[BILL 181.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 27 May 1878)

§ MR. M'LAREN
thought it was hardly reasonable that the House should be asked to read this Bill a second time at so late a period of the Sitting. He had, however, communicated with the Lord 822 Advocate upon the subject; and he understood from him that if the Scotch Members would allow the second reading to pass just then without any opposition, the Government would undertake that on the Motion to go into Committee on the Bill an opportunity would be afforded for a full discussion of its provisions. The same remark would apply to the succeeding measure—The Lord Clerk Register (Scotland) Bill. He might just state that there were parties in the General Register and Subsidiary Offices who thought they would be injuriously affected by these Bills, and a deputation had, he believed, left Edinburgh that night for London for the purpose of seeing the Lord Advocate and the Home Secretary on the subject. However, he was not going to detain the House, and if the Government would accede to the suggestion he had made, he should not offer any further opposition to the second reading.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh was a very reasonable one, and he was quite prepared to accede to it.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he should like to know what was meant by this Bill? He did not approve of the practice of taking the second reading of Bills as a matter of course; because, afterwards, if any objection should be raised to a particular measure, the House might be told that it had already accepted its principle. It was of late very much in vogue to take the second reading of Bills, and have the discussion upon them on going into Committee. He thought that if any explanation of the principle of a measure were given at all, it should be made when the House was asked to read it a second time.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that with respect to the question of principle, he quite concurred in the opinion that had been expressed by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn); but in this case the whole thing was fully explained when he asked for leave to introduce the Bill, so far as the principle was concerned. He did not think he need go further into the matter at the present moment.

§ MR. FRASER MACKINTOSH
must really ask the Home Secretary to reconsider what he had just said. He was present when leave was given to 823 bring in the Bill, and not a single word was said on the subject.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
trusted that the House would excuse him for one moment. Technically, he might have been wrong in saying that when he introduced the Bill he explained fully its object. On that occasion, he might have got up and simply said that the Bill would carry out what he had stated the night before. The whole thing, however, was fully explained.

§ MR. DALRYMPLE
said, he could testify that some explanation was given in advance, and his impression, was that it was in answer to a Question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon). He was not aware that there had been any understanding that the discussion on the Bill itself should be taken at a later stage. It seemed to him that such an arrangement was attended with great inconvenience—the second reading being the proper stage at which to take the discussion on the principle of any Bill. He merely wished to say that, founding himself entirely on the answer to which he had referred, there was to him something extremely objectionable in the manner in which it was proposed that the Under Secretary of State for Scotland should be paid. The proposal seemed to be that he should be paid by salary to be provided out of the Office of the Lord Clerk Register of Scotland. Now, it seemed to him that if it were right to appoint an Under Secretary of State for Scotland—and as to that he offered no opinion—he ought to be paid in the same manner as other Under Secretaries of State were paid. He believed the Statute directed that if any saving were effected, the proceeds should be applied to the reduction of fees in that Office; and, therefore, it was not within the power of Parliament to take this money and apply it to this object. But he asserted that it was really a reflection upon the appointment to take a salary from one Officer of State in Scotland and apply it to this purpose. He repeated, that if it were desirable to appoint an Under Secretary of State for Scotland, he ought to be paid in the same manner as other Under Secretaries of State were paid.

§ MR. M'LAREN
desired to correct one statement that had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Buteshire 824 (Mr. Dalrymple). The Statute which referred to the reduction of fees in certain contingencies did not apply to this Office, but to the Register of Sasines.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
quite agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Buteshire respecting the way in which it was proposed to pay the Under Secretary of State for Scotland. Moreover, if he was not mistaken, the amount of his salary was to be £1,200. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: £1,500.] He (Mr. Barclay) did not think there was any other Under Secretary of State whose salary was so small. He hoped that this matter would be duly attended to; and that if it were deemed desirable that an Under Secretary of State for Scotland should be appointed, he would be put in as fair, honourable, and independent a position as any of the others.