asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to a case in which Mr. Isaac Spooner, a stipendiary magistrate at Brierley Hill, near Dudley, is alleged to have sent a married woman named Phœbe Newton, age 48, to gaol for six weeks, for having, as was stated, struck a policeman on the arm with her hand; and, whether it is true that the magistrate refused to hear the witnesses for the defence?

in reply, said, the magistrate had written to call his attention to this case, and his letter bore out the statement in the Question that the woman did bring forward witnesses who were not called, and sentence was passed. He had thought it his duty, under all the circumstances, to release the woman at once, as she could hardly be considered to have had a fair trial. On behalf of the magistrate, he was bound to say that his statement was that he did not hear the application to produce witnesses; but upon that matter he was in communication with the magistrate, and therefore could say nothing more.

asked the honourable Member for Durham, If he intends to proceed with his Bill for the abolition of the Action for Breach of Promise of Marriage this Session; and, if so, on what day?

, in reply, said, he believed the Bill excited considerable interest among many Members of the House, and he was anxious to take a discussion upon it. At the same time, at this period of the Session, his prospects of doing so were not very bright; but he did not see why he should abandon them altogether in despair. He could hardly expect the Government to give him a night, although he should be obliged to them if they could do so. He did not propose to proceed with it that night; but he would put it down for that day fortnight, and take his chance of whatever might turn up.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he can state to the House what has been the total cost of the Committee on the Boilers of Ships in Her Majesty's Navy, including pay, printing, experiments, &c.; whether the Committee has concluded its labours; and, whether it is intended to appoint a further Committee of Inquiry, as recommended in their last Report?

Sir, the approximate cost of the Boiler Committee for the four years they sat was between £16,000 and £17,000. The Committee, in its original form, was dissolved in April last, and a new and less expensive Committee, consisting of Admiralty officials, has been appointed to continue the inquiry, and to conclude the various experiments which have been commenced.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is true that, during the year ended the 25th of March last, 1,816 deaths from small pox occurred within that portion of the metropolis described as "Lesser London" by the Registrar General; whether such a total number of fatal cases may with approximate accuracy be taken to represent 18,000 attacks of small pox within the same area and during the same period; and, whether the sanitary authorities already possess, under Section 26 of the Act 29 and 30 Vic. c. 90, sufficient powers to enable them adequately to cope with the evil; and, if not, if he has considered whether compulsory registration of infectious diseases might not be tried with advantage?

, in reply, said, he believed it was true that 1,816 deaths from small-pox occurred during the year ended March 25, and that number might be taken to represent 18,000 attacks of small-pox. However lamentable that number of deaths, it was nothing in proportion with the last epidemic in the Metropolis. The local authorities had power to apply to a magistrate, on a certificate of a medical officer, for an order for the compulsory removal to hospitals of persons suffering from infectious diseases who had no moans of isolation; but that was a power which, of course, only applied to the confined dwellings of the poorer classes. Before a complete control over such diseases on the part of the sanitary authority could be said to exist, several things were necessary, one of the chief of which was the compulsory registration of infectious disease. This was a subject of very great difficulty. Several of the larger towns in the North of England had obtained in their local Acts powers for compulsory registration, and he had caused inquiry to be made as to the result of their experience. That information had not yet been received, except from one town, and there, he must say, the experience was not altogether satisfactory. The tendency of public opinion was, however, in this direction, and he had no doubt that, before long, medical practitioners and private patients would submit to some notification of certain classes of disease being made in all cases to the local authority. He should be glad when he was able to make a proposal in this direction to the House. Before that could be done, however, it would be necessary, in the Metropolis, that more hospital accommoda- tion should be available for the middle classes, who wished for more isolation than they could procure at home, and desired to pay for it. It was to be regretted that the Public Health (Metropolis) Bill of last Session received so much opposition from the Vestries and District Boards—opposition in which the hon. Baronet took part. It was proposed by that Bill to enable the Vestries and District Boards to make arrangements with the Metropolitan Asylums Board which would have put an end to the present anomalous state of things.

, in moving—

"That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, with an Instruction to hear parties on whom exceptional local rates may be imposed by new Clause 88, by themselves, their counsel, or agents, against such exceptional local rates;"

"Every Bill for the particular interest or benefit of any person or persons is treated, in Parliament, as a Private Bill. Whether it be for the interest of an individual, a public company or corporation, a parish, a city, a county, or other locality; it is equally distinguished from a measure of national import in which the whole community are interested."—[May, p. 383.]

"In the case of Public Bills for confirming by Provisional Order schemes of Boards or Commissioners in regard to government of towns, construction of bridges, and other matters, it has been customary, when they have been passed by the parties locally interested, to commit such Bills, so far as they related to the places concerned, to a Select Committee, to be appointed by the Committee of Selection in the same manner as in the case of a Private Bill."

"The same course has also been adopted in the ease of other Public Bills affecting a particular place;"

"The second reading is the stage at which counsel are more usually heard, whenever the House have agreed that a Public Bill is of so peculiar a character as to justify the hearing of parties whose public or private interests are directly affected by it. … But counsel have also been heard at various other stages of Bills."—[May, pp. 278·9.]

"The Bill might be committed for a variety of reasons, and it might be re-committed with respect to a particular clause or Amendment only."

"A Bill may be re-committed as often as the House think fit. … There are cases in which a Bill has been six and even seven times through a Committee of the Whole House."—[Ibid. p. 284.]

"Notwithstanding the facilities for discussion afforded by a Committee of the Whole House, the details of a Bill may often be considered more conveniently by a Select Committee."

seconded the Amendment.

said, he could not agree to the Motion which had now been made. The 88th clause, which was under discussion, was not before the House for the first time, because, certainly during the discussion of this measure, or rather a similar measure, last year, both on the second reading and in Committee, in which that measure proceeded so far, it was distinctly intimated and understood that it would be necessary to deal with this question. That stops would be taken with the view of dealing with this question this year was perfectly well known to parties interested, and so early as the beginning of February this year the terms of the proposed clause were made known by the Secretary of State for the Home Department again to all the parties interested, to the counties, and also to those representing the City of Glasgow. Then, in the next place, this new clause was put on the Paper on the 19th of March last, so that its terms were not only in the knowledge of the City of Glasgow, but had been before the House for upwards of three months. Now, certainly, the suggestion which had been made in the Motion by the hon. Member for Glasgow meant practically the shelving of the measure. It was impossible to disguise this. The measure had been fairly fought in Committee. The hon. Member was quite entitled to bring forward the Motion he had made, but the passage he had quoted to the House from Sir Erskine May's work showed that it was entirely within the discretion of the House to decide whether effect should be given to such a Motion. It was sufficient to indicate in the circumstances of the case that it would be an act of discretion to give effect to the Motion. He hoped the measure would be permitted to proceed in the usual course.

said, he entirely agreed in the desirability of passing this Bill into law; but he did think that his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had made out a very strong case in favour of the course he had suggested. This was a clause quite apart from the rest of the Bill. It singled out one locality in Scotland, and dealt with it in an exceptional manner; and it appeared to him that his hon. Friend had proved that it would be not only a reasonable and just thing and an equitable course for the House to take to allow Glasgow to have an opportunity of stating its case before a Committee upstairs; but that it was the regular course for the House to take according to precedent and according to the Rules. He did not see that they were tied for a moment by Sir Erskine May's book or by precedent. It was a matter for the House; but still the House was guided by what had been usually and regularly done in the past, and this was a case of so exceptional a nature that it was incapable of being fully considered by a Committee of the Whole House. For his own part he would say that when the Bill was in Committee he supported his hon. Friends who opposed this clause, but he did so in rather a negative way. He had given them his vote, but he had imagined that an arrangement had been come to, and though they objected to it, still he presumed there was a certain amount of fairness in it. But since the Bill had been in Committee he had seen a Report by Mr. Smith, the Government Commissioner, upon whose recommendation this clause was founded, and he was bound to say that the Report having been made public proved another instance of the inexpediency of anyone who had given a decision giving the reasons on which he founded that decision, because he had never read a Report which contained so little in the way of argument to justify the conclusion at which it arrived. If Mr. Smith's reasons were those on which the Government proposed this clause, the Government was certainly not strong enough to justify the course which they had taken. Two things had to be proved. In the first place, there was the proof that the roads in the neighbourhood of Glasgow were as much the affair of Glasgow as of the county itself. They had to prove that there was something exceptional in this case calling upon them to deal differently with it from the other portions of Scotland; and having satisfied themselves of that, they had to make out a case for the exact sum to be levied on Glasgow. In this Paper of Mr. Smith's there was no sufficient argument for the one case and no argument whatever for the other. The sum was fixed on the mere ipse dixit of Mr. Smith, who said, "I think the sum to be paid by the City of Glasgow should be "—so and so. Now, they ought to know the data, and he was informed that the Corporation of Glasgow had received no data on which the calculation was founded. And yet, on the mere authority of the Commissioner, they were asked to pay this sum of £12,500 a-year. In the only case where the Commissioner condescended to argument at all, he used an argument which surely could not be seriously relied on. He had been astonished to hear certain remarks quoted from this Report when the House was in Committee with the view of showing that the turnpike adjoining the city was more the affair of the city than of the county. The hon. Member for South Lanarkshire (Sir Windham Anstruther), quoting Mr. Smith, said that in a certain period 14 vehicles went over the turnpikes from the city for every one that entered it, and that, on an average, the proportion was three to one. Why, in the course of three or four days the effect of that would be that Glasgow would be emptied of all the vehicles in it. Did the hon. Member mean empty or full vehicles? If there were more full vehicles going out than coming in, then it was obvious that the wants of the people in the country were more extensive than the requirements of the inhabitants of the city. The truth was, that it was the old case of determining which of the portions of the human frame was of the greatest importance. The town was of as great importance to the county as the county was to the town, and he ventured to say that if they established a cordon round Glasgow, it would not be the town which would starve first by the prohibition of traffic, because it had other means of communication. There was, then, no argument in Mr. Smith's Report dealing with this question, and when they went a step further to the amount to be paid, they were not vouchsafed a piece of evidence to justify the charge proposed to be levied. In such a great case as this, he did conceive that the ratepayers of Glasgow had a perfect right to have their case heard upstairs. It was so entirely exceptional, and so entirely outside the provisions of the Bill, that he was sure that he would be absolved from any hostility to the general principles of the Bill, if he supported his hon. Friend's proposal to refer this particular part of it to a Select Committee.

said, that if the facts were as put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, there would be some reasonable ground for referring the Bill to a Select Committee; but there had been a sufficient inquiry, and Glasgow had an ample opportunity of laying its case before the special Commission appointed to consider and report upon the question. His hon. Friend's demand came forward at much too late a stage of the Bill. It would have been quite competent for the hon. Member to have asked the House a month ago to refer the question to a Select Committee; but the facts had been virtually decided when the Bill was passing through Committee, and it would be quite a new practice on the part of the House, and quite inconsistent with the principle laid down by Sir Erskine May, that the question should be handed over at so late a stage to a Select Committee. His constituents would not feel very much gratified if they were to go back and fight the battle over again by counsel and witnesses before a Select Committee. All the statistics with regard to the hearing of this question in the county of Lanark were fully laid before the Commissioners, and were fairly considered, and, in his opinion, fully established. The question not only bore upon Glasgow, but upon the burgh, which were also contributors with the city. He contended that if the burden of maintaining the roads were thrown upon the poor, the effect would be ruinous. A meeting of the burghs interested in the question had been lately held, at which it was resolved that the course proposed by the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) was objectionable, and ought to be opposed for the following reasons:—

"That the question at issue had already extended over a lengthened period; that the Town Council of Glasgow, and other parties interested in it, had had an opportunity, of which they had availed themselves, of fully stating their views to the Commissioner (Mr. Smith), on whose recommendation Clause 88 was proposed; that the Inquiry suggested would not throw any additional light upon the subject; that the recommendation now made had given more general satisfaction than any other scheme hitherto suggested; that it would he inexpedient in the public interest to keep the matter longer in suspense; and that the proposed Inquiry would necessarily be a protracted one, and one which would be attended with great expense."

What are the names of the burghs that passed that resolution?

said, the burghs included those of Partick, Hillhead, Govan, Crosshill, and Mary-hill. The question now brought before the House ought to have been raised at an earlier stage of the Bill. He only desired to make one further remark, and that was with reference to the claim which had been put forward on a previous occasion by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) on this subject. He had had an opportunity of referring to the evidence taken by the Commission to which allusion had been made, and he found that at that time this particular question had never been fairly raised, except by one witness. The Motion at that time was, that there should be the option of paying the expenses of the roads by a tax upon horses. That was the leading idea of the late Lord Belhaven, and of various authorities associated with him. But the Commissioners came to a different decision. They threw over that recommendation, and said they would go upon rental. A Bill was brought in in consequence of that, and then it was that the Town Council took alarm. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee, evidence was heard on behalf of Renfrewshire, and he himself presented a Memorial signed by persons connected with the Lower Ward of Lanarkshire, showing the injustice which would be done to the county also. What was the result? The result was that the counties of Lanark and Renfrew were left out of the Bill. Former Governments would not face the difficulties of the question, and after that the subject had not again been mooted in Parliament for a period of 20 years. After all this, he did not think that his hon. Friend had any right to come forward and ask for this Commission. The question of taxation for the maintenance of roads in the suburban districts of Glasgow had long ago been fully discussed. It had been taken in hand either by counties or Committees or by Commissions, and after all those years it seemed to him that the present Bill, having reached the stage at which it had arrived, should not now be thrown back.

said, that the hon. Baronet who had just spoken had told the House that the case before it had been under the consideration of various Commissioners and Committees. Those for whom he spoke quite agreed with that, but that was exactly what they complained of. They complained that after the case of Glasgow, Renfrewshire, and Lanarkshire had been under the consideration of repeated Committees and Commissioners, the decision, which was most hostile to Glasgow, should have been selected as the decision to be embodied in the present Bill. What they said was, that an elaborate Commission had been appointed on the subject, and the Commissioners, taking a wide and extensive view of the whole question, based upon experience and inquiry over the entire county, came to a decision with which he and others were quite satisfied. Mr. Smith went down to Glasgow, and after an Inquiry, which was altogether circumscribed as contrasted with that of the Royal Commission to which he referred, came to another decision; and what they complained of was, that the decision of Mr. Smith should have been accepted as against the decision of the Royal Commission. They contended that there were special circumstances in the case of Glasgow, Renfrew, and Lanarkshire, and in that they were backed up by the Report of the Commission itself. His hon. Friend (Sir Edward Colebrooke) maintained that those were special cases. It was impossible to argue out that question in the House. They could not now go into details, and they could not go into figures; they could not bring witnesses to support this association or that; and he thought that here primarily arose the necessity of referring the whole matter to a Select Committee. He should not bring forward arguments to show that this clause partook of the nature of a Private Bill. He did not think it was necessary to do that, although he believed there could be good grounds shown in support of the argument that the clause dealt with private interests; but between a Bill dealing with private interests and a Public Bill there was another description of Bill still, and that was a Hybrid Bill—a Bill which affected public and private interests also, and it was the invariable practice, in dealing with such a Bill, to refer it to a Select Committee, who took evidence upon it. The Lord Advocate had stated his great objection to this proposal to be that it would have the effect of shelving the measure. He did not think it need have any such effect. There was nothing in the world to prevent the Government from omitting this particular clause and going on with the Bill, and afterwards introducing the clause as a new Bill, and referring it to a Select Committee. The General Act would not come into operation for a number of years, and long before that Parliament would have decided whether or not Glasgow, Lanarkshire, and Renfrewshire would be specially dealt with. The hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Colebrooke) had admitted the reasonableness of the proposal for an inquiry.

No, I do not, and did not.

said, he thought the hon. Baronet had done so a few minutes ago; but he could not tell now whether the hon. Baronet really did so or not.

said, his statement was that the subject had been inquired into in previous years, and that there was no occasion for a further inquiry now. His argument was exactly contrary to that of the hon. Member for Glasgow.

said, the hon. Baronet had gone on to state that the burghs around Glasgow were perfectly satisfied with the arrangement which had been come to; but he desired to point out to the hon. Baronet and to the House, that those burghs were not responsible for the county debt, that they had no debt of their own to pay, but that those for whom he spoke had a debt of their own to pay, and had to pay half of that of the counties as well. The hon. Baronet had mentioned the names of the burghs that deprecated a reference of the question to a Select Committee, and he mentioned amongst others the burgh of Hillhead. He was sorry that he should be obliged to refer to these details in arguing the case; but that only showed the necessity which there was for referring the subject to a properly appointed Select Committee. The case of Hillhead was quite exceptional. There was a bridge across the Kelvin, and every inhabitant of Hill-head suffered heavily from tolls, and would, of course, be willing to escape from their payment if it was at all possible. Then as to the case of Maryhill, the hon. Baronet had an Amendment on the Paper, the effect of which would be to give that burgh a present of some £5,000, which, under the Glasgow clause, would have to come out of the pocket of that city. That, at all events, was the view which his constituents took of the matter. They held that the ground taken up by Mr. Smith was altogether fallacious. Mr. Smith proceeded in this way. He saw that Glasgow was prosperous, and that it had been honest in paying up every farthing of its debts; but he also saw that the county trusts were in a state of insolvency; and, instead of having regard to the efforts which Glasgow must have made to pay off her debt and keep herself in a position of independence, Mr. Smith took no cognizance of past events, but said—"I find you prosperous, I find the counties insolvent, and therefore you must come to their assistance and pay one-half of their debt." He should have great pleasure in supporting his hon. Colleague if he went to a division.

said, he was sorry again to trouble the House with the ease of Renfrewshire. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), in the beginning of the discussion, had taken up the old ground of financial difficulty between Glasgow and Renfrewshire; but towards the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman had entered into what he considered a great Constitutional question. If the contention of the hon. Member held good, however, that the clause relating to Glasgow was in the nature of a Private Bill, the same contention must hold good with regard to a good many other places which were dealt with in a special manner in the measure. But it had been decided over and over again that Renfrewshire should be dealt with in an exceptional way. It had been decided by Select Committees upstairs, and it had also been decided in the body of the House, that the case of that county and the case of Lanarkshire also were exceptional cases amongst the counties of Scotland, and that therefore they ought to be dealt with in an exceptional manner. He hoped the Government would recollect that those who were opposed to the abolition of tolls, in so far as Bills for that purpose had hitherto been brought before the House, had withdrawn their opposition to the present measure, on the understanding that clauses favourable to Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire would be introduced into the Bill. He thought, therefore, that the Government were under, he would not say a personal, but a moral pledge, not to give way on that point. It had always been the boast of their friends in Glasgow that the county of Renfrew derived enormous benefit from its proximity to that city; but, notwithstanding its proximity to Glasgow, it would not be found that the rental of Renfrewshire was larger in proportion to the agricultural value of the land than that of many other counties in Scotland which did not possess the supposed advantage of being similarly situated.

said, that as he intended to take an exceptional course with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, he thought it only right to state shortly what that course was, and his reasons for taking it. He did not intend to vote at all. Everyone knew that he had strongly objected to this Bill; but having opposed it on the Question that the Speaker should leave the Chair, and that the House should go into Committee on the measure, and having found himself in a miserable minority of 5, he thought the time had arrived when all further opposition on his part should cease; and, therefore, as he had said, he did not intend to vote at all. At the same time, the Bill would inflict so great an injustice on the county which he represented, that he would not lift his little finger in its support. With reference to the observations which had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Mure), he thought that those remarks simply went to show the inequitable way in which the Bill would work. The hon. and gallant Member had stated that there were clauses in the measure, or parts of the measure, which exempted several counties from its operation; but if it were necessary to do that with regard to Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Dumbartonshire, and the other places, it only proved how inequitable the Bill was, and how badly its provisions would work. With regard to the dispute between Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, and Glasgow, he believed that if the hon. Gentlemen who represented the former counties had from the first opposed the Bill, it would never have been passed. If the hon. Member for Glasgow also had strenuously opposed the abolition of tolls from, the very first, he would not now have complained of what he must admit to be very exceptional treatment towards the city which he represented. This was only a question of degree, and there was no more reason why Glasgow should be treated exceptionally than Edinburgh or any large town in Scotland.

said, he should not have uttered a word upon the Motion before the House but for the remarks of the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Colebrooke), who had referred to the Report of the Royal Commission on this subject as requiring to be set aside because the county of Lanark was favourable to imposing a tax upon horses. It seemed to him the hon. Baronet supposed that the Commissioners had not examined that mode of raising the revenue, but those gentlemen did so. They took a great deal of evidence on the subject, and they published in an appendix useful and interesting tables showing what would be the rate, if all imposed on horses; and also, supposing one-half of the burden to be borne by those animals, and the other half to be borne by the rates; and showing, also, how the different kinds of horses might be classi- fied. In short, the whole matter had been thoroughly considered. But his point was this—that whether the rating was to be horses or no horses, the Commissioners separated the burghs from the counties. If there were to be a tax upon horses, those horses within burghs were to be assessed for the burghs, and the horses within the counties were to be assessed for the counties. It seemed to be argued that an inquiry had already been made by the Government Commissioner equal in effect to that which would be made in the case of burghs applying for a Provisional Order. In that respect he thought that his hon. Friend was entirely mistaken. On application for such an Order, the Bill provided that the Home Secretary should direct local inquiry to be made, and that there should be 14 days' notice given of that inquiry—which meant that it was to be a public inquiry. Then the Home Secretary might arrange a Provisional Order to his own taste; but that Order would have to come before the House of Commons, and if it were opposed by any Member of the House, it would go to a Committee, the same as any other Private Bill. Hence the clause which declared that the Home Secretary should decide in what manner the expenses consequent upon such an Order should be paid, and which implied that no such Order should be passed merely as framed at the Home Office.

said, he would not dispute the proposition that there were points embraced in this clause which might, under certain circumstances, be fairly argued before a Committee upstairs; and, no doubt, there were precedents without number for the course which had been taken in the present case. But he desired to remind the House of what had really occurred so far as dates were concerned, and in this matter dates appeared to be of considerable importance. In the first place, so far as the inquiry of Mr. Smith was concerned, that gentleman went down to Glasgow, and on the spot he consulted and examined everybody whom the Town Council wished to have brought before him. Mr. Smith, in short, examined all persons connected with roads in and about Glasgow, and his Report was made known to all parties concerned by himself (Mr. Assheton Cross) on the 15th of February. He did not think he was inaccessible to any Members of the House. If hon. Gentlemen told him at any time that they wished to see him upon any public matter, he was always at their service. He knew that communications had taken place between his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate on this question; but until Friday last no one connected with Glasgow or the neighbourhood had ever made a single application to him on the subject. He next came to the Government clauses which were placed upon the Table on the 19th of March. That was a long time ago, and it was only on the 8th of April that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) put his Amendment upon the Paper in regard to this matter; and those Amendments were rather important, because they simply altered the sum to be paid to £100,000 as a whole, instead of £10,000 a-year. Well, then, on the 27th of May another Amendment was brought forward, and it was not until the Bill had been read a second time, had passed through Committee, and was approaching the stage of Consideration on Report, that the slightest suggestion had been made by anyone connected with Glasgow that the question should be referred to a Select Committee upstairs. In these circumstances, he thought it was evident that there had been a laches on the part of the hon. Members for Glasgow. Had those hon. Gentlemen come to him on the 15th of February or 19th of March and said—"Do you not think that this is a fair subject for consideration by a Select Committee?" he did not mean to say that they would not have had a fair case to have been heard. Now they had reached the 2nd of July, and if the Bill were to become law this Session—and he believed it was the desire of Scotland generally that it should become law—every day was important. There was an Amendment in the statute-labour question which was certainly in favour of Glasgow, and there were clauses by the hon. Member for Glasgow which would also be under consideration; and, bearing in mind the expressions which were made use of when this Bill was in Committee, if Glasgow had reason to complain of injustice, they should have come to Parliament before this time to see that no injustice took place. Let them now consider the Bill as amended, and do not let them take a course which would have the effect of casting the measure from its place, and, if the division were successful, would defeat the object in view. Let them wait until they came to the 88th clause.

said, he did not at all agree that it would shelve the Bill or endanger the Bill, and as the thing could be disposed of in a few days, he must go to a division.

maintained that the proposal made by the hon. Member for Glasgow was in accordance with the principle of the Bill itself. The principle of the Bill was that for each county or district the road assessment should be levied and expended on the roads within that county or district. Who could say that an assessment of £10,000 on Glasgow for maintaining county roads was in accordance with that principle. There were other places where the Bill dealt with private interests unfairly. It was wholly unjustifiable to saddle Glasgow with £10,000. Renfrewshire was in a position somewhat similar to Argyllshire; but Renfrew had all her roads maintained cheaper than Argyll. When he mentioned that the charge for maintaining all the turnpike and statute labour roads in Renfrew came to less than 6d. in the pound on the annual valuation of that county, the House would agree that the roads could not usually be maintained in an agricultural district at less. This would be shown by the fact that the valuation of Renfrewshire was about £640,000 per annum, irrespective of the burghs, and 6d. a-pound on that would come to £16,000 per annum. The roads in Argyllshire were maintained by a rate of 8d. per pound. He could not conceive, therefore, that, in such circumstances, there could be any justification for the rate imposed on Glasgow. He had never seen the Report of the gentleman who was sent down there. He by no means had the slightest thought of impugning his integrity. No doubt, he recommended the Home Secretary that he should deal in this way with the city of Glasgow; but the grounds on which he did so were in his (Mr. Ramsay's) opinion very inadequate to justify such an imposition. He did not feel that anything more was needed than to take the burghs and county of Renfrew combined, when less than 6d. in the pound was adequate to maintain the whole of the roads in that county. He would not refer to the debt, because that was a separate thing; but if he took the whole of the two counties, Lanark and Renfrew, with the burghs, including Glasgow, the whole amount expended in maintaining all the roads and streets was £133,303 on the valuation of £6,473,000. A rate of 5d. in the pound on that sum produced £134,873, or more than the full amount that was expended on all the roads, including Glasgow. How, then, could they justify the imposition of an assessment of £10,000 for the relief of the ratepayers in a county where the roads at the present moment were kept up at less cost than in counties less favourably situated than this was? The Government would do well to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, because there were other particulars on which parties might be heard, and the question might be settled without injustice to Glasgow or other places where injustice was equally proposed to be done. He might the more readily urge that view, as it could not be assumed by anyone that he had any desire to defeat the Bill or to prevent it becoming law at an early date. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had said that to refer this Bill to a Select Committee would be to shelve it for the present Session. Well, he did look upon even that with greater equanimity than he should on any Resolution by the House to perpetrate an injustice of this kind. Anxious as he was to see the tolls abolished, he could not consent to a Bill that would perpetrate such an injustice as this.

said, he had no interest in this matter, nor had his constituents; but he had been an interested beholder of the dispute between the city of Glasgow and the county of Lanark. It must be remembered that this dispute had prevented the country of Scotland from having a Road Bill for some years past. If it had not been for this, they would have abolished tolls all over Scotland long ago. The Government sent down a Commissioner to inquire into the case, and this gentleman had made a Report; and it seemed to him (Sir Graham Montgomery) that the city of Glasgow did not object to this gentleman going down; but still they did not seem to be satisfied with, his arbitration. If the city of Glasgow was not satisfied with his arbitration, why should not they say that this clause should be struck out altogether, and that the city of Glasgow and the county of Lanark should be dealt with by Provisional Order? They knew that this gentleman had all the parties interested before him. He had the Lord Provost of Glasgow, deputations from the large towns, and deputations representing the county of Lanark; and on that information he came to this decision—that it was fair that the city of Glasgow should pay this sum annually to one division of the county of Lanark, and it did seem to him (Sir Graham Montgomery) too late in the day to upset a decision of this kind by having the matter referred to a Select Committee. If this Amendment should be carried, there could be no doubt that this Bill was done for for the present Session.

said, he believed they were all anxious to see this Bill become law, but not at the expense of what they must see was a gross injustice to the city of Glasgow. When the Home Secretary got up they hoped that he would give some explanation of the decision at which he had arrived. The right hon. Gentleman must accept the responsibility of it. He would have to bear the weight of what he must call obloquy attending the injustice of the measure. It appeared to him that there was considerable irregularity in the manner of bringing the proposal under the notice of the House. It had not been done in the form of a Provisional Order. It was said that the gentleman who went down acted as umpire between the city of Glasgow and the counties of Lanark and Renfrew; but the people of Glasgow were not aware of that, and simply regarded him as having come down to report to the Home Secretary. There had been no discussion of this clause in that House, and no explanation had been given of the clause. No statement or argument whatever in support of the clause had been brought before the House. It seemed to him that the Home Secretary did not altogether understand the effect of what he had said—imputing laches to the people of Glasgow. It was understood that the Lord Advocate was quite ready to hear any questions in regard to this Bill. He had never declined to accept any representations with regard to this Bill; and though the gentlemen concerned were perfectly aware that the Bill was under the control of the Home Secretary, and that points of difficulty would be referred to him, they did not think it necessary to trouble the Home Secretary in the matter. Therefore, although the Home Secretary might not have been referred to until recently, it was quite understood that the matter had been brought originally under his consideration, and that it was on his responsibility that the people of Glasgow were now saddled with this burden. He was surprised that the Government should resist the appeal of the city of Glasgow to have this question decided before an impartial tribunal. What more could Lanark and Renfrew desire than that the question should be settled before a Committee of the House? Why it was not more energetically opposed, probably was that the people could never believe that the House of Commons would sanction such an exceptional arrangement, unless it was shown that there were some exceptional circumstances which would justify this exceptional legislation; and it had not been shown that such was the case by any arguments which had been addressed to this House.

remarked, that there was a question before the House which, although it had been alluded to by the senior Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), had not been fully raised, and to which he wished to call attention, and that was, to the Parliamentary aspect of the question. The facts which had been laid before the House that day were certainly facts of a rather startling character, and ought to put every Member of the House on the qui vive regarding the course taken by the Government on this particular clause. He did not hesitate to say that this was an attempt to introduce into a public Bill a private Act, and he would call upon the Speaker to vindicate the right of the House to upset such an attempt at evading its Standing Orders. There were two points which he would submit to the consideration of the House. The first was that, in point of fact, this clause was a breach of the Standing Orders of that House, inasmuch as it was the introduction into a public Bill of what was, in fact, a private Act; and, secondly, if that was not decided from the Chair, they had a right to appeal to the House to consider the matter, and to ask if there were no grounds for the claim that had been made, to refer the question to a Select Committee? Let any hon. Member look at the Bill, and read the clause contained in Section 98. The Bill was brought in for establishing certain principles which were laid down in the Bill, and for settling the management of the roads and bridges in Scotland. The principle was, that each county was to assume the burden of its own roads. This general principle being laid down made the Bill practically a public Bill. But when he looked at the Standing Orders, he found that those Orders brought any question affecting tolls within the category of private Bills. The Question was, whether this clause did not in an exceptional manner propose to deal with and alter rates and tolls in Glasgow without giving the parties an opportunity of settling the matter between themselves? It was provided by the Bill that the city of Glasgow and the neighbouring burghs should grant and contribute £12,500 a-year towards the maintenance of the roads and bridges in the counties of Lanark and Renfrew. The effect of that clause was practically to make this a private Bill. It was an attempt to carry a private Bill through the House without the ordinary formalities having been proceeded with, without bringing the matter before the House, and having it referred to a Select Committee. It was said that the Government sent down someone to inquire. A Mr. Smith, a not uncommon name, was sent down to inquire. But no representation was made before Mr. Smith on account of the parties interested. He made an ex parte representation as between the counties and city of Glasgow, and on that report the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary came to an arbitrary decision, which would involve the city of Glasgow in the payment of £12,500 a-year. It might be in accordance with precedent; but it did seem to him that this was a matter which should be referred to a Select Committee. Here was a gentleman sent down to Glasgow, without the parties concerned being properly represented before him, who came to a certain decision, which the Govern- ment accepted, and embodied in a clause in an Act of Parliament. He asked the House whether that was in accordance with the spirit of our legislation, whether it was not contrary to the order of proceeding in that House by which such cases were governed? There was a Standing Order that no private Bill should be brought in otherwise than by Petition, signed by the parties or others who were interested in the Bill. He submitted that this clause came, at all events in spirit, within the meaning of that regulation; and, that being so, it appeared to him that the Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee.

The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) having appealed to me on a point of Order, it is right that I should give the House such information as I can on the matter. As the House is aware, the clause which is now under discussion has been agreed to by a Committee of the House, and, strictly speaking, the point of Order should have been raised in Committee, and not in the House. It appears to me that this is a matter entirely for the consideration of the House. There is no obligation on the part of the House, having regard to the Standing Orders, to refer the clause in question to a Select Committee of the House, though it has power to do so. I should state also that it is a common practice to insert in public Bills, in addition to general enactments which govern the whole subject-matter, special provisions, applicable to particular localities, which, if not there inserted, would be proper subjects for private Bills. There are several examples of this kind. The most apposite example I can quote is that of the South Wales Turnpike Trusts, 7 and 8 Vict. c. 91, which contains general legislation applicable to several counties, and includes clauses which apply to particular trusts and the respective debts of certain local roads and bridges. It appears to me that that Act of Parliament is very much to the point in the particular case before the House.

said, that if the hon. Member for Glasgow went to a division he would place in an awkward position several of his Friends who took his view of the case, and were ready to support it. To refer the Bill at this stage to a Select Committee would ne- cessarily shelve the Bill. As the hon. Member opposite (Sir Graham Montgomery) had stated, a general Bill had been for years delayed on account of this difference between Glasgow and Lanark, and it seemed to him that it should not again be frustrated by reference to a Select Committee. If the hon. Gentleman wished to raise the question on the merits, he ought to do so when they came to the clause referred to. Although he had listened with a certain amount of attention, he had been unable to arrive at an opinion. They had not seen the Report of Mr. Smith. When they had seen that they might either determine the matter or defer the clause until next year. He would ask his hon. Friend not to proceed to a division, because if he did he should have to vote against him.

, in moving, in page 6, after Clause 7, to insert the following Clause:—

(Provision as to tolls on traffic to and from county where tolls are abolished).

"Where, under the provisions of this Act, tolls have been abolished in any county, but where tolls have not been abolished in any county adjoining thereto (whether such adjoining county be in Scotland or in England), no tolls shall be levied, on or after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, in such adjoining county in respect of any traffic passing for a distance not exceeding six miles over any turnpike road therein to or from the county in which tolls shall have been so abolished,"

, in moving, as an Amendment to Mr. BAILLIE HAMILTON'S proposed new Clause after Clause 7, to add—

"Provided, That this Clause shall not take effect in any county or counties in England adjoining the counties of Berwick or Roxburgh, or either of them, during the term or terms of the Local Turnpike Act or Acts of Parliament now in force in such county or counties in England, nor during such further term or terms for which such Local Turnpike Act or Acts may be continued by authority of Parliament,"

interposed, stating that the Question had not been put that the clause be read a second time.

, in moving, in page 8, after Clause 11, to insert the following clauses:—

(With respect to certain roads within the burgh of Leith.)

"With respect to the roads and streets within the burgh of Leith at present under the management of the City of Edinburgh Road Trust or paving board of the city of Edinburgh, videlicet: Leith Walk from Pilrig Street and including Pilrig Street to Duke Street, the street called Duke Street from the foot of Leith Walk to Easter Road, and the road known as Easter Road, all so far as within the Parliamentary boundaries of Leith; the said roads and streets before becoming vested under this Act in the local authority of the burgh of Leith, shall be put by the said trust or paving board or other authority having immediately prior to the adoption of this Act the burden of maintaining and upholding of the said roads and streets in as good a state of repair as the other portions in the district known as the middle or Edinburgh district of roads, and that to the satisfaction of the surveyor of the City of Edinburgh Road Trust or other authority, and the surveyor of paving of the burgh of Leith; and, in the event of their differing, by a surveyor to be nominated by the sheriff of the county of Edinburgh, on the application of either party."

(With respect to roads at present maintained under special obligation.)

"Provided always, That when any trust, board, corporation, or person is under special obligation to maintain, and uphold any roads, streets, bridges, or highways, at the time of the adoption of this Act, the said roads, bridges, highways, or streets, shall be put in such condition by such trust, board, corporation, or person as shall be considered reasonable and proper by a surveyor to be appointed for that purpose by the sheriff of the county, on the application of any person interested before becoming vested under this Act in the said trustees or local authority,"

"That the Leith Walk roads, so far as they were included within the boundaries of Leith, should be handed over to the burgh of Leith in as good a state of repair as the other portions situated in the Middle District Trust."

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Grant) had made a most gallant defence for his constituency in the matter; but if all who had Amendments to move on the Bill were to take up as much time as he had done, the result would be that they should have to go on discussing the measure for another week. If the House would permit him he thought he should be able to show, in one-tenth part of the time his hon. Friend had occupied, that the statements which had been made could not be proved. It was true that the city of Edinburgh, by an Act of Parliament, was bound to maintain certain roads in Leith, and the county of Edinburgh was bound to maintain about 12 miles of roads in the city of Edinburgh. If it was true, as his hon. Friend had said, that the Edinburgh Road Trustees were bound to put the Leith roads into an equally good condition with the upper ones, it would be equally incumbent on the county trustees to put their 12 miles within the city in first-rate order. But the Bill was not intended to do anything of the kind, or to place such an obligation upon that body. All it did was to hand over all the lower roads to the local burgh authorities in Leith, and, in the same way, to hand over the county roads to the city authorities as they now were. He would not enter into details; but would merely state that, so far from the sum of £10,000 having come into the hands of the Middle District, as stated by his hon. Friend, the statement was a myth. The matter was examined by the Royal Commission in 1859, and the evidence was that the Act under which they worked contained two clauses, one of which referred to the roads in question, and the debts and obligations were mixed up with the Leith Walk Trust, and the Calton Road Trusts. The Blue Books showed that all that was left over was £2,570; and he had the authority of the Clerk to the City Trustees for saying that since 1874 £1,600 had been laid out in improving and supporting those roads, within the burgh of Leith, and that they were now in a very good state of repair. In all the districts under their control the road money had been raised by the authority of the burgh of Leith, while not a shilling had been expended by that body in the repair of the roads in question; the whole of the money having been applied to other purposes, while the ratepayers of Edinburgh had been unduly burdened by being saddled with the cost of repairing and maintaining the roads of the district referred to. The House would perceive that the annual interest on the sum of £2,570, which had been received by the Middle District Trustees, only amounted to something like £100 per annum; while the average annual expenditure of the Edinburgh Road Trustees upon the lower portion of these roads during the last four years amounted to over £400. They had, therefore, been expending, in the maintenance and repair of these roads, four times as much as they received. The fact was, that there could be no stronger case brought forward to show what an injustice had been done to Edinburgh than by bringing forward the present arrangements. He was unwilling to occupy the attention of the House longer, otherwise he was in a position to enter into details which would show overwhelmingly the correctness of the statement he had made, and the soundness of the views which the Edinburgh Road Trustees had taken on the question. He, however, was quite content to take his stand on this principle—that if the county of Edinburgh was willing to put the dozen miles of roads which were to be handed over to Edinburgh in a perfect state of repair, the Edinburgh City Trust would be willing to put the two-and-a-half miles of roads which were to be transferred to the Leith burgh local authority in an equally good condition.

said, he rose on that occasion merely to indicate his own opinion. It was proposed by this new clause to deal exceptionally with the Edinburgh Road Trust, and he did not think any case had been made out in the matter. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith (Mr. Grant) pressed his Amendments, he (the Lord Advocate) should certainly follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh into the Lobby.

moved to insert the following new Clause after Clause 96:—

(Saving yearly payment by North British Railway Company to city of Edinburgh.)

"Nothing in this Act contained shall affect or prejudice the right of the Magistrates and Town Council of the city of Edinburgh to the yearly amount of not less than five hundred and twenty-nine pounds eleven shillings and one penny, now payable to them by the North British Railway Company, forming part of the revenues and properties included in the Act first and second Victoria, chapter fifty-five, thereby conveyed in security to the creditors of the said city, and mortgaged to the Public Works Loan Commissioners under authority of the Act thirty-third and thirty-fourth Victoria, chapter eighty-seven, and which sum was agreed to by the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway Company (now amalgamated with the said North British Railway Company), and secured to the said city by section twenty-seven of 'The Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway and Edinburgh and Glasgow Union Canal Amalgamation Act, 1849.' "

said, he objected to the clause. He did not wish to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) into the arguments he had brought forward in support of it. All he could say was, that the proposal seemed to be rather an ingenious method by which the city of Edinburgh should eat their cake and have it also. If the clause came into operation the Company would have to pay the sum which it was the object of the clause to secure to the city of Edinburgh, and also the assessment imposed by the Bill. That would be manifestly unfair. The proposition was either to establish causeway mail or not. If it was causeway mail, it was very unjust that it should be continued under the Bill, and that it should be paid by the North British Railway, while they were also assessed. And if it was not causeway mail, the clause was quite unnecessary. He put the hon. Member upon the horns of that dilemma, and left him to select which of them he pleased. He thought he might safely trust to the Government to see that such an injustice should not be done, and, with those few observations, he should leave them to deal with it.

moved the insertion of the following Clause:—

(Saving as to Leith Harbour.)

Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to relieve the Commissioners for the Harbour and Docks of Leith of any statutory obligation incumbent on them in regard to the making, maintenance, or repair of roads, streets, quays, or bridges within the burgh of Leith; and the exemption to which such Commissioners are entitled under the Acts of the eleventh and twelfth Victoria, chapter one hundred and twenty-three, and of the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh Victoria, chapter sixty, shall remain in force and shall extend and apply to all assessments under this Act."

said, he felt himself bound, on the part of his constituents, to oppose the clause, the object of which was to exempt the Dock Commissioners of Leith from all assessments to be made under the provisions of this Bill. He maintained that this new clause was either unnecessary or undesirable. If it were intended to preserve to the Dock Commissioners their present exemption, it was unnecessary; and if it were intended to give them a new exemption and a new power, he held it was undesirable to do so, because they had no claim to any new power under this Act. He found that, many years ago, an exemption from police assessment was given to the Dock Commissioners, with the object of encouraging and stimulating the trade of the port, which was then comparatively small and in a languishing state; but he could not find that under that exemption there was any exemption from road assessment. In fact, during several years when the road assessment was collected separately from the police assessment, the Dock Board actually paid road assessment to the burgh of Leith. Under these circumstances, he could not see how his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan) could say that the dock property was entirely outside the limits of Leith, and that Leith had really nothing whatever to do with it. It was only when the burgh of Leith adopted the provisions of the General Police and Improvement Act of 1862, and when, consequently, the money for the repair of roads was collected under the police assessment, which was an indivisible rate, that the Dock Board were relieved of their share of contributing towards the repairs of the roads and streets of Leith. If, then, that was the result of a mere accident, and if their exemption from, police rate was preserved to them by the Bill, he thought it was very undesirable that any new exemption should be given to them from road assessment under the provisions of this measure. If the Dock Board were to get a new exemption, it was desirable to show that their case and their position warranted such an exemption; but he was not aware that this had been shown by the hon. Member who had proposed this new clause. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had stated that the great principle of the present Bill was that everyone should contribute towards the maintenance of the roads; and that being so, he thought that if any exemptions were to be made, the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him that very good reason must be shown for them. Had any good reason been shown in this case? He certainly thought not. It could not be denied that the heavy traffic to and from the docks contributed in a great degree to the wear and tear of the streets and roads in the burgh of Leith. It might be said that if this Amendment was not introduced, a privilege which the Dock Board at present enjoyed would be taken away from them. He had already shown that that privilege was the result of an accident in regard to the assessment of roads. If it were shown to be necessary to the trade of the port that such an exemption should be granted, then there might be some ground for the clause that had been proposed. But how stood the case with regard to that? At the time when the exemption from police assessment was first given to Leith the trade of that port was in a very poor state, and the Commissioners were doomed in debt on which they could not pay the interest. But the aspect of things had changed since then. In 1866 the Government remitted to the Dock Board their large debt of £180,000, which was due to them; and owing to large and wise improvements in the dock accommodation, the trade of the place had very largely increased, as the following statistics would show:—In 1877, the gross revenue of the Dock Board of Leith was £82,570. The not revenue was £45,821. The debt for reproductive works was £250,000; and allowing for interest and sinking fund £15,821, there remained a clear surplus of £30,000 a-year. He asked, whether there was any ground for claiming for a Corporation with £30,000 a-year, whose traffic damaged the roads to a great extent, an exemption which should relieve them of the few hundred pounds which they would have to pay as their share of the assessment for the roads? He should only put this further argument to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill. If this exemption were granted to Leith, for what reason was there no such exemption granted to any other Harbour or Dock Board in Scotland? There were many such Boards all through the country which deserved greater consideration than the case of Leith; and he should be glad to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill what were the grounds on which he would grant a new exemption over and above the exemption from the police rate which they at present enjoyed to the Dock Commissioners of Leith?

said, the proposed clause was one of very great importance. That was to say, if his hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Grant) were to succeed in rejecting it, it would be very detrimental to various interests involved. His hon. Friend had referred to the large debt which formerly existed, and which the Government cancelled. Well, if any advantage was to be given to any party, surely the Government which cancelled the debt should be the party to get the advantage, and not the town of Leith, to which the harbour and docks did not belong. The harbour and docks belonged to the city of Edinburgh till 1838. At that time the Government practically purchased the harbour and docks by giving up a debt of £228,000 which had then been advanced. It took the docks and harbours altogether out of the hands of the Corporation of Edinburgh, and established a new commission, one-half of the members to be elected by the Government, and the other half by the Town Councils of Edinburgh and Leith. From that time the trade of the docks and harbour had increased amazingly, and the Trust had been remarkably well managed. It was then provided by the Acts referred to that the Harbour Trust, being entirely separated from the municipalities of Edinburgh and Leith, should watch and light and clean all its own territory. It had done that from its origin in 1838 up to the present date. The Trust had spent, and was now spending, £4,000 a-year in watching, lighting, cleaning, and paving the roads forming the docks and harbour of Leith, and in paving some contiguous streets leading to the docks; and, in place of asking for some new privilege, as his hon. Friend seemed to think, it merely asked to be let alone. They were liable to the Poor Law assessment, but not to the police assessment, which included the cost of paving the streets of Leith, and the clause proposed merely declared that the Trust should be continued free from liability to this new paving rate. If hon. Members looked at the rental of Leith, they would find that the harbour and docks formed one-fifth of the whole rental. Suppose a rate of 5d, in the pound was laid on, 4d. would really fall on the inhabitants of Leith. Who would pay the other penny? It would be the inhabitants of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and the surrounding towns; because the trade from the port of Leith, carried on by this public Trust, was not the trade of Leith itself—it was the trade which went from Leith to London, and from Leith to all parts of the Continent. The fact was that it had been one of the most successfully managed Trusts in the United Kingdom; and he asked that it should be left with all its existing burdens, which represented an annual outlay of £4,000 a-year, instead of being mixed up with the town of Leith, which never had any right or title to interfere with its management.

said, that as he had been challenged by the hon. Member for Leith to state if he intended to support the proposed new clause, he could have no difficulty in replying to that challenge upon the footing that he did intend to support the clause. The reason why he did so was this—he was not aware of any harbour authority in Scotland, with the exception of the Leith Dock Commissioners, who were, at this moment, a road authority managing their own roads, and not only managing the roads, but paying for the cleaning, lighting, and watching of them out of the dock rates. Under these circumstances, the question that arose for consideration was whether an authority so existing and so intimately connected in many respects with the roads should be deprived of the management of them, and the maintenance and repair of them given over to others, while they were simply left to watch, clean, and light? One of the main reasons for intrusting burghs with the management of their own roads was this—that they performed this very function which the Commissioners of Leith discharged within their limits, and it humbly appeared to him that that was quite a good reason for dealing with them exceptionally. It was not the case of making them a road authority; it was a question whether they were to be continued in existence as a road authority in regard to roads upon which tolls had been abolished, or rather had never existed.

said, he regretted very much that he should have to occupy the time of the House for a few minutes in stating the reason why he thought it necessary to propose that the Speaker should leave the Chair, with a view to the introduction of the following clause in reference to the transfer of Linlithgow Bridge:—

"Whereas by an Act of the Parliament of Scotland, passed in the year one thousand six hundred and eighty-five, the magistrates and town council of the royal burgh of Linlithgow were authorised and empowered to impose and levy dues for the purpose of repairing and upholding Linlithgow Bridge, and to apply the surplus 'to any public use for the good and utility of the town,' and such dues have since that time been so levied and applied, and whereas the right of property in the said bridge is vested in the said magistrates and town council, and such bridge is situated partly in the county of Linlithgow and partly in the county of Stirling: Be it enacted, That, on the commencement of this Act, the recited Act of the Parliament of Scotland shall be repealed, and the right of property in Linlithgow Bridge shall thereupon vest in the road trustees of the county of Linlithgow and in the road trustees of the county of Stirling, who shall jointly and rateably, in the proportion of the valuation of these counties respectively, be bound to pay to said magistrates and town council compensation for the loss of the surplus of the aforesaid dues, according as the amount or value of such surplus may be ascertained and determined by arbiters, one of whom shall be appointed by the road trustees of the counties of Linlithgow and Stirling at a joint meeting of said trustees, to be convened for that purpose within three months after the commencement of this Act, and one by the said magistrates and town council; and such arbiters, when so appointed, and before proceeding to consider the questions referred to them, shall elect an oversman, and, failing the appointment of an arbiter by the foresaid road trustees, it shall be competent for the said magistrates and town council to apply to the sheriff of the county of Linlithgow to appoint a person to perform the duty of such arbiters, and the decision of such arbiters, or oversman, or person appointed by the sheriff, shall be final."

"His Majesty's High Commissioner and Estates of Parliament, having heard the above written Petition, granted the desire thereof, and perpetuated in all time coming the aforesaid imposition formerly granted, as it is now paid, after the expiration of the aforesaid gift, and that for the sustentation and repair of the said bridge, &c., and to apply the surplus to any public use for the good and utility of the town."

said, he could not agree to the proposal of his hon. Friend, for this reason—that he took quite a different view of the rights and interests of the burgh of Linlithgow in this bridge from that which his hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay) had taken. He should wish to call the attention of the House for one moment to the character of the imposts upon public roads which had been swept away by this Bill. Within a burgh everything was swept away in the shape of an exaction in respect of the use of the roads as a means of passage, and then in the 33rd section of the Bill the same provision was made with regard to public highways, including bridges outside a burgh. Undoubtedly, it was because the exaction in question would be swept away by the 33rd clause of the Bill that his hon. Friend proposed to introduce a new clause. He (the Lord Advocate) took it that the right to levy at a bridge outside the burgh was very much the same thing as the right to levy at the bridge within the burgh; that the right to levy or exact causeway mail or pontages for passing over a bridge in a county was not in the least degree different in character from the right granted by Royal Charter to a burgh to levy causeway mail within that burgh; because he took it that the ordinary right to levy causeway mail in most of the burghs in Scotland implied no obligation beyond the maintenance of the road, and that any surplus might be, and had long been, applied to "any other purpose." He did not see why they should deal with the one case by sweeping it away, and deal with the other by conserving it because it happened to be beyond the burgh. That seemed to be the proposal here. The terms of the Royal grant were very guarded, and did not suggest that the leading purpose of the Act was to confer a pecuniary benefit upon the burgh itself; and in that very long and protracted litigation to which reference had been made one of the superior Judges, commenting upon the character of the grant, said it was upon the face of it a grant for the purpose of maintaining the bridge. He wished to state the case as fairly as, according to his opinion, it ought to be stated in a legal aspect; and, under these circumstances, he could not admit that there was any substantive distinction between this case and the ordinary causeway mail levied within the burghs, and he did not see that it could be consistently dealt with in this measure otherwise than it was proposed to deal with it in the 33rd section of the Bill.

moved, after Clause 88, to insert the following Clause:—

(Special provision as to Glasgow and Garscube Road.)

"Whereas the turnpike road leading from Glasgow to the Milnford of Garscube, which, with the exception of a portion of the bridge over the River Kelvin at the northern termination thereof, is situate entirely within the burgh of Maryhill, is carried under the Forth and Clyde Navigation by a very low and narrow bridge, and the trustees of that road have accumulated certain funds for the purpose of improving the same by constructing a diversion of the said navigation, and a bridge of ampler dimensions under such diversion, for which improvement powers have already been obtained from Parliament but are about to expire, and it is expedient that the funds accumulated as aforesaid should be applied towards the execution of such improvement: Therefore if within five years after the passing of this Act the powers for executing the said improvement shall be renewed, or new powers for a similar object shall be granted by Parliament, the said funds so far as necessary for the purpose shall be applied in carrying such powers into effect, by the said trustees until the improvement be completed, or until the Acts under which those trustees are constituted cease to be in force, and after those Acts cease to be in force (if the improvement be not then completed, and if the said funds or any part thereof remain then on hand) by the commissioners of police of the burgh of Maryhill, to whom the said trustees shall, upon the said Acts ceasing to be in focre, hand over such funds or the balance thereof then on hand, if any, as the case may be."

said, he objected to the clause. By a certain Road Trust Act two different trusts were to pay to Glasgow each a debt of £2,100 in consideration of much expensive work done by Glasgow. One of these paid their debt fairly and honestly, but the other did not, preferring to accumulate the funds and to pay to Glasgow an annual tribute, which was really only the interest on this debt. When the hon. Baronet moved that this accumulated fund should go for a different purpose than paying their debts, they must look at the clause in connection with his other Amendment, which proposed to stop this annual payment of interest. They had been laying burdens on Glasgow in every way, on no other ground than that Glasgow was rich and able to pay. They would be adding insult to injury if they robbed her of this £2,100 also. He hoped the Government would not agree to the proposal of the hon. Baronet.

said, that when this clause was first submitted to the House, he thought from the statement made that the proposal was a very reasonable one; but having recently been made acquainted with the facts stated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, he had changed his views, and he could not give the clause his support.

moved, in clause 3, page 2, line 9, to leave out from "within," to "therein," in line 10. The hon. Member said, the Amendment was intended to remedy the grievance which, he thought, the Government could never have intended by this interpretation to create. A burgh which at the present moment might have 4,500 inhabitants, and which might be growing very fast, might, nevertheless, not be able to have the advantage of the Bill, because three months after its passing its population did not amount to 5,000, He hardly thought the Government intended that a burgh in these circumstances should be excluded from the benefits of this Bill when its inhabitants did exceed 5,000. He hoped the Government would give some consideration to the Amendment, as one of the towns which he represented was fast growing, and in a few years would come under the operation of the Bill. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment.

opposed the Amendment, because it must inevitably introduce complete disorder into the Bill. The Bill was framed on the footing of settling all questions between the burghs and counties at the outset—administrative questions, boundary questions, debt and allocation of debt questions, questions of bridge management, and all others. It was a difficult enough matter drafting a provision which would effect this as between counties and burghs, or rather between counties adopting the Act at different dates, and it would not do to insert a provision in the Bill to unsettle all these arrangements on certain burghs now under 5,000 of population reaching that figure. That must be left to future legislation. It could not be done now without introducing confusion where there was perplexity enough already.

, in moving, in clause 3, page 2, line 10, to leave out "five," and insert "three," said, the reason he moved this second Amendment on Report was this, that when this subject was before the Committee a division was taken upon it, and a considerable majority of the Scotch Members interested in this Bill supported the proposal to reduce the limit of population, as fixed by the Bill, from 5,000 to 3,000, and he pressed this the more on the Government after what had fallen from the Lord Advocate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that the Bill was framed for the purpose of providing a final settlement of all questions between the burghs and the counties, and that any change that might be necessary should be left for future legislation. Under the present legislation they were never to permit any town to come within the provisions of the Bill if it had not at the moment of the passing of the measure, or within three months thereof, reached the population of 5,000. He saw great force in what the Lord Advocate said about the unfairness of unsettling the arrangement, and yet it was very hard on many of these towns to force them to come again to the House and ask for legislation. He hoped the Lord Advocate would give way on this point, and would grant that which was originally supported by a majority of the Scotch Members. Towns that were already under police management should come within the scope of this Bill. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment.

said, he could not agree to the Amendment. This matter was very fully considered by the Committee, and he could only say that wherever they had drawn, as they must, a hard-and-fast line somewhere, a little hardship would arise in some cases. But he ventured to suggest, that in drawing the line at a population of 5,000, there were fewer cases of hardship than there would be if the line were drawn at 3,000.

was sorry to hear, from the speech of the Lord Advocate, that the request of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. E. Noel) was not to be granted. It appeared to him extremely anomalous that the House had just passed an Amendment which gave the town of Kirriemuir a right of being considered a burgh for the purposes of this Bill, although the town of Kirriemuir had not a population of 5,000. He could not see why an advantage should be given to one town in Forfarshire, if it was not to be granted to other burghs in Scotland. There were, besides, no less than 25 Royal burghs with a population under 3,000, and if these 25 burghs were competent to manage their own roads, he did not see why other burghs of a similar population should be refused the like privilege.

said, the case of Kirriemuir was one where an arrangement had been made between it and the county, and a case where tolls had been abolished.

said, that the reason why Kirriemuir was excluded from the operation of the Bill was, that under the Forfarshire Road Act of 1874, certain arrangements were made and debts contracted, and therefore a great injustice would have been done by the present general Act unless that town were held to be a burgh, and allowed to carry out the arrangement entered into under the local Act.

said, the Government had not answered the Question as to the Royal burghs with populations under 3,000. The Kirriemuir case was not so strong a case as that of the small Royal burghs. Really, if Royal burghs under 3,000 of population, and which were decreasing in population, were to have this privilege, he did not see why places of 3,000 which were growing rapidly, should not have it. He thought this Amendment ought to be conceded.

moved, in Clause 33, page 18, line 27, after "Act," the insertion of the following provision:—

"Provided always, That nothing in this Act contained shall affect any custom or dues although levied on or at any bridge, in so far as such custom or dues shall have been in use, to be applied for other purposes than the repair and maintenance of the bridge, and shall not be of the nature of a toll or causeway mail in the sense of this Act."

said, he was sure the Committee could not have listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ernest Noel) without coming to the conclusion that if any difference existed between the characters of the dues levied at Dum- fries and the causeway mail, it was that the former were infinitely more objectionable. From what the hon. Member said, it was clear that in the case of the dues levied at Dumfries there was no quid pro quo, as the town was not bound in return for them to perform any service whatever. He hoped the clause as it stood would have the effect of abolishing such tolls; but if there were any doubt about it, he hoped the Lord Advocate would prepare an Amendment by which that doubt should be solved, and all such objectionable tolls absolutely abolished.

said, he did not think the proviso of the hon. Member would prevent litigation. The bridge in question was practically one of the main entrances to the burgh. He did not consider it fair to propose an alteration contrary to the spirit of the Act, which abolished causeway mails. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell) that the proposal was a very objectionable one, and that the character of the causeway mails must be ascertained by reason, and in consideration and respect of which the causeway mail was paid, as well as the use to which it was applied by the burghs. The last part of the proviso appeared to him to be entirely unnecessary, for if these imposts were not in the nature of causeway mail in the sense of the Act they were not abolished. He apprehended that it was possible these bridge dues might partly consist of the payment of petty customs for passage through the burgh. There were many burghs in which a payment was made for cattle going to the market stands with a view to sale. In regard to this, he would direct attention to the Interpretation Clauses, which said that—

"Causeway mail should not include petty customs, or any sum or duty except in so far as they were exacted, payable or leviable in respect of goods, articles, things, or animals passing or carried through such burgh."

asked, whether the Government were quite sure that the Bill would not abolish petty customs?

said, there was no clause in the Bill by which petty customs were abolished, except in case of petty customs for passing through the burghs.

regretted that the Bill did not propose to deal with petty customs; because, in his opinion, it was extremely desirable that it should do so.

moved, as an Amendment, in Clause 38, page 22, at end, to add the words—"Unless, on an application of either party to the sheriff, he shall otherwise determine." He was, he said, in the hands of the Lord Advocate as to the necessity for the Amendment; for it had been settled that a bridge which was situated partly in one county and partly in another should be maintained equally by each county. He, however, thought there should be some kind of reference to the sheriff in special cases.

said, he was obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, which he would accept.

called the attention of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to the fact that a bridge in his county was situated partly in another county, and consequently would come under the jurisdiction of different sheriffs.

promised to bring up a clause to amend the discrepancy.

moved, as an Amendment, in Clause 39, page 23, line 17, after "included" to insert the words—"a certified copy of the valuation roll of such detached part, or parts."

hoped the Lord Advocate would have the valuation rolls printed, so that people could get copies of them without much trouble in their respective counties, and at a small cost. The rolls now made out were almost always printed for transmission to the Lord Clerk Register, but only after a lapse of some time.

moved, as an Amendment, in Clause 42, page 24, line 13, to leave out after "may," and insert—

"Resolve that it shall be shut up, but such resolutions shall not take effect until the expiration of six months from the date thereof: Provided always, That thirty days' notice of the intention to propose a resolution, to that effect shall be given by advertisement in any newspaper usually circulating in the county in which such road proposed to be shut up is situated, and that upon such resolution being carried, the county road clerk shall give notice of the same by special advertisement and by printed notices affixed to the principal door of each church in every parish in which any part of such road is situated, and also by printed notices affixed during the said six months in some conspicuous place at both ends of such roads.

"The determination of the trustees under the preceding section shall be final, and not subject to review in any court or in any process or proceeding whatsoever, unless any three ratepayers who shall be dissatisfied with such determination shall, within fourteen days after the date thereof, appeal to the sheriff, and the resolution of the trustees under this section shall in like manner be final and not subject to review, unless any three ratepayers who shall be dissatisfied therewith shall, within six months after the date thereof, appeal to the sheriff, and the sheriff shall hear and determine."

observed, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had formerly promised that the period of objection should be extended to two months. He had expressed his willingness to accept that Amendment; but he observed that the clause only gave 14 days. Unless objection was made within 14 days, there was no redress. He would suggest to the Lord Advocate that the period should be extended to two months.

said, that the hon. Member seemed to be under some misapprehension as to the effect of the Amendment. The time given for the purpose of appealing as to the shutting-up of the road was not six months. The period of 14 days referred to the previous section. Thirty days' notice must be given of the meeting of the Board for the purpose of considering the proposal, and the clause then pro- vided that a resolution, if passed, should not take effect for six months, and during the whole of that time there was an appeal; so that, in point of fact, 14 days' notice of the intention to propose the resolution was requisite, and after it had been passed, six month's appeal was allowed. The hon. Member would observe that the 14 days referred to the preceding section.

said, he was quite satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, there ought to be strong safeguards against any abuse in the case of the shutting-up of the public roads. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) seemed to be satisfied with what had been done; but he ventured to suggest that the power of appeal should be given to the public, and not to three ratepayers only. In a question of a right of way, it seemed to him that whether a person was a ratepayer or not, he had a right to object to the shutting-up of a public way.

said, he was willing to have the word "inhabitants" inserted in the place of "ratepayers."

would explain that the word "ratepayers" would remain in the first part of the clause as to the appeal within 14 days; but that "inhabitants" would be inserted with respect to the appeal within six months.

, who had given Notice to move, as an Amend- ment, in Clause 46, page 26, line 2, after "final," to insert—

"But, in the case of any burgh containing not more than five thousand inhabitants, the terms shall be such that the road assessments in the burgh shall not be higher than those of the adjoining district or districts of the county,"