COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 15 August 1883 vol 283 cc588-682

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, that he had the first Amendment on the Paper in regard to this very important Bill which the Home Secretary had brought before the House, and he ventured to move that Amendment on account of the extraordinary nature of the Bill itself, and of the manner in which it had been brought forward. He thought they had a right to complain that a Bill of this importance should be brought on, not only at this period of the Session, but also at this period of the present Parliament, when it was only intended to enable the Government to manipulate patronage in Scotland previous to the approaching General Election. He asked leave to make one or two remarks on the former Bills that had been brought before the House when new Departments had been created, and he thought the House would see that the course adopted by the Government on this occasion was certainly not justified by precedent. In the year 1855, the creation of an important Department was forced on the Government by the exigencies of the Crimean War. Up to that time the War Department had been under the direction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies; but during the long interval that had elapsed between the great European War and the Crimean War, the Colonies had developed themselves into such proportions that it was found impossible for one Minister to govern two Departments. In that year the necessity of a War Department was patent to the whole country, and a short Bill was brought in first, enabling the Crown to appoint a new Secretary and Under Secretary of State, and later in the same year another Act was passed, transferring to the Secretary of State the power vested in the Ordnance Department. The necessity for this new Department was established by the Minister of the day, and no one could deny that the establishment of the War Department was absolutely necessary to the welfare of the State. The next new Department created was that of Secretary of State for India in 1858, and there also the reasons for establishing the new Department were given, and were patent to the country. The East India Company was abolished, and one of the first provisions of this new Act was to transfer the Government of India to Her Majesty's Government. On these two occasions, the Bills contained Preambles explaining the necesssity for the new Department. He then came to the year 1871, when the present Local Government Board was established. In that case, the duties of the new Officer were distinctly laid down, both by the Minister who introduced the Bill, and also in the Preamble of the Act itself. Again, they had had a recent example of the establishment of a new Department in another matter. The affairs relating to agriculture had been transferred to a Minister who was already in existence, and whose duties, up to that moment, had not been of any overwhelming character. In this Bill there was no Preamble, and no reasons at all were given, either by the Home Secretary or by any of those who supported the Bill, for the establishment of this Local Government Board for Scotland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the other day had been very indignant with him for having shadowed out that the Office was to be conferred on a particular noble Lord. Of course, if it was not to be conferred on that noble Lord, he did not see the object of the Bill at all. There was some raison d'être for the measure when they had to provide for the noble Lord, who had been very useful in the Mid Lothian Election. The noble Lord had been most successful in the Mid Lothian Election, and he was very widely popular in Scotland, and the Scotch people really did want this Office created in order that it might be filled by the noble Lord; but since it had been ascertained that it was not to be filled by him, all interest in the matter had dropped so far as Scotland was concerned. There had been no meetings, no Petitions, and no manifestations of opinion which justified at this period of the Session the bringing in of a Bill of this importance. He hoped that when the Home Secretary saw that his late Under Secretary was not to be provided for, he would be content to withdraw the Bill for the present. He saw the right hon. and learned Gentleman taking notes. He hoped he would answer that point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the different speeches he had made, had given no opinion whatever as to the nature of the duties that were to be performed by this new Officer. He could not even tell them whether the new President's Office was to be in England or in Scotland, or in the town of Berwick on-Tweed. [Sir WILLIAM HAR-COURT: In both countries.] He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) asked, if there were to be two offices, why no Estimate for them had been put into the Bill? The Government had no power to go to that expense, because when they obtained money powers in Committee, those powers only provided for the payment of salaries; but no Vote had been taken to enable them to spend money on the various offices over which the new President was to preside. They were really creating an Office for which certainly there was no pressing necessity. Scotland had done without this Department since the beginning of Creation, and why could it not exist without it for six months longer, until Parliament met again? There was no pressing necessity for appointing a President of the Local Government Board, especially when there was no Local Government Board over which he was to preside. He was like the personage in the time of Louis Philippe, who went about in search of a social position. They were about to appoint an Officer who had to seek what he was to do; he was to rout out existing Departments, and he was to subject these Departments to his political influence—and all this in favour of the Government. It was perfectly clear that there could be no pressing necessity for any Bill of this kind, because it had not been shadowed forth in the Queen's Speech. It had only been brought in at an advanced period of the Session, and then they were called upon to discuss the question on a Wednesday, when they could scarcely get a House together, and many of the persons interested in a Bill of this kind were unable to discuss it, or were absent. In fact, the Government were smuggling the Bill through the House. Under these cirsumstances, he felt it necessary to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is not desirable at this late period of Parliament to confer functions on an officer of the Crown, to be created by Act, until the powers, duties, and patronage of such officer are more fully defined, and the cost of his office and staff more fully stated,"—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff,)

—instead thereof.

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I rise to make an appeal to the House, and I hope I shall have the support of both sides, that we should be allowed, at all events, to go into Committee upon this Bill. It will be remembered that, upon the second reading of the Bill, whether or not a new Officer should be appointed for the purpose contemplated by the Bill was very fully discussed. Indeed, it went over a whole day's discussion; and then there took place several smaller discussions, which are rather unusual upon the formal Committee on the money part of the Bill. Therefore, I say that few Bills have been discussed more fully than this one has been. Well, Sir, I cannot but think that it is very significant that, at this stage, there is no Scotch Member opposing the Motion to go into Committee, the opposition coming entirely from the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). I find, indeed, other Notices in the names of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) and the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton); but these Members are very impartial in their opposition, and it can hardly be considered that their opposition to a particular measure has reference to any special objection to the measure itself. There is a Notice also on the Paper by the late Secretary of State (Sir R. Assheton Cross); but by what process that Notice appears I cannot conceive, and why my Predecessor has a Notice of opposition to go into Committee on the Bill I really do not know. But, after all, the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire, who is not here to support it, is of a dilatory character, and, indeed, he has got an Amendment on the Paper—having admitted that he himself proposed a new arrangement on this subject—to carry out the arrangement which he formerly proposed of having an Under Secretary, instead of adopting the proposal of the Government. Well, that is a very fair question for discussion in Committee. Therefore, there is every reason, so far as he is concerned, that the proposal he has made should be discussed in Committee. Really, at this time of the Session, considering that this matter has been three or four times discussed upon its merits; considering, as I also venture to say, that every single Scotch Member who is opposed to the Bill has spoken upon the subject; and considering that by an overwhelming majority of the House, and especially of the Scotch Members, there has been a decision in favour of the Bill, it would be carrying opposition to an extreme length to attempt to throw the Bill over by a dilatory Motion of this kind. If there are to be proposals made to alter the Bill, the Committee is the time to make them; but to adopt any other course after there has practically been three second reading discussions, one of them protracted over a whole day, shows that the opposition is going beyond the ordinary form of opposition. The hon. Member for Portsmouth founded his opposition on the fact that the Government had not stated the objects of the Bill. The Government have stated the objects of the Bill over and over again, and they are set forth with particularity—which is seldom done—in the Schedules of the Bill itself. It is said in the Schedule that this Officer is to discharge all the duties of the Secretary of State with reference to the Acts set forth in the Schedule. Nothing can be clearer than that. The hon. Member for Portsmouth says—"Oh; but that is not the way that is generally taken in proceeding to create a new Office. You should give much more information. You should set forth in the Bill the staff, &c., which is to be employed." I was prepared to controvert that statement without the assistance the hon. Member himself has rendered me. What is his example? He says that in the case of 1855, when we were creating a new Secretary of State for War, we dealt with that matter in a totally different way. Yes; but the House got very much less information than is given in this Bill. The hon. Member cannot have read that Act, or he would not have used that argument. The information is contained in a single clause, that it was to enable a third principal Secretary of State and a third Under Secretary to sit in the House of Commons. That is the information on which the House of Commons created the new Secretary of State for War. There is not a word about his duties, not a word about his staff, and not a word about the cost.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

Read the subsequent Act.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I have read the subsequent Act, and anything more entirely refuting the argument of the hon. Member I cannot imagine. What is the subsequent Act? An Office is created, but without any information being given.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

It was in time of war.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Then, why do you allege that as an example of the manner in which information was communicated to the House by that Act? There is no information in that Act as to staff or cost. By the subsequent Act what is done? It transfers one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, and the powers vested in one Department of State, and that is exactly what we do under this Act. We transfer the powers of the Secretary of State with reference to the Acts enumerated in the Schedule. The example is one which entirely refutes the proposition of the hon. Member for Portsmouth. But there is another example—the case of the India Office. The case of the India Office was peculiar, because it had to deal not only with the Secretary of State but with the Council of India. But to say that no Office is created until the powers, duties, and patronage of the Office are fully set forth in the Bill, is a proposition for which there is no precedent whatever. I said yesterday, as I have said before, that there will be, and there ought to be, a permanent Officer, whether you call him Under Secretary or anything else, and the absence of a permanent Officer to retain the traditions and records is an evil. Why, I remember I felt that very strongly in the case of the Law Officer of the Crown. No greater inconvenience can arise than for one Lord Advocate going out of Office and another taking his place without any permanent Official to preserve the traditions of the Office. If the Law Officer for Scotland went out, his Assistant might not be the Assistant of his Successor, so that the whole traditions of the Office disappeared. Therefore, that is particularly wanted. What more is wanted under the Bill must depend upon the experience gained when the higher Official, with the permanent Under Secretary, gets into work. It would be most unwise now to attempt to commit ourselves or Parliament to a question which we are at present unable to decide. It is clearly understood that this new Official is to have a permanent Official under him, and the rest will be considered by Parliament when the experiment has been more fully tried. The hon. Member for Portsmouth made a curious objection to the Bill. He said there is no Preamble. If there is one thing more established than another by draftsmen it is that there never is a Preamble. I remember having a great fight with the draftsmen in the case of the famous Hares and Rabbits Bill as to the introduction of a Preamble. The draftsmen are against Preambles. Preambles have gone very much out of fashion, just as sentiments after dinner. I do not, therefore, think it is fatal that this Bill has no Preamble. The hon. Member said that Scotland has done very well since the creation of the world without a Secretary of State. But somewhere about the time of the creation of the world, Scotland had a Secretary of State, and, therefore, to say that Scotland had done without a separate Officer for its own business is a statement historically inaccurate. The hon. Member has also referred to what I would have been glad to have forgotten. His observations upon Lord Rosebery show admirable impartiality. The hon. Member attacked the Bill on the last occasion because the Office was to be filled by Lord Rosebery, and to-day he attacks it because it is not to be filled by Lord Rosebery. Today he says he has satisfied himself—I do not know how—that Lord Rosebery is not to fill the new Office, and therefore he calls upon the House to throw out the Bill. I leave these two arguments to refute one another. He also says we are smuggling the Bill through the House; but how you can say that about a Bill which on the second reading went into a second day's debate I cannot understand. I do think that the House will feel that we have had preliminary discussion upon this matter quite adequate to the subject, and that the reason alleged against the Bill ought not to prevent its being proceeded with, that reason being that it does not give the requisite and usual information in such case. In point of fact, we have given all the information that it is possible to give. Having done that, and having, as I have said, the overwhelming opinion of the Scotch Members in favour of the Bill, I do ask the House, as a matter of Business, to allow this Bill now to go into Committee. If any hon. Member thinks that an Under Secretary of State would be better than the proposal of the Government, there will be an opportunity of expressing an opinion on that matter and taking the judgment of the House; but considering the fact that my Predecessor in Office was distinctly of opinion that the present state of things was unsatisfactory, and that there ought to be a new arrangement, considering that the right hon. Gentleman adheres to the opinion in favour of the arrangement which he proposed, and has put an Amendment down for consideration in Committee, proposing an Under Secretary, I think we are justified in saying that we have the assent of both sides of the House that something ought to be done in this direction, and I think we should go into Committee and decide exactly what the character of this Office is to be, and what the duties of the Officers are to be. I am quite sure that hon. Members from Scotland who were opposed to this Bill have very definitely and very fairly stated their objections to it, and I claim the support of those Scotch Members for going into Committee, in order that we may see how much we differ in detail. Those hon. Members, I am sure, do not wish to withhold from Scotland what the majority of the Representatives desire. There is no Amendment hostile to going into Committee from any Scotch Representative; and, under these circumstances, I hope hon. Members will not protract this discussion, but allow you, Sir, to leave the Chair.

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had remarked upon the absence of any Amendment against the Bill by a Scotch Member; but he hoped it would not be thought on that account that those opposed to the Bill were acquiescing in the Government going on with a measure of this kind at the present period of the Session. He should have thought that the appearance of the Notice Paper on the day after the Bill passed its second reading would have made the right hon. and learned Gentleman hesitate about proceeding further. There were Amendments from both sides of the House, showing that there was the greatest difference of opinion as to the whole question involved in the Bill. Some of these Amendments had disappeared from the Paper. Why, he knew not; but he should have thought they were of such a nature as to shako the right hon. and learned Gentleman's courage in proceeding with this Bill. The question before the House now was whether this Bill, which led people to expect such changes as the result of its operation, was one which ought to be proceeded with at this period of the Session? The Bill itself gave very little indication of what the changes were which it would bring about. It was expected to interfere in some measure with existing arrangements for Scotch Business, and they might say for local government; but they had not heard what was defective in the existing arrangements in Scotland. No case had been made out for any change He would even go further and say that no change had been suggested. It was, therefore, rather an unusual thing to propose changes before they had been asked for, and before they had been suggested. This Bill gave them no help at all in their endeavour to find out what the duties of the proposed Board were to be. It was true that one clause professed to give the House that information; but it did not give it, as it only referred to the powers and duties of the President of the proposed Board. It was, perhaps, going too far to say there was not a word in the Bill about the powers of the Board, because there was the expression that the Board might appoint such Officers as the Treasury might sanction; but, on the other hand, they had no information what those Officers were expected to do. They had been told that this Bill was introduced because of a demand made by the majority of the Scotch Members for an Officer of State to secure greater attention to Scotch Business in Parliament. The Bill did not say a word about that. There was no need for haste in regard to this Bill. Any favour which it had received from Scotland had been largely owing to the general expectation that it meant the appointment of a certain popular Nobleman who was highly respected in Scotland, and whose services had been already of great value to the country. Now that it was ascertained that that appointment was not to be made, he thought it would be well to allow the country a little time, in order that it might dispassionately consider the provisions of the Bill; because, in his opinion, those who had petitioned in favour of the Bill had not looked much further than the name of the Nobleman whom they thought it was intended to appoint. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) said no Petition had been presented from Scotland in favour of the Bill; but he had himself that day presented a Petition in its favour; but he wished to explain that it was handed to him for presentation in the absence of an hon. Member to whom it was addressed. The date of that Petition was some time back, and when it was agreed to he believed the Petitioners were not aware of the change that had taken place in the public expectations with regard to the new President. It was necessary in any Bill referring to Scotland to safeguard the position of the Lord Advocate, who had had the conduct of Scotch Business hitherto. That was to be done, not by a clause in a Bill, but by a careful definition of the duties and functions of any new Official who was to be appointed. On these grounds it seemed to him scarcely seemly—he used the expression without offence—to go on with a Bill of this kind at this period of the Session—a Bill which was indefinite in itself, but which suggested the expectation of considerable changes.

MR. BRYCE

said, that though he did not represent a Scotch constituency, he was a Scotchman, and should like to say a few words on the Bill. It appeared to him that a measure of this kind might accomplish three possible objects. One would be to secure better attention to Scottish Business by getting Scotland directly represented in the Cabinet. If this Bill were to do that, there would be a great deal to be said for it. The desire of the people of Scotland was to have greater attention given to Scotch Business, and it was felt that that could only be done by having someone to represent Scotland in the Cabinet. But it was clear, from the debates on the Bill, that this Office was not intended to be a Cabinet Office.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Who said so?

MR. BRYCE

Well, it was very improbable that this Office would be a Cabinet Office, although he did not mean to say that it might not be so. He believed the favour with which the Bill was received in Scotland and by Scotch Members was largely due to the fact that it was thought this would be a Cabinet Office, and that the appointment would be conferred on one single Scotch Nobleman; but now that they thought that unlikely, their zeal was very much abated. Scotch Members felt difficulty in opposing anything which could possibly do good to Scotland; but those conversant with the Scotch Members must have come to the conclusion that their interest in the Bill was now very languid indeed, though he did not think they could expect Scotch Members who had supported the Bill to come forward and say so. A second object which a Bill of this kind might have would be to relieve the Home Office of some part of the duties which devolved upon it. No doubt, the Home Secretary was overworked; but the Scotch part of the Home Office work was provided for by the Lord Advocate, who had a knowledge of Scotland, and who had enjoyed the confidence of the Scotch people. If it were intended to relieve the Home Office, the best plan would be to have an Under Secretary to look after Scotch Business, instead of turning the whole matter over to a Local Government Board. The third object the Bill might secure was that there would be considerable advantage in providing for the administration of Scotch affairs by a person who was particularly conversant with Scotland, and who would be able to administer Scotch affairs on distinctly Scotch principles. What were the affairs which ought to be separated from the general Business of the English Secretary of State? They belonged to two categories. Either they were matters concerning Scotch law, or they were matters concerning which Scotland was historically different from England. They all knew that the law of Scotland was distinct in many points from the law of England, and there were excellent grounds for placing the administration of Scotch law under a separate Minister; but he did not see that much would be gained in this way by the Bill, because the Business proposed to be transferred to the new Minister was not Legal Business. That, he supposed, would mainly remain with the Lord Advocate; and the only result that he saw would be a further complication and difficulty between the functions of the Lord Advocate, as the Legal Representative of the Crown, and the functions of the new Local Government Board. Then there was other Business, Ecclesiastical and Civil, in which Scotland was historically different from England. He would instance education, which in Scotland was different in many points from England. In his opinion, it would have been well if 40, or even 30, years ago a Scotch Minister of Education had been appointed, because many of the great evils which had resulted to Scottish education by its management upon English lines would have been avoided if that step had been taken then. He did not see that anything would be gained by appointing a distinct Minister of Education for Scotland now; but he thought, on the whole, perhaps it would be better to have it administered by a central English Official. However, the Bill did not propose to touch that; it did not touch the things in which Scotland was distinct from England. It did not satisfy the feeling which the people of Scotland had, that, being in many respects different from and, in their view, superior to the people of England, they ought to be allowed to manage their affairs on their own principles. What did the Bill propose? The Home Secretary said the Schedule told them what were the principles of the Bill, and what were the reasons which had caused Her Majesty's Government to bring it in. Let them see whether the Business in the Schedule was Business that was in any way appropriate to a Scotch Minister, and Business which ought to be disjoined from the English system. He would begin with the Poor Law. There were some points of distinction between Scotch and English Poor Law, no doubt; but, on the other hand, he thought there were points in which the experience of the English Local Government Board, in it s Poor Law administration, would be excessively valuable for Scotland; and he was inclined to think that the benefit to be gained by separate administration would not outweigh the loss. Then, as to vaccination, that was a matter purely administered by Statute; and what possible good could there be to Scotland in having a Vaccination Law administered on a different principle? Then he found Prisons, Locomotive Regulations, and Rivers Pollutions, Food and Drugs Adulteration, Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings, and Vivisection; but these were all administered under Statute. The control of vivisection was the most trivial and unimportant part of the Home Secretary's Office; but it seemed to him to be part of the Home Secretary's duties that ought to be discharged on one principle all over the country. Was it desired to send vivisectionists hither and thither over the Border, according to whether the English or Scotch authorities were the more indulgent in granting licences? The same remark applied to factories and workshops, industrial schools, reformatories, and mines, which really exhausted the whole Schedule. These were all matters in which unity of administration was what they wanted, and not separate administration; and he should have thought that the execution of these Statutes would have been rendered much more difficult and troublesome under this Bill than heretofore. This seemed to him only one of those cases in which the vague idea that something ought to be done induced the Government to do something that ought not to be done. They did not seem to have started by considering what was really wanted. They knew the Home Secretary's heart was very soft; and he might say the right hon. and learned Gentleman had listened to the groans of the North Britons, and, determining to appease them, he had hurriedly in this way brought in at the end of the Session a Bill which, the more it was looked at in Scotland and in this House, the less it was liked. He thought it would be a comparatively useless Bill; and, without desiring to offer it a strong opposition, he hoped the Government, having called public attention to the matter, and given them something to talk about in Scotland during the autumn, would withdraw the Bill for the present Session.

MR. A. ELLIOT

said, that his hon. Friend who had just spoken had made what seemed to him to be an attack upon the Bill. He could not join his hon. Friend in all the criticisms he had made. If his hon. Friend had been a Scotch Member, he would no doubt have felt, as a great many Scotch Members did feel, that Scotch Business had not been done in a manner which was satisfactory to them. One object which they had been trying to gain, and which he hoped they should gain by a Bill of this sort, was that they should have some influential Scotchman who could put his shoulder to the wheel, and take care that Scotch Business was properly attended to. He should just refer to the manner in which they were now dealing with this question. Here they were on the 15th August going into Committee on this important measure, and who were the Scotchmen present to discuss its details? The great majority of them had gone to Scotland long ago, and those remaining could not be described as a proper representation of the country. Here they were going into the details of a measure which even Scotch Members who were left had not had proper time adequately to consider, and as to some points this was almost the first time they had heard of them. He was not aware until to-day, for instance, that there was to be a Permanent Under Secretary. That was a very proper step in advance. Though his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) had put an Amendment on the Paper in that direction, it was not until to-day that he (Mr. A. Elliot) heard the Home Secretary was going to do anything of that kind. That showed the changes which had been made at the very last moment. Although the Bill had been before them for some time, and there had been plenty of opportunity for the Government to put down the Amendments they thought necessary, he saw only to-day a number of Amendments put down by the Lord Advocate. Did they really suppose that Members had time to rush away to the Library and turn up the Statutes, and see exactly what was the bearing of the Amendments of the Lord Advocate? There was no time for that. What he felt Scotch Members had a right to complain of was, that such an important Scotch Bill was to be considered in detail when so many experienced Members were away from the House. That was a point which ought to be insisted upon. They knew that Scotch Members last year thought Scotch Business was pretty well and efficiently looked after. They thought that Lord Rosebery was an individual of great activity, and of considerable experience in Scottish affairs; but then he had left, and they were without him, while they were also unfortunately deprived of the services of that very eminent Scotchman the Duke of Argyll, who was able to look after Scotch Business, and who had the advantage of a Cabinet position. They were thus in a worse position than they used to be; but when, at the last moment of the Session, this Bill was introduced, he thought they must make the best of it. There were most important matters connected with it to be considered, and he was sorry that Scotch Members were not present whom he should like to see. There was the question of police, which was one of the questions now dealt with by the Home Secretary. Take such a matter as the crofters' riots in Skye. The Home Secretary was the person who was responsible, and to whom the question was referred whether a police force should be sent. No matter was more important than the maintenance of peace and order, and by this Bill those powers were to be transferred to a new Official. That was taking a very large step. It was to take the function of maintaining law and order in regard to the Police Force from the Secretary of State, and give it to a person in a somewhat inferior position. Then there was the important subject of education. He was glad to see an Amendment on the Paper on that subject; but it was hardly worth while discussing, before 14 or 15 Scotch Members, what ought to be discussed before 40 or 50 of them. He would do what he could to support the Bill, in the hope that it might be in time made worth a good deal more than it was at present. He was sure the Home Secretary was trying to satisfy Scotch wishes in bringing in the Bill, and he hoped it would be passed in some shape or form, not with the hope that it would give satisfaction, but that, when it came into working order, they should be able, gradually, to improve it.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Sir, I had no anxiety to interpose in the debate at this stage; but I could not avoid rising after the speech we have heard from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and the very powerful speech, it struck me, of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), who, though not representing a Scotch constituency, appeared to me to represent a good deal of Scotch feeling on the whole subject. The object for which I venture to interpose is, to ask the Home Secretary whether, looking at the whole position of Business and the position of this Bill, the Government would not really facilitate the general progress of Business by allowing this matter now to be withdrawn, and taken up again when it can be more fully discussed? I do not profess myself to have any intention of interposing or endeavouring to prevent the House going into Committee on the Bill. I have no doubt it is a desirable object to make better provision than has hitherto been made for the conduct of Scotch Business. That is an object which has been in the minds of many for a great number of years; and, certainly, ever since the present Government came into Office, we have had intimations from time to time that they have been considering it, and endeavouring to do something. But all they seem to have arrived at is the conclusion that something ought to be done, and they refer us to the discussion which is to take place in Committee as to the merits of the particular scheme which they propose, and they invite the House on this day—Wednesday, the 15th August—to undertake the careful revision of the scheme in all its details. Of course, the general provision that something should be done to improve the administration of Scotch Business is one which those of us who have known the difficulties that have occurred are not disposed to interfere with; and I should not myself wish to oppose the Speaker leaving the Chair, and this Bill being taken up, if it came to a Division. But I think that the discussion that will have to take place must be of considerable length and minuteness, and I doubt whether it will be possible to carry it through in any satisfactory way, or to produce anything like satisfaction when you get it through. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, when you get it into Committee you are to consider what are the functions you are going to assign to your new Officer, and that you will find these stated in the Schedule. But the Schedule contains no less than 38 Acts relating to the powers and duties of the Secretary of State, and three other Acts relating to the duties of the Privy Council or the Local Government Board of England, all of which are to be transferred; and, besides all those, there are a number of Notices given by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate opposite, who desires to introduce other functions into the list to be handed over to the new Office. It is obvious that many of these Acts will have to be considered carefully, in order that we may see what the powers are which are to be transferred, and whether it is fit and proper that they should be so transferred. That is a matter which we cannot undertake with any advantage at such a time as this, especially in the absence of so many Gentlemen who ought, indeed, to be consulted on the subject, and ought to give their opinions. I have no doubt even the few Scotch Members present to-day will contribute very largely to the discussion of these matters; but, besides them, there are others who would have a right to be heard, but who, owing to certain circumstances, are not here to-day. I cannot help thinking that in the conduct of Scotch Business we have hitherto been in the habit of relying very much indeed on the Lord Advocate; and I may say that never, in my recollection, have we had the advantage of having a Lord Advocate who has more thoroughly deserved and enjoyed the confidence of the House than we have at the present time. I must myself say that I should attach very great importance to the views of the Lord Advocate on the whole question of re-organization. I have not always been here; but, so far as I am aware, the Lord Advocate has not given us his views upon the whole subject, and I think that is a great disadvantage, because, although there is a clause which provides that nothing in this Bill shall interfere with the rights, powers, and privileges of his Office, still one would like to know if that great high Officer is not really to be set aside or his functions degraded by the Bill we are about to consider. The Home Secretary commented on my hon. Friend's remark that there is no Preamble to the Bill, and stated that Preambles were going out of fashion. Well, Preambles are going out of fashion, and in many cases it is convenient not to have them; but in a matter of this sort, where you have something in the nature of an organic change, I think a Preamble would have been convenient and appropriate, so that we might know, not merely from expressions used in debate, which may or may not be forgotten, what is the meaning and object of this great alteration in the re-organization of our governing system. It may be that it is a mere matter of convenience, as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) says, which he would very gladly welcome, and such as the Scotch Members, and English Members too, would gladly welcome if it really conduces to the better transaction of the Business affecting Scotland. But it may mean something more than that. It may mean that this is to be the first step in the direction of altering the relations between England and Scotland, and between the Imperial Parliament and the people of Scotland. There was a sentence in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in which he said that things had gone on very well since the beginning of the world. "The beginning of the world" was a phrase; but when was there a Secretary of State for Scotland?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Since the Union to 1745.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I had forgotten that circumstance; but, undoubtedly, one would be glad to know what are the grounds on which the alteration was made, and why this great Office was abolished at the time? The question which one would like to study is one of Imperial organization—whether by degrees we are to go back to the state of things in 1745? Perhaps we may go back to what they were in 1745, and perhaps we may go back to what they were half-a-century before that time, and see whether there could not be some better system for the administration of Scotch Business by devolution or delegation, as they call things now-a-days, which may lead to something very like a repeal or a great modification of the Act of Union itself. I apologize for having made these remarks. My object is really to ask the Government whether seriously they do not think they would facilitate the general progress of Business, and would do no harm to the measure itself, by allowing it to stand over to another Session, when they would be able to bring it forward, and when it could be fully considered and discussed at length?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Sir, I have no right to speak again; but I understand the right hon. Gentleman to address a question to me directly, which I will answer promptly. If I thought the speech of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot) expressed at all the sentiments of Scotch Members sitting on this side of the House, of course the Bill would be at an end. My hon. Friend was not able to be present on the second reading, and if the sentiments of Scotch Members were at all those expressed by him, there would be no use in going on with a Bill that was so regarded by the Scotch Members. But I do not believe that is the fact. I believe the majority of Scotch Members desire that this Bill should be proceeded with, and so long as I believe that I shall think it my duty to go on with it.

MR. A. ELLIOT

The right hon. and learned Gentleman, not having been in the House, must have got rather an imperfect notion of what I said. I said we had better take the Bill and try to make the best of it, but we could not make it what it ought to be.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

.: I heard the hon. Member's speech, and I adhere to what I said.

DR. CAMERON

said, that as a thorough supporter of the Bill, he should not contribute to talking it out; but he thought it desirable that the speeches of hon. Members who opposed it should not be the sole expression of the opinion on the part of Scotch Members that should go forth to the public. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had manifested one great qualification of statesmanship. Russell Lowell in his well-known Biglow Papers said— Your genuine statesman should be on his guard, If he must have beliefs, not to believe them too hard. When the right hon. Gentleman opposite was in Office, he and his Colleagues considered the conduct of Scotch Business to be so unsatisfactory that they introduced a Bill to create a new Official—an Under Secretary of State for Scotland—with the view of ameliorating the conduct of Scotch Business. That was by no means the first time the thing was mooted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), than whom no Member was more respected, had told him (Dr. Cameron) that 15 or 20 years ago he had submitted a Memorandum on the subject to the then Government, and that the Bill which was now brought in embodied substantially what he then proposed. After the late Government went out of Office a Conference took place amongst Scotch Members, and the great majority of them, excluding the Members then in Office, who might be supposed to be favourable to the Bill, decided to send a deputation to the Prime Minister to urge him to do something to remedy the condition into which Scotch Business had fallen. The hon. Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. J. A. Campbell) said they had asked for a Secretary of State, and not for a Minister such as was proposed by this Bill. That was not his (Dr. Cameron's) impression or recollection of what did occur. The Prime Minister asked distinctly—"Do you demand a Secretary of State for Scotland?" And no single member of the deputation went so far as to say they did—that was to say, not one member was prepared to say they should always have a Scotch Minister with a seat in the Cabinet. The Minister proposed by this Bill was spoken of as if he were an anomaly. Hon. Members appeared to forget that the President of the English Local Government Board at the present time was a Cabinet Minister, but that under the late Government he was not a Cabinet Minister. The present Postmaster General was not a Cabinet Minister, while in the last Administration he was. The present Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was not a Cabinet Minister, but his Predecessor was. The Cabinet was a fluctuating body, and was properly composed of Ministers who had the largest knowledge and the greatest influence in connection with matters which were at the time before the public. That seemed to be precisely what they wanted in connection with Scotch matters. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) and the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot) pointed out what they considered to be a number of defects in the Bill. What on earth, asked the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, was the use of putting Poor Law matters into the hands of this Minister——

MR. BRYCE

I did not say that. I said there were some things to be gained by making the administration of the Poor Law in the two countries distinct; but there were other things to be lost, and that the loss would be greater than the gain.

DR. CAMERON

said, he did not exactly see what was to be lost; but he did see much that was to be gained. The Poor Law Boards of Scotland controlled not merely the administration of Poor Law matters, but the entire sanitary administration of the country; and he could assure his hon. Friend that what was said the other day by the President of the Local Government Board in the late Administration (Mr. Sclater-Booth), to the effect that there was actually no central sanitary administration in Scotland, was not in the least exaggerated. He dreaded to think what would occur in case a widespread epidemic broke out in the rural districts of Scotland. The Board of Supervision had no special knowledge on the subject. It was a Board composed in a most extraordinary manner. What had been repeatedly complained of was, that Scotch Members and Scotch deputations coming to London to consult anyone on Scotch Business were referred from one Minister to another—were told to go to this Department and to that Department—and that in the present state of things it was utterly impossible to know who was responsible, or who had power to do any definite thing, and that, in fact, there was circumlocution in its worst and most offensive form. This Bill, it appeared to him, was intended to remedy that. It was based, as he had said, on lines which were proposed many years ago by the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter); and it appeared to him to carry out precisely what was asked for by the deputation which waited on the Prime Minister. For that reason he should have very great pleasure in supporting it.

MR. M'LAGAN

said, he had not intended to take part in the debate, as he was particularly anxious that the Bill should proceed; but after hearing the speeches which had been delivered, particularly those of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot) and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), he felt compelled to say a few words. It was notorious that English Members were generally most ignorant of Scotch affairs; and he was afraid that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was playing on that ignorance when he had mentioned that in Scotland the Poor Law was not very different from what it was in England.

MR. BRYCE

remarked, that he had said the Poor Law was different; but he had said that, though there were advantages in that, the disadvantages far outweighed them.

MR. M'LAGAN

, resuming, said, that, in his opinion, the advantages certainly outweighed the disadvantages. As illustrating the differences in the local government of Scotland and England, he might mention that the Fishery Board and the General Police and Burgh Police Acts had nothing corresponding to them in England. The law relating to fairs and markets was quite different in the two countries. In Scotland they had a county general assessment; they had no such thing in England similar to what they had in Scotland. The law respecting roads and bridges was also different. It was, therefore, necessary to have some Scotchman to overlook all those matters. There was also the difference between the Burial Laws of the two countries. This question of having a separate Department for Scotland was not new. There was an agitation for it in 1868 or 1869, and so great was that agitation that a Commission was appointed to inquire into the whole matter. Nothing was done at the time; but all Scotch Members who had sat in the House since then had complained of the great neglect of Scotch Business, and of the necessity of having a Secretary of State, an Under Secretary of State, or such a Department as was now proposed. He hoped the Bill would pass. He thanked the late Government for what they had done. They had brought in a Bill to give Scotland an Under Secretary. He would have been satisfied with an Under Secretary if one had been appointed at the time. But that had not been done, and now they asked the Prime Minister to put Scotch affairs in that House in a better position than they had been in hitherto. The Bill was the outcome of the representation which had been made to the Prime Minister; and he thought it would be most ungracious in them, as Scotch Members, to refuse the Bill, after the attempt that the Government had made to give them what they asked. Scotchmen who came to London had great difficulty in knowing to what Office they were to go to for information. They found the duties of those charged with Scotch matters scattered over different Departments, and they often had to go away without the information they wanted. The effect of the Bill would be to concentrate everything relating to Scotland in one Department. They would have a Permanent Under Secretary for Scotland, who would be able to give them all the information they wanted, as was done by the Under Secretary in the other Departments. They should have to apply to the Scotch Office, and to the Scotch Office alone, and people who came from Scotland would get all the information they wanted. He should give a most earnest support to the Bill in Committee.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he rose in consequence of what the Home Secretary had said with regard to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot). The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that if the Government had reason to suppose that the sentiments of Scotch Members generally were at all those expressed by the hon. Member for Roxburghshire, they would consider that there was no use in going on with the Bill. He (Mr. Dick-Peddie) thought that a very unfortunate statement, for it was calculated to convey the impression that the Government had itself no great confidence in the Bill. He desired to assure the Home Secretary that the feeling of the great majority of Scotch Members was strongly in favour of the Bill; and he ventured to say that the public opinion of Scotland generally was not less strongly in favour of it. Reference had been made to the small number of Scotch Members who had spoken in the previous debate. If few had spoken it was from no indifference to the Bill; but entirely because the Scotch Members wished to do nothing to delay its passing. He himself had acted from that motive, and had abstained from speaking, although he had intended to take part in the debate on the second reading. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that there was a marked absence of Petitions in favour of the Bill. If there was not a large number of Petitions, the reason was simply that the people of Scotland knew that their Representatives were generally so favourable to the Bill that they thought its passing was a certainty. As for the small number of Scotch Members present, that must not be taken as an indication that those who were absent were indifferent to the passing of the measure. He knew that many hon. Members who had gone away had done so because they believed that the Bill was safe; and he knew that many of them would have returned, even at the expense of much personal inconvenience, had they supposed that at this stage the passing of the Bill would have been seriously challenged. It was true that in Scotland there was a general desire for something more than the Bill proposed to give. The general feeling was that the Minister entrusted with Scotch affairs should be a Cabinet Minister, and there was some disappointment that the Bill did not go that length. But it was undoubtedly a step in the right direction; and the Scotch people were too sensible to reject a good measure, and one which went in the direction of their demands, because it did not give them all they wanted. He trusted that the Government would not give the slightest heed to those who urged them to abandon the Bill.

MR. ANDERSON

said, there was one argument that had already been used too freely in opposition to the Bill, and that was in reference to the absence of Scotch Members. He imagined that that should, on the contrary, tell rather in favour of the Bill than against it; because if Scotch Members had so very small a feeling against the Bill that they were able to go away and leave the duties for which their constituencies sent them to Parliament, and went away to shoot grouse in Scotland, or to amuse themselves in some other way, it either showed that they had no antipathy to the Bill, or that they were not to be regarded very representative Scotch Members. If the latter were the case, of course that was a matter to be settled between their constituencies and themselves. But he did not think that was the case. Their absence rather indicated that those hon. Gentlemen were satisfied with the Bill, and went away in confidence that it would he passed. It had been a great disappointment in Scotland to learn—not by any formal announcement, but by a general understanding—that the Scotch Minister to be created by the Bill was not to hold a Cabinet Office—at least at present. That, he said, had been a very great disappointment, because the feeling in Scotland had been a feeling of want of someone in the Cabinet to press forward Scotch measures within the Cabinet. It was felt that there was a rivalry between Cabinet Ministers as to which of their measures should be most pressed. At the same time, they lived in hope that if a Scotch Department was created, even though they did not get a Cabinet Minister now, they would get one at some future time. He should, therefore, assist the Government in going on with the Bill.

MR. ERNEST NOEL

said, he thought the Homo Secretary had misunderstood the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot) when he said he opposed the Bill. What his hon. Friend had said was that, if Scotch affairs had been so well attended to as he thought they ought to be, so important a Bill as this would not have been brought up on a Wednesday. That was an illustration of how much this measure, or something like it, was wanted. The hon. Member had, indeed, gone on to say that he did not think the Bill provided all that was required in a Scotch Office; but he had said very distinctly—and he (Mr. Ernest Noel) believed it represented the great body of opinion in Scotland—that this Bill would form a Scotch Department which before long might be brought into perfect harmony with the wants of Scotland; and therefore he was ready to support the Bill, and thank the Government for bringing it in. He (Mr. Ernest Noel) hoped the Government would have no thought of dropping the Bill, but would carry it through. If it was not all they wanted, it was a step in the right direction, and would go a long way towards securing what they desired.

MR. A. GRANT

said, he rose to express a general approval of the Bill, which he thought was calculated to effect very great improvements upon the machinery of government in Scotland. It seemed to him that those who had taken it upon themselves to interpret the wishes of the Scotch people in the matter had altogether erroneously interpreted those wishes. If they were to judge of the public opinion of Scotland as it was expressed in the Press and elsewhere, they would find that the Bill had been received with very great favour by the people of Scotland. At the same time, he was bound to say that, owing to the length of time the Government had taken to make up their minds with regard to the measure, a large amount of time had not been allowed to the people of Scotland to express their sentiments in regard to the Bill; but, at all events, the Bill had this in its favour—that it supplied to the Scotch people a Governmental Head, to whom they might apply on all those various matters which were comprised in the Schedule, and who was to be authorized to act and decide upon all the ordinary matters of administration without being liable to be interfered with, and, he was afraid, in very many cases thwarted, by an overruling authority as to the course he might think proper to follow. With regard to the Board to be established, he presumed the object of constituting that Board was to maintain a general superintendence and a general authority in the hands of the Supreme Central Government, and that it was not intended that the Board should interfere with the President in the ordinary discharge of his duties. Of course, in matters of any great importance, where Imperial interests were involved, no doubt the President would consult his Colleagues on the Board; but he confessed he wished the Board had made more clearly understood what were to be the relations between the President and the other Members of the Board. What, for instance, was to be the class of questions on which he was to consult the other Members? What were the matters on which he was to be subject to be overruled by his Colleagues? There was no doubt that if the Bill was to prove a success, the new Minister must be one who was conversant with public opinion in Scotland, who was acquainted with the wants and wishes, the peculiarities and prejudices — for they had both peculiarities and prejudices—of the people of Scotland. And, further, he thought it was absolutely necessary that the people of Scotland should have an assurance that, in approaching the new Minister, they were dealing with the Head of a Department, and with one who was authorized to speak definitely to them on behalf of the Government; further, the new Minister should have assigned to him the right of initiative in all Government measures exclusively relating to Scotland; and, most important of all, he should have allotted to him a sufficient portion of the Government Parliamentary time to carry out the measures that he might introduce. Of course, they were not so unreasonable as to claim that Scotch local legislation should interfere with measures of primary importance—of Imperial magnitude. All they asked was, that Scotch Business in Parliament should have a fair allotment of Parliamentary time, in common with measures of corresponding importance relating to other parts of the Kingdom. He thought it could not be denied that, in late years more especially, Scotch Parliamentary Business had been liable to be relegated to the shreds and odds and ends of Parliamentary time, and that it had also been liable to be overlooked and thrust into the background by the Government of the day in making their arrangements for the legislative work of the Session. It seemed to him that the new Minister bore a very strong analogy to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It was true they were not to have in Scotland a figurehead in the form of a Viceroyalty; but they did not desire that in Scotland, and it certainly was not necessary as a stimulus to their loyalty. Of course, all Scotland would like to see the new Minister a Member of the Cabinet. But he confessed he saw very great difficulties in the way of a hard-and-fast rule being laid down that he should be a Cabinet Minister. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was not necessarily a Cabinet Minister. He was or was not in the Cabinet as circumstances might demand; and he thought they might be content to leave the question whether the Minister for Scotland should be in the Cabinet or not an open one, in the same way. The question whether the educational interests of Scotland should be committed to the new Minister was a very important one; and it seemed to him that the people of Scotland would be the losers if they were to be deprived of the benefit of the large stock of experience which must have been acquired by the central educational authority administering the educational business of the whole country. When they considered that in the Education Department, as at present constituted, there was a Scotch branch, which devoted itself exclusively to Scotch Business, he thought they might consider that the educational interests of the country were sufficiently protected. During the years immediately following the introduction of the Scotch Education Act of 1872, he had had some experience, as Chairman of a School Board, of the working of the Local Board for Education in Scotland; and he regretted to say that his experience of the working of that Board was not altogether what he could have wished. It was an utter mistake to say that Scotland was languid or lukewarm in her desire for the passing of the Bill. He trusted the Home Secretary would proceed with it, and that it would be carried.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, his remarks would be greatly curtailed by the observations of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), who had expressed in a very able manner his general views concerning the Bill. He wished to read to the House an extract from the Report of Lord Camperdown in 1880. In regard to the proposal made by the right hon. Member for Montrose, the Report stated— Mr. Baxter proposed that there should he a Secretary for Scotland connected with the Privy Council rather than with the Home Office. That was not the proposal of the Bill. Then the Report said—"He would be in exactly the same position as the Chief Secretary for Ireland;" and it further stated that the right hon. Member for Montrose stated he had no detailed information as to the duties to be performed. Therefore, much as he respected the opinions of the right hon. Member for Montrose, he thought that on this occasion they must be taken with some little reserve. The longer this debate went on the more unfortunate did he think it was that this Bill should have come on at the present time. Even the hon. Member who had just spoken had pointed out his objections to the Bill in a certain way. It was quite natural that the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. A. Grant) should like a Bill which would centre all Scotch Business in Edinburgh; and that was what would be done if this Bill passed. It was only last week that he had thought it his duty to go to the North of Scotland to inquire what the people in his part of the country really thought about the Bill. He had been to two large shipping ports in the North of Scotland, and he found the people there saying—"Oh, we think it a very good thing; but we do not know anything about it." They did not know what benefit or advantage it would be. He did not find any person who had read the Bill. They said—"Of course, we would like anything that would be of advantage to Scotland; but we do not know whether it would or not." A very able man, and a great friend of his, had said—"Capital thing; capital thing; but why stop there? Give us a Scotch Parliament? Why should we be bothered with an English Parliament?" With regard to the remarks of the Home Secretary respecting Scotch Members, only 20 Scotch Members out of the 60 had voted for the Bill; and out of those five or six were Government Officers sitting on the Government Bench, who, of course, whether they liked it or not, voted with the Government; and some of those who had voted for the Bill, he knew, did not approve of it. ["Oh!"] He repeated what he had said. They voted from the desire to vote with the Government. He should like to vote with the Government, if he could; but those who had an independent position felt that they had a right to vote as they thought best. That reduced the number of Scotch Members in favour of the Bill to a very small number. This new Minister, as he understood the Bill, was to take the place of several Boards in Edinburgh; but he wished to remind the House that the duties performed by those Boards were performed under Statute, and this Bill contained no authority to transfer those duties from the Boards. Therefore, the new Minister would not be able, under this Bill, to interfere with these duties. The duty now resting with the Secretary of State was to advise the Sovereign in regard to the appointment of certain officials. He did not know whether it was intended by this Bill that the new Minister was to advise the Sovereign in regard to those appointments; it was not so stated in the Bill; and it was a theory of the Constitution, he believed, that Her Majesty's instructions to her subjects should be conveyed through a Secretary of State. These were points which would have to be considered in the Bill. He found that all the powers of the Privy Council and the Secretary of State in regard to Bills mentioned in the Schedule were to be transferred from those two Departments to the new Minister. The tendency of the Amendment he had put down on the second reading was that they should have a Scotch Department, separate from the English Department, but reporting and acting under the authority of a Cabinet Minister. It appeared to him that the speech of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan) was a strong argument against the Bill. His friends in the North of Scotland said they wished to go to the person who could give them a final answer. They wished to present their business to the Head of the Department, and have their answer from him; whereas in future, under this Bill, they would have to filter their business through Edinburgh, if the Office were in Edinburgh, or if in London, through the Minister in London, who would only be able to say —"I understand your views and wishes. I will represent them to Government, and see what they will do." He believed this step would greatly increase their Parliamentary Business in that House. The tendency of a Scotch Department would be to keep Scotch and English Business separate instead of amalgamating them; and whereas now they had every Session a large number of Acts of Parliament which were applicable to both countries — what were called United Kingdom Acts —they would in future have one Act for England, and one Act for Scotland, as they had had the other day for the Agricultural Holdings Act. He had been unable for a long time to understand why that question had been handled by two separate Acts, because the operative clauses of the Scotch Act were word for word the same as in the English Act, the only difference being in details relating to the Sheriffs and County Court Judges, which were always provided for in a United Kingdom Act; but the two Bills appeared to have been taken separately in order to endeavour to show the necessity for a Scotch Department. He was one of those who did not wish to oppose the Government in regard to the measure; but he thought they were taking a leap in the dark; however, he hoped in Committee the Bill would be put into some practical shape.

MR. GIBSON

said, he would remind the House of the manner in which Scotch Members usually flocked to attend a Scotch discussion on a Wednesday. The Scotch Members attended better than any others if the Business was really of a kind that excited interest and sympathy in Scotland. It was obvious that even in the case of those who did not oppose the Bill—and that was the highest form of approval the Government could command—their sympathy was of the most languid kind imaginable. At the present time there were only 15 Scotch Members present. His proposition was, that there were not 15 Scotch Members present in the House, and if a Division were taken he dared say they might muster 16. If anyone objected to the length to which the debate had extended, let it be borne in mind who was answerable for the duration of the discussion. The hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot), in a temperate and clear speech, expressed his views, and indicated that he intended to vote for the Bill; but he, at the same time, indicated many points upon which he thought it was fairly open to criticism, and the hon. Member made a speech full of information and valuable suggestions. But the Home Secretary was not prepared to allow the criticisms of the hon. Member to pass without something—he would not say in the nature of defiance—at least, without a very distinct challenge; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman practically called upon every Scotch Member who was present to rise up and testify what his opinion was in relation to the Bill. Accordingly, some five or six Gentlemen, who were entitled to speak with authority, stood up on the Government side of the House and took part in the discussion, because they felt bound not to remain silent after the invitation given by the Home Secretary. It was impossible to speak upon the Bill with enthusiasm or energy. It was an unreal Bill to create a sham official to perform bogus duties; and those who had spoken on the Government side of the House had certainly spoken in a way which showed that although they were not prepared to oppose the Bill they gave it only the minimum of blessing. He had a profound respect for the Scotch; he respected their ready intelligence, keen wit, and the sturdy reserve which they could occasionally show; but certainly, if they had any enthusiasm for the Bill, and if they did like it, they had expressed their love in the most cold-blooded way possible. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), not being hampered by representing a Scottish constituency, but still speaking with the fulness of heart of a Scotchman, was disposed to put it on this ground—that he would not oppose the Bill, because he did not think, on a calm consideration of its provisions, that it would do much harm; and he (Mr. Gibson) believed that that sentence contained about as much truth as could be put into any form of epigram. Then the hon. Member for Roxburghshire, who was a sound Party man, and who, although he felt compelled, for the sake of the interests of eternal truth, occasionally to speak words of real sound criticism in relation to the Government measure, felt bound to say he would not oppose the Bill as a Party man; but he indicated a very important Amendment which had been put down on the Paper in relation to the Schedule, which was the real substance of the Bill, because if they struck out the Schedule the new President would have nothing to do. He hoped the Lord Advocate would take part in the discussion, and explain the changes that he had made on the Schedule of the Bill.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

I shall explain them all in Committee.

MR. GIBSON

said, he should have thought that, having regard to the dignity and antiquity of the Office of Lord Advocate, the present holder of the Office would have taken some part in the debate on the second reading, or in the present discussion. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. A. Grant) made the most astounding defence of the Bill. He said he was in favour of the Bill because it would enable the Minister for Scotland, with a seat in the Cabinet, to take the initiative in all discussions upon Scotch Business in the House, and he supposed that he would occupy a very similar position to that of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. If there was one thing to be anticipated with regard to the effect of the Bill, it was that not one of these wishes could be satisfied under its provisions, and yet the hon. Member was in favour of the measure. The hon. and gallant Member who had last spoken (Sir Alexander Gordon) certainly could not be said to have made a speech in favour of the Bill, and he rather gathered that the feelings of the hon. and gallant Member were distinctly against it. He was positive that his representation of what was said to him in the North of Scotland really represented what he (Mr. Gibson) had been informed accounted for any approval that had over been expressed about the Bill in Scotland. "It is a very good Bill; tell us all about it," or "It is a very good Bill; but I know nothing about it." He ventured to think if any intelligent person in Scotland who was said to have expressed an opinion in favour of the Bill were asked for the reasons why he was in favour of it, he would say—"I am all for having Lord Rosebery given a place, and for having Scotch Business put under his charge;" and since it had been more than whispered abroad—and it was pretty generally understood—that Lord Rosebery was not to be the Officer under the Bill, the enthusiasm, which had never reached more than a temperate stage, had vanished altogether. He did not pretend to any enthusiasm himself for the Bill. He thought it was not a real Bill. One did not like to use strong language in reference to the Bill; and he should close his observations by a word of suggestion and advice to his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), and that was, that as the present discussion had elicited all the information which the Home Secretary had, he should be satisfied with the approval of his own conscience, and leave the Government the privilege, if they thought it worth while, of working through the clauses of an utterly unworkable Bill.

MR. C. S. PARKER

observed, that he would not say a word on the principle or on the details of the Bill. The principle they had had an opportunity of discussing on previous occasions, and the details they would be able to discuss when the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) withdrew his Amendment. He rose merely to protest against two or three misrepresentations which had been made in the course of the debate. In the first place, it had been stated at the opening of the discussion that there were only eight or 10 Scotch Members present; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) had told them there were 15 or 16.

MR. GIBSON

Only 14 now.

MR. C. S. PARKER

said, he had a list of the names of 22 Scotch Members, which he was ready to show the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. GIBSON

They are not in the House.

MR. C. S. PARKER

They had been in the House while he had been sitting there. He also challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman to furnish him with a single instance in which Scotch Members had flocked together to debate Scotch Bills after the 12th of August. The absence of Scotch Members on the present occasion was to be accounted for by their engagements in Scotland, and their confidence that the Bill would pass through the House without their assistance. The second point upon which there had been misrepresentation was with regard to the Petitions from Scotland. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment was wrong in saying there were no Petitions in favour of the Bill. Petitions had been sent from the Town Council, the Parochial Board, and the Chamber of Commerce of Edinburgh. There was also a Petition from the Town Council of Leith.

MR. ANDERSON

And the Town Council of Glasgow.

MR. C. S. PARKER

said, there had also been a Petition from the Town Council of Aberdeen in favour of the Bill, and the Town Council of his own constituency (Perth) had petitioned in its favour. Further, there was a very representative Petition from the Convention of Royal and Parliamentary Burghs of Scotland. Also, he thought there had been misrepresentation as to the state of public opinion. He was willing to admit that Scotland was not very well informed as to the precise I nature of the Bill, and it was possible that the Scotch Members might have more to say on the Bill in Committee; but he had no doubt that, so far I as information on the subject went, public opinion generally throughout Scotland was in favour of the principle of the Bill. The most that had been said against the Bill had been said by a Scotchman, though not a Scotch Member, whose authority the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) endeavoured to place higher than his own abilities undoubtedly entitled him to be placed, by reminding the House that he spoke as one who was not hampered by representing a Scotch constituency. That was a strange argument to come from the Constitutional Party. He (Mr. Parker) thought the fact that the hon. Member spoke not as representing a Scotch constituency rather detracted from, than added to, the weight of his personal opinion on a matter concerning Scotland. On two points the people of Scotland were hopeful about the Bill. One was, that it would increase their opportunities of carrying on Scotch Business in that House; and the other was, that it would provide, for the future, some place where the permanent records of Scotch Business were to be found easily at hand, and where they should find a permanent Officer of the Department in charge of them, to give any explanations that might be required. If they got nothing else by the Bill, they would get one thing which would be highly appreciated by the Scotch people; they would get rid of what was the chief blot in the system of administration by Lord Advocates—namely, that when each one in turn passed away, he left no trace behind him, except it might be on the Statute Book, of all that he had on hand, and whoever came next had not the advantage of finding the materials ready to continue the work of the Department. For that reason, if for no other, he thought the people of Scotland would gratefully accept the Bill.

MR. WARTON

said, the ground on which he opposed the Bill was that the intentions of the Government were hidden in the murky gloom of studied ambiguity. He trusted the Lord Advocate would address the House, as a few words of explanation from him now would conduce more to the speedy passage of the Bill than a great number of observations made in Committee. The vice of the Bill was that it might come to very little, or it might come to a great deal, and nobody knew what its effect would really be.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

Clause 2 (Constitution of the Local Government Board).

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

begged to move an Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir P. Assheton Cross), to substitute an Under Secretary of State as the Head of the Local Government Board instead of a President.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, leave out "a President," and insert" an Under Secretary of State."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)

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

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he felt bound to oppose the Amendment, on the ground that it would entirely frustrate the whole scheme of the Bill; and, considering that the Bill had been discussed on the second reading for a day and a-half, and that it had undergone two hours' discussion that day before going into Committee, he thought the principle of the Bill ought to be very well understood. He took it that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir P. Assheton Cross) desired, by the present Amendment, and others of which he had given Notice, to convert the present Bill into his own Bill of 1878. In that year the right hon. Gentleman brought in a Bill the object of which was to establish an Under Secretary of the Home Department, who should have charge of Scotch Business; and he now put a series of Amendments upon the Paper which would practically convert this measure into his own Bill. He (the Lord Advocate) took it that when the House had already passed the second reading of the Bill, as they had done in this ease, in which the plan laid down was the constitution of a Scotch Board somewhat like the English Local Government Board, with a President of greater dignity and larger powers than an Under Secretary, it would be going against the entire principle of the Bill to introduce the Amendment now proposed. He had pointed out more than once that the whole scheme of the Bill would be found set out in the Schedule, which enumerated various Statutes by which certain duties were imposed upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Privy Council, and the Local Government Board. The object of the Bill was to transfer these duties to the President of the Scotch Local Government Board. The idea of transferring these duties now imposed on the Principal Secretary of the Home Department to an Under Secretary was clearly opposed to the whole scheme of the Bill. It was not necessary to occupy the time of the Committee longer than to point out that the whole aim and object of the measure would be frustrated by the adoption of the Amendment.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

asked the Lord Advocate what was the object of having a Board at all? He could not understand why on earth they should have a Local Government Board for Scotland. The existing Scotch Boards might be susceptible of improvement; and if so let them amend defects, and then leave them to carry on the local business of Scotland without dragging the details to London. He was not prepared to accept the Under Secretary, because he thought such an appointment would be opposed to the whole framework of the Bill, and unsuited for the kind of work to be transacted; but he failed to see why there should be a Board at all. What they wanted was a person connected with the Administration who should have the conduct of Scotch Business, and mainly in relation to the Parliamentary duties; and he desired an explanation from the Lord Advocate as to what necessity there was for keeping up the form of a Board.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he saw his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan) in his place, and he wished to call attention to the evidence given by his hon. Friend on a former occasion. His hon. Friend stated that he did not think the creation of another Office would be warranted unless the duties were placed in the charge of the Scotch Lord of the Treasury. He would not go into the details of the evidence given by his hon. Friend, with the whole of which he (Sir John Hay) agreed. He also agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour). He could not conceive what this Board would have to do. It was quite impossible to understand how the work was to be made for the now Officer. His own opinion was that his hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire (Mr. R. W. Duff) would be able to conduct the Scotch Business to the satisfaction of the people of Scotland quite as well as Sir William Gibson-Craig or Mr. Forbes Mackenzie, or any other Gentleman who had preceded him. The real mistake was that his hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire was engaged in the performance of other duties which had no special reference to Scotland; and, for some reason or other, the learned Lord Advocate was not entrusted with the whole of the Scotch measures, many of which fell upon the Home Secretary. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: All of them.] He (Sir John Hay) understood the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery), who had been before alluded to in the debate, and who had been spoken of as having performed his duties with satisfaction to the Scotch people and to himself, was entrusted with the charge of Scotch Business. [The LORD ADVOCATE dissented.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman shook his head; but, at any rate, it was so understood, and it was also understood that the Home Office was in communication with the noble Lord. The real difficulty was that since the Duke of Argyll left the Cabinet there had been nobody to look after Scotch Business.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me to say that the Duke of Argyll never interfered with Scotch Business at all?

SIR JOHN HAY

said, that was also a great misfortune, because the ordinary way in which the Scotch Business had been conducted had been by a Scotch Member of the Cabinet, such as the Duke of Richmond and Gordon, the Duke of Argyll, Lord Minto, or some other Cabinet Ministers, and not by a special Scotch Minister. The usual practice was to endeavour to get a Cabinet Minister to arrange with his Colleagues that there should be a Scotch day in the House on which Scotch Business could be discussed. That had long been the ordinary practice; but it had now been given up. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, no doubt, was now the Scotch Minister of the Cabinet; but they could hardly expect that he would take charge of Scotch Business. The real mistake, at the present moment, was that there was no Scotch Minister of sufficient importance who could look after Scotch affairs. There had never been much for such Minister to do, and yet the duty was discharged by the Lord President of the Council or the Secretary of State for India, or by any other Cabinet Minister able to support the Scotch Lord of the Treasury. He could always, in the last resort, refer to the Lord Advocate, and was able to obtain an arrangement from the Cabinet, whereby opportunities were afforded for the discussion of Scotch Business, such as giving up a day before Easter, perhaps, another day before Whitsuntide, and a third later on. He believed that that was all they wanted now. There was really very little Scotch Business to do; and why on earth they were going to have a President of the Local Government Board created for Scotland alone he could not conceive. Very recently they had made the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the Agricultural Minister; and now that new Office had been created, he did not see why the Lord Privy Seal could not be re-appointed and required to attend to the conduct of Scotch Business. There was no necessity at all for the arrangements contemplated by the Bill, because all that was necessary was that a Scotch Peer should be appointed Lord Privy Seal, and such Minister could perform the duties of that Office and attend to Scotch Business as well. He confessed he heard with regret that, at the present moment, there was no one in the Government whose special duty it was to attend to Scotch Business; but if it were attended to in the manner in which it had been in former days, that would be quite sufficient without the creation of this new Board, which was to interfere with and overthrow all Boards now existing in Scotland, although for many years they had been able to conduct Scotch affairs not only cheaply, but satisfactorily. He should certainly support the Amendment.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he rose to answer the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour), who had asked why, instead of there being a single functionary or official, there was to be a President and also a Board. The answer was very simple. About the year 1870 or 1871, a Board was constituted for England on this model; and he believed that the experience which had been gained in regard to that Board was very satisfactory. It was perfectly true that neither in the English Board had it been, nor in the Scotch Board would it be, the practice for the Board to meet often, if at all, or to take from the President the performance of the chief duties; but, at the same time, it was highly convenient for a high Officer to be able to have a ready and quick recourse to persons who were really his Colleagues when he might think it necessary to advise with them. Their advice would be that of persons who stood in official relation to him; and there was no objection to the constitution of a Board to advise with the President when necessary. Certainly, there could be no more objection to a proposal of that kind than to the practice which now existed.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, the explanation of the Lord Advocate was far from being satisfactory. He had been a Member of a Board for 10 years, and he know how difficult it was to work executive business with a Board. He thought it would be a pity to interfere with the existing Boards in Edinburgh unless they knew what defects had to be remedied. He therefore entered his protest against this new Board. He believed it would be inefficient, and that it would be a sham in reality. He believed a special administrator for Scotch affairs to be necessary in order to attend to details of Scotch affairs. An Office in London with an efficient first-class civil servant at its head, and a few clerks, was also needed, to enable Scotch Members to refer for information on all Scotch matters. He agreed with what the Leader of the Opposition had said as to the Lords Advocate in the last Parliament; and he bore testimony to the good service which the present Lord Advocate had rendered.

SIR STAEFORD NORTHCOTE

said,; he did not think that he had ever made any observations that reflected in any way upon the Lords Advocate of previous Parliaments. If he had done so it had been quite unintentionally. He bore testimony, with the greatest goodwill and pleasure to the merits of the present Lord Advocate; but he in no way intended to cost a slur upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Predecessors, who were men of high position and authority in the House.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to admit that there were defects in the last Parliament, in connection with Scotch Business, which he desired to see remedied; but the inference was that the inefficiency was occasioned by accidental circumstances.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, the point now before the Committee had reference to the title of the new Minister; and his own opinion was that some other title than President of a Local Government Board should be devised. Personally, he approved of the Amendments of which Notice had been given by the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), the object of which was to provide that the President should be a Member of the Privy Council.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he thought the Lord Advocate had somewhat misinterpreted or mis-stated the analogy between the Local Government Board of England and the Local Government Board proposed to be established for Scotland. By the Act of 1870 it was provided that from and after the establishment of the Local Government Board in England the Poor Law Board should cease to exist. The English Board took over the duties of the administration of the Poor Law in England. There was no such proposal in the present Bill. The Board of Supervision was to go on discharging its duties precisely the same as before. There was, therefore, a great difference between the reason for establishing a Local Government Board in England and a Local Government Board in Scotland. They had yet to learn what duties the new President was to discharge in connection with the new Board of Supervision.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

He is to do the duties of the Secretary of State.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he would tell the Committee what the duties of the Secretary of State were. The duties of the Secretary of State were to receive once a-year a Report from the Board of Supervision, and to place it upon the Table of the House. He had no power of revising that Report, and could not send it back for amendment.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

How do you know that?

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he knew that, because an Act of Parliament directed what he was to do, and he entertained respect for the provisions of an Act of Parliament. He thought it was time that the Government should tell the Committee where the Office of the new Board was to be, because the constitution of the Board should all depend upon whether the Members were able to attend or not. If the Offices of the new Board were to be in Edinburgh, it was a ridiculous farce to appoint as Members of that Board the Lord President of the Council, Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would be altogether impossible for them to attend meetings that were held at some Office in Edinburgh; and, therefore, the Committee ought to be told distinctly where the Office was to be. They were told yesterday by the Home Secretary that this was an experiment. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was a very grave experiment indeed. They had now come to the Business of legislation, and he wanted to know whether this was to be a practical Board or a dummy Board? "Dummy altogether," some hon. Member said. It was proposed to add the Lord Advocate; and, therefore, if the Office was in Edinburgh there would be the President of the Board and the Lord Advocate, when he was not in the House during the Session. But it was provided that the whole duties and powers of the Board were to be exercised by the Lord President by himself, and not in conjunction with the Lord Advocate, or any other Member; and the President himself was to have superior power to issue any order or regulation he thought proper. That was a power which was not given to the President of the English Local Government Board, who had no power to exercise any of the powers of the Privy Council, and the sanction of three Members of the Privy Council was required to any order issued by the Board. Nevertheless, it was proposed in this case that one Minister, who need not be a Privy Councillor, should exercise the whole of these powers. Therefore, they ought be told at once, before the Board was formed, where the Offices of the Board were to be situated.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he would suggest to his hon. Friends that, if they would wait for a short time, they would have an opportunity of quieting their minds, seeing that the late President of the English Local Government Board had placed an Amendment on the Paper, which he (Sir George Campbell) should heartily support, to vest the duties of the Board of Supervision in the new Local Government Board. The result would be amalgamation of the Local Government Board and the Board of Supervision. From the first, he had expressed a favourable opinion of the general purposes of the Bill. He thought its principal defect was that it did not give the Local Government Board enough to do. The view expressed by the Home Secretary was that the functions of the new Board should be applied to the control of the existing Boards now engaged in the management of Scotch Business, in order to see whether such Business could be amalgamated, or whether it ought to be left separate. He (Sir George Campbell) intended to propose a step in which approximation might take place; and he hoped he should receive the support of the Scotch Members.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he thought it was rather hard for the Lord Advocate to object to English Members expressing an opinion upon Scotch measures; more especially as the Lord Advocate had not given the Committee the benefit of his own opinion until now. Certainly, Scotch Members were not backward in expressing an opinion upon English measures. What he complained of was the exclusive feeling which existed among Scotch Members, and which would be increased by establishing a chief Office for Scotch Business. The Bill was practically introducing a kind of Home Rule for Scotland, which might in time attain much larger proportions. As, however, the Lord Advocate had recovered the use of speech, he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) would withdraw the Amendment for the present.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he rose to move an Amendment providing that the President of the new Board should be a Member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council. The object of the Amendment was to give some importance to the Minister at the head of the new Board. He thought the new Minister ought to have the rank of a Privy Councillor, because it was absolutely necessary that he should be a Privy Councillor before he could obtain an audience of the Sovereign; and if there was anything at all in relation to the Office of a Privy Councillor, it was his privilege of advising the Sovereign. He, therefore, thought that the Minister who was to hold this important position should have the rank of a Privy Councillor, otherwise what would happen would be that some other Member of the Board who was a Privy Councillor would have to go to the Sovereign, while the President of the Board could not. It appeared to him that the President of the Board would be in an inferior position to all the other Members of the Board except the Lord Advocate.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 9, after "President," insert "who shall he a Member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)

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

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, it seemed to the Government entirely unnecessary, and, indeed, unfitting, to put in an Act of Parliament a declaration that a particular individual should be a Member of the Privy Council. No doubt, the propriety of making the President a Member of that Council would always receive due consideration; but to make a statutory declaration to that effect would not only be without precedent, but unbecoming. He did not wish to express any difference of opinion from his hon. and gallant Friend; but he merely protested against putting this provision into an Act of Parliament.

SIR LYON PLAYFAIR

said, he thought the hon. and gallant Member would withdraw the Amendment when he saw what the effect of it would be. For instance, the Postmaster General was always made a Privy Councillor, and there were various other Offices in the same position; but the effect of adopting the Amendment would be very largely to limit the selection for the Office which could be made in that House. In point of fact, beyond his right hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir John Hay), and himself (Sir Lyon Playfair), there were no other Scotch Members who were Privy Councillors; and, therefore, the effect of the Amendment would be to compel selection to be made in that House out of three Members. He did not think that that was the hon. and gallant Gentleman's wish.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

Certainly not.

SIR LYON PLAYFAIR

said, the hon. and gallant Member might himself be selected, and it might be a very good selection, and the hon. and gallant Member could be made a Member of the Privy Council afterwards; but to make Membership of the Privy Council a preliminary condition would largely limit the area of selection, and he did not suppose that to be what his hon. and gallant Friend wished.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he thought the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) had considerable weight. Nothing could be easier than to make the President a Member of the Privy Council after he had accepted the Office, unless it were considered desirable that oven more dignity should be attached to the Office. At present, no one knew where the Offices of this Local Government Board were to be, what the duties were, or anything about the matter. It seemed to him that the Committee were asked to pass the clauses of the Bill without any explanation from the Government of their intention in regard to the Office. He thought that the Government had not yet made up their own minds, and that all they wanted was to pass the Bill, leaving all the rest to chance.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFE

said, he hoped that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite would go on with the Amendment, because he thought it of the utmost importance that this Officer should be a responsible Minister of the Crown. They had already decided that hs should not be an Under Secretary; and if they were to place a particular individual at the head of this Department in Scotland, it was necessary that he should be a responsible Minister of the Crown. He presumed that the Minister would have charge of the Scotch Estimates, and that he would be responsible for them. If he were not a Privy Councillor, there would then be no one in the House of Commons who really was responsible for them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would certainly repudiate any connection with them; and he should like to know, therefore, who was to be responsible for advising the House upon the Scotch Estimates, if the new Officer was not a Privy Councillor?

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he could not see that being a Privy Councillor would give a man any additional financial ability. The matter was in a nutshell. He had no doubt that this Officer ought to be and would be a Privy Councillor; but there was no precedent for putting such a provision into an Act of Parliament, and it ought not to be so put in.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

remarked, that his Amendment did not say that the Minister selected should previously have been a Privy Councillor, but that the person selected for the Office should be made a Privy Councillor, in order that he might be able to approach the Sovereign. The House was asked to specify who were to be Members of this Board—namely, the President of Her Majesty's Privy Council, the Principal Secretary of State for the time being, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and so on; and he, therefore, saw no objection to the House also stating that the President should be a Privy Councillor. That was his only object, and he had no desire to lay it down as a rule that the President should have been previously a Privy Councillor.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, the only strict analogy to this Bill was the Bill which constituted the Local Government Board in England. In that Bill there was no statutory provision requiring that the President of the Board should be a Privy Councillor; but it was well known that the President always held that rank. There was, so far as he knew, no precedent for enacting that a particular Member of the Government should be a Privy Councillor.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

wished to point out that by Clause 5 it was provided that— All powers and duties vested in or imposed on one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, or the Privy Council, or the Local Government Board for England, by the enactments in that behalf specified in the Schedule hereto, so far as such powers and duties relate to Scotland, shall, on and after the establishment of the Local Government Board, be transferred to, vested in, and imposed on the President of the Board. If they were going to vest in the new Officer powers that were now vested in a Privy Councillor he ought to have a sense of responsibility much greater than an Under Secretary who was not a Privy Councillor. The only question was, whether a Privy Councillor had not greater responsibility than an Officer who did not hold that rank?

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, it was obvious if they considered the composition of the Board that the President must be a Privy Councillor. The Lord President of the Council was himself to be a Member of the Board, and the Principal Secretaries of State, who were all Privy Councillors, as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord Advocate. The whole of those officers were to be Members of the Board, and as they were every one of them Members of the Privy Council the Minister who was to preside over the Board could hardly be otherwise than a Privy Councillor himself.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, that after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) he had no wish to press the Amendment. If they were to be guided entirely by precedent he did not think the Bill would be now before the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, the next Amendment on the Paper was in the name of the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross). They were consequential Amendments which he (Sir II. Drummond Wolff) did not propose to move. He wished, however, to ask the Lord Advocate why the Lord Privy Seal was omitted from the Membership of this Board?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the Office of Lord Privy Seal was practically abolished.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, the name of the Lord Privy Seal was inserted in the Bill which constituted the Local Government Board for England. He was not aware that the Privy Seal was abolished, and he should like to know whether that was so or not?

THIS CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, there was no reason why the Lord Privy Seal should be a Member of the Board, in so much as he was to be, if the Bill passed, an Officer receiving no salary, but the holder of a purely honorary Office.

SIR H. DERMMOND WOLFF

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them in one breath that the Bill was drawn exactly on the lines of the Bill which established a Local Government Board in England, and in another that it was not so.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON moved to add, in line 15, the words "and the office of the Board shall be in London." He moved that Amendment purely to get a definite answer from the Lord Advocate or the Home Secretary as to where the Office was to be. If the Office was to be anything but a sham it must have records and archives to enable it to carry on its Business, and it appeared to him far more important that it should be in London than in Edinburgh. It was during the sitting of Parliament that the Office would be of importance, and it would be then necessary to make frequent applications to the Office. If it was to be transferred every half-year from London to Edinburgh, he wanted to know whether the President was to carry with him all his office books and records wherever he went? If so, each person who desired to consult the Office would have to attend at one time in London, and at other times in Edinburgh, and the uncertainty with regard to Scotch Business would be greater than it was now. At present, people knew that they had to go to London to transact their business, and they were able to do so without any difficulty whatever. It was, therefore, most desirable for the Government to decide where the head Office should be. Rooms might be occupied in Edinburgh; but the permanent Office ought to be in London, unless the Office was simply to be a gossiping shop for Scotch Members who had really no business to transact,

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, after "Advocate," insert "and the office of the Board shall be in London."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)

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

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he thought the Committee ought to have some information as to where the Office was to be and how it was to be obtained—whether it was to be taken out of some other public Office in Edinburgh for half the year and in London for the rest of the year. Where was the Office to be located? He thought these were matters of detail upon which the Committee were entitled to have some information, together with the reason why the Office of the Board should be in London. There would certainly have to be an Office of some kind or other in Edinburgh, unless the Office was to be a van travelling backwards and forwards on a railway, brought to London when Parliament was sitting, and taken back again to Scotland when it was not required in London. Surely, there ought to be some bricks and mortar or stone and lime somewhere, and the Government ought to state where they had it in contemplation to fix the Office—whether in London or in Edinburgh.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the proposal of the right hon. and gallant Member would practically exclude the possibility of having an Office anywhere else than in London. It was perfectly certain that an Office would be required in London; but it was equally necessary that there should be an Office in Edinburgh. Of course, while Parliament was sitting the President of the Board would be in London, and London would be the place where he would require to keep the papers and records; but while Parliament was not sitting the Office might be in Edinburgh, and it would be desirable to have a place there to which people who had business to transact in connection with the Office could go. But these were details which were quite unsuited to be put into an Act of Parliament. They would depend very much on the organization of the staff; and he thought it was enough to say that there would be an Office in each place. His right hon. and gallant Friend said there ought to be a declaration as to where the papers and documents would be kept; but that would depend on where the papers and documents were wanted, and it was very unlikely that they would be kept in one place if they were wanted in another. When the papers were wanted in Edinburgh they would be taken there, and when they were wanted here they would be brought here. There was very little difficulty in the matter when the facilities of communication were borne in mind.

MR. WARTON

rose to move an Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon)—namely, that the word "head" should be inserted before the word "office." He thought that Amendment would fairly raise the question; but, not being a Scotch Member, he could not tell what might be most agreeable to the Scotch Representatives. If they preferred a head Office in Edinburgh then let them say so; and if in London then let them declare that it should be in London. He only moved this Amendment to elicit the opinion of the Committee, and it was for them to say what it was they wanted. It appeared to him that Her Majesty's Government left the Bill entirely to the Scotch Members to express their opinion upon it. The Government told them that the Bill was to be passed in accordance with the views expressed by the Scotch Members; but the Scotch Members seemed to have no opinion of their own; and, therefore, he moved to insert the word "head" before "office" in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "and," to insert the word "head."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That the word" head "be there inserted."

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he meant by his Amendment that the head Office should be in London. If that were not done, a deputation coming to London might be told that the papers bearing on the case were in Edinburgh, and vice versâ, and that they must wait until the papers came back again. That would be a most inconvenient and unsatisfactory course. However, as the Lord Advocate seemed opposed to the Amendment, he would not press it.

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

asked the Lord Advocate if he could give the Committee any information as to the expense which would be incurred by this Office, and how it was to be met? It might be owing to his ignorance of Parliamentary Business; but he did not find in the Bill any provision to meet the expense of the Office. The only provision on the Bill was in respect of salaries, and salaries only; whereas the office rent and other expenses might form a very considerable item.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he thought it would not he in accordance with usage to put in a measure like this any general Estimate for the expense of the Office. That would appear under the head of the Board of Works. It was necessary, however, to make provision for the salaries. No doubt there would be adequate accommodation for the Office; but the cost would come under another head.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

asked if the Government could make any general statement of the expense which they estimated would be thrown upon the Department?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, that, so far as he was able to judge, as representing the Treasury, he believed the expense would be very small indeed. What was proposed to be done was, after the President of the Board had been appointed, to direct him to make a careful inquiry, either alone, or with the assistance of other Scotch officials connected with the Government, into all the details of the expenditure that would be required in connection with the new Offices, and in connection with the other Scotch Departments placed under its supervision. That inquiry would take place under instructions from the Treasury, and it would be the duty of the Government to make the necessary provision in the Estimates next year, when the exact financial result was ascertained. It was absolutely impossible to say more before the inquiry took place; but he might add that the Government hoped to effect a considerable saving in connection with some of the other Departments in Scotland.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he had no desire to take part in the discussion of this Bill, except to call the attention of the Committee to a statement which had been made over and over again, that the Lord Advocate was in no way to be deposed from his Office. Therefore, if they were to have all the appliances and office clerks which would he necessary in establishing a new Department with an entirely new staff, the expense must be considerable. The right hon. Gentleman the late Leader of the House, together with other Members, and especially the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, had always insisted upon knowing the expenditure which was to be incurred under any new proposal. When in Opposition, no one was more determined than the right hon. Gentleman to have that matter clearly explained; and yet the right hon. Gentleman now came down to the House and deliberately stated that, although the Government considered it necessary to introduce a Bill of this kind, they had not thought it necessary to ascertain what the cost of the new Department would be. That clearly showed that there was no necessity for passing the Bill this Session, and that it might have waited without any injury to Scotch interests until next year. He thought they had had about as lame a statement as it was possible to put before the House to justify the course which was now being taken—namely, that at this period of the Session it was not right to ask for any details in regard to the proposed change. He was afraid that the Department of the Lord Advocate was to be interfered with. He was quite sure that that Department had worked well, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who now occupied the position of First Law Officer for Scotland was entitled to great praise for the way in which he had conducted Scotch Business. They were now creating a new departure, and forming a new Office, and the Committee had a right to know what the cost of the new Department would be.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, the system of finance carried on in that House was a very curious one. The other day they were asked to subscribe £8,000,000 towards a new Suez Canal, and they were told that no Estimate had been proposed. They were now asked to established a new Office in connection with the management of Scotch Business, and they were told that no Estimate had been made of the cost. He thought, at any rate, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to say what the sum would not exceed. He protested against this "happy-go-lucky" way of doing Business. He could well understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be able to give the exact cost; but the Committee ought at least to have a distinct promise from the Treasury that the expense of the Office would not exceed a certain sum.

MR. WARTON

said, it was quite clear the Government had not the slightest notion how many clerks would be wanted and what the expense would be. It was, therefore, impossible for Her Majesty's Ministers to answer a question which they were utterly unable to answer, having no conception of the requirements of their own Bill.

DR. CAMERON

said, the discussion had wandered away from the real point at issue. The suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), to insert the word "head" in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), in order to provide that the head office of the Board should be in London, was the only question before the House. They were told that the Committee were entitled to have information in regard to the cost of the staff, and they had been told also that the cost of the office, so far as bricks and mortar were concerned, would come on subsequently. The real question at present before the Committee was simply whether they should limit the discretion of the Government in regard to this Office by declaring that the head Office should be in London, or whether they should deal with the matter in a more convenient manner? All the other points which had been raised in connection with the Amendment seemed to him to have nothing to do with it. He thought it would greatly facilitate the Business of the Committee if they were asked to deal only with the matter actually in hand, and to confine the discussion to the Amendment which had been proposed.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he understood the Amendment before the Committee was the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) that the Office of the Board should be in London.

DR. CAMERON

said, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport had moved an Amendment to that Amendment to provide that the "head" office should be in London.

THE CHAIRMAN

The question now before the Committee is the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport. I am not prepared to say that the discussion which has taken place is out of Order, because the question really is whether there should be an office in Scotland as well as in England?

SIR JOHN HAY

said, that the Bill provided that there should be paid to the President a salary of £2,000 a-year, and that the Secretary and other officers of the Board should receive such salaries as the Treasury might from time to time determine, and which should be paid out of money provided by Parliament. They had, however, been led to believe that £2,000, the salary of the President of the Board, would be taken from the Office of the Lord Privy Seal; but there was no provision for the expense of the Office apart from that sum, and he believed they would require from £5,000 to £6,000. They were led to understand that the whole of the sum taken from the Office of Lord Privy Seal would be applied in payment of the salary of the new President. The passage relating to the salary of the other officers did not state any sum whatever, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not appear to know what the expense would be. In addition, he saw no provision whatever for office expenses. The Amendment now before the Committee said that there should be an office in London; but there was no provision in the Bill to provide the money that would be necessary to maintain an office. The Treasury were instructed to apply a vague sum towards the payment of certain salaries, and they were told that the Office of Privy Seal was to supply £2,000 a-year for the payment of the principal salary. His right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) and other Members asked for information upon the matter, whereupon the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) ran a red herring across the trail. At present the Committee were told to vote the money without having the slightest idea what the cost would be.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, the answer already given by his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate was perfectly plain. It had never been the usage to insert in an Act of Parliament of this nature the provision that was to be made for office expenses. It would be the duty of the First Commissioner of Works to ascertain what rooms could be made available for the new Office, and that sum would come out of the Vote for Public Offices. The statement that the sum would be £5,000 or £6,000 was altogether a fancy estimate. It was impossible to say what the sum would be until an inquiry was made; but, as he had previously stated, he believed the sum would be very small, and nearly the whole of the expense would be met out of existing funds.

Question, "That the word 'head' be there inserted," put, and negatived.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL moved to amend the clause by inserting— The President of the Local Government Board shall he ex officio Chairman of the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor and of Public Health in Scotland, and the officer heretofore Chairman of the Board of Supervision shall be Vice President of that Board.

He regretted the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the ex-President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Sclater-Booth), because he recognized in that right hon. Gentleman a man of very strong common sense, of great experience in these matters, of impartiality, and who had acted without Party views. He was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman would have been anxious to assist the House in this matter rather than to obstruct the measure. The right hon. Gentleman had put down an Amendment upon the Paper which he (Sir George Campbell) understood to be identical with the provision contained in the Act which constituted the Local Government Board in England, and he was sure if the right hon. Gentleman had been present to move it, that the Committee would have had very valuable assistance from him. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was very much of the same character as that which he (Sir George Campbell) proposed to move. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment provided that after the appointment of the President under this Bill, the Board of Supervision in Scotland should cease to exist, and all the powers and duties invested in it by the several Acts relating to the relief of the poor should be transferred to the Local Government Board, whereas his (Sir George Campbell's) Amendment provided that the President of the Local Government Board should be ex officio Chairman of the Board of Supervision, and that the Chairman of the Board of Supervision should be Vice Chairman of that Board. The Board of Supervision was the principal Board now existing in Scotland, and his (Sir George Campbell's) proposal to appoint the President of the Local Government Board ex officio Chairman of the Board of Supervision was to place him as far as possible in the position now occupied by the Chief Secretary for Ireland towards the Local Government Board in Ireland. He believed that a great deal of friction would be avoided if this Amendment were agreed to, as the President of the Local Government Board would be able to conduct the business without that official correspondence and that arm's-length position and friction which necessarily resulted from separate Offices. On the other hand, the President would be enabled, as the Chief Secretary for Ireland was now enabled, to attend in his place in Parliament and perform the functions of Minister; and that, in spite of what had been said, was what the people of Scotland were desirous of seeing done. It seemed to him that, unless some arrangement of this kind was effected, the future President of the new Local Government Board would not have enough to do. There was a certain anomaly in getting one Board to superintend another; but he gathered that it was the intention of the Government to have these powers overhauled, and in the end it would be necessary to arrive at some such arrangement. He thought, therefore, as a first step towards facilitating Public Business, that it would be much better to adopt his suggestion now than that it should subsequently have to be done by a separate Act. There was another reason which, in his opinion, favoured an arrangement of this kind—namely, that if this Bill passed the House of Commons, as he hoped it would, it would still have to pass through "another place;" and its passage through the House of Lords would be much facilitated if this Amendment, or that proposed by the late President of the Local Government Board, with all his experience and authority, were accepted. It must be remembered that the existence of the Bill was threatened in "another place," and the difficulty might, he believed, by such a course as this be very much obviated. There was another consideration which seemed to him to tend in the same direction, and that was the consideration of expense. The Home Secretary seemed to have forsaken the House since the Bill went into Committee; but he (Sir George Campbell) did not know why. On one occasion a statement was made to the effect that the expense might be met by getting it out of the other Local Boards in Scotland. Now, there was a general feeling in Scotland that, although these Boards performed their functions very well, there were too many of them; they were not directly responsible to Parliament; and that there was room for a little amalgamation. He thought that by having one President for these two Boards—the Local Government Board and the Board of Supervision—they might manage to run both together, so that a considerable expense might be saved, and this, accompanied by the abolition of the Office of Lord Privy Seal, would provide the necessary funds. If the Government thought it was better to put the Amendment in the form in which it had been placed on the Paper by the right hon. Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth), if the Government showed any preference for that Amendment, he (Sir George Campbell) would withdraw his in favour of that of the right hon. Gentleman's. If they were to meet the difficulty of having a Board with an administrative area in one country and Parliamentary duties to perform in another, it would be necessary to pass some such Amendment as this, so that a Vice President might be able to act while the President was performing the Parliamentary duties connected with the Office.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 15, after "Lord Advocate," insert "The President of the Local Government Board shall be ex officio Chairman of the Board of Supervision for relief of the Poor and of Public Health in Scotland, and the officer heretofore Chairman of the Board of Supervision shall be Vice President of that Board."—(Sir George Campbell.)

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

MR. A. ELLIOT

said, that what they wanted was a Minister for Scotland; but if the Amendment of the hon. Member were adopted, instead of such a Minister they would merely have a Chairman of a Local Board. The duties of the President of the Board of Supervision required that he must be constantly at work where the Board sat; indeed, if the now Official were to be made Chairman of the Board of Supervision, he would have to devote himself specially to the duties of that position. That was not the intention of the Bill. Scotch Boards did their work admirably; but the object of the Bill was to put a Minister in a position where he could be referred to by any of the Boards. He trusted the Government would not accept the Amendment.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the Government considered this matter very fully before the Bill was introduced, and the position proposed to be assigned to the President of the new Board was defined as it was in the Bill. His hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. Elliot) had stated by anticipation the considerations which led the Government to that conclusion. The Board of Supervision was one of the several Boards which sat in Scotland. It was a very important Board, and its duties were admirably performed. If the present proposal were adopted the President of the Local Government Board would be placed in a very anomalous position; he would become a member, although, no doubt, the chief member, of one of the Boards whose action it would be his duty to supervise. He might take his seat on the Board of Supervision, and be outvoted. That would be quite inconsistent with his position as a general Supervisor and Reviewer of the different Boards. There was a Lunacy Board, a Fishery Board, a Prisons Board—a large number of Boards in fact—all of which were to be subordinated to the President of the Local Government Board. He was sure his hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell) would see it would be quite inconsistent with his duties that the President of the new Board should be placed in the position suggested by the Amendment. The intention was that the President of the Local Government Board should assume a position with regard to the Board of Supervision and other Boards which was now held by the Secretary of State and the Privy Council, and the Secretary of State was not a member of any of the Boards.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) had informed them that this Bill was drawn entirely on the lines of the English Local Government Board Act.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

I said nothing of the kind.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, then, he might ask what was the meaning of calling this a Local Government Board Bill? If it was not like the English Local Government Board Act, what possible reason was there for appointing this new Officer unless he had some duties to perform? On every occasion when they asked the Government to define the duties of the new Officer they declined to do so; and even when an hon. Member who was in favour of the Bill, and who had spoken in its favour, and who was an ardent supporter of the Government, asked that certain functions should be assigned to the new Officer, the Government refused to assign those duties to him, or even to say what his duties were to be. He appealed to the Prime Minister to withdraw the Bill, and postpone its consideration to next Session. Why did the Government insist upon bringing it in now unless it was for some hidden motive that no one could judge of but themselves? Indeed, he doubted whether they knew what their motive was. The Bill was not required this year, and if they postponed it it would only be for a period of five months.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the question before the Committee was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell).

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, be was merely illustrating the difficulty they had in arriving at a decision. He, of course, bowed to the Chairman's dictum at once; but he could not help hoping that the Prime Minister would see the desirability of postponing the further consideration of the Bill.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, it seemed to him that the arguments of the Lord Advocate were somewhat inconsistent with what he had previously said in the discussions of this Bill. He was given to understand that one of the first functions of the new Officer would be to overhaul the Boards of Scotland. He did not admit the Boards worked so satisfactorily as the Government imagined. He had heard a good many complaints of some of the Boards, and his impression was that, sooner or later, the Boards must be amalgamated. He had, however, not received that support which would induce him to press his Amendment to a Division, and, therefore, he would ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

proposed to insert, after the word "may," in line 21, the words "in writing." He took the Amendment from the English Local Government Board Act, and he thought its adoption was absolutely necessary, because so many mistakes arose through things not being done in writing.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21, after "may," insert "in writing."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, that, in the interests of the Treasury, he should like the words inserted, because the Amendment would involve payment for stamps on these appointments being made; but he would not recommend the Committee to adopt it. When the English Local Government Board Bill was passed, the law was not as it was now.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he would withdraw the Amendment, though he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) might have adopted it with the view of paying the expenses of the Office.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, be had intended to move an Amendment providing for the appointment of a Permanent Under Secretary; but, after what had been said, he would not move it. His second Amendment, however, was taken from the English Act, and he saw no reason why the Government should not accept it. If they could not, perhaps they would state the reason. He begged to move the second Amendment which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21, after "secretaries," insert "assistant secretaries, auditors, clerks, messengers."—(Mr. Buchanan.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)

said, the clause, as it stood, gave power for the appointment of Secretaries and such other officers as were required, and, therefore, he could not see what advantage would be gained by the insertion of the proposed words.

MR. WARTON

said, it was quite clear that the word "officer" would include officers of every description. But the Committee were misled by the expression, "Local Government Board," because in no way whatever was there any analogy between the proposed Board and the English Local Government Board. The Government seemed to have hit on the name, Local Government Board; but it had nothing whatever to do with the duties which the Board would have to perform. He trusted that on Report the Government would abandon the phrase, Local Government Board.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, that in the hope there was no misunderstanding as to the appointment of a Permanent Under Secretary, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. Asher) that this Amendment would be exceedingly mischievous. It appeared to him the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) wished to create a number of places for some of his friends in Edinburgh. The Solicitor General for Scotland very wisely pointed out that the Bill in another part gave authority to appoint everyone really required. The Government would, of course, employ anyone whose services were necessary. This was an exceedingly ill-judged Amendment, unless the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) had in his eye someone whom he would like to be appointed as an Assistant Secretary, or as an Auditor, or as a Clerk, or as a Messenger.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

asked whether there was to be any Permanent Under Secretary, because he understood the hon. Gentleman withdrew the Amendment on the understanding there was to be such an official? If there was to be a Permanent Under Secretary, would the appointment be a political one; would the officer, like the President, be liable to be removed in case of a change of Ministry?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)

said, it was the intention of the Government that there should be, in connection with the new Board, some functionary who should not surrender his Office upon a change of Government, so as to give continuity to the conduct of the Business of the Department. He, however, did not wish it to be understood there was to be anything of the nature of an appointment which could be described as that of a Permanent Under Secretary. That would not correctly describe the appointment. A person with a less high-sounding title than Permanent Under Secretary would be appointed to attend to the management of the Department irrespective of a change of Government.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Asher) had now given them some further information, and, of course, it opened up a still further vista of expense. There was to be a permanent functionary; there was to be a Permanent Under Secretary to all intents and purposes. He supposed an Officer of that kind, who would reside some time in London and some time in Edinburgh, would hardly be a person with a less salary than £800 a-year. He confessed he saw with alarm the number of functionaries whom the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) intended to provide for in the Bill. It would be very desirable that the Solicitor General for Scotland or the Lord Advocate should toll the Committee who the Permanent Under Secretary was to be. Would he be some one in the House of Commons? If there was to be a Parliamentary Under Secretary in addition to a Permanent Under Secretary, the Committee would like to know of it. Perhaps the Lord Advocate would indicate what the nature of the staff was to be?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, it was not intended that there should be a Parliamentary Under Secretary. It was, however, intended that there should be a permanent functionary to preserve the continuity of the Business, to attend to the Papers, to explain the practice in case of a change of Government, and to deal with a particular class of cases. Of course, in the administration of the numerous Statutes set out in the Schedule, it was important that there should be uniformity, and that knowledge of established precedents should be preserved, and a permanent Official would always have these at his fingers' ends. He (the Lord Advocate) did not know that he could add anything to the information that had already been given by the Home Secretary (Sir "William Harcourt) and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) with regard to the staff. The idea was that it should not be a large one, for the reasons already given; but it would not be possible to define it at present.

MR. WARTON

said, they were getting on by slow degrees. The Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. Asher) had said there was to be some permanent functionary; but that might be a charwoman, or a small boy in the office. They, however, learned a little more from the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour), because he had said there were the Papers to look after. The permanent Official, therefore, might be a librarian or a clerk. Was the Committee to be told no more? They were, on the one hand, to have a President of the new Board; and, on the other hand, they were to have a permanent Official who might be a charwoman or a small boy.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF moved to insert, after "the," in line 22, the words "Board may with the sanction of the." His object in moving this Amendment was to assimilate the words of this Act to those of the English Local Government Act. It was important that the Board should have a voice in the appointment and designation of the officials. The Treasury might make appointments which would be very damaging to the interests of the Board. He knew cases in which the Treasury had done harm, and he could not see why these words, which were in the English Act, should not be inserted here.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 22, after "the," insert "Board may with the sanction of the."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)

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

THE LORD ARVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he thought the clause was better as it stood. The appointment of the officers was intended to rest with the Board; but the determination of the number and character of the officers would necessarily rest with the Treasury. The Board, no doubt, would confer with the Treasury as to what staff was necessary, and then, the number of officers and their status having been determined by the Board in conference with the Treasury, the nomination of the individuals would be made by the Board. The object in view would be better carried out by the clause as it stood than as it would be if the clause were amended as proposed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, insert the following sub-section:—"The appointment of any officer to a new office made by the Local Government Board in pursuance of this section shall be deemed to be temporary only until the salary of such office has been provided for by Parliament."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)

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

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the Amendment was quite unnecessary. Parliament always had the absolute control over voting or not voting the salary of a particular official, and, of course, an officer taking an office under a Board must know that his tenure of office was dependent upon the will of Parliament. There would be ample Parliamentary control without the introduction of such words as were now suggested.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he did not think the Lord Advocate had put the case quite correctly. They were told by the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) that the officers of the new Board were to be taken from other Boards. There might he a good deal of changing about in the case of the Scotch Local Government Board which could not exist in the case of the English Board. As the clause now stood the President would have a kind of roving commission, and he might act in a way which Parliament might not desire. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) did not see why the Lord Advocate should refuse the control of Parliament. The words he proposed to insert were in the English Act. Surely it was not intended to ask more for Scotland than for England.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

Certainly not; but we think the control of Parliament is satisfactorily provided by the Bill.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLEF

Then why do not you say so?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he would be glad to consider the question upon Report; but he thought there was no doubt that such officers as would be appointed would, from the nature of their tenure, be answerable to, and under the control of, Parliament.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he agreed with the Lord Advocate, and considered that the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was in this Amendment ill-advised. He thought the hesitation to appoint men permanently would result possibly in the loss of the services of the best men. He did not like the Bill; but he did not wish to make it worse than it was by inserting the words proposed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 (President may sit in Parliament).

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

proposed to omit the words "if not a Member of the House of Lords, nor a Peer of Scotland." The words were not absolutely necessary, inasmuch as without them it was laid down that "he should, if otherwise qualified, be capable of being elected." He wished particularly to omit the words, because he did not question the right of the Government to appoint a Member of the House of Lords; but he did question their right to appoint a Peer of Scotland, as he was neither a Member of the House of Lords nor a Member of the House of Commons. It would be inconvenient if a Peer of Scotland who was not a Representative Peer were appointed. He hoped the Lord Advocate would accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 28, leave out from "if not," to "Scotland," in line 29, both inclusive.—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)

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

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

said, he did not rise to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff); indeed, he had an Amendment on the Paper going in an entirely opposite direction. He did not know whether it was regular for him to speak to his Amendment now; but the object he had in it was to confine the new Office to Members of the House of Lords or to Peers of Scotland. What they all desired was to attain the purposes of this Bill without incurring a greater danger than was necessary of interfering with the position and functions of the Lord Advocate, and it appeared to him they would not only do so, but that they would attain the object much better, by having a Nobleman as President of the new Board. It must be remembered that the object in view was not to get additional assistance for carrying on Parliamentary Business in the House of Commons, but it was to get additional assistance for arranging Scotch Business for the House of Commons. A Nobleman would discharge the duties with more effect on account of the independence of his position, and his freedom from the local influences which beset a person who represented a constituency. The great advantage of confining the new Office to a Nobleman was the avoidance of the danger of interfering with the position of the Lord Advocate. If the President were a Member of this House, he (Mr. J. A. Campbell) did not see how it was possible to prevent his infringing, in some measure, upon the position of the Lord Advocate. Why, the very fact that he was the President of a Board, of which the Lord Advocate was only a Member, was of itself sufficient to give him some kind of precedence. With regard to the conduct of Scotch Business in this House there was no need for a change. They had in the Lord Advocate the person most fitted to conduct Scotch Business. The Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) referred yesterday to the measure as an experiment, and he (Mr. J. A. Campbell) desired to move his Amendment, if he had an opportunity of doing so, with the view of making that experiment as safe as possible.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he entirely differed from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and he hoped the Government would save time by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). It seemed to him the Amendment could do no harm, but would do good. A man must not be excluded from public life because he happened to be a Peer—a man could not help being born a Peer. At the same time, he (Sir George Campbell) thought the Committee must feel there would be a great disadvantage by the new President being a Member of the Upper House, because the real work of the Board must be done in the House of Commons. Although he was quite willing to admit there might be a case in which a Peer had such pre-eminent qualities as to fit him for the Office of President of the new Board, he hoped it would not be understood that a noble Lord had always to be designated to the post. He trusted that if it was true, as rumoured, that the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) was going to the other end of the world, it would not be considered a foregone conclusion that another Peer must be designated in his place. It appeared to him that the position of the Lord Advocate would be rather raised than lowered by the new functionary being a Member of the House of Commons, for he would be relieved of work which he now did as a mere subordinate.

MR. BEYCE

said, he did not think the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. A. Campbell) could be intended seriously, because no one would suppose it was desirable to limit the choice. There was no Office in the Government which was limited by Statute to Peers.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he believed the Lord President of the Council and the Lord Privy Seal were necessarily Peers.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, they were so customarily, but not invariably. Lord John Russell was President of the Council when he was a Member of the House of Commons.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he thought it was desirable they should have an assurance that a Peer would hold the Office of the President of the new Board, and that they should still continue to rely upon the Lord Advocate for the conduct of Scotch Business in the House of Commons.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, that in the interest of Parliamentary control, which, under the present Government, was fast slipping away, it was necessary this Office should be confined to a Member of this House. He understood that would be the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). The Government had shown a disposition to play "ducks and drakes" with the public money, and to make bargains behind the back of Parliament.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, he was giving the previous conduct of the Ministry as a reason why the control of Parliament should be maintained over this new Office; but, of course, he would not continue the observations he was making, as the Chairman saw fit to interpose. It was quite clear that unless this Office was held by a Member of either House, the control of Parliament was very seriously weakened. He had, therefore, great pleasure in supporting the hon. Member for Portsmouth.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the principle upon which this clause was framed was that there should be no restriction put upon the choice of the President of the new Board. The idea was that the best man should be chosen, whether he was a Member of the House of Lords, or a Scotch Peer, or a Member of the House of Commons, or a person who might become a Member of the House of Commons; in short, that the choice should be absolutely unlimited. Hon. Members were aware that there was a restriction as to the number of Under Secretaries who might sit in the House—he believed the number was restricted to four. It was for that reason, no doubt, that the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) provided that it should be competent for another Under Secretary to sit in the House. This was really a qualifying, and not a disqualifying, clause, and he thought it would meet not only with the sympathy of the Committee, but of the country. No doubt, there would be a general preference that the President of the Board should be a Member of either House for reasons which had been already explained; but that there should be an unlimited range of choice was very desirable. In the selection of this Official, the Government of the day would be responsible to Parliament, and to public opinion; and he, therefore, thought in that there would be ample safeguard for a proper choice being made.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he agreed that the clause was intended to be a qualifying, and not a disqualifying, clause, and in that sense he was prepared to support it. But what would happen if a Scotch Peer, who was not a Peer of Parliament, were appointed? He had not heard the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) say what would occur in that case. This was an important point, and one which should not be passed over without some explicit explanation on the part of the Government.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, it would be wrong to say that a Scotch Peer who laboured under the disability of not being a Member of the Upper House, should not be appointed to the Office. If there was any person of such distinguished abilities as pre-eminently to fit him for the Presidency of the Board, it would be very unfair to him, as a son of Scotland, to shut him out of a chance of selection, simply because he was not a Member of the House of Lords. If the President sat in the other House, the question had been asked by whom the Board would be represented in this House? There were other Members of the Board who would sit—some in the House of Lords, and some in the House of Commons. The ex officio Members of the Board would be the Lord President of the Council, Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Lord Advocate; so there was ample provision made for the representation of the Board in either House. It was quite plain that the President could only be in one House himself, and that there must be someone in the House in which the President did not sit, who could speak for him. That circumstance was an additional argument in favour of constituting a Board, rather than of appointing a single individual, to manage the business specified in the Schedule to the Bill.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, that in case a Scotch Peer should be found so pre-eminently qualified for the post in other respects, it would be very easy to render his qualification complete by making him a Peer of the United Kingdom.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, that, after what they had heard on the subject, they might, he thought, ask the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. J. A. Campbell) not to press his Amendment. He was reminded that it was not quite correct that no such appointment had ever been made. At one time it was requisite that the Postmaster General should be a Peer, and it was only within the last few years, and by a special Act, that that requirement was no longer insisted upon. Under the special circumstances of the case, the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow, having that precedent before him, was quite justified in moving his Amendment; but it would be well for him not to insist upon it.

DR. CAMERON

said, the words in the clause "if not a Member of the House of Lords" were unnecessary, as the President would, of course, be disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons if he were a Peer.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he very much agreed with his hon. Friend upon what he might call the legal construction to be placed upon the clause—namely, that these words were not necessary; but, at the same time, he would submit it was desirable that they should be retained. If they were not there, it would seem as though there was an exclusion by inference of Members of the Upper House.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he hoped that, after what had fallen from the Lord Advocate, the words would be omitted. The right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that they were unnecessary. He gathered that the object of putting them in was to point to the possibility of Peers being appointed.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he should be sorry if the statement of the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) were to be allowed to pass unchallenged. The hon. Member could not have understood him. The words were introduced for the purpose of clearly setting forth the qualification. The words were not put in to point in one direction or the other. They were not to make an exclusion either upwards or downwards, but to show that there was a full range of choice amongst all persons, whatever their grade.

MR. BRYCE

said, he hoped the words would be left out. Could anyone suppose that if they were not in the clause it would be imagined that the President, if a Peer, could be elected to the House of Commons? Certainly not. The words were simply a matter of drafting, and, to his mind, it would be well to leave them out.

MR. WARTON

suggested that, in putting the Amendment, the Chairman should only propose that the words "if not" stand part of the clause, in order not to put out of court the next Amendment. The two Amendments could be discussed together, seeing that if either were accepted the other would be lost. He was strongly in favour of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Glasgow, which was to the effect that the new President should be either a Peer of the House of Lords or a Peer of Scotland. It appeared to him (Mr. Warton) essential in the interests of Scotland that they should preserve the authority of the Lord Advocate, and always have him as the authority on Scotch matters in the House of Commons. In that way Scotch Business would be well looked after. The Lord Advocate, with that modesty which distinguished him, refrained from expressing this view. Modesty was amongst the right hon. and learned Gentleman's many virtues, and he was too delicate a man to defend his position in the House; nevertheless, the House wished him still to continue in his place with all the powers he ever had. If they had another Scotch authority with another class interest, so much the better; it was desirable that the representation should be as complete as possible. If they were to appoint to the Office the most able man they could find, it was just possible—within the bounds of possibility—that they might select an Englishman or Irishman. He must protest against the manner in which the hon. Baronet the Member for Kircaldy (Sir George Campbell) lost his temper when speaking of the Peerage. The hon. Baronet spoke about the misfortune of having been "born a Peer." That was a misfortune which very seldom befel a man, seeing that it was necessary for him to be a posthumous child for that to take place. He (Mr. Warton) should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow, as he thought it desirable in the interests of Scotland that it should be adopted.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, the Lord Advocate reproached them with slow progress; but he himself would be open to that reproach if he persisted in refusing the most palpable Amendments. It was evident to everybody that the Government in their Bill were pointing to some Peer whom they wished to appoint. There could be no reason for wishing to appoint a Scotch Peer, unless they had a particular one in their mind, because there were only about 30 Scotch Peers who did not possess seats in the House of Lords, either as Representative Peers or as Scotch Peers having also English titles. The Lord Advocate acknowledged that the words in the clause were unnecessary; why, therefore, should he insist on retaining them against the strong view entertained against them? He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) considered the Committee was treated with very scant courtesy by the Home Secretary, who did not consider it necessary to see his own Bill through the House. The Lord Advocate had not been allowed to speak on the details of the Bill; and now, when the Bill was in Committee, the Home Secretary disappeared. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should take the place of the Home Secretary.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, he did not see any occasion for either of these Amendments—either that of the hon. Baronet or that of the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was evidently under the impression that the Amendment before the Committee was to leave out the words "nor a Peer of Scotland;" but that was not the fact. It was to leave out the words "if not a Member of the House of Lords, nor a Peer of Scotland."

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

That makes no difference.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

But the hon. Member addressed his observations entirely to the question of the retention of the words "nor a Peer of Scotland." As to the absence of the Homo Secretary, I may state that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is obliged to be absent, has requested me to take his place.

SIR H. DERMMOND WOLFF

said, it would have been much better to have adjourned the debate. He would now appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government. The clause said— The President of the Local Government Board, if not a Member of the House of Lords, nor a Peer of Scotland, shall, if otherwise qualified, he capable of being elected to and of voting in the Commons House of Parliament. He had moved to omit the words "if not a Member of the House of Lords, nor a Peer of Scotland," inasmuch as the remaining words were quite sufficient to enable the gentleman appointed to the Office to be elected a Member of the House of Commons. The Lord Advocate had informed them that the reason the words were put in was to give to the Government the faculty and power of nominating a Scotch Peer to the post. He spoke under correction—that was what he had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say. The object of this was to give the Government the greatest range of choice, so that, if necessary, they could appoint a Scotch Peer. The whole object of the measure was to provide Parliamentary representation for Scotch Official Business. If they appointed a Scotch Peer to the post, and he was not an English Peer as well, or had not been elected as a Representative Scotch Peer, they would do away with the representative character of the new Official, because he could not be a Member of Parliament, and could not sit in the House of Lords. He could not see why the Government could not accept his Amendment. They had been discussing this matter now for half-an-hour, and the necessity for the discussion would have been put an end to if the Official in charge of it had accepted this slight Amendment. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to use his influence with his Colleagues to accept the Amendment.

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

said, he would state the course he proposed to take with regard to his Amendment. He had no wish to move the Amendment standing in his name; but, at the same time, he would express a hope that the new Office would never be occupied by any but a Peer. He was anxious that, whatever appointment was made, the honourable Office of Lord Advocate, so ably filled by his hon. and learned Friend opposite, should not suffer thereby.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he did not agree with the whole of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), but confessed that he thought the words "nor a Peer of Scotland" were superfluous. They made provision in the Bill that the person appointed might be one who could not sit in the House of Commons. It would be possible for the Prime Minister to recommend the new Official to a Peerage; but, as a Peer of Scotland, he would not be able to sit in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords unless elected a Representative Peer. Therefore, the Office of President of the Scotch Local Government Board, which they were now creating for the purpose of giving Parliamentary Representation to Scotch affairs, might be held by a person in neither House of Parliament. That appeared to him to be entirely wrong. There were 28 or 29 Peers of Scotland who were not either English or elected Peers; and, unless amongst that number there was some person specially suited for the Office, why should they disfigure the Bill by inserting the names of 24 or 25 persons, excluding those who were minors or ladies, in a measure which was intended ostensibly to give them a Parliamentary Representative in one House or the other? It appeared to him that the words objected to should be struck out; and if the Amendment were altered so as not to refer to Scotch Peers, he should agree with it.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that, before the Amendment was put, he wished to say that the Government were acting in a peculiar manner. It had been pointed out by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken (Sir John Hay) that the sole object of the Bill was to give Parliamentary Representation to Scotch Business. As a matter of practice he (Mr. Biggar) thought the new Official should have a seat in the House of Lords and not in the House of Commons, for the reason that the Government had for some years past, so far as his experience had gone, always been remarkably well represented by the Lord Advocate for the time being in the House of Commons. It seemed to him to be a stupid thing that the Lord Advocate, who was competent to do any Business that was required so far as this House was concerned, should have put alongside of him as a superior or inferior Official the President of the Scotch Local Government Board. It seemed to him that what the Government ought to do, if it were competent for them to do it, would be to say that this Gentleman should always be a Member of the House of Peers. It seemed to him to be preposterous, after all the discussion which had taken place, that the Bill should be pushed through as it was, and that it should be open to the Government, whether the House like it or not, to have the option of appointing to the new Office either a Peer having a seat in the House of Lords, a Scotch Peer, or a Gentleman having a seat in the House of Commons. He thought the Government should give way on this point, and make the Bill of a rather more reasonable and practical character.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, that if the Amendment were modified so as to exclude the words "nor a Peer of Scotland," the Government would agree to it.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he would amend the Amendment in the manner proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member must withdraw the Amendment, and, after that, he could move to omit the words "nor a Peer of Scotland." The Question which would now have to be put would be "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," and would render it impossible to discuss Amendments to earlier words.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

I move to omit all the words after the word "Lords," to the word "shall," in line 29.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 29, leave out "nor a Peer of Scotland."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)

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

Clause, as amended agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 4 (Seal, style, and acts of Board).

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he wished to move the insertion of the following Proviso in line 24:— Provided, That no act done, or instrument executed, and no rule, order, or regulation made, by or on behalf of the said Board, shall be valid, unless notice of the Board meeting at which such act, instrument, rule, order, or regulation was done, executed, or made, shall have been previously sent to each member of the Board in sufficient time to enable him to be present at such. Board meeting if he desires to attend. He should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General how the three authorities mentioned in the clause would hang together? The second paragraph of the clause said— A rule, order, or regulation made by the Local Government Board shall be valid if it is made under the seal of the Board, and signed by the President or one of the ex-officio members of the Board, and countersigned by a secretary. But the first paragraph said that— Any act to be done, or instrument to be executed, by or on behalf of the Local Government Board, may be done or executed in the name of that Board by the President, or by any member of the Local Government Board, or by a secretary.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the explanation of the difference in phraseology between the different parts of the clause was that they dealt with different subject-matter. The first part of the clause referred to "any act to be done, or instrument to be executed;" and it might not be necessary, in the case of every act or instrument, to go through all the formalities required in the second part of the clause, which dealt with "rules, orders, and regulations." It seemed proper that, when they were dealing with rules, orders, and regulations, they should observe a degree of formality which might not be necessary in the case of an act or instrument.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, that, such being the case, he begged to move the Amendment which he had read. Four or five Members of the Board might live 500 miles distant from the President; and it was very desirable that these important duties, as the Lord Advocate described them, should not rest entirely on the ipse dixit of one man. One of the Members of the Board was to be the Lord Advocate, who, by Statute, had the responsibility of performing several duties with regard to the Board of Supervision, the Public Health, and so on; but the whole of these duties were by Clause 5 of the Bill imposed on the President. This appeared to be a distinct departure from what was stated in the Bill—namely, that the duties of the Lord Advocate were not to be interfered with. If they looked at Clause 11 of the Board of Supervision Act of 1845, constituting the Board, they would find the Lord Advocate had distinct duties not included in this Bill. In the Public Health Act the Lord Advocate was authorized to appoint the Special Commissioners when a special inquiry was required during any epidemic of disease, or such like. These duties would now have to be imposed on the President of the Council, and upon him only. At any rate, the Members of the Board ought to have the opportunity of attending the meetings of the Board which performed such important functions, if they thought proper to do so.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 24, insert "Provided, That no act done, or instrument executed, and no rule, order, or regulation made, by or on behalf of the said Board, shall be valid, unless notice of the Board meeting at which such act, instrument, rule, order, or regulation was done, executed, or made, shall have been previously sent to each member of the Board in sufficient time to enable him to be present at such Board meeting if he desires to attend."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)

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

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, that to accept this Amendment would really be to put a construction upon the Act, as regarded its practical operation, quite at variance with that which had already on more than one occasion been explained. It had been pointed out that the practice under this Act, like the practice under the English Act, should be that the President should be the principal functionary, and that he should be competent to act alone. But there were certain other high Officers with whom he might take counsel if he thought fit, and who should be competent, no doubt, after consulting with him, to issue certain rules and regulations. If it were made essential that, before rules and regulations could be drawn up, there should be a meeting of all these Officers, it would render it quite impossible for the President to perform any act, however slight, or issue or execute any instrument, rule, or regulation. This, he thought, would not be in accordance with the scheme of the Bill, and would put a great restraint on the competency of the President taking action which would sometimes be action of a very important character. With regard to time, the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment proposed that "no instrument, rule, order, or regulation shall be valid "unless notice of it had been previously sent to every member of the Board "in sufficient time to enable him to be present at such Board meeting if he desires to attend." The hon. and gallant Member did not propose to define the time, and it was probable that at certain seasons members of the Board might be great distances from each other. The Amendment would interpose a practical obstacle to the performance of any duty which required to be promptly executed, such as some action in the case of disease or epidemic. The Amendment was not in accordance with the general scheme of the Bill which had been explained to the Committee; therefore, he could not accept it.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the position of the President of the Scotch Local Government Board would be a very absurd one. They had a President, and, besides this, they had other Members who were never expected to attend the meetings. He would not say that the other Members would never attend the meetings; but they would not always be consulted as to what took place on the Board. He should like to make a suggestion on this matter, and it was this. Assuming the head Office to be in Edinburgh—assuming the Secretary and President were the two Officers to be in Edinburgh —it would be reasonable that the Presidents and the principal Secretaries of the Local Boards in Scotland were made ex officio Members of the new Board. In that way they would bring together a number of officials connected with different Departments, who would each have special knowledge of the matters relating to his Department. They would be able to consult together and to decide what was best for the time being in the event of any emergency arising. He certainly thought the present arrangement was a very absurd one, and he would urge the Government to consider whether some more reasonable proposition could not be laid before the Committee.

MR. WARTON

said, that, without wishing to give any opinion of the merits of the question, he must say that the last five words of the Amendment—namely, "If he desires to attend"—seemed altogether superfluous. It seemed to him that the attendance of a Member of the Board should not depend upon his desiring or not desiring to attend. How could a Member's desiring to attend create a title for him to do so? With regard to time, the Amendment seemed to him to imply that notice should be given in time to enable a Member of the Board to cover a certain space.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 6, to leave out all the words after the word "meeting."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he should be very happy to accept that Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, anyone would suppose, at the first glance, that the Board was to meet together for the purpose of transacting business; but the reverse was really the case. One or two Commissioners would be able to walk into the Office and to interfere with its work. These great names were submitted to them, probably for the greater glorification of the new Office, or for some other reason they need not inquire into, but certainly not on the understanding or under the idea that these Officials were to meet in the Office of the Local Government Board of Scotland in a formal way for the purpose of helping to prosecute the duties of that Office. If the Amendment were agreed to, it might tend to exaggerate the erroneous idea which some people outside the House seemed to entertain as to the meaning or creation of the Board. He could not support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he should be sorry to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division; but he must say that the discussion had shown how complete a farce this Board, as a Board, would be. The Local Government Board, as proposed for Scotland, was very different to that which existed in England, which sat at Whitehall, and to the meetings of which the Secretaries of State, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could come at any moment. ["No, no!"] Yes, they could, if they liked. The Scotch Board would meet for half the year in Edinburgh; and it was a ridiculous farce to legislate, at this period of the century, that important Officials should be Members of a Board which they could never attend. He, however, would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 (Powers and duties of Local Government Board).

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he wished on this clause to move a very important Amendment—namely, in line 25, after the word "duties," to insert the words "except the power of issuing Orders in Council." They were about to transfer to this one Officer, this one Minister, all the powers and duties now vested in the Privy Council, the Secretary of State, and the existing Local Boards. These powers comprised far more than was given to the English Local Government Board. They included, amongst other powers, the issuing of the Orders in Council. The Bill practically conferred upon the new President and the new Board the powers of the Queen in Council. As the law at present stood, no less than two Members of the Privy Council were in some cases required to issue Orders, and in other cases no less than three were required, one of whom must be a Secretary of State; so that, if these powers were framed for the purpose of protecting the public from Orders too hurriedly given, and given without sufficient judgment, it should be borne in mind that that object the Government were now proposing to defeat. It was proposed to take away these powers from two or three Members of the Privy Council, and to hand them over to a certain person of inferior rank. The Bill would enable the President to issue Orders in Council in the Queen's name, just as he thought proper. That might be all very well; but, if it was, why not do it for England as well as for Scotland? Why should the English nation be hampered with these rules as to Orders in Council, which were not necessary in Scotland? The duties and business of the Executive in Scotland were quite as important to the Scotch people as were the duties and business of the Executive to the English nation. If the English required that protection, the Scotch required it also. This clause, it seemed to him, might be used as a very powerful argument for the cutting down of the Estimates when they next came before the House, if it was the fact that Scotland could be administered with such a very much smaller Office than England. This was a very important clause in the Bill, carrying with it all the Schedules, and he should like to call attention now, as he had done on the second reading, to the fact that they did not know whether this clause transferred the whole of the duties which were required for administration with these 36 Acts, or only the duty which was discharged by the Secretary of State. When he asked that question on the second reading, he was told by the Secretary of State for the Home Department that he had evidently not read the Schedule, or he must have known that the duties were only those which were discharged by the Secretary of State. Now, however, they were told that it would include all the duties; and if they would read the wording of the 5th clause, they would find that all the powers and duties vested in the Secretary of State and the Privy Council, or the Local Government Board for England, would, so far as such powers and duties related to Scotland, be transferred to the Scotch Local Government Board. So that Her Majesty's Government, through their Secretaries of State, would not, so far as Scotland was concerned, be able to transact any of the duties referred to in the Acts of Parliament contained in the Schedule. If these duties were transferred, they could not remain with the Secretary of State, and he did not think that altogether could be intended, as there were many most important functions, important to England as well as to Scotland, which the Secretary of State ought to discharge. They were asked to give to the Local Government Board of Scotland far more duties, and far more powers than were given to the Local Government Board of England. He did not think it was intended that this should be the case; and, if so, the Committee ought clearly to know it. The 5th clause was really the operative clause of the Bill, and he should like to know whether he was correct in supposing that all the duties belonging to the Secretary of State, and the Privy Council, and the Local Government Board of England, so far as Scotland was concerned, were really to be vested in the new President for Scotland? As he read the language of the clause, that was the case, and he would, therefore, move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 25, after "duties," insert "except the power of issuing Orders of Council."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)

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

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he thought the clause, as it stood, was quite clear, if he might so say, in regard to the effect of the transfer which it was intended to make. The clause proposed to transfer the powers and duties vested in or imposed upon one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, or the Privy Council, subject to the qualification—" So far as such powers and duties relate to Scotland." Subject to that qualification, it was the intention and the effect of the clause to transfer from one set of functionaries to another that clearly-defined and limited class of duties. That was his reply to one part of the question put by the hon. and gallant Member. But then the hon. and gallant Member wished to know whether there was not something more given to the Scotch Local Government Board than was given to the English Local Government Board, and, in reply to that, he (the Lord Advocate) must say that, in some respects, the Bill gave more powers to the Scotch than to the English Board, and, in other respects, less power. The English Local Government Board, as he understood it, performed a great many duties which, in Scotland, were performed by the Board of Supervision. Although the English Board had been taken as a convenient precedent for setting up a particular kind of administration that was thought expedient, it did not follow that all the powers and duties were to be identical; that was a matter that was to be considered during the progress of the Bill. The Amendment was altogether unnecessary. The President of the Local Government Board could not, as such, issue an Order in Council. The hon. and gallant Gentleman first called attention to the fact that he had an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the Schedule at the foot of page 4. He (the Lord Advocate) might mention that the powers and duties of the Privy Council, which were here proposed to be transferred, were exclusively under the Public Health Act. They proposed to limit that to Part III. of the Public Health Act, and he could explain by anticipation the reason for that. There were some powers and duties vested in the Privy Council as to quarantine which it had been thought better—regulations of this kind being of a general and national character—to keep under the Privy Council. He could not accept the Amendment.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

wished to know how the right hon. and learned Gentleman made his statement agree with the duties of the Privy Council under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 41 & 42 Vict., which was exclusively worked by the Privy Council? Under that Act it was required that the Orders should be signed by two Privy Councillors.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CEILDERS)

Or by a Secretary of State.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

Only in local cases; in no others. All those important Orders as to interchange of cattle between one country and another, required two signatures—that of the Secretary of State might be one. Was it intended that all the important duties as to the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act were to be transferred to this new Minister, and that there was to be another Veterinary Department established in connection with the Scotch Board?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the hon. and gallant Member could scarcely have read the Schedules. If he did so, he would see that, while the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act was in the First Schedule, under which it was proposed to transfer duties from the Secretary of State, that was not the case with the Second Schedule, which dealt with the powers of the Privy Council, which were not to be transferred. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would look at the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, he would find that there were certain duties under it vested in the Secretary of State, as distinguished from those vested in the Privy Council. It was the duties vested in the Secretary of State, and not those vested in the Privy Council, that were to be transferred. The hon. and gallant Member would find, on referring to the Act, that the Secretary of State was responsible for regulating the advance of money to local authorities for public works.

Question put, and negatived.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he hoped the Lord Advocate would be able to accept the Amendment he now wished to propose, for it seemed to him that it was necessary, not only as saving the hon. Gentleman's Office, which derived its authority from the Crown through the Home Office—and which was partly saved by Clause 6—but because the Home Office ought, he thought, to be excluded from relief from exercising authority over certain business in Scotland, especially factories, and workshops, industrial schools, and reformatories, and perhaps mines. He was quite aware that the clause suggested that "the enactment specified in the Schedule," so far as the powers and duties relating to Scotland were held, were to be transferred to the new Board; but it seemed to him that the whole administration of Scotland would be dislocated if the Home Secretary was not excluded from being relieved from Imperial duties which, appertained to his Office. The management of school affairs, from the time of the Rebellion of 1745 to the present time, had been conducted through the Home Office by the Lord Advocate, and until now he had never been interfered with. As an illustration of his case, he would mention the Merchant Shipping (Scotland) Bill which was now before Parliament. He had no doubt that that Bill would be amended in the shape in which it had come from the House of Lords; but in that Bill the whole of the duties which were performed, and admirably performed, by the officers under the administration and the regulations of the Lord Advocate, were entirely subverted by a clause inserted by the House of Lords. He referred to that in order to illustrate the way in which at this moment the Office of the Lord Advocate was being attacked on all hands, and discredited by other Departments of the Government, with a view to throwing the affairs of Scotland into confusion. Upon that confusion the Government would say they were going to provide officers to set everything right. As a Scotchman, he viewed with the greatest alarm the creation of a new Officer to manage the affairs of Scotland in preference to the Home Office and the Lord Advocate; and he, therefore, hoped the Lord Advocate would accept the Amendment he suggested.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 26, after "State," insert "except Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department."—(Sir John Hay.)

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, the right hon. Gentleman had said the object of this Bill was to throw the affairs of Scotland into confusion, and to depreciate the Office of the Lord Advocate.

SIR JOHN HAY

I said that would be the effect.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had expressly said that the object of the Government was to throw the affairs of Scotland into confusion. But nothing was further from the intention of the Government than in any way to depreciate the Office of the Lord Advocate; and in order to make that clear, the rights and duties of his Office were preserved in the most formal way. The main object of the Bill was to substitute for the Home Office an Office to deal with the administration of the lay affairs of Scotland. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WARTON

said, he wished to omit from the clause the words "or Privy Council." According to the Schedule, the powers of the Privy Council only affected one matter, the public health; but a great deal of harm might be done, because the Privy Council discharged all sorts of duties. Under the 29 Vict. c. 68, Her Majesty might, by Order in Council, on the representation of the Principal Secretary of State, order the closing of a burial-ground. Something might be done on the representation of the Secretary of State by Her Majesty in Council; but it seemed to him that the effect of having this in the Schedule was to refer only to the duty of the Secretary of State, which was to make a representation for something to be done; but the 5th section of that Act threw the duty on the Privy Council or Her Majesty in Council. He wished to suggest whether that section should not be included in the Schedule; and, whether it was worth while, for the sake of introducing the words he sought to omit, to do that which might have an effect much greater than was intended.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 26, omit the words "or Privy Council."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or Privy Council' stand part of the Clause."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the Government could not agree to this Amendment. By the English Act of 1871, the administration of the Statutes relating to the prevention of disease, which were substantially the same as the Scotch Public Health Act, was transferred to the Local Government Board, and he thought the administration by that Board had been satisfactory. What would remain to be transferred from the Privy Council to the Scotch Local Government Board would practically be the 3rd Part of the Scotch Public Health Bill. Such duty was eminently a matter to be done by such a Board—the Board being well cognizant of the existing affairs and necessities of Scotland at the time. It was not a matter that required any very great consideration, and it was evidently a local matter limited to Scotland, and fit to be transferred, as regarded Scotland, to the Scotch Local Government Board in the same way as was done in England. With regard to burial-grounds, he believed that by the 18 & 19 Vict. it was provided that the Privy Council might on a representation from the Secretary of State cause a burial-ground to be closed. What was here proposed was to transfer, under the First Schedule, the duty of the Secretary of State to make a representation to the new Board. The scheme of the Burial Grounds Act was that there should be the Secretary of State and the Privy Council called into operation. If now the two sets of powers were transferred to the same functionary, the result would be that he would have to represent them himself. That would, however, be an anomaly, and it seemed to the Government that it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the Privy Council.

MR. WARTON

said, that when they came to the question of public health, and considered burial-grounds, he should call attention to this matter again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he begged to move an Amendment standing in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. J. Ramsay)—namely, at Clause 5, page 2, line 37, after England, to insert "or Scotch Education Department." He did not understand why the important matter of education should be excluded from the province of the proposed Board. He could only suppose that the opposition of the Education Department to Scotland being taken out of their hands had been so strong that the Government had been compelled to yield to it. It had been suggested, on the first reading of the Bill, that education should be kept out, because it had been well administered by the Department. He had no wish to depreciate the work done by the Department; but he thought that what success it had had in administering education in Scotland was chiefly owing to there being on on the Department permanent Scottish Officials, such as Sir Francis Sandford and the able coadjutors connected with him, men who understood Scotch ideas and feelings and traditions on education. A good deal, too, was no doubt due to his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), whose enthusiasm in the work of his Office was so honourable to him. But, apart from the consideration that there was no sesurity that the right hon. Gentleman would very long fill his present Office, or that he would be succeeded by Gentlemen having his enthusiasm and breadth of sympathy, or that there would always be in the Department gentlemen having so much knowledge of Scotland as the present permanent Officials, he could not recognize that the goodness of the work done was a sufficient reason for excluding it from the scope of the Bill. There were other branches of public work proposed to be embraced in the duties of the new Board which had been equally well performed; and he might point out that if education were left out, on the ground that it was well administered, there would be an implication that the branches of public work which were excluded had not been well done. He supposed that, in determining the duties to be entrusted to the proposed Board, the Government had not proceeded arbitrarily, but on some principle, and the only intelligible principle which suggested itself to him, as that which had guided the Government, was that those things in which Scotch laws, institutions, traditions, and feelings differed from those of England should be committed to the Scotch Board. Whatever matters in Scotland required to be dealt with by legislation, distinct from that applied to England, should be committed to the new Board or Minister. Now, there was nothing, as his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had shown, in which Scotch traditions and feelings differed more from those of England than in the matter of education. It had been found necessary to deal with education in separate legislation from Scotland. Much evil to Scotch education had already, as his hon. Friend had shown, been caused by its being handed over to Englishmen. He (Mr. Dick-Peddie) believed, with his hon. Friend, that the cause of education would have been far more advanced than it was now had Scotland been allowed to develop it on its own lines. But he did not concur with his hon. Friend in believing that the injury done was irretrievable. He believed that, even yet, were education in Scotland handed over to Scotchmen, much might be done to give it the development which, had it never been taken out of their hands, it would have had. The evil of putting Scotch affairs into the hands of Departments administered in London, was that they seemed of much less importance in the eyes of the Department than English matters; and, being less understood by them, they were either neglected or postponed for English matters, or were bungled by being forced into English moulds. An English Minister always supposed that what was good for England must be good for Scotland. He believed that not only did Scotland suffer from the present state of matters, but that England also lost much, and that if Scotland had been allowed to develop the educational system, according to the ideas of the country, and on its own lines, it would have furnished, in many respects, an excellent example to England, while Scotland, on its part, would have benefited from what was good in the English system. A healthy competition and rivalry between the two countries would do more for the advancement of education generally than a system which sought to force England and Scotland into the same hard lines. If the Government really wished to make their Bill useful, they should include education in the scope of the Bill; and he thought that the only circumstance which gave the slightest apparent justification to the suggestion of hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, that the Bill was a sham, was that this, the most important branch of public affairs, was excluded from the supervision of the proposed Board. He believed that if the Bill passed, the experience of its working, and of the disadvantage which education must suffer by being left to be controlled in England, and by the want of opportunity of free and ready access on the part of those interested in education to those in charge of Scottish affairs, which the Bill would afford in every other Department, would lead to education soon being added to the matters the new Board would have to deal with; but he desired that when the Government were legislating, they should do so completely and logically at once.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 27, after "England," insert "or Scotch Education Department."—(Mr. Dick-Peddie.)

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, there had been an interesting debate upon the Motion of the hon. Member for the London University (Sir John Lubbock) on the question of appointing a Minister of Education, and the result was that it was decided to refer the matter to a Committee to consider who should be the Minister who should deal with English and Scotch education. That question having been referred to a Select Committee, it ought not to be decided now that this new Minister in Scotland should be the Minister for Scotch education. The House would stultify itself and its own Resolution if, without that inquiry which the Select Committee was to make next Session, it dealt with the subject now. He, therefore, hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

said, he thought the Committee must feel the force of the right hon. Gentleman's observations. The question raised by this Amendment was a very large question. A good deal might be said in favour of the views of the hon. Member (Mr. Dick-Peddie), and a good deal against them; but the question was so largo that there was no time to discuss it at length, and he was surprised that any Members who were in favour of this Bill should give any countenance to the introduction of so wide a subject as this. An attempt to discuss it would imperil the passing of this measure.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, the reason put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a reason for not going on discussing this Bill until it had been made perfect. One by one every attribute which the Board ought to possess seemed to be cut away, and apparently it was merely to be a roving commission by this Gentleman to find out what he had to do. There was no chance of getting through the Bill to-day, and he hoped the Government would consent to Progress being reported.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he could not assent to reporting Progress.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he would not press the Amendment; but the decision to appoint a Select Committee on the subject did not give him any confidence in the matter. The hon. Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. J. A. Campbell) and the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) were the only Scotch Members on the Board, and they were notoriously opposed to having a Minister of Education.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WARTON

moved to omit "the enactment specified in the Schedule," and to substitute "Act of Parliament." He said it seemed to him clear that the Schedule must be sufficiently comprehensive, and if the Lord Advocate would assent to this Amendment there would simply be the words "Act of Parliament," and then they could provide in a large and a handsome way for all the powers required. This new Official, who was to be an eminent person, was to have a great deal to do; therefore, they should magnify his Office and make it honourable. Why tie him down to the Schedule? All the powers of a Secretary of State should be exercised in this way to prevent those blunders which must occur under the wording of the Schedule, and they should avoid dangers arising from limiting this Office.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 27, leave out "the enactment specified in the Schedule," and insert "Act of Parliament."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the proposal came rather as a surprise from the quarter from which it had emanated, because on many occasions questions had been put as to what were to be the duties of the new Board. There was a distinct way of defining those duties by reference to them in the different Acts of Parliament, which anyone might read for himself; but now it was proposed to strike out that reference and leave the reference to the whole Statute Book. To that he could not assent. It had been explained that it was not intended to hand over everything to the new Board; and it was quite plain that it would be totally against that scheme, which had been accepted by the House, to adopt this Amendment and transfer everything in the mass to the new Board.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

said, he proposed to leave out "President of the," and insert "said." The effect of that Amendment would be that the powers and duties referred to would be transferred not to the President of the Board, but to the Board itself. He expected that the Lord Advocate would accept this Amendment, and would thank him for proposing it, because it would make the Bill consistent. This Board had to-day been spoken of as fictitious. He would not use that expression; but, at any rate, it appeared that the Board was to be only a nominal one, and, if so, he thought it should be consistently referred to throughout the Bill. It would be observed that the marginal note to this clause was in these words—"Powers and duties of the Local Government Board;" but when they looked at the clause they found nothing about the powers and duties of the Board, but simply of the President. It appeared to him that they had one of two courses to take; either to let this clause stand as it was, and to alter the title of the Bill to "Local President (Scotland) Bill," or to retain the title and alter the clause as he now proposed. The analogy of the English Local Government Board Act supported his case, for there was a similar provision in that Act, the powers and duties being described as those of the Board, and not of the President.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 31, to leave out "President of the," and insert "said."—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)

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

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he would consider this point on Report.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he was glad to hear what the Lord Advocate said, because he thought something of this kind necessary.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he had promised to consider the matter, thinking it quite right to do so, because, as the hon. Member had said, this form was adopted in the English Act. All he had said was that he would consider the matter against Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WARTON

proposed to omit "Acts of Parliament," in line 33, and insert "by the Acts of Parliament in the Schedule hereto." This proposal was almost the converse of what was supported by the Lord Advocate. The present words were rather wide.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

suggested that the words should be altered to "said enactments or any of them."

MR. WARTON

agreed that that would be better.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 33, omit "Acts of Parliament," and insert "said enactments or any of them."

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

Question, "That the words 'said enactments or any of them' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 39, after "Board," insert,—" Provided that where, by any Act now in force, the exercise of the powers of the Privy Council requires the authority of two or more of the Lords of the Privy Council, the authority of two or more of the members of the Local Government Board shall be necessary."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)

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

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he would consider this matter against Report, though he doubted whether the Amendment was necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 (Reservation of rights of Lord Advocate).

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, there were several Amendments to this clause which were very wide, and he would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report Progress, and allow this clause to be considered another time.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, that, after the explanations which had been given, he thought there was no doubt about this clause. The powers and privileges of the Lord Advocate were retained, and to make that clear this clause was inserted.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

thought there was a good deal of surplusage in this clause, and there was no good in going on with it now. He should move that Progress be now reported.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff,)—put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.