Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 29, to leave out from the word committee," to the word "provided," in line 35, inclusive.-(Mr. James Barclay.) Question proposed, "That the words 'of whom one' stand part of the Clause." LORD ELCHO said, he would point out to the Committee that there were a hundred and odd clauses in the Bill. They were now on the 16th, and that day had been given to them for the purpose of making progress with a measure which, he supposed, they were all anxious to pass. Well, the arguments which the hon. Gentleman had adduced in favour of his present Amendment had already been urged by him in reference to a former Amendment, which the Committee, notwithstanding, had rejected, and affirmed the principle of the clause. Under these circumstances, he would suggest that if they wished to make progress, they would simply adopt or negative the Amendment of the hon. Member. MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved, in page | terest in looking after the roads in their 10, line 29, to leave out the words from respective districts. "committee," to "provided," in line 35. The Amendment raised a similar issue to that on which the Committee had recently divided; but, in the present case, it derived additional importance from the fact that the whole management of the roads would depend on the district committee. Therefore, it was of essential importance that upon these district committees the tenant-farmers should be fully represented. No doubt, in the appointment of these district committees, all the principal landowners in the district would wish to be placed upon it; but that would probably be the whole amount of interference which they would take upon themselves in the matter. If the tenants were not fairly and fully represented on these district committees, the practical result would be that the management of the roads would fall into the hands of officials, and that would be a very unfortunate position of affairs both for the landlords and the tenants. He was now speaking from practical experience of those counties which had come to Parliament for private Acts of their own, and it was a very remarkable thing that this Bill, which was brought in by the Government, was far more Tory in its character than the private Bills which had been promoted by the Commissioners of Supply themselves. That was one remarkable feature of this measure. He knew of no Bill, except that of the county which was represented by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Elcho), in which this invidious distinction was made between the two classes of trustees. If the tenant-farmers were not to have a direct voice in the management of the roads in the district in which they lived, all that would remain for them to do would be to vote in the election of those who should have such voice in the management of the roads. He therefore hoped that the Government would not insist upon this clause as it stood, because he did not speak now in the interest of the representative trustees alone, or of the Commissioners of Supply, but in the interest of both bodies; and it was of the utmost importance for the good working of this Bill and the economical management of the roads, that the tenant-trustees of the parish should feel that they had an active and direct in Question put. The Committee divided:-Ayes 123; Noes 62: Majority 61.—(Div. List, No. 166.) MR. ANDERSON, in whose name the next three Amendments stood upon the Paper, said, they were intended to make the district committees precisely the same as to their construction as he desired the Board to be-namely, that they should be composed of one-third proprietors, one-third tenants, and onethird elected members. The Committee, however, had already entirely ignored the tenant-farmer, and precluded him from having any existence on the Board, except by accident. In two divisions it had declared its approval of the proposal that the Board and district committees should be so constructed that in no instance would the landed proprietors be left in a minority. It was, therefore, absolutely useless for him to move his Amendments, and he would not take up the time of the Committee by doing so. LORD ELCHO said, he must protest against the allegation of the hon. Gentleman that the tenant-farmers had been ignored in the Bill. MR. ANDERSON replied that they were ignored as a class, inasmuch as the only means which were open to a tenantfarmer to obtain a place on the Board were that he should be among the elected members. As a tenant-farmer he had no status, and it might easily happen under the Bill that the elected members might all be proprietors under £100 a-year, and not a single tenant on the Board. Amendments, by leave, withdrawn. Remaining Amendment (Mr. OrrEwing), by leave, withdrawn. Clause agreed to. Clause 17 (Appeal to Secretary of State as to formation of districts). COLONEL ALEXANDER moved, in page 11, line 6, the omission of the words "Secretary of State," and the substitution for them of the words "Sheriff of the county." The Sheriff would, he contended, because of his greater local knowledge, be much better qualified to decide appeals relating to questions of boundary than a Member of the Government, however eminent, residing in London, and unacquainted with the various localities in regard to which an appeal was made. might arise with respect to the division of counties decided by a person who might be, to a considerable extent, mixed up with local affairs. MR. MARK STEWART asked if it was necessary to have the clause at all, and stated that he had an Amendment to omit it altogether. He maintained that no necessity existed for giving a power of appeal at all. The greatest harmony, as a general rule, prevailed at the meetings of the Commissioners of Supply. There were, of course, from time to time, points on which differences of opinion existed; but the minority were always disposed to give way to the views of the majority. But, apart from that, what, he should like to know, could a Secretary of State understand about the intricacies involved in questions of boundary in each county in Scotland? What, again, did the Sheriff of a county know about local matters? He, of course, travelled about the county; but it by no means followed from that that he should possess the requisite information to enable him to be an efficient court of appeal under the Bill. The result of the adoption of the clause, too, would be, he firmly believed, to lead to no end of intrigues and expense in order to have questions settled in London, instead of having them disposed of, as at present, by one vote of the Commissioners of Supply, and, if necessary, re-settled at the expiration of a period of three years. The clause, in fact, would give rise to all sorts of plotting and nagging, which, in his opinion, it would be extremely desirable to avoid. MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE expressed a hope that the Government would accept the Amendment. It appeared to him to be quite out of the question that the Secretary of State in London could satisfactorily discharge the duties which the clause would impose upon him. The people of Scotland managed their own SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE rose affairs very well, and he, for one, strongly to Order. He wished to ask whether the objected to the tendency which prevailed hon. Gentleman was in Order in discussat the present day to the system of cen- ing an Amendment for the rejection of tralization. It was quite evident, he the clause, which stood in his name thought, that the Secretary of State lower down on the Notice Paper, when could not be so well acquainted as the the immediate question before the ComSheriffs of counties with local circum-mittee was the Amendment of the hon. stances, on which the proper arrange- and gallant Member for South Ayrshire ment of boundaries very much depended; (Colonel Alexander)? and he hoped the Government would think better of it, and not compel the Committee to divide. SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE hoped the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood. Under its operation, the words "Secretary of State" would in reality mean the Lord Advocate; and there would, in his opinion, be a great disadvantage in having questions which THE CHAIRMAN said, the hon. Member for Wigton (Mr. Mark Stewart) would not be in Order in making observations which were directed to the rejection of the clause as a whole, inasmuch as the Question before the Committee was a proposal to amend it. MR. MARK STEWART would, of course, at once bow to the decision of the Chairman, and would simply say, in conclusion, that he greatly doubted | think that would be the case. He might, whether the Sheriffs of counties in Scot- however, remind the Committee that the land were competent to pronounce an Sheriff was a Law Officer, appointed by impartial opinion on matters which, so the Court in Edinburgh, whose position far as he could see, could only be satis- in the country was merely temporary, factorily decided upon by the members and who, although he might not possess of the Commission of Supply. any special knowledge of local matters, was supposed to be acquainted with questions relating to lands and heritages. He would, therefore, so far as he could see, be about the best person to decide in cases of appeal. He should support the Amendment. MR. J. W. BARCLAY rose to Order. He thought it was doing a great injustice to the Sheriffs of Scotland to suppose that they could not arrive at an impartial opinion on such questions as would, under the operation of the clause, be submitted to them as a court of appeal. THE CHAIRMAN said, that if the hon. Member for Wigton (Mr. Mark Stewart) intended to cast any general reflection upon the administration of justice in Scotland, his remarks would not be in Order. He did not, however, understand that to be his intention. MR. MARK STEWART believed there was only one hon. Member in the House who would have objected to the words which he had used. What he meant to say was, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get men of judicial mind to decide with advantage on the vexed questions which might have to be submitted to them under the Bill. That, he might add, was not only his own private opinion, but the opinion of many persons who had had large and long experience in county matters in Scotland, who had brought the subject under his notice, and whose views he had promised to lay before the House. COLONEL MURE, in regard to the argument as between the Secretary of State and the Sheriff, might point out that this was not going to be an annual or general duty, because they had a new Act before them. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire had pointed out that there were great inequalities in the different districts. At the same time, he should be prepared to support the idea that the Sheriff of the county would be better fitted for this duty than the Secretary of State; but he would like to know whether this Secretary of State was to be the English Secretary of State or the new Scottish Secretary of State? As to what had been said, that the Sheriff was not a good court of appeal on local matters, because he might, though not intentionally, be under local influences, he might say that the Sheriff was a local magnate, and he did not SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY noticed that it was a charge against the former Lord Advocates that they always put the Sheriffs in the Bill they introduced. Now, here was a case where the Lord Advocate exercised his discretion in another direction, and hon. Members stepped in and objected. For his own part, he believed the Secretary of State would be a very suitable authority to whom to give the proposed power of deciding in cases of appeal. MR. RAMSAY thought it probable that any reference to the Secretary of State might be found to be unnecessary; but, in the event of the clause remaining part of the Bill, he would prefer that it should pass in its present shape, because, without for a moment impugning the way in which the Sheriffs discharged their duties, and although he had full confidence in them, he must say he did not wish to see them take part in the settlements of any local differences of opinion with respect to the sub-division of counties. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, that if there had been the least affinity between the duties imposed by the clause and those which appertained to the judicial office, he, for one, should not have hesitated to give the matter to the Sheriff. No such affinity, however, existed. The duties which would have to be performed under the operation of the clause were far from being judicial, and would involve the Sheriffs in unpleasant disputes in the endeavour to arbitrate between the two halves of a county, with the certain result of giving dissatisfaction to one of them. He might also observe that, under certain public Acts, the duty had been imposed on the Sheriffs of defining burgh boundaries; and that, in all such cases, it had been provided that their decision should not be final, but that a right of appeal should be given to the Secretary of State. He | visions of a clause such as that under hoped, he might add, that questions of discussion. the kind dealt with in the clause would, generally speaking, be settled by agreement, and that references to the Secretary of State would be exceedingly rare. The clause, he maintained, had in no way a centralizing tendency. It was not proposed to vest the administration of the law in the Secretary of State, but to enable him to decide between certain parties, and to make his decision final for a considerable time. MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE seconded the Amendment, and expressed a belief that if the clause were omitted from the Bill the Commissioners of Supply would settle disputed matters among themselves without the aid of the Secretary of State. MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE said, the clause would give enormous powers to the Secretary of State to the extent of which he altogether objected. These powers, too, it should be borne in mind, were to last for 10 years. It appeared to him to be giving powers to the Secretary of State in London, and taking power from Scotland; and, under the circumstances, he hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division. Amendment negatived. MR. M'LAREN wished to draw the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire's (Lord Elcho's) attention to the fact that a great deal of time had been occupied by useless Amendments on the noble Lord's side of the House. Moved, "That the Clause be struck out."-(Mr. Mark Stewart.) It MR. VANS AGNEW pointed out another objection to the clause. would, in his opinion, give rise to persistent opposition on the part of small minorities. It would, in his opinion, be much better that the clause should be omitted from the Bill, and that each county should be allowed to manage its own affairs through the voice of the majority. SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE hoped the Government would abide by the clause. The case was one in which, in his opinion, a majority might in a mixed county or town population and suburban districts do a great deal of injury, unless the minority were invested with a right of appeal such as the clause proposed to give. Question put, "That the Clause stand On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." part of the Bill?” MR. MARK STEWART moved its omission. It involved, he said, a question on which he entertained a very strong opinion. He could not see the object of bringing up questions relating to the sub-division of counties in Scot The Committee divided:-Ayes 162; Noes 9: Majority, 153.-(Div. List, No. 167.) Clause agreed to. words "And in payment of a reasonable share of such county in the execution of this Act.” the necessary general expenditure incurred in Clause 18 (Islands to be districts). MR. RAMSAY moved the omission, land to be reviewed periodically in Lon-in page 11, lines 38 to 40, of the don by the Secretary of State. The people of that country had hitherto been able to manage their own affairs without troubling others, and what good reason was there, he should like to know, why they should, in the present instance, be compelled to change a system which hitherto had been found to work well, and to submit to a decision by the Secretary of State which was to have effect for no less than 10 years? Alterations were made in Scotland in such matters as those with which the Bill dealt every October or April as the case might be; and it would, he thought, be much more satisfactory to Scotch Members and also to Scotchmen, that they should not be subjected to the pro The whole of the money levied in an insular district ought, he contended, to be expended within the limits of that district, and he could not understand why islands should be saddled with any portion of the expenditure which might be incurred in carrying out the law on the mainland, inasmuch as they would derive no benefit from its operation. THE LORD ADVOCATE thought the islands had been very fairly dealt with in the Bill. It was very difficult to say that a part of the county should be exempted bearing its share of the outlay. He thought that, to the extent of a reasonable sum, it was impossible to see any principle for not laying a proportion of these expenses upon the islands. MR. RAMSAY said, the only reason for which he proposed the Amendment was that the clause imposed upon the islands a payment, while no benefit could be received from the mainland parts of the county. He thought it unreasonable that they should be made to pay a part of the general expenditure. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. favour of a single class of commissioners. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, that a Commissioner of Supply who had £800 a-year according to the valuation roll, might be represented under the operation of the present law by his factor in his absence. If, then, two proprietors could vote if they sent two factors to a meeting, was it not reasonable that for the sake of convenience they should be enabled to vote by means of one? MR. RAMSAY was of opinion that the effect of the Amendment, if passed, I would be to disfranchise a considerable number of proprietors who were repre Clause 19 (Occasional vacancies to be sented at road trust meetings by their supplied). MR. J. W. BARCLAY said, he would not move the Amendments to the clause which stood in his name on the Paper. He wished, at the same time, to suggest to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate the desirability of empowering the trustees to supply any vacancies which might arise among their own number as well as in the Board. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, he would take the matter into consideration. factors. MR. M'LAREN supported the Amendment. The clause in its present shape appeared to him to be most unjust. It would result in a revival of the old system which used to prevail in the House of Lords, when a Peer carried a majority of proxy votes in his pocket. And, it being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock, House resumed. Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday 18th June, at Two of the clock. The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock. Nine of the clock. MOTIONS. 180 ENDOWED SCHOOLS (IRELAND). Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present, LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL rose to call attention to the Endowed reference to the Report of the Royal Schools of Ireland, particularly with Commission on Endowed Schools, Ireland, appointed in 1854, and to a Return recently laid upon the Table of the House; and to move "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the condition, revenues, and ma |