moved an Amendment with the object of depriving the Parish Council of the right to exercise the powers conferred on a County Council by Sub-section (2) of Section 53 of the Act of 1889. He pointed out that the Parish Council did not administer the Public Health Acts, and said that the district committee was the body to which the administration of the Public Health Acts was intrusted. By the provisions of the Bill the Parish Council would have the right, which surely was properly inherent in the superior and not in the inferior body, of of criticising and calling up the body next above it in the county hierarchy— namely, the district committee. He submitted that that was a violation of the principle which was introduced with very good results by the Local Government Act, which placed the administration of public health matters on the district committee. He did not think the Parish Council had the means of judging whether the Public Health Acts were put in force properly or not. They might hold an opinion upon the subject, but he did not think it was right to put them in the position of being able to force on superior bodies their opinions on such matters. He hoped the Government would see the impropriety of giving this additional power to the Parish Council and would assent to the Amendment.

said, the Bill proposed that if it should appear to the Parish Council that the Public Health Act had not been properly put in force in every district, they might cause a representation to be made to the Local Government Board. The hon. and gallant Member talked about the superior and inferior bodies. It was not a question of superior or inferior bodies at all. It was a question of the body which knows the wants" of the district, and which, in the case of a remedy being refused, could go to the quarter where a remedy could be obtained. It was true that the Parish Council had no administrative functions; but they knew where the shoe pinched, and, therefore, the Bill gave them the right of representation to the Local Government Board. If the Parish Council was not fit to go to the Local Government Board and say that they had been neglected by the other bodies, they were fit for no functions whatsoever. He knew from the relations in which he stood to the Board of Supervision that instead of being applied to by private individuals or by a voluntary committee, he should be very glad indeed if he had an authori- tative representation coming to him from such a body as the Parish Council.

said, there was already an authoritative body —the County Council, to which body the district committee had recourse. He believed most distinctly that it was a retrograde step to place back on the shoulders of the Parish Authority the responsibility which Parliament deliberately took away from them under the Act of 1889. They would scarcely find anyone who was acquainted with the working of the Public Health Act who did not fully recognise the fact that great progress had been made by the transference of the charge of public health from the Parochial to the County Authority.

said, he wished to move an Amendment to the sub-section of Clause 25 which dealt with the procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land. In this matter the County Council was set in motion by the Parish Council. Upon a representation by the Parish Council the County Council would have to hold an inquiry, after which the County Council might make an order for putting in force the Lands Clauses Acts. Such an order was to be deposited with the Local Government Board, and upon confirmation by the Board it was to become final. The part of the section he objected to was as follows:—

"And the confirmation by the Board shall be conclusive evidence that the order has been duly made, and is within the powers conferred by this Act, and that the requirements of this Act have been complied with."

in opposing the Amendment, said, the fact that the words objected to were taken from the English Act was a matter that ought not to be left out of view, for they were the last words of both Houses of Parliament on the subject. He was not surprised that they had been adopted in this Bill, because under the Provisional Order system such Acts as the Allotments and Small Holdings Acts had been absolutely fruitless. To tell the Parish Councils that they were to go through the old expensive formalities would be a mockery, a delusion, and a snare. These formalities having been got rid of, Parliament had to consider how far they would carry protection. Would they leave the new authorities the run of the Courts of Law up to the House of Lords? Parliament considered that, and said "No." He pointed out that before the provision dealt with by the Amendment came in, the matter must have been three times considered, first by the County Council, then by an appeal to the Board, and the third time by the Board on a memorial being presented to them. Every reasonable precaution had therefore been taken to see that everything had been rightly done. His hon. and learned Friend said that he was not giving an appeal. It was quite true he was not technically proposing to give an appeal, because an appeal meant something in the nature of a review. What his hon. and learned Friend proposed was to allow questions of ultra vires to be carried to and litigated in the Law Courts instead of being finally decided by the Board. He submitted it was wise and proper that the confirmation by the Board should be conclusive evidence that the Order had been duly made, because a great many of the evils which existed under the old Provisional Order system would be brought back in another form if they gave any recalcitrant person whose land was proposed to be taken the run of the Law Courts, and one could easily imagine how the mere threat of having to go to the House of Lords would deter a Local Authority such as a Parish Council from entering on any enterprise. There were two highly-skilled lawyers on the Board—the Solicitor General for Scotland and the permanent legal officer— and any questions of excess of power under this section would be of the simplest description. They had got a plain Bill which he who ran might read, and he believed the Board, through its legal members, would be perfectly competent to determine finally any question of ultra vires that could possibly be suggested by anyone.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman in opposing the Amendment seemed to have forgotten the axiom that "hard cases made bad law." It seemed to him the Lord Advocate had been resting his opposition to this Amendment entirely on the hard case of some litigious person who had the power of the purse, and because he was frightened by the hard case he laid down exceedingly bad law, and went in the face of a deep-lying principle in our Constitution. The whole theory of the British Constitution was that the Courts of Law in the case of every subordinate authority in the Kingdom had a right to inquire into the action of that authority to see whether it had gone beyond the sphere of the powers which Parliament had delegated to it. In this sub-section he believed Parliament had for the first time gone in the face of that principle. It was said that the sub-section was taken from the English Act; but he believed there had been no discussion on the point.

Yes, the whole question was discussed.

said, the right hon. Gentleman ought to know, as he was in charge of the English Bill, but he had looked up the Parliamentary Debates and could not find any discussion of the point in the clause from which the sub-section was taken. The one point to which he took exception was that the sub-section abolished the doctrine of ultra vires. It was an absolute innovation to give the Local Government Board such a power. In this subsection he believed Parliament had for the first time gone in the face of that principle.

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the subject was discussed when the Bill was before the House. Indeed, it was the subject of discussion between the two Houses. The principle was to get rid of Parliament and of Courts of Law, and to substitute for what would be a Provisional Order, confirmed by Parliament, a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board. Lord Morley's scheme was submitted to that House, but there were points to which the House would not consent. The intention of Parliament would be frustrated if the action of the Local Government Board were subject to revision by any body or Court. On both sides of the House the object was to make the procedure as simple and inexpensive as possible.

said, the whole question of procedure was discussed when the English Bill was before the House. The right hon. Gentleman could not point out anything to show that the specific point now raised was then the subject of discussion. He himself did not think it was. The question, though comparatively narrow, was a very important constitutional point, and depended entirely on the word "conclusive." So far as he was aware, in the English Parish Councils Act for the first time Parliament—as he believed by inadvertence — withdrew from the Supreme Courts of the country, and gave over to an executive department the final construction of its own acts of legislation.

I quite admit that it was for the first time, but that is what we intended to do.

said, he thought Parliament intended to get rid of appeals to Parliament in the form of Provisional Orders, but what about the appeal to Courts of Law? He had always understood that one of the great safeguards against the action of the Executive Government was that Acts of Parliament were only to be construed by the Supreme Judges.

I now remember that an Amendment was proposed on this point, and it was suggested by it that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be the tribunal to settle these questions.

said, he could not help thinking that that was to be a tribunal of appeal on the merits of the question. As an instance of the necessity for an appeal on the construction of Acts of Parliament, he recalled the fact that only a year or two ago the Supreme Court in Scotland decided that certain rules prepared by the Scottish Education Department for cases where a full board was not elected were ultra vires, as being inconsistent with one of the clauses of the Education Act. Was the House prepared to withdraw from the Supreme Courts of Law the power of saying whether or not the Executive had gone beyond the intentions of Parliament? He thought it would be most unwise to do so, and urged the Government to reconsider their decision.

said, the proposal, which was of great theoretical importance, was undoubtedly a very great innovation, and the precedent of the English Act would not have been sufficient to reconcile him to it; but the considerations mentioned by the Lord Advocate ought to convince the House. On the whole, he thought it would be better not to leave the door open to litigation, as the costs which might be incurred would paralyse the provisions of the clause.

moved to omit the words "and is within the powers conferred by this Act." He said that this again raised in a simple manner the question the House had just been considering.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India had tried to make out that this question had been discussed in the English Bill, and, as he (Mr. Graham Murray) considered, had conspicuously failed. He could not substantiate his statement by any reference to Hansard. As a fact, he denied that the question of ultra vires was discussed at all when the English Act was under consideration Then, it was a perfectly absurd assumption that because an injustice was perpetrated by a popularly-elected body it ceased to be an injustice.

The arguments of the hon. and learned Member seem to be directed to the last Amendment. If they are directed to this, it only shows that it is a superfluous Amendment.

replied that the present Amendment raised in a restricted form what was undoubtedly raised by the preceding Amendment.

said, he must congratulate his right hon. and learned Friend on the ingenuity he had displayed in raising a point which the ingenuity of all the landowners and all the lawyers of England had not suggested, or which, at all events, had not had the boldness to put forward. There was in the English Act no analogue at all to this proposal; and he was not surprised at it. The proposal was to import into this Act en bloc a series of provisions of the Railway Clauses Act which were applicable to the construction of railways. It was quite intelligible and appropriate that where a work of the peculiar and dangerous kind dealt with in the Act was carried through a man's land, such provisions as the right hon. and learned Member had referred to should be made. This Bill, however, did not give power to make a railway or even to build a house; it merely empowered the transference of land from A to B and, as far as he could see, the land when it was in the hands of B would be very much what it was while in the hands of A. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had taken fences as his leading case. If he only wanted to provide for fencing, why did he not move an Amendment respecting fencing and let it be argued out? The clause would do no injustice at all, because very full compensation would be given for everything that the person who had lost a piece of his land would lose. One of the things for which compensation was given was severance, and, that being so, the landowner would very likely be paid 30 or 40 per cent, more than he would otherwise receive. In one shape or another every penny of damage, as well as every penny of value, would be paid for under the provisions of the Bill.

said, he was perfectly astonished at the speech just made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, knowing as he did what experience the right hon. and learned Gentleman had had. The case was really a very simple one. Supposing that under the provisions of the Bill half a field were taken for the purposes of a Parish Council, it was quite obvious that there must be a fence between the half that was taken and the half that was left. Who, injustice, ought to pay for that fence? Not the landowner certainly, because he wanted to keep the property that was taken from him. Nobody knew better than the Lord Advocate that a man could not claim under the name of severance for fencing. The machinery adopted by the Government in their Bill was the machinery of the Land Clauses Act, and the machinery of that Act assumed that accommodation was dealt with; yet the Government excluded an inquiry into that question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that every damage done would be paid for. He (Mr. Murray) challenged him to say whether, in the whole of his experience, he had had to deal with a claim for fencing. If a field were divided, undoubtedly some consideration ought to be given for the necessary fencing between the two parts.

said, the Government must adhere to the view they had hitherto taken, and which again he begged the House to remember was the view to which Parliament gave effect in the English Bill, which was its last word on the subject. The words objected to were identical with those in the English Bill. Their object was to keep the proceedings simple and inexpensive. He did not say that hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to make them expensive, but the Amendment would tend in that direction. The inquiries contemplated under the section wore of a very simple character. A Parish Council, for instance, took a bit of land for a building or a recreation ground, and surely it would be no difficult matter to ascertain what was the market value of the neighbouring land and the value of the piece of ground taken. That was the normal kind of local inquiry, and they did not want an expert witness for an inquiry of that kind. Of course, where there were cases in which it might be desirable in the general interest to have the assistance of expert witnesses, the Local Government Board would have power to allow them. The words of the clause were "shall not except with the consent of the Board." In a complicated or difficult case the Board would consent. As to recognising an expert witness he should have thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would have had no difficulty in the matter. But, however that might be, the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to assume that no common sense would be brought to bear upon the matter. He should have thought that a very small grain of good sense would enable the arbitrator to say whether or not a person presented to him as a witness was a gentleman of skill, speaking not merely with knowledge of a certain half acre of land and the current prices of a certain neighbourhood, but with a knowledge of land and prices all over the country, and with extensive experience of railways and other great undertakings.

said that, judging from his own experience, it might very well happen that land taken near a village, say for recreation purposes, might be the most valuable part of a farm. To take away that piece of laud might interfere with the course of agriculture, disturbing the shifts on which the farm was necessarily worked. What could be more desirable in a case of that kind than the advice of a skilled person? They did not require gentlemen who had spent their lives and acquired fortunes in giving evidence before Parliamentary Committees, but he desired that competent men of well-known local experience should be able to advise the Arbitrator in cases like these. The Lord Advocate often had before him men like Mr. Drennan, who unfortunately was no longer with them. He was thoroughly conversant with agricultural questions, and he (Sir J. Fergusson) could name half-a-dozen such men who were skilled witnesses, though not professional, who could be called on with confidence to give evidence in such matters. If, in fact, the expert witness was excluded except in special cases there would rise up another professional person—namely, the skilled Arbitrator, who would have to possess a thorough knowledge of agricultural matters himself, because he would not be able to have agricultural experts called before him. These men would require good salaries, and their work would be important. If he had his time to come over again he should be inclined to become an arbitrator, and should certainly bring up one of his sons to the work.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to admit that there was much difficulty in defining "expert witness." The difficulty was one that would be met with at every point. The Lord Advocate's argument was mainly one of expense. They were all agreed as to the desirability of keeping the expenses to be incurred under the Bill as low as possible, but surely that should be done directly and not indirectly. He suggested that a solution of the question might be found in providing that the Arbitrator should not,

"except with the consent of the Board, allow the expenses of any witness beyond the expenses specified in the rules to be drawn up by the Board."

moved, in page 18, line 30, after the second "any," insert "market garden, fruit garden, or." He did so, he said, in the interests of the Clydesdale part of his constituency. The fruit-growing industry was a very important one, and was a real blessing to many families of the poorer classes, in his own constituency as well as in Perth-shire, and other parts of the country.

said, the Government could not accept the suggestion. This clause did not deal with taking land for allotments, but only empowered the Parish Council to take land for a very limited class of purposes, and that would result in very limited areas being taken. He did not know why ground which was growing corn should be taken and ground growing strawberries or fruit trees protected, arid in some parts of the country, such as the Carse of Gowrie, only such land might be available.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten his own Bill, and was wrong in saying that it did not have to do with allotments. This clause had nothing to do with allotments, but the next clause had, and the only restrictions in Clause 26 were those which were incorporated by reference to this Clause 25. Therefore, they were entitled to argue that Clause 25 applied to allotments. On the merits of the Amendment, he had in Committee instanced a very crying case for this Amendment—the case of Blairgowrie, where it would be disastrous that land should be taken for allotments from fruit gardens. On that occasion the Member for East Perthshire (Sir J. Kinloch) said unless fruit gardens could be taken, they would not be able to get land at all. But he had since made inquiry, and he had a letter which showed that for 1,000 acres in Blairgowrie not 100 were fruit gardens.

said, he could not imagine any body more safe to trust to in the contingency suggested than the Parish Council. They were not likely to take a playground frequented by the children of their own constituents.

said, he would undertake that the case of land for the amenity or convenience of a factory would be met in another place.

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment on that understanding.

said, the Government were quite willing that the words should be left out.

said, it appeared to him that there was a point here which might be met. No doubt it would not be right that the landlord's rent should be made less. The Amendment, however, would require a slight change.

said, the Government thought that on the whole there would be no harm done by leaving the clause in the general form in which it passed the Grand Committee.

observed that the Solicitor General for Scotland had not answered the argument as to its being in the English Act. The Government had thought it judicious to put up a fresh advocate, the Lord Advocate having dwelt on the wisdom of Parliament as expressed in that Act. He (Mr. Parker Smith) thought the mischief of the Act as it stood was that no rules were laid down to guide the Arbitrator in awarding compensation as between the landlord and the Parish Council. At the same time, he would like to point out that very strict rules were laid down as to compensation as between the outgoing tenant and the Parish Council. It was provided that certain sections of the Allotments Act (Scotland), 1892, were to apply to this Bill. One of these sections dealt with the question of improvements, and stated that no building, tool-house, &c, should be erected, and if any building was erected, at the end of the tenancy, neither the Local Authority nor the incoming tenant should be bound to take such building or offer any compensation, and the outgoing tenant should be at liberty to remove the building. Therefore, as between the outgoing tenant and the Parish Council strict rules were laid down as to compensation; but as between the Parish Council and the landlord there was no restriction of any kind, and the Parish Council would be free to claim the full value they might put on the land. That appeared to him a rather extraordinary and irrational proceeding. The Amendment, as it stood, appeared to him to follow what, in spite of the Solicitor General, he considered the safe precedent, in many matters, of the English Act, and, at any rate, he considered that the same definite rule should be laid down in the case of the landlord as had been laid down for the Parish Council. It was only right that in some way or other the Arbitrator should be guided as to what principles he should act on in making his award.

said, the Government could not assent to this Amendment. This clause dealt with a very special matter, and that was the right to resume the surface for the purpose of working the minerals which under the statutory taking wore reserved. Of course, it followed that if the minerals were reserved they must provide for some means of getting at them, and, accordingly, power was introduced here for resuming the surface for the purpose of working the minerals. What his hon. Friend proposed was that land which, after all the safeguards had been observed, had been made over to the Parish Council under the conditions of a lease should be taken back for feuing. But if they were to take it back for feuing, why not for agriculture or anything else? It was simply another surface use, and no doubt that would be considered at the time when the grant was made; therefore the Government could not assent to this Amendment.

desired to point out that the Government by refusing to assent to this Amendment were putting a restraint upon a matter which their followers had often expressed themselves most anxious to facilitate. Ground was feued mainly for creating dwellings—it might be workmen's dwellings or villas. A Committee had been sitting upstairs for two years now with reference to an alleged infraction of the law of Scotland in this very matter. Anxious pleadings had been addressed to the Feus and Leases Committee against keeping up the restrictions which imposed a difficulty in obtaining land for building dwellings for the people, and the sole objection of the Government to this most reasonable Amendment was that it related to a clause dealing with another matter. But it happened to fit in perfectly well, and the Lord Advocate had not shown a single word in respect of which this Amendment, if inserted in this clause, would not work out perfectly well in the framework of the clause as it stood. He had considered the clause with great care with reference to this Amendment, and although the primary purpose, no doubt, was the resumption of land for working minerals, he should have thought that in the view of the Government themselves, it was at least as important a consideration for what the Lord Advocate was pleased to call surface use—that was inferior useߞ—

No, no.

Well, superior use, if he liked; but there could be no more pressing and urgent use of land than its use for the purpose of building houses for the people.

desired to point out that this was not a proposal to take land by the community for the purpose of providing dwellings, but simply that the landlord should claim back his land.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I understand he proposes to raise the limit?

I propose to leave out the limit.

Then that would put an additional charge upon the rates, and I am afraid that could not be done with me in the Chair.

The limit was put in by the Committee upstairs. As the Bill left this House there was no limit put in. It was on an Amendment upstairs that this limit was put in. We discussed it there, and if we provide a limit there, surely it would be possible to discuss here a proposal to restore the Bill to the position in which it left this House.

I was not aware of that. What I said was that it could not be done with me in the Chair. An Amendment must be made in Committee of the House, and not on Report, which raises the charge. If the hon. Gentleman likes he can move to re-commit the Bill, but he cannot do it with me in the Chair.

It is your ruling that it is not in Order to make a Motion omitting these words that were inserted in the Committee upstairs, and which, in the view of some of us, seriously modify this Bill?

The effect of that would be to raise the limit upon which the rates are charged. It has been expressly stated by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that he accepted the limit. Any proposal to raise the limit would be an additional charge upon the rates, and it could not be done with me in the Chair.

asked whether the limit could not be entirely abolished?

We do not raise it; we abolish it.

That means it may go higher, and that is clearly out of Order.

said, he would like to put this further point. A Committee of the House was set up to authorise expenditure connected with the Billߞ—

That was only with regard to salaries. This proposal is an additional charge upon the rates, and cannot be imposed with me in the Chair.

said, it was not for him to move that the Bill should be recommitted. He did not wish to delay the Bill, and he was satisfied with having made his statement.

said, the hon. Member could re-commit the Bill on the Third Reading.

We will consider it, and probably we need not do so.

said, the Government could not accept the Amendment, but they were willing to consider any information which might be submitted to them relating to the point.

intimated that the Government would accept the Amendment.

thought that this proposal to relieve Parish Councils from liability was a very serious one. The matter should be explained.

said, the roads here dealt with were footways or bridle-paths or other tracks across the country. It might be desirable to empower, although not to compel, a Public Body to repair such roads; but as the Public Body were not bound to spend money out of the rates on these roads, the public using the roads should, it was proposed, take their chance of using them as they foundthem.

said, that the clause, at the time it was inserted in the Bill, was believed by the Government to be for the advantage of parish roads. Since that time, however, representations from a number of parts had reached the Government, pointing out that the practical effect of the clause would probably be adverse to the making of roads for the benefit of a parish by the proper Road Authority. It was feared that when the Road Authority was asked to make a road for a parish on the ordinary terms, that authority would say that if the parish wanted a road, it should get it made and pay for it under this clause. In view of these practically unanimous representations, they were prepared to assent to the Amendment of the hon. Member.

said, he did not think it necessary to quote the English Bill with regard to this clause relating to charities, because Scottish Members of the Grand Committee, interpreting the general will of Scotland, had shown a much greater freedom in dealing with these matters than was displayed by the English Representatives, and by a large part of public opinion in England. Those charities were not ecclesiastical. What the Government proposed in reference to these charities was, that where the object was not ecclesiastical, but social and parochial—where the money was given for the benefit of all members of the community without any distinction of religion, the Parish Council, as the body representative of the whole parish, should have the power of putting a number of persons upon the management, who, if the Local Government Board approved, might be a majority, and would be a majority, he supposed, in most cases. The Scotch people, he thought, would have no objec- tion, in the case of such charities, to the Parish Councils having the power, subject to the control of the Local Government Board, to appoint a majority of the Trustees. The principle of the clause had been approved by the Standing Committee, and he believed in that respect the action of the Government represented the feelings of the Scotch people on the matter. The proceedings of the Committee had been watched with much interest by the people of Scotland, as he should imagine, judging from the very full reports given of their deliberations, and he had heard no remonstrance of any kind from them against the action of the Committee upon this question. The Boards would represent the inhabitants of each district, and would be fully competent to deal with the secular interests involved in such trusts, and the Government could not consent to alter the clause in this respect.

desired to enter his protest against the course that was being pursued by the Government in reference to this question. A great deal had been said in a loose manner in reference to the importance of the Bill, and they had been constantly referred to the English Act and its provisions. He would not repeat on this occasion the arguments previously used, which were based upon fairness and public expediency in regard to the transfer of the management of these trusts. They were not ecclesiastical trusts, it was true; but on the grounds urged when the English Bill was under consideration, the House had arrived at a totally opposite conclusion from that which the Secretary for Scotland had come to. The view embodied in this Amendment was the only expedient one in the public interest, and its supporters urged upon the House the propriety of adopting it. He did not suppose they would obtain the concurrence of the Government in their views, but they wished to enter a protest against what the right hon. Gentleman had said with regard to the Charity Commissioners dictating in the matter. They disputed that altogether.

said, this clause had been inserted to meet a special class of cases in which a particular scheme of management would have to be-drawn up. He was quite certain that the Board would exercise a discretion in these matters, and would never interfere, except under special circumstances, and in such cases as had already been referred to.

said, this clause had been very carefully drawn, with the object of securing a limited number in place of a large amorphous body. The number mentioned had been carefully thought out, and the Government could not consent to alter it.

said, the point of continuity should be kept in view in these matters.

said, the persons appointed would not be sole Trustees. That should always be kept in view.

said, he would certainly be very unwilling to accept any Amendment which was not founded either on public policy or the protection of private rights. This Amendment did not fulfil either of those conditions. The class of charities with which they were dealing were for purely secular objects, and exactly that sort of charity which would be best administered by a secular Representative Body. He would mention two or three specimens of such charities founded during the last 40 years. One in the County of Dumfries, founded in 1882, was a gift of £300 to the poor of a parish who had not been in receipt of parochial relief; another in 1888 was £630, the income to be applied for the benefit of five such poor persons and to purchase books for the children of such poor persons; and another in 1871 was £700 for labouring men's children. In such cases a wise testator would not have appointed a Parochial Body for the purpose of administering charities for working men and their children not in receipt of parochial relief. The Government proposal did not injure the donor, because the purposes of the charity would be better fulfilled if managed by the new body. Neither did they injure the object of the charity, for that re- mained the same. There was a general feeling in the country in favour of so dealing with charities of recent foundation, and it was difficult to suppose that in the progressive and enlightened state of public feeling in Scotland any sentiment to the contrary existed. As a matter of public policy, that being the case, the Government were bound to place secular charities in the hands of secular Representative Bodies. So far for the past. As for the future, whom did they injure? If a donor wished to give money for the proposed education or for the relief in clothes, food, and money to the general poor of the parish, he would do it with his eyes open, and he would give the money to be administered by the body whom Parliament in its wisdom had selected as the best body. If, on the other hand, he wished to leave his money for ecclesiastical purposes, he could leave it, as he could now, to the kirk-session of the Established Church or to any other religious body he liked.

said, the next Amendment was purely a drafting Amendment, the object being to give a means of identifying the parish. There were a good many parishes in Scotland of the same name; therefore, he moved to add the words "and county," making it necessary that every Parish Council elected under the Act should be incorporated not in the name of the parish alone, but in that of the parish and county.

considered that it was not a mere drafting Amendment. It would cause a very considerable amount of expense and trouble and would make it compulsory for nearly 900 parishes to take a second name, which they had done, and could in the future do, very well without. He therefore opposed the Amendment.

said, he desired to move to add—

"Every committee shall report its proceedings to the Parish Council by whom it was appointed."

said, that by Sub-section 2 of Clause 19 of the Bill Parish Councils could make their own regulations on this and other matters, and it was better to leave the point to the discretion of each Council. If a Council wanted a report from a committee, it would make a regulation to that effect.

said, he wished to move an Amendment to the effect that the accounts should be audited by an auditor appointed by the Board instead of by an auditor appointed by the Parish Council, subject to the approval of the Board, as the Bill proposed. As the Bill was originally introduced, it provided that the Parish Council accounts should be audited by the county auditors, but it was pointed out that that would be objectionable. It was said that, however able these professional men were to audit, they were quite incapable of auditing the accounts of the parishes in Scotland. The Government saw the force of that, and adopted the system of the Bill, which was that the auditors were to be appointed by the Parish Councils, and approved of by the Board. The Committee adopted that system not because they thought it good, but because it was better than the system in the Bill originally. He hoped that in this case it would not be said that those who supported an Amendment of this kind were not prepared to trust the Parish Councils. He thought it had been generally recognised in legislation dealing with local government that the auditors who were to audit the accounts of these bodies should not be appointed by the bodies themselves, but should be in a position of entire independence, owing nothing to the bodies who appointed them. The reason for that was self-evident. Even if the audit meant simply a matter of account, and the auditor was bound to see that the receipts and expenditure were properly entered, it was desirable that the auditor should be appointed by some superior authority. The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) would agree that a great deal of trouble would have been saved to many Parochial Boards if there had been some system of audit enforced as to their accounts, and many Inspectors of (he Poor would have been prevented getting into difficulties and trouble if their accounts had been properly audited. If that were the case where an auditor had merely to see if the accounts were properly kept, much more was it the case where more than an audit was required—where the auditor had to satisfy himself that the payments made by the Parish Council were within the Act establishing the Parish Council, and where he had the power of disallowance and the power of surcharge. He thought that in such a case as that the auditor should be appointed by some superior outside body. It would be a difficult duty for a man who might have been appointed by a bare majority of the Council to sit in judgment upon items of expense incurred by that majority, and to decide whether they were really within their powers. In these cases it was, in his opinion, very desirable that the accounts should be completely overhauled by some central authority. He would further point out that what they desired in the case of this auditor was that their accounts should all be audited on the same system. They had 885 parishes in Scotland, and they would possibly have as many auditors. How would they secure that all the auditors would take exactly the same view of the expenditure of those bodies? Even in the case of the 10 county auditors in Scotland, they did not take exactly the same view of the expenditure by the County Councils. He did not think the Secretary for Scotland or the Board would be able really to satisfy themselves whether the appointment made by the Parochial Council was a satisfactory one or not, owing to certain Amendments having been ruled out of Order. If there was no sufficient efficient central audit they lost one of the things that existed in England in connection with Poor Law Guardians. The Amendment was important, seeing that the Parish Councils had not only to administer the Poor Law, but also in many cases to be the managers of local charities. He thought in these cases it was desirable that the accounts should be completely overlooked by some independent authority to see if the funds had been properly administered. He had understood the Secretary for Scotland to say he could not adopt a system of central audit for two reasons. He referred to the vested interest of the present auditors. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was under some misapprehension, because the present auditors were annually appointed, and he did not think they had a claim as having a vested interest. The right hon. Gentleman's second reason was that the Bill was sufficiently loaded, and that it would increase the "burden if provision were made for a central audit. He thought, then, it would have been well if some part of the Bill had been omitted to make way for the insertion of a clause dealing with the question of audit. Two clauses of considerable length were adopted from the Local Government Act of 1889. The framers of the Act of 1889 founded those clauses on a Bill introduced in 1881 bearing the name of the Lord Advocate, which provided for a central audit in the case of Parochial Boards. That Bill was sent to a Select Committee, and was passed, and the introduction of some of its provisions in this Bill in Committee, with slight alterations, would have made the audit complete. He did not, therefore, think that the adoption of the proposal would have loaded the Bill to any great extent. The right hon Gentleman had objected to the expense of a central audit.

rose to a point of Order, and asked if the Amendment was consistent with a previous ruling of the Chair—on Clause 6, Sub-section 3? He submitted that if this Motion were carried the Board could either audit the accounts themselves or that an auditor would be appointed who would receive no remuneration.

submitted that the Board might appoint an auditor, and yet it might be quite competent for the auditor to receive his fee.

said, he supposed there was to be an auditor somewhere; and the Question was, who was to appoint him. He ruled that the Amendment was perfectly in Order.

said, be did not think his proposal would increase the expense of the audit very much. The Secretary for Scotland seemed to be under some fear that the Treasury would in some way be affected. In the case of England a considerable sum was paid towards the remuneration of the district auditor—something like £12,000, lie believed; while in Ireland, unless he was mistaken, the district auditor was paid entirely by the Treasury. He (Mr. Maxwell) did not look forward in his proposal to this charge being borne by the Treasury, though he thought they in Scotland had a right to claim some grant for that purpose. They acknowledged the concession made by the Treasury to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the salary of one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, and, presumably, that was all they could look for in one year. But this expense was, he took it, to be borne by the parish. Would it be a great burden on the parish? They had at present one central audit in London in connection with the School Boards, which was paid for by the Treasury, and cost something like £700 per annum, or rather under that amount. He was aware that the auditor under the Education Act had not the power of disallowance and surcharge, and had not to visit the parishes, so that they could not take that as an exact test of what would be the cost. But suppose each parish in Scotland cost £3—in many small parishes that would be too much; but, on the other hand, there were other parishes where there would be a great deal more. Take it, however, at £3 each as an average, that would give a total of £2,600. He calculated that the whole of this audit managed from headquarters might be done for a sum not exceeding £3,000, and he believed the work could be done much more efficiently than by the parishes acting for themselves. His proposal, in brief, was that the Board should appoint these auditors and prescribe the scale of remuneration to be paid to them.

said, he gathered that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was that, instead of the Parish Council being allowed to recommend an auditor for the approbation of the Board, the Board itself should appoint the auditor and name the amount of his remuneration. Later on the Bill provided that the Board may provide a scale for the remuneration of auditors under this section, and if there was any disposition on the part of parishes to grossly over-pay or scandalously under-pay the auditors in respect of their duties under the section no doubt the Board would take advantage of the power so conferred. The system introduced in the Bill was introduced upon many representations made in Committee, and, as he thought, to the almost universal satisfaction of the Committee. A practical difficulty in the way of the amount was that it would be extremely difficult for the Board to name an auditor for every parish in Scotland. Moreover, when they came to deal with 800 or 900 auditors, it would give them an amount of indirect patronage which he would be sorry to see placed on their shoulders. He thought the proposal in the Bill was a very good one. Furthermore, he had no doubt that the Board would make inquiry when the names of auditors were submitted to them by the Parish Councils. He had hardly any doubt likewise that the Parish Councils, whom they must accredit with common sense, would select a great many of the auditors from men of of well-known probity and ability. It was a system that was simpler, which appeared to have little or no inconvenience in it, and which was well-received by public opinion in Scotland. He would not enter into that which formed a considerable part of the hon. Gentleman's speech—namely, the question of a paid public auditor. Mr. Speaker had ruled that it was in Order for a private Member to move an Amendment dealing with the appointment of a public auditor, but that it was not in Order for a private Member to propose the appointment of an auditor to be paid by the Treasury.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate misunderstood the purport of the hon. Member's Amendment. He did not suppose that the hon. Member moved it because he was afraid that the Parish Councils would overpay their auditors, nor because he thought the Central Board would select better men than the Parish Councils. What he had to say was not meant to be in any way derogatory to the local accounting power of the parishes. There were in many parts of Scotland men quite fit to audit accounts; but, if he understood his hon. Friend aright, his suggestion was made with a view to the securing of a central audit, and not necessarily an audit paid for by monies supplied by the Treasury. Unless the auditor was appointed by the Local Government Board, who held in their hands the whole string of the parochial administration of Scotland, they would not have the same government or administration going on in every part of the country. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had seemed to assume that the proposition for a central auditor meant an auditor appointed by the Treasury. It meant nothing of the sort. A contribution for the amount of work done by a man in each particular parish would be paid by each parish. Inspectors of Schools were sent down to the parishes to inspect schools, and a charge was made against the parish or the School Board. It was not provided out of the Treasury money. But the point sought to be raised by the Amendment was whether it would not be a much better system to have a central audit in the hands of the Local Government Board for the whole of Scotland. He was not going to repeat all he had said when the clause was moved by the hon. Gentleman in Committee; but as all the points of that Clause were inadmissible—the clause having been ruled out of Order—it was a pity that in this matter Scotland could not be placed in the same position as England, when, if nothing else, they would at least have brought into public view the different methods in which the Local Bodies were administering the Poor Law. The central audit system was proposed in order that there might be a similarity and likeness between the methods of the Councils in the various parishes, not that, so far as the auditors hemselves were concerned, capable men could not be found in the localities in all parts of Scotland.

said, the Amendment had been brought forward in a most interesting and convincing speech, and the House ought to be grateful to the hon. Member for having brought within the range of the practical possibilities of the Bill the appointment of central auditors who would be an effective guarantee to the people of Scotland that these parish accounts would be efficiently audited. He was bound to say he thought the scheme of the Bill would fail if they were to have in each parish a separate and independent audit. What they wanted was a strong central audit which would command public confidence. The proposal of the hon. Member would provide for that without putting any charge whatever on the Treasury. The whole charge was to be borne locally, but the appointment of a public auditor was to rest practically with the Board or the Secretary for Scotland. It seemed to him that the Government had hardly considered the wording of Clause 69 of the Local Government Act with respect to this matter. Clauses 69 and 70 his hon. Friend wished to see incorporated in the Bill. Clause 69 provided that the County Council (and for the County Council in the present case Parish Council should be read in each instance) might pay to the auditor such salary and allowances as might from time to time be fixed by the County Council subject to the approval of the Board. That was what his hon. Friend asked for, and it seemed to him that having regard to the difficulties which would be overcome by this simple proceeding, that if they agreed to the proposal of his hon. Friend they would have a thoroughly effective and complete audit. Such a guarantee would be a guarantee to those of them who were a" little anxious as to the operation of this change in Poor Law administration from the existing body to the new Parish Councils. His hon. Friend had placed new clauses on the Paper, and Mr. Speaker had ruled that the House could not deal with them, but they embodied the view which to a large extent they were anxious to provide for in the Bill. Their contention now was that the whole case would to a large extent be met by agreeing to a central audit. It would certainly be on the whole a much better audit than that provided for in the Bill, and having regard to the provision in Sub-section (5) of Section 70 of the Local Government Act of 1889 it would give to the ratepayers throughout Scotland a guarantee that in the event of undue relief being given or even a suggestion being made of expenditure taking place that was not warranted there would be a public control coming down and looking over the accounts once a year, and deciding whether or not these items were within the four corners of the Act. For that reason he thought the Amendment was well deserving of attention.

said, he felt unable to agree with the Government on this point. His view was that to allow every body to appoint its own auditor was like allowing a prisoner to appoint his own gaoler. It was quite true that the appointment had to be approved by the Local Government Board, but nevertheless the auditor would know that he owed his appointment in reality to the body whose expenditure he had to oversee. He thought the Government should see that the business was accurately and justly done, and the feelings of these Local Bodies must not be too closely or unduly consulted. He greatly preferred a central or official audit of some kind.

said, he still held the view he had previously expressed in favour of an official audit.

being a moderate man in all things, wished to inquire whether there was any compromise possible in this matter? Why should not, as he had suggested before, the Central Board appoint auditors for each county, who would have the control of the parochial audit?

thought the Government should deign to give a reply to the observations made by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House.

said, the matter was very fully considered upstairs. It was to be observed that the audit in a case of this kind would be primarily for the purpose of checking officials. That being so, the Government saw no reason to depart from the accepted method.

said, it was impossible to argue that the body interested in the accounts to be audited should themselves appoint the auditor. The country was beginning to see that this system would not do. It was a source of great financial difficulty, and he was surprised to hear any Member of the Government get up to defend it. A most cogent case had been made out against the Government, not only from that side of the House, but by their trusted supporters on the Government Benches, and in favour of the central audit, and when this question was thoroughly understood in Scotland he believed such an audit would be demanded. It was only following the precedent of the Local Government Act of 1889, in which County Council auditors were not appointed by the County Council, hut by the Secretary for Scotland. It was similar in the educational system, and it was impossible to contend that difficulty would arise by requiring that one authority should appoint the auditor, and the body whoso accounts were to be audited should pay the expense. He wished to express his regret and disappointment that the Government had not shown a disposition to yield a single inch on such a matter as this.

said, he might remind the Government that the Division in the Committee on this matter was one of the closest, being 28 to 24.

said, he might rise for a moment's explanation. The Division was on the sub-section in Clause 6, giving the Board power to appoint such medical officers and Inspectors as the Board might determine. It was then moved to insert "auditors," whose salaries would have had to be paid by moneys provided by Parliament. No Division was taken on the question as to whether they should be appointed by the Parish Council with the consent of the Local Government Board.

The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.

No, no; I had not sat down at all. Proceeding, the hon, Gentleman said it was quite true that the Division was not on this particular Amendment, but on one which exactly raised this principle, and a hon. Member tried this evening to move the same Amendment, and was ruled out of Order. Otherwise upon it they would have had this discussion. What they wanted to do was to secure similarity in the administration in the different parts of the country, and, what was still more important, they wanted to have a check on the administration of the Poor Law by an entirely new body in parts of the country where it was thought possible that abuses might arise. That check existed in England in regard to the Poor Law, and it ought to exist in this Bill.

said, he thought that the Parochial Boards appointed their own auditors under the present system. There was, however, the further point as to the advisability of giving the Local Government Board a power of revision or surcharge or disallowing expenditure incurred by Parish Councils. He believed there was some doubt whether the Board of Supervision had power to do that, and he agreed with the Member for North East Lanarkshire (Mr. Crawford) in thinking that such a power would be desirable.

rose to speak——

said, the hon. Gentleman could not speak twice.

said, that if there was a public way through the area of administration, it was strong evidence that it was used more or less by the inhabitants, and, therefore, it appeared to them the proposal might be a very injurious limitation.