asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is true that Mr. G. H. Clarke, of Ironville, Derbyshire, who was sent to prison on May 20th for refusing to vaccinate his child, has not been allowed to receive a letter from his family; and, if so, whether all prisoners are treated with equal rigour?

in reply, said, that debtors were allowed considerable privileges in regard to the receiving of letters; but that, as far as ordinary prisoners were concerned, no distinction was made between one class and another in their treatment whilst in prison. Of the particular case referred to he knew nothing; but he might say that prisoners were warned before trial that visits and letters would be limited, so that they might arrange their affairs if convicted; and, after their conviction, they had always an opportunity of sending to their friends to complete those arrangements. If the fact in this particular case was as stated in the Question, there must have been some mistake.

asked, Whether prisoners confined for breaches of the Vaccination Laws were compelled to sleep on a plank bedstead like other prisoners?

in reply, said, that no distinction was made between any prisoners confined for nonpayment of fines.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, Whether, if the accommodation at Longford Barracks is found to be insufficient for the head-quarters of a regiment, he will, out of consideration to a town so long an important military station, quarter there at all events more than one troop, or consider the expediency of sending there in addition an infantry detachment?

in reply, said, that it was not proposed at present to increase the Cavalry Force at Longford; but, that in course of time, an addition might possibly be made to it.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to the great inconvenience now arising from the scarcity of small silver coin, especially of shillings and sixpences, and to the undue proportion of two shilling pieces now in circulation; and, whether he will direct inquiry into the subject with a view to a remedy?

in reply, said, he had heard complaints, and he believed they were not infrequent, as to the supposed dearth of small silver coins, especially sixpences. From inquiries he had made, however, he had ascertained that the dearth, if such there were, did not arise from any failure on the part of the Mint to provide a proper stock of coin. He was informed that at the present moment the stock in the Mint ready for issue was as follows:—Shillings, to the amount of £13,000; sixpences, £19,000; and threepences, £3,000. A much larger amount of shillings and sixpences, he believed, was in stock at the Bank of England, through which all silver coins except three pences were issued to the public, the latter coins being issued by the Mint. The demand for silver coin at the Bank was very small at present owing to the depression of trade, and no difficulty was experienced by the authorities in meeting it. The explanation of the scarcity referred to no doubt was that small coins gave considerable trouble to bankers, and that bankers consequently were apt to give their customers an undue proportion of heavy coins, though they could always obtain any quantities of silver coin they required at the Bank. Perhaps if the hon. and learned Member put a little pressure on his bankers, the inconvenience he complained of would disappear.

thought it well to take that opportunity of explaining the intentions of the Government in reference to Morning Sittings. He had referred to the time at which Morning Sittings had begun of late years, and found that last year Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays occurred pretty regularly from the 12th June, and in the year before from the 13th and 23rd June, whilst in the year before that they also began about the same time. Under these circumstances, he thought it not unreasonable that the Government should take Morning Sittings, as a general rule, on Tuesdays and Fridays till the end of the Session. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) had an important Motion down for Friday evening next; but he could promise him a good probability of an Evening Sitting.

said, he was quite ready to agree to the arrangement, and, under the circumstances, would not object to the Morning Sitting.

proposed to omit the following words, after the word "meeting," in the 7th sub-section:—

"But this provision shall not prevent a person whose name is entered on the list of commissioners of supply as factor for more than one proprietor from voting on behalf of each such proprietor, in his absence, at a meeting of the trustees."

said, that at a recent meeting of the Commissioners of Supply in Kincardine, it had been stated by one of the ablest advocates of Edinburgh—the Sheriff of the counties of Kincardine, Aberdeen, and Banff—that it was not within the competence of a factor, however many proprietors he might represent, to give more than one vote, and he wished to ask the Lord Advocate if this were not the law on the subject? He could not see any reason why there should be a different law under this Bill from what was the case in regard to other county assemblies. If the Lord Advocate would tell them what was the law, they would be able to understand why this new requirement was proposed for Scotland.

said, he could not say what the law might be; but he could assure the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken (Sir George Balfour), that the practice was quite the contrary of what he had stated to be the law. It was the common practice for a factor to give two or three votes, according to the number of proprietors whom he represented. There was often a difficulty of getting a quorum at meetings of commissioners of supply; and therefore he thought it was very desirable to keep up voting by commission.

said, he was perfectly aware that bad habits were practised at certain meetings in Scotland; but he would appeal to the Lord Advocate to state what the law of Scotland really was on this subject. He felt perfectly sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not agree with the hon. Baronet in his interpretation of the law.

said, he was not competent to tell the hon. and gallant Member what the general practice was in county meetings in Scotland, as such practice had not come under his personal observation, and he had not sought for information on the subject. But he could unhesitatingly say, with respect to the Act which established the qualification of commissioners, that it was his opinion and belief that, according to law, a factor, although representing several proprietors whose rental was above the value of £800 a-year, was entitled to only one vote. The Statute simply declared that such factor should have the qualification of a commissioner; and a commissioner who might have half-a-dozen qualifications in the same county was only entitled to act as one commissioner.

supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). It was well known that the multiplication of votes in Scotland, by placing several mandates in the hands of one person, was an undoubted grievance. It was especially so in the case of parochial boards. With regard to what the Lord Advocate had just said, he could confirm the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman from the experience of his own county, where one person, if he was a commissioner in his own right, or as representing others, was entitled to only one vote. If cumulative voting were permitted, one man might control the whole of a meeting. Six individuals at a meeting really represented a diversified opinion; whereas one person holding six mandates could only represent one opinion.

said, he had never heard of anything unfair being done under the system of plural voting. It frequently happened that a proprietor had property in more than two parishes, and it was a great consideration to proprietors to be able to delegate their powers to factors who were well acquainted with the land, and were experienced in the details of county management. Again, factors very often represented proprietors at important meetings, when those proprietors were not able to be present themselves. This would be the case with Scottish Members of Parliament, who could not always attend the meetings of the commissioners of supply, but who took a deep interest in the questions which were brought before the meetings. He thought it would be extremely hard on proprietors that they should be left out altogether because they could not attend the meetings; but they would be shut out if what was taken to be law by the hon. and gallant Member (Sir George Balfour) were to be acted on. It would, in his opinion, be unfair to many proprietors to adopt the Amendment, as they placed their power of voting in the hands of the best persons they could find to represent them; and no reason had been given by the Government for departing from the present practice. He therefore hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

said, the point was, whether there was any reason for departing from the present law as to voting? Whatever the practice in Scotland was, they had been told by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that the law was opposed to that which the Bill itself now suggested. If there was any special reason for the alteration proposed in the Bill he should be perfectly ready to listen to it; but he had not at present heard from the Lord Advocate why the alteration was made, and they were therefore discussing the question in the absence of that information. He thought the Government would do well not to insist on the acceptance of the clause as it stood. The hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Mark Stewart) had said that the Amendment would be very hard on absentee proprietors, who could not, if it were agreed to, be represented. But he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) supposed that factors who represented proprietors could express the opinions of those proprietors, and could defend their interests by words as much as they liked, although they might not be allowed to vote for as many masters as they served.

said, he hoped that the Lord Advocate would agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow. If a proprietor were present at a meeting, it was very possible that he might change his opinion in the course of discussion, and give a different vote from that which his factor would have given for him. It was very annoying to proprietors who were present to find themselves outvoted by one man having several votes.

said, he supported the Amendment, both in the interest of the public and in the interest of proprietors themselves. He thought that the more proprietors were called upon to look after their different districts, and the more they took an interest in their respective estates, the better it would be both for themselves and for others; but if they committed their affairs to the keeping of other men, and were never to be consulted as to the business to be brought forward at the county meetings, they would become mere cyphers in the hands of factors and agents. He also, as he had indicated, supported the Amendment very much in the interests of proprietors themselves. A factor might represent not one proprietor, but several proprietors; and if a discussion took place at a meeting with regard to a particular road, an agent might vote in favour of the road being made or repaired, when this might be contrary to the interests of all but one of the proprietors whom he represented. An agent would thus be called upon to use the votes of absent proprietors in favour of a scheme which was prejudicial to their own interests.

said, he could see the difficulty which had been pointed out, and he had no objection, so far as he and the Government were concerned, to effect being given to the Amendment, on the understanding that this part of the Bill should be brought into harmony with what was the existing law.

said, he believed the committees would have under the Bill the powers which the proposed sub-section would give them; but he had no objection to those powers being expressed.

proposed, as an Amendment, in page 16, line 19, to leave out the word "may," and to insert the word "shall." He said that it often happened that when things were going smoothly the committees actually forgot to call meetings, and did not make these appointments. It would be more convenient for the district committees to make all the appointments, subject, no doubt, to the consent of the board, instead of only some of them.

said, he must oppose the Amendment. The district committees must necessarily have a clerk and a treasurer, because they held meetings, and conducted their own administration; but, on the other hand, he thought it was a proper question for the general body of trustees to determine whether each district should be burdened with the expense of a separate surveyor and a separate collector. It might, in some cases, be convenient, and a great saving, to have one general collector for the various districts of a county; and there should, therefore, only be power to nominate the officers in each district when it was judged right by the general body of trustees. For that reason he thought the word "may" must stand.

said, he proposed afterwards to insert the words "with the consent of the board," to meet the point.

said, he hoped the Lord Advocate did not infer that the word "may" in the clause meant "shall."

said, he did not infer that. If the word "shall" were used, it would make it the duty of the board to give their consent to the appointment of fit persons, and would make imperative the appointment of all the officers in each district.

said, he hoped the principle laid down by the Lord Advocate, of diminishing the number of officers employed in con- nection with the roads would be fully carried out. The greatest precaution should be taken to prevent the multiplication of offices. The direction in which economy was practicable under the abolished trusts was in placing large areas of roads under one officer, with subordinates for the executive duties.

said, that while agreeing with everything which the Lord Advocate had said as to the powers to be possessed by the district committees of appointing officers, he thought such appointments should be made with the consent of the general body of trustees. These were very important questions, and he considered that the general body of trustees should decide them. He would, therefore, move that before the word "board," in page 16, line 21, the words "trustees or" be inserted.

said, he thought it was settled that the business to be transacted in a district, and requiring a clerk for its performance, was to be performed wholly by the district committee, and if they would turn to Section 26 they would see that this was so. He thought that any body of gentlemen selected as the committee of the district, and intrusted with the management of the district under this measure, would surely be fit to be intrusted with the selection of their clerk and treasurer, to write the minutes and keep their money. He should be happy to leave the other appointments to the district committees, if it were not for the consideration that it might be against the pecuniary interest of the county that they should make such appointments.

said, he thought the Lord Advocate had misapprehended the effect of what he proposed. The question was not whether the board should have the power to appoint its own officers, but whether the district committees should have the power of not only appointing clerks but surveyors. The Bill, as it stood, gave the board power to say whether the district committees should have a clerk and a surveyor; but he proposed that that power should be in the hands of the trustees, and not in the hands of the board. He also thought it would be more courteous to the district committees themselves, if the general body of the trustees settled this matter instead of the board.

said, it seemed to him that the clause was of more importance than the Lord Advocate considered it to be. He remembered—and he had refreshed his memory by looking up their proceedings—that the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the state of the roads in Scotland found that there was a disposition to appoint a great number of clerks of separate trusts, and of separate divisions of trusts; and he thought he could point out where there were 81 offices in one county of clerks and surveyors. It was stated by one of the witnesses respecting Lanarkshire, for example, that those parties got £2,000 a-year among them. Independently altogether of the expense of maintaining the roads, the number of tolls and also of sub-tolls came to such a large proportion, that the different witnesses—among the rest Lord Belhaven, convener of the county of Lanark—gave it as their deliberate opinion, that under the system advocated by the promoters of this Bill, a saving of 25 or 30 per cent, as compared with the other system, would be effected. For these reasons, it was obvious that the Government could have no possible interest in the matter except to promote economy; and he thought that they should do all they could to place an embargo on the multiplication of little offices. In his opinion, the Government ought to accept the Amendment, as being calculated to effect that object.

said, the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. M'Laren) had anticipated him in the remarks which he had made. An examination of the printed statements of outlay on the roads of Scotland would show a very large portion of the charges caused by salaries to officers of various descriptions. Assuming the roads of all kinds in Scotland to be between 22,000 and 24,000 miles in length, and the expenditure at £250,000, then the saving in salaries alone ought to be nearly £50,000. Consolidation would not only allow of saving in salaries, but in the details of work.

said, he considered the Amendment was a ridiculous one. It would take away the responsibility from the board; and the fears of the hon. Member for Edinburgh. (Mr. M'Laren) were much more likely to be realized with a large body of trustees than with a small body; for he (Mr. Orr-Ewing) had always found that a large body was more inclined to appoint a great number of officers than a small one.

said, he was disposed, not to follow his hon. Friend (Mr. Orr-Ewing), but to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay); and the more so, as he found that under Section 28 the trustees were intrusted with the appointment of the general surveyor of the county, and therefore the matter in question would rightly fall under Clause 29.

proposed, as an Amendment, the insertion, after the word "officer," in page 16, line 28, the words "with the consent of the board." He objected to the exclusive power being in the hands of the district committee in the appointment of officers. It was well known that there was considerable jealousy evinced in the exercise of such power, and that not unfrequently party spirit ran high, much feeling was shown, both political and religious; therefore, in his opinion, no appointments should be made without the consent of the board.

feared he could not accept the Amendment proposed, for the reason stated. The appointment of some of the officers lay with the district committee; and, as regarded the others, it was for the trustees to determine whether such appointments should be made. He thought, under the circumstances, it would be a very unfortunate thing to take away from them a power of that kind. They were the proper persons to judge of the requirements of the case.

thought the hon. Gentleman who had proposed the Amendment (Mr. Mark Stewart) had not rightly considered the position in which he would be placed if he were a member of a district committee, or had to act for that committee in the capacity of their chairman. He thought the Amendment should not be adopted.

proposed a consequential Amendment in page 16, line 31, to leave out the word "board," and insert "trustees." As the clause stood, with reference to the appointment of officers, the boards were to give leave, subject to certain conditions. The trustees were also to give that leave, and therefore the clause, as it stood, was ambiguous.

wanted to know if the trustees would have the power to appoint the officers for life? That would be a dangerous power to give them, inasmuch as influences might be brought to bear upon any one case. They might have district clerks, or officers of that kind, appointed for life, or for so long a term of years that, practically, they could not dismiss them, although they might not act in accord with the wishes of the Board.

said, that the best answer he could give was to refer the hon. Gentleman to the words of the clause—"and every such officer shall be subject to removal at any time."

Yes, if the right of removal were not modified by special written agreement. Was it competent for the trustees to make an agreement for an appointment for life?

thought not. The clause referred to the condition of the appointment, and set forth all that was necessary.

asked, if it would not be better to leave out the words—"Unless the power of removal be modified?" It was possible for the power to be abused, and he would suggest the omission of those words.

proposed an Amendment, giving the trustees the power of fixing salaries in accordance with the words adopted in the last clause. He proposed to leave out in page 16, line 37, the words "subject to the approval of."

said, he could not consent to the Amendment proposed. The board was a body that was constantly available, and the salary might require adjustment, from time to time, whenever a new officer was appointed.

suggested that such a revision should take place year by year as would bring the whole of the officers' salaries and duties under the control, and, if necessary, the revision, of the Board.

asked, if the trustees had power over the board in fixing the salaries of the officers?

replied, that it was subject to their approval.

asked the hon. Gentleman to delay his Amendment until he had time to look into it.

said, that he had to move an Amendment which was rendered necessary by the alteration of the date in Section 6. In page 18, line 14, he proposed, after "Scotland," to insert—

"Where such commencement shall happen before the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, and otherwise from and after the first day of June one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three."

said, that as the Amendment he had on the Paper depended upon the clause as it would be amended, he ought not perhaps to move it.

proposed, as an Amendment, in line 26, to leave out the words "not less than five years." It was only imposing causeway toll in another form; and he was at a loss to see why, if causeway or other tolls were abolished in the rural districts, they should be kept up in the boroughs.

could not support the Amendment.

thought the words proposed to be left out had been inserted in consequence of the proposals made by a deputation who had waited upon the Government. An arrangement was made with certain boroughs that the dues should continue for five years.

said, that the terms of the clause were arranged with reference to the date when the Bill was to come into operation. He would explain that the dues in question were levied in respect of passage through the boroughs, and that not merely for the passage, but for the general purposes of the community. And the reason for continuing them a certain time was this—that whilst the boroughs consented to their general abolition they were exceedingly desirous to continue these exactions for a few years, to enable them to accumulate a fund with the view of providing for their general purposes. It would be only reasonable to allow the burghs a period of years for that purpose.

said, that the matter had been the subject of a great deal of consideration and arrangement. In the case of one of the burghs which he represented, he might point out that the total income from this source was £1,450—a very considerable sum—and it had nothing to do with the maintenance of roads. Out of that sum the burgh had to pay ministers' stipends and other matters of that kind; and no part of it was specially connected with the repair of the roads. At the same time, his constituents fully acknowledged that when the system of tolls was abolished, all other similar forms of exaction must go as well; but, as the Lord Advocate had said, it was only fair that a certain time should be allowed for the burghs to prepare for the additional expenditure that would be involved in consequence of the loss of revenue that would have to be sustained; and, therefore, he hoped that the proposition of the hon. Baronet (Sir Windham Anstruther) would not be accepted.

felt inclined to support the Amendment. A great deal might be said against causeway-mail. It was a kind of ancient transit duty levied on the community, similar to that levied by the robber chief in olden times. It seemed to him that the general public ought not to be called upon to pay such exactions for a long term of years to come. Even when the proceeds were applied to payment of ministers' stipends, they ought to be put an end to as soon as possible.

objected to the omission of the words from the clause. He understood that the words had been inserted in the clause by arrangement, after the deputation from the burghs of Scotland had seen the Lord Advocate on the subject. Many of those burghs depended upon revenue of that class of mail, and to cut off those exactions without previous notice would be unjust, and might be the means of causing great dissatisfaction in many of the burghs of Scotland.

proposed, as an Amendment, in page 18, line 26, to leave out the word "five," and insert "four."

said, that the word mail in Scotland was equivalent in its meaning to rent. Causeway-mail was "rent" in other words. He objected to the Amendment proposed.

said, there was no definite arrangement made as to the time. The arrangement come to had reference to the length of time that should elapse before the Act came into operation. He had already intimated that this mail—he would not call it black-mail—must come to an early termination. In the first Amendment he had placed on the Paper on this subject, he had substituted "three" in the place of "five," in deference to the opinion of one or two of the burgh Members.

said, that the deputation from the burghs left under the impression that "five" would be the minimum number of years during which the causeway-mail was to be continued.

would like the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to explain why the tolls should be continued in this way, more than five years from this time.

wished to know the precise meaning of the clause. As he understood it, whether the other tolls were abolished or not, the causeway-mail must come to an end in 1884.

explained, that in the case of certain burghs four years were given from the adoption of the Act, when causeway-mail would cease in all of them; and that it was proposed to extend the same rule to burghs within counties remaining under their Local Acts.

did not in that case quite see the occasion for the Amendment.

said, the hon. Member would understand that the first part of Clause 33 dealt with counties and burghs in counties where the provisions of this Act had either been adopted or might become compulsory in 1883; but there were other counties where the provisions of this Act might never come to apply—counties having Acts in which tolls were not abolished—and the object of the proviso was to abolish tolls in those counties four years after the date at which, in other counties, this measure became compulsory.

said, that the clause gave power to trustees to settle what compensation should be paid to a person or corporation in respect of his or their patrimonial interest in pontages. He had to move that the word "patrimonial," in page 19, line 6, should be struck out, and "pecuniary" inserted. His reason for asking that this change should be made was that in reading the clause over, he did not well understand how the word "patrimonial" could apply to the case of a corporation.

said, he really could not assent to the Amendment. The word "patrimonial" had the same meaning in the case of a corporation as in the case of an individual, and it had a very distinct and well-known meaning. The word "pecuniary" would include everything. It would include the very causeway-mail abolished under the previous section. The distinction was quite an appreciable one. It was the difference between, for instance, a grant to levy a toll upon a public road or bridge, the property of the public originally, and erected with public funds, and the case of a private bridge. The right of levying tolls for the use of a private ferry given to corporations was a patrimonial interest, and the other was not.

apprehended that, under the clause as it stood, the owner or owners of the bridge would be entitled to compensation in respect of the pontages without the cost of maintenance of the bridge being taken into consideration. He begged, therefore, to move, as an Amendment, at page 19, in line 12, after "debts," to insert "but in valuing such pontages the cost of maintaining the bridge must be deducted there from."

said, that there could not be much doubt upon that point. Their patrimonial interest was the net sum which they derived from the bridge year by year. He should have no objection whatever to insert words to carry out the object of the hon. Member; but he did not think the words at present proposed were very happy in expression.

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper, in page 20, line 9, to leave out from and including sub-section (d) to end of clause, the following words of sub-section 1:—

"Where this Act shall have been adopted, or shall be in force in one or more of the counties or burghs in which such road is situated …. (e), the portion of such road within such county or any burgh there in shall be vested in, and managed and maintained by, the trustees, board, and district committees of the county, or the local authority of the burgh, as the case may be, in which such portion is situated."

said, he did not propose to postpone the clause; but he had no objection to postpone the consideration of the Amendments and have them fairly considered, if that would meet the view of the hon. Member.

remarked that if they were to understand that the clause was to pass now, he should like to indicate one or two points in which the clause was objectionable.

pointed out, that if the hon. Member did not propose to move the Amendment which stood in his name, he would not be in Order in discussing the clause generally until the other Amendments standing on the Paper had been disposed of.

said, he did not desire to move his Amendment if he were to understand that the clause was to be postponed; but if they were to be asked to pass it as a whole, he should like to do so.

said, it was very unusual to postpone a clause until a new clause was arrived at; and, therefore, he hoped the discussion might take place, either at a future stage, or on some clause to be brought up afterwards, and then, if necessary, this clause might be altered.

wished to point out that if the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) insisted upon the postponement of the clause, it would prevent other points which hon. Members had to raise in connection with it from being now disposed of. Moreover, he (Dr. Cameron) had no doubt that by deferring to the wish of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, an agreement might be arrived at which would obviate the necessity for any further discussion. If, however, any points remained upon which an agreement could not be arrived at, they might be settled upon the Report.

hoped the hon. Member would adopt that course.

said, he should defer to the opinion of the Committee, and not move his Amendment.

said, he had to move an Amendment in sub-section (d) of the clause of very considerable practical importance. It was proposed, under that sub-section, to deal with bridges which happened to be partly in one burgh or county and partly in another, in precisely the same manner as if they were roads—that was to say, that, failing agreement as to cost of maintenance, the Debt Commissioners

"Shall proceed forth with to ascertain and determine the proportions in which, according to equity, and taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, the expense of maintaining the same ought to be, and shall be, allocated, and be a charge against such trustees and such local authority or authorities respectively, and the decision of such Debt Commissioners shall be final."

said, it seemed to him that it would be only fair that, in any allocation of the charge between two districts, the circumstances of which differed, some difference ought to be maintained. He thought the arrangement in the sub-section, to leave it in the hands of the Commissioners finally to decide what was the proper course to be pursued between the districts, was a perfectly fair one.

would suggest to the Committee that they should allow the whole question to be settled on the Report. There was one bridge connecting the county he represented with Aberdeen shire and another with Forfar; and he should like to have an opportunity of conferring with his constituents, in order to ascertain the bearings of the change which the hon. Member for Glasgow proposed.

said, he did not believe that the proposed Amendment was at all directed against the interest of any particular locality in Scotland, and it humbly appeared to him to be a very reasonable one. It was quite true that they might have a small area abutting upon a larger one, and a bridge partly in each; but, on the other hand, they must recollect that where they had a large area, whether city or county, there would be a great number of those bridges thrown upon that larger area. They had bridges at various points, and it was quite fair to make each area bear half the expense of those bridges of which half was within its limits. He thought that was reasonable, and he was quite prepared to accede to the Amendment.

pointed out that there were cases in which the Amendment, if adopted, would inflict a considerable injustice. There was no doubt that the people in the immediate neighbourhood of the bridge connecting Glasgow with Hill head benefited thereby; but if benefit was desired by a much larger number of persons beyond than those living on the banks, and if those who passed over to Hill head were not connected with that burgh, but with the county of Dumbarton, it would be hard on the people of the former place to be called upon to pay the full half of the expense. There were exceptional cases, and it would be better to leave it to the discretion of the Commissioners.

said, the matter could not be left in the position in which it stood in the clause. Let them take the case of a turnpike road extending one mile on one side of the bridge and 50 miles on the other. The debt upon that road must be allocated more or less in proportion to its length; and if the clause were to stand in its present shape, the expense of maintaining the bridge for all time coming would be apportioned in the same manner as the debt was allocated. Such an arrangement would be manifestly unfair. He therefore thought that, whatever arrangement might be adopted, the present provision made in the clause would not be satisfactory, and could not be allowed to stand. Upon the whole he was inclined to think that the burden of maintaining a bridge should be equally divided between the two parties.

entirely approved of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron); and, after the clear explanation of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate on the subject, he did not see how it could be resisted. Suppose a new bridge was to be built to-morrow, how would they propose that it should be undertaken? Would any reasonable party propose that Hill head should pay £100 towards building it, and Glasgow £3,000? Such a proposal, it seemed to him, would be altogether out of the question, because it was the people outside a great city who wanted to get into it, and it was not the people within it who wanted to get out in that particular direction. For the reasons that had been stated, he thought the Amendment ought to be adopted.

regretted very much the decision to which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had come, and thought that more time should be taken to consider the question, and hoped it would be further considered by the Government on the Report.

entertained pretty much the same opinion as the hon. Member who had last spoken (Mr. Mark Stewart). He had no doubt that, as an ordinary rule, the simple plan was the right one—namely, that the cost of the bridge should be equally divided between the two parties. But he also felt that there might be very exceptional cases. There might be a case in which a very large and expensive bridge had been built, connecting a great city with a burgh little more than a village, and it was hardly reasonable to expect that that small place should undertake half the great cost of the bridge. What he hoped was, that the Amendment would now be accepted; and that before the Report the matter would be considered, and a new clause brought up, which would provide for such exceptional cases as that he had referred to.

remarked, that he could not agree that the Amendment should be adopted, and that the cost of the maintenance of the bridges under two separate jurisdictions should for all time be equally divided, because the circumstances must vary very much. At the same time, he did not like the clause as it stood. He did not think the expense of maintaining a bridge should necessarily be apportioned in all time coming in the same way as the debt on the turnpike roads leading to it was allocated between the two parties. If the matter were postponed, and fully considered, and a clause brought up on the Report to meet the general views of the Committee, it would be an advantage. He was sorry to say that he did not agree either with the clause or with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron); but he thought a fair arrangement might be arrived at if more time were taken for consideration. He would, therefore, ask the Lord Advocate to postpone the clause.

said, he could not consent to postpone the clause, in which there was an attempt made—he did not say a successful one—to deal with bridges of an exceptional character.

pointed out that, as a matter of fact, the clause could not be postponed, because an Amendment upon it had already been moved.

thought this was hardly a satisfactory arrangement. He would be glad if the Lord Advocate would explain how this Amendment would be practically worked.

said, he was prepared, if the Amendment was postponed, to consider the matter.

said, that where the cost of the bridges was equally divided between two authorities, as was now agreed, it would be nonsense to say, as the clause stood—"The management of the bridge shall be vested in the trustees or local authority upon whom the largest portion of the cost of maintenance is allocated."

said, there were consequential Amendments necessary, and he agreed that the words "upon whom the largest portion of the cost of maintenance is allocated" should be deleted. He would consider as to some scheme for the future management by some joint committee of the two bodies.

said, there was another very obvious consequential Amendment that would have to be made if the words ran—"trustees or local authority." The management should be vested in the trustees and the local authority.

asked if it should not be "or local authorities;" because, in the case of two adjacent burghs, the bridge would be managed between the two.

replied, that it would be better to put it in the plural, and he would accordingly move that the words should be "in the trustees and local authorities chargeable with the cost of maintenance."

thought the word "or" should stand.

pointed out a similar Amendment which would be necessary on the sub-section (i).

agreed to the Amendment as it was merely consequential.

said, he proposed to add to the clause the following paragraph:—

"One-half of the tolls under deduction of the expense of collection collected on any such bridge, or within one mile thereof, shall belong to the county which has abolished tolls, or to the burgh therein (as the case may be) within which such bridge is partly situated."

said, the Amendment appeared to him to introduce an entirely new element. The counties that had already abolished tolls had done so on conditions satisfactory to themselves, and when a county outside had also abolished tolls the two would be precisely in the same case; but why make exceptional legislation in favour of the county that had abolished tolls, when they would be on the same footing as soon as the county outside had adopted the Act?

said, it was the case of a bridge between two counties that he contemplated. The county that had abolished tolls was to pay half the cost of the bridge, and the county which had not might continue the tolls upon the bridge under the Act, and appropriate the whole amount collected. That was manifestly an unfair arrangement. One county abolished tolls two or three years sooner than another, and if it paid half the debt upon a bridge, and half the expense of maintenance, it ought to have some benefit for that.

begged to suggest to the consideration of the Lord Advocate, whether he might not bring up a clause on Report to the effect, that in the case supposed, the county on the one side of the river having tolls, in place of dividing tolls—which would be a clumsy expedient—with the county on the other side which had none, should bear the whole expense of keeping up the bridge as long as tolls were collected, and that when they were abolished the cost of the bridge should then be divided?

did not regard this question as of much importance, considering the short period during which tolls could still be collected. If it had been proposed that it should be per- missible for counties to continue tolls, the question raised by the hon. Member for Forfarshire would have had importance, and the Amendment might have been passed. But, considering that there were so few years during which tolls could be maintained, and that the county which had abolished them had done so in the knowledge of the circumstances, he thought it was not a question on which they need waste much time.

was also of opinion that, considering the shortness of the time, the question was not one of importance.

said, that before the Committee divided upon this question—because he intended to take a division upon it—he wished to say that in the county which he represented there were two bridges, one under a bridge trust, and the other a part of the turnpike. The tolls upon those bridges amounted to a considerable sum, and under the Bill, as it at present stood, the whole of the tolls might be collected on those bridges for five years after the Bill passed. The whole of those tolls would be paid to the Commissioners of Supply of the adjoining counties, unless the adjoining county adopted the Bill. He did not know what the Lord Advocate considered a considerable sum; but he was sure the tolls on those bridges would in five years amount to several thousand pounds. The arrangement was so manifestly unjust, and offered so strong an inducement to the adjoining county not to abolish tolls as long as they could benefit by them, that he felt bound to divide upon the question.

said, the county to which the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) referred was the one he (Sir George Balfour) had the honour to represent, and the other case was that of the Montrose bridge, which connected that important sea town with its county, Forfar; and the apportionment of charges between the area contained in the roads over these bridges ought to be adjusted on well-considered grounds, affecting the localities, and the settlement of their claims ought to rest with an arbitrator appointed by the Secretary of State. He wished to say that, whenever counties had abolished tolls, they had done so for their own advantage; and, whatever changes might take place in the future, the counties that abolished tolls would do it upon their own conditions and terms. He desired to see tolls abolished, and he wished to see the bridges cleared from Forfarshire to Kincardineshire, and also the bridges that led to Aberdeen; but in Aberdeen they had abolished tolls, and if Aberdeen was to get half the tolls of the bridges as well as Forfarshire, it was a complicated business. They ought not to be hurried into legislation of a difficult and dangerous character.

felt some sympathy with the county that had abolished tolls, but found itself shut in by pontages and tolls round its boundaries. That was a hard state of matters, and the Amendment proposed to deal with it as regarded pontages; but the same objection applied to roads, and yet it was not proposed to force counties maintaining tolls to remove them a mile within their borders; therefore, he did not see the use in pressing this matter as regarded bridges.

said, under existing circumstances, he considered the clause was now unnecessary.

said, the effect of an Amendment he meant to propose on the clause was that the assessor should send a detailed valuation of any detached part of a county which was within another county to the clerk of the trustees of the county in which such detached part was included, in order that he might assess in respect of the roads. There was already a pro- vision which was only to the effect that the clerk of supply of the county should report who were qualified as Commissioners in the detached part. This proposal went a step further, and directed the clerk of supply, or the assessor, to send a list of the valuation of such detached part of a county to the clerk of supply of the county which was going to assess for the roads. Either this provision, or some other means, would have to be adopted whereby the trustees of a county having control of such detached part should levy the assessment. He moved, in page 22, line 25, to leave out the following words:—

"With a view to ascertain the persons, being Commissioners of Supply, entitled under the provision of this Act to act as trustees in those counties in which are included, as herein-before provided, one or more detached parts of any other county or counties, the clerk of supply of each such other county or counties,"

thought the Amendment would, if agreed to, have the effect of causing to be done something for which there was no necessity. There was no difficulty in the way of the assessing body obtaining a copy of the valuation roll for any county or part of a county. But, as these detached parts of counties remained integral parts of the original counties, it was necessary to have communication with the clerk of the Commissioners; because those who were on the valuation roll as qualified were not necessarily Commissioners, but must qualify as such and take their seats, and it was only after they had so qualified that they were entitled to act as road trustees. He proposed to enact that the clerk of the Commissioners of Supply should give that information, he being the only person that was officially possessed of it. As far as the valuation roll was concerned, it was not kept by him, but by the assessor of the district, and it could be had from him.

asked, if there were not a difficulty in obtaining a copy of the valuation roll between the months of August and September? He thought there was, gh after that a copy could easily be got for a small charge. These Valuation Bills of counties and burghs should be printed and available for purchase at the lowest rate of charge. This kind of publicity would affect much good in keeping the valuations at their proper sum.

said, it was a simple enough thing to get the valuation roll after it was published. He had moved this Amendment mainly at the instance of one of the gentlemen, who would, under the provisions of the Bill, be one of the clerks to a body of road trustees; and who was of opinion that, under existing arrangements, he would not be able to get a copy of the valuation roll in time to make the assessment.

next moved, in page 23, line 31, to insert after the word "thereto," the words—

"And from whom, or his or their predecessor or predecessors, the ground occupied by such road was acquired for such road."

said, he had an Amendment on this clause, and his object was, that where a road was no longer required, the adjoining proprietor, on taking possession, should pay for it; and the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member being in effect similar, he proposed to accept it. He would, however, propose to amend it, by inserting after the word "acquired," the words "with payment."

said, supposing the property should be sold after the road ceased to be used, and the road and the land were to be transferred, they would give possession to the party who had sold the property.

supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms), on the ground that the measure, as drawn, was very much of a landowners' Bill; and added, that he wished to know whether it was intended to continue the system under which a six months' notice was required before a road could be shut up?

protested against the suggestion that the Bill was a landowners' Bill. It had been carefully drawn by the Government, and would, he believed, prove equally advantageous to the property-owners and dwellers in the towns, and to the landowners and those residing in the rural districts. He did not think it would ever be proposed to close roads until they had become practically useless; and when shut up, the land would be of little value to anybody except the owners from whose property the land had been taken, and to whom it should revert. Of course, the question of the terms on which it should so revert was a fair one for consideration.

thought it would be only fair that the right of pre-emption of land no longer required for roads should be given to the owners of the adjoining land. At the same time, great care should be taken in protecting the right of the people to the use of the roads. It might be that a particular road had fallen into comparative disuse; but it might also be that it was the nearest way to the parish school or the parish mill, and, in that case, it would be a great hardship upon the inhabitants of the neighbourhood to shut it up altogether.

said, provision was made in a later clause for the right of pre-emption of lands no longer required for road purposes. He saw no reason why the proprietor of land taken for the making of roads should be called upon to pay for it when it reverted to him after having served the purposes for which it was taken. The road trustees had simply granted to them a temporary way-leave over the surface of the land, and he saw no just ground to call upon the proprietor, after the reason for the way-leave had ceased, to pay again for his own property.

thought care should be taken not to arm the trustees with power to close roads which, though, perhaps, not much used, had existed from time immemorial, and had been found useful by those who lived in their immediate neighbourhood.

said, the observations just made had a special bearing on the question of roads which formerly traversed moors and commons, before these were laid hold of by the adjoining proprietors, and which ought to have been preserved to the people. Care should also be taken to prevent the making of roads at the public cost for the mere purpose of rendering valuable property which, but for the existence of such roads, would be comparatively worthless. The great power still vested in the proprietors of lands, in respect to being the most influential portion of the Road Board, might be exercised in respect to communications over or to their lands.

did not think the Bill would interfere with any existing right of way; it only proposed to deal with public roads, and when old roads were shut up, new ones would be made.

explained, that the object of his Amendment was to secure that, after a highway had ceased to be one, and had been shut up, the ground not required for the purposes of a highway should not fall into the hands of the adjoining proprietor without any payment on his part. That was the simple object he had in view, and he understood that the Lord Advocate was prepared to insert a clause giving effect to it.

said, the wording of the clause appeared to him to bear the construction that a right of way, which had existed from time immemorial, might be stopped by a vote of these trustees. He did not know the English language if the clause were not open to that meaning. He admitted that, in cases where a more eligible line of road was substituted for a less eligible one, there would be a reason for shutting up a highway; but, as Clause 40 stood, a highway might cease to be a highway, without any other being substituted. When he said he agreed with the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), he meant that the clause, not the Bill, was in the interests of the county proprietors; for it enabled the trustees to shut up a road, and almost bribed the proprietors to get it shut up. He, therefore, hoped that the Lord Advocate would frankly tell the Committee whether the Bill did or did not provide that a right of way, existing from time immemorial, was to be put a stop to?

said, no doubt there was a strong objection against arbitrary power being given to trustees; but he pointed out to hon. Members who had raised that objection, that such was not the object of the Bill. The trustees would be held responsible for their actions. If a highway were stopped without an alternative road being laid down, proprietors would be discouraged in giving land for these highways, and the trustees also would be discouraged in their efforts to carry out improvements. If the Committee laid down that principle, they would strike a serious blow at any improvements in roads. With regard to the clause having the effect of stopping the right of a footpath, which passengers had used from time immemorial, that was a question which rested upon different considerations. Perhaps the Lord Advocate would inform, the Committee what the real effect of the clause would be?

before the Lord Advocate rose to answer the question of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), wished to be allowed to say that a way by which passengers had a servitude right to pass was never regarded as a highway in the ordinary acceptation of the term. A right of way, commonly so called, was entirely different from a right of highway; and the trustees had no more to do with the former than they had with a private estate. When hon. Members spoke of this Bill having been framed in the interest of proprietors, with a view to transfer to them the solum of the road, they appeared to forget that the common law of Scotland was in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. This measure would merely carry out the common law—namely, that the solum belonged to the proprietor from whose land the highway was taken. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had so clearly explained such to be the law, that it was merely wasting time to continue the discussion.

explained that there were, undoubtedly, a great number of public roads in Scotland that were not highways, and would not be highways, within the meaning of this Act; and it was quite settled that these could not be shut up by any body of trustees, because statutory authority was required to close a public road. Accordingly, there were instances, which were very well known, where the public were held entitled to defend their own. But, at the same time, supposing that an existing public road were placed by Statute under a turnpike trust, no doubt that statutory power would enable the trustees entirely to extinguish the right of the public over that road, if shut up, in terms of the General Turnpike Act. It would be quite another thing if they had adopted a road over which private servitude rights existed. Then, it would not be competent for them to shut that road against the owners of servitudes. That question had been decided, a year or two ago, in a case where a road was assumed by statute labour trustees, and along the line of the road there had existed, for centuries, a right of way to a mill. The trustees closed the road; but it was held, notwithstanding, that the immediately adjacent proprietors were not affected by the action of the trustees. The action entirely extinguished the public right, but it did not extinguish the private servitude rights. That was the state of the law, as he understood it.

thought the Committee had materially prejudiced the public interest by passing the Amendment which had been made on the clause; because, as he understood the matter, the clause, as it originally stood, provided that, after a road had ceased to be a highway, there might still be a right of way; but, as the clause now stood, a road might be shut up by a body of trustees, who would have the power of depriving the public of their right of way; but he did not think the Committee intended that the right should be taken from the public to a road which might have been used by the public for centuries, and had subsequently become a statute labour road. This had not been done by previous legislation, and he certainly thought the whole clause ought to be rejected.

said, if the Lord Advocate was prepared to assure him that the Bill substantially embodied the provisions of the general Turnpike Act of Scotland, including the provision which required six months' notice to be given of an intention to close a road, then he would be satisfied with that assurance. He was not suggesting any new law; but what he objected to was, that any attempt should be made to take from the existing securities possessed by the public. If the six months' notice were not incorporated, he should move an Amendment to the effect that, in all cases of intention to shut up a road, due notice of that intention should be given by advertisement.

called the attention of hon. Members opposite to the power given in the clause with regard to shutting up highways, and to the definition of highways. He also pointed out that the clause gave power to the ratepayers to appeal to the Sheriff against the shutting up of highways.

had read the clause most carefully, and was of opinion that no trustees could shut up what was called a right of way in Scotland.

considered the question of so much importance that it was necessary to remove all doubt as to the legal effect of the clause. The Lord Advocate had stated the existing law of Scotland with regard to roads and servitude, but not the effect of the present Bill, it passed into law. Let that be made clear. If the clause were passed with the words "importing that trustees, if they think fit, may direct that roads shall be shut up," would the effect of such a statutory provision not be to enable the trustees to close a road in a literal and ordinary sense; would it still be subject to such rights as existed before it became a statute labour road, or highway, as the case might be?

did not think that the trustees, who were the guardians of the public rights, would do anything as against the public. Although the ratepayers would have a right of appeal, how would they know when a road was to be shut up? He suggested that notice should be given to the ratepayers, and to the public generally, that a road was going to be closed, so that an opportunity might be afforded of appealing against the decision of the trustees.

referring to the remark which had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. M'Lagan), directed his attention to his (Colonel Alexander's) own Amendment on the Paper, which would have the effect desired by the hon. Gentleman.

who expressed a hope that the discussion would now be brought to a conclusion, as the subject had been considered at some length, and there was other Business pressing, said, he quite agreed that notice should be given of the intention to shut up useless roads. In England, the practice was to place a notice at each end of the road that was to be closed; and the same plan might be adopted for Scotland. He agreed that the notice ought to be ample, and given on the spot.

suggested to the hon. and gallant Member that he should delete the word "thirty" from his Amendment, in order to insert "sixty."

was of opinion that it would be much better to leave the matter on the footing on which it was placed by the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, which was that notice should be given on the spot itself. After that suggestion, it was hoped this Amendment would not be pressed.

did not think the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Assheton Cross) was at all inconsistent with the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Alexander). The hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion was that six months' notice should be given—a very reasonable Amendment, which might be added to this one.

said, that the notice stated in his Amendment was the same as that which was contained in the present Turnpike Act.

observed, that the six months' notice was not really six months' notice of intention to shut up a road; but six months' postponement of the act of shutting it up. There was no notice of the intention to close the road, other than the 30 days.

expressed an inclination to move the omission of the latter section of the clause. If that section remained as it then stood, the whole intention expressed by the Committee up to that moment would be stultified. It was perfectly true that, so far as it went, the first section of the clause provided that the trustees might order that the road should be shut up; and then the Amendment proposed, in effect, that six months' notice should be given of the closing of the road. But, supposing that people should object to its being shut up, he saw no remedy provided for them in that regard. On the contrary, the matter was to be determined in a most summary way, for this was the wording of the latter section of the clause—

"Any determination of the trustees under this and the preceding section shall be final and conclusive, and not subject to review in any court or by any proceedings whatsoever, unless any three ratepayers who shall be dissatisfied with such determination shall at any time within 14 days after the date thereof appeal to the Sheriff, who shall hear and determine the appeal in a summary way, and the decision of the Sheriff shall be final."

said, that, as the clause stood, it certainly was out of shape; and he would undertake to re-model it on this footing—that 30 days' notice be given to the public before the question was considered; after the consideration of the question, and the determination to shut up the road, such determination should not take effect until six months afterwards; that, during the six months there should be a sufficient publication, so that any person, within that period of six months, might appeal to the Sheriff.

expressed himself satisfied with that re-modelling of the clause.

had no objection whatever to the principle of the Amendment; but he did object to its introduction at this part of the Bill, which was the wrong place. If it were inserted here, it would have no application to the road, but would simply apply to the footpath. There were Amendments on the Paper for introducing a general provision applicable to all highways.

said, he understood that as three lines had been left out, the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name was not now available.

remarked, that the Amendment last carried left the clause just as it was before. He should put the clause in such a shape as to make it fit.

was much obliged to the Lord Advocate for not taking advantage of his technical neglect. He would, therefore, move his Amendment.

I put the Question in such a form as to enable the hon. Member for Edinburgh to move his Amendment. The hon. Member did not avail himself of that opportunity, and he is not able to move it now.

I am satisfied.

Certainly; I approve of it.

said, it was necessary to keep in mind that the burghs which were entitled to have the management of their own roads under this Act were the Royal and Parliamentary burghs and populous places with 5,000 inhabitants and upwards. The proposal here was that burghs with less than that population should have the option. The question was, whether those burghs generally desired to manage their own roads? He could only say that, so far as regarded these populous places, those through customs were unknown. It was only in some of the old Royal burghs that any such exactions were made. The proposal in the Bill was that where a burgh took the "upkeep" of its roads which ran through the burgh, it should take part with the county. The only question between the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. 'M'Laren) and himself was on what terms were they to come in. His hon. Friend said on the same terms as the counties. He said that was hardly fair. It would be fair if they would throw in their lot in every case, and not only when they could get in at a cheap rate. They enjoyed their autonomous jurisdiction when it could be done at a cheap rate; but when it was more expensive, they wished to come in the county. Were it a good thing, they would remain out of the county; but when they had a bad thing, they wished to come in the county. It was left to the Sheriff to say what was a fair and reasonable payment to be made.

wished to call the attention of the Committee to what he might call his point of view, as he happened to represent a burgh which was affected by this question. To begin with, he must say that the strong argument in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was this—that when the Bill was brought in last year, it was in the shape the hon. Member for Edinburgh now wished to put it. One inconvenience this year was that they had no explanation of the reasons why 'changes were made. This was one of the most important changes made in the present Bill. He brought it under notice the first day the Bill was introduced. The Lord Advocate said the object of the hon. Member for Edinburgh was to give to burghs under 10,000 inhabitants the option of joining in counties. For his part, his (Sir George Campbell's) object was to provide not for burghs under 10,000 inhabitants or under 5,000, but for the particular cases of Royal and Parliamentary burghs under the latter size. Many of these burghs had populations far less than 5,000. There was one such place which he represented—namely, Kinghorn—with a population of only 1,200 or 1,300. It so happened it was in the position his hon. Friend had described. It was a poor village, with a small population, lying along a great road, where there was great traffic. Not only one great road, but two others passed through the burgh. The consequence was that this burgh, which had hitherto never maintained the roads at all, would have to maintain three turnpike roads, with large traffic, which passed through the burgh. The case was still harder, because this burgh a few years ago extended their municipal boundary to the Parliamentary boundary. He thought this was a typical case, and he believed it would be entirely ruinous to this small burgh of 1,500 inhabitants to maintain three roads. It was a poor village; no carriage was kept, and but very few carts. They made no use of the road, and yet this Bill would impose upon them that heavy expense. What he had to submit was that these poor villagers should not be called upon to pay for the benefits which some of the larger burghs might derive from the autonomy which it was proposed to impose upon them. Then the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate said there was an appeal to the Sheriff, but no standard was laid down by which the Sheriff was to determine. Probably the Sheriff would think it his duty to see what the roads would cost, and to assign certain proportions commensurate with the cost of maintaining the roads. That would not be releasing the villages from this heavy burden. He did venture to hope that the Government would consider this matter, and that this clause would not be passed in a shape which would impose irreparable injury on the inhabitants of small burghs.

said, his hon. Friend was under a mistake as to the Bill of last year. He had that Bill in his hand, and the terms of the 45th section were precisely the same, word for word, as in the present Bill.

believed that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would find the definition of the word "burghs" was different from the present one. He wished to point out that the small Royal burghs would be in a very hard position under this clause. There were a good many small burghs in the county of Fife, of small size and small population, which, by the conditions of this Act, would be separated from the counties altogether. Now, it would seem to be a great hardship for these small burghs to maintain a staff of officials, a surveyor, &c., for themselves on the small rental which they had. He thought that the rates ought to be made the same on Royal burghs of 3,000 or 4,000 inhabitants, as on the counties in which they were situated. He did not see why any difference should be made between Royal burghs and police burghs of the same number of inhabitants. When it came down to a small number, it seemed to him that it would be more convenient that for the purpose of the roads the burgh should be joined with the county. That would be the most easy solution of the question. Burghs of 5,000 or 10,000 population had the power to be independent if they thought proper; and, having this power, could protect themselves. The Sheriff would scarcely know how to act, and it seemed to him that it might be more conveniently arranged to the satisfaction of all parties by a re-arrangement of the clauses referring to Royal burghs.

pointed out that the burgh of Musselburgh would be unfortunately situated with regard to this clause. Instead of having to maintain three or four miles, they would have to keep up nearly eight miles of highways. That arose from the boundary of the burgh running along a public road. This road was not bounded by houses on either side. It was, really, a part of the great highway between Scotland and England. It would be very hard indeed to prevent this burgh from throwing itself into the county at the county rate. The Lord Advocate had spoken of the indisposition of the counties to make bad bargains; but what made the bargains bad for the counties but the fact that under this Bill some of these burghs had been hardly used and overburdened in taking their share of the highways? It followed from that, as a matter of course, that the counties were under-burdened; and it was, therefore, not unfair that the burghs should ask to be entitled to be assessed at the county rate. It had been justly observed by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, that—

"If the burgh title to be assessed at the same rate as the counties were not granted, no boon would be conferred upon the burghs at all by this Bill."

said, he was sure there was no intention on the part of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to deal hardly with the small burghs. If the intention were to prevent the Sheriff's dealing in a general way with any appeal made to him, he thought the clause might be so modified as to effect a compromise.

had not the least objection to modify the clause to the extent of investing the Sheriff with a discretionary power to make such an arrangement as he might deem equitable.

said, he had failed to catch the extent of the concession suggested by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate.

said, the effect of the alteration he intended could not give a very wide discretion to the Sheriff; but it would be wider than that which was conferred by the clause as it stood.

thought it right to ask the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to agree to a provision that the rate imposed on the burgh should not exceed that levied on places immediately surrounding the burghs. He thought an arrangement of that kind would be satisfactory, and ought to be effected. It was a hardship that the burghs, through which the county roads passed, should not be allowed to merge their jurisdiction into that of the county, and throw themselves into the county rate.

remarked, that he had just referred to the Report of the Commission with regard to the case of Musselburgh, to which the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Grant) had called the attention of the Committee, and found that the county trustees paid £400 a-year. The road in question went far beyond what a stranger would consider to be the town of Musselburgh, and embraced a considerable part of a purely county road. This was now kept up by the county. Why should it not continue so to be kept up in future? Musselburgh claimed no exclusive right. It said—"We are now part and parcel of the county as regards roads—leave us so as regards county rates."

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would find it possible to make a suggestion that would enable the Lord Advocate to effect a compromise, so that further time might not be wasted.

said, that the Sheriff might be bound to treat a question which should arise under the Act as one of law. He thought the proposition of his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate was extremely fair, and that it ought to be readily accepted, as it gave the Sheriff considerable latitude in considering all the circumstances of the case.

thought the Home Secretary might add a few more words with advantage in view to reconciling the conflict between county and burgh.

said, the Government could do nothing further than they had done. He hoped the Committee would come to a decision at once.

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would still consider the expediency of providing that the rate levied on the burgh should not exceed that which was imposed on the surrounding districts.

thought the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate should consider whether it would not be possible to legislate generally on the subject, and whether any special legislation should not be rendered unnecessary. The question would arise in the county with which he was connected. All hon. Members wished that justice should be done to the small burghs, and he believd that this would be effected better by a general clause than by a special clause referring to Acts that would expire in a certain time. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would consider the suggestion before the matter came on again.

said, he admitted that the remedy proposed was better than no remedy at all; but it appeared to him that it would be advisable to go further, for the Sheriffs would find themselves placed in a very difficult position. He hoped that the Government would concede so much for the benefit of the small burghs, that they should not be placed in a worse position than they now occupied. It would be hard if the Bill, which was intended to confer a benefit on the people of Scotland, should have that bad effect; and unless some assurance were afforded that the small burghs would not be placed in a worse position than they then were, he thought the contest must be continued to the bitter end.

said, he was sorry to detain the Committee; but was obliged, from a sense of duty, to challenge a division.

said, he represented several Royal burghs which would be affected by the Bill; but he believed that the words proposed by the Government would have the desired effect. If he thought otherwise, he would be compelled to vote against the Government. He hoped the hon. Member for Edinburgh would wait for the Report to see whether he ought to divide on the question. If he should then think fit, he could do so.

said, he would move to omit the word "five" in page 26, line 25 of the Bill, in order to insert the word "four." His object in so doing was, as £4 was the usual basis of assessment in other matters, to simplify the assessment in counties for the management, maintenance, and repair of roads. He hoped the Government would concede this point.

said, he had an Amendment to propose which should precede that of the hon. Member for the Wigton Burghs (Mr. Mark Stewart). He would move to omit that part of the clause, between the word "respectively" in line 14, to the word "district" in line 16, so as to make the first portion of the clause read thus—

"The amount required for the management, maintenance, and repair of the highways within each district respectively, along with a proportion of the general expenses of executing this act, as allocated by the trustees in the manner hereinbefore mentioned, shall be levied by the trustees by an assessment to be imposed at a uniform rate on all lands and heritages within such district."

said, there were possibly parishes in which the difference was not only warranted, but justifiable. The first part of the clause, as proposed by the Government, read as follows:—

"The amount required for the management, maintenance, and repair of highways within each district respectively, or in the option of the trustees, within the several parishes constituting such district,"&c.;

said, he thought it was absolutely necessary to fix some limit of assessment. The whole assessment of the county which he represented was 3d. in the pound; and he, therefore, believed that the rate of 4d. in the pound was sufficient. He begged to move that after the word "assessment" in page 26, line 18, the words "not exceeding fourpence in the pound" be inserted.

was glad to hear that the rates in Ayrshire were so satisfactory; but he could not consent to the Amendment, because, in many counties where Local Acts were retained, the rates were higher than 4d. in the pound.

said, that in his county, 6d. in the pound was not found more than sufficient.

observed, that was the case in his county also.

believed it would be well to limit the assessment to 4d. in the pound on occupiers, provided the Bill was so modified as to enable an assessment to be levied upon the proprietors under special circumstances for any excess of the expenditure for road management.

stated, that in his county the rate had never exceeded 4½d. in the pound. The Local Act had been in operation there during the last 12 years, and the rate had been 4d. in the pound in one part of the county and 4½d. in the other.

said, the second part of the same clause ran thus—

"And such assessment shall be paid, one-half by the proprietor, and the other half by the tenant, or occupier of the lands and heritages on which the same is imposed, except in the case of lands and heritages entered in the Valuation Roll as of the annual value of five pounds or under, in which case the whole of the assessment on such lands and heritages may, in the option of the trustees, be levied from and paid by the proprietor, who shall be entitled to recover the half thereof from the tenant or occupier."

supported the Amendment. They had heard over and over again that the proprietor, and not the tenant, paid this taxation; and it would be a much simpler process, independent of its economic results, to collect the money direct from one person. For that reason, he was in favour of the Amendment.

said, it was to be regretted that they should waste time in discussing Amendments which were contrary to the whole spirit and tone of the Bill. It was surprising that such obstruction should come from the other side of the House.

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper substituting for the provision that

"One-half of the assessment shall be paid by the proprietor, and the other half by the tenant or occupier of the lands and heritages on which the same is imposed,"

pointed out, that by negativing the previous Amendment, the Committee had affirmed the principle that one-half should be paid by each. Therefore, the Amendment could not be put. It ought to have been proposed earlier.

regretted, that through his ignorance of the Forms of the House, he had made a mistake. He would propose the Amendment on the Report.

said, the hon. Member would, he was sure, excuse an interruption. He would call his attention to the fact that the clause applied to bridges not wholly within a burgh or a county, but partly situated in one and partly in another. Clause 85 applied to bridges wholly within a county; and, as the bridge was wholly within the county, he thought upon consideration the hon. Member would see that his Amendment would come better later on.

asked the Chairman of Committees if that were his ruling on the point?

said, he was not in the least objecting to his hon. Friend moving his Amendment then; but he was merely pointing out that his Amendment would come better on Clause 85, which applied to bridges that were entirely within the boundaries of a county as that was.

said, that being the case, he would withdraw the Amendment for the present.

said, they would postpone the clause.

Will it be taken at the end?

Yes.

said, he would not oppose the Amendment for a moment, if he thought it would make the clause more explicit; but he did not think it would at all have that effect. He wanted the board, as constituted, to act in this matter as bridge trustees.

said, he would withdraw the Amendment, but he really thought his next was necessary. He wished to insert in the same line, after the word "trustees" the sentence "other than elected trustees." The clause required to be more explicit. It provided that the terms of the contract were to be subject to the approval of the trustees, which surely meant the whole of the trustees; but the elected trustees had no vote in such questions. It would, therefore, be far more convenient to have it explained that it referred to trustees other than elected trustees.

said, he objected to this Amendment even more than to the last; because, when the word "trustees" was used, it was implied that it meant the word according to the interpretation previously given. If they admitted the Amendment, it would imply that the matter was not sufficient, as it was previously left, whereby it was provided that when there were any new roads or bridges to be provided, certain trustees should not act.

said, on the assurance of the Lord Advocate, that there was no risk of a misunderstanding, he would withdraw the Amendment.

said, they would now report Progress, and take the Bill again the first thing on Thursday.