COMMITTEE. [Progress 3rd August.] (Hansard, 4 August 1885)

HC Deb 04 August 1885 vol 300 cc1125-73 1125

§ Bill considered in Committee.

§ (In the Committee.)

§ Clause 3 (Secretary may sit in Parliament).

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, the Amendment he rose to move, although verbal, was one of considerable importance. It had been admitted, in a former discussion on the Bill, that the words "if not a Member of the House of Lords" were merely permissive, though if they meant anything at all they pointed to the new Secretary being a Member of the House of Lords; but if they meant nothing, then he said that they might as well be omitted. He accepted the declaration which the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) made on going into Committee, that it was not intended to allocate this Office either to the House of Lords or to the House of Commons. Therefore, he might assume that the words were not intended to imply that this officer should be a Member of the House of Lords; but, at the same time, the putting in of the words pointed to the probability of his being sometimes a Member of the other House of Parliament, and therefore he thought they were dangerous, and ought to be omitted from the Bill. He admitted that the 1126 circumstances in which the former Bill was introduced had given some excuse for the introduction of the words, inasmuch as there was a very eminent Scotchman thoroughly versed in and able to manage Scotch affairs, and more popular in Scotland than any other—he meant the Earl of Rosebery—who had the misfortune to be a Member of the House of Lords; therefore, he said that the circumstances were peculiar. But if the new Secretary were to be a Member of the House of Lords the arrangement would be attended with the utmost inconvenience. Let hon. Members imagine what the state of things would be if the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, instead of being a Member of that House in which he was present every day to answer Questions, were a Member of the House of Lords. Why, Irish Members would not be able to get their Questions answered; and he said that if they were to constitute a Secretary for Scotland, Scotch Members would want to get at him every day and have their Questions answered. It seemed to him only reasonable, then, that the new officer should be a Member of that House, and not of the House of Lords, so that he might always be present to give information upon the various subjects connected with Scotland. Again, all the present Ministers who sat in the House of Lords had Secretaries in the House of Commons; but in this Bill there was no provision for anything of the kind. There was a provision for a certain staff of secretaries and clerks, but there was no provision for any one of them having a seat in that House; and, therefore, if the new officer were to be a Member of the other House of Parliament he would be utterly unrepresented in the House of Commons. Then to say that the Lord Advocate could give answers with regard to a Department not his own would be humiliating to the Lord Advocate, who, in that case, would not express his own opinions, but be merely the mouthpiece of another person, with whom he had no official connection. Having shown the great inconvenience that would arise from the Secretary for Scotland being a Member of the House of Lords, he wanted to make the Bill state clearly one way or the other what was intended; and, therefore, bearing in 1127 mind the statement of the hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple) that the words "if not a Member of the House of Lords" did not carry the meaning that the new officer was to be a Member of either House in preference to the other, in the interest of statesmanship, grammar, and good drafting, he begged to move that they be struck out of the clause.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 18, to leave out the words "if not a Member of the House of Lords."—(Sir George Campbell.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. J. B. BALFOUR
said, his recollection did not entirely agree with that of his hon. Friend who had just spoken. According to his recollection, when the former Bill was before the House two years ago, his hon. Friend made almost the same speech against these words as he had made that night, and he (Mr. J. B. Balfour) had the honour of answering it. He thought it was the feeling of the House at the time that there should not be a restriction in the Bill upon the selection of the Crown of a fit officer who might be found in either House. It would seem that his hon. Friend had rather shifted his ground, because he had now hinted that there should be something like a plain intimation in the Bill that, so to speak, the other House of Legislature should be excluded. He submitted that the Committee should adhere to the decision arrived at two years ago after some hours' discussion.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
said, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Lord Advocate had omitted two points in connection with this subject. It was true that an Amendment of this kind was brought forward two years ago, but it was brought forward by the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), and it was supported by Scotch Members now on those Benches. But it would seem from the silence of right hon. Gentlemen opposite that it was not considered worth while now to discuss an Amendment of this character. This clause was taken almost verbatim from the Local Government Board (England) Act of 1871; but the clause in that 1128 Act which corresponded to the clause in this Bill did not contain these words. He asked why were these words introduced into the present Bill, unless there was some intention of a Member of the House of Lords being generally appointed to this Office? If the words meant nothing he could not see what objection there could be to removing them; if they meant anything they could only have the meaning he had applied to them. Therefore, he thought they ought to have a distinct statement from Her Majesty's Government as to what was meant by putting them into the Bill.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)
said, he could assure hon. Members that, as far as the present Government were concerned, there was no thought of giving preference to one House or the other; nor did he believe there was any such intention on the part of the late Government, although, of course, he know nothing whatever about that. Her Majesty's Government only wanted to appoint the most fitting person to the Office. But the words being in the clause he should be extremely sorry if they were struck out, because it would seem as if they meant to give the preference to a Member of the House of Commons.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ On Motion of Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS, the following Amendments made:—Page 1, line 23, leave out "and;" line 24, at end, add— And in Part First of the Schedule of 'The Promissory Oaths Act, 1868,' as regards England.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 4 (Seal, style, and acts of Secretary) agreed to.

§ Clause 5 (Transfer of powers of—Secretary of State: Privy Council: Local Government Board and Treasury).

§ MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT
said, he had put on the Paper an Amendment to Sub-section (2), the object of which was to insert after the word "Schedule" the words— And generally all powers and duties of the Scotch Education Department as defined by 'The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872,' in relation to education in Scotland. He might mention that, besides his own Amendment, there was another Amend- 1129 ment standing on the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce), which went a very long way in the same direction as his own, the object of both being to insure, as far as they could, that the transfer of the powers and duties with regard to education in Scotland from the Education Department to the new Minister for Scotland should be thorough and real. At this point he should like to say, with regard to certain objections which had been made to their contention that the Minister for Scotland should be a real personage, that he was sure that there was no part of Scotland where there was any wish to go in the direction of what was called Home Rule. He moved that these powers should be transferred to the Minister for Scotland, because they wished him to have as many important powers as they could give him; but, coming from Scotland, he could speak with some authority in saying that he did not believe that with any true and thorough Scotchman, from one end of the country to another, there was any wish to go in the direction of Home Rule. He, for one, looked upon that in reference to Ireland, Scotland, and Wales as an idle dream. If there were anything which would make Scotchmen unwilling to approach the question of the repeal of the Union, it would be the idea that Scotland was being made a stalking horse in this matter of Home Rule. But he did not wish to pursue that subject any further. And while they objected to Home Rule for Scotland, they disliked the idea of English Home Rule in England; and they looked forward with increased hope to the future, when Scotland, having one-sixth more than the present number of its Members, would speak with a louder voice than hitherto, not only in the affairs of Scotland, but with regard to the affairs of the Empire. They wished to improve the administrative machinery under which Scotland was governed. They had their Scotch Boards, and other Scotch Departments, and in many respects they were a self-governing community; and they wished that the educational institutions of the country, which were not less national than other institutions, should be in the hands of a Scotch Minister. The Bill had assumed its present shape, if he might say so, almost unawares; it had passed through a certain ordeal of discussion in 1130 "another place;" but, so far as the subject of education was concerned, it was a Bill entirely different from that which was introduced in the House of Lords. The shape in which it was introduced in the other House of Parliament was the shape to which he desired to restore it by the words of his Amendment. When the Bill was before the other House in that shape an Amendment was printed and circulated among noble Lords to the effect that it was proposed to omit all mention of the Education Act, and to substitute the words "President of the Council" in the clause, by which the new Minister to be appointed by the Bill would not have all the powers of the Education Act conferred upon him, but would be simply President of the Council by virtue of the Bill. That Amendment, which was put on the Paper and circulated, was never thoroughly discussed in the House of Lords; and when, next day, the Bill was printed it was found that other words had been inserted. It was in that way that the Bill came into its present shape. He had been gratified to hear some remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) on the previous evening, from which he gathered that they would have his powerful support for the Bill as presented to the other House of Parliament. The Scotch Education Department, whose powers he wished to see transferred to the new Minister, was a Body called into existence by the Scotch Education Act of 1872. That lawfully constituted Body, which ought to be supreme in educational matters in Scotland, was not supreme, because they were, unhappily, in the hands of the Vice President of the Council. If any hon. Member looked into the Statutes he would find that there was a constituted authority for the management of Scotch educational affairs, and he would find in the Scotch Education Act of 1872 no reference whatever to the Vice President of the Council. The Vice President of the Council obtained his authority under the Act of 1856; but, inasmuch as this system was started in 1872, it would appear to be meant by the Statute of that year that the Board of Education should be supreme in educational matters. Well, that Body, constituted as he had shown, practically never met at all. [Mr. MUNDELLA dis- 1131 sented.] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) shook his head; but he had been told that it had been characterized by the Earl of Rosebery, who knew the state of affairs in Scotland very well, as a "phantom Board." He had been informed that, even in the important annual work of the Department for the purpose of introducing the annual Code, it had not been the practice to summon the Council together. His right hon. Friend might say that the Government were about to inaugurate a different state of things. But they were now regulating matters by Act of Parliament; and he should like to know, and have it stated on the face of this Act, who was really to be their authority in future over Scotch education matters? If there was one point which more than another had characterized Scotch education, it was the thoroughly local character of that education. In England it was the Privy Council on which the whole system of education depended. It was entirely different with regard to Scotland. They had long had in Scotland a national and local system of education; and he said that those who told them that educational interests in Scotland could not be looked after without the aid of the Education Department of the Privy Council were putting aside all the teachings of history. And when it was attempted to be pointed out, as it was last night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), that it was due to that Department that Scotch education had so progressed, he replied that the progress of Scotch education had been mainly due to the old laws of Scotland, under which there was no Central Department whatever. It was those laws, the local energies of the Scotch people, their parochial efforts, and their love of education, which they had to thank for education in Scotland being now so far advanced. As in the past so it would be in the future. He said that the main basis of the educational system of Scotland was to trust to the local bodies and school boards, and not to the Central Government in England or elsewhere. He did not think that in every case the Education Department had done everything it might have done to assist local efforts; and that, he maintained, was its principal duty. He knew it would be 1132 impossible to get from the Late Vice President of the Council anything like a sympathetic opinion on that point; but they must not be governed in these matters by Departmental considerations. They had to look at the question from the general point of view of the people of Scotland. They had had last night an eloquent speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir. Lyon Playfair) against the Bill; but he would ask if he meant to toll them that Scotch education would have been in a worse position if it had been his business, from a sympathetic point of view, to superintend the administration of education in Scotland? He spoke of no secondary interest, and not merely of the interest of a small country attached to a larger one; but if this had been the main business of some distinguished Scotchman—that to which he looked to make his credit and fame—then he said that Scotland would have been much better off in the matter of education than it was to-day. He would not trespass longer on the time of the Committee, further than to say that he did not wish to differ from the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce). His own Amendment, however, seemed to be the more thorough-going, and he preferred it for the reason that it made the matter perfectly clear, and therefore he asked the Committee to accept it. Finally, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department should explain to the Committee clearly what line Her Majesty's Government meant to take up with regard to this matter, and whether they intended to make the educational transfer as thorough as he and his hon. Friends desired it to be. He believed there was strong feeling amongst Scotch Members in favour of making that transfer real and substantial.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 12, after the word Schedule, to insert the words "and generally all powers and duties of the Scotch Education Department, as defined by 'The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872,' in relation to education in Scotland."—(Mr. A. R. D. Elliot.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
submitted to the Committee that this was not merely a Scotch question; it was also 1133 one in which England was very much interested, because if they separated Scotch education from English they equally separated English education from Scottish. This had been represented as a matter of Scottish self-government, and, no doubt, self-government was a matter that was extremely desirable; but it would not be promoted by this Bill. He deprecated the clause as it stood, and was in favour of the adoption of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair). The Bill did not give the people of Mid Lothian or Perthshire, or Edinburgh or Glasgow, any additional powers over their own educational affairs; but it merely placed the administration under one Minister of the Crown instead of under another. It did not transfer the administration even to Edinburgh, but left it, as it was now, in London. The object at which they should aim was to secure, as far as possible, the same laws for the Three Kingdoms, and, remembering that union was strength, to maintain firmly the unity of the Empire. But the tendency of the clause was very different. It did not give any additional powers of local self-government; but, on the other hand, it tended to introduce differences between Scotland and England. The tendency even of the same system administered by different persons was to introduce different treatment, and no one who had had the honour of sitting on the Public Accounts Committee of that House could fail to have observed how the same Acts were interpreted in a totally different manner by different Departments. The House of Commons had for many years been gradually assimilating the laws of England and Scotland, to the great advantage of both Kingdoms, and this unfortunate and mischievous Bill was a step backwards. They had all condemned the incongruous arrangement which placed under one Minister the responsibility for education and for cattle disease. But it was now proposed, so far as Scotland was concerned, to aggravate this anomaly tenfold, and impose on one Minister a number of incongruous duties, to perform the majority of which he must necessarily be unsuited. The question before the Committee was, in truth, whether Ministers should be 1134 allocated to subjects or to localities. If the clause under discussion passed they could not stop there. The real question appeared to him to be whether they should have in future one Minister for Education, another for the Local Government Board, another presiding over the Home Office, and so on; or whether they should have separate Ministers for different localities—Ministers for Scotland, for England, for Wales, and so on; because if they once took a step in that direction they could not refrain from going further. Surely it would be wiser to have their Ministers according to the subject with which they bad to deal rather than according to the localities. Which was the most natural division of duties, by subjects or by localities? His hon. Friend who had just sat down stated that no one who had been present last night could have failed to mark the want of credit which was given to the Report of the Committee which sat last year. He respectfully differed altogether from the views of the hon. Member. No doubt, the Committee had reported in opposition to the views of the hon. Member and those who agreed with him; but he thought that Members generally would concur with him (Sir John Lubbock) that the Committee was considered at the time a very strong Committee. An assertion had been made that the Committee declined to hear Scotch witnesses; but he believed that was entirely a mistake. None of the Members of the Committee to whom he had been able to speak remembered any circumstance of the kind. The Committee had examined the Heads of the Department, both of whom were Scotchmen. As to the opinion of Scotland on this question, his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) showed them last night that the opinion of the educationalists of Scotland was mainly against the proposals in the Bill. His hon. Friend who had just sat down had referred to the views of the Paisley Town Council and others who were in favour of the clause; but although the Town Council of Paisley had petitioned in favour of it, the school board of that town had petitioned in an opposite sense. In fact, the most important school boards were opposed to the clause in the Bill. So far as he could learn, there had only been one meeting upon the subject held 1135 in Scotland, and that was of the Educational Congress at Ayr, where a resolution was submitted upon the question, and the decision arrived at was unanimously in favour of the appointment of a Minister of Education for the whole Kingdom. One member of the Congress, who moved an amendment in the sense of the clause, got no support whatever, and did not press it to a division. This was not only a Scotch question, but he maintained that English opinion should also be taken into consideration. Now, in England he believed there was no one who was interested in education who would not lament a separation, so far as education was concerned, between England and Scotland. They now selected for the Vice Presidency of the Council some statesman whoso attention had been particularly directed to the important question of education, and who could give to it, he would not say his sole attention, but, at any rate, the best of his energies. Having decided the questions which came before him, the whole of Great Britain had the benefit of his experience. But what would happen under the clause? The Minister for Scotland would not be chosen specially from an educational point of view. In the first place, he must generally be a Scotchman. He would have to deal with a great variety of subjects which must more or less be taken into account. But even suppose that they got a man as good, from an educational point of view, as they did now, still he would not practically be so efficient. His time and thoughts, instead of being in the main concentrated on education, would be distracted by problems connected with the other duties which the Bill proposed to throw upon him. He doubted whether among English schoolmasters one could be found in favour of the proposed change. The National Union of Elementary Teachers, at their annual Conference, passed a resolution to the effect that a Minister of Education should be immediately appointed, who should have charge of elementary and secondary education in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; and subsequently the executive of the Association resolved that every assistance be given to the educational institutions of Scotland in their opposition to the Secretary for Scotland Bill. There was very general opposition 1136 in England to any proposal to separate England from Scotland in the work of education, and there was a nearly unanimous opinion that education would be greatly benefited by maintaining the connection. National education must be considered from a national point of view, and not merely from the point of view of any one locality, however important; because the result of separation would not be decentralization, but disintegration. If they substituted local authority in this case they would find themselves unable to stop there. They had already seen what the tendency was, because when the Bill was first drafted, two or three years ago, it did not include education. Education was now included in it, and there was still every danger of allocating fresh subjects to the Minister for Scotland. In fact, the whole tendency was to separate the administration of the two countries from each other. Of course, if that were done in regard to Scotland, it was clear that it would render it still more difficult to resist the desire for Home Rule on the part of Ireland. The hon. Member stated that he had no desire to establish anything in the shape of Home Rule; but it did not matter what the desire of his hon. Friend was if the adoption of a principle of this kind tended directly to encourage such a measure. It would certainly be still more difficult to resist Home Rule in Ireland; and then there would probably be a similar demand on the part of Wales. Indeed, it was impossible to say where it would stop. No doubt hon. Gentlemen who supported the clause did not concur with him in that opinion. He hoped that they might be right, and that he might be wrong. Again, there was a very strong, he might almost say a unanimous, desire on the part of those interested in education that there should be a Minister of Education, and that he should have a seat in the Cabinet. Evidently, however, the Bill would tend to defeat that object. Scotch Members seemed to regard this as a small matter; but in Scotland itself the Bill was regarded as of much importance. It was stated by some hon. Gentlemen that it was simply a matter of administration; but it seemed to him to have a much wider bearing; and he confessed that he could not help looking upon the proposal with a considerable 1137 amount of apprehension. For his part he opposed the clause, because he feared it might prove "the little reft in the lute" which would introduce discord, and destroy the harmony between different portions of the Empire which they ought, by every means in their power, to promote. He, therefore, ox-pressed a sincere hope that Her Majesty's Government would not adopt the Amendment which had been proposed, but would, on the contrary, support that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh.

DR. CAMERON
wished to make an explanation with regard to the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), that some Members of the Childers' Committee were not aware that Scotch evidence had been tendered to the Committee and refused. As he (Dr. Cameron) was responsible for that statement he would give his authority. The Secretary to the Scotch Board of Education (Dr. Taylor) wrote as follows:— I wrote to Sir Lyon Playfair earnestly recommending that the Chairman, and, at least, one member of the late Board of Education, should be invited to give evidence, and he paid no attention to my suggestion.

§ SIR LYON PLAYFAIR
I never heard of that suggestion until this moment.

§ MR. ASHER
remarked, that if his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) had been in the House last night he would have discovered that the almost unanimous opinion of the House was contrary to the views he had expressed.

§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
said, there had been a mistake about the second reading of the Bill. He, and others, had been given to understand that it would not be taken, or they would have been in their places.

§ MR. ASHER
said, he rather thought that the proceedings of last night had conclusively established that, by the general assent of the House, Scotch education was to be transferred from the Vice President of tin; Council to the Secretary for Scotland; and, as far as he could gather, the speech of his hon. Friend was directed against the principle of the Bill, and against the estab- 1138 lishment of any Minister at all for the administration of Scotch affairs. He did not rise for the purpose of replying to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), but for the purpose of making some remarks on the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot), because he fully realized the great importance of that Amendment. It seemed to him that it very fairly raised the question as to what ought to be the official status and the position of the Secretary for Scotland in regard to the administration of Scotch education. Upon the decision of that question it would very largely depend whether the transfer of Scotch education from the Vice President of the Council to the Secretary for Scotland was to be a step advantageous or the reverse. The propriety of that transfer, he thought, had been generally regarded as involving questions of great delicacy and difficulty; and he did not attempt to conceal that he had regarded it from that point of view. But after the best consideration he had been able to give to the subject, he had come to the conclusion that the advantages resulting from the transfer would outweigh the possible disadvantages which were anticipated by some. But, at the same time, he thought the realization of the advantages depended very largely on what might be the official status and position of the Secretary for Scotland in regard to the administration of Scotch education. He was, therefore, anxious to make some remarks on the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot), because he was in this position—that he sympathized very largely with the views expressed by his hon. Friend; but, at the same time, he was unable to agree with the Amendment he had proposed. He understood that it was the desire of his hon. Friend in moving the Amendment to aggrandize, as far as he could, the position of the Secretary who would be charged with the administration of Scotch education, and in that desire his hon. Friend had his entire sympathy; but he asked his hon. Friend's attention to the fact that if the Amendment he had proposed were carried the result would be to extinguish 1139 the Scotch Education Department; and while he wished to see the Secretary for Scotland occupying as prominent and leading a position as possible in connection with that Department, he doubted very much the expediency of extinguishing the Department, and vesting the whole powers at present belonging to it exclusively in the Secretary for Scotland. He asked his hon. Friend to consider whether he was not going a little beyond the point he himself aimed at in pressing the Amendment; and whether the result he desired to secure would not be more effectually obtained if he were to withdraw the Amendment and support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Fifeshire (Mr. Preston Bruce) who proposed to substitute for "Vice President" the word "President." On the question what was to be the position of the Secretary for Scotland in reference to Scotch education, there appeared to be three propositions before the Committee. There was the proposal in the Bill to make the Secretary a Vice President; there was the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) that the Secretary should be an ex officio Member of the Department. There was also the proposal of the hon. Member for Fifeshire (Mr. Preston Bruce) to make the Secretary for Scotland President of the Education Department. He had no hesitation in saying that he was in favour of the view suggested by his hon. Friend, the Member for Fifeshire (Mr. Preston Bruce). It appeared to him that there could be no greater danger to Scotch education than to place it under the charge of a Minister who would not be a Scotch Education Minister in fact, but merely in name. He doubted very much, if the Scotch Secretary were merely Vice President of the Council, or merely a Member ex officio of the Council, whether he would be anything more than a Scotch Minister of Education in name. The effect of the Bill in that case would be to detach Scotch education from the care of the present Vice President of the Council, and, therefore, to lose the benefit of his attention and administration, and to hand it over to a Minister who, in his (Mr. Asher's) opinion, would not have the power that was essential to 1140 enable him properly to discharge his duties to Scotland in the matter. There could be no doubt of the importance of everything connected with education to the people of Scotland. There was, probably, no subject in which the whole mass of the people of Scotland were more directly interested than in that of education. To the facilities of education they had hitherto enjoyed they owed more than anything else the position they had occupied in the battle of life. After this Bill passed the Scotch people would look to the Secretary for Scotland and hold him responsible for the proper administration of education. It appeared to him that that was a responsibility which it would not be legitimate or fair to put upon any Minister, unless they gave to him, at the same time, power to deal with it according to his own judgment. If he were merely to be a Vice President of the Council, or an ex officio Member of the Council, he would not have the opportunity of exercising that power and that independent judgment which was essential to the proper administration of his Office. He would be liable to be frustrated by a possible difference of opinion between the Lord President of the Council and himself, on the one hand, and on the other, through want of sufficient authority in himself, to be controlled, to a large extent, by the permanent Department over which he would preside. He (Mr. Asher) did not mean by that to depreciate the great advantage it must be for a Minister to have the assistance of a permanent Department; but there could not be any doubt that, as between the Minister and the permanent Department, the influence of the Minister would largely depend upon whether he was independent or subordinate. He thought that it would be highly disadvantageous to the interests of Scotch education, if the Secretary for Scotland, whom he assumed it was now decided to charge with the administration of Scotch education, were not a person with controlling power in the matter; and he humbly thought that the best way of effecting that object was to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Fifeshire (Mr. Preston Bruce), and not that of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot), which took no step to strengthen the hands of the Mi- 1141 nister, but to deprive him of the able advice he would obtain from a Scotch Education Department. He wished to see the Minister in the position of a person rather having to take than to give advice. If he were a Vice President he would give advice; if he were President he would receive advice, and act according to his own judgment.

SIR LYON PLAYTFAIR
said, he would remind the Committee that it would be impossible ever to get through their work if endless speeches ranging over all the Amendments on the Paper were to be delivered. He would, therefore, confine himself to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot). His hon. Friend seemed to have forgotten the speech of the Earl of Rosebery in the other House when he introduced his Bill. The noble Earl said he was desirous to transfer education wholly to the Scotch Minister; but upon examining it he found he would have to pull up all the education of Scotland, root and branch, from the present system, and he said it was impossible to do that on the lines of the Department as it now existed. It was for that reason that the noble Earl altered the Bill, and made the Scotch Secretary Vice President of the Education Department. He did not propose to discuss that question now, because it would come on afterwards; but he entreated the Committee not to agree to the Amendment of his hon. Friend, which was really pulling up the whole root of the education of Scotland without repealing the Acts upon which it had been grounded, or introducing any other measure by which education could be carried on. The Bill at present ran on the lines of the Education Department; but the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend was a complete upheaval of the whole system, without substituting anything else that was reasonable. He therefore opposed the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

§ MR. RAMSAY
said, he did not understand the Amendment of his hon. Friend in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman understood it. The Amendment proposed to confer on the new Minister all the powers and duties of the Scotch Education Department as defined by "The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872." He 1142 saw no reason why the conferring of those powers on the Secretary for Scotland should do away with the Scotch Education Department. There was no reason for apprehending any such consequence, and there was no provision of the kind contained in the Amendment. The Amendment simply proposed to continue in the Secretary for Scotland all the power and privileges of the Scotch Education Department, and the power and privileges of the Scotch Education Department were defined in the Act of 1872, and other Acts relating to education, which would hereafter have to be dealt with. He thought it would be a great mistake, and he quite concurred with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Elgin (Mr. Asher) in thinking that there would be advantage in having the Secretary for Scotland Minister of the Scotch Education Department rather than that a second President of the Council should be established. But he thought his hon. and learned Friend was forgetting that the Education Department up to this time, as far as counsel and advice had gone, had never been anything more than a name. What had they done? [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed, he presumed, at the idea of his putting such a query, seeing that the Scotch Education Department never met. He had certainly never heard of I a meeting of the Scotch Education Department—that was to say, that the Members of the Department, who were Privy Councillors, had never been called together on any occasion except in regard to the Bill now under discussion, and called the "Heriot's Endowment Bill."

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)
thought that the Committee were wasting time in this preliminary discussion. The point the Committee had to decide and what the Government wanted to know was whether the Scotch people wanted to hand over Scotch educational affairs to a President, a Vice President, or an ex officio Member of the Privy Council. Those were the three propositions which were before the Committee. He did not wish to discuss any of the three alternatives; but he would ask his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot) whether he 1143 did not think it a more convenient course to withdraw his Amendment, and discuss the subject on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce)? He thought that would be far the most convenient course for the Committee to take, and he would recommend it in the interest of progress.

§ MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT
said, he could not withdraw the Amendment at present. He should like, in the first place, to know more distinctly what the Government proposed to do in the matter, and whether his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Elgin (Mr. Asher) represented the views of the Front Opposition Bench? He would remind the Committee that in moving the Amendment he had begun his statement by pointing out that there was no antagonism between his Amendment and that of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce). He thought, however, that the whole question would be better considered in one discussion rather than in two or three, and he would like that one discussion to be taken now.

§ MR. ASHER,
in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot), said, that in the remarks he had made he had only expressed his own personal opinions.

MR. PRESTON BRUCE
said, the present difficulty of the position was a good deal owing to extreme uncertainty as to what the Government intended to do. As far as he could determine, the Bill of the Government placed the Secretary for Scotland in exactly the same relation to the Lord President as the Vice President now occupied, and, consequent as, it left the question of the patronage of the Scotch Education Department in the hands of the Lord President; secondly, it probably left the Scotch official staff along with the English official staff; and, in the third place, he supposed it implied that in the meetings of the Scotch Committee of the Privy Council the Lord President would preside if he were present. It was something to know that that was the meaning of the clause as it stood; but it was an arrangement which, he thought, was much to be deprecated; and, personally, he would rather take the direct Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for 1144 Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot), yet he believed that his (Mr. Bruce's) Amendment would substantially have the same effect. If he had any indication from the Government that they would accept it, he believed the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot) would withdraw his Amendment.

§ THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)
said, that the Government thought that, on the whole, the Bill as it now stood represented the general bias of Scotch sentiment. He admitted that they had had some difficulty in arriving at that opinion. They did not think that the various Amendments were very profound or very substantial; and, on the whole, they were of opinion that the scheme embodied in the Bill was the best scheme that could be adopted, and they desired to take the opinion of the Committee on that question. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had asked a series of questions as to the precise position which, under the Bill, the Minister for Scotland would occupy. The Government thought the Minister for Scotland should occupy, as regarded Scotch education, precisely the same position as that which was occupied in regard to English education by the Vice President of the Council—not a higher and not a lower position. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would, as he understood the matter, put him in a higher position than was occupied by his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. E. Stanhope) in regard to England. He did not think that that would effect any improvement in the matter. To give to Scotland everything that England had appeared to the Government to be adequate and sufficient. Therefore, the Bill as it stood was a sufficient and reasonable compromise between the extreme views expressed by the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce) on the one hand, and those of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh University (Sir Lyon Playfair) on the other. The Government were satisfied, on the whole, that the opinion of Scotland was in favour of the Bill.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
said, that at last they had arrived at the deliverance of the Government Bench; but it certainly was not in accordance with the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman last night. As far as he understood the 1145 right hon. Gentleman's statement last night, it was that his opinion was that the Scotch Secretary should be made—he thought the word used by the right hon. Gentleman was "Chairman" of the Education Board.

§ THE PEESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)
said, that he had never said anything of the kind. What he had said was that the effect of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be to make the Secretary for Scotland Chairman; but he had never said that he thought he should be so.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; but many hon. Members had been under a similar misapprehension, and had regarded the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in that way. But in regard to what the right hon. Gentleman had now said, there could be no question that the Government did not intend to give the Scotch Secretary effective charge of education. There could no longer be any doubt about that. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) had pointed it out with perfect clearness last night; and there was one part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he (Mr. Buchanan) entirely concurred—namely, where he pointed out that the Scotch Secretary, as Vice President in regard to Scotch education, instead of being practically paramount, as in England, would virtually have no control over education. The nod which the Home Secretary gave just now to the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce) fully confirmed his (Mr. Buchanan's) interpretation as to the result of what the Government proposed to do. His hon. Friend had asked if this Bill would leave all the patronage in the hands of the Lord President, and the right hon. Gentleman nodded "Yes." And when his hon. Friend further asked if it would not also leave the staff for the Scotch educational work in the English Department, the President of the Local Government Board approved. Now, that was contrary to what the Home Secretary had told them last night in regard to Clause 2. [Cries of "No!"] The right hon. Gentleman was asked whether the Amendment proposed by him to be introduced into Clause 2 would enable the officials of 1146 the Department charged with Scotch education to be transferred to the new Secretary's Office, and he answered yes; but they now discovered that, although it would enable them to be transferred to the new Office, it was not the intention of the Government that they should be so transferred. [Cries of "No!"] Well, the right hon. Gentleman did not deny it; and now they had a declaration from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, speaking on behalf of the Government, that it was not the intention to work the Scotch Education Department from the Secretary for Scotland's Office. He, therefore, maintained that the Government did not intend to give the Scotch Secretary effective charge of Scotch education under this Bill. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) had quoted the Earl of Rosebery, but had omitted to say what the nature of the discussion was which took place in the House of Lords. The Bill, as it now stood, was not in the shape in which the Amendment had been submitted by the Earl of Rosebery; and what the Earl of Rosebery said in regard to the purport of the Bill as it stood was that, it was not taking Scotch education out of the Education Office, nor was it putting education under the control of the Scotch Board.

§ THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)
Who said that?

§ MR. BUCHANAN
said, he was quoting a speech of the Earl of Rosebery in the House of Lords on the third reading of the Bill. The Marquess of Lothian, on the same occasion, asked if it was intended that the Scotch Education Department was to be wholly distinct and separate from the English Education Department, and the control vested in a Scotch Minister upon the Committee of Council. [Cries of "Order!"] He fully appreciated the generosity of the Committee in allowing him to transgress the Rules of the Committee by quoting a debate in "another place." But they had the evidence of the Earl of Rosebery himself in the House of Lords and the statement of a supporter of the Government in the House of Lords that the Bill would not give, in any effective way, the charge of Scotch education to 1147 the Secretary for Scotland. And now the Government told them that it had never been intended, in any effective way, to confer the charge of Scotch education upon the Secretary for Scotland. Therefore, in order to test the sincerity of the Government on the subject, he hoped they would have a distinct division—he did not care whether it was taken upon the present Amendment or that of the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce)—as to whether they were to give effective control—yes or no—of Scotch education to the Secretary for Scotland.

§ THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)
said, the hon. Member was mistaken in regard to what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board either last night or to-night. He was not aware that his right hon. Friend had ever changed his mind at all; and the Government were responsible for this part of the Bill long before it came down from the House of Lords. He thought the hon. Member was wrong in saying that the Government did not wish that the Scotch people should have a proper voice in their own educational matters. If the general feeling of all the Scotch Members had been clearly one on this matter, the Government, whatever their own views were, would have felt bound by their opinions; but, unfortunately, the opinion of the Scotch Members was very much divided. There were, as the President of the Local Government Board had stated, three different and distinct views on the subject. One was that the whole of the work in connection with the Scotch Education Department should absolutely and completely pass over to the Scotch Office under the charge of a President, and, although nominally in London, it should be absolutely separate from the Education Department. That was one view of the matter. Another view was that the Secretary for Scotland should simply be an ex officio Member of the Scotch Education Board, which went entirely the other way. A great number of people in Scotland took one view of the matter; but there was also a considerable number of persons who would be quite content with a mean between the two extremes, and that mean had been found 1148 in the present Bill. As there was nothing like unanimity in Scotland as to either of the extremes, he thought it would be wise to remain by the Bill as it stood. The hon. Member who last spoke might not have known that there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. J. A. Campbell), to the effect that the Scotch Education Board should have a distinct permanent Secretary to attend to the business of Scotch education. To that Amendment he attached considerable importance. They considered that if the Secretary for Scotland was to be Vice President of the Education Board for Scotland, it was quite right that he should have a permanent Secretary with an adequate staff. So far as the Government were concerned, they had a real desire to know what the voice of the people of Scotland was in the matter; but, under all the circumstances, he thought it would be better to abide by the Bill as it stood in the absence of any strong feeling in favour of one or other of the three alternatives proposed, and he hoped they would now go to a division, so that they might see how Scotch opinion was running on the point. That could scarcely be done by first having one speech on one side and then one on the other.

§ MR. WILLIAMSON
said, he hoped the Committee had now really done with the Amendment. He confessed that he was unable to read the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) without looking at the other Amendment in the name of the same hon. Member in which they were asked to leave out Clause 6, which would be perfectly destructive of education in Scotland. The Committee were placed in a sort of quandary between making the Secretary for Scotland either President, or Vice President, or an ex officio Member. He sympathized with the idea of making the new Minister an ex officio Member of the Department only; but he thought the Government had acted wisely in choosing the middle course of making him Vice President.

§ MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT
said, he rose to say that, in consequence of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Elgin (Mr. Asher), he would withdraw his Amendment, so that the division might be taken upon that of his 1149 hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce).

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
asked if the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) withdrew his Amendment?

§ MR. BUCHANAN
said, he did not propose to take that course at present; and as he wished to say a few words upon the Amendment, he would move to insert, after the word "Schedule," in line 12— And all rights of patronage relating to educational offices and appointments in Scotland vested in the Lord President of the Council or the Scotch Education Department. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at the Amendment, he would see that if the Amendment of his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Elliot), or of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce), had been accepted by the Government, he would never have thought of moving his own; but, on the understanding that the Government were disinclined to accept either of the Amendments of his hon. Friends, he maintained that his would, to a certain degree, extend the functions of the Vice President created by the Bill, and would give him a more effective charge over Scotch education than he would otherwise have. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), in his evidence before the Childers' Committee, had expressed a strong opinion on the subject in support of the idea that the Vice President or Minister in charge of education should also have the charge of the patronage connected with education. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had been equally strong upon the subject—that for the effective management of education the Minister in charge should also have the choice of those who were to work out the details of the Department. The right hon. Gentleman had carried his views in that direction, to some extent, during his tenure of Office as Vice President of the Council, and had succeeded in vesting a considerable part of the patronage in the Vice President which had previously been exercised by the Lord President. He (Mr. Buchanan), therefore, thought there was distinct value to be attached to his Amendment, supposing that the Government were unwilling to accept 1150 the other two Amendments. As had been pointed out by his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh University (Sir Lyon Playfair), the Vice President, under the Bill, would not really have charge of Scotch education, and would not have any control over the appointments of those who were to carry out the work of the Education Department. His Amendment remedied one of those defects by transferring the patronage of the Department to the new Minister. He also thought that in support of that Amendment he might quote the opinion of the President of the Council himself, because when the Bill was before the House of Lords, and the Lord President was asked a question as to patronage, he stated that it would remain in the hands of the Lord President, in whom it had been vested by statute, and that it could not be removed except by statute. Therefore, he maintained that his Amendment would simply carry out the view of the President of the Council himself, who had stated that he accepted the Amendment of the Earl of Rosebery in substance, and that he wished to vest the patronage connected with the Scotch Education Department in the Secretary for Scotland.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 12, after the word "Schedule," add "and all rights of patronage relating to educational offices and appointments in Scotland vested in the Lord President of the Council or the Scotch Education Department."—(Mr. Buchanan.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

§ THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)
said, he admitted that it would be a very important thing if the Lord President were to exercise the rights of patronage without consulting the Vice President; but was there the least shadow of ground for supposing that he would do so?

§ MR. BUCHANAN
said, that it had been so.

§ THE PEESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR.)
said, the hon. Gentleman forgot that Scotch education was at present managed by the Vice President of the Council. No doubt, there was over that Council a President, and he was nominally vested with the patronage.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
Not only nominally, but really.

1151

§ THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)
said, the same thing applied in the case of England; and could anybody suppose that education in England was vitiated by such an arrangement? Of course, in all educational matters the Lord President consulted the Vice President; and as he consulted the Vice President in England, he would undoubtedly consult the Vice President in Scotland, if the Secretary for Scotland were constituted Vice President by the Bill. He did not think that any difficulty could arise, and no danger would exist in regard to Scotch education which had not existed in reference to English education ever since the Education Act passed. He would go further, and appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who looked forward to the time when there would be one Education Minister for the United Kingdom. He would not presume to say how far an Education Minister for the whole of the Kingdom was necessary; but it was perfectly clear that by establishing two Vice Presidents, one for Scotland and one for England, and having over them a President, they left the door open for any future politicians who might so desire to establish a general Education Minister for the whole Kingdom without seriously disarranging the mechanism which this Bill proposed to constitute. Therefore, neither on the ground of existing practical inconvenience nor on the ground of future inconvenience could any difficulty arise; consequently, he was unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. At all events, it was clear that no weight or burden would be imposed upon Scotch education by this Bill, which did not exist at the present moment in connection with English education; and, as hon. Members well knew, the work of English education was very ably and effectively managed by the Vice President of the Council.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR
thought it would be unfortunate if his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) were to press this Amendment, and for this reason—that a good many hon. Members would be constrained to vote against it who still wished to give the Minister for Scotland a real and effective control over Scotch, education. If they divided upon this Amendment they would be voting upon a false issue. He thought the division ought to be 1152 taken upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce) He took it that if this official were made the President of the Education Board, as he hoped to see him, this patronage would follow from his status and position. But if his hon. Friend insisted upon going to a division upon his Amendment hon. Members who wished to see the same object brought about—but who desired to see it brought about in a different way—would be compelled to vote against him, and their vote would be liable to misapprehension. The proper time for considering the question was when they came to deal with the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce), and a declaration about patronage in the present clause would be superfluous and inconvenient. He, therefore, hoped that his hon. Friend would follow the course which had been taken by the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot), and would withdraw the Amendment, leaving the Committee to divide upon that of the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce).

§ MR. MARJORIBANKS
also hoped the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) would not press his Amendment, which he thought would come a great deal better after they had decided whether the Miaister was to be President or Vice President. When they came to discuss the question of patronage, that was a matter upon which he might have a good deal to say; and if there were any danger of the patronage not being exercised by the Secretary of State, then the Amendment of his hon. Friend might be usefully brought up on the Report.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
thought the advice of the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) was very good advice, and he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) would take that view of the matter. Personally, he was inclined to enter into a compromise which would make the Secretary for Scotland Vice President and retain the connection with England. He thought that would be the best arrangement, and with that view he thought the Amendment had better be brought forward on Clause 6. One great defect in the present English system was that whereas one man did the work 1153 another man had the patronage. He thought the Vice President of the Council ought to be the real Minister of Education, and that he should have all the patronage. It would be a very bad thing for education in Scotland, if one Minister were to do all the work of the Department, and another were to exercise all the patronage. He trusted his hon. Friend would persevere with his Amendment, but not upon the present clause. He thought there ought to be in Scotland one man with definite ideas in regard to the administration of education, who should also make all the appointments.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
said, that although he was inclined to agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) as to the propriety of withdrawing the Amendment, he was afraid he could not do it on the ground which his hon. Friend had assigned. He wished to point out to the late Lord Advocate—his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour)—that he appeared to be a little timorous with regard to the votes that were given in that House. He would only point out that if the Committee were to carry his Amendment, the Vice President, who, as far as they knew, was going to be appointed under the Bill, would find his hands considerably strengthened, and strengthened in a direction in which they all desired to see them strengthened. And if his Amendment were carried, the Committee would still be able to vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce), which he admitted to be a still more valuable Amendment. But in view of the arguments which had been used by the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), rather than put the Committee to the trouble of a division, he was perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL moved the following sub-section to Clause 5:— (4.) All rights of patronage relating to offices and appointments in Scotland vested in one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State. The previous Amendments down to Clause 6 were not of the first importance; but this Amendment was a very import- 1154 ant one, and could not be treated in the same way, seeing that it was the outcome of the wisdom of "another place"—that was to say, of the House of Lords—when the Bill was brought into that House last year. On that occasion it had been threshed out more thoroughly than the Bill of the present year. It was not treated as a Party question, but as a question in regard to which different Parties could put their heads together and make the best Bill they could for the country. He was not one of those who desired to depreciate the House of Lords. On the contrary, he admitted that there was a considerable amount of wisdom in that Assembly, and the outcome of their wisdom on this subject last year was the clause he had copied from the Bill of last Session—a clause which, somehow or other, had dropped out of the Bill of the present year. One of the disadvantages which Scotch Members had to contend with was that Scotch Business was generally hurried over. One great complaint made by the Earl of Rosebery in the other House was that he found it impossible to get this Scotch Bill sufficiently discussed. The Members of the House of Lords were too frequently exhausted by their arduous labours up to half-past 8, when the dinner hour arrived. As that was generally the time a Scotch Bill was reached it was necessarily discussed in a very small House. So far as he could gather from the newspaper reports there had been no proper discussion of this clause at all in the House of Lords; but that was no reason why it should be dropped from the Bill. If the Government would not consent to replace it, seeing that it was in the Bill of last year, he hoped they would tell the Committee the reason why. It was a very important provision, and would vest in the new Minister the rights of patronage at present vested in one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State. He had had a good deal of official experience, and he would impress upon the Committee that the man who had the patronage had the power, and that if they did not give the Scotch Minister the patronage they would emasculate him. He wanted to know why the Secretary for Scotland should not have the patronage always attached to the Minister who performed the duties of a Secretary of State? He thought it was only reasonable to give 1155 the Scotch Minister sufficient power and dignity to induce the people to respect the Office. He would not go further into the matter at the present moment, but he would await an explanation of the views of the Government. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 2, after line 19, to insert the following sub-section:—"(4.) All rights of patronage relating to offices and appointments in Scotland vested in one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State."—(Sir George Campbell.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)
said, he did not understand the observation of the hon. Member that a number of the Amendments which originally appeared on the Paper had been "pooh-poohed." No Amendment had been "pooh-poohed" by the Government. All they desired was to ascertain the opinion of the Scotch Representatives on the matter, and he hoped there would be no further waste of time over collateral matters. In regard to the present Amendment, one reason why he objected to it was that he did not find it in the Bill. The hon. Member had stated that the House was sometimes very wise, and that they had shown their wisdom last year by sending down the Bill with this provision in it. But if first thoughts were the wisest, second thoughts were the best; and when the present Bill came down from the House of Lords, in their maturer wisdom of the present year, they had not included the subject of the Amendment in the Bill. But a much better reason for objecting to the Amendment was that the Secretary for Scotland would have a great deal to do, no doubt, with the question of Scotch education, but this patronage principally related to the administration of the law. The last clause of the Bill provided that— Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or interfere with any rights, powers, privileges, or duties vested in or imposed on the Lord Advocate by virtue of any Act of Parliament or custom. The Lord Advocate was one of the great Officers of State for Scotland, and he ought to remain so, and it was not intended by the creation of the Secretary for Scotland in any way to interfere with 1156 the legitimate functions of the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate was the head of the law in Scotland, and was practically the adviser of the Secretary of State, and no appointment was ever made by the Secretary of State which was not recommended by the Lord Advocate. He stood, practically, as far as Scotch legal patronage was concerned, precisely on the same footing as the Lord Chancellor in England. The appointments were nominally made by the Secretary of State, but really by the Lord Advocate, who knew the persons best fitted for them, whereas the Secretary of State really could know nothing about them without consulting the Lord Advocate. He considered that he had given a sufficient reason why this patronage should remain vested in the Lord Advocate and should not be transferred to the Secretary for Scotland.

MR. PRESTON BRUCE
said, he could not recommend his hon. Friend to go to a division on this Amendment, not because he did not think it an important one, but because he thought it so very important that it was impossible to expect that it would be accepted at this stage. He could not help feeling, however, that the Scotch Secretary, as appointed under the Bill, might, after all, turn out to be not so effective a Minister as the people of Scotland generally expected. If that was the case, it would be on account of the absence of a clause of this kind, and the very distinct saving there was of all the rights of the Lord Advocate, because the effect of that was to leave the Lord Advocate in relation with the Home Secretary and not with the Secretary for Scotland. So long as that was the case, he was afraid that in questions of great importance the Scotch Secretary would not be able to stand against the combined influence of the Lord Advocate and the Home Secretary. However, he thought this was much too large a question to be raised at this stage; and he thought, if the Bill was to go through at all, it must be accepted, substantially, in the form in which it had been presented.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, he was inclined to think that the advice of his hon. Friend tendered in so friendly a spirit was judicious advice. He confessed that he entertained the fears of his hon. Friend, and was afraid that the 1157 privileges of the new Secretary of State might be too much lopped off, and that it might turn out that he was merely an odd man to do a few odd jobs. He would not stand further in the way, but would withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

§ MR. C. S. PARKER
said, that before parting with the clause he wished to put a question to the Government. The policy of the clause was to vest in the new Secretary for Scotland the powers set forth in the First Schedule. Had it been considered if there were any powers and duties of an administrative kind belonging to Sheriffs that ought to be transferred under the Bill, particularly with reference to the supervision of bye-laws submitted under the Roads and Bridges Act and the Locomotives Regulation Act? If they would refer to the Locomotives Act, they would find that the bye-laws were made by the Local Authority, and had to be confirmed by the Secretary of State; but if they would look to the Roads and Bridges Act, they would find that the bye-laws were confirmed by the Sheriff of the county. He saw no good reason, when they were appointing a new Officer, why they should not give him the general supervision of the bye-laws made by the Road Authorities as well as of those affecting locomotives. There was one point which had attracted a good deal of public attention lately—namely, the bye-laws for the regulation of bicycles and tricycles. It was inconvenient to have local bye-laws differing in different counties. In some counties, the Sheriff had revised the bye-laws in a way to give satisfaction to the persons concerned. In other cases, bye-laws had been issued which had created a good deal of dissatisfaction. In England there was but one Revising Authority—the Local Government Board. Why should not the Scotch Secretary have similar authority for all Scotland? He had no wish to press the matter unduly, but he would like to have some assurance that the matter would be considered.

§ MR. MARJORIBANKS
said, he would like to ask a question in regard to a similar point in connection with the 1158 Board of Trade. The Board of Trade had certain powers in regard to foreshores. Would it not be right that those powers should be exercised by the new Minister for Scotland instead of by the Board of Trade?

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)
said, that in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Parker), the right of making bye-laws was always vested in the Local Authority. It had never struck him that the powers of inferior officers should be transferred to a superior Office such as was to be formed under this Bill. He would, however, look into the matter; but he could hold out no hope of any concession in regard to the point.

§ MR. C. S. PARKER
asked if there was any reason for putting bye-laws for locomotives under one authority, and bye-laws for general traffic under another?

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)
said, he thought there might be. In the discussion upon the Roads and Bridges Bill that had been clearly shown. With regard to the Board of Trade, he would ask his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board to answer the question.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)
said, the Board of Trade held the powers as to foreshores under the Crown Lands Act of 1853, and it would be impossible to transfer them without repealing that Act.

§ MR. BRYCE
remarked, that the powers in regard to foreshores had been managed in a much more liberal spirit by the Board of Trade than by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests; and he hoped the Government would not make any alteration.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
asked whether the duties of the Board of Trade with regard to the Commissioners of Northern Lights should not be transferred to the new Secretary?

§ [No reply.]

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ Clause 6 (Secretary to be Vice President of Scotch Education Department).

MR. PRESTON BRUCE
said, he would not detain the Committee for more than two or three minutes in moving his Amendment to leave out the 1159 words "Vice President," in order to insert "President." He would simply explain briefly what the effect of the Amendment would be. As he understood the Bill, it really made the Secretary for Scotland a Vice President of the Council, and placed him in precisely the same relation to the Lord President as the Vice President of the Council the right hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. E. Stanhope) was in now. That was a position in some degree subordinate to the Lord President. The object of his Amendment, to substitute "President" for "Vice President," was to remove that position of subordination, and to make the Scotch Secretary an independent responsible Minister for Education in Scotland, exercising all the patronage, presiding over his own Department, and having an official staff in his own Office. He wished to remind hon. Members that the Childers Committee particularly condemned the present management of education in this respect, on account of the divided responsibility; but by this Bill they were again setting up a divided responsibility as regarded education in Scotland. They would, at the same time, only partially transfer the education of Scotland to the new Scotch Department. That was a very important matter, because he admitted that there might be certain dangers connected with the separation of Scottish education; but, on the other hand, there were certain advantages which he hoped would follow from the separation. He was afraid that a partial separation might result in their failing to get those advantages which they anticipated from the change. He did not understand, from the remarks of the Home Secretary, that the right hon. Gentleman was going to reject this Amendment on the ground of the impossibility, suggested in "another place," of there being two Presidents of the Council. It was well known that the President of the Board of Trade had been created an independent official by an Order in Council. As an Order in Council created a Committee of Council for Trade, with an independent President, he did not think there would be any difficulty in providing that the Secretary for Scotland should be President of the Scotch Education Department, as was suggested by the Amendment. He therefore begged 1160 to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 31, to leave out the words "Vice President," and insert the word "President."—(Mr. Preston Bruce.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words 'Vice President' stand part of the Clause."

§ MR. MARJORIBANKS
desired to say a few words in support of the Amendment of his hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had said just now that there were three parties in Scotland in regard to this matter—one party who desired that Scotch education should remain in the hands of the Vice President of the Council, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair); another party who went the whole way with the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce); and a third party who went in for the mean between the two extremes adopted by the Bill as it at present stood—namely, that the new Minister should be Vice President of the Scotch Council of Education. He quite admitted that there might be a party in Scotland who thought with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) that Scotch education should be left, as at present, in the hands of the Vice President of the Council, and a large party who desired to see the whole of education given to the new Minister; but there was no party prepared, to adopt the mean of giving the Scotch Secretary merely a limited control over education as this Bill proposed. He felt sure that if the Government did not give the new Minister sufficient control over Scotch education, they would find that the bottom would be knocked out of the tub altogether, and they would fall through. The people of Scotland were determined to have a Minister who would have full and complete control of Scotch education; and if they only got a small portion of what they desired under the Bill, there would very soon be an agitation for conferring increased powers upon the new Scotch Minister. The opposition to giving complete control over Scotch education to the new Scotch Minister came only from two quarters. One was the Departments, 1161 He believed he was right in saying that the Home Office did not, on the whole, regard the Bill with very great favour; and he certainly knew that the Education Department objected strongly to this part of the Bill. ["No!"] Well, the late Education Department had done so. It was like a master of foxhounds, who, when he once got hold of a large tract of country—whether he could hunt it or not he did not care a bit; but nothing would induce him to give it up. That was very much the case here. The Education Department had charge of Scotch Education, and they intended to keep it, in order to aggrandize and make strong their own Department. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) let the cat out of the bag last night. It was really a fight between those who desired to see a strong Scotch Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), who was lately at the head of the Education Department. There were certain persons who thought that if Scotch education were taken away, the Minister who it was proposed should succeed to the functions of Vice President of the Council would not get Cabinet rank. That was the moving spirit of the matter, as was apparent from the evidence before the Committee in regard to Scotland. If anyone would take the trouble to go through the evidence in regard to Scotland, he would find that there were great and important differences between English and Scotch education. Indeed, Sir Francis Sandford went so far as to say that it was impossible to carry out the system of Scotch education at all unless there were a separate set of Scotch officials to do the work. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), in a speech which he delivered in 1879, said much the same thing. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that Scotch education was far ahead of English education; and he said, further, that the education imparted in the three countries was totally different, and that a similar system could not by any possible means be suitable for the Three Kingdoms. They had a system of education in Scotland of which they wave very proud. It had a history which extended as far back as the 12th century. Since 1646 they had had a national sys- 1162 tem of education, and what they wanted to do was to keep that national system of education. What they felt was that Scotland had been "cabined, cribbed, and confined" by being tied up with England since 1872. They had been like a long-legged man tied up with a short-legged man in a trowser race. They had been kept back; and if England had improved her position with regard to education in comparison with Scotland, it had been because Scotland had been kept back more than England had. England had got on simply through the advantage she had enjoyed of being tied up with Scotland.

§ SIR LYON PLAYFAIR
pointed out that the whole structure of the Bill was to create an Education Department for Scotland. If this Amendment were adopted, the effect would be that the Vice President of the Council became Vice President for England alone. But he had far more important duties to perform than the Vice President for Scotland, because the Vice President for England had charge of the Science and Art of the country, and he must send Inspectors down to Scotland to examine every school in Scotland for Art, and he hoped also for Science. Therefore, the Vice President for England had much larger powers than the Vice President for Scotland proposed to be created by this Bill. And yet they were asked, in carrying out a system of this kind, to make one Officer President of the Scotch Education Department, and the other only Vice President of the Council, with much more important and larger duties in connection with education. That was impossible, unless they altered the whole structure of the Bill. There was one thing which he wished the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to consider. Personally, he was placed in a very awkward position, because he must vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce). If he did not, the whole question would be determined. The retention of the words "Vice President" would determine the whole question, and, therefore, he must vote for the Amendment, in order to strike out the words "Vice President;" but he should oppose his hon. Friend most vehemently when he afterwards came to propose the insertion of the word "President." That was an awkward position, because he 1163 held one word to be as bad as the other.

§ MR. RAMSAY
said, he was not surprised to hear his right hon. Friend object to this Amendment. The Amendment itself was a very important one. His right hon. Friend said that it would place the President of the Scotch Education Department in a higher position than the Vice President of the English Department. No doubt, it would do so; and that was what the Scotch Members intended and desired. They desired that the Scotch Education Department should be entirely separate and distinct from England, and that it should have a President, with full power and control and all the patronage belonging to it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had said that it was desirable to postpone the real discussion until the Committee came to this Amendment. His hon. Friend had now submitted it, and he (Mr. Ramsay) supported it, because he felt that if the Secretary for Scotland were made the President of the Scotch Education Department, he would have the patronage. He should certainly vote with his hon. Friend, if, as he hoped, his hon. Friend took a division.

§ THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)
said, the Government preferred the Bill as it at present stood. They preferred that the Scotch Minister in charge of education should be a Vice President rather than a President; but if that was objected to, they preferred that he should be a President in charge of education rather than an ex officio member. If, therefore, "Vice President" was struck out of the Bill, the Government would support the insertion of "President" as against "ex officio member."

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, that if this Amendment were carried, and the Officer was designated "President," the result would be that the Office of the President of the Scotch Education Department would be held in Edinburgh; there would be no sense in having an entirely separate Department, with patronage and everything else connected with it carried out in London, and not in Edinburgh. He believed there would be great inconvenience in the practical administration of the Office if this Amendment were adopted.

1164

MR. J. B. BALFOUR
pointed out that his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Alexander Gordon) was under a complete misapprehension; there was no intention on the part of the late Government to transfer to Edinburgh the administration of the Department. The Officer, whatever he might be designated, would remain in London. In regard to the effect that this Amendment, if carried, would have upon the general scheme of the Bill, it was right, perhaps, to distinguish between the position in which the Bill was now, and the position which it occupied in the beginning, and in the later stage, in which, rightly, he thought, an Amendment was introduced concerning the Department as distinguished from the individual. The intention, when the Bill was introduced, was to make the Secretary for Scotland the Educational Minister for Scotland; and there was not then any purpose to create a separate Department for him. It was pointed out in the House of Lords—and here he must say the Bill had been improved—that it would be desirable that the Scotch Secretary, in his capacity of Educational Minister for Scotland, should have associated with him a Department—ready made, so to say. The Earl of Rosebery accepted that suggestion; but he thought he was right in saying that the noble Earl had no idea or intention of suggesting that the Scotch Secretary should be a Vice President, because he brought down an Amendment designating him "President." It was when the noble Earl brought down that Amendment that the Lord President of the Council suggested that the word "Vice" should be introduced. Explanations were asked by the Earl of Rosebery as to what would take place by this change, and the impression was left on many minds that although the new Minister was to be designated "Vice President," he should be, in fact, Plenipotentiary ad hoc. On the third reading of the Bill in the other House there was certainly great reticence on the part of the President of the Council as to how much power the Vice President would have, and the net result of the discussion there was to show that if he were a Vice President he would be the subordinate in Sootch educational matters of the Lord President. That was certainly not the intention of a great many others who desired to see the Se- 1165 cretary for Scotland, by whatever name he was designated, the Educational Minister for Scotland, and the sole Educational Minister for Scotland. The prevailing opinion was that Scotch educational matters should be managed by a President of their own Department. The hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce) had pointed to the analogy of the Board of Trade; but he (Mr. J. B. Balfour) submitted that the proper course was to return to what was intended when the Amendment was introduced in the House of Lords, and to make this Officer in name, as it was intended he should be in substance, the Educational Minister for Scotland.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)
said, the Scotch people wanted to have, practically speaking, a Committee of Scotch Education. The Government had never concealed their wish to meet the desires of the Scotch people; but, at the same time, he was bound to say the Government very much preferred that the new Minister should be Vice President rather than he should take the somewhat anomalous position of President of the Council, which would make two Presidents. Now, as to the peculiar position in which the Committee were at present placed. It was just as well they should understand exactly how they were going to vote. A difficulty had arisen as to how they could really obtain the sense of the Committee. The Motion before the Committee was, "That the words 'the Vice President' stand part of the Clause." Those who were favourable to the insertion of the words "ex officio member" would have to vote against the words "Vice President" standing part of the clause, and those who wished to insert "President" would have to do the same; therefore, if they did not take care, they would not arrive at what was the opinion of Scotch Members. Probably the best plan would be to take the sense of the Committee as between the words "Vice President" and "President," because it was clear that those who objected to the designation "the President," and preferred" ex officio member" or "Vice President," would have to vote in favour of the Motion, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. J. B. BALFOUR
observed, that this would combine the two sections against the one.

1166

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)
remarked, that that was the only way in which a proper decision might be arrived at.

§ SIR LYON PLAYFAIR
said, that as he raised the difficulty, and it was a serious one, he thought it right to say that he should vote that the words "Vice President" stand part of the clause, and that when the clause itself was put, he would take a division in order to show the sense of the Committee.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Member (Mr. Preston Bruce) were to withdraw his Amendment, and move to omit the word "Vice," it would simplify matters between the three propositions.

§ MR. RAMSAY
said, it did not appear to him that if the Minister were designated "President," any difficulty would arise. The Lord President of the Council would hold one Office, and the President of the Scotch Education Department another Office.

MR. PRESTON BRUCE
said, he would be glad to adopt the suggestion of the Chairman, and asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
And then the hon. Gentleman will move to omit the word "Vice."

§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
thought that then the same confusion would arise. If the question were that the word "Vice" stood part of the clause, those who were in favour of "President" and those in favour of "ex officio member" would vote against it, so that in the end precisely the same difficulty would arise.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?

MR. PRESTON BRUCE
It appears there would be no advantage in my doing so. In that case, I think I had better adhere to the Amendment as it stands.

§ Question put.

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 26: Majority 47.—(Div. List, No. 270.)

§ MR. J. A. CAMPBELL
proposed to insert, after "Scotland," in line 34— With a distinct permanent Secretary to attend to the business of Scotch Education. The permanent official was not to be Secretary to the Secretary for Scotland, but an officer added to the Scotch Edu- 1167 cation Department. Whatever view hon. Members might have formed of the proper position of the Scotch Secretary with relation to education, this Amendment must commend itself to them.

§ THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)
asked if it was in Order for the hon. Member to move an Amendment imposing a charge without the money having been voted for that charge?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
said, the House had resolved— That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the salary of a Secretary for Scotland and of any officials who may be appointed under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for appointing the Secretary for Scotland and of any office expenses which may be incurred thereby. Therefore, the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman was perfectly in Order.

§ MR. J. A. CAMPBELL
said, that his Amendment was in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee to which reference had been made. It was remarkable, however, how differently those recommendations were at times regarded. Sometimes they were not considered worthy of attention, and at other times they were regarded by the same hon. Members as conclusive upon the particular matter in hand. The recommendation of the Committee was that the Officer who was in charge of education should be the real as well as nominal Minister, and that he should have the patronage in his hands. The same Committee recommended that there should be a distinct permanent Secretary appointed for the purpose of attending to Scotch education. He thought that as hon. Members had now approved of the proposal of the Bill that the Secretary for Scotland should be Vice President of the Scotch Education Department, there should be provided a permanent Secretary. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 34, after the word "Scotland," to insert the words "with a distinct permanent Secretary to attend to the business of Scotch Education."—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)
said, he did not dispute for a moment that the Secretary 1168 for Scotland should have a permanent Secretary; but he did not think it would be right to insert such a Proviso here. By the 2nd clause of the Bill, which had already been passed, it was provided that the Secretary for Scotland might appoint what officers he deemed requisite. The appointment of a permanent Secretary, therefore, should be made under the 2nd clause of the Bill.

§ MR. RAMSAY
said, there was good reason for refusing to accept his hon. Friend's Amendment. The appointment of a permanent Secretary was recommended by a Committee which had no regard for the feelings or opinions of the people of Scotland, The Committee did not examine a single witness; and therefore he was surprised that his hon. Friend should seek to impose on the face of this Bill the provision that there should be a distinct permanent Secretary, independent, apparently, of the Secretary for Scotland. He (Mr. Ramsay) hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.

§ SIR LYON PLAYFAIR
said, the Scotch Members would lose the advantage of a distinct Scotch Education Department if they did not have a permanent Secretary of that Department. There might be a Secretary appointed to the Scotch Secretary; but this Amendment provided for the appointment of a Secretary to the Scotch Education Department, who would make it his special duty to attend to the business of the Department. Without such a Secretary the work might be done inside the English Education Department. He thought the Scotch Members would lose the whole substance of what they were contending for if they declined to accept the Amendment.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
believed it was a fact that the English Education Department had not a permament Secretary appointed by Statute. That being so, he could not understand why the appointment of a permanent Secretary to the Scotch Education Department should be made a statutory obligation. The Committee had decided that the Minister should be Vice President, and therefore it was rather too much to propose that there should be a statutory obligation to appoint a permanent Secretary. If the necessity arose for such an officer he 1169 would be appointed under the 2nd clause of the Bill.

§ MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT
agreed very much with what had been said by his right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) upon this matter. They must in these matters take the best they could get, and it seemed to him that by appointing a permanent Secretary something would be done towards obtaining a distinct administration of Scotch educational matters. He took this as a test of the bona fides of the Government, though he was sure they would act in good faith. He would like to know whether it was the intention of the Government to appoint a permanent Secretary, because, if so, they might be left to make the appointment?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, it was the intention of the Government that what he took to be the principle of the Bill—namely, that Scotch education should be presided over by a Scotch Minister, should be carried out. The arrangements necessary to insure that would form matter for future consideration.

DR. CAMERON
thought the intentions of the Government were very clearly stated by the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross). Referring to a previous Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Mover of that Amendment evidently had not seen the Amendment to be proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Glasgow University (Mr. J. A. Campbell). The Government, the right hon. Gentleman said, intended to accept the Amendment. Of course, difficulties had arisen; but he thought it was evident from what the right hon. Gentleman had said that it was intended to have a permanent Secretary to attend to the business of Scotch education.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

§ SIR LYON PLAYFAIR
said, he was unwilling at that late hour of the night to divide the Committee on the clause; but before they left the subject altogether he must say that, in his opinion, the Government had got the House into most embarrassing circumstances. They had appointed a Scotch Secretary, who was an independent Officer; they 1170 had given him a position as Vice President of the Committee on Scotch Education, under the Lord President as the superintendent Officer, and the way in which it was done appeared to him to create a great absurdity in the matter of administration. However, he did not suppose it would be of any use dividing the Committe—it would only waste time.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
I challenged the clause.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I understood that the hon. Baronet and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) both challenged the clause when I put it the first and the second times, but that afterwards they agreed. The clause is now agreed to.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
said, he had a new clause to move touching the General Register House in the following terms:— The Secretary shall have the control of the General Register House in Edinburgh, and of all the offices and Departments contained therein. This matter was one of considerable interest in Scotland; and as there were several Offices concerned in addition to some of those which were under regular control, he thought it advisable that they should have some specific management. There was the Office of the Signet, the Great Seal Office, Lord Lyon, and other Offices connected with various other Departments. He believed it would be a great advantage to the work of those Departments which were under the Treasury if they were all put under the now Official. As that Secretary was to have control of Scotch matters, he thought it would, be desirable that these Offices should be under his supervision; therefore, without detaining the Committee any longer, he would move the clause in his name.

§ New Clause:—

§ (General Register House.)

§ "The Secretary shall have the control of the General Register House in Edinburgh, and of all the offices and Departments contained therein,"

§ —brought up, and read the first time.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause be read a second time."

1171

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)
said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. So far as the Register Office was concerned, as the hon. Member knew well enough, that was in the Schedule, although the General Register House in Edinburgh was not; but later on he intended to move to substitute it, and from the circumstances of the case he did not think it desirable that all the Departments contained therein should be included. That was his (Sir E. Assheton Cross's) opinion, and he trusted the Committee would agree with it. However, if the matter were put to a division he should go against it.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR
also opposed the clause.

§ Question put, and negatived.

MR. PRESTON BRUCE
said, he desired, in the Schedule, Part I., page 4, between lines 43 and 44, to insert "Industrial Schools, 29 & 30 Vic. c. 118, 35 & 36 Vic. c. 62," and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would accept the Amendment. Surely the duty of looking after the Industrial Schools in Scotland should fall within the duties of this new Office, more especially in view of the fact that the Royal Commission on Industrial Schools had recommended that the subject of education in those schools should be brought under the Education Department. Surely it would be a very strange anomaly if the Secretary for Scotland, who had principally Home Office duties to discharge, and who had to do with Scotch education, should have nothing to do with those schools. He had not included Reformatory Schools; but, of course, if this Amendment were accepted, he should be prepared to do so.

§ Amendment proposed, Schedule, Part I., page 4, between lines 43 and 44, insert "Industrial Schools, 29 & 30 Vic. c. 118, 35 & 36 Vic. c. 62."—(Mr. Preston Bruce.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)
said, he did not think that these Industrial Schools ought to be transferred to the new Secretary; but before giving a decided answer to the proposal he should pre- 1172 fer to have a correspondence with the Lord Advocate on the subject.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR
said, that this matter had been carefully considered by the late Government, and a conclusion had been arrived at similar to that to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) seemed to have almost come to. One of the main considerations had been in regard to the important function of clerking.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
said, he wished to have an explanation with regard to Amendments on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross)—namely, Schedule, Part III., page 5, between lines 11 and 12, insert,—"Assessor of Railways and Canals, 17 & 18 Vic. c. 91, s. 29." Schedule, Part III., page 5, line 6, leave out "Register Office," and insert "General Register House in Edinburgh." Schedule, Part III., page 5, line 18, after "emoluments," insert "and with the consent of the Secretary, to regulate establishment." This appeared to be the part of the Schedule which transferred the Register House to the new Secretary. It appeared to him, so far as he could understand it, that they were rather restricting the control given to the Secretary under the Bill. Of course, the Treasury could reserve to itself the right to say what salaries were to be paid in every Department. He understood that the result of the Amendments of the Home Secretary would be that the Secretary for Scotland, instead of being the first motive power in regulating the establishments, would only have a consultative voice in the matter. The power of the new Secretary over the establishments by these Amendments would be lessened. He should like to have some explanation on the point.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)
tendered an explanation.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR
said, he quite agreed that when they came to deal with a purely Treasury matter like the salaries which should be paid the matter should be dealt with in the Bill as they had framed it. But if by the words "to regulate establishment" was meant that the Treasury was to retain the power of saying how many officers were to be 1173 appointed, or of pointing out the duties they were to discharge, he should think it would be a mistake. It would be a mistake, because he knew that there had been a great deal of difference of opinion upon this question. It had been thought too much power had been conferred on the Treasury by the Lord Clerk Register Act of 1879. Many people thought that too much power had been given to the Treasury, and would be averse to see their power extend beyond the question of regulating the salaries.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)
I will not proceed with the Amendments now, but will postpone them until Report. In the meantime, I may have an opportunity of consulting with the Lord Advocate.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Does the right hon. Gentleman withdraw his Amendments now?

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)
Yes.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendments be withdrawn?

§ Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.