moved in Sub-section (1), before the words "publication of such resolution," to insert "last." The effect of the Amendment would be that the formation of a. special drainage district would take place 21 days after the. "last" publication of the advertisement notice.

said that this was a real case in which the "last" should be "first"—["hear, hear!" and laughter]—whilst it was possible to know the date on which the first publication of the notice took place, it would be difficult to know the date of the last publication of it, as there was no definite number of times fixed for the publication. He thought that 21 days after the first publication would be a satisfactory interval, and if the hon. Member would substitute "first" for "last" he would accept the Amendment.

said that he only wished that the time should be definite. He would, therefore, accept the Lord Advocate's suggestion, and he consequently asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

moved in the same Sub-section, before the words "publication of such resolution," to insert "first."

moved to insert at the end, after Sub-section (3): —

(4) Where a special drainage district has been formed, or may hereafter be formed, under the provisions of this Act, the district committee of the district in which such special drainage district is or may be situated, or the county council where a county is not divided into districts, shall, in their discretion, have power to provide for the drainage of the highways and footpaths under their management and control within such special drainage district, or to pay or contribute out of the assessments raised under the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878 a proportion of the cost of providing and maintaining sewers sufficient for the drainage of such highways and footpaths.

said that he was willing to accept the Amendment.

I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has satisfied himself that this Amendment does not alter the incidence of taxation.

said that he was afraid that the latter part of the Amendment would do so. If the hon. Member would be content with his promise he would undertake to consider the matter, with the view, if necessary, of himself moving an Amendment in another place which would carry out the hon. Member's object.

said that the Amendment could not be inserted in the House of Lords.

said that he proposed to move the recommitment of the Bill in order to get the sub-section inserted in Committee.

said that he wished to point out that a similar sub-section was contained in the Bill in regard to sewage. Ire asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

moved to leave out the words—

"and execute all such works as may appear to them necessary, in the same manner as if an order of a sheriff, magistrate, or justice had been made for the removal of a nuisance on the premises and that order had not been complied with."

said that in his opinion the Amendment would render the clause worthless.

said that his Amendment simply took away the too drastic power which the clause originally gave to the local authorities to enter premises, and to execute works, and to provide a water supply without an appeal to the Sheriff. The Amendment had been suggested by a gentleman of considerable experience, who hail pointed out that the clause, as it stood, would tempt local authorities sometimes to avoid their duty to arrange for a general water supply, by insisting upon individuals providing it for their own premises at their own expense. His Amendment must be read along with the following proviso, which he intended to move—

"Provided that nothing in this section shall relieve the local authority from the duty of providing their district or any part thereof with a supply of water, where a general scheme for such supply is required, and can be carried out at a reasonable cost."

said that he could not see what beneficial effect that Amendment would have.

said he thought that the Amendment was objectionable. He suggested that the words should be left in, and if it were necessary alteration could be effected in another place.

assented.

moved, at the end of the clause, to add,—

(4.) The local authority shall have the same powers and be subject to the same restrictions for carrying water mains within their district as they have and are subject to for carrying sewers within their district respectively by the law for the time being in force.

He said that he had intended to insert the words "or without" after the word "within" and before the words "their district," but, in accordance with the wish of the Lord Advocate, he had omitted them.

said that he did not see the use of the Amendment if the words "or without" were omitted. All the trouble occurred outside the area.

moved, at the end of the clause, to add,—

"And in the case of the Highland crofting counties of Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Caithness, Sutherland, and Orkney and Shetland, it is provided that if the local authority fail to take action under section eight of the Pollution of Rivers Act 1876, for the purpose of freeing from pollution any stream or river which within a period of ten years from the date hereof has formed the water supply for domestic purposes of any ten or more inhabitants of any township or village situated in one or more of the said Highland counties, and which river or stream may have become so polluted by sewage or otherwise as to render it unfit for drinking or other domestic purposes, then, notwithstanding any provisions contained in any section of this Act, it shall be binding on the local authority, on receiving notice in writing from any five inhabitants of such township or village, to provide a fit and proper supply of water suitable for drinking or other domestic purposes, and should the local authority fail, within reasonable time after the notice aforesaid, to afford a lit and suitable service of water, then it shall be incumbent on the Local Government Board for Scotland to take such steps as may be necessary to insure that supply being provided."

He said that at present the Local Government Board had no power to compel the local authorities to take action in providing a proper water supply. He had hall brought to his notice an illustration of the present unsatisfactory position. There was the small village of Causer, containing some 17 houses on the River Nethy in Inverness-shire, which from time immemorial had drawn its water supply from the river. Recently some houses had been built above the village, and the drainage from the houses had polluted the river. The local authority had required the people of the village to obtain a water supply from another source, but this they were too poor to do. Action had been taken against them in the Sheriff's Court, and an order had been made, but it had not yet been enforced. He had received a letter from the Secretary for Scotland on the matter, expressing great sympathy with the people of this village, but saying that he had no power to compel the local authority to prevent the pollution of the river. The Secretary for Scotland added that the only course for the householders to take was to proceed under the Pollution of Rivers Act. Ho could not see why the Lord Advocate should not accept this Amendment. Not only were the people of this village liable to disease caused by the pollution of the river, but, as the locality was a resort of tourists, visitors might also suffer in health.

said it was quite impossible to accept the Amendment, for it meant that there would be an absolute right in five inhabitants of a village to have a water supply given them at the expense of the local authority by simply signing a requisition to that effect. At the same time, he was not insensible of the fact, in view of the case brought to his notice, that difficulties about water supply might arise, but when this Bill became law the powers of the local authority and of the Local Government Board would be greater than they were. Even so he would undertake to consider the application of these powers to the concrete case, and if further words were necessary he would see that they were introduced in another place before the Bill became law.

advised his hon. Friend to be satisfied with the undertaking of the Lord Advocate.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman at the same time would consider the general question of giving the Local Government Board power to compel the local authority to provide a proper water supply.

moved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words:—

"every such plan shall be drawn on a scale of not less than four inches to a mile, and the book of reference shall contain the names of the owners and lessees, or reputed owners and lessees, and of the occupiers of the lands which may be taken."

He said this was the first of a series of Amendments which were designed to reverse the decision of the Committee upstairs, the object being to substitute for procedure by way of Provisional Order procedure by way of Departmental Order before putting in force the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement. The object of the Amendment was to strengthen the hands of the local authorities. A. Provisional Order would limit their power and encumber them with expenses which they believed to be unnecessary. It was most important that in the case of public and local authorities of all kinds, charged with duties the due performance of which required the acquisition of land, that delegation should carry with it the exercise of all powers necessary to make it possible for them to carry out those duties efficiently. There was a precedent for this proposal given for the first time to a great public department, and he contended that the power ought to apply to every department of government. Last year there was a Naval Works scheme in which this power to obtain land by compulsion was given for all purposes; and it was a wholesome and sound principle to adopt for all branches of government.

said he was afraid that he must follow his usual course and uphold the decision of the Committee on this point. If he thought that the local authority was really going to be hampered in the acquisition of land he confessed that he would be moved by the appeal of his lion. Friend: but what did a local authority want land for? Practically the purposes were three: (1) water supply; (2) the putting down of sewers; (3) for sewage irrigation works. Already in Section 103 they had given the widest powers in the matter of sewage, giving local authorities power to lay sewers where they chose on payment of compensation, but not driving them to acquire land. Sewage irrigation works were a very serious undertaking. In the interests not only of the individual but of the neighbourhood it would be wrong to give a power to undertake works suddenly for sewage irrigation at the simple instance of any department, and not to give the individual or the public generally the protection which the Provisional Order system conferred. As to water supply, he had, so far as carrying the water mains were concerned, accepted an Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, granting power to the local authorities to lay sewage pipes within their districts. But in this Bill the powers of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, were kept alive with regard to the provision of a water supply. Section 162 of that Act made a just distinction in favour of burghs which had less than 5,000 inhabitants, and where they wanted a water supply, if the Commissioners resolved that it was necessary to acquire land otherwise than by agreement, they might present a petition to the Sheriff and obtain his authority to enforce the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act. For the purposes, therefore, of sewage and water supply to small communities the powers sought had already been obtained. What was left was large water schemes costing half a million or a million. Here there ought to be the protection of the Provisional Order system, because if it was not for that system some persons might be hardly treated. On those grounds he resisted the Amendment.

said that the Amendment raised a question of considerable importance, and if the Government adhered to the Bill as it stood he thought the House would be taking a retrograde step. His hon. Friend's proposal was not a novel one, because he suggested in the incorporation of tins Bill provisions which were already to be found in the English Local Government Act of 1891, the Scottish Local Government Act of the same year, and the Light Railways Act which the Government passed last Session. All the Lord Advocate's arguments might have been used with equal force against any one of these proposals, particularly against the proposal of the present Government to allow land to be compulsorily taken without Provisional Order for the purposes of light railways.

By a Government Department.

Just so; but the principle is the same. Light railways might cover a great extent of ground, and there might be grave questions of public user, and so on. The case was exactly analogous to the cases the right hon. Gentleman had set up in regard to the matter of water supply. He could not see why a procedure, which Parliament had already decided was adequate and satisfactory for the protection of all interests in the one case should not be equally adequate and satisfactory in the other. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman said that the existing law, as amended by the Bill, would give sufficient powers as to sewers and water supply to small communities. He did not agree; but, even if it were so, he was obliged to admit that in Scotland communities of over 5,000 population could not avail themselves of the provisions of the Burgh Police Act. This embraced a large number of communities which. needed the provisions very badly. It was only in rare and exceptional cases that a town like Glasgow or Dundee, which did these things on a. colossal scale, would attempt to annex a large area of ground for the purposes of water supply; and they ought not to be frightened by such cases. They had to consider the cases of communities of 15,000 or 20,000 which required a new source of water supply, yet which, under this Bill, would be hampered and frustrated, and possibly altogether frustrated, by the enormous and scandalous delays and expenses attending the Provisional Order system. ["Hear, hear!"] He regretted that the Government should make this departure, and should make it at a time when they themselves were initiating legislation elsewhere for the purpose of making private Bill legislation in Scotland more convenient and more successful. The Amendment proposed would be a practical step in the same direction, and he believed that the great body of Scotch public opinion would be entirely in sympathy with it. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the Bill had been described as giving large compulsory powers as regarded sewerage; but, although there might be ample powers for acquiring land for sewers by agreement, if a man objected to these sewers passing through his property, the steps to be taken under the Bill were exactly the same for sewers as for any other matter under the Bill. Now in addition to the English Local Government (Parish Councils) Act, and the Parish Councils Act, as well as the Light Railways Act, all of which gave compulsory opwers, they had also the precedent of the Burgh Police Act, Section (60) of which gave compulsory powers for the acquisition of land on petition to the Sheriff, with an appeal to the Local Government Board, and there the matter ended, without the necessity of going to Parliament at all. So that there was ample precedent for giving local authorities compulsory powers to acquire land under the supervision of a State Department. The effect of this clause, therefore, was purely reactionary, because nothing could be done (unless by agreement) without getting a Provisional Order. The whole structure of the Bill was based upon that. Of course, if the Government insisted, they could do no more than protest against this reactionary legislation. All the boroughs of Scotland had opposed this form of going to Parliament for compulsory powers, and had recommended the adoption of the procedure under the 60th Section of the Burgh Police Act of 1892, passed by the late Unionist Government. Practically the Government were now going back on their own legislation of 1892, 1894, and 1896.

said this was one of the most important features of the and it was recognised as such upstairs. When the Lord Advocate enumerated the purposes for which this clause would be necessary, he omitted one of the most important purposes in public health legislation for which compulsory powers were required —viz. the acquisition of land for hospitals. In previous clauses of the Bill they had to a certain extent strengthened the legislation for providing hospitals for infectious disease. But it was well known to the Lord Advocate that there had been great impediments in the way of local health authorities acquiring land for infectious hospitals. The pinch of it was felt in all parts of the country, and in the county of Aberdeen there was no subject upon which they were more deeply interested, and there was no subject in connection with this Bill upon which opinion was more unanimous, irrespective of party, that the method of obtaining compulsory powers of acquiring land for building hospitals should be simplified and cheapened. The County Council had unanimously passed a resolution in favour of it, the District Councils were also in favour of it, and he had received representations from all parts of the country in the same sense. In a large district of the county of Aberdeen there were 13 parishes, with a population of 25,000 to 30,000 souls, and for half-a-dozen years they had been trying in vain to acquire a piece of land upon which to erect a hospital for infectious diseases for the district. The reason was that the whole of the centre of the district was one large estate in the hands, not of a single individual, but of a set of trustees, and these trustees absolutely refused to sell an inch of land for a hospital. The only other people who could possibly supply a piece of land were ready to do it, but in order to get water they had to apply to these trustees, and they had even refused to let them have water! So that this large community of from 25,000 to 30,000 inhabitants had been absolutely unable to provide for itself that which was essential for the preservation of the public health. Therefore, when it became known that the Government were going to bring in a comprehensive Public Health Bill for Scotland the people looked forward with confidence to the remedy of this great grievance of theirs—["hear, hear!"]—and it had been a cause of great disappointment when it was discovered that no alteration of the law was proposed with regard to the acquisition of land for this purpose. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife had dwelt upon the precedents bearing upon the subject. What he wished to know was, had there ever been any complaint either in England or in Scotland that the powers given by recent legislation had been abused in any way whatever? ["Hear, hear!"] He did not think there had been ever a whisper of complaint in that direction. It was absurd to suppose that a public Department was at all likely to abuse their powers in this direction; if anything, they were likely to be somewhat too tender in their application. ["Hear, hear!"] Excellent precedents had been set by both the present and the late Governments, and when they were bringing in a most important Bill, which had been looked forward to for a long series of years in Scotland, and which was not likely to be amended or taken up again in the immediate future, they were going to pass it into law leaving out the very mainspring of the clock. ["Hear, hear!"] He ventured to think that in refusing to accept the Amendment the Lord Advocate was rendering the most useful part of his Bill inoperative and nugatory. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he was sorry the Bill was likely to pass with this defect in it with reference to the compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes. This question of the compulsory acquisition of land had been discussed on many occasions in the House of Commons in recent years on questions affecting the general well-being of localities. On this occasion it was a question which affected the general wellbeing of the whole kingdom of Scotland. They had in existing legislation several examples of power for the compulsory acquisition of land being vested in central bodies. It had been conferred, as in the case of the agricultural labourers, for the benefit of a class. Here they were asking for it for the benefit, not of a class, but of a whole community, and he regretted that there should be any possibility of its refusal. There were thousands of localities in England, and possibly hundreds of localities in Scotland, in which the health administration of rural districts was extremely defective, and one of these days, if an epidemic of disease should unfortunately get into the country—cholera, for example—a terrible mortality might occur in consequence. One of the means of avoiding a terrible disaster of that sort was to give the local authorities opportunities of carrying out, on the simplest and least expensive basis, powers of water supply, sewerage, and the isolation of disease. In all these matters they wanted stronger compulsory powers. There had been many instances in England during he last few years in which the local authorities would have been only too willing to undertake works of sewerage, but had been prevented from carrying them out by the high prices they were obliged to pay for land and by the expensive procedure which the ordinary Acts of Parliament had hitherto imposed upon them. There had been several instances in which the erection of hospitals which were wanted for the purpose of isolating disease had been prevented by the costliness and complexity of the Provisional Order system. Surely the Government ought to try to make the acquisition of land by local authorities for useful purposes as simple as possible. They all hated the idea of compulsion, but he believed that if the Amendment were agreed to it would be seldom, if ever, necessary to resort to compulsion. The mere fact that compulsory powers existed had a tendency to dissipate difficulties. For example, as a result of the existence of the compulsory clauses of the Local Government Act of 1894, thousands of labourers' allotments had been provided without compulsion. The existence of such clauses had an effect upon selfish landlords and deterred them from opposing demands which were made in the interests of the community. Surely if it were thought right to give compulsory powers in order that allotments might be acquired, it must also be considered right to insert such powers in this Bill, which had been introduced for the purpose of protecting the public health. Ho trusted that the Lord Advocate would reconsider this matter.

hoped that the precedent set in 1894, when compulsory powers for the acquisition of land for public purposes were given to local authorities, would be followed on this occasion, and that the Government would not go back upon the position which they took up in 1894 with the support of both Houses. A local authority wanting to acquire a quarter of an acre of land for the erection, say, of a mortuary or slaughter-house, would, under the Bill as it stood, be quite helpless if the owner of the land should refuse to sell at a reasonable price. His hon. Friend proposed that cases of this kind should be entrusted to the discretion of the Local Government Board in Scotland. In 1894 it was admitted that there must be full public inquiries for the protection of public and private interests in cases where land was to be compulsorily acquired. That was a salutary provision which it would be wise to adhere to. The refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment would cause great regret in Scotland.

thought the Lord Advocate had not given the House quite enough information on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman assumed, apparently, that all the Scotch Members had sat on the Committee that had considered this Bill, and that they had all heard the discussions upon these various topics. That, of course, was an erroneous assumption. He supported the Amendment because be believed that it would promote efficiency and economy. Provisional Orders were, as a. rule, extremely expensive things, and when recourse was had to them a grievous burden was generally imposed upon the locality. The Amendment provided adequate safeguards for all vested interests. In the Debates that had taken place on the subject of private Bill legislation, it had been proposed that larger powers should be given to local authorities, and he, for one, should have complete faith in their discretion. The Members of local representative bodies had their seats to consider, and were therefore unlikely to disregard the opinions of the people whom they represented. In conclusion, he would observe that the Scotch Members sitting on the upper side, of the House were solid in their support of the Amendment.

remarked that the expense of Provisional Orders frequently deterred Town Councils and parochial County Councils from undertaking most necessary public improvements. In his own constituency, where certain water works were proposed to be established, the cost of obtaining the necessary powers by Provisional Order imposed a very serious tax upon the community. He did not see why provision should not be made in this Bill for enabling local authorities to obtain land at a reasonable price, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he was really prepared to disregard the precedent set in the Local Government Act of 1894 merely because the Committee upstairs by a small majority, when less than one-third of the Committee were present, came to this decision? The permissive powers which the Amendment proposed to confer on the Local Government Board were already exercised by the Board of Trade, and it was highly desirable that they should now be conferred on the Local Government. Board in the interests of the health of the community. He appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury whether he was going on the present occasion to go back and take away the powers from the local bodies which they now desired to give to the central authority. The Local Government Board was entirely responsible to Parliament, and the fear of their action being debated in the House would induce them to do their work carefully. Procedure by Provisional Order was a most costly method, so costly that any town wanting a water supply would rather proceed by private Bill. Not a single real objection had been raised against this proposal.

said he had not had the privilege of being a. member of the Committee, and he did not know that he had lost a great deal in consequence, except, perhaps, a considerable amount of honourable suffering. He understood that the. Lord Advocate had no objection to trust the Local Government Board with schemes affecting comparatively small communities, but thought that large schemes ought not to be entrusted to them; that when anything very expensive was to be dealt with it deserved the dignity of being considered by two Committees in Parliament. It seemed to him that the Local Government Board was as capable of dealing with schemes of this description, however expensive they might be, as a Committee of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. Dignity did not help the incompetent. [Laughter.] He did not see how the simple fact of the Local Government Board being to a certain extent in a less dignified position than public opinion assigned to the two Houses of Parliament detracted from the competence of that body. ["Hear, hear!"] To his mind it was a question of comparative business capacity, and he thought that the Local Government Board was the superior authority in these matters. The only difference he knew of was that in Committees of the two Houses of Parliament there might be a more powerful representation of the landlord prejudice, but he had yet to learn that that told in favour of the public interest. ["Hear, hear!"] If it was necessary that Parliament should exercise a supervising power in these matters, it might be provided that no Order of the Local Government Board should become law until it had laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for a certain time. He had no hesitation in uniting with his hon. colleagues, and insisting on compulsory powers being given to the Local Government Board.

said that the Lord Advocate had contended that it was desirable to afford full protection to all interests concerned, and that that was secured better by proceeding under Provisional Order than by any other proceeding. What was the additional protection Was it in the composition of the tribunal? The Lord Advocate could not say that the Local Government Board for Scotland would not, as a tribunal, afford sufficient security to the interests involved. Then was the protection in the method of inquiry? It was obvious that an inquiry conducted by a Commission representing the Local Government Board would not be less satisfactory than an inquiry by a Committee upstairs. When they faced tie facts, they found that the additional protection afforded by the Provisional Order system was the great expense and delay that attended it, and its cumbersome procedure. Was it fair to place such a. hindrance in the way of great; public undertakings because they necessarily involved sonic small trespass on the rights of private proprietors? Would it not be much better to adopt the simpler and more rapid procedure suggested by his hon. Friend? ["Hear, hear!"]

said that the multiplication of speeches on a subject like this was rather a barbarous way of bringing pressure to bear on the Lord Advocate, but it was the only way hon. Members had of expressing the feelings of their constituencies. Representing a constitatency which was very full of growing and important communities, very much alive to their social duties, he could only say that it would be most disappointing to the inhabitants if the Lord Advocate adhered to this part of the Bill. It was not suggested for a moment that these powers should be entrusted to a foolish and irresponsible body, but to a body in whom the people of Scotland had great confidence. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill." The House divided:—Ayes, 108; Noes, 54. (Division List, No. 338.) Amendment made: Leave out "Lord Ordinary on the Bills," and insert "Board."

moved at the end of the clause to add,—

(15.) "In determining the amount of disputed compensation the arbiter shall not make any allowance in respect of the purchase being compulsory."

He said this Amendment was one which had caused so much Parliamentary discussion that lie did not see the necessity of going into the question on that occasion. It was not, in fact, their object to invite discussion.

recognised the courtesy with which the Amendment had been moved, but he must oppose it.

said the Government and the majority of the Members of the House always acted in the interest of the landlords, and all the supporters of the Amendment could do was to protest by a Division.

in Sub-section (1) moved to leave out "five householders," and insert "ten ratepayers."

trusted the Lord Advocate would not make this change in the law. It was proposed for the sake of uniformity. He objected to both alterations—"ten" instead of "five," and "ratepayers" instead of "householders." At the present time if a nuisance existed any five householders residing within the district might intimate this nuisance to the local authority, and then, if the local authority did not abate it within fourteen days, they had the right to go to the Sheriff and ask him to compel the local authority to abate the nuisance. If the local authorities neglected their duty, why should not any persons who were suffering from a nuisance have the right to go to the Sheriff Of course, unless they could prove that there was a nuisance they would have to pay the costs. Was it likely that any person would go to the Sheriff unless he had a good case? It was the persons interested, whether ratepayers or not, who should have the right. As to the number of ten it was no doubt very easy to get that number in the Lowlands, which were fairly well populated, but in the sparsely populated districts of the Highlands it would be very difficult indeed to do so. The difficulty would be all the greater because they had in the Highlands a number of crofters who were not ratepayers at all. They might suffer from disease because of the non-abatement of a nuisance, but still, if this Amendment were carried, as they were not ratepayers they would have no voice in the matter at all. Where it was a question of spending money the ratepayers might very well be consulted, but when it was a question of a nuisance he thought that householders, even if they were not ratepayers, should be allowed to take action.

contended that so far as the Highlands were concerned this would prove an unreasonable and unworkable Amendment. In many of the small Highlands townships it would be impossible to get ten ratepayers, and if the Lord Advocate pressed this Amendment he should move to exempt the Highland counties from its operation.

said that of all the clauses in the Bill this was one upon which action should not be taken at the instance of anybody, but at the instance of some representative body. It was obvious that what this clause proposed should be clone only when there was a real public feeling about it, and he knew the Highlands well enough to know that if action were necessary the finding of ten ratepayers would not be an impossibility. In the Committee they agreed that ten ratepayers should be inserted, and it was a mere accident that it was not put in in this particular clause. The hon. Member for Caithness was quite wrong in the reasons he gave to the House. It was, said the hon. Member, right enough to adopt such an Amendment as this where it was a question of spending money, but wrong where it was not a question of spending money, but of abating a nuisance. The hon. Member seemed to forget that the discussion in Committee upon which they finally adopted the modus vivendi of the ten ratepayers was upon Clause 22, which had nothing in the world to do with spending money, but related entirely to the question of nuisances. In proposing this Amendment he was simply carrying out the understanding come to with both sides in the Committee.

moved to insert after the words last added the words "or in the crofting counties of the Highlands five householders." To insist upon ten ratepayers in some of the Highland districts would be to make the clause unworkable. In some of the small townships he really did not know how ten ratepayers could be got together.

said he could not, of course, accept the Amendment, and he scarcely thought the hon. Member appreciated the limited point the clause dealt with. It provided for the special case where a local authority themselves on their own premises created a nuisance. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes in fact, and it was not expedient to allow anybody to worry a local authority by simply getting together a very few men of the district.

said his hon. Friend would probably not persevere with the Amendment, and he only desired to say that this was now the law in Scotland, and had been the law for thirty years by the Act passed in 1867, and though he now proposed to change it, the Lord Advocate had not shown any case in which the law had been abused. It was a retrograde step, and no goal reason had been assigned for it.

desired to know why these words were taken out.

said this was the procedure in a case which would not be frequent, where the local authority would be pulled up for neglect of duty, and he thought in such an exceptional case the tribunal should be the Sheriff's Court, not a police or burgh magistrate, very worthy persons, no doubt, but not such as should hold the scales and determine points of difference of this kind, involving the conduct of a local authority.

proposed to leave out "for any period not exceeding fourteen days," mid to insert "in accordance with the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts."

said he quite saw what the Lord Advocate's object was in embodying the procedure of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, but the cases were hardly such as those contemplated by those Acts. Throughout the Bill there was an abstention from giving power of imprisonment, and in cases where it was given it had been put into the hands of the Sheriff's Court. It was a pity to extend the power to magistrates in relation to these offences.

said that if the Government would make changes in the law which had been in operation for over 30 years, he thought the House ought to be made aware of why they were snaking those changes. They were now making a revolutionary change, and he would ask the Lord Advocate to give them some reason for it.

said he was very sorry he had paid the hon. Member the undeserved compliment of supposing that he had an ordinary memory. This clause was introduced at the instance of hon. Members from the Opposition side of the House. He thought it was the hon. Baronet for the Bridgeton Division who said it was a great pity to have a sliding scale of punishments, and suggested that they should make the Bill to correspond with the Summary Jurisdiction Act. That was hailed with acclamation by those who represented the views of the hon. Member, and he then and there gave a promise to look into the matter and make the Bill in accordance with the Summary Jurisdiction Act. That he had done, and now the hon. Member accused him of making revolutionary changes.

moved in paragraph (d) after "air," insert "including the level, width, and construction of new streets." The Amendment, he said, was intended to make less vague the sub-clause of the Bill. It was in order to enable local authorities to prevent insanitary conditions arising which, under the present system, they had to cure at very great cost and expense to themselves. It was a power which was desired by many local authorities.

said he could not accept the Amendment. If these words were introduced it would extend the Dean of Guild jurisdiction in the towns. He had always opposed that and he opposed it in Committee, and he thought the majority was of the same view.

asked what "sufficiency" meant if it did not include the space in front of the house, which meant the width of the streets?

asked how did they intend to attain their object under paragraph (d)?

said they had just put in the word "about."

thought it was very important that there should be power given with regard to the width and construction of streets for this reason, that if a street was once formed in those districts, even though they were afterwards formed into burghs, the street remained in its old condition. He thought these words were essential. They should deal with the subject now instead of allowing the streets to be stereotyped and afterwards, when a burgh was formed, always being a source of annoyance and nuisance to the whole burgh.

thought it would be a singularly unfortunate proposal if in this Bill they were to give the local authority power to deal with a question which did not properly come within their jurisdiction at all, but which was entirely under the jurisdiction and administration of the road authority.

was understood to say that the object desired could be carried out by the clause as it stood.

moved to omit the clause.

hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would reconsider his decision to leave out this clause, which simply preserved the status quo as regarded valuation and one or two other matters. For changing the status quo there ought to be good reasons, and he did not know of any reason in this instance except that of producing uniformity. There were, however, good reasons against the change, and one was that the effect of changing the valuation would be to take the burden off the richer ratepayer and put it upon the poorer. Under the Poor Law Act, 1845, the different properties were classified, and at present the richer properties were classified so as to pay upon their full valuation, less 33 per cent., whilst the shopkeeper, the poorer ratepayer, paid on his full valuation, less 25 per cent. It was now suggested that a railway company, the richer ratepayer, should be remitted 75 per cent., while shopkeeprs should pay upon the full valuation. The Lord Advocate was good enough to introduce this clause in deference to the representations made on behalf of the burgh of Keith, and he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not now drop it out of the Bill. The clause would cause no injustice to any other place, but it would give satisfaction to the people of the burgh affected.

said he could not yield to the appeal of the hon. Member, who had not quite accurately stated the whole circumstances of the case. In t he Act of 1889 there was a clause of this kind. Under the Public Health Act the public health rate in burghs was levied entirely upon the occupier; but the Local Government Act of 1889 provided that if there was a specially rated district which had been formed while it was still in the county, and it was then entirely absorbed into a borough formed after the date of the Act of 1889, the rate there should go upon the county basis, half upon the owner and half upon the occupier. The Committee to which this Bill was referred changed the incidence of the burgh rate and made it half upon the owner and half upon the occupier. He was now asked to leave in a clause which as far as he knew would apply to the burgh of Keith alone. He did not see why they should mete out special treatment of Keith. Besides, the grievance, such as it was, was rather less than the hon. Member represented. The hon. Member forgot that the exempting clause so far as railways were concerned provided that stations, depôts, and buildings should be assessable to the same extent as other lands and buildings within a burgh. The exemption, therefore, only applied to the railway lines proper.

said it seemed to him that the omission of this clause would alter the incidence of taxation.

said that it would alter the incidence of taxation upon some individuals. If that was the Speaker's ruling he would move the omission after the Bill had been re-committed.

thought that that would be the proper course.

moved, between lines 15 and 16, to insert:—

said that this would change the incidence of taxation, and therefore came under the Speaker's ruling.

remarked that the Amendment was consequential upon the last Amendment.

moved, after "moneys provided by Parliament," to insert—

"in such manner and amounts as the Scottish Education Department may think best for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of these schools, due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions."

He said that when the Amendment was moved in Committee it was supported by 37 Scotch Members and opposed by only 11. The Bill represented a serious departure from the principle hitherto followed in the Scotch education system, and by the abandonment of the principle of the equivalent grant Scotland was not getting what was due to her. This Amendment, which was simply a direction to the Scotch Education Department in administering the grant, was taken directly from the English Bill.

said that he promised in Committee further to consider this matter, and he had conic to the conclusion that the proposed words were unnecessary. They were, truly, taken from the English Bill, but that Bill paved the way for a differentiation between school and school, and this Bill did not. In the English Bill the proviso about due regard to efficiency helped the differentiation between schools; they could not serve such a purpose in the present Bill, and they were unnecessary as a direction to the Department, because the Roman Catholic and Episcopalian schools which were concerned could not earn any grant at all unless they were efficient. Then the proviso about the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions was unnecessary in this Bill, because it was not proposed as in the English Bill to abolish the 17s. 6d. limit. That limit was the greatest inducement to maintain voluntary subscriptions. The Government did not wish to spoil this gift to the Voluntary Schools by harassing them in any way.

said that he was greatly disappointed' with the speech of the Lord Advocate, for last Wednesday there was a strong expression of opinion from all quarters of the House in favour of the Amendment. The Lord Advocate said that the Amendment would harass the schools. Was it harassing them to pay due regard to time maintenance of efficiency?

I used that word in connection with the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions.

said that the right hon. Gentleman used the word "harass" in connection with the maintenance of efficiency.

I cannot accept the hon. Member's version of what I said in that connection.

said that he was within the recollection of the House. The right hon. Gentleman used the word "harass" in the earlier part of his speech.

said that it was hard on the Voluntary Schools to press this Amendment. The Anglican question did not exist in Scotland, and the vast majority of the Voluntary Schools there were Irish Catholic schools. The children in the schools belonged to the poorest of the poor, and the Amendment would press unduly and unfairly upon them. The voluntary subscriptions, in the case of the poor Irish Catholic schools in Scotland were, to his own knowledge, collected by organisations of working men, hundreds of whom spent a great part of their Sunday going round from door to door taking a penny or twopence from each family. Supposing the voluntary subscriptions were to fall off, say, by half, in the schools of these poor Catholic workmen, by reason of the people stopping their pennies mid twopences, would it be a fair or generous thing to deprive them of the benefit of this grant? For that reason he opposed the insertion of these words in the English Act, and they would be still more unjust in the Scotch Act, because the overwhelming majority of the schools there were very poor, whereas in England the majority were wealthy.

supported the Government, holding that the Amendment was unnecessary. He was perfectly certain, speaking from an experience of 21 years, and a member of a large School Board, that the high standard for the Voluntary Schools would be maintained in future as in the past, and as to the second part of the Amendment, it would be ungracious, and the casting an unfair slur to insert any such provision in the Bill, having regard to all that the managers and supporters of Voluntary Schools had done for the cause of education.

pointed out that the great majority of the Scottish Members voted for this Amendment in Committee—37 to 11. If the Bill was, as the Lord Advocate had said, the sequence of the English Act, why should these limiting words, which appeared in the English Act, be omitted from the Scotch one? He maintained that as regards both Board and Voluntary Schools the money Parliament voted had not been used for efficiency, but for the purpose of reducing rates in the one case and in the other making it less necessary to send the hat round.

observed that the poor people who supported these Voluntary Schools were rated to the Board Schools to which they did not send their children; and he failed to see the justice of throwing a further burden upon the poorest section of the community, to whom, the country was much indebted for the good education of the children.

supported the Amendment. If the principle of it was right south of the Tweed, why was it not right to apply it north of the Tweed? What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander.

moved an Amendment altering the phraseology and providing that no assessment or rate should be assessed or levied upon churches and chapels which were exempted from local rates.

proposed, to leave out the words "now Read the Third time," and add the words "re-committed in respect of Clause 4." Among the many applications which the Bill dealt with, and for which funds were placed at the disposal of the Commissioners, the Lord Advocate thought it was necessary to insert an extra provision that the money should be employed to build more lighthouses in Scotland. Though there was a most urgent demand for these he maintained that they should be provided out of the funds apart from those devoted to the congested districts. When a demand was made for lighthouses in Scotland it had first of all to be submitted to the Trinity House. But they held that the Commissioners of Northern Lights should have more liberty, and be the best judges of what was needed by the necessities of the country. The Trinity House was a. rival light authority, and it was scarcely fair that it should be the judge of Scottish lighthouse needs.

ruled that the hon. Member could not go into the whole question of lighthouses in Scotland on this Bill; he could only refer to the proposed grant for lighthouses in the congested districts.

Quite so. I bow to your ruling Mr. Speaker; but I would respectfully point out, as representing a large fishing population, and those who are very much interested in shipping as well, that it is a question affecting not only the congested districts but it is a matter of national importance from the fact that lighthouses extend all over the coast. It was entirely because of this that I mentioned my constituency. Continuing, the hon. Member said that to show the national interest this question assumed, he would point out the evidence given before the Committee on the Mercantile Marine Fund which proved conclusively that something like 50 lighthouses were wanted throughout the country, and its demands amounted to something like £400,000. It was preposterous to attempt to make such demands.

Order, order! I must remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not proposed to meet the demand for lighthouses generally out of this fund. The House is only dealing with the question whether any public money shall be spent in the congested districts in connection with lighthouses.

The words are "aiding the providing or improving of lighthouses," Sir.

In the congested districts.

Quite so. These lighthouses were mainly called for in the congested districts, and it was that point winch he wished to bring out. Later on harbours were also included, but subject to the consent of the Treasury; and if the Lord Advocate could see his way to put lighthouses in the same category as harbours, he thought time Scotch Members, on that side of the House at any rate, would be perfectly satisfied, and he would accept that. But as it stood at present, he contended that they ought not to allow the money which should go to the relief of the congested districts to apply to more purposes than were already put into the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course the Lord Advocate might possibly say that having made out a case so strongly in favour of the increase of lighthouses, that fact proved that it was more than necessary that the congested districts fund should be applied for that purpose. But in answer to that he would say that they did not care to give the Government the excuse when a legitimate demand was made for lighthouse provision, to say,—"Oh, apply to the Congested Districts Board"; when the Board would probably say, "We have so many other calls that we are not able to comply with the demand"; and Scotland would again suffer in the way it had suffered in the past. When they considered that there were something like twenty purposes to which this money could be applied, and that the fund was in itself totally inadequate to meet the demands made upon it, he thought the House would say that he had made out a sufficient case to prove that lighthouses ought not to be included in the category. He begged to move.

said that in Committee he moved the omission of the word "lighthouses"; and although he was satisfied with the explanation of the Lord Advocate, he could not help agreeing with his hon. Friend that the number of purposes to which this money was to be applied, was larger than the fund could well meet. He did not think, however, that there was very much fear in regard to lighthouses being erected by the Congested Districts Board, and probably if the word "lights" were inserted instead of "lighthouses" it might meet the scruples of some hon. Members. In the case of Stroma, for instance, they would not speak of a lighthouse, and the word "light" would apply.

supported the Amendment. He represented a large population of fishermen, who in the pursuit of their industry had to visit distant shores and strange waters and it was necessary that more lights should be provided for them. To put down a sum such as the congested district Fund could afford for such a purpose as that was absolutely insufficient, and he was bound to protest.

hoped the Bill would prove a successful one. The Government had acted in a fairly generous way in reference to the matter with which the Bill dealt, and although a portion of the money really came from their own funds, Scotland was getting for the first time something like £20,000 from the British Treasury for this experiment. The only thing he was sorry about in the Bill was that after the experience of the Irish Act, they had not given compulsory powers. With regard to the composition of the Board of Commissioners, he thought that there should be special representatives of both the landlords and the crofters; fortunately the Chairman of the Fishery Board was the son of a crofter and he had represented the crofters for many years in that House, so that he would represent them well on the Board. But that was a mere accident for the time being. He hoped that when the Bill was tried in operation it would solve one of the most pressing and difficult problems of the Highlands. It certainly bid fair to do so. Of course it did not solve all the Highland problems. There were others outside the congested districts which the Government must not attempt to solve; but the Scotch Members would not forget to press them upon their attention. He hoped, however, that within its scope the Bill would be a success. ["Hear, hear"!]

complained that the right hon. Member for Montrose was not in his place when a Bill in which his constituency was so specially interested came on for consideration. He was confident that if the Lord Advocate did not take the Bill under his wing and left his Party discretion to vote as they pleased, the Bill would be rejected. It proposed to extend the borrowing powers of the local authorities from 20 to 30 years, and in all Scotland, Montrose was the only place that asked for this extension, for which he contended there was no necessity.

said that in introducing this Bill the Scotch Office had no doubt acceded to a request made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs. The hon. Member opposite would not wish him not to extend to others the same consideration which he hoped he had always extended to the hon. Member himself. In England, the period for the repayment of these loans was 30 years, and it was thought desirable that there should be uniformity in this matter between the two countries.

did not see why the system existing in Scotland should be changed, and thought that it would be a bad thing to extend the period of repayment, having regard to the rates of interest at present prevailing.

said that the object of the Bill was to confer upon stipendiary Magistrates in Scotland the same summary jurisdiction as was now exercised by the Sheriffs. He thought that in places like Glasgow this system of concurrent jurisdiction would lead to inconvenience, and he doubted whether adequate machinery was provided in the Measure for effecting the purpose in view. The Bill would have to be carefully considered in Committee. At present the Sheriff alone dealt with summary procedure cases. If the same jurisdiction were given to Police magistrates it might be found that they took one view of a question while the Sheriffs took another view. Another result of the proposed change would be that one book of causes would no longer suffice. There would have to be two, one in the Sheriff's Court and one in the Police Court, and both would have to be consulted. Then he wished to know who would be entitled to appear before the Stipendiary. Under the Summary Procedure (Scotland) Act only the parties or their procurators could appear before the Sheriff in Summary Procedure cases. Was the right of appearance to be regulated in the same way in the Stipendiary's Court? The Bill made no provision for establishing a scale of fees in the Police Court, and one effect of the Bill would be to deprive the Exchequer of the sums paid as fines. These, as he read the Bill, would go to the Police Fund in cases which were brought before the Stipendiaries. That was not advisable. Then the Bill would impose upon localities what was really an Imperial burden, for the Sheriff was paid out of the Exchequer, while the Police Magistrate was paid out of local funds. Police officers, he supposed, were to have all the powers of Sheriffs' officers in carrying out the Summary Procedure Act. That was a. novelty, and duties were thereby being imposed on police officers which, in ordinary circumstances, they were not qualified to perform.

thought the hon. Member entertained rather exaggerated fears about the difficulties attending cumulative jurisdiction. There was at the present moment cumulative jurisdiction in matters criminal between the Sheriff's Court and the Police Court. Under tins Bill the same rights of appearance would obtain as were now exercised before the Sheriff. Appearance, he took it, would be limited to the parties and their procurators. He could reassure the hon. Gentleman on one point, and that was that an amendment would be introduced providing that the fees should go in exactly the same way after the Bill was passed as they did before. The present Bill has been really asked for by the City of Glasgow. It seemed to him a reasonable demand, and accordingly he hoped the House would give it a Second Reading.

said the object of the Clause was to give power to parish councils to give guarantee for local telegraphs. In Scotland district councils had already that power, and it was also provided by the Corporated Districts Bill that in the case of Corporated Districts the Commissioners under the Bill might give guarantees. If this Bill passed it would simply come to this, that, so many bodies having the power to give guarantees, none of them would exercise it, and if the Post Office did not get guarantees they would do nothing. He was therefore against any further extension of this power to other local bodies.

thought the provision a very wise one. In many cases a parish getting full benefit itself, would be willing to give the guarantee.

said he knew of several. cases in which parish councils would be glad to give the guarantee, though he contended that telegraphic communications should be established all over the Highlands without guarantees; throughout the Highland Counties they only got one telegraph office a year without guarantee.

Is there any objection to the extension of the principle to us?

I can see no reason why it should not apply to all three countries. ["Hear, hear!"]