ted can extend its area.* In this way Crosshill had become a burgh in 1871, and in this way, Crosshill had endeavoured to secure its extension. It failed in the latter, however, because seeking extension over land partly within the jurisdiction of the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, and partly within the jurisdiction of the Sheriff of Renfrewshire, it was not-for the purposes of the Act, which allowed extension by the means described-within the jurisdiction of either. It was under these circumstances, that Crosshill came for a Bill. The argument used on their behalf was, that consent was a condition precedent to annexation; but they also maintained that it was inexpedient to extend the boundaries of Glasgow for municipal purposes, as then the municipal area would overlap the Parliamentary area. They, of course, expressed their unwillingness to pay the much heavier rates, which would be imposed on them if they became a part of Glasgow. For their own Bill, they asserted that " No-man's Land " wished to become a part of Crosshill, but objected to be annexed to Glasgow. For Glasgow, however, it was argued that annexation without consent was not unprecedented, and that the Rochdale Borough Extension Bill, and the Bury Borough Extension Bill-by which parts of neighbouring Local Board districts were added to these boroughs contrary to the wishes and in spite of the opposition of the inhabitants of the added districts-were cases in point. And that, with or without the consent of the residents in Crosshill, the self-constituted burgh (for the Sheriff had no discretion under the General Police and Improvement Scotland Act, 1862,† 25 and 26

* See 25 and 26 Vict, c. 101, sec. 10. See a very careful and admirable memorial of the Lord Provost, and Magistrates, and Town Council of the City and Royal Burgh of Glasgow, to Her Majesty's Government. Drawn up since 1875.

+ The Sheriff has no authority to judge of the question of public policy; his duty being simply to fix and lay out the boundaries of the proposed police burghs, and although there is an appeal to the Home Secretary his jurisdiction is similarly limited.

Vict., c. 101, to refuse the request of the inhabitants) ought to become for Government purposes, as it was in fact, part of Glasgow. It was pointed out that Glasgow had been improving itself within its boundaries—had been preventing overcrowding-and that that wise policy had thrown her own central population beyond the boundaries, and that this was, as it were, only a gathering of her own skirts. That Crosshill wished to form an arbitrary boundary between jurisdictions, while Glasgow desired to make the natural boundary the line of her municipal extension. These competing Bills came before a Committee of the House of Commons, and the Glasgow Bill was thrown out. The Crosshill Extension Bill was allowed to proceed, but was again opposed in the House of Lords by the Corporation of Glasgow and by many persons resident in the district known as No-man's Land," which it sought to annex. After another careful and lengthy enquiry, which very much resembled that which had taken place in the House of Commons, although the Bill for extending Glasgow was not before their Lordships' House, the Committee decided "that, presuming the promoters had proved the figures contained in the statement which had been handed in, the Committee do not conceive that sufficient consensus had been proved on the part of the inhabitants generally to induce them to pass the Bill."

It would appear from this decision that their Lordships had given great weight to the argument that consent must precede annexation, but decisions given both before that time, and since that Bill was rejected, have shown that that is not a guiding principle in such cases. Very few people will ever consent to pay higher rates, even if they are to receive commensurate sanitary and judicial advantages; but the question which Parliament has to decide is not whether there is consent or not-for that could be determined by the simple and less expensive machinery of a poll-but whether in cases where consent is altogether

wanting certain districts shall be included under a neighbouring jurisdiction and be in consequence subjected to the rates which it may be necessary for that jurisdiction to levy.*

That a Committee might think that Crosshill having, by its action under the Public Act of 1862, become a burgh, although the Sheriff had no discretion as to the granting or withholding that privilege, was in a position to manage its own affairs without the assistance of Glasgow is conceiveable; but that a district lying between Glasgow and Crosshill which required municipal management and sanitary government, should be left excluded both from Glasgow and from Crosshill merely because there was not a sufficient consensus of the inhabitants to the annexation, is, we venture to think, scarcely conformable to the practice of Parliament in analogous cases. Still there have been varying decisions on the point. While in the Derby case of this Session Litchurch, which was a Local Board District and opposed the proposal to include it within the municipal limits of Derby by its Board, was included in spite of such opposition, in the Bolton Extension Bill (1877), the Local Board of the district of Astley Bridge was, on the opposition of its Local Board, excluded from the operation of the Bill, and that although a part of the district close to and forming a suburb of Bolton was a part of the Parliamentary Borough.

But the Bolton case was in some senses unique. Not only was Astley Bridge, which did not consent to inclusion, excluded, and the Rural Sanitary District of Great Lever was also struck out of the Bill on the opposition of certain ratepayers within the district, although the Rural Sanitary Authority did not oppose; but certain

* This seems to have been understood by the Committee at one stage of the enquiry, although the conclusion at which they arrived seems to indicate that they had lost sight of that consideration. During the hearing the Chairman (Lord Hatherton) said, "The great question for us to decide is, whether or not the population of No-man's Land' ought to be annexed to Crosshill, and whether there is any public objection on account of its affinity to Glasgow."

districts which were quite willing to be included, such as Heaton, Rumworth, Over Hulton, and Tonge, were struck out. In some ways, therefore, the Bolton Improvement Bill, 1877, must be regarded as an important precedent. It was an attempt upon the part of Bolton to extend its area over what was said to be "the natural watershed or drainage area of the district of Bolton," and that although there were several Local Boards and Rural Sanitary Authorities within the area sought to be added. It was said that large works for the disposal of the sewage of Bolton were in contemplation, and that to make these works effective not only for Bolton itself but for its various suburbs which were one with it in interest, the scheme should be carried out within what was the natural boundary of the district, within the "rim of the basin ;" and they sought to constitute all within that rim, Bolton, for the purposes of municipal government. It was argued that in taking in certain places which were not at present so thickly built upon as Astley Bridge, or portions of Halliwell, they were doing wisely. They were following a natural rather than an arbitrary line, and the inclusion of these within the borough would enable Bolton to control the buildings which would in the course of time be erected in these districts. Their proposal was that the Sanitary Districts of Astley Bridge, Halliwell, Heaton, Rumford, Tonge, Great Lever, and Over Hulton should be formed into one sanitary area, not only for the purposes of an arterial system of sewerage, but for all the purposes of municipal government. The opposition came from the Local Board of Astley Bridge, from Mr. Ainsworth, a landowner in Halliwell (the Local Board of that district did not oppose the Bill), and certain ratepayers in the rural sanitary district of Great Lever. The other sanitary authorities did not oppose the Bill.

The arguments and evidence were very much like those in other cases. Astley Bridge, it was said, was Bolton by

nature, it was really a part of the town, with interests identical with those of Bolton, and it ought to be identified with Bolton for the purposes of local government. It was alleged on the one side, and denied on the other, that the Sanitary Authority of Astley Bridge had not done its duty; that it was badly paved, badly scavenged, that the sewerage scheme which it had inaugurated was insufficient, that it was not the desire of Parliament to encourage small urban sanitary authorities, and that when such existed their sole object was, not to do what was necessary for the sanitary welfare of their district, but to keep down the rates.* That here was a great scheme which could deal with all these districts better and more economically than they could deal with the same matters for themselves. On the other hand it was said that Bolton having to undertake, under threats from the users of the water of the Croal, a sewage system, wanted to get all these outlying districts to share the burden-that the management of Bolton had neither been provident nor satisfactory. That the Corporation had been extravagant in relation to town halls, and parks, and cemetery, which would be little or no benefit to Astley Bridge; and that if Astley Bridge was included within the boundaries of Bolton the rates would be greatly increased and that district would, as it were, be becoming a partner in an insolvent concern. They asserted that their districts were well managed, and that the mere continuity of the streets of Halliwell and Bolton and the use that the inhabitants of the former made of the streets of the latter, were no more arguments for unity of government than they would be in the case of London and Westminster, or Manchester and Salford. It appeared that Bolton had

It is doubtless true that too great segregation is an evil, and tends to produce an undue economy in local management, but on the other hand, too much aggregation is an evil in another way, and tends to frustrate that intimate local self-government which it is the policy of Parliament to encourage. There is a line between these two which it may be difficult to find, but which is the best to secure efficient reforms, and at the same time, adequate economy.