amendment I have put on the Paper, hut it is not the intention of the Government; and I should he glad if the right hon. Gentleman enabled me to distinguish between the words, which appear to resemble each other in a very remarkable manner.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The object of the Amendment of my right hon. Friend is that there should be different ratings in different portions of a county. But that does not mean to leave out some portions altogether, which the right hon. Gentleman has in view.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am put rather in a difficulty by this. I wish to have my Amendment at least recorded, and I would like to move to add to the Amendment of the right Gentleman the words—
  "Or such parts thereof as the Secretary for Scotland may declare"—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot: move that Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  In line 90, after the word "county," to insert the words "or portion thereof, or in any such."
  MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.) moved—
  In line 96. to leave out from the word "burghs" to "assessment," in line 99, and insert the words "in the manner prescribed by, and subject to the provisions of the Act 41 & 42 Vict., c. 71, s. 70. Sub-section (3)."
  This was merely a drafting Amendment with a view to clear up what appeared to him to be an ambiguity in the language of the clause. As the words now stood, it was proposed that the rate collected by the County Council should be as an addition to the general purposes rate. The effect of this arrangement was that the rate would be divided between owner and occupier. Of course, it could not be the intention of the Government that a different rule should apply in burghs in Scotland, and yet the words would have
  330
  the effect of introducing a different system of taxation in burghs. He therefore proposed to apply the section of the 41 & 42 Vict., which provided that the rate in burghs should be divided in the same manner as it was divided in counties.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause,
  In line 96, to leave out from the word "burghs" to the word "assessment." in line 96, and insert the words "in the manner prescribed by, and subject to the provisions of the Act 41 & 42 Vict., c. 74, s. 70. Sub-section (3)."—(Mr. Hunter.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: We accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.) moved—
  In line 106, after the word "clerk," to insert the words, "and of the personal and travelling expenses of the members of the committee."
  He did not desire by this Amendment to establish a principle which was to apply-to County Councils and other Representative Bodies also; but he thought there were special considerations in connection with members of fishery district committees which would appeal to the House. These members were to be selected from a special class—they were to be persons connected with the fishing industry, and, therefore, they would not he wealthy men who could pay their own expenses. The fishery committees would have certain executive functions, such as the care and control of mussel-beds; and line fishermen, who were particularly interested in mussels, were of the working classes, and to make them pay their travelling expenses attending these committees would he to throw a heavy burden on them which would prevent the best of them from being able to give up their time to the duties of these committees. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had indicated that he would be prepared favourably to consider the claims of members of the district committees who attended the Central Fishery Board in Edinburgh, and to provide from the Treasury their personal

  331
  and travelling expenses. But the case of the members who attended the district committees was much stronger. In the first place, the persons selected to attend the Central Fishery Board would probably be men of means, while those who attended the district committees would be, he hoped, practical fishermen, acquainted with the needs of their districts. Again, the members of the district committees would have longer distances to travel than the members of County Councils. There would be eight Fishery Boards and 24 counties composing those Boards, which would give an average of three counties to each Board. Even in his own County of Aryshire, which was served by an excellent system of railways, the cost that would be thrown on fishermen attending the district committees would be excessive. The central point for the district would be Stranraer, and the fare from Largs to Stranraer was 11s. So that in Ayrshire, which had an excellent rail-way system, it was possible to make out a strong case in favour of the Amendment. But in such places as the Islands of Lewis and Skye there were very inefficient services, and people were as far from the mainland as if they resided in Ireland. He therefore thought that he had made out a sufficient case for the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause,
  In line 106, after the word "clerk," to insert the words "and of the personal and travelling expenses of the members of the committee."— (Mr. Cochrane.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  DR. MACGREGORsaid, that as he had a similar Amendment on the Paper, he desired to support the proposal before the House. A large number of his constituents were deeply interested in this Bill as a whole, and especially in this Amendment, for, while the Amendment was applicable to all districts included in the Bill, it applied with double force to the Highland Counties. There the distances were very great as compared with the Lowland Counties, and there also the communication was less. In many parts of the Highlands there were no railways at all. He could name districts in which it would take two days to reach the place of meeting
  332
  in the best of weather, and in winter or stormy weather probably three or four days, on each journey, which, with a day for the meeting, would mean a loss of five days to members of the committees. He held that it would be unfair and unreasonable to expect poor working men to sacrifice not only their time, but the expenditure necessary to travel to attend the meetings of the committee. He had ascertained as a matter of fact that it was impossible to do it under about a guinea a day. Assuming there were only four meetings a year it meant 20 guineas a year to a poor fisherman or his representative; therefore, it was out of the question that they could possibly attend to this matter. Accordingly, it meant the disfranchisement of these districts, and surely a Liberal Government did not propose a Bill which in any shape or form would disfranchise a large portion of the community. That, however, would really be the effect if this Amendment wore not accepted. He would illustrate his point by reference to the County Council of Inverness. The first Council that was returned was largely composed of Liberals. At the last election men refused to stand because they could not afford the time or the means to attend the County Council, and the result was the County Council now consisted largely of landlords and factors. That meant that a Conservative County Council represented a democratic community, and a community which returned a democrat to this House. The anomaly was at once apparent, and the same remark would apply to the Fishery Bill if the payment of travelling expenses was not allowed. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if he could not apply the Amendment to all districts that a special exception should be made in favour of the Highland Counties. Special legislation had already been applied there on the land, and why should it not also be applied on the fishery question?
  MR. WEIRsupported the Amendment. After showing the expenses that would have to be borne by the representatives of the fishery district committees in attending the meetings in the Highland districts, he said that the Liberal Party at the General Election evinced a great regard for the working classes. Here was an opportunity for them to show their regard for the working men;

  333
  and as many fishermen might be appointed who could not possibly bear the cost that such appointments would entail he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
  *SIR H. MAXWELLsaid, they were naturally anxious and curious to know what attitude the Government were determined to adopt towards the Amendment. This demand now made on behalf of the fishermen was certainly a somewhat singular commentary on the indignation expressed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Banffshire earlier in the evening, who said that give the fishermen the provision out of the rates provided for under this Bill and they would ask for nothing more, whilst people who said they would were maligning them. Yet here, within the space of two hours, a demand was put forward on their behalf for a further subsidy under this Bill—["No !"] Had not the demand been made? [Dr. MACGREGOR: Not for a subsidy.] He thought it had been made in a remarkably articulate manner. If it was not a subsidy, what was it? A subvention or an assistance? This Bill imposed certain voluntary duties upon the representatives of the fishermen. If this demand that in the discharge of a voluntary duty in the public interest they were to be remunerated for expenses out of pocket were granted, how could they prevent the same demands being made on behalf of other persons discharging any public duty, from Members of Parliament down to Parish Councillors? He knew there were many hon. Members in favour of a subvention to all persons taking part in public duties, but he never thought when this Bill was first brought forward and claimed by the light hon. Gentleman in charge of it to be a non-contentious measure that any such far-reaching principle as this was contemplated. They had had this demand made on behalf of the fishermen because they were a poor class, but he was sufficiently acquainted with the fishermen to know they were a public-spirited class, and many of them were willing to undertake this burden on behalf of the industry they followed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire had reminded them that these representative members were not only to be fishermen. They were to be fish-curers, fish salesmen, boat builders, or anybody connected, in whatever manner, with the fishing
  334
  industry. Surely, therefore, to offer persons in such positions as some of these people occupied their travelling expenses to and from the district meetings would be really somewhat unworthy of the dignity of the duties to which they were calling them. He trusted they should hear from the Government a clear declaration of their policy in this matter.
  SIR G.TREVELYAN: I have ascertained as far as I can what is the practice at present in England. In England I believe the boroughs may pay and do pay the travelling expenses, at any rate, of such of their members of the committee who cannot be expected to leave their avocations and support themselves without such payment. In the counties they have not got power to do so; they cannot find money for that purpose. Of course, there comes in the question of subsistence allowance and of travelling expenses, which I take to mean the actual expenses of travelling—that is, the faros. The other cases will come under the third rule, and the Secretary for Scotland under such rule will inquire whether this power has been abused. The Government are prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ayrshire with certain alterations. I should propose after the word "payment" to insert the words—
  "And in case the committee approve, if may be applied to the reasonable travelling expenses of members of the committee."'
  I suppose, and I hope, the committee will only make use of this provision in the case of men to whom it is a very real object to get their fare. In the shape I have stated to the House we shall be prepared to accept the Amendment.
  MR. COCHRANEintimated that he would withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment to the proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN SIR G. TREVELYAN then moved—
  To insert, after the wont "clerk," the words "and, in case the committee approve, it may be applied to the reasonable travelling expenses of members of the committee."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  DR. MACGREGOR: Does that mean the keep as well as the travelling expenses?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: No.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)said, they had heard of a good many duties which were to he imposed upon the Secretary for Scotland in carrying out this measure. He was to divide counties, to settle differential rating, and so forth. In the presence of the infinity of difficulties presented by the varying and now strange resolve at which they had arrived perhaps that was the only way out of the difficulty. But in addition to that the right hon. Gentleman had now said that the Secretary for Scotland would exercise a control over the discretion of the district committee in this matter. That was to say, the Secretary for Scotland was to examine and find out whether the members of these committees who could not afford their travelling expenses had alone received them. He thought that was the necessary inference from what the right hon. Gentlemen had said, if, indeed, it had any meaning at all. The right hon. Gentleman surrendered this very important and novel provision, that the committee might grant travelling expenses to their members, and it would necessarily result in their all getting them. He had no doubt some of them would be very much obliged for it. At any rate, it was certain they could not place very much reliance upon the supervision of the right hon. Gentleman who was to say whether only the members of the committee who were necessitous were to receive their expenses.
  SIR H. MAXWELLfelt bound to say that in future he should know what interpretation to put upon the word "non-contentious" coming from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  *SIR H. MAXWELL*SIR H. MAXWELL rose to move—
  In line 111, after the word "and," to insert the word "may."
  He explained that the object of the Amendment was to provide that when any county or portion of a county or a burgh had had an assessment fixed by the Secretary for Scotland, and felt that it had been credited with a closer interest with the fishing industry than it really possessed or had come to possess owing to a possible change in circumstances, that then an appeal might be had in the manner prescribed. He begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause,
  In line 111, after the word "and." to insert the word "may."—(Sir H. Maxwell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'may' be there inserted."
  *SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Baronet proposed to bring this appeal from a burgh or county which felt itself aggrieved at the wrong time and to the wrong person. Under the Bill a very much more powerful appeal to a very much more powerful and probably friendly body even than the Secretary for Scotland was given at an earlier period, for when the Order of the Secretary was made including a particular county or part of a county or burgh in the area of taxation and apportioning the rate, if that county or burgh was in any way wronged by that Order the representatives of it and the inhabitants of it would be able to go to the House of Commons and to the House of Lords, and he was very sure from the proceedings in connection with this Bill hon. Members must have seen that a more powerful and attentive court of appeal could not possibly be obtained. It was to the House of Commons and the House of Lords they must make appeal against any injustice which the Secretary for Scotland might admit into the Order. It was not to himself that the appeal should be made nor at this time. Long before the assessment was struck by the committee the whole question of whether a particular district ought or ought not to be included in the rateable area and rated according to certain proportions would have been settled by the Secretary for Scotland in the Order; that would have been submitted to both Houses of Parliament, both Houses of Parliament would have passed it, and the question could not be again raised. This was a question of, when the rate was struck, whether it had been struck for a legitimate purpose, and into that the Secretary for Scotland would inquire when he had been invited to do so by any body affected by that rate.
  Question put, and negatived.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR CAPTAIN SINCLAIR moved, in line 11(3, to leave out "may" and insert "shall." He explained that the object of the Amendment was to protect the interest of the counties or burghs which might object to the assessment as fixed

  337
  by the Secretary for Scotland. In the clause as drawn, the inquiry for which these bodies might ask might be ranted by the Secretary for Scotland. A provision in the Local Government (Scotland) Act provided that the expenses of such inquiry must be borne by the Local Bodies, and he thought this would be a salutary provision to apply in the case of these committees. He therefore begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause,
  In line 116, to leave out the word 'may, "and insert the word' shall."—(Captain Sinclair.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the proposed Clause."
  SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, that in the interests of all concerned it would be better to leave the clause as it stood at present. It was quite possible that some small Local Body might raise a question which, on the face of it, was trivial, or a question the whole of the circumstances of which were thoroughly well-known to the Secretary for Scotland, or a question the principle as to which no inquiry was at all necessary and might be cleared up by a simple interchange of correspondence. The hon. and gallant Member proposed that the expenses should fall upon the Local Body, but the proposal might have an operation the hon. Member was not quite prepared for; for if the Secretary for Scotland were obliged in all cases to order an inquiry it might deter these Local Bodies from making an appeal which he hoped they would always make where they had reason to consider themselves aggrieved. He trusted the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not press the Amendment.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIRasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Proposed Clause (C), as amended, inserted in the Bill.
  The following Amendments of the Lords were agreed to:—
  line 8, leave out "and requirements."
  Line 9, leave out from "district" to the first "and" in line 10.
  Line 10, leave out from "Board" to the end of the Clause.
  Line 23, leave out "appointed" and insert "nominated."
  Leave out Clause 10.
  *MR. J. B. BALFOUR*MR. J. B. BALFOUR moved, in lieu of Clause 10, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Title to mussel or clam beds to be intimated to the Board of Trade.)
  "Any person having or claiming to have a right or title to mussel or clam fisheries, or mussel or clam beds or scalps in the sea adjoining Scotland, and within the exclusive fishery limits of the British Islands, shall, within a period of two years from the passing of this Act, lodge with the Board of Trade a copy of or an extract from any charter, conveyance, lease, deed, or other document which instructs or is founded upon as instructing his right or title to the same, along with a chart or charts of the mussel or clam fisheries or beds or scalps so claimed, and shall at the same time notify in writing to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, that such copy or extract has been lodged, and all mussel or clam fisheries or beds or scalps which at the expiry of a period of two years shall not. be so claimed, shall be held to vest in and belong to the Crown, and shall be treated accordingly.
  In case the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods. Forests, and Land Revenues shall intimate in writing to a claimant that they are neutral in respect to the claim made by him the said Commissioners need not be called as defenders in any action, nor need notice of any subsequent proceedings relating solely to such claim be served on the said Commissioners.
  In the event of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods. Forests, and Land Revenues intimating to a claimant that the same mussel or calm fisheries, or mussel or clam beds or scalps, or any part thereof comprised in his claim are claimed as the property of Her Majesty, or in the event of the right or title of any person to such mussel or clam fisheries or beds or scalps not being instructed to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade, the person making such claim shall, in the event of his insisting in it, bring an action of declarator of his right in the Court of Session, in which in the event first mentioned the Commssioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues shall be called as defenders, and in the event second mentioned the Board of Trade shall be called as defenders, and if the claimant shall fail to bring such action within a period of 12 months from the date of the intimation of the claim by the Commissioners on behalf of Her Majesty or from the date of the intimation by the Board of Trade declining to admit the claim the mussel or clam fisheries or beds or scalps in question shall be held to vest in and belong to the Crown, and shall be held to be within the management of the Commissioners of Woods or the Board of Trade, as the case may be."
  He said, that a Committee which sat some few years ago had unanimously recommended that a statutory obligation should be laid on all corporations and individuals claiming rights in these beds to show their title to them, and in March, 1892, the House passed a unanimous Resolution in the same sense. The Government had adopted this view,

  339
  believing; it would be the means of protecting and improving the property in mussel-beds. He begged to propose the new clause.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be inserted in the Bill."
  *MR. RENSHAW*MR. RENSHAW moved to omit the proposed chaise, in order to call attention to what be thought would be a great hardship that might occur under it. Under the clause, it was proposed that any person having, or claiming to have, a right or title to mussel or clam fisheries, or mussel or clam beds or scalps should, within a period of two years from the passing of this Act, lodge with the Hoard of Trade a copy of or an extract from any charter under which he held possession. He was perfectly well aware that in some parts of Scotland the proposal to strike Clause 10 out of the Bill had been made the subject of objection. He should like to direct the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to the words of one of his supporters in regard to this matter. Speaking at war on the 6th of February, the hon. Member for the war Burghs made use of this language—very different indeed from the language of the hon. Member for the Inverness Burghs, who spoke with very great respect of the other House and the protection it afforded to his constituents against any unfortunate legislative errors which might be committed by the House of Commons. The hon. Member for the Burghs said—
  "The House of Commons passed the Bill (the Sea Fisheries Bill) without a Division; it passed the House of Lords upon the Second Reading; yet in Committee this Bill was mutilated by the House of Lords beyond all recognition. Such political rascality was without parallel in political history, ancient or modern."
  That was strong language.
  *MR. SPEAKER (interposing)observed that these matters wore scarcely relevant to the clause.
  *MR. RENSHAWsaid, ho was only leading up to the point at which the hon. Member for the war Burghs did deal with this question of title to mussel-beds. The hon. Member said—
  "The main purpose of the Bill was to provide protection for the mussel-beds. The Lords had vested claims in these beds; while, by this Bill it was enacted that whenever anybody claimed the mussel-beds, they were bound to show their title deeds. The Lords agreed to that on the Second Reading; but when it came to discussion
  340
  in Committee, they obliterated all necessity of showing title deeds. He insisted that not only should they show their title deeds for the mussel-beds, but: that they should show the title deeds for the land they hold also."
  The point he wished to raise was that, however difficult it might be to a few individuals to show their titles, and satisfy a Court as to their titles, it was also a difficulty, which would be equally felt by the Representatives of the people where burghs of old standing owned the mussel-beds, as they did in some cases. The real hardship under this Clause 10 as it was proposed now, and as it was originally proposed, applied not to the rich territorial magnates, but to the poor fishermen along the coast, and those humble classes of the community fishing with boats.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Have they titles?
  MR. RENSHAWsaid, they had not; but under the Bill they would be absolutely precluded from following the trade and occupation they had hitherto pursued, and which had been an honourable occupation. Upon this point he should like to refer again to the letter written to the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs by the Provost of Port Glasgow. The Provost said—
  "These mussel-beds have been used by the public from time immemorial, and if Clauses 9, 10, and 11 of the Bill be passed as they are, it will be in the power of the Fishery Board to take possession of the beds, and let them to outsiders, thus depriving the people of the right they had so long enjoyed and exercised.
  These mussel-beds would pass out of the hands of the people who had had possession of them from time immemorial into those of the Fishery Board and the district fishery committee. That was not only so, but whilst people had been getting their livelihood from these beds hitherto, without difficulty, although they had no especial title, by Clause 15 these beds were to be held subject to the rights of the Crown—that was to say, they were to be subject to special regulations laid down by the district fishery committees. The obligation to show a title raised a serious difficulty to the humble members of the community whose privileges he had endeavoured to bring forward, and he therefore begged to move the omission of the clause.
  Moved, to leave out the proposed Clause.—(Mr. Renshaw.)
  *MR. MARJORIBANKSthought be might be allowed to say a won't or two on the subject of this clause, because when the late Government was in Office and Lord Lothian was Secretary for Scotland a Departmental Committee was appointed to inquire into this question of mussel-beds in Scotland of which he (Mr. Marjoribanks) was Chairman. The members of the Committee travelled round the whole coast of Scotland. He was some what surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman speak in the way he had done with regard to the right of these fishermen to poach on the mussel-beds, because these men of whom the hon. Member was making' himself the champion were simply trespassers, and nothing more.
  MR. RENSHAWpointed out that in the case of Port Glasgow the fishermen had been in possession of these mussel-beds from time immemorial, and they were now going to be deprived of a very valuable possession they had hitherto enjoyed.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, that was not so. These mussel-beds were patrimonium principis, and no right could hold good against the right of the Crown. When the members of the Committee of which he had spoken travelled round the coast of Scotland in pursuance of the investigation they had undertaken they found that the mussel-beds of Scotland were being very much injured through want of care. They also found that the right to these beds, except where it had been granted to individuals, was in the Crown, and could not be destroyed by any length of user. They therefore thought, in framing their Report, that it was advisable to take advantage of that right of the Crown, and to make the property in the beds as clear as possible, in order that where they had been granted to individuals those individuals might be made responsible for their protection, and where the property was in the Crown the duty of protecting them might be thrown on the Local Authority. If the House did not insert this clause they would lose one of the greatest advantages to the whole of the fishermen of Scotland. To set up a right on behalf of individual fishermen who had taken mussels from places where they had no right to fish for them, against the interests of the whole fishing trade of Scotland, seemed to him a very strong matter, and an extraordinary pro-
  342
  position to come from the hon. Gentle-man opposite.
  *SIR MARK J. STEWARTsaid, he would like to ask the Lord Advocate whether the same right attached to mussel-beds as attached to salmon fisheries—that was to say, whether a person having a right or charter from the Crown acquired a right of immemorial usage on a user of 40 years? He asked this, as there were a number of poor and industrious fishermen who would be deprived of this right of fishing mussels if they had to prove a charter, but who had a user of 40 years of this fishing.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the mere fact of a person fishing for salmon more than 40 years (the prescriptive period was now shortened to 20 years) would not confer upon him a right to do so, unless his possession was had upon a sufficient title— for example, a title containing a general grant of fishings, or a barony title. Twenty-five years ago the question was raised whether a right to a mussel scalp could be acquired in a similar way, it being doubtful at the time, and it was then decided that such a right could be established by prescriptive upon a habile title. The hon. Baronet was probably aware that by the law of Scotland a right could not be set up by the mere fact that a person had been taking mussels for a length of time from particular places.
  MR. BARKER SMITHsaid, he thought there would be a, great hardship under this clause as regarded the smaller places where fishermen had been accustomed to go and help themselves. He really felt that in this respect the clause was too wide. He would suggest that the clause be limited to the case of the larger beds dealt with in Clause 9. By that clause it was the duty of the Fishery Board, within a period of six months, to draw up a list of the beds at present existing around the coast of Scotland. It would be reasonable enough to call upon men who were challenged by this list— which would be published — to show their title and establish their claim, but it would be unreasonable to call upon everyone who had a foreshore or had been accustomed to gather mussels for private use to put in a statement of claim. This would entail an enormous amount of trouble in regard to very

  343
  small cases, which no doubt it was not: intended to cover at all. If they were going to call upon every person who had a foreshore or took mussels, as he had described, then they were creating a burden of lawsuits. He would again urge the limitation of the scope of the clause.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he would point out to the hon. Member that the clause only aimed at the man who set up a title adverse to the Crown and to the public, and in such a case it did not seem unreasonable to insist on his showing his title. The fishermen's rights were not interfered with. There were cases, no doubt, within the hon. Gentleman's own knowledge, of rights being claimed— when the beds were not used by the person claiming the right and when no one else was allowed to use them. It was to settle questions of that kind that they brought forward this clause. They wished that persons who made such claims should not do so without some title, which they ought to show and establish.
  MR. HALDANEsaid, as one whose constituents were interested in this matter, he wished to point out that the object of the clause was to set up the title of the Crown to mussel and clam beds, not in a private capacity, but as trustee for the public. If the title of the Crown could be once established, then the, fishing population would not, indeed, get any new user of the beds, but would get restored the old user which they used to enjoy without interference. The object of the clause was not to take from anybody what was legally theirs, but to define legal rights in those matters. If the title of the Crown were established it would be all the bettor for the public and for the fisheries. But the Crown did not seek to set up any new right. Its purpose was to put an end to a state of things which was becoming intolerable; and his ease as representing a large number of fishermen was that of many other Members. It was necessary to know who were the owners of these beds to be preserved if the fishing industry was to continue. It was vital to get rid of those shadowy claims which had the effect of paralysing the fishing industry, and it was because this clause appeared to do it without injustice to any one that he held the view he had expressed.
  *SIR H. MAXWELLsaid, he shared the view of the hon. and learned Member in this matter. He would not oppose the clause being added to the Bill, but, at the same time, there was a great deal to be said for the view of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire. The Lord Advocate had made a gesture of disdain or distrust. [The LOUD ADVOCATE dissented.] Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made an unmistakeable gesture when the hon. Member had said that there were certain poor men who would be deprived of their rights by the acceptance of this clause. The word "right" was hardly the proper one to use. All round the coast and at various parts there were instances of tacit privilege of fishing for mussels enjoyed by the community. What would be the result of this clause? Why, exactly the same, or exactly parallel, to what happened through the establishment of Crown rights in Scottish salmon fisheries. Up to 1858, there was no such right—at least its exercise was measured by a Crown rental to the extent of £5 a year. A decision in the Court of Session of that year established the right of patrimonium principis—the right of the Crown in salmon fishing, and thereafter ensued an inquisitorial proceeding—an inquisition into the chartered titles of persons exercising the right of salmon fishing round the coasts. The result was, that many landowners, ex officio proprietors, as they were called, were deprived of supposed rights, which they had exercised for many years. No general objection could be taken on that score; but along with these ex officio proprietors there were a number of men in a humble position in life, fishermen on the coast of Berwickshire, for example, who had from time immemorial exercised, if not the right, at any rate, the privilege of net fishing for salmon on a very small, but still on a remunerative scale, and this was completely put an end to by the establishment of the Crown right. The same thing would take place with regard to these bait beds in places where there was no restriction on the fishing. If those mussel-beds were a part of the patrimonium principis these persons would be interfered with in the exercise of this privilege, and so far it would be a hardship on members of that class, which it was the object of the Bill to benefit. But he took a wider view of the matter.

  345
  He took it that there could be no doubt that a case had been made out for the protection of these mussel and clam fisheries in the public interest, and, accordingly, if his hon. Friend went to a Division he was afraid he could not support him.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 32.—(Division List, No. 432.)
  Lords Amendment disagreed with— Page 5, to leave out Clause 12.
  Lords Amendments agreed with—
  Page 6, line 11. to leave out "covered by this Act," and insert "to which this Act applies."
  Page 6, line 33, to leave out "Act," and insert "section."
  Page 6, line 30, to leave out "the district for which it is made," and insert a fishery district."
  Page 7, line 2, after "byelaw," to insert "all byelaws made in pursuance of the provisions of this section shall before coming into operation be confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland."
  Page 7, lines 3 and 4, to leave out "provided for in the preceding part of this section."
  Page 7, line 5, after the first "and," to insert "with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland, "and after the second" and, "to insert" after due publication."
  Page 7, line 20, to leave out the second "the," and insert "a fishery."
  Page 7, line 21, to leave out "scalp," and insert "fishery," and after "bed," insert "or scalp."
  Page 7, line 39, to leave out "forfeiture to be delivered or paid," and insert "penalty to be paid or forfeiture to be made."
  Page 7, line 42, after "of," insert "mussel or clam fisheries within."
  Lords Amendment disagreed with—
  Page 8, line 1, to leave out from "applied," to the first "and," in line 4, and insert" in defraying the costs of the fishery district committee under this Act."
  Lords Amendments agreed with—
  Page 8, line 11, to leave out "the district constituted by the order," and insert "a fishery district."
  Page 8, line 17, after "clam," insert "fishery or."
  Page 8, line 20, after "clam," insert "fishery or."
  Page 8, line 25, after "mussel," to insert "or clam fishery or."
  Page 8. line 35, after the first "the," to insert "sea."
  Page 8, line 38, to leave out from "if," to the end of the Clause, and insert "this Act had not passed."
  346
  Page 9, line 12, to leave out from the first "of," to the end of the Clause, and insert "by any superintendent of the herring fishery or the officers employed in the execution of the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Acts."
  Page 9, line 16, to leave out "if;" and to leave out "feels."
  Page 9, line 19, to leave at "he."
  After Clause 20, to insert Clause B:—
  B. Nothing in or done under this Act shall—

  (a) Where the soil under any mussel or clam fisheries, or beds or scalps, is vested in the Crown, and is under the management of the Commissioners of Woods or the Board of Trade, entitle any person to acquire that soil without the consent of the Commissioners of Woods or the Board of Trade, as the case may require; or

  (b) Affect any powers, authorities, rights, or privileges exerciseable by the Board of Trade in the public interest.

  Except in so far as powers are expressly given under this Act nothing in this Act contained shall affect or alter the rights of any person having or claiming to have a right or title to mussel or clam fisheries, or mussel or clam beds or scalps, in the sea adjoining Scot land, and within the exclusively fishery limits of the British Islands.
  To agree to Amendment in lines 38 and 39, to leave out "includes all persons interested in fisheries," and insert "shall include all persons engaged or employed in the industry or business of sea fishing, excepting fisheries for salmon and fish of the salmon kind as defined by any Act relating to salmon."
  MR. RENSHAW: Does this include the fishmonger?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I do not think it does.
  Consequential Amendment proposed to the Bill,
  To insert the following Schedule:—
  Schedule.

  Seaboard Counties of Scotland.

  Berwick.

  Orkney.

  Haddington.

  Shetland.

  Midlothian.

  Inverness.

  Fife.

  Ross and Cromarty.

  Forfar.

  Argyll.

  Kincardine.

  Bute.

  Aberdeen.

  Dumbarton.

  Banff.

  Renfrew.

  Elgin.

  Ayr.

  Nairn.

  Wigtown.

  Sutherland.

  Kirkcudbright.

  Caithness.

  Dumfries.—(Sir G. Trevelyan).

  Question proposed, "That the Schedule be added to the Bill."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Schedule, after the word "Midlothian," to insert the words "including the county of the city of Edinburgh."—(Sir G. Trevelyan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, the Secretary for Scotland had promised the Member for South Edinburgh that he would not insert the City of Edinburgh in the form put down in the Amendment —that was to say, as part of the County of Midlothian.
  MR. PAULsaid, he did not see why the word "including" should be used.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The County of the City of Edinburgh can hardly be included separately amongst "seaboard counties of Scotland."
  MR. WALLACEsaid, the Secretary for Scotland had very nearly exhausted the patience of Scotch Members. They could not help it if the right hon. Gentleman had given an erroneous and absurd title to the Schedule. It would not be the only feature in the Bill that would come under that description. The County of the City of Edinburgh was not included in Midlothian in the municipal sense, and his proposed Amendment would involve the right hon. Gentleman in new and fresh contradictions in the Bill, which was already enough of a Chinese puzzle. There was in a certain sense a derogation implied in endeavouring to make this declaration in the Schedule, and as a Representative of the County of the City of Edinburgh he insisted upon this confusion being shut out from the Bill.
  VISCOUNT WOLMERmoved to amend the proposed Amendment by omitting the word "including," in order that the County of the City of Edinburgh might he inserted as a separate county. The City of Edinburgh was a totally different conception in a political and municipal sense to the County of Midlothian. It was bad enough that it should be included in the Schedule at all whilst Glasgow was excluded. There was no reason why the Secretary for Scotland in this matter should act in defiance of the opinion of the people and the Town Council of Edinburgh.
  Amendment proposed to the Amendment proposed to the proposed Schedule, to leave out the word"including."— (Viscount Wolmer.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'including' stand part of the Amendment proposed to the proposed Schedule."
  MR. ANSTRUTHERwished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that it was only at the present stage that the House had had anything to do with this Schedule. It was on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman himself on a Wednesday in January that the words were inserted in page 2—
  "As specified in the Schedule appended to this Act."
  If the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty was that if he accepted the Amendment the title of the Schedule would not be borne out by its contents, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman if there was not some stage, either there or in "another place," at which he could amend the Amendment he himself inserted in January, so as to exclude the anomaly which had been mentioned.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I think the substantial Debate on the question whether Edinburgh should ho included or excluded took place at an earlier period this evening, and I then laid the arguments before the House which convinced me and I hope convinced some hon. Members. I am very sorry if the word "including" should offend anybody's susceptibilities, but I am bound to say that the mere word "including" ought to be no more a reflection on Edinburgh than it is a reflection on Manchester to include that City in the County of Lancashire.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 46.—(Division List, No. 433.)
  Words inserted in the proposed Schedule.
  MR. R. WALLACEsaid, he had an Amendment to propose which was not on the Paper — namely, after the word "Edinburgh," to insert the words "County of the City of Glasgow." He thought that if the former Amendment was suitable to the title of "seaboard

  349
  county" the Amendment he proposed was even more conformable to that title. Very strange things had been said about Glasgow in the course of the evening— things which appeared to have struck the Members for Glasgow dumb with amazement, for not one of them had spoken, as far as he knew, except the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Trevelyan), who was almost officially bound to speak, although he united his responsibility as Member for Glasgow very closely with that which belonged to him as Secretary for Scotland. It was a very remarkable tiling that not a single Member for Glasgow had opened his mouth upon Glasgow or upon fish in this connection. He thought they must have been conscious that the assertions made with regard to the non-piscine characteristics of Glasgow did not square with their experience nor with the facts of the case. If it was right that Edinburgh, which on the right hon. Gentleman's definition ought never to have been inserted, as it was not a seaboard county, should be in the Schedule, Glasgow should be in it two or three times over. The man who said that Glasgow had no connection with fish would say anything. No less an authority than Bailie Nichol Jarvie demonstrated the connection of Glasgow with fish when he quoted its own coat-of-arms, which consisted of a tree, a bell, a book, and a fish. How could it be said that Glasgow had nothing to do with fish when a fish was pushed before the eyes—he did not say the nose— that might be reflecting upon the coat-of-arms and upon the fish—of any one who studied the question in even a superficial way. He did not believe that any of the Members for Glasgow knew why a fish was in their own coat-of-arms, and he was not going to toll them; but he put it before the House in the light of a fact which it was not open to them to refute, that the affirmation of the non-connection of Glasgow with fish was contrary to the most elementary circumstances in the history of Glasgow. Fish stared out of Glasgow with its own coat-of-arms, and they could not deny it, and yet they came to Westminster and said that Glasgow had not a fishy connection. It was well known in Scotland that there was a herring which derived its name from Glasgow, and which was called a "Glasgow Magistrate," whether
  350
  out of compliment to the Magistrate or as a sarcasm upon the herring he should not attempt to say. The facts about the relations between Glasgow and fish had been so largely dwelt upon by previous speakers in the Debate that it would be tedious repetition in him to traverse the field again, and therefore he did not, to use a law term, "condescend" upon the fleets of herring boats, whose capital, if not their crews, came from Glasgow, which spread themselves all over the Western main in pursuit of fish. Glasgow, as our emporium for fish, had the largest fish interest in Scotland, and he supposed the second fish interest in the United Kingdom. When the utmost expense was incurred in continually dredging the Clyde to bring the sea up to Glasgow, or practically to take Glasgow down to the sea, to contend that it was not a sea-hoard county was to attempt to raise an insurrection against the most elementary facts of geography. To say, again, that Glasgow had no fishing interest was, he thought, a contradiction of the facts of commerce which no man with any knowledge of business, and especially of Scotch business, who had not an ulterior motive to serve, would take it upon him to affirm.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Schedule,
  At the end of the foregoing Amendment to insert the words "The County of the City of Glasgow."—(Mr. R. Wallace.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Schedule."
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, that as a Member for the City of Glasgow, or for a district partly within and partly without the city, he desired to say a word. He could not, for his own part, sec why Glasgow was not considered on the seaboard. It was their boast in Glasgow how, during the last 50 years, they had made themselves one of the best and most accessible harbours in the country. Far be it from him to investigate the reason which had led to the exclusion of Glasgow from the Schedule —far be it from him to object. But if he were asked to find a reason why Edinburgh should be included and why Glasgow should not he confessed he found it extremely difficult. They knew what had been the feeling between

  351
  Edinburgh and Glasgow in the past, the desire being that in matters of this kind they should be treated with perfect symmetry. Glasgow, however, was now on the right side of the hedge, and though he was not able to say how it had come about, being on the right side of the hedge he was content to continue there.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 103.—(Division List, No. 434.)
  MR. RENSHAW MR. RENSHAW moved to leave out "Renfrew." The county, he said, had a large industrial population, which had no interest in fishing, and he thought it would be a great hardship to inflict upon the inhabitants a burden of that kind. When the point was raised in the House of Lords, Baron Play fair promised to explain on the Schedule why it was proposed to include Renfrew in it, and he hoped the Secretary for Scotland would now vouchsafe them that explanation.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Schedule, to leave out the word"Renfrew."—(Mr. Renshaw.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Renfrew' stand part of the Schedule."
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: It is impossible to accept this Amendment. Renfrew is a sea-board county, and not only that, but anyone who glances at the map will see that upon its coasts is to be found one of the most important mussel-beds in Scotland. As to Renfrew having but a small fishing interest, that point will be fully considered in the Order. While Renfrew must bear her share, small as it may be, of the burden she will also have her share in the privilege and responsibility of managing the fishery interests.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, that as a member of the County Council for Renfrew, a county the upper part of which had as little to do with the fishing interest as inland counties, he felt bound to support the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Committee be appointed, to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the
  352
  Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments."
  SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)said, he wished to draw attention to the fact that whilst that House had disagreed with six of the Lords' Amendments they had agreed to 40 of them. In his opinion, the Government ought to be very much obliged to the House of Lords for so amending the Bill as to have prevented it from being passed in hot haste, and to have afforded the Government an opportunity of reconsidering the measure in a way that almost amounted to re-writing many of its most important provisions.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee appointed as follows:—Sir G. Trevelyan, The Lord Advocate, The Solicitor General for Scotland, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Marjori-banks, Mr. Causton, Mr. McArthur. Sir C. Pearson, Sir W. Wedderburn, Sir H. Maxwell, and Mr. Renshaw.
  To withdraw immediately.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.
  Reasons for disagreeing to Lords' Amendments, reported and agreed to.
  To be communicated to the Lords.— (Sir G. Trevelyan.)

  GREEK LOAN.
  Account presented,—of Moneys paid out of the Consolidated Fund for Interest and Sinking Fund on that part of the Greek Loan guaranteed by this country, and of the Amount repaid by the Greek Government on account of the same to 31st December, 1893 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
  Account presented,—of Receipts and Expenditure in respect of the Funds of Suitors of the Court for the year ended 28th February, 1893; also Account of the National Debt Commissioners for the same period in respect of Funds field by them on behalf of the Court, and Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Marjoribanks,)—put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at ten minutes after Ten o'clock.

UNEMPLOYED ON TOWER HILL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ROOKWOOD,having given private notice of the question, asked the Government whether their attention had been called to an account of a recent meeting of the unemployed on Tower Hill, when the organiser of the meeting, Mr. J. S. Williams, was reported to have used the following words:—
  "If the police dealt blows on their side, the unemployed would have chemicals on theirs, and were determined to use them, with the object of sending the police to Heaven by chemical parcel post."
  He need scarcely say that statement was received by the audience with loud cheers. Mr. Williams went on to say—
  "All constables in two lines of police could be removed by a piece the size of a penny carried in the pocket. Never again would the unemployed march by the Embankment route; and, even if it should mean the loss of a few lives, they meant to have the procession again, probably next Saturday week, when the police would not have all on their side."
  Since the put the notice down on the Paper he had received letters from several people, some of whom had been present at one or more of these Tower Hill meetings, and one from the chaplain of the College at Northfleet, who stated that the warders of the Tower and the policemen on duty on Tower Hill had told him that they constantly felt their blood run cold at the blasphemous and disloyal sentences used by these men. He wished to ask whether Her Majesty's Government proposed to take steps to protect the police from this new danger, implied in the words quoted, in the execution of their duty?
  LORD VERNON: The Home Secretary has been making inquiries as to what was said at the meeting to which the noble Lord has referred. At present those inquiries are not complete. No doubt the noble Lord has seen that Williams has written to the papers stating that what he was reported to have said is not strictly accurate. The Secretary of State is of opinion that
  218
  meanwhile the police are tinder no apprehension that what the speaker said will have any serious effect. He will continue making inquiries, but I am afraid that I can give no further answer to the noble Lord.
  LORD ROOKWOODsaid, that in consequence of the answer just given, he proposed in the circumstances on a later day to call attention again to the subject.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OP STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): I am afraid the noble Lord, being rather out of Order, was misled by something I said to him. I. observe the noble Lord has a question to this effect on the Paper for another day, and, therefore, it is not strictly in Order to ask it now. For that purpose he should have removed the question from the Paper, and this should not be taken as a precedent.
  LORD ROOKWOODsaid, he had acted innocently, and had certainly been misled by what the noble Earl had said to him.

COLONIAL ACTS CONFIRMATION BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I beg to lay on the Table a Bill for the confirmation of Local Acts in certain Colonies in Australia which have been found to require confirm [nation by the Imperial Legislature. The matter is one of a pressing nature, and; therefore I beg to state that I shall move the Second Reading to-morrow and also the suspension of the Standing Orders with the view to passing the Bill, through all its stages to-morrow.
  A Bill to confirm certain Acts of Colonial Legislatures—Was presented by the Marquess of Ripon; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with. (No. 298.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND. WALES) BILL.—(No. 296.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out ("to be").
  Clause 3, page 2, line 29, leave out ("chosen") and insert ("elected").
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEmoved an Amendment providing that the Parish Councillors in a rural parish should be chosen from among such of the parochial electors, or those who had during the whole of the 12 months preceding the election resided in the parish "as are personally rated to the poor rate." The object of his Amendment was to ensure that those who represented the parish on its Council should, at all events, bear their share in the expenditure which the Council imposed upon the parish. Before giving reasons for the Amendment he asked their Lordships' permission to add, after "Overseers" in the last line of it, words from the corresponding section of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882—
  "And paying or tendering the full amount (if any) then remaining unpaid of the poor rate last made in respect of the property."
  If the House approved of the addition of Lord Winchilsea's Amendment to this, he would offer no objection. Many of their Lordships had felt great difficulties arising out of the absence from the Bill of any security that those to whom the power of raising and spending rates was given should themselves be directly liable to the payment of those rates. He would not enter into a disquisition upon the relation of rates to rents. Theoretically, of course, it was in the power of landlords to readjust from time to time the rents of small tenants as rates increased, but few good landlords would do so without pressing necessity, or at all events, without some change in the tenancy. Some might use the power, but the majority would use it with great reluctance. It was an unfounded assumption, in point of fact, that the rates, however they might be increased, would be added to the rent. As a general rule, they would not. Any wholesale disturbance of compounding arrangements would not only occasion inconvenience in collection, but would disturb the existing relations between smaller tenants and their landlords—a most undesirable thing. On the other hand, had the House excluded all who were not directly rated for parochial purposes they would have been landed in another set of serious difficulties. They had passed one Amendment which was thought by some to be beyond their legitimate power, and could not, there-
  220
  fore, confidently be reckoned upon as likely to be retained, that the rates raised under this Act for parochial purposes should be levied specially, and should not be part of the poor rate. Even if retained, however, that would be but a very limited security. In the first place, it would not apply to rates under the adoptive Acts; and, secondly, this special rate would have nothing to do with the poor rate. But in the operation of the Act as regarded District Councils the poor rate was the most important matter to be considered. Nothing, therefore, had been done towards making it a condition of the exercise of the electoral power in parishes that the electors should be directly rated to the poor rate. The addition their Lordships had made to the Bill preventing the transfer to the Parish Councils of the power of rating owners instead of occupiers would merely prevent the extension, compulsorily, of the existing state of things; it would not operate in regard to powers of compounding already exercised. A great blot would remain in the Bill unless something were done to obtain some security against so dangerous and unprecedented a power as that of taxation by those who did not themselves pay; but the principle would be saved and security practically obtained without either limiting the electoral franchise in parishes or interfering with the compounding system, if it were provided that the persons elected to these bodies, and having the raising and control of rates, should themselves be personally rated to the poor rate. That was his proposal; it would interfere with no existing arrangements, would create no friction between landlord and tenant, and would not silence the voice in parish meeting or in elections of a single inhabitant of the parish; while it would ensure that those who imposed the rates and spent the money should themselves have an equal interest with the other ratepayers in what they were doing, and should bear their own proportionate share of the burden they were imposing on others. It would be a security against reckless extravagance, while not operating against just, reasonable, and beneficial expenditure. The greatest objection seemed to be that, if external pressure were brought to bear upon these bodies, it might not be a sufficient security;

  221
  but probably in the very great majority of rural parishes, the Parish Councils, District Councils, and Boards of Guardians would be trusted by those who elected them to use properly the power in their hands. He could not see any reasonable objection in principle to the proposal, especially accompanied by the power of anyone to qualify himself by giving notice, and paying up any arrear of rates.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 30, after the word ("among") to insert the words ("such of"), after the word ("parish") to insert the words ("as are personally rated to the poor rate"), and after the word ("persons") to insert the words ("so rated").
  Line 35, after ("fifteen") to add ("Provided that any occupier of rateable property within the parish may, notwithstanding anything in the Poor Kate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, contained or done under that Act, claim to be personally rated in respect of such property, and every occupier giving notice in writing of such claim to the Overseers and paying or tendering the full amount (if any) then remaining unpaid of the poor rate last made in respect of the property, shall be rated accordingly").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My noble and learned Friend will probably have anticipated that I am not able to agree to the proposal, which would limit in a very invidious way the rights of the electors constituted under the Bill. It would exclude all those persons who are residents and not ratepayers who get votes under the Bill, and all those who are electors by virtue of the Parliamentary franchise and are not ratepayers. Anyone, therefore, occupying in a tenement house a separate room would require to have it rated, and would be involved in the difficulty which I do not think even the ingenuity of my noble and learned Friend himself would be able to solve—that of contracting to pay the rate for six months for premises held on a weekly tenancy. Many agricultural labourers hold on tenancies at a mouth's notice. Those are only some of the inconveniences which would arise. You cannot touch the system of compounding at any point (unless you abolish it altogether) without meeting difficulties with regard to different liabilities and the position of the various persons affected. The Amendment would do a considerable amount of damage to the Bill, and would create a large amount of dissatisfaction,
  222
  to obtain a result which, I think, would be extremely small in regard to the expenditure of the parish. I do not believe that each person will have to pay in addition for the rates, but that there will be a readiness to consider the general interests of the parish; and that while by this provision you would cause great discontent you would not secure any real economy in the expenditure of the money.
  LORD BELPERsaid, that he had considerable sympathy with the desire to make the electors sensible of the result of expenditure by securing that those who had the power of rating should themselves be rated; but there were practical objections to the noble Earl's proposal. In small parishes the effect of it would be to exclude men whom it was most desirable to have upon the Council—the manager of works or the bailiff of a farm—who would come under the service franchise, and who would be most valuable in parish work. He could not, therefore, support the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not think the objection which has just been stated is one that will be much felt in practice, because it would be very easy for the owners of houses of that kind to be placed on the rate book if necessary — if the owner desired to be a member of the Parish Council. The noble Earl the Leader of the House has stated a number of objections of detail. But to any proposal that could be made upon this complex subject of compounding many such objections could be urged. The noble Earl did not meet the broad argument that the Bill is placing in the hands of those who are not ratepayers the power of taxing those who are. The noble Earl did not see what a violent departure from the policy which has hitherto been pursued by Parliament is involved in that principle. I fear that the result in some parts of the country would be great expenditure and great injustice. I do not regard Lord Selborne's proposal as complete and adequate, but it gives something in the nature of a security to those who desire that the people who fix the rate should have something of their own at risk— some interest in economy. Even that slender security the Leader of the House

  223
  would sweep away on mere grounds of petty detail. It seems as though the Government were anxious that those who are not interested in economy should have the absolute decision as to expenditure. I can only regret that the Government have taken this view. It will seriously injure the operation of the Bill, and it will produce a serious struggle in many parts of the country. Without saying that I find in the present proposal any substitute for those larger proposals which it has been necessary to abandon, I still think there is sufficient value in it to induce me to say that if my noble and learned Friend presses the Amendment to a Division, I shall give him my hearty support.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 84; Not-Contents 42.
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAmoved to insert, at the end of the Earl of Selborne's Amendment, a proviso that any person so claiming should be entitled, so long as ho should continue to be personally rated, to deduct in each year from the rent payable by him in respect of such property an amount equal to the average annual rates levied upon such property during the three years preceding the making of such claim, and for any period less than a year in proportion. It was unnecessary for him to say much in support of it after what the noble and learned Lord had said. Parliament could enforce no absolute security that the landlord should reduce the rent which his tenant should pay. Still, this proviso would give some security, because it- would enable the tenant to deduct in every case from the rent which he owed to the landlord a sum equal to the annual rates on the property averaged by the preceding three years. When the ratepayer decided to take upon himself the duties of public life, he would he entitled upon paying his rates to make that deduction. He would not express an opinion upon the Amendment their Lordships had just accepted; hut having listened to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, he thought it advisable this proviso should be inserted to make the intention plain.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 35, at end of Earl of Selborne's Amendments, to insert ("Provided also
  224
  that any person so claiming shall be entitled, so long as he shall continue to be personally rated, to deduct in each year from the rent payable by him in respect of such property, an amount equal to the average annual rates levied upon such property during the three years preceding the making of such claim, and for any period less than a year in proportion").—(The Earl of Winchilsea.)
  *THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he really must protest against the insertion of this Amendment, because the noble Lord appeared to argue from false premises that in all cases the rent charged by the landlord covered the rate. That was not so. Supposing he let cottages at 1s. a week, and the tenants were to deduct from that the amount of the rate, how much would ho be likely to get for his rent? Very little—indeed hardly anything. It would be very unjust to insert this Amendment, and would offer a premium to landlords to raise the rent of their cottages, a proceeding which nobody would wish to see encouraged.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the Amendment illustrated the difficulty of dealing with the matter in the way in which their Lordships had just done. The rent paid at the present time was rent in which the rates were included; but the result would be that the occupier, whose rent now included the rates, would only enjoy his full rights under this Bill by paying the rates in addition to his rent.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Use of schoolroom).
  LORD CLINTONmoved to omit the word "public" in the phrase "any suitable public room." He explained that his object was to limit as much as possible the compulsory use of schoolrooms, because the moving of furniture and other necessary preparations for meetings would occasion great wear and tear in the case of such rooms, for which the managers would receive no compensation. In many places there were rooms in Town Halls and other buildings which, although not public in the sense in which that word was used in the clause, were admirably suited for parish and Council meetings. It was difficult to understand why any suitable room should not be used. As

  225
  a right rev. Prelate had pointed out the other night, schoolrooms were now constantly required even after school hours for educational purposes, as Evening Continuation Schools and for the instruction of pupil teachers. Consequently, they were seldom available for other purposes. It was not in the interest of the children that crowded meetings should he hold in the schoolrooms at night, attended by people who would have to come through muddy country lanes; and he would ask their Lordships to consider what the condition of the schools would be with regard to cleanliness and ventilation the next morning.
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 31, to leave out the word ("public").—(The Lord Clinton.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not know whether it would recommend the wording of this clause to their Lordships were he to state that this word was introduced at the suggestion of a distinguished Member of the late Government in the other House, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. The noble Lord seemed to him to be far too anxious to limit the use of these schoolrooms. Though he was not desirous of again repeating what had already been urged, and seemed to be very disagreeable to some Members of the House—namely, that these schools could not be regarded simply as private schools - he must again say that it was absolutely impossible that schools which were largely supported now out of the Public Exchequer—however the buildings might have been erected—should be looked upon as simply private property. Such buildings, being largely State supported, might reasonably be regarded as quasi-public buildings. He thought that the result of the word being omitted would be to limit the use of the schools, and, therefore, he could not consent to its omission.
  *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, neither of the previous speeches had gone to the Amendment as he understood it. As he understood the Amendment, it did not apply to the school at all, but to the room, if there was any other suitable for the purpose, whether public or private; and, so far from limiting the use of the schools, the Amendment, in his judgment, enlarged the scope of the clause. He really
  226
  could not understand the objection, for the word "public" seemed to be quite useless.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he did not see that the Amendment would accomplish anything, or make any practical difference. Supposing the owner of a private house were willing to allow a meeting to be held there, it would be for the Parish Council to decide whether that was suitable or not. The clause as it stood merely authorised the Parish Council, if they thought right, to claim the use of the schoolroom when another room was not to be obtained free of charge.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYhoped their Lordships would adopt this Amendment. In a parish he knew two rooms were available, which were excluded by the clause as it stood. One was in a house which had formerly been a public-house and was now closed; the other was a reading or recreation room, which was private property.
  On Question, whether ("public") shall stand part of the Bill? their Lordships divided: — Contents 54; Not-Contents 61.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Transfer of certain powers of Vestry and other authorities to Parish Council).
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEmoved to insert after "charities" the words "or constituted by any special trust." He should not have thought this necessary, but for the exception of ecclesiastical charities. The intention of the clause was simply to transfer certain official duties, powers, and liabilities of Churchwardens to the Parish Councils, and with that intention it was not necessary to interfere, affairs of the Church and ecclesiastical charities being excluded. In Clause 15, dealing with funds of which parish officers were trustees, their Lordships had struck out the words which, in the Bill as introduced, were applicable to Churchwardens. The fact of the introduction of that special clause plainly showed that the sixth clause was only intended by the framers of the Bill to refer to the legal and official duties of Churchwardens as such, and not as trustees. If it was seriously urged that special trusts vested in Churchwardens ought to be transferred,

  227
  it could not be in the manner of this clause, by which the Parish Council, as a Corporation, would take the place of the Churchwardens. What he now proposed was consistent with what had been done in Committee.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 5, line 23, after the word ("charities") to insert the words ("or are constituted by any special trust").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYinquired whether it was intended by this Amendment to provide that Churchwardens should continue to be trustees of purely secular charities? It might be that the noble and learned Earl was quite right in thinking it was merely consequential upon another Amendment already made. He did not see why, with regard to these trusts, Churchwardens, who had no more to do with them than anyone else, should continue to be trustees. He could not see why in cases of feual allotment under the Enclosure Acts Churchwardens should remain the trustees. His impression was there were many cases of that kind. It was, however, very difficult to follow the exact effect of the Amendment. If the noble and learned Earl thought such a case as he had mentioned would be a special trust, it would certainly make a large inroad into the Bill.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that such cases of property vested under Acts of Parliament in Churchwardens and Overseers, only, were already dealt with by Clause 5.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he was doubtful whether, for the purposes of the noble and learned Earl, the words would be necessary —whether the powers and duties of the Churchwardens to transfer would include the execution of instruments dealing with the trust vested in the Churchwardens.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments.
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Clause 7, page 7, line 26, leave out the word ("in") and insert the words ("for the whole or part of").
  Clause 8 (Additional powers of Parish Councils).
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the Amendment in this clause at lines 35 and 36 was in consequence of a promise given to the noble Marquess opposite, that Her Majesty's Government would consider the retention of the words "other public purposes." It was thought they were too wide, and therefore he moved,
  To leave out the words ("other public-purposes") and insert the words ("for any purposes connected with parish business or with the powers or duties of the Parish Council or parish meeting").
  Amendment agreed to.
  *LORD DE RAMSEYsaid, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for the Colonies had promised before the Report stage to look into the point as to the insertion after "Corporation" of the words "navigation or Land Drainage Authority." He hoped the noble-Marquess would be able to agree to that, Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he-had looked into the matter, and was advised that the words "Corporation and persons" covered the whole ground-Any bodies interested in the matter must be either one or the other within the meaning of the Act, and, consequently, the Amendment was unnecessary.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, as he had not expected to be in the House that day, he had asked his noble Friend Lord Onslow to undertake to look after his-Amendment to insert words providing that in the matter of water supply the Parish Councils shall be
  "subject do such restrictions as is by Section 52 of the Public Health Act, 1875, imposed on a Local Authority."
  It was thought desirable that these Parish, Councils should not become traders ins water and rivals of the Water Companies. There appeared to be no question of principle involved: it was simply whether the Bill was so drawn as to give effect to the views which had been expressed by the Government in reference-to the position of the Provincial Water Companies, who thought there was a danger in the Bill of Parish Councils, being allowed to set up rival water

  229
  works where Provincial Companies were able and willing to furnish a supply. A distinct assurance had been given by the Government that that was not their desire—and they believed the Bill carried out that intention—that the Parish Councils should become traders in regard to water supply where Water Companies existed. That, however, had not been considered satisfactory, and an opinion had been obtained from counsel (Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C.) who said that
  "Haying read the clause in the Bill, and the shorthand notes of the proceedings in the House upon the Amendment of Lord Wemyss, notwithstanding Lord Ripon's assurance that the Government had not the least desire to confer powers upon Parish Councils to execute waterworks, it did constitute them bodies for carrying out such works."
  and he said, therefore, that some further Amendment was necessary. Under those circumstances, the Government being anxious to protect these Provincial Water Companies, could not reasonably object to the insertion of words giving them the protection asked for, which it was necessary they should have. He therefore moved the Amendment standing in Lord On slow's name.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 8, line 18, after the word ("person") to insert the words ("and subject to such restriction as is by Section 52 of the Public Health Act, 1875, imposed on a Local Authority").—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid that, according to the view of the Government, the Bill did not authorise the Parish Councils to execute waterworks. Under the Public Health Act, if Rural Sanitary Authorities proposed to execute waterworks they were to give notice to any existing Water Company. No doubt the Water Companies were very tenacious of their rights, and exceedingly anxious that nobody should be able to utilise any water supply but themselves. It would, however, be carrying things to an absurd excess to say that a Parish Council should not have power to bring water from a stream to a tank without being exposed to opposition by a Water Company. No doubt counsel who were consulted would advise that the companies should be on the safe side, but any fears on that score were quite unfounded. Under the Bill a company would have all the right to redress that it now had if it were interfered with. The Bill, there-
  230
  fore, was sufficiently fenced to prevent any injury to Water Companies; but to insert this Amendment would be to interpose a quite unnecessary barrier which would very much hamper the Parish Councils.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, that a Parish Council ought not to be allowed to constitute itself a Water Authority to compete with an existing company; and he hoped the noble Earl would persevere with the Amendment. The word "rights" referred not to the rights of the company, but to the preceding words "spring or springs," which were not exclusive as regarded the supply of water. Parish Councils ought not to be allowed to give a supply where the authority empowered was able and willing to do so. It was distinctly understood in Committee that Her Majesty's Government would make that quite clear.
  LORD HALSBURYbelieved it was at his instance that the words were altered. "Right" being thought too narrow the letter "s" was added. One of two things was manifest: either the Government intended to protect the practical monopoly of the Water Company in the district or it did not. If it did, the words as they stood were insufficient and the companies were not protected, because although they had a practical monopoly they might have no absolute right to a monopoly. Even with the added "s" the company would: have no such right; and if there was to be any protection given at all, it must be by some such words as the noble Lord suggested. Although it might be right to say a Parish Council should not be precluded from taking water from a well or small stream, and were obliged to adopt a cumbrous procedure, if they did so, different language should have been used, if it were intended to give them the power of making a reservoir or powers of distribution. The word "rights" did not protect the practical monopoly of the Water Companies at all.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY,as connected with a parish where there was a very inadequate water supply, said he felt very strongly on this subject; and he trusted their Lordships would in no way restrict the powers of Parish Coun-

  231
  cils to provide parishioners with good water.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that no works which were likely to interfere with a Water Company could be made except by a capital expenditure which could only be raised by a loan; but, on the other hand, a good deal might be done by the parishes in a small way without raising a loan, and such matters nobody would wish to see interfered with.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 61; Not-Contents 65.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHmoved to amend the 2nd sub-section, which says that if a Parish Council are unable to acquire by agreement and on reasonable terms suitable land "for any purpose for which they are authorised to acquire it" they may refer the case to the County Council, by striking out the words quoted and substituting "for public offices or for allotments." He said, the Amendment was designed to protect tenant farmers, whose interests appeared to be overlooked by the Government. If it were adopted their Lordships would no doubt be told this was only another instance of the way in which they had all along been protecting their own interests alone. The worst of it was, so many people treated every landowner as an enemy if he was unfortunate enough to be a Lord. The noble Earl opposite had assumed that in no case would unreasonable demands be made by Parish Councils. Speaking from his own experience, he had always found the labourers reasonable enough; but, in view of the fact that numbers of persons were openly avowing that they would endeavour to get the best land, tenant-farmers viewed the subject with the gravest apprehension. No doubt in many villages throughout the country great expectations had been raised by such speeches as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had delivered "with great heart and small responsibility." They had heard a great deal about agricultural depression, and the supporters of noble Lords opposite were always saying that this arose not from foreign competition, but from the fear which tenants had of being turned out by
  232
  their landlords. They were always told that if only this security could be given, two blades of grass would be made to grow where only one grew before, and that fields of golden grain would be seen all over Essex. Whereas at present good cultivation gave good security, under this Bill good cultivation would only cause a man's land to be all the more coveted by his neighbours. He had, therefore, put down this Amendment with the view of doing away with the feeling of insecurity which now existed in the minds of the tenant-farmers.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 9, line 27, to leave out from the word ("for") to the word ("they") in line 28, and insert the words ("public offices or for allotments").—(The Earl of Denbigh,)
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, the only comment he would make on the Amendment was that it did not go quite far enough. He had put down a similar Amendment with regard to hiring land for the purpose of allotments. Throughout the whole discussion in Committee it was assumed that the land was required for that purpose only, and no mention was made of public walks, or building, or any of the other purposes for which laud could be acquired. In confining the compulsory acquisition of land to allotment purposes, the House would, therefore, only be carrying out the intention of the Bill. It would be recognised by everybody that compulsory powers of purchasing and hiring land should be confined to matters of national importance. If land were required for erecting public offices, buildings, and so on, there would certainly be no difficulty in acquiring it by agreement.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would regret very much seeing the provision as to acquiring land for recreation grounds and public walks struck out of the Bill. It might not be a matter of very great importance, but most persons would consider it an extremely desirable object to encourage by every possible means. With regard to limitation, he understood the noble Earl to wish to limit the allotments to one acre.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENwas simply desirous of limiting the amounts of land which could be acquired by a parish to allotments as proposed in thus Bill.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, in that case the amount practically would be reduced to the recreation grounds and public walks, and he had said nearly all he had to say upon that subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, his impression was that their Lordships should provide for security in this matter by ensuring supervision in the taking of land. If proper precaution were taken it was difficult to see why acquiring land by a parish for recreation purposes should not be treated as of as much importance as any other.
  Amendment negatived.
  *THE EARL OF MORLEYmoved a series of new sub-sections in reference to procedure. In moving those Amendments he begged to disclaim any intention of discussing the policy of the clause facilitating the acquisition of land by Parish Councils for the purpose of allotments. His sole object was to suggest machinery which would, ho believed, prove a good deal cheaper and more rapid in its operation than that which was provided by the Bill as it now stood. Before coming to his own Amendment he would call attention to the present position. As introduced, the Bill provided that the Parish Councils were to move the District, Councils; the District Councils were then to apply to the Local Government Board, who, after inquiry, were to make an Order which was not to require confirmation by Parliament. As their Lordships had altered the Bill, the County Councils had been substituted for the District Councils, which, in his view, was a considerable improvement; and, further, the Provisional Order of the Local Government Board was to be subject to a confirming Act. The objections to the two schemes were, shortly, these: To the procedure, as introduced, the objections were threefold—firstly, the substitution of the District Council for the County Council in respect of allotments; secondly, that the principle of the Lands Act was infringed, under which it was laid down that no laud should be compulsorily acquired without the sanction of Parliament—the cases were trifling in which an exception to that principle had been made—and the third objection was that the final decision was left in the hands of a purely Government Department, without any provision
  234
  as to how the appeal from the District Council—for it amounted to an appeal— should be heard. There was no provision for a public inquiry. The objections to the second plan were largely on account of the delay, and still more on the ground of expense. He confessed that he entirely sympathised with these objections. He had a very strong feeling that the treble inquiry—first, by the County County Council; secondly, by the Local Government Board; and thirdly, in cases of opposition, by Parliament—would, in the case of opposition, be so expensive that in trifling cases it would be out of the question. He desired to make a few remarks as to the expenses in cases of Provisional Orders, thinking as he did that there was a good deal of misapprehension on this score. In the first place, he would point out that Provisional Orders cost the promoters nothing whatever for fees, no House fees being charged on these Orders. In the ease of an opposition, the promoters were charged with no fees, but the opponents were charged the same fees as were required from the promoters of Private Bills. As one concrete case was worth a great deal of theory, he had caused several cases of Provisional Order Bills to be looked up, and ho found that in throe typical cases of a simple character the expenses were represented by the following figures:—(1) £29, of which £1 14s. were Parliamentary expenses; (2) £39 odd, of which £62s.6d. were Parliamentary expenses; (3) £36, of which £3 18s. were Parliamentary expenses. He was informed the Local Government Board charged nothing for printing or preparing these Orders. The Board of Trade made a small charge. His experience had led him to the belief that where there was no opposition the expense of obtaining a Provisional Order was trifling, but that in cases which were opposed the expenses were very large and were out of all proportion to the importance of the matters involved. No doubt it rested with the persons interested themselves to regulate the amount of the expenses incurred in opposed inquiries; and if they chose to engage the highest intellects at the Bar and the most skilled engineers, he did not see how Parliament could interfere to prevent their doing so. The Bill, as brought into that House, provided for Local Government

  235
  inquiries in all cases, whether opposed or not, and to the expenses so caused would now he added the expenses of a Parliamentary inquiry in opposed cases, and those expenses would be heavy. In view of this state of things, he had ventured to place upon their Lordships' Paper a series of Amendments, which would have the effect of enabling the compulsory powers conferred by the clause to he exercised as rapidly and as cheaply as possible, while securing the holding of a public inquiry by an absolute impartial tribunal in the case of injustice or wrong being done. By his proposal the Parish Council were to take the initiative, and they would have to go to the County Council, who would have power to make an Order authorising the Parish Council to purchase or take the land in question. The County Council would cause a copy of any Order so made to be served on the persons interested, together with a statement that the Order would become final and have the effect of an Act of Parliament unless within a certain limited period a Memorial should be presented to the Local Government Board praying that the Order should not become law without confirmation by Parliament. The Order sealed by the County Council would be deposited with the Local Government Board, which would have to inquire only whether the Regulations had been complied with; and if they were satisfied that that had been done, and if no Memorial had been presented, the Board might confirm the Order, which would thereupon become final, and have the force of an Act of Parliament. In the case of no opposition it seemed impossible to devise a more rapid method. The Local Government Board was eliminated, the County Council were asked to give their Order, and the thing was done. In the case of opposition, his Amendments prescribed that it should be the duty of the Local Government Board, as at present, to place their Orders in a Confirmation Bill to be presented to Parliament. He admitted that must involve some little delay, but did not see how that was to be avoided under any conditions. But as to expense, he hoped the provisions he had added, which were really the whole kernal of his scheme, would, to a large extent, mitigate the heavy expenses which Parliamentary inquiries were supposed to involved. In the case of a Memorial being
  236
  presented and a certain sum of money deposited by the opponent, the Local Government Board was to submit the Order to Parliament for confirmation, and every County Council Orders Confirmation Bill was, after the Second Reading of the House in which it originated, to he referred to a Select Committee of both Houses, or, if the two Houses of Parliament should think fit so to order, to a Joint Committee or a Standing Joint Committee of both Houses. He had some doubt whether it was fitting to introduce such a proposal in the Statute, but he found a very similar proposal in the Railway and Canals Traffic Act, 1888, with the one difference that the Standing Joint Committee was not there introduced. It was, of course, impossible to fetter Parliament, and Parliament would act as it liked in the matter; but he hoped that a Joint Committee would be appointed to which Bills of this description could be referred. Such a tribunal, being of a quasi-permanent character, would be very valuable indeed, not merely with regard to these allotment questions, but to many others. Its decision would have a uniformity which Committees appointed ad hoc had not always; and a body of precedents would be formed which would be of great use on many subjects besides those dealt with in this Bill. Then whatever the Committee might be to which the Bill was referred, he proposed an unusual clause, which he believed was without precedent—that before the Committee no counsel should be heard, and only one expert witness on either side. He could not see that this proposal for eliminating the very large amount of scientific evidence sometimes called before Committees would involve injustice to any of the parties interested. The procedure he had sketched out would he more rapid, and much cheaper, not only than that now proposed by the Bill, but than that which was provided by the measure as it came from the House of Commons. He further provided that the costs should be at the decision of the Committee. If he might venture to forecast the probabilities of the case, he should say that opposition to the Orders of the County Council was likely to be raised in but very few instances; but in these cases it was necessary to have

  237
  compulsory powers, and to be able to exercise them in case a refractory or unreasonable owner or occupier had to be dealt with. At the same time, though by his scheme that power was retained, no principle of the Lands Clauses Act was infringed, and persons interested retained their privilege of appealing to Parliament to decide between them and those promoting Bills against them. Finally—and this was a point of some little importance—more responsibility was given to the County Councils — a responsibility which he thought they could very properly and justly bear. It would not be right for a moment for a Local Body, even so responsible as a County Council, to be able to act without any power of revision over them, though that power should be seldom exercised. As far as increasing the responsibility of the County Councils went, this was a distinct advantage and a distinct advance in the way of local government. This scheme was really farther reaching than the scheme in the Bill as it had been brought up; it was capable of large extension, and if it found favour with their Lordships, it might be a valuable means of cheapening and simplifying the procedure in simple cases, which at present necessitated inquiries much too complicated and expensive, and to this he attached the greatest importance.
  Amendments moved,
  In page 9, line 29. after the word ("representation") to insert as a new sub-section— ("(3.) Before making any such representation the Parish Council shall, in the prescribed manner, give notice to the owners, lessees, and occupiers of the land which they propose to take, and such land shall be defined in the representation by reference to a twenty-five-inch ordnance map").
  Page 9, line 32, after ("inquiry") insert ("made after service of the prescribed notices on the owners, lessees, and occupiers of the lands proposed to be taken").
  Page 9, line 37, leave out from ("they") to ("(a.)") in page 10, line 3, and insert ("may make an Order enabling the Parish Council to purchase and take the land or any part of the land defined in the representation or (in a case to which the Allotments Act, 1887, applies) in the Petition."
  "(4.) The County Council shall cause a copy of any Order so made to be served in the manner and on the persons in which and on whom notices in respect of the lands to be taken are required to be served, together with a statement that the Order will become final and have the effect of an Act of Parliament
  238
  unless within the prescribed period a Memorial shall be presented to the Local Government Board, praying that the Order shall not become law without confirmation by Parliament.
  "(5.) The Order sealed by the County Council shall be deposited with the Local Government Board, who shall inquire whether the Regulations hereinafter mentioned have been in all respects complied with; and if the Board shall be satisfied that this has been done, then—

  "(a.) If no Memorial has been presented, the Board shall confirm the Order, and, upon such confirmation, the Order shall become final and have the effect of an Act of Parliament:

  "(b.) If a Memorial has been presented, together with a deposit of the prescribed amount (being such an amount only as will, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, be sufficient to cover the expenses of the confirmation of the Order by Parliament if no further step is taken in the opposition), the Local Government Board shall submit the Order to Parliament for confirmation.

  "(6.) Every County Council Orders Confirmation Bill shall, after the Second Reading in the House in which it originates, be referred to a Select Committee, or, if the two Houses of Parliament think fit so to order, to a Joint Committee, or a Standing Joint Committee of such Houses.
  "(7.) If, before the expiration of seven days after the Second Reading of any Confirmation Bill in the House in which it originates, a Petition is presented against any Order comprised therein, the Petitioner shall be allowed to appear and oppose by himself, his agents, and witnesses; but the Select Committee, or the Joint Committee, as the case may be, shall not hear counsel, nor more than one expert witness on either side.
  "(8.) The Committee by a majority may award costs, which shall, unless the Committee otherwise direct, include all costs from the date of the representation by the Palish Council, and may direct the return of the deposit, or any part of it, if they think fit.
  "(9.) In any Order made by a County Council under this section for the purpose of the purchase of land otherwise than by agreement the Lands Clauses Acts shall be incorporated, but any question of disputed compensation shall be dealt with in the manner provided by Section 3 of the Allotments Act, 1887, and provisos (a), (A), and (c) of Sub-section (4) of that section are incorporated with this section and shall apply accordingly.
  "(10.) Sub-sections (5), (6), (7), and (8) of Section 3 of the Allotments Act, 1887, and Section 11 of that Act, except the proviso to Sub-section 2, are incorporated with this section, and shall apply accordingly with the following modifications: 'an Order' shall be substituted for 'a Provisional Order,' 'Parish Council 'shall be substituted for 'Sanitary Authority,' and 'County Council' shall be substituted for 'County Authority.'
  "(11.) In this and the following section 'prescribed' means prescribed by Regulations of

  239
  the Local Government Board, and such Regulations shall include forms of Orders, Notices, and other documents for the purposes of proceedings under this section."
  "(12.) Sub-sections 3 and 4 of Section 52 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890, shall be applicable to such Regulations as if the same were Regulations made under the powers of that section").—(The Chairman of Committees [The Earl of Morley.])
  *THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid, he had an Amendment which the acceptance of those of Lord Morley would render inoperative. The House might congratulate itself on the care and success with which the noble Earl had approached a very difficult problem; and if the House should decide that Parliament was to be the ultimate tribunal, there could be no more satisfactory plan of giving effect to that decision than that proposed by the noble Earl. But he hoped to persuade their Lordships that it was possible to dispense with Parliament as an ultimate tribunal. The weak point of the proposal was that it did not perfectly meet the great objection which had been made on the score of expense. The number of successful applications under this section would greatly depend on whether the ultimate tribunal were cheap or not. He was glad to find that his Amendment met with the approval of the noble and learned Earl. As a Court of First Instance the County Council was a stronger body than, and should be substituted for, the District Council, a new body which was too closely connected with the Poor Law Board of Guardians to make it a perfect tribunal in this matter. He quite admitted that in the case of an Unopposed Order there was no expense. It was in opposed cases that the question of expense had to be considered, even with the novel restrictions which the noble Earl proposed—that no counsel should be heard, and not more than one expert witness called on either side. Appeal was only to be made in cases of unreasonable refusal on the part of landowners to give the public what was fair and right in any particular case. Would it not be possible for the Government to accept the County Council as the first tribunal instead of the District Council; and could not the Leader of the Opposition, having secured the interposition of a Public Body so much stronger and more trustworthy, dispense with the assent of Parliament?
  240
  The inquiries which under the Bill were to be held by the County Council might be ordered to be held publicly, and then there would probably be few appeals, and such appeals as there were might be left to the Local Government Board. The President of that Department was directly responsible to Parliament; his decisions could be challenged in various ways, and as much publicity would be given to them as if they were the decisions of Parliament. Questions might be put to him which he would be bound to answer, or his action might be challenged by a Vote on the Estimates to reduce his salary, or a private Member might put down a Motion in reference to his procedure. The challenge might be made as effective upon any decision the Local Government Board was likely to give, as could be the case in an appeal to Parliament. That was the narrow issue. As the Bill originally stood, the Local Government Board was to move in the matter, to decide it upon the ipse dixit of their own Inspector. It became a widely different case when the County Council was substituted. If the County Council,were accepted by Government, the Local Government Board might be safely accepted by the noble Marquess.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, that he greatly preferred the proposal of the Chairman of Committees to that of which he had given notice; and, therefore, he should not move the Amendments standing in his name.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the statement which had been made by the Chairman of Committees was very clear and able, and the House was indebted to him for his proposal. But he was bound to say that the Government felt very great objections to these matters coming before Parliament at all. He thought that the reduction of expense which the noble Earl justly desired to effect would not be so easily accomplished. The whole atmosphere of a Parliamentary inquiry was that of spending money. When witnesses had been brought up, and when gentlemen, who would not be called counsel, but who would he practically counsel, had been heard on either side, the Bill would be a considerable one. Again, he was unwilling to set such a narrow limit to the power of parties to put their case before Parliament. Generally, no doubt,

  241
  the questions would not be of very great-importance; but it was impossible to say that there would not be some which involved important principles. To absolutely limit each party to one expert witness and to forbid them to employ counsel was a very strong measure. Without binding himself to the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Win-chilsea, he preferred it, on the whole, to that submitted by the Chairman of Committees, as it was more in accordance with the principles of the Bill. In some past cases the expenses of a Parliamentary inquiry had been enormous. There was one notable instance—the celebrated St. Faith's allotment case—in which the charges amounted to more than £100 an acre. He need not tell their Lordships that that price was practically prohibitive, and the effect upon everybody concerned, whether they desired allotments or had to do with the machinery of the Act, was to render it perfectly useless.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, there was a local inquiry in that case.
  THE EARL OF KIMBEELEYsaid, that reminded him of another subject— inquiries by the Local Government Board. The whole difficulty in these small matters was that they did not admit of considerable expense, and if loaded with too much expense the object in view was defeated. In Local Government Board inquiries matters involving great pecuniary interest to the parties had to be dealt with, and people had to go to considerable expense in getting their cases determined. He felt a rooted objection to these cases going to Parliament, and for that reason was unable to regard the Amendment favourably.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the clause proposed with so much ability by the noble Earl was a clause of limitation. He was bound to say that the Amendment of the noble Earl was one which those who thought as he himself did on this matter could safely accept. No doubt it did to some extent limit the powers of the litigants to place their case before the Committee, but that was compensated for by the very great advantage of having Parliament as the last Court of Appeal in all cases of acquiring land. The noble Earl the Leader of the House made a very just observation—that the majority of these cases were very unimportant, but that did not ex-
  242
  clude the possibility of cases of considerable importance arising. In the same way he should say, with respect to the interests that were concerned, that in a great number of cases it was possible that no very important interests would be concerned; but there would be cases where farmers who were occupiers would have taken from them, or would be threatened with the loss of, land which was essential to the working of their farms. Though that might not be carried out in many cases, the fact that such a thing could be done, the fact that farmers who might be on bad terms with their labourers would often have such things threatened, would seriously interfere with their confidence in the cultivation of their land, and would consequently interfere with the application of capital to the land, and the land might be expected to be less efficiently cultivated in consequence. He did not much believe in the idea concerning the difference in the comparative expense of an appeal to Parliament and an appeal to the local tribunal. It was really a question whether counsel and agents should go down from London to the provinces or whether witnesses should come up to London. On the whole, he suspected that going down to the provinces would be found to be the more expensive performance of the two. But that was on the assumption, which he held to be indispensable, that there was a hearing upon which reliance could be placed—a hearing before a competent tribunal, before a tribunal which was independent, and which sat in open Court, so that the whole proceedings might be subject to the action of public opinion. If they did not have that it would be the greatest tyranny to take men's land from them and to turn farmers out of the occupation which they held. If they did have inquiries before Inspectors of the Local Government Board he believed the expenses of such a proceeding would be as great as the expenses before a Parliamentary Committee, and it would not create anything like the same confidence. Farmers and proprietors had been accustomed to look to Parliament for the protection of their rights in the pursuit of their industry, and to substitute the uncorrected decision of a State Department would create the greatest apprehension and discontent. His noble Friend Lord Winchilsea seemed

  243
  to think that the power of appeal to Parliament against the decision of the Local Government Board would be a sufficient protection. What power of appeal to Parliament existed? What chance was there of getting a majority of the other House on a Motion for Adjournment as to the disposal of a certain quantity of land? Above all, what power was there of reversing a decision once solemnly given which by Act of Parliament was then the law? That would be a decision which could not possibly be reversed. His noble Friend Lord Winchilsea had an Amendment on the Paper which seemed to him to be very much worse than that before the House. It provided that the sole inquiry was to be by the County Council. But were County Councils bodies that were fitted to hold public inquiries? Had they machinery for so doing? No doubt machinery might be created, but still a County Council was not a body eminently fitted for the purpose. Although he recognised the general capacity and impartiality of the County Councils and their desire to administer justice, he doubted very much their competence in urban counties to discharge these duties. In essentially rural counties no doubt they would be competent, but there were many counties in which the urban element largely existed, and where the majority of the Councillors could not have the knowledge sufficient to enable them to judge whether a farm would or would not be ruined by the withdrawal from cultivation of certain fields. He therefore thought the County Councils were not the proper bodies to deal with these appeals. There must be an appeal to a tribunal which would inspire confidence, and there was no appeal that would be satisfactory except an appeal to Parliament. He considered that the Earl of Morley by his proposal had effectively removed the only possible objection that could be raised against a Parliamentary tribunal.
  *LORD THRING,having had considerable experience in these matters, invited the noble Marquess opposite, in reference to his remarks about tenant-farmers, to go into the country and see what a Provisional Order would be able to do? The successful man was the man who had a long purse. The idea of
  244
  a Provisional Order being an adequate appeal was a mere delusion. Provisional Orders caused the greatest oppression, and nobody without a long purse could go through with them. It was absolute mockery to tell a poor man to go to Parliament, for the expense might amount to hundreds or thousands of pounds. The only tribunal which would do the poor man justice, and which was fitted to deal with these matters, was the County Council. A man could go before the County Council and could be heard. In the County of Surrey there were always members of the County Council who were acquainted with the locality and were ready to go down and try cases; they had a fellow-feeling with the poor man and knew what he wanted. A local tribunal of that sort was worth all the official inquiries that could be held. He was extremely sorry he could not agree with his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees; and he would say that if their Lordships wanted to do justice to the peasant, the tenant, and the owner alike, they should provide a tribunal before which those persons could be heard. All the efforts of the Chairman of Committees could not make the procedure of a Parliamentary inquiry cheap.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, the only point really in issue was whether the appeals should be dealt with by a Local Government or by a Parliamentary inquiry? In his opinion, a Parliamentary inquiry was likely to decide great legal questions of principle better than a Local Government Board inquiry. He did not believe that there would be any great demand for the compulsory powers, because he had every confidence that there would be a willingness on the part of landowners to meet the requirements of the parish. He should be very sorry that the compulsory acquisition of land should be interfered with by any indirect methods, and made impossible on the score of expense. Whatever Rules their Lordships chose to make, well and good, but they should avoid hampering the matter by piling up expenses. He was convinced the noble Earl was offering them a cheaper plan, on the whole, than had yet been put forward. It was throwing an enormous responsibility on the County Council, and if the Amendment was adopted their Lordships would

  245
  have to lay clown definite Rules as to how the inquiry by the County Council was to be conducted. With reference to the numbers and constitution of the body of Commissioners, he suggested that the County Council should have the power of demanding from the Board of Agriculture the assistance of an agricultural assessor to help them. He thought that the proposal of the noble Earl not only retained the great principle that Parliament in the ultimate resort should, if necessary, give its assent to the taking of a man's property compulsorily, but offered to the country districts by far the cheapest and most economical means of giving effect to such a decision.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)could not agree with the view that the proposal of the noble Earl would be more economical than the rival plan of consideration of the matter by the Local Government Board after the County Council had made its inquiry. Let Parliamentary Committees be fettered in whatever manner as regarded calling expert witnesses and employing counsel the process of inquiry by Committees of both Houses of Parliament could not be otherwise than expensive; and the proposal was no more to the interests of the landowner than it was to the interests of those who desired to see allotment schemes carried out. It had been assumed that after the County Council bad made its inquiry, and if any question as to the propriety of its decision in taking a particular piece of land was raised, it would be necessary for the Local Government Board to send down an Inspector and institute a new inquiry in every case. Possibly there might be cases where that would have to be done, but they would be the exception. When, however, a question had been dealt with by the County Council there might often remain some matter of controversy quite unsuitable for the Joint Committee proposed by the noble Earl, but which might well be brought before the Local Government Board and determined by the Department with satisfaction to all parties. It was assumed also that the landowners in these cases would always be desirous to come before a Joint Committee of Parliament; but, on the other hand, he maintained that there were many cases where they would not be altogether satisfied with the decision
  246
  of the County Council and would desire to see some possibility of reviewing it, though they might not think the matter worth the expense which would be involved in coining before a Joint Committee of both Houses. Would it not be better, therefore, in the vast number of cases that owners, as well as those who desired allotments, should be provided with a much cheaper means of having the decision of the County Council on certain questions reconsidered in preference to the manner which was here proposed? Their Lordships would be more likely to allow more complete justice to be done and more complete satisfaction to be given, and at much less expense, by the method proposed by the Government than by the proposal of the noble Earl.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid, as he understood from the statement of the Lord Chancellor, the Government proposal was of a somewhat more alarming and doubtful character than he had originally taken it to be. He understood that under the proposal of the Government the Local Government Board would not necessarily hold a local inquiry at all, but would confirm or reject a decision by the Local Authority upon its own responsibility without making any inquiry into the matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, it would not be necessary in every case to make such an inquiry. Very often those who complained against or questioned what the County Council did would be content to have the subject reconsidered by the Local Government Board without any inquiry upon the representations made to them.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid, that though he did not attach the same importance as some noble Lords did to the particular tribunal which was to have the decision in this matter; though he did not care very much whether a Committee of both Houses, or a Government Department, or a Committee of the Privy Council was responsible, he did think that it was of the utmost importance that there should be secured a public inquiry of some sort before an adequate tribunal. He thought that their Lordships were indebted to the Chairman of Committees for having brought forward so clearly the proposal now being considered. The authority of the Chairman of Committees

  247
  was quite as great as that of the Lord Chancellor; and it appeared to him to be a moot question whether an inquiry, limited as the noble Earl proposed, would be more expensive than an inquiry which he thought ought to be held, at all events locally, in the manner in which their Lordships had understood it was going to be held. It had been said by the Lord President of the Council, and he thought the view was assented to by the noble Marquess opposite, that some of these cases might not be of very great importance. No doubt the question might not be of the highest importance with reference to the value and the amount of the property concerned, or the area of the district affected; but to those who were affected his opinion was that it would be almost invariably a question of the highest importance. The subject appeared to be looked upon as one affecting only the owner of the land, the occupier, and the labourers who desired to obtain allotments. But in his judgment the general body of labourers were a fourth party, who had quite as much interest in the equitable settlement of these questions as any of the other parties. The owner and the occupier might obtain, and probably would, adequate compensation; but if an erroneous decision was arrived at, farms would be deprived of portions of land which were absolutely necessary to the proper cultivation of the holding, and a farm might go out of cultivation or fall into the hands of a man with less capital, to the disadvantage of the interests of every labourer in the parish to a far greater extent than any labourer could be benefited by giving facilities in obtaining allotments. In whatever shape it was provided, he thought it was absolutely necessary that there should be an open public inquiry before an adequate tribunal in the interests of those who were directly, as well as indirectly, interested.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)explained that he did not suggest the Government were proposing any scheme which was different from that which was in the Bill as originally brought before their Lordships; but it did not follow that in every case there would be an inquiry involving expense of the nature to which his noble Friend had alluded.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the intention was, and he believed it was the invariable practice of the Local Government Board, not to decide in such matters without holding a local inquiry.
  *THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, if the contention of the noble Earl was correct— that, as a rule, the inquiry would be held on the spot—then the argument of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack fell to the ground, because the noble Lord was bent on proving that the appeal to the Local Government Board would be cheaper than the appeal to the Parliamentary tribunal suggested by the noble Earl at the Table. But that could only be in the case suggested by the noble and learned Lord, where the appeal to the Local Government Board would be heard in London and not taken down to the country to be tried. If the noble Earl was rightly understood as saying that that would be a rare exception, and that the general rule was to have local inquiries conducted on the spot by the Local Government Board, the argument of superior cheapness put forward by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack completely fell to the ground.
  On Question, their Lordships divided: —Contents 108; Not-Contents 25.
  Verbal Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved to insert after "sections" the word "two," making the section read—
  "And thereupon Sections 2, 3. and 11 of that Act (the Allotments Act of 1887) shall apply."
  For "Sanitary Authority" in the Act "Parish Council" would be substituted. The House would observe that in this clause the Government omitted to include Section 2 of the Act of 1887, which was a very important section. It was as follows:—
  "A Sanitary Authority shall not, under this Act, acquire land for allotments save at such price or rent that in the opinion of the Sanitary Authority all expenses, except such expenses as are incurred in making roads to be used by the public, incurred by the Sanitary Authority in acquiring the land and otherwise in relation to the allotments may reasonably be expected to-be recouped out of the rents obtained in respect thereof."
  Now, the results of leaving it out was that there was no restraint whatever on the requirement of land by the Parish Councils, whether by compulsion or

  249
  agreement. In fact, there would be no limit whatever except that which would be supplied by the financial limitations to which they were subject. It seemed that that this was not fair to the Parish Councils or the ratepayers, especially at the beginning of the administration of such a law as this, when they must expect many mistakes and unwise calculations, and especially a good deal of unreasonable enthusiasm. Under the clause the Parish Council would have the power of acquiring as much laud as it pleased, and it would not be in the least bound to consider whether it would get the interest on the money back in the shape of rent. In the same way, it would have the power of hiring as much land as it pleased without any expectation of being able to recoup itself out of the rents. Laud would be thus acquired at the expense of the rates, and let out, at the lowest value to those who would hold the allotments. That seemed to be a remarkable power. It was a form of outdoor relief of a most dangerous character, and it might be expected to create considerable abuse. As the clause stood, a Parish Council would have the right to take land at a considerable price, and charge that price on the rates, and then let it out to allotment-holders without taking any security that the rent payable to the landowners would be re-imbursed. This possibility might involve some parishes in serious financial embarrassment. There was nothing in the Bill to say that the land must not be acquired unless it could be re-let at remunerative rents; and even if the objection were taken that the land could not be so relet, no authority appealed to was empowered to say that on that ground the land should not be acquired. The omission was no doubt unintentional, but it was exceedingly unwise. Parish Councils should not be encouraged to speculate in laud, though they should be encouraged to purchase or hire such land as they could let out to labourers at remunerative rates, and they should not be encouraged to do anything more. The Amendment, therefore, proposed the insertion of words naming the sub-section at the commencement of Sub-section 10 of the Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 10, line 21, after the word ("way") to insert as a separate sub-section—"(e.) The
  250
  words 'County Council' shall be substituted for the words 'Sanitary Authority' in the said sections of that Act").— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, Sub-section 2 of the Allotments Act would not apply at the place the noble Marquess proposed to put it in.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: You can strike it out if you do not like it.
  Amendment (The Earl of Morley,) as amended, agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): Does the noble Marquess move in page 10, line 1, after "sections," insert "two"?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF WLNCHILSEA: The object of my Amendment here is that Parish Councils shall be substituted for the Sanitary Authority.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 10, line 2, after the word ("namely") to insert—

  "(1.) The Parish Council shall be substituted for the Sanitary Authority;

  "(2.) The Order shall be subject to confirmation by the Local Government Board, but shall not require confirmation by Parliament."— (The Earl of Winchilsea.)

  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought the object of the Amendment had already been accomplished.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYmoved an Amendment, at page 10, line 3, to leave out ("(a.) Where the") and leave out ("is").
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA: I do not quite see why the words "otherwise than by allotments" should be inserted here. Why should not the body who pays for the allotments have them?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that by the scheme of the Bill as it stood the allotments were vested in the District Councils.
  *THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA: That has now been altered. Is it proposed that, the property should vest in the County-Councils?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Yes.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA: Then I move to omit these words, because I do not see why the Parish Councils who pay for the allotments should not have them.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 10, line 3, to leave out the words ("otherwise than for allotments").—(The Earl of Winchilsea.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of the Earl of MORLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  In page 10, lines 5 and 6, to leave out Paragraph (b).
  *THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid, he attached great importance to the next Amendment. The only question was whether it was entirely covered by the Amendment which the noble Marquess had inserted in Sub-section 10 of the Earl of Morley's. The object of his present Amendment was to provide for those cases which might often happen, where no decrease of rent would compensate the tenant-farmer for the severance of a particular piece of land from his farm. There were cases in which a single field was indispensable to the successful cultivation of a farm, and to take it away from the farm would ruin the farmer. A recent applicant for one of his farms made it a condition that a certain piece of meadow land should go with it. Soon afterwards some of his (Lord Winchilsea's) own labourers requiring an extension of allotments asked for that very piece of land. When he stated the facts to them, they said they would not press for that field; but there was no security that a Parish Council would always be so reasonable. He asked for this provision not only in the interests of the occupiers, but also in the interests of the vast majority of the labourers themselves. There were cases in which the tenant-farmer might not find out until a year afterwards that he could not make his farm pay without the meadow laud, and he might then throw up the farm. If 200 acres of arable laud went out of cultivation, about eight agricultural labourers would be thrown out of employment.
  Amendment moved,
  "In page 11, line 4, after the word ("inquiry") to insert the words ("provided that where it
  252
  shall be proved, at the holding of such inquiry that the withdrawal of any particular piece of land from a holding would depreciate the letting value of the remainder thereof to an extent not likely to be covered by a reasonable sum for severance or increased rent, such land shall not be included in any Order made in pursuance of this section)".—(The Earl of Winchilsea)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought this matter was sufficiently provided for by the general provisions of the Bill. It was distinctly a matter which would have to be taken into consideration by those who would have to determine whether or not these purchases should be made, and he thought limitations such as the noble Earl proposed would be inconvenient. If it could be shown that injurious results would flow from the taking of the land that would be one of the strongest arguments to be put before the tribunal. Unless they distrusted the bodies who would have to decide whether the land should be taken or not there was no reason why these limitations should be put in.
  Amendment negatived.
  On the Motion of the Earl of MORLEY, the following words were added to Subsection 7:—
  "And for the purposes of this Act those sections shall be read as if the words 'County Council' were substituted for 'County Authority,' and the word 'provisional' were omitted before the word 'Order.'"
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved an Amendment to Sub-section 8 by adding thereto the words—
  "But such compensation shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act (England), 1883."
  The object of the Amendment was to provide that the compensation for depreciation at the end of a tenancy created by compulsory hiring should be assessed by the arbitrator in accordance with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 12, line 27, after the word ("depreciation") to insert the words ("but such compensation shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act (England), 1883").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of the Earl of MORLEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:—

  253
  Page 12, line 31, leave out ("Local Government Board") and insert ("County Council"). Leave out Section 10.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: With reference to the discussion we had the other night as to what was under the land could be said to he on the laud, the Lord Chancellor was much puzzled by the question. Gravel, sand, and clay, are the things about which the doubt exists, and whether they are minerals or not, I am told, is a moot point amongst lawyers. I think it should be clear that the allotment-holder cannot carry away any brick, sand, gravel, or clay found on the allotment.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 12, line 39,after the word ("include") to insert the words ("any gravel, sand, or clay, or").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, it was quite reasonable there should be some restriction with regard to gravel and sand. But with regard to clay, or, as it was called, brick-earth, he had some doubt.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Whatever it is, the allotment-holder cannot carry it away. He has only to use it for the purpose of producing vegetables.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)suggested that the words should be altered to "right of carrying away," &c.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: "Right of carrying away" will satisfy me perfectly.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Clay is made into bricks, and when it is made into bricks would it be an infringement of the clause to carry away those bricks? In my part of the country we build to a very considerable extent with what are called "clay lumps"—namely, clay dried in the sun. In many cases it is a very valuable tiling, and it is extremely likely that they would be used for that purpose, and I suppose it would be held that the clay not-having been burned could not be carried away.
  LORD BELPER: Is not lime quite as important? Would the noble Marquess object to putting in lime?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: You do not usually find lime on allotments.
  LORD BELPER: You would in some cases. I am afraid on some of my land there is a great deal.
  Amendment amended, and agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I think I should state that the words moved by Lord Onslow "that under such land, or surface minerals" were inserted in Committee. By a printer's error the words are left out of the Bill. The question is, whether those words should remain?
  Words struck out.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENmoved an Amendment to meet the case where land, having been acquired by the Parish Councils, might be required by the landlord to work the mines or minerals. It was a thing very likely to happen, and ought to be provided against. He proposed to give the landlord power to resume the land when it became necessary to work the minerals.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 13, line 2, after (1892") insert as new sub-sections— (12.) If the land hired under this section shall at any time during the tenancy thereof by the Parish Council be required by the landlord for the purpose of working and getting the mines, minerals, or surface minerals thereunder, or for any road or work to be used in connection with such working or getting, it shall be lawful for the landlord of such land to resume possession thereof upon giving to the Parish Council 12 calendar months' previous notice in writing of his intention so to do, and upon such resumption the landlord shall pay to the Parish Council and to the allotment-holders of the land for the time being such sums by way of compensation for the loss of such land for the purposes of allotments as may be agreed upon by the landlord and the Parish Council, or in default of such agreement, as may be awarded by a single arbitrator to be appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Allotments Act, 18S7, and the provisions of that section shall apply to such arbitrator.
  The word 'landlord' in this sub-section means the person for the time being entitled to receive the rent of the land hired by the Parish Council.
  (13.) All expenses properly incurred by a County Council in pursuance of a representation made by a Parish Council for the purposes of this section shall be defrayed in the manner provided in Section 9"—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I imagine the purpose of the noble Earl is to prevent the owner of minerals being excluded from working them during the period of a 14 or 21 years' lease?
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Yes.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I have not had time to look at the exact words the noble Lord employs, but it seems to me only fair that something should be done.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsubsequently said, he would insert—
  "If the land hired under this section shall at any time during the tenancy of the Parish Council be shown to the satisfaction of the County Council to be required by the landlord," &c.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Clause 11, page 13, line 25 after ("fund") insert ("and any Order made for that purpose shall be in the prescribed form").
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he attached considerable importance to the Amendment he was about to move. Some country parishes were paying very heavy rates now, and it was unwise to allow these very small Councils to impose a rate exceeding in any matter 3d. in the £1 upon any parish without first getting the consent of the parish meeting. They were dealing now with between 8,000 and 9,000 parishes having less than 500 inhabitants, and, therefore, these Councils would be very small. The five Councillors might be inexperienced as to rating matters.
  Amendment moved,
  Leave out Sub-section (1) and insert new subsection—"(1.) Whenever the rates levied by a Parish Council after the passing of the Act for their expenses for any annual charge whether of principal or interest in respect of any loan, and for any expenses under any of the adoptive Acts adopted after the passing of this Act, amount collectively to a rate of 3d. in the £1, or would be increased to a charge in excess of 3d. in the £1 by any expense or liability proposed to be incurred by the Council of any parish, the Council shall not incur such expense or liability which would involve any such excess without the consent of a parish meeting, summoned after due public notice to the parish, of the expenditure proposed."—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the clause as it stood limited the expenditure to a certain sum, but it left the power, no doubt, to incur further expenses under the adoptive Acts. He was not quite sure that there was any ambiguity in the words. But, apart from ambiguity, he certainly could not consent to
  256
  the Amendment. It was undesirable to curtail the powers of the Parish Council, and compel them on every occasion to call a parish meeting. There was "no lack of public control in the matter. The procedure under the adoptive Acts-was prescribed in the Acts themselves. There was no necessity for this clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I sympathise with the view of my noble Friend. I would suggest to him that there is a doubt as to whether the Amendment would not come within Privilege.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: If legal advisers of this House consider this a Constitutional question, I should not think of pressing it. It is important that all our proceedings should be legal.
  LORD HALSBURY: I cannot entertain a doubt that this encroaches on the Privileges of the Commons.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  LORD BELPERsaid, his Amendment was merely to put in the plural what was in the clause in the singular.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 13, line 8, to leave out the words ("any expense or liability") and insert the words ("expenses or liabilities").—(The Lord Belper.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYcould not see how these alterations affected the sense of the clause.
  LORD BELPERsaid, the object was to put it clearly that the expenses of the Parish Council altogether should not be more than a rate of 3d. in the £1 without the consent of the parish meeting.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: To say that the whole of their expenses and liabilities may not in any case exceed 3d. in the £1 without the consent of the parish meeting is against the Bill, be-cause there is a limit of 6d. I cannot understand why we should be so extraordinarily jealous of these people that they may not even spend 6d.
  LORD BELPERunderstood the clause to say that the Council might expend 6d. in the £1 for all purposes, but not more. He wanted to make it clear that they could not spend more than 3d. on any one purpose, and that all their expenses should not come to more than 3d. without their going to the parish meeting.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought the latter was the only sensible object to be aimed at by such a limitation. If they said the Parish Councils were not to incur more than 3d. in the £1 on any one subject, it could be easily avoided by their spending 2½d. on this and 2½d. on the other, until they would render the limitation perfectly nugatory. On the other hand, there was some sense in saying that they should not incur expenses which would exceed a rate of 3d. in the £1 on everything without the consent of the parish meeting.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had a simple Amendment. He did not see why the parish meeting should be allowed to do this more than the Parish Council, and all he had done hero was to restrain the parish meeting as well as the Parish Council from putting on more parishes under the Compounding Act than were now under it. Obviously if the Parish Councils could not do it, the parish meeting should not.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 14, line 31, after the word ("Council") to insert the words ("or parish meeting"). —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 15.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he had now to fulfil an engagement which he made in Committee to move a subsection instead of that which had disappeared from the clause, now No. 15, to the effect that—
  "In the case of any parochial charity (save as hereinafter provided) the benefits of which are confined solely to inhabitants of the parish, and which is not an ecclesiastical charity, the Parish Council may, if it think fit, notwithstanding that the number of trustees may have been fixed by the instrument creating the charity, or by any scheme for its administration, or otherwise, appoint so many additional trustees, not exceeding the proportion hereinafter mentioned, as the Charity Commissioners shall approve; but the whole number of trustees who are either elected by ratepayers or parochial electors or inhabitants of the parish, or appointed by the Parish Councilor parish meeting, shall not, by reason of such addition, exceed one-third of the whole body, including those so added; and if the management of any such charity is vested under the provisions of any such instrument or scheme, or otherwise, in a sole trustee, the number of trustees may, with the approval of
  258
  the Charity Commissioners, be increased to three, one of whom may be nominated by such sole trustee and the other by the Parish Council. The Charity Commissioners may, by General Order, regulate the mode of carrying this subsection into effect."
  The noble and learned Lord said, that the Amendment agreed in substance with one of which notice was given in the House of Commons by the President of the Local Government Board; but it went rather further than that. Mr. Fowler's Amendment did not apply to charities where there was any representative element at all on the trust; but his Amendment took into account the existing representative element, and allowed it to be increased with the sanction of the Charity Commissioners. If their Lordships would hereafter permit him to move an Amendment, which was not down on the Paper, upon the 71st clause, it would be for the purpose of making it clear that he did not intend by the Amendment introduced into that Definition Clause to include cases which ought more properly fall within this l5th clause.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 15, line 25, after Sub-section (2), add new sub-section—"In the case of any parochial charity (save as hereinafter provided) the benefits of which are confined solely to inhabitants of the parish, and which is not an ecclesiastical charity, the Parish Council may, if it think fit, notwithstanding that the number of trustees may have been fixed by the instrument creating the charity, or by any scheme for its administration, or otherwise, appoint so many additional trustees, not exceeding the proportion hereinafter mentioned, as the Charity Commissioners shall approve; but the whole number of trustees who are either elected by ratepayers or parochial electors or inhabitants of the parish, or appointed by the Parish Council or parish meeting, shall not, by reason of such addition, exceed one-third of the whole body, including those so added; and if the management of any such charity is vested under the provisions of any such instrument or scheme, or otherwise, in a sole trustee, the number of trustees may, with the approval of the Charity Commissioners, be increased to three, one of whom may be nominated by such sole trustee and the other by the Parish Council.
  The Charity Commissioners may, by General Order, regulate the mode of carrying this subsection into effect."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYremarked that as there was now no reference in the Bill to elective trustees, he could at once say that this Amendment must be regarded as an improvement on

  259
  the Bill as it stood, and so far he was glad to see it inserted. At the same time, he must guard himself against being considered to have accepted this as an adequate solution. Subject to this, he should not think it necessary to divide the House against the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid, his Amendment was not of a contentious character, and it had been so far agreed to that if it were possible to be put in the Government said they would have no objection to insert something of the kind. The objects of the Amendment were not of a controversial character; both sides of the House agreed they were just and right. He moved the Amendment in place of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, who was not able to be present. Since the Amendment was moved in Committee one or two alterations had been made in it which had removed objections. The Amendment now was confined to dealing with "dole" charities. In the last Report of the Charity Commissioners words were found which expressed their deliberate view that on an application by the trustees they ought to sanction a scheme for the divergence of part or all the moneys so applied to the purposes mentioned in Sub-section (b) here. The object of the Amendment was to prevent the Charity Commissioners being put to the trouble in each case of granting a fresh scheme and to save the trustees the trouble of applying for such a scheme. He thought it well to leave it to the Charity Commissioners to prescribe the general conditions under which it might be done. What was proposed now was to lay down what might be done "subject to the general conditions which may be prescribed from time to time by the Charity Commissioners." Those who lived in the country knew well that the provision of qualified nurses to nurse the sick poor in their own homes was one of the most important of all the schemes which had been proposed having for their object the happiness and welfare of the working classes of the rural districts. He attached considerable importance to the word "qualified," and if the Government accepted the Amendment he would insert in the Definition Clause a definition of "quali-
  260
  fied." It would not do to divert these moneys for the purpose of paying any-untrained nurse. The only doubt was whether the Amendment came within the scope of the Bill.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 15, line 30, after the word ("Council") to insert as a new sub-section—"Where the endowment of a parochial charity is applicable wholly or partly m gifts in money or kind, the income so applicable, or any part thereof, may be applied (subject to general conditions to be prescribed from time to time by the Charity Commissioners) by the trustees or persons acting in the administration of the charity to one or both of the following purposes:

  (a) Pensions for poor persons being otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of the charity, and not being in receipt of Poor Law relief, who from age, ill-health, accident, or infirmity, are unable to maintain themselves;

  (b) The provision of qualified nurses or other specific assistance for poor persons in sickness."—(The Earl of Winchilsea.)

  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, the Amendment did not come within the scope of the Bill, and he regretted, therefore, that the Government could not accept it. They had carefully considered the Amendment with the utmost desire to accept it.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBER-LEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Clause 19, page 19, line 23,after ("revoked") insert ("or varied").
  THE EARL OF SELBOENEsaid, he had an Amendment to Clause 20 to extend the same principle which the House had already accepted for the Parish Councillors to the members of the committee appointed where there was no Parish Council. These committees in smaller parishes would take the place of the Parish Councils, and it was desirable that the business should be transacted in similar manner to the Councils. He had another Amendment that, when their powers were enlarged, the County Council should be able to say that these powers should be exercised by the committee.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 20, line 2, after the word ("approval") to add ("Provided, that the members of any committee so appointed shall be persons who, if there were a Parish Council in the

  261
  parish, would be qualified under this Act to be members of the Parish Council").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I understand this to be consequential on the Amendment my noble and learned Friend carried in Committee?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In my own view it is.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It applies the same rule with regard to the committee of the parish meeting as has been applied this evening with respect to the Parish Council. I object to both of them, but I do not think there is any clear distinction between the two, so I cannot trouble the House to divide against this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, his next Amendment seemed to him reasonable, and he should be surprised if the Government did not accept it.
  Amendment moved,
  In line 41, after the word ("Act") to add the words ("and may, if they think fit, make it a condition, as to any such powers, that the same shall be exercised through a committee to be appointed by the parish meeting as hereinbefore provided").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYcould not accept the Amendment, because it seemed to be an interference of a rather extraordinary nature with the liberty of action of these bodies. He could not see why there should be this minute interference.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause 21.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he was only carrying out a promise he had given when he moved to disqualify County Councillors within the Administrative County of London who were elected for any electoral division wholly or partly included in any Union under the jurisdiction of a Board of Guardians in such Administrative County from being by virtue of their office additional members of such Board.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 21, line 17, after the word ("Guardians") to insert the words ("not being within the Administrative County of London.").—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYremarked that this would produce the most anomalous state of things that could be conceived. The County Councillors were to serve upon these bodies, but now it appeared that in the County of London there was such an extraordinary distrust of the County Councillors that they were to be excluded. The Loudon County Council was not created by the present Government, but by the late Government, and it surprised him that the London County Council should bo singled out for this treatment. If their Lordships would insert this in the Bill he wished them joy of it.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYmoved to insert, in line 18, the words "provided they consent to servo." The words had been accidentally omitted.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEmoved to amend the clause so as to provide that a person should not be qualified to be elected or to be a Guardian for a Poor Law Union unless he was "personally rated to the poor rate."
  Amendment moved,
  In page 21, line 24, after the word ("is") to insert the words ("personally rated to the poor rate, and is").—(The Earl of Selborne.')
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, this was an Amendment quite contrary to the arrangements made for the whole Bill, which do not impose qualifications upon District Councillors and members of Boards of Guardians. Was it to be said that members elected to Boards of Guardians were not to be trusted unless they paid their own rates? It was most likely these men would pay their own rates; but even if a few persons got on who did not pay their own rates, he thought the alarm which had been exhibited was exaggerated. He opposed this Amendment strongly.
  On question? their Lordships divided:— Contents 42; Not-Contents 16.
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following verbal alterations were made:—
  Clause 20, page 20, line 9, after ("Overseer") insert ("shall be transferred to and vest in the parish meeting").
  Line 27, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").

  263
  Page 22, line 12, leave out ("consider as respects") and insert ("on the application of the Board of Guardians of").
  Page 22, line 13, after ("county") insert (consider").
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I have an Amendment to Clause 21. My object is to raise a discussion upon that vital question of the Poor Laws as suggested by this Bill. But it has been put to me that it would be more convenient if some Motion were made on the Third Reading instead of to-night. I therefore propose on the Third Reading to move the recommittal of the Bill for the purpose of reconsidering the Poor Law Clauses.
  Clause 24.
  THE EARL OF HAEBOWBYmoved—
  In page 24, line 16, after the word ("Councillors") to insert the words ("subject as hereinafter mentioned").
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It is consequential. I have no objection to it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUsaid, he had a small Amendment of some importance. There should be some definition of highways brought into repair.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 26, line 8, to leave out the words ("is not") and insert the words ("appears on the Report of a competent surveyor not to be"). —(The Lord Montagu of Beaulien.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBEELEYsaw no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of Lord BELPER, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  In page 26, line 15, after the word ("contribution") to insert the words ("from the County Council").
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the next Amendment was not an important matter, but it was exceedingly difficult to explain. The reason for the alteration was this: It was provided by Section 216 of the Public Health Act, 1875, that where part of a parish was included within an urban district and the excluded part was before the constitution of that parish liable to contribute to the highways for all the parish, the excluded part should, subject to certain exceptions, to be considered to continue as forming part
  264
  of the urban district. Sub-section 4 of Clause 25 of this Bill, which was inserted by an hon. Member of the other House with special reference to Cheltenham, provided that the excluded part should go out of the highway district and revert to the rural district. But the clause would not provide for the interval between these two things. His Amendment was to make proper arrangements for the interval.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 25, page 26, line 21, after the word ("highways") to insert the words ("but until the Council become the Highway Authority such excluded part of a parish shall continue subject to the said section").—(The Earl of Kimberley)
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsuggested it would be more convenient to divide this clause. The first part related solely to highway powers and the latter to sanitary powers.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  In Clause 26, page 28, at the end of the clause insert as a new sub-section:—"(7.) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any powers exer-ciseable by an Urban Sanitary Authority at the passing of this Act, and the Council of every county borough shall have the additional powers conferred on a District Council by this section."
  Clause 30, page 29, line 7, leave out ("in like manner as to an urban district").
  Clause 32, page 29, line 17, leave out ("the") and insert ("any").
  Page 29, same line, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
  Page 29, line 18, leave out ("the") and insert ("any").
  Page 29, same line, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
  Page 29, line 23, after ("borough") insert ("including a county borough").
  Page 29, at the end of the clause insert as a new sub-section—"(6.) An Order under this section, so far as it regards any charity, shall not have any effect until it has received the approval of the Charity Commissioners."
  LORD BELPERsaid, this clause was inserted on the Motion of Lord Norton, and proposed where there were separate areas, and the Rural Sanitary Authority district overlapped the county boundary, a certain portion of it should be made a separate area. The probability was that this piece cut off would not be made a separate area, but would be verged in

  265
  some county; therefore, he thought the words "separated from the rest of the district" would be better. It was for the purpose of making the clause more operative.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 31, line 2, to leave out the words ("made a separate area") and insert the words ("separated from the rest of the district").—(The Lord Belper.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The object will be met if the word "district" in the second line is substituted for "area."
  LORD BELPERobjected and said, many of these places if they were left would not be made separate districts; they would be joined on to a portion of another county. The intention was that the sanitary area should not be divided if good reasons were shown against the division.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was unable to follow the objection of the noble Lord.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Clause 35, page 31, lines7–9, leave out ("and where parishes are grouped for the purposes of this Act, the whole area under the jurisdiction of each Parish Council").
  Page 31, line 33, 'after ("districts") insert ("and unless the County Council otherwise direct").
  Page 33, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("appointed under Sub-section 10") and insert ("County Councils").
  Clause 35.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYmoved to insert as a new sub-section—
  "Where an ecclesiastical parish, being a new ecclesiastical parish formed under the Church Building Acts, is situated wholly or partly within the boundary of a rural parish, it shall be lawful for any five parochial electors registered in such part of the Register hereinbefore mentioned as relates to such ecclesiastical parish to convene a meeting of such parochial electors in the manner prescribed by this Act for convening parish meetings, for the special purpose of ascertaining the opinion of such electors upon the question whether it is de-desirable that such ecclesiastical parish shall he created a separate rural parish under this Act, and if a resolution be passed at such meeting by a majority of two-thirds of the parochial electors present at such meeting in favour of such ecclesiastical parish being created a
  266
  separate rural parish under this Act, the person presiding at such meeting shall forthwith transmit a copy of such resolution to the County Council, and the County Council shall take such resolution into consideration, and shall cause inquiries to be made and notices given in accordance with the provisions of Section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and if satisfied that the proposal contained in such resolution is desirable, shall make such Orders as they deem most suitable for carrying such resolution into effect in accordance with the provisions of this section."
  He explained that his object was to remove anomalies in the old civil parishes by enabling the parochial electors to meet together and represent their case to the County Council. If the County Council was satisfied with the proposal, it might then constitute a separate parish. Many of these old civil parishes had been very much altered by the growth of population. At one end of a parish they might have a great railway town, a watering place, or a mining town grown up. According to the present arrangements these were all in the civil parish, but the populations were quite different in their habits. The associations of the rural parish were with the old rural parish, while the associations of the new railway town were with the railway interests. There were many counties in which great anomalies were created by this state of things under the old civil parish. He proposed by this Amendment that the parochial electors of any of these parishes should be able to meet together and represent their case to the County Council.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 32, line 16, after Sub-section (7) insert new section—"Where an ecclesiastical parish, being a new ecclesiastical parish formed under the Church Building Acts, is situated wholly or partly within the boundary of a rural parish, it shall be lawful for any five parochial electors registered in such part of the Register hereinbefore mentioned as relates to such ecclesiastical parish, to convene a meeting of such parochial electors in the manner prescribed by this Act for convening parish meetings, for the special purpose of ascertaining the opinion of such electors upon the question whether it is desirable that such ecclesiastical parish shall be created a separate rural parish under this Act, and if a resolution be passed at such meeting by a majority of two-thirds of the parochial electors present at such meeting in favour of such ecclesiastical parish being created a separate rural parish under this Act, the person. presiding at such meeting shall forthwith transmit a copy of such resolution to the County Council, and the County Council shall take such resolution into consideration, and shall

  267
  cause inquiries to be made and notices given in accordance with the provisions of Section 57 of the 'Local Government Act, 1888,' and if satisfied that the proposal contained in such resolution is desirable, shall make such Orders as they deem most suitable for carrying such resolution into effect in accordance with the provisions of this section."—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that he generally had the satisfaction of finding himself in agreement with the noble Earl, but he must differ from him on this occasion. As he understood it, the principle of the Bill went rather in the opposite direction—towards the grouping of parishes, not the setting up of separate parishes. The Amendment would bring a good many persons who were not now under disabilities under fresh disabilities. Churchwardens in ecclesiastical parishes were not touched under the Bill as it stood; but if this Amendment were carried, they would be brought under such disabilities as there were in the Bill. He therefore had serious doubts as to the advisability of pressing the Amendment. In his opinion, it was no great objection to anything to say it was an anomaly. It should be shown that it was an anomaly that worked badly before it were abolished. Many of the most valuable things in the Constitution were anomalies.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he should be sorry to see any special provision of this kind put into the Bill. As regarded the power of dividing parishes, that existed under the Act of 1888, and the County Councils had full power to do that. They had avoided in the Bill dealing with these ecclesiastical parishes. If the Amendment were adopted it would stir up strife.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD BELPERsaid, he wanted to amend some words which he got introduced in Committee. He understood that the clause as it stood would cause considerable difficulty and delay in regard to this question. His intention was certainly not to cause delay. He only wished that the Council should have their views properly considered, and not he overruled by any formal procedure of the Joint Committee. If the Government would have consented to have moved any words with regard to the
  268
  Joint Committee, he should have foregone his Amendment. He should propose that instead of the words previously used should be inserted—
  "Any question arising as to the constitution or procedure of any such Joint Committee shall, if the County Councils concerned fail to agree, be determined by the Local Government Board."
  Of course, the County Councils might try to agree as to their procedure; but in this case the Local Government Board would ensure fairness being done, and every case properly considered.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 33, line 5, to leave out from the word ("that") to end of Sub-section (11) and insert the words ("any question arising as to the constitution or procedure of any such Joint Committee shall, if the County Councils concerned fail to agree, be determined by the Local Government Board").—(The Lord Belper.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought the Amendment was an improvement.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of Lord BELPER, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Page 33, line 12, leave out ("ten") and insert ("eleven").
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following verbal Amendments were agreed to:—
  Clause 37, page 33, after line 37, insert as a fresh sub-section—"(2.) Where parishes are grouped the whole area under each Parish Council shall, unless the County Council for special reasons otherwise direct, be within the same Administrative County and County District."
  Clause 37, page 34, line 12, leave out ("the") before ("Parish Councils").
  Clause 38, page 34, line 15, after ("having a") insert ("separate").
  After Clause 40, insert as a new section—"When an Order under Section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888, has been confirmed by the Local Government Board, such Order shall at the expiration of six months from that confirmation be presumed to have been duly made, and to be within the powers of that section, and no objection to the legality thereof shall be entertained in any legal proceeding whatever."
  Clause 42, page 36, after line 29, insert as a fresh sub-section—"(7.) Where the name of a person is entered both in the ownership list and in the occupation list of voters in the same parish, and the Revising Barrister places against that name a mark or note signifying that the name should be printed in division three of the lists, an asterisk or other mark shall be there printed against the name, and such person shall not be entitled to vote as a parochial elector in respect of that entry."
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that Clause 44 dealt with some special disqualifications, and at the end of it provided that where a member of a Council or Board of Guardians was by virtue of this section disqualified then the Council or Board was to declare the place vacant. There were other qualifications required, not only introduced by their Lordships' Amendment but by the Bill as it stood, and it was quite clear that if there was a disqualification under or in respect of one of those necessary qualifications the same rule should be applied, and the more so because the Bill very properly provided that proceedings of the Board were not to be vitiated by the disqualification of one member. He proposed in Sub-section (7), line 33, to omit the words ("by virtue of this section"), and to introduce the words ("or a District Councillor or a person elected as such"). He put the words "person elected as such," because strictly a person was not a "member" if not qualified. A District Councillor might, of course, vacate his seat by subsequent disqualification. He apprehended that he might attend the meetings of the District Council and not vacate that seat by absence, while he might lose the Guardianship. He thought it was well to mention the District Councillor and to make a disqualification apply to both qualifications.
  Amendment moved,
  In line 33, Sub-section (7), omit ("by virtue of this section") and insert ("or a District Councillor or a person elected as such").— (The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: A member of a Board of Guardians under this Bill as such would not vacate his office by reason of absence. Every District Councillor is by virtue of that office a member of the Board of Guardians. Of course, if he vacates his membership of the Council by absence, he also vacates the Guardianship, because he could not be a member of the Board if he is not a member of the District Council. I do not think any Amendment is required; but if it is, the proposal of my noble and learned Friend can be put in on the Third Reading.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If the District Councillor ought not to be mentioned in my noble Friend's opinion, of course I withdraw it, but I should
  270
  have thought there could not be a difference of opinion that this sub-section, as well as the next, should extend to every disqualification.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The matter is so technical and there are so-many clauses, I would rather the words were put down on the Notice Paper so that we can understand clearly where we are.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  In Clause 44. page 37, line 28, after the word ("the") to insert the words ("Parish Council or district").
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the Amendment to Clause 46 was a very necessary one. Its object was that the scale of expenses should be framed in time for the next election, and it provided that if at the beginning of the month before the next election the Council had not framed a, scale the Local Government Board should see to it.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 46, page 41, to leave out all after the word ("Council") in line 24, to the end of the clause, and insert the words ("and if at the beginning of one month before the first election under this Act a County Council have not framed any such scale for their county, the Local Government Board may frame a scale for the county, and the scale so framed shall apply to the first election, and shall have effect as if it had been made by the County Council, but shall not be alterable until after the first election").—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he wished to move an Amendment after Clause 51. Under the present system of local government great abuses took place, and people were often assessed illegally. He had been informed that the President of the Local Government Board had admitted in another place that there were very great abuses, but Mr. Fowler did not say what remedies should be applied. Therefore, he offered their Lordships an Amendment framed by a friend and revised by a Queen's Counsel. As recently as the 8th instant there was reported in the newspapers a case where the Corporation of Canterbury had been guilty of illegal assessment, and a successful action

  271
  brought against them in the County Court. If the Lord President could not see his way to accept this Amendment he would ask him for a promise that some remedy should be found, such as supporting the auditors, because at present the Local Government Board was constantly remitting their surcharges.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 44, after Clause 51, to insert as new-clauses.—"51a. When any demand is made by a rate collector or other officer of a Local Authority for payment of any rate or contribution, or for reimbursement of expenses under any Act relating to public health, or to water supply, or to dwellings in an unsanitary condition, or to highways, or to public education, or under any other enactments relating to local government, and when any Order is made or notice is given by an Inspector of Nuisances or highway surveyor, or other officer of a Local Authority, requiring anything to be done or not to be done, under any such above-mentioned Acts or enactments, the demand note and Order, or notice of requirement, shall in every case specify on the face thereof the particular Council, Board, or other Local Authority from which such pecuniary demand or Order or requirement proceeds, and the Statute or Statutes, and section or sections of the same, and the local bye-law or bye-laws, if any, under which the pecuniary demand, or Order, or requirement is made.
  (1.) If any person shall object to comply with such pecuniary demand, Order, or requirement, and shall within a reasonable time make application to the County Court, stating the grounds of his objection, it shall be lawful for the Judge of the Court to inquire into the matter in a summary manner, and if he shall be of opinion that the pecuniary demand, or Order, or requirement objected to is illegal, or in excess of the statutory powers of the authority from which it proceeds, or an oppressive or excessive or frivolous and vexatious exercise of powers legally possessed, or materially erroneous in legal form, the said Judge shall issue an Order or Injunction directing the Local Authority or authorities and officer or officers concerned to desist from, or to postpone, or to vary such pecuniary demand, Order, or requirement as they may think just and proper. Such Order or Injunction of the County Court shall be subject to appeal, on a case to be stated by the Judge, to a Judge of the High Court, under Rules to be framed by the said last-mentioned Court, from time to time, and shall be in force and shall be obeyed by the Local Authorities and their officers until reversed or varied on such appeal.
  (2.) The Judge of the County Court, when he gives judgment on an application, shall award costs against the applicant if the decision is against him, and if the decision is in favour or partly in favour of the applicant, he shall award to him such sum, not exceeding £5, as he shall think just and proper, to be recovered from the Public Body or bodies or officer or officers responsible for costs and compensation for unwarranted interference with
  272
  the applicant. No costs shall be awarded against the applicant on appeal if the decision of the County Court has been in his favour or partly in his favour.
  (3.) The costs of a Local Authority or of its officers, other than such costs as are awarded against and recovered from the applicant, shall be defrayed out of the county rate, or partly out of the said rate and partly out of the district poor rate, to such extent as the joint committee of County Councillors and Justices appointed under the Local Government Act, 1888, shall certify such mode of defraying the costs to be reasonable and proper. So far as such mode of defraying the costs shall not be so certified, the individuals responsible shall be liable to be surcharged with the amount of the same in the manner provided for by the Public Health Act, 1875, Section 265.
  (4.) Whenever an increase is made in the rateable valuation of any property assessed to local rates, the owner and occupier shall receive from the Assessing Authority notice of such increase and of the grounds on which it is made not less than 30 clear days before any rate founded on the increased valuation is demanded. Whenever a demand is made for payment of any rate the property rated shall be specified on the face of the demand-note by reference to its number on the tithe map of the parish, or by reference to a valuation list or other official record readily accessible to the ratepayers, and the rateable value assigned to it by the Assessing Authority shall likewise be stated on the same note.
  51B. Nothing in the present Act shall affect the power vested in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction by other Acts to hear and determine informations and complaints in matters relating to local government; but such Courts shall, in doing so, take into consideration any past or pending proceeding in the County Court under the present Act, of which they may have notice, relating to the same matter as is then before them."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I can only give one answer to my noble Friend —namely, that his Amendment is entirely beyond the scope of the Bill, and, therefore, I should be quite wrong in occupying your Lordships' time in discussing it.
  Amendment negatived.
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBER-LEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  In Clause 56, page 47, after line 9, to insert as a new sub-section—"(3.) The Local Government Board may, with respect to any audit to which this section applies, make Rules modifying the enactments as to publication of notice of the audit and of the abstract of accounts and the report of the auditor."
  Page 47, line 10, after ("may") insert ("at all reasonable times").
  Page 47, line 14, after ("may") insert ("at all reasonable times").
  On the Motion of Lord KNUTSFORD, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Page 49, line 12, after ("No") insert ("parish meeting or").
  LORD BELPERmoved—
  In page 50, line 41, after the word ("elementary") to insert the words ("or other ").
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, this Amendment was a very extensive one indeed. They had put in words which met the case of the British and foreign schools. To put in those words he did not know what the result would be.
  LORD BELPERsaid, he understood the Amendment to mean that no endowed school should come under the scope of the Bill as a parochial charity. He would move to put in the Definition Clause that parochial charities shall not apply to endowed schools. He understood there was no objection to the Amendment. If it was intended that other schools besides elementary schools were to come in as parochial charities that was certainly not what was understood in Committee. The reason he wanted to put in ("or other") was to cover a school which might be an endowed school and not an elementary school.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have never understood that endowed schools came under the scope of the Bill. There has never been any suggestion whatever for "other schools," and I do not think it is necessary.
  LORD BELPER: I moved in Committee to insert in the Definition Clause that parochial charity shall not mean an endowed school. I understood the Lord President did not object to it, but that that clause was not the proper place to insert it. He said this was the proper place.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I think the noble Lord is quite safe. There are no endowed schools vested in the parish. They would not come under the definition "endowed charity."
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: There seems to be no provision for preserving the rights of the clerks of Highway Boards, and my object is to provide for them.
  Amendment moved,
  In line 24, after Sub-section (7), to insert— ("(8.) Where the powers and duties of Justices of the Peace are transferred by this Act to any Parish or District Council the clerk to the Justices holding office at the passing of this Act shall not suffer any pecuniary loss by diminution of fees or salary on account of such transfer").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was advised that under the law as it stood all officers whatsoever affected in this way were included, and if they had a claim they could prefer it. There was no necessity for any additional provisions on the subject.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Does that apply also to Clerks to Justices?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Yes; certainly.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  First Schedule.
  LORD BELPERsaid, he did not think that one elector at a parish meeting should be able to demand a poll in a great number of cases. These cases were enumerated, and covered the whole ground of the matters which the Parish Council could deal with. Then it was prescribed that in other cases it would be necessary for five electors to demand a poll; but as the list for one elector exhausted all the matters the meeting could deal with, he could not see when five electors would be required. He wanted to make it clear that in all cases it would be necessary to have five electors to demand a poll. When a parish meeting-was held, and after a matter had been fully discussed and a vote taken on it, it was extraordinary that one cantankerous man should be able to get up and say—"I demand a poll." Then, on the demand of one man, the parish would be put to the trouble and expense of a poll. The only effect of his Amendment would be that in these particular cases, which were specified, the poll should be held only on the demand of five electors. He thought the Amendment, at all events, was a reasonable one, and he understood that the Government would not oppose it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid,. by the present law any one ratepayer might demand a poll. This was a great protection to the ratepayers. Something

  275
  might be done at the meeting which was extremely disagreeable to persons interested, but there might not be five persons ready to demand a poll at the meetings, which might be small; and the matter, if determined offhand, might eventually cause great inconvenience in the parish. If this power of demanding a poll were taken away, the result might be just what was not desired, and a decision might be come to, a sufficient number of persons having expressed an opinion upon it. It might be a question of expenditure which it might be desirable to avoid; and if the noble Lord would look into the matter he would, no doubt, come to the conclusion that it was safer to leave the words as they stood.
  VISCOUNT CROSSsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Earl, speaking from his own personal experience. He thought this was certainly a safeguard.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDhoped the noble Lord would not divide the House upon this subject, because the Bill made quite sufficient alterations as it stood in the law of the land, and he should object to making another.
  LORD BELPERdid not wish to make more alterations than might be considered desirable by the House generally, and, under the circumstances, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid, the school question had been very much left out of consideration. He had not the least wish to promote a general discussion upon it, but was glad to hear the Lord President say he wished to remove any cause of contention in parishes. There was no doubt that the school question was a popular one, and one upon which even the atmosphere of their Lordships' House was liable to get warm, as it was apt to cause a great deal of can tankerism on the part of single individuals. He thought it would be better to leave the matter under the ordinary law, five parsons being required to demand a poll.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the provision had at its back an authority which he was sure noble Lords opposite would treat with the respect with which it was regarded by himself. The provision was introduced at the instance of Mr. Balfour, who led the Opposition in the other House, his reason being that it was a very sound one, and exceedingly necessary in so important a matter as
  276
  this. On a question of this kind, which really interested the whole parish, it should not be possible for the matter to be passed without a poll, if even one elector demanded it. It was a safeguard, and a wise one.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 297.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.