Commons Sitting of 9 August 1887

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL, SERVICE ESTIMATES; CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Votes 29 to 34; CLASS III.—LAW AND.JUSTICE, Vote 16.
Resolutions [August 8] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Revenue * [365].
Second Reading—Technical Instruction * [332].
Third Reading—Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* [315], and. passed.
Withdrawn—Church Sites [Compulsory Powers Repeal) * [53]; Reformatory Schools Act (1866) Amendment* [198].

QUESTIONS.

  ISLANDS OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC —THE NEW HEBRIDES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Under Secretary of
  1702
  State for Foreign Affairs, If French troops continue in occupation of the New Hebrides, until an understanding as to the future has been arrived at with Her Majesty's Government; and, having regard to the protracted character of the negotiations, if it is possible to fix the term of such occupation?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government have not acquiesced in the presence of French troops in the New Hebrides. It is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to fix a term for the French occupation; first, because to do so would involve acquiescence in the meantime, and also because they are unwilling to believe that a state of things so inconvenient will be long continued.

  THE CONSTABULARY FORCES—POLICE SUPERANNUATION.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What prospect he can hold out of the early realisation of the hope of the Constabulary Forces, that the promises of successive Administrations for 20 years past to deal with the question of police superannuation will be fulfilled by Her Majesty's Government?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I hope it will be found possible to deal with this question next Session. 1 will do my best to overcome the difficulties with which, as my lion. Friend is aware, the question is beset.

  RIVERS POLLUTION—THE RIVER THAMES.
  MR. BIGWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the deplorable condition of the River Thames between Teddington and Isleworth; and, whether he is prepared to use his influence in assisting the measures for improvement which the inhabitants of the district are desirous of effecting towards the maintenance of this important highway and recreation district of the Metropolis?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I have not received any complaints this year as to the state of the part of the River

  1703
  Thames referred to in my hon. Friend's Question. I have been furnished with. a Report from the assistant engineer to the Thames Conservators, who states that the expression "deplorable condition" cannot apply to the roaches between Teddington and Richmond, which have been, recently improved by the Conservators, and is a very exaggerated description of the reach from Richmond to Isleworth. He attributes the present state of this part of the River to the long continued and very exceptional drought. I do not know what are the measures of improvement to which my hon. Friend alludes. The assistant engineer to the Conservators says that the works which have been carried out by them have removed the whole of the shoals on the Surrey side between Teddington Lock and Richmond Bridge, and on the Middlesex side between the lock and Orleans House; that dredgers and a large staff of men are at work continuing the improvements downwards; and that the section of river below Richmond Bridge will be taken in hand immediately. The expenditure incurred on these works up to the 30th of June last is stated to be £15,950, in addition to £21,000 previously expended upon the improvement of the navigation channel.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—TELEGRAPHIC INSTRUMENT AT MILTOWN MALBAY.
  MR. JORDANasked the Postmaster General, If, in view of the growing- requirements of the district, he has yet decided to supply a better telegraphic instrument to the office in. Mil-town Malbay, County Clare, than the old A.B.C. now in use there?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the question has recently been before me; but, as I find upon inquiry that the number of messages dealt with upon the circuit (including those not only of Mil-town Malbay, but also of Lahinch) averaged but seven daily in January, 13 in June, and 24 in August, one of the most busy months in the year, I do not think that the time has yet arrived for making any change in the instruments in use.

  FISHERY BOARD (.SCOTLAND)—THE REPORT—BEAM TRAWLING.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrew's, &c.)asked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been drawn to the following paragraph in the Fifth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland:—
  "P. lxxiv.—Prevention of Trawling,—Effect of:—
  "The evidence already collected seems to indicate that, by regulating trawling in the territorial waters, they will in course of time yield more mature fish, and serve as nurseries and feeding grounds during certain months of the year for shoals of herring, cod, haddock, and other valuable fish; "
  and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration the advisability of regulating, for purposes of experiment, beam trawling throughout the Scottish territorial waters?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Yes, Sir; the point is being, and would be, carefully considered. The question requires consideration not only as regards advisability of action, but also as regards the powers of the Board under the Act of Parliament.

  SOUTH AFRICA—CHURCH OF ENGLANDߞTHE SEE OF NATAL.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON(for Mr. SUMMERS)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether a Petition to Her Majesty the Queen, from members of the Church of England in Natal, relating to the appointment of a Bishop, has reached his hands; and, whether it has been as yet presented; and, if so, what reply has been made thereto?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): A Petition has been received and presented. A communication was made in the ordinary manner to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the result of that was fully stated to the House in my answer of the 20th of June; and the Petitioners have been informed, through the Governor, that His Grace has signified that he does not propose to apply for a mandate for the consecration of Sir G. W. Cox.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE HILLAS ESTATE, CO. SLIGO.
  MR. P. M'DONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any of the evicted tenants on the Hillas estate, in the parish of Templeboy, County Sligo, were re-admitted as caretakers; what force of police attended on each occasion when these evictions were carried out; whether the expense of bringing large bodies of police to these evictions w ill be levied off the district; and, if so, what amount; whether the evicted tenants on the Hillas estate had notice of appeal duly lodged before the eviction; and, if so, who, if any, is to blame for these appeals not being heard at the Sligo Assizes in the early part of July last; and, whether the service of these notices of appeal were entrusted by the tenants' solicitor to a man named Farmer, who was afterwards engaged as special bailiff in carrying out the evictions?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet) (who replied)said: Two of the tenants evicted on Mr. Hillas's property were re-admitted as caretakers. On the first day of the evictions a force of 50 police attended, and on each of the other two days a force of 100 police. The expense of bringing these police to the evictions will not be levied off the district. The tenants appear to have lodged notices of appeal upon the decrees being pronounced; but through an informality on the part of their solicitor an affidavit of the service of the notice of appeal on the Clerk of the Peace and on the opposite solicitor was not lodged with the Clerk of the Peace as required by law. The appeals were consequently not listed. An application was made to the Judge at the Assizes to have the cases heard. His Lordship, having learnt on inquiry that no affidavits had been lodged, asked counsel for the tenants what lie had to say, and the reply was that he had nothing to say. The cases were not then proceeded with. Had this informality not occurred the result would, nevertheless, have been the same, since the amount of rent and costs should have been lodged, I understand, with the Clerk of the Peace, which was not done. James Farmer
  1706
  did servo the notices of appeal for the tenants, lie was afterwards appointed special baliff and executed the decrees.

  COMMISSIONERS OF SUPPLY (SCOTLAND)—RATEPAYERS OF ORKNEY.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the ratepayers of the County of Orkney have the right to examine the accounts of the Commissioners of Supply when application has been made; and, if not, whether he will state what precludes the ratepayers from examining the accounts?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J.H. A. MACDONALD): The Question of the hon. Member is one purely of law. Of course, the ratepayers of Orkney have the same rights as other ratepayers throughout the country; and if any ratepayer is advised that he is refused a privilege which he has by law, he has a remedy by an action to maintain his legal right.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND)—GILLESPIE'S SCHOOL, EDINBURGH.
  MR. WALLACEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether James Gillespie's School. Edinburgh, is a school partly supported by Government grants; whether the assistants and pupil teachers in that school have, and exercise, a discretionary power of inflicting corporal punishment on the children attending the school; and, whether this arrangement is known to, and sanctioned by, the Scottish Education Department?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MAODONALD): This school is partly supported by Government grant. The discipline in the school is a matter for which the Governors are responsible; and, so far as my Lords are aware, nothing has occurred calling for their interference.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 188;)—STATEMENT BY THE LAND COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. SINCLAIRasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, If any Schedule or Statement

  1707
  has been prepared Ly the Land Commissioners, under the Purchase Act of 1885, showing the amount of interest paid and principal repaid in each separate instalment of £1 which is required to be paid for 49 years to liquidate the advance of every £100 advanced for the purchase of tenancies under that Act?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied)said: The Land Commissioners have a Table such as that specified in the Question. It was prepared at the National Debt Office.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—BEVAN, CONVICTED OF MURDER AT CHESTER ASSIZES.
  MR. SWETENHAM& C.)asked the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, Whether he will give his attention to the following paragraph, which appeared in The Chester Courant, of the 3rd instant, relative to the convict Bevan, sentenced to death on Thursday last:—
  " The trial of the murderer Bevan lasted longer than was expected, and so anxious were the authorities to remove him to Knutsford the same night, that immediately after the sentence was pronounced he was hurried into the Castle Yard and pushed into a cab, which was driven off at frantic haste in order to catch the last train. The arrival of the prisoner at the station was awaited by an immense crowd, through the midst of which he was rushed into the train, which was on the point of starting. At Knutsford a similar ordeal had to be gone through; "
  whether he is aware that the prison at Knutsford is 25 miles distant from Chester, where the prisoners are tried, and that such prisoners are daily taken backwards and forwards to and from their trials; and, whether, as the Assize Court is situate under the same roof as the building which, until the Prisons Act came into force, was one of the county gaola, he will see if some arrangement cannot be made for the accommodation in that building of a limited number of prisoners during the Assizes, so as to avoid a repetition of the scenes referred to?
  THE. SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have obtained a Report from the Prison Commissioners on this matter. The instructions given to the principal warder were
  1708
  to bring the prisoner on to Knutsford by the last train if he could; if not, to detain him in the cells at Chester, where there are cells adjoining the Assize Court, in which prisoners can be, and are, if necessary, kept for the night. The warder thought there was time to catch the train, and took the prisoner to the cab which was waiting at the door. He was not pushed into the cab, but was, in the ordinary way, handcuffed to the warder. The railway officials at Chester had prevented people assembling to see the prisoner, and at Knutsford he was kept in the waiting room until the station was clear. There was a crowd outside; but it was dusk, and it is not likely that they could see the prisoner inside the cab between two warders. I am informed by the chaplain of the prison, who was present in Court, that, in his opinion, it was the most humane thing not to have left the prisoner at Chester that night, and that the warder acted with tact and judgment.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT-CAPTAIN PLUNKETT'S TELEGRAM.
  MR. HOOPERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether an offer has at any time been made of £50 or any other sum as a reward for information concerning the divulging through the Postal Telegraph Department to a Cork newspaper of Captain Plunkett's telegram of 9th March; and, if so, whether the offer has been withdrawn, or is still in existence?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied)said: The Irish Government have no knowledge of any reward having been offered for information concerning the divulging of the telegram alluded to.

  POST OFFICE—POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS IN RURAL DISTRICTS—BANK HOLIDAYS.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that, under present Regulations, all the relief from duty allowed in general to postmen and Post Office officials in rural districts on Bank Holidays is that savings banks and money

  1709
  order business is discontinued at noon; and that if there is a mid-day delivery or despatch of letters, this delivery or despatch alone is dispensed with; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the observance of Bank Holidays having become practically universal, he will consider the advisability of making the postal arrangements in rural districts on Bank Holidays the same as for Christmas Day and Good Friday—namely, that there should be—Morning delivery and despatch only; Parcel Post delivery, but no despatch; no money order or Savings Bank work; no telegraphic work after 10 a.m.; accounts to be included in succeeding day?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I beg leave to state that no Regulation has been laid down relieving from any part of their duty postmen and other officials in the rural districts on the occurrence of ordinary Bank Holidays, and I am not aware that the observance of Bank Holidays in the rural districts has become practically universal. In any case, a much longer experience than has hitherto been gained would be required before I could see my way to limiting the postal accommodation afforded to the public in rural parts to the extent indicated in the Question of the hon. Member.

  REGISTRAR GENERAL'S OFFICE, DUBLIN—MR. W. J. BAYLEY.
  MR. MURPHYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When may Mr. William J. Bayley, late of the Registrar General's Office, Dublin, expect the re-employment which the Treasury last year promised that he would got when a suitable vacancy occurred; and, whether Reports regarding his state of health have since been received at Dublin Castle, which may have the effect of delaying or destroying his prospects of re-employment; and, if so, will any such Reports be produced, that Mr. Bayley may have an opportunity of refuting them?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I will inquire if there is a prospect of some temporary employment being found for Mr. Bavley. I believe that no Reports adverse to him have been received.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE RIVER BARROW.
  MR. MURPHYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the scheme for the drainage of the Barrow, which has been re-commended by the Commission on Irish Public Works, differs from the plans officially prepared; and, whether, as new plans will be required, any Irish engineers have been engaged in preparing the necessary surveys before the best season for such work has gone by?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied)said, the scheme recommended by the Royal Commission differed in several important respects from that proposed by the Chief Engineer to the Board of Works; and a great deal would have to be done to work out the proposed scheme in detail before the execution of the works could be commenced. At present there were no funds available for this purpose, nor would there be until Parliament bad passed the Votes, including the Supplementary Estimates.

  CUSTOMS-REDUCTION OF AN EXAMINING OFFICER AT WEST HARTLEPOOL—ANTHONY GREGORY.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether an officer of Her Majesty's Customs with 30 years' service, performing the duty of acting examining officer at West Hartlepool, has been reduced by order of the Board of Customs for alleged neglect of duty in not boarding a steamer in Hartlepool Bay on the 23rd June last, such steamer at the time being under weigh, and any attempt by the Customs officers in the boat at their disposal in the midst of such a heavy sea to board the vessels being considered and declared upon paper by certified nautical men to be extremely dangerous if not an utter impossibility; and, whether he will inquire into the matter with a view of doing justice to this excellent Customs Officer in so hard a case?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): Anthony Gregory, an outdoor officer in the Customs at West

  1711
  Hartlopool, has been reduced from being an active examining officer for neglect of duty in not boarding a steamer. The Board considered that, with a boat's crew at his disposal, Gregory could, and should, have boarded the vessel on the occasion referred to. His reduction in rank was, however, not on account of his neglect of duty on that occasion only, but on account of his habitual neglect of it.

  WAR OFFICE—THE HORSE ARTILLERY.
  GENERAL FRASERasked the Secretary of State for War, What steps have been taken towards carrying out the intention of the Government to organize the attenuated batteries of Horse Artillery still retained in the most effective manner, to make them valuable for service and ready to be produced whenever they are wanted; at what stage these arrangements have arrived; and, when they may be expected to be completed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I have already explained to the House that to keep the Horse Artillery batteries required for the two Army Corps at full strength to enable them to take the field instantly would cost in the first year £51,000. Other countries do not think of maintaining such an establishment in peace time, and I therefore expressed a doubt whether this House would do so. The great difficulty, as my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, is in respect of horses. We have prepared a scheme which we hope may largely tend to meet the difficulty of horse supply generally, and it is now under the consideration of the Treasury.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—CONVEYANCE OF MAILS IN THE NORTH OF IRELAND.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Postmaster General, with reference to the increased mail accommodation between Belfast and Newtownards, Downpatrick, and other towns in County Down, Whether the matter has been finally Bottled; and, whether he will state the annual amount now paid the Belfast and County Down Railway Company for present service, the offer made to the Company for additional
  1712
  services required, and the amount required by the Company for such additional services?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES), in reply, said, the amount now paid to the Belfast and County Down Railway Company was £650 a-year; and in consideration of a certain improved and extended service he had made a final offer to the Company considerably exceeding that sum. It was now under consideration, and he trusted it would be accepted. As soon as he received an answer he would communicate it to the House.

  ADMIRALTY—ACCIDENTS ON BOARD H.M.SS. "KITE," "CURLEW," AND "BLACK PRINCE."
  CAPTAIN COLOMBasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, with reference to the accidents on board Her Majesty's ships Kite, Curlew, and Black Prince, he can give particulars in each case as to the nature of the gun, the ammunition used, the number of men allowed according to Regulations for the service of the gun, the number of men employed in the service of the gun when the accident took place, and how many of these had been fully trained on board the Excellent, or Cambridge, and how many at the Royal Marine Artillery headquarters?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The accident on board the Kite occurred with a four-inch breech-loading gun, and on board the Black Prince and Curlew with a one-inch four-barrel Nordenfelt. In each case blank cartridge was used. The regulation number of men for the four-inch gun is four. Three were actually employed, a number amply sufficient when saluting only. Of these, two were acting seamen gunners, who had qualified in sea-going ships, but had not yet passed the gunnery ship course; the other was a bombardier of the Royal Marine Artillery, who had been fully trained at headquarters. The established number of men for the four-barrel Nordenfelt is three. In both ships four were stationed. On board the Curlew all had qualified on board the gunnery ships; on board the Black Prince one had so qualified, but two of the others were trained men.

  ADMIRALTY—MIDSHIPMAN GEORGE L. GROVER.
  MR. GILLIATasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, In the case of Midshipman George L. G rover, a further Report having been called for from the medical officer of the Bacchante, if he can say when a reply may be expected; and, whether, in the meantime, he has anything to add to his former reply, whereby the fact that the injuries to Loring Grover were undoubtedly incurred in the service of his country may be now hold to constitute a claim, if not for pension, at least for some employment in Admiralty service at home?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The Report called for with regard to Mr. Grover may be expected about the first week in September, as a reference has to be made to Her Majesty's ship Bacchante. now in the East Indies. There is nothing to add to the former reply, beyond stating that all Civil appointments at the Admiralty are made by the Civil Service Commissioners.

  ISLANDS OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC —THE NEW HEBRIDES—THE SUEZCANAL.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the negotiations now proceeding for the evacuation by France of the New Hebrides, the French. Government have endeavoured to associate that question with questions relating to the Suez Canal and to the future of Egypt; whether Her Majesty's Government will continue to press for an immediate and separate solution of the New Hebrides questions, and will insist on the view that the former question should be forthwith disposed of, without waiting for the settlement of the more debateable matters which relate to the Suez Canal and Egypt; whether any habitual criminals have lately been sent from Franco to any of the French Colonies in the Pacific; and, whether it is the fact that settlers from France continue to establish themselves in the New Hebrides?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The French Government have desired that the negotiations in regard to the New Hebrides and the
  1714
  Suez Canal should proceed pari passu; but have not sought to associate the former with questions relating to Egypt generally. Her Majesty's Government, while not objecting to discuss the two subjects at the same time, have in no way consented that the withdrawal of the French troops from the New Hebrides should be postponed until an agreement had been arrived at for the neutralization of the Suez Canal. Her Majesty's Government are pressing upon the French Government that the negotiations should be brought to a close in respect to this subject, upon which the two Governments are perfectly agreed in principle. No shipment of habitual criminals to New Caledonia has lately been reported. The last of which we have any knowledge took place in November last. It is the fact that settlers continuo to be sent from France to the New Hebrides. The right hon. Gentleman added: I may take this opportunity of saying that as I promised that the Papers on this subject should be presented on an early day, I may inform the House that I am not able to fulfil that promise. Since it was made communications have passed between the two Governments, and also further despatches, which cannot be presented to the House while the Correspondence is in progress.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, that in consequence of the answer he would feel bound to call attention to the subject on the Diplomatic Vote.

  THE MAGISTRACY (SCOTLAND)— ELIGIBILITY TO JUDICIAL OFFICES.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he can enlarge the Bill which he has brought in relating to the office of Sheriff of Lanarkshire, so as to make it deal generally with the conditions of eligibility to judicial office in Scotland; or whether, if this is impracticable at this period of the Session, he will undertake to prepare during the Recess, and bring in next Session, a measure embracing those conditions as a whole, and in particular facilitating the promotion to the Bench of persons filling the office of Sheriff-Substitute who have approved their fitness for the highest judicial office?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I do not think it

  1715
  would be advisable, in present circumstances, to enlarge the scope of the Bill; but I am quite of opinion that the conditions of eligibility to judicial office might with advantage be revised, and shall give the matter my consideration during the Recess. The last part of my hon. Friend's Question I shall carefully consider; but I may say at present there are several gentlemen who have been Sheriff-Substitutes, and who have returned to practice at the Bar, and are under the existing arrangements eligible for the highest judicial posts.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)— ARREST OF MISS CASS—MR. NEWTON, MAGISTRATE AT MARLBOROUGH STREET POLICE COURT.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to the action of the Government in respect of the Lord Chancellor's inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Newton, and the police investigation of the circumstances attending the arrest of Miss Cass?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Report and evidence of the police investigation of the circumstances attending the arrest of Miss Cass were laid before the Law Officers of the Crown, who advised that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be instructed to prosecute Police Constable Endacott for perjury. I sent instructions accordingly to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The advisers of Miss Cass have, I understand, since obtained a summons against Endacott. I shall instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to arrange with Miss Cass's solicitors either to take up the prosecution instituted by them, or, at their option, to leave the conduct of the proceedings with them. The Lord Chancellor has dealt with the case of Mr. Newton, and has expressed his disapproval of the mode in which the inquiry before Mr. Newton was conducted; but he does not think his communication to Mr. Newton could properly be made public until the proceedings now pending have been brought to a conclusion.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether care will be taken that Police Constable Endacott shall not be prejudiced by the character of the
  1716
  cross-examination pursued in the course of the inquiry at Scotland Yard?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am afraid I cannot answer for the conduct of the prosecution, or for the consequences which may ensue from the answers which Endacott gave at Scotland. Yard. I think the hon. Member may safely trust the Judge before whom the case will be tried.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—" E. R. SMYTH, LANDLORD, v. JAMES WOODS, TENANT."
  MR. BLANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, on the 25th October, 1886, Mr. J. W. Nagle wrote to the Secretary of the Irish Land Commission, asking if, in the case of "Edward R. Smyth, landlord, v. James Woods, tenant," to restrain proceedings on notice to quit, the matter would be heard before the Sub-Commission or Land Commission, and whether evidence was to be taken vivâ voce or by affidavit; whether Mr. Denis Godley, the Secretary of the Land Commission, replied "that the case would be heard in the usual way by the Sub-Commission; "whether, on 1st April, 1887, Mr. McGeagh wrote from the Fermanagh Club, Enniskillen, to Mr. J. W. Nagle, saying that he was instructed by Mr. Greer, Sub-Commissioner, "that the Sub-Commission Court has no jurisdiction; "whether, in consequence of that statement, the tenant was mulcted in his own costs, and all his witnesses' expenses from Keady, County Armagh, to Dundalk, the place of trial; and, whether the Government will consider the matter, having regard to the saving of costs on poor people applying to the Land Commission?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied)said, the Land Commissioners reported that the case was one of an application by an aggrieved tenant to restrain eviction for the breach of statutory conditions on equitable terms, pursuant to the provisions of the Land Act of 1881. It was one of a class of cases which were properly heard before the Chief Commission; but by some mistake as to the practice in that respect it was included in these delegated to the Sub-Commission. The solicitor was informed that the case would be heard in the

  1717
  usual way. The Sub-Commission struck out the case, which was subsequently decided upon by the Chief Commission. He was not aware that the tenant was put to an unnecessary expense; but if he was; the Land Commissioners had no power to allow his costs, as they had no funds at their disposal.

  BRITISH HONDURAS—REMOVAL OF TROOPS.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, against the urgent representations of the Colonists of British Honduras, the Government have removed the detachment of West Indian troops from the Orange Walk Station, and have given instructions for the detachments at Belize and Corozal to be removed to Jamaica and St. Lucia; whether the Ychaché and Santa Cruz Indians have, on several occasions, made raids upon the settlers; and, whether, on the withdrawal of the troops, the homes of the Colonists and their logwood and mahogany works will be left wholly unprotected?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The troops have been removed from Orange Walk, and the detachments now at Belize and Corozal will be withdrawn from the Colony in the course of next spring. The inhabitants of the Colony have memorialized the Government against the removal of the troops. Raids have in former times been made into the territory of the Colony by the Indians of the tribes mentioned; but none have occurred since the year 1872. On the withdrawal of the troops the homes of the Colonists and their logwood and mahogany works will be protected by the Constabulary Force already in part organized, and by a chain of blockhouses along the North-Western Frontier.

  WAR OFFICE—REGIMENTAL BANDS AT PUBLIC MEETING—1ST EAST YORK ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to an account in The York Herald of the 1st of August of the third annual excursion of the members of the York Liberal Association, held at Warter
  1718
  Priory, the seat of Mr. C. H. Wilson, M.P. for West Hull, on Saturday the 30th July, wherein it is stated that the band of the 1st East York Artillery Volunteers was in attendance and occupied a position on the terrace where dancing was indulged in; and, whether such account is accurate?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The General Officer commanding the Northern District reports that the band of the 1st East York Artillery Volunteers did play at the meeting of the Liberal Association referred to. The officer who gave them permission did so on the understanding that the band was not to play as a military band, and, as a matter of fact, the men were in plain clothes; but it is alleged that the Liberal agent ignored the condition, and advertised the performance as by the band of the Volunteer Corps.

  ADMIRALTY—SHIPS OF WAR—TEST OF SPEED.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he would consider the question of applying to two of the most powerful and modern ships in Her Majesty's Service the test of steaming at full speed across the Atlantic, say to New York and back?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Although we may not be able to carry out the full-speed test mentioned in the-Question, the Admiralty are of opinion that the measured mile trial is insufficient; and have directed, as will be seen in my Statement appended to the Estimates, that in future, in addition to the measured-mile trials, each ship shall maintain for four days a continuous full-speed trial with all her weights on board, which, it is considered, will thoroughly test the efficiency of the machinery.

  AGRICULTURE (IRELAND)—DAIRY SCHOOLS.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many dairy schools there are in Ireland, and in what way they are supported; whether there is one in Minister which gets a grant of £500 a-year; and, if so, from what source does it get this grant; and, whether there are any other grants

  1719
  given to any agricultural or dairy schools in Ireland?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied)said: The only dairy schools in Ireland in receipt of a Government grant are the Albert Agricultural Training Department at Glasnevin and the Munster Agricultural and Dairy School. Provision for these is made in the annual Estimate for Public Education (Ireland), to which I beg to refer the hon. Member for the further information he desires. It is proposed to give a sum of £2,000 out of the £50,000 special grant to the Munster School. This, however, has not yet been voted.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— DISTURBANCES AT PORTRUSH.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What information he can communicate to the House with reference to the reported attack on an excursion party of Irish National Foresters at Portrush, on Sunday last, and the subsequent disturbances at different stations on the Northern Counties Line, and at Belfast, on the return of the excursion party in the evening?
  MR. JOHNSTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, may I ask if he has seen the account in The Northern Whig of yester day, which states that at about 8 o'clock on Sunday a party of excursionists, alleged to belong to the Foresters' Society of Belfast, committed one of the most atrocious outrages that could possibly take place in Ireland? A party of holiday excursionists had been, out to Portrush——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order ! The hon. Gentleman is now reading an extract in confirmation of a particular view before he has heard the reply of the Minister.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Then I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has any information as to the origin and continuation of the occurrence?
  MR. M'CARTANasked, whether it was the case that a Protestant clergyman had received a gunshot wound?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: I have not seen The Northern Whig of yesterday, nor have I any special knowledge with respect to the origin of the outrage. The information I have to give the hon. Gentleman is that a telegram has been received from the Divisional Magistrate to the following effect:—
  " A Foresters' excursion of 1,000 persons from Belfast went in two trains to Portrush on Sunday last, and thence by various conveyances to Causeway. When returning to the train at Portrush they were assaulted and 'booed" by a number of Coleraine roughs, who came there for the purpose. Shots were then fired by one of the excursionists, who was arrested. Ten or 12 shots were fired from the train at Ballymoney. One boy was struck, but not injured. At Ballymena, when the first train was passing, about 30 shots were fired by the Foresters out of it. Three persons, one being a Presbyterian clergyman who was walking on the footpath, were injured. The crowd then collected, and placed obstructions on the railway to upset the second train with the Foresters. The police, however, when the train, which did not stop at the station, was approaching, removed the obstacles. Stones were thrown at the second train at Ballymena by the Orange Party, and peace was kept with great difficulty afterwards."
  MR. JOHNSTONasked, whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would institute a full inquiry into the whole circumstances?
  MR. SEXTON: There are three points on which I want information; and if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot give it now I shall repeat the points on Thursday. The first point is, whether the managers of the excursion party gave notice to the police of the time of the excursion, in order that provision might be made for the preservation of the peace; the second point is, whether, during the attack at Portrush, three shots came from the assailants before any shot was fired by the excursionists; the third point is, whether only two constables were at Ballymoney, and whether gangs of men were stationed along the line, and threw large stones at the train, breaking the windows and smashing the doors, and injuring, among others, a lady?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the only information he had received was the telegram he had road, and which he received a short time before coming down to the House. If the hon. Member would put the Question on the Paper for Thursday he would make further inquiries.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would do so.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL— "LOCAL AUTHORITY."
  MR. M'LARENasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he will consent to such modifications of the Technical Education Bill as will include Local Boards of Health under the term "Local Authority;" whether he will also include Schools of Agriculture and Dairy Schools, such as the Cheshire County Dairy Institute at Workston, among the schools which may be created by the Local Authority; whether his attention has been called to the evidence given to the Committee on the Butter Substitutes Bill by Mr. Willis, who represented the Cheshire Chamber of Agriculture—namely—
  " If we got the same help from Government that the Munster Dairy School gets, we could do a great deal to improve the butter in our county and district: "
  and, whether, in view of this, and in order to bring such schools under the definition of technical schools, he will consider whether grants could not be made to them by the Science and Art Department?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I am not, as at present advised, prepared to extend the scope of the measure so as to include Local Boards of Health; but I desire to point out to the hon. Member that there is nothing in the Bill to limit the subjects of instruction in technical schools to these for which grants may be made by the Science and Art Department; but that, on the contrary, these are left open for future consideration, with a view to enabling the powers conferred by the Bill to be exercised for the benefit of different localities.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS—THE RATE OF INTEREST.
  MR. R. W. DUFFasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the opinion expressed by the Board of Trade in their Letter of 14th March, 1886, recently presented to this House—
  "That, if the security afforded by harbour rates and dues is ample, there can be no reason whatever for making the addition of other collateral security a necessary condition to the lower rate of interest, provided that adequate security is forthcoming from other sources,"
  1722
  it is the intention of the Government to give effect to that opinion in the Public Works Loan Bill of the present Session?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): It is not proposed in the Public Works Loans Bill of the present Session to touch the question of harbour loans, beyond giving power to Local Bodies, in accordance with the promise of the Government, to give collateral security for these loans.
  MR. R. W. DUFFasked, if the Loan Commissioners intended to insist on collateral security in all cases?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, that the hon. Gentleman seemed to rely upon a clause in the recommendation of the Board of Trade; whereas the Treasury Minute was an agreement come to between the Board of Trade, the Loan Commissioners, and the Treasury; and, therefore, the Board of Trade might be held to be consenting parties to the present Treasury Minute. He quite appreciated the difficulty of the question; but it had been held that it was desirable, in view of giving very low rates, to have collateral security.

  POST OFFICE—THE POSTMASTER OF ST. COLUMB, CORNWALL.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Postmaster General, When he will be able to communicate to him the result of his inquiries into the conduct of the Postmaster of St. Columb, in Cornwall?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have made inquiry into this matter. Mr. Howard has been completely exonerated from the charge of dishonesty, both by the Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy, who summoned him for examination, and by the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy. These gentlemen are of opinion that the charge arose purely from a misconception of the facts of the case. Under the circumstances, I do not propose to interfere.

  ADMIRALTY—EDUCATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS—EXAMINATION OF MIDSHIPMEN IN SEAMANSHIP.
  MR. CRAIG SELLARasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, having regard to the recommendations of the Committee

  1723
  on the Education of Naval Executive Officers, and the Reports recently received from the Admirals in command and the other officers of the Mediterranean, Channel, and Training Squadrons with respect to the Examination of Midshipmen in Seamenship, it is proposed to make any alterations in, or modifications of, the system now pursued; and, if so, whether such alterations or modifications will be communicated to Parliament?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The Admiralty, having fully recognized the necessity for bringing the seamanship examination for lieutenants more into accordance with the present requirements of the Naval Service, have called for Reports from the Admirals in command of the Mediterranean, Channel, and Training Squadrons. These Reports will receive most careful consideration; and the changes which it may be finally decided to adopt will be embodied in a Circular to the Fleet, which Circular can, if it is desired, be laid before Parliament.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE SKINNERS' ESTATE, DRAPERSTOWN, CO. LONDONDERRY.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the evictions which were carried out on the Skinners' Estate, near Draperstown, County Derry, in April last, Whether he can now state the amount of expenses incurred in sending the 250 policemen, County Inspector, District Inspectors, Resident Magistrates, and Divisional Magistrate from their different stations to and from the scene of the evictions, the expenses incurred by them during their stay in the neighbourhood, and the amount paid for cars and other vehicles employed by them in connection with these evictions; and, the number of persons then evicted, and the amount due for rent and costs respectively?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied)said: The cost to the public of the Royal Irish Constabulary, both officers and men, present at the evictions referred to was, omitting fractions of a pound, as follows:—Railway fare, £90; car hire, £185; extra pay, £196, or a total of
  1724
  £471; and for the Resident Magistrate a sum of £2 2s. The number of persons evicted was 36. The Government cannot take it upon themselves to endeavour to answer the remaining portion of the Question. It is obvious that when called upon to assist in enforcing legal process the Government cannot be influenced by the proportion which the cost of doing so bears to the amount due.
  MR. M'CARTANasked, whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was aware that the tenants evicted number six, and that the rent due was £118?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was not aware of the amount of rent due, and did not see the necessity for inquiry.

  FIRES IN THE METROPOLIS—THE METROPOLITAN FIRE BRIGADE.
  MR. ISAACSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been directed to the large number of fires which occurred in the Metropolis on the 3rd instant, principally in the City and the Eastern Districts of London; whether he is aware that the pressure on the resources of the Fire Brigade was almost unparalleled in its severity, and that the stations at Mile End and Poplar were exhausted both as to horses and engines; and, whether, having regard to the safety of life and property involved, he will afford facilities for discussing the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Expenses Bill now before this House? The hon. Gentleman also asked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been directed to the following description of the inadequacy of the resources of the Fire Brigade Establishment of the Metropolis, which appeared in the newspapers of yesterday, giving an account of the fire which occurred on Saturday last at the establishment of Messrs. Whiteley, Queen's Road, Bayswater:—
  " The pressure upon the Fire Brigade authorities at this time was enormous, and may well claim very serious attention for Londoners. There was not a station in the A District but had its engines out, and there was not a single steamer left at home in the district. The D or South of the Thames District was in a similar position, not having a steamer left to cope with any fire which might break out; and the Clerkenwell or City District, and the C or Whitechapel District, were also almost totally denuded of all appliances, and were put to extraordinary straits. There had been 34 steamers, six manuals, three hose carts, four extension

  1725
  ladders, one coal van, and 173 men sent on to the fire, and now messengers were running between the horse contractors and the stations to borrow horses and coachmen, and other calls for fires kept coming in from other districts in a most extraordinary manner. The men at headquarters had to turn out to a fire in the Borough, Kennington Lane Station received another call, the firemen in the East End were so busy in turning out for the ringing of fire alarms and calls by strangers that the Mile End Station was shut up, opened again, and shut up a second time within half-an-hour, while the Holloway Station also had to he closed, and affairs were in as dangerous a condition as it is possible to imagine them; "
  and, whether, in view of the facts there described, he will give an opportunity of considering the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Expenses Bill, now before this House, during the present Session?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Government will be quite willing and ready to afford such facilities as may be in their power for the consideration of any measure to meet any emergency which they have reason to believe will be accepted by the House. It remains for the Metropolitan Board of "Works to take such steps as they think best, in order to obtain the general favour of the House to further the object they have in view. It is obvious that the Government have no control over Members who think it their duty to block a measure of this kind; and I hope the Board will exercise discretion and judgment in presenting a measure the contents of which appear open to objection.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE SEAMEN'S VOTE BILL.
  MAJOR RASCHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Seamen's Vote Bill this Session?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Seamen's Vote Bill is a private measure, and it is not, therefore, for the Government to take steps for proceeding with it.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
  MR. CRAIG SELLARasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government intend next Session to deal with the subject of Private Bill Legislation, by Bill or otherwise?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Government are quite sensible of the importance of this subject; but I am not able to give any actual pledge. I trust, however, it will be in the power of the Government and the House to deal with it in the course of next Session.
  MR. CRAIG SELLAR: I beg to give Notice that I shall, early next Session, ask leave to introduce a Bill for establishing a Commission to examine and report on Private Bills in Parliament, and matters relating thereto.

  FIRES—INQUESTS.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the question of inquests being held in the case of fires, with a view to legislation next Session?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): This subject has been mooted in Parliament on various occasions. All I can say is that it will receive the consideration of the Government; but many different opinions prevail upon it.

  PERPETUAL PENSIONS—REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the First Lord of the Treasury Whether, in view of the unanimous Report of the Select Committee on Per petual Pensions, he will, during the Recess, cause steps to be taken in accordance with its recommendations with reference to the several payments in perpetuity now charged on the Consolidated Fund?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Government have not yet had time to consider the Report of the Committee on this question; but they will do so during the Recess.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—DEPRESSION OF TRADE AND AGRICULTURE—THE FOREIGN BOUNTY CONFERENCE.
  MR. NORRISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, with reference to the depressed state of trade and agriculture, the Government will consider, during the Recess, if it is possible to make some modification in the present fiscal system,

  1727
  with a view to ameliorate the condition of our home industries, and to come to such arrangements with Foreign Powers as will secure a fair and equitable readjustment of existing arrangements consistent with the principles of sound and reciprocal Free Trade; and, in view of the proposed Conference on the Foreign Bounty Question, if he can state whether the Conference will be held in London, if evidence will be invited from these most interested, and if a speedy settlement will be pressed?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W.H. SMITH): It will certainly be the duty of the Government to consider the depressed state of trade, and especially of agriculture; but it is equally their duty to abstain from entering into engagements, or holding out expectations, which it may not be in the power of any Government to fulfil. I cannot exaggerate the importance of the subject, and it is on that account that I speak with guarded language. It is not possible for the Government to say whether the Conference on Foreign Bounties will be held in London. No efforts will be wanting on the part of the Government to bring about an early decision.

  NAVY—APPOINTMENT OF ADMIRAL TRYON AS DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTS.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAMasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Who is responsible for the appointment of Admiral Tryon as Director of Transports at a salary of £2,000 a-year; and, what special qualifications he possesses for the position?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer that Question. The appointment is in my hands. Admiral Tryon is a distinguished officer in every way. He has been employed in various capacities, and has given great satisfaction in them all. He has rendered valuable service in facilitating the arrangements come to for securing the co-operation of the Colonies in the maintenance of a Naval Force in Australasia. The hon. Member asks me who is responsible for this appointment. No such appointment has been made, or is in contemplation; and the salary of the post is not £2,000, as stated in the Question, but £1,000.

  PARLIAMENT—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE, 1887.
  COLONEL BRIDGEMANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government expect to make any further progress with the new Rules of Procedure during this Session?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am not sanguine enough to hope that it will be in the power of the Government to induce the House to make further progress with the new Rules of Procedure in the course of the present. Session.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. CHILDERSwished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question on this subject. He understood the present arrangement to be that on Thursday they should take Supply till 10 o'clock, and then go to the Allotments Bill, and that on Friday they should take Supply again. Would the right hon. Gentleman object to take Supply on Thursday till the usual hour, and let the Allotments Bill stand first on the Orders for Friday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, that the arrangement was made after every effort had been made on his part to ascertain what would be for the convenience of the House on both sides, and he had been led to believe that there would not be a very protracted debate on the second reading of the Allotments Bill. Under these circumstances, he thought it necessary to adhere to the arrangement to take the Bill about 10 o'clock on Thursday evening; and as regarded Friday, he must retain a certain amount of discretion, as it was possible the Government might have to consider any Amendments which the House of Lords might make in the Irish Land Law Bill. If it were in their power to do so, he should like to take the Education Vote on Friday as the first Business; but it might be necessary to hold themselves at liberty to consider any Lords' Amendments in the Irish Land Law Bill on that evening.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked, whether the Technical Instruction Bill could not be taken earlier than 11 o'clock that evening?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was equally important for the country and the Government that Supply should be proceeded with. If the Scotch Votes in Classes II. and III., which had been put down for the convenience of Scotch Members, were disposed of before 10 o'clock they might then report Progress and take the Technical Instruction Bill.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)asked, whether, considering the impossibility of keeping Scotch Members together, and the impropriety of allowing important Scotch questions to be decided by a few Scotch Members who might happen to be in the House at 3 o'clock in the morning, and, considering that all Scotch Members would soon be going out of town, except those who had nowhere else to go, the First Lord of the Treasury would move the suspension of the Standing Orders, so that the Scotch Business should be taken in the early forenoon of the day, say 10 or 11 o'clock? [An hon. MEMBER: Why not 8 o'clock?] He also asked whether, in order to dispose of Scotch Bills in Committee, another Gentleman might not be appointed to share the labours of the Chairman of Committees?
  MR. W.H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to send me Notice a few minutes ago of this Question. I am unable to agree with him in the opinion he has expressed as to Scotch Members. My observation of the conduct of Scotch Members leads me to believe that it is not at all impossible to keep them in the House while Scotch Business or Imperial Business of any importance is being discussed. That disposes of the principal grounds on which he asks the Government to make an arrangement which, I believe, the House itself would not accept, and that is to impose duties upon the House, and on the officers of the House, which it is quite impossible for them to adequately and properly fulfil. I believe the Scotch Bills to be of sufficient importance to secure consideration; and I have complete confidence that both Scotch and English Members will remain for Scotch Business and Imperial Business.
  MR. BUCHANANasked, when the Scotch Education Vote would be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, much must depend on the time occupied by the
  1730
  English Education Vote. It was open to consideration whether they should not have a Morning Sitting on Friday for the English Education Vote; but having regard to the fact that he was not fully informed as to what might happen in "another place," he was not in a position absolutely to say what the arrangement of Business would be in the event of a morning being taken with the English Education Vote first. He hoped, when that Vote was disposed of, time would remain for the consideration of the Scotch Vote.
  In reply to Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL,
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he must appeal to the House itself to forward Public Business, so that it might not be necessary to sit into these very late hours. The Government were most anxious that Business should be done within reasonable hours; but if the consideration of the Votes in Supply or of Bills was so protracted that it became absolutely necessary to sit till 2 or 3 in the morning in order that Business might be concluded he could not charge himself with any responsibility respecting it.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLgave Notice that he would put down Amendments to the Scotch Bills so as to make sure that they would not come on at a late hour.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked, whether it was still the intention of the Government to take the Post Office Annuities Bill on Friday night?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope it may be possible to do so.
  MR. MUNRO-FERGUSON&c.)asked, if the right hon. Gentleman could name the date upon which the Indian Budget would be submitted?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: What facilities does the First Lord of the Treasury contemplate giving to the House for the discussion of matters respecting Egypt?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Facilities will, no doubt, be afforded on the Diplomatic Vote.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is the right I hon. Gentleman not aware that upon the Diplomatic Vote it would be absolutely impossible to go into the matter?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If that is so I will consider the question, if the hon. Member will put down a Question.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there would be great loss of time if they had two discussions—one on the Vote and one afterwards.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I shall be glad to meet the convenience of hon. Members: but it must be obvious that it is impossible to give precedence to any particular Vote.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was not asking for precedence for any particular Vote, He wanted to know when they could have facilities, with the Speaker in the Chair, for discussing Egyptian affairs?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Obviously it is not in my power to give facilities, with the Speaker in the Chair, for the discussion of the Diplomatic Vote; but I will consider whether a separate opportunity can be afforded.
  In reply to Mr. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton),
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the Navy Estimates would not be taken until the Civil Service Estimates had been gone through. He hoped that they might be reached next week.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—BRITISH INDUSTRIES.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the way in which British industries were handicapped, the Government would, during the Recess, consider the possibility of putting them on an equality with the industries of other countries, in respect of the burdens weighing upon them, especially in the shape of rent for agricultural lands, of ground-rents in industrial centres, and of royalties in mining districts?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The hon. Member asks, without Notice, a Question of the gravest character. He asks, whether the Government will undertake to make fundamental changes in the law—changes which, it may be utterly out of their power to make, and which they may not be disposed to recommend. I cannot enter into any engagement on the subject.

  EMPLOYMENT IN THE EAST END— RESULT OF THE INQUIRY.
  CAPTAIN COLOMB&c.): I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can state to the House when the information as to the result of the inquiry with respect to the condition of employment in the East End will be presented to the House?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I am sorry there has been so much delay in presenting the information to the House. The House will understand that the investigation was of a very novel character; and it was extremely difficult to say when the information would be in such a form that it could be presented to the House. That difficulty has been, increased in consequence of the very unsatisfactory nature of many of the answers returned. Between 30,000 and 40,000 cards had to be distributed, and each one has to be closely investigated, with the view of being tabulated. Great difficulty has been found in tabulating many of the answers. This has been done in the general Registry Office; and a week ago I received from the Registrar General sheets containing a summary of the information desired. These sheets have been placed in the hands of the printer. They are very voluminous, and I cannot say when the printing operations will be completed. I hope it will not be long, and the Papers will be presented to the House the moment they are received.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee)

CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £5,143, be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st clay of March 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Officers.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I do not think it will be necessary for

1733
me to move a reduction of this Vote; because I have no doubt that the Lord Advocate will be able to give the Committee some assurance on the matter to which. I wish to direct their attention. It may be in the recollection of some of the Members of the Committee, that more than once during this Session and last I have called attention to the damage inflicted both upon the fishermen and upon the people living in the neighbourhood of Loch Long and Loch Goil by the deposit of offensive matter at the mouth of Loch Long, in connection with the sewage and drainage works under the control of the Clyde Trust. The Lord Advocate when put a question to him some time ago, gave a promise that an inquiry should be made by the Scotch officials, and I believe that some kind of inquiry either has been made, or is in progress. What I want to point out to the Committee is, that the fouling of the water has gone on upon a very large scale since I last brought the matter before the House. In June, several chemical boats discharged about 500 tons of this filthy matter into the river, and all through July and also in the present month, the boats of the Clyde Trust have been engaged in discharging matter of an offensive kind. Perhaps I may he allowed to state to the Committee very briefly what the fishermen and residents say upon the subject, and what is the position which has to be met. One of the oldest fishermen in Loch Long states—
" It is the opinion of the fishermen here that there has been great harm done to the fishing in Loch Goil and Loch Long by the dredge bouts of the Clyde Trustees being emptied at the foot of the Loch. There are banks in Loch Long and Loch Goil where we used to get from 18 to 20 stone of white fish, and now with the same kind of lines we will not get the third of that quantity. It is the fishermen's opinion that the dirt drifts into the banks and spoils the spawn; during the time of the herring fishing I have seen so much dirt and scum on the water when it was calm weather that I could hardly haul the nets, and it would take us hours to wash the filth from them when we came in. I have always heard complaints about it being a nuisance both to bathers and fishermen."
A gentleman residing at Loch Goilhead says—
"The pollution you have witnessed I can assure you extends even to the heart of Loch Guil—a considerable number of miles from the place where the filth is deposited.—Tho water, naturally 50 beautifully pure, is frequently in
1734
such a state that it detracts grievously from the charm of the locality, even being quite unfit to bathe in."
So offensive is the matter deposited, that some men engaged in the construction of a new pier refused to continue to work, the conditions under which they were working being so unfavourable. The same gentleman I quoted just now writes—
" The Coalport Pier is a ease in point. The construction of this work was rendered very difficult through the presence of a deep lied of the Clyde dredgings overlying the natural bottom of the Loch. So foul was the deposit that the contractor had difficulty in getting his men to work in the 'slurry'"
The reason these men have assigned is, and the Lord Advocate will correct me if I am wrong, that as far as the inquiry has already proceeded, the fact has been ascertained that so great has been the quantity of the deposits that they have entirely changed the bottom of the banks of a great part of the Loch. It is not a bottom with shifting soil, but is coin-posed of what is known as the "old fire rocks," upon which this filth, when deposited, accumulates. An inquiry took place within a week of the time at which I am now speaking. The account I have received of it states—
"A meeting of proprietors, residents, and fishermen was held last night in Blairmore, Sir John Douglas in the chair, for the purpose of affording Dr. Littlejohn an opportunity of hearing parties on the subject of injury to fishing. Soundings of the Loch itself were taken to ascertain to what appreciable extent the formation of shoals has taken place. Mr. Yevous drew a sample of the polluted water, which he handed to Dr. Littlejohn. Sir John Douglas said that it was not half as opaque a mixture as he could furnish Dr. Littlejohn. Upon the subject of injury to fishing, the evidence was most startling and conclusive."
When the Lord Advocate replied to me on this question some time ago, I understood him to be sensible of the gravity of the matter, but further, I understood him to say that he considered it rather a matter for the Local Authorities, and for the individuals injured to deal with than for the Government to take action upon. Now, with all submission to the Government, I think it is utterly impossible for these poor fishermen to fight such a powerful body as the Clyde Trust, nor do I think it would be easy, even if it were lawful, for a number of Local Authorities to combine and find funds for the conduct of a prosecution. I am

1735
very much inclined to believe that the law of champerty and maintenance would preclude that; and that it would be impossible for the Local Authorities to make themselves co-plaintiffs, or co-prosecutors, in any proceeding. I believe the easiest plan would be for the Government to take action in the matter, if they are in a position to prove that a nuisance has been committed. I believe they have evidence of the existence of a nuisance, and also of the great amount of injury inflicted upon a number of the poor fishermen, who have been driven almost into starvation in some of the districts of Loch Long opposite the mouth of which the Clyde Trust now bring their boats and discharge this offensive matter on the edge of the Loch. Many of the residences have been rendered uninhabitable during a considerable portion of the year; and persons who have been, in the habit of resorting to this locality for the purpose of bathing have been compelled to leave it. In a small bay—the bay of Ardentinny-—there is an absolute bank of filth, of considerable extent, which is being daily enlarged. Under these circumstances, I venture to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can say something that will be satisfactory to these poor fishermen; and, whether he can hold out any hope that the Government will take steps to put a stop to the nuisance?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): There can be no question that the matter to which the hon. Member has referred on more than one occasion is one which requires to be dealt with in some way or other. Since the hon. Member last mentioned the subject, not only have inquiries been made by the Board of Supervision, by the direction of my right hon. Friend now the Chief Secretary for Ireland, but reports have been obtained from persons of skill, and these reports bring out that there has been a very extensive and improper pollution of the districts of the loch to which the hon. Member refers. Dr. Littlejohn, who is probably one of our most skilled investigators in matters of this kind, was some time ago instructed to make an examination, and he has made a temporary report indicating what he has observed; but as regards the question
1736
of health, he proposes to go into it with more care, and to investigate it thoroughly, for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is ground for the belief that the present state of things is injurious to health, or is likely to become so. I must, however, point out to the Committee that there are two things which seem to be decidedly objectionable. The one is that the Clyde Trustees, in taking up the polluted refuse from the bottom of the River Clyde, save themselves the trouble and expense of sending it sufficiently far out to sea, and deposit it in places where it is not right and proper that it should be deposited, and if that process is carried on to any considerable extent it cannot be otherwise than most injurious to health. In addition to that, during the last year or more a large chemical company has been in the practice of sending large quantities of refuse from their works down the river, and depositing it also at places where it is not proper that it should be deposited. It is quite evident that the Clyde Trustees and the Chemical Company could send their refuse sufficiently far out to sea to make it perfectly safe. That they do not do that now is quite certain. The whole matter resolves itself into a question of expense. I can assure the hon. Member that the question is not being lost sight of. We are receiving from day to day information with regard to it; and the Secretary for Scotland is most anxious to take any action that the law allows him to take. It is very difficult to decide how such a matter is to be dealt with. I am not sure that unless the Secretary for Scotland can establish real danger to the public that he can take steps to put a stop to what is going on. If the Secretary for Scotland finds that his powers are sufficient to deal with the matter, I can assure the hon. Member that these powers will be exercised; and if he finds that he has not sufficient powers, the question will be most carefully considered as to what steps ought to be taken for the purpose of putting an end to this seriously objectionable state of things.
MR. BRADLAUGH: The answer of the Lord Advocate is in the highest degree satisfactory; and I thank the Government for the great pains they have taken in the matter. If it should turn out that it is not in the power of the Secretary for Scotland to deal with

1737 f
the matter, I would suggest that a short Bill might be introduced next Session to prohibit this deposit nearer than. Ailsa Craig. I have no wish to fix the precise spot, but I am informed that, except the question of expense, there will be no difficulty in taking this refuse as far as Ailsa Craig, from whence it could not find its way into the land loched waters or do any harm whatever.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I see there is a Vote of £9,000 for the Office of the Secretary for Scotland. I want to know whether any portion of that sum has been taken from other Departments which have been discontinued, and, if so, to what extent the charges on the country have been increased by the creation of this Office?
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I understand the hon. and gallant Member to ask how much of this item of£9,143 is for additional expenses. If I remember rightly there has been nothing added to the Vote, since the Department was formed. There has certainly been nothing additional in the shape of salaries.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: What I wished to know was what the cost has been of transferring the Department from the Home Office to Dover House?
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I cannot say at the present moment.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: The information would, I think, be of importance, because it would enable the Committee to judge what the duties are which have been taken over. At present we have no idea of the value of the work performed by the Department. For my own part, I think that the Office of Lord Advocate ought to be abolished, and the Department of Secretary for Scotland made more efficient. At all events, we ought to have the Secretary for Scotland in this House, or someone to answer for him. The present state of affairs is most unsatisfactory. There is another point upon which I wish for information. On four occasions I have asked a simple question as to when the returns in reference to local taxation are to be given. I have questioned not only the Lord Advocate and his Predecessor, but also the First Lord of the Treasury without effect, and I find that the Return is more
1738
backward now since it came into the hands of the new Scotch Department than it ever was before. So far as the cost of the Office of the Secretary for Scotland is concerned, it is out of all proportion to the benefit Scotland derives from the existence of the Office; and it is a most unsatisfactory arrangement to have the head of the Department in the House of Lords.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I am very glad that my hon. and gallant Friend has called attention to this very important question of expenditure. The question submitted by my hon. and gallant Friend was how much does the Office of Secretary for Scotland cost the country. We know how much it is worth to the country, and we want to know what it costs. I have been extracting some figures from official documents which give, to some extent, an answer to the question. The Scottish Secretary's Office costs £9,143. In "another place "the Secretary for Scotland resented, with indignation, the supposition that his Office costs as much as £10,000 a-year. He said it was only about £7,000. Yet we have here a single item that amounts to £9,143. But that is not anything like the whole expense. The most important department of the office is that connected with education, and I find that the expense of the London Office for the management of Scottish education is £9,455. Then there is the cost of the building in which the department is accommodated. The annual value of Dover House is, I believe, very considerable. I do not know whether it is leased as Government property, or whether it has been purchased; but the expenditure upon it cannot be much less than £3,000 a-year. [An hon. MEMBER: £2,800.] Then we may call it £3,000 in round numbers. In one of the other Estimates we have passed there was a considerable sum put down for the furnishing of the office, and what other items there may not he scattered through the Estimate I do not know. Taking all the figures I have before me, I find that the Scottish Secretary's Office, instead of costing only £10,000, costs something more nearly approaching £20,000 a-year. It may be said that some of the work connected with the Education Department is done by means of English expenditure and the cost defrayed under the head of

1739
English items. How that may be I do not know; but it is one of the points upon which I think the Committee ought to have information. We ought to know how much additional expenditure has been caused by the creation of highly-paid offices in order to provide for the management of Scottish education and other business offices which were not in existence before the Secretary for Scotland was appointed. The Secretary himself has £2,000 a-year; Sir Francis Sandford, the permanent Under Secretary, £1,500 a-year. Then there are a Private Secretary, an Assistant Under Secretary, and other officers. The permanent Under Secretary, in addition to his salary, receives a pension for services in connection with another Government office. [Mr. J. H. A. MAC-DONALD: That is not so.] I think we are entitled to know exactly how much additional expenditure has been inflicted on the country by the creation of the new office. We are going, I believe, on Wednesday next to discuss a Bill which deals with the Office of Secretary for Scotland if other important orders can be finished in time to reach it. Therefore, I will not follow my hon. and gallant Friend at length into the important question he has suggested, rather than raised, as to the utility of the Office of Secretary for Scotland. I agree with him, as an outsider, that the business of Scotland was as well, if not better, done by the Lord Advocate in former days than it is now by this elaborate machinery of the Scottish Secretary. If I were in the position of the Lord Advocate, I should feel ashamed of myself and of my immediate Predecessors, who have succeeded in destroying the prestige and efficiency of the great and noble Office which he now fills, and which they have allowed to be replaced by this Brummagem Office of Secretary of State for Scotland. Whatever the facts of the case may be, as to the additional expenditure which the Office of the Scottish Secretary has brought upon the country, I want to warn hon. Members from Scotland that in all probability they have not seen the end of this increased expenditure. Most of us here have heard hints dropped that the expenditure is likely to rise higher. It has been suggested that the Office of Secretary for Scotland is not sufficiently dignified, and that we must
1740
make him a Secretary of State, with a seat in the Cabinet, and a salary of £5,000 a-year instead of £2,000, and have an Under Secretary to answer questions in this House when the head of the Department is in the House of Lords, which means at least £1,500 a-year additional. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardine (Sir George Balfour) for having raised the question, and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will be in a position to tell us what is the extra expenditure imposed on the country by the creation of the Office.
MR. ANDERSON: I heartily endorse all that has been said by my hon. Friends as to the very unsatisfactory position of the Scottish Secretary's Office. Speaking as a very humble Member of the House, I am prepared to say that since the removal of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland and the appointment of the Marquess of Lothian, the Office has, so far as this House is concerned, been practically closed. It was originally intended, before the Act was passed, that the Office of Secretary for Scotland should be held by a Minister of high position, and also a Member of the House of Commons. That was the position of affairs until the unfortunate removal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour) from the post he was so well qualified to fill to another which he was altogether unfitted to fill, and the appointment in his place of Lord Lothian. The Marquess of Lothian before his appointment had no departmental experience, and he was not a Minister in any sense of the word. It was never intended that a nobleman who had had no departmental experience should be placed in an important Office of this kind. I cannot help thinking that it is rarely possible to put a man into such an Office as that of an important Minister of State all at once. To fit him for the Office he must have had some previous practical experience. This nobleman had had no experience whatever. He had never been in any Office at all, and I think that it was one of the most unfortunate steps that have ever been taken by a Government. Surely there might have been found in this House some hon. Member who was fit for the Office. The Conservative Party

1741
is very numerous, and the Government ought to have large supplies upon which they could draw, and I cannot understand how it has happened that they have been unable to find in this House an hon. Member whom they could appoint. The result has been that the Scottish Business in this House has been in a state of indescribable confusion. First of all, we ask questions of the Home Secretary; he tells us to put them to the Lord Advocate, as he, of course, knows nothing about Scotch Business. [Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD dissented.] The Lord Advocate shakes his head. What I desire to point out is that the Act of Parliament in creating the Office of Secretary for Scotland placed the business of the department in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland only. The Lord Advocate has no more jurisdiction and no more power to discharge the duties which were conferred by Statute upon the Secretary for Scotland than has the Home Secretary or anybody else. The object of the Act was to do away with the Lord Advocate, to prevent him from interfering in matters over which he has no real jurisdiction, and to place in the hands of a paid official the whole of the Scottish Business. What the Lord Advocate really does is this. He is reduced to the position of replying to any question put to him by reading from a paper something which, I suppose he has got from Lord Lothian. The consequence is this. If the answer is not satisfactory, he is asked for a further explanation, but the Lord Advocate is absolutely dump. He says that he cannot give any further information, and that the Member who asks the question, must give Notice of it. Surely that is not the way to conduct the Business of this House, and hon. Members have only to compare it with the way in which Irish Business is conducted. The Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant is a Cabinet Minister; he has a seat in this House; but even that is not enough, so he is assisted by someone else—the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Assistant Secretary. No doubt, the Scotch Members are much more lamblike than the Members from Ireland; but they think it is not too much to claim that Scottish Business should be attended to in the House of Commons by some official Secretary or Under Secretary, who is primarily responsible for it. As the
1742
Government have seen fit to depart from the original intention of Parliament in creating the Office of Secretary for Scotland, and as they have not appointed some Minister who has a seat in this House, I propose to reduce the Vote for the salary of the Secretary. Although £2,000 a-year may not have been an unfair or unreasonable salary for the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, when he filled the Office, seeing the work he had to do, that he could at all times be approached by the Scotch Members, and the hours he is compelled to sit here during the day, I think everybody will agree that one-half of that sum is quite ample for the salary of the present holder of the Office. I beg to move, therefore, that the salary of the present Secretary of State for Scotland be reduced by the sum of £1,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, for Salaries, be reduced by the sum of £ 1,000."—(Mr. Anderson.)
MR. ESSLEMONT: I think my hon. Friends who have made reference to this matter have forgotten the circumstances under which the Secretary for Scotland was appointed. They say that the Lord Advocate has been denuded of his prestige and powers; but they should remember that the Lord Advocate never had any prestige or power in the House of Commons. I will make hon. Members a present of the word" prestige." and will confine my remarks to the word "power." The Lord Advocate, in former days, was under the Home Secretary, and he had no power to deal with Scottish matters with any degree of authority. How far power and authority were given him by the courtesy of the House and of the Government is another matter, and so far as courtesy is concerned, it will be extended, no doubt, to the right hon. Gentleman now. The Secretary for Scotland was appointed in order that the Scottish Business might receive more attention. I can understand that the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Robertson.) should feel inclined to stick to his own profession. He says that the Lord Advocate ought to be the man to represent Scotland in this House, because he belongs to the Legal Profession, and the hon. and learned Member arrives at that conclusion because he sees that if

1743
it were adopted generally, all the Offices in connection with the management of Scottish affairs would be absorbed by the Legal Profession. But those who are outside that profession have never been of that opinion, and do not think that the whole of the business of Scotland should be in the hands of any single profession, however respectable. But while I disavow some of the sentiments expressed by the hon. and learned Member, which appear to me to have sprung from a misunderstanding, I quite agree with him in believing that the Scotch constituencies are, to a great extent, responsible for the creation of the Office of Secretary for Scotland. The constituents of the hon. Member as well as my own were originally strongly in favour of the new Office. What was asked for at that time was, that there should be such a concentration of Offices in Scotland under one head as would render the Department more efficient and economical, and we were told at the time that, by having the Scottish Department under one head, we should be able to do away with a number of officials who were then necessary. I am bound to say, speaking as an economist, that we ought to draw our attention to much more important matters than the fuss which we have been making over a dinner in Edinburgh. While I object strongly to all the guzzling which goes on, and am ready to admit that the cost of this particular dinner was most extravagant, I would ask what is it compared with the payment of £12,000 a-year for the Secretary for Scotland's Office while we get nothing from it. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Dundee has greatly underrated the importance of the Education Department. I believe that Department is under efficient management.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: May I be allowed to explain. I made no such imputation as my hon. Friend seems to suppose. I only asked the Lord Advocate to toll us how much is the additional expenditure brought about by the creation of the new Office, and the transfer of education to that Office.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I am glad my hon. Friend rose to make that explanation, because he went on to show that the Secretary for Scotland's Office costs £20,000 a-year, including the cost of Scotch education. I am willing to take
1744
the actual cost at one-half of that sum, but what we spent before on the Education Department is spent now, and cannot well be dispensed with to any appreciable extent, if we had no Secretary for Scotland at all. Nevertheless, a sum of £10,000 a-year is a serious sum to pay for the Office of Secretary for Scotland, and the hon. and learned Member for Dundee has not informed us whether the cost of the Office without taxes, which I believe amounts to £2,800 a-year, is included. In making these remarks let me disavow any personal criticism of the nobleman who at present holds the Office as Secretary for Scotland. I do not know him personally very much. I have only come in contact with him a few times since his appointment, but I am bound to say that in the small intercourse I have had with him the Secretary for Scotland has shown the greatest courtesy, and every desire to do what he can for the people of Scotland. But how can he? He belongs to the Conservative Party, which is in a miserable minority, to say the least, in Scotland. He is not in touch with the constituencies of Scotland—indeed, he is bound not to approach them on account of his noble disabilities. He has no place in the Government, and therefore he cannot influence the Government. He is not in the House of Commons, so he cannot be in touch with the people's Representatives, and he is placed in such a position that he represents nobody. He can do nothing for anybody. The salary is not too much, probably not enough, for the Secretary for Scotland, actually at the head of the whole Scottish Business, but at the present moment the appointment is purely an ornamental one, purely honorary. For that reason I venture to suggest that it should be held as an honorary appointment, with no salary attached, and for that reason I had intended to propose the reduction of the vote by £2,000. I do not, however, mean to say that we are to have a Scottish Secretary who should be paid as much as other Ministers. I certainly do not think £2,000 a-year too much, provided we could give the holder of the Office work to do. I have no desire to enter into a discussion of the Bill which is to come on to-morrow. I would only express a hope that the additional powers proposed to be conferred upon the Secretary for Scotland

1745
by that Bill will render the Office effective. I shall not, therefore, push my Amendment to a Division, or trouble the Committee to discuss it after the discussion which has taken place. But I wish to take the opportunity of saying that this Office has been a disappointment. It has added a great deal of expense without adding any great efficiency. We cannot go on voting £9,000, £10,000, and £12,000 without getting more effective service. I do not blame the Office for this neglect of Scottish Business. That is the blame of the Government. They have squeezed us into a corner so that we have to be content with the mere fragments that fall from the table of the English Members and the Government, who take every hour of the time of the House, and thrust the Scottish Members aside. But I can assure the Lord Advocate that the Scottish Members will not rest content much longer with such a state of matters. If the Office continues inefficient it will be a matter of disgust to the Scotch people that the country is called upon to pay so much for the small amount of work done.
MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: My chief object in rising is to call further attention to some of those matters of detail referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend (General Sir George Balfour) which I think have an important bearing on the general question of the efficiency of the Department in the discharge of its duties. I desire, in the first place, to say that I think it is premature to go so widely into the question of the present position of the Secretary for Scotland's Office, when we are about to discuss a Bill on the subject to-morrow. I take it that the Office, which is young, and still, no doubt, on its trial, was created with two definite objects. One was to enable Scottish interests to be more directly, more powerfully, and more influentially represented in the Government of the country than has hitherto been the case; and the second object was the necessity or the prospect, real or supposed, that Scottish Business in future would be done with more efficiency and despatch. Unfortunately, the first object has failed. The present Secretary for Scotland is not in the Cabinet, and at the end of the Session, when we see Scottish measures introduced and submitted to Scottish Members, almost at the point of the
1746
bayonet, in the second week in August, we are painfully convinced that any improvement we expected from the institution of the Office in that respect has been in no degree realized. My hon. and gallant Friend (General Sir George Balfour) called the attention of the Committee to the delay in producing the Local Taxation Returns, which are required by Statute to be published, and are of considerable interest. As a supplement to the statement which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made, I may remind the Committee that these Returns are at present actually more than two years in arrear, and that the value of such information entirely depends upon its being supplied within a reasonable time. I should like to compare the practice in the existing Office in this respect with the practice of its Predecessor, with which I had the honour to be connected. The Local Taxation Returns Act, which imposes on local bodies the obligation of making these Returns, was passed in August, 1881, and the first Returns for the year ending the 15th of May, 1881, were presented on the 9th of May, 1882, or in less than 12 months. The Returns for the year ending May 15, 1882, were presented on the 27th of June, 1883, or a little more than 12 months; those for the year ending May 15, 1883, were presented as late as September, 1884—that is to say, 16 months afterwards, and I well remember that the Lord Advocate of the day considered the delay to be very serious, and resolved that it should never occur again. The Lord Advocate ceased to be responsible for these Returns in the following year, and what was the result? I find that for the year ending May 15th, 1884, the Returns were not presented to this House until June 11, 1886, or two years and one month after date. That was the first specimen the new Office gave of increased efficiency and despatch. The Returns for May 15, 1885, were only presented on the 7th of June last. I do not make these criticisms upon the new Office in any unkind spirit; still less upon the present holder of the Office, whom I regard as being very little responsible personally for the delay, and as pointed references have been made to him, I will only say that from the communications which I and other Scotch Members have had with him in regard to Scotch business, I have

1747
every reason to believe that he is anxious to do his best for the interests of Scotland. I think that his extreme courtesy and his attention to the duties of the Office are no small qualifications, and it is not my object to cast any blame upon the Secretary or his staff; but it is quite certain that the Office itself is on its trial, and therefore it may not be untimely to remind those who are responsible for its business that the House of Commons desires it to be done with a great deal more efficiency and despatch in future.
MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I do not quite understand what some of my hon. Friends desire in regard to this Office. I sympathize with them as far as the results of the change are concerned—namely, that the working of the Office has caused disappointment, and has not equalled the expectations that were formed of it. But they must recollect that there has always been a divided responsibility in the Scotch Office. At one time we have had to refer to the Lord Advocate, and at another to the Home Secretary, and it was to get rid of this difficulty that the Scotch Members, and the people of Scotland generally, were anxious for the creation of this Office. I do not think that anything has been done to impair the dignity of the Office of Lord Advocate. The two Offices are distinctly separate, and although in former times the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate divided the whole business between them, I do not think that that was altogether a satisfactory arrangement. It must not be forgotten that the Liberal Government were, to a very large extent, responsible for the way in which the Office has been created and administered. The present ground of complaint is this—that the whole of the Administration of Scotland was not transferred to the Secretary for Scotland when the Office was created. We are told that some improvements are going to be carried out in this direction by the Bill which is to be brought on to-morrow; and if so, I hope the measure will receive the cordial support of Scottish Members. But we have to complain that the interests and the feelings of individuals receive more consideration than the public interests in dealing with Scottish subjects. I think we ought to insist upon the Secretary for Scotland being a Member of this House; and also the Representa-
1748
tive of a Scottish constituency. I think it was very unfortunate that with respect to the last Secretary for Scotland he did not represent a Scottish constituency. I am not particular to the Secretary being a Scotchman; but we are entitled to expect that he should represent a Scottish constituency, because that would give us some guarantee that he was in sympathy with, at least, a portion of the people of Scotland. Holding these views, I hope the Members for Scotland will move in the direction of increasing the responsibility and dignity of the Office of Secretary for Scotland, and not concentrate the business of Scotland in one hand; further, that they will insist upon the Secretary being a Member of the Government of the day and a Member of this House. I hope that the Vote will be accepted without further discussion, so that we may have time for the consideration of other Scottish Votes that are to come before the Committee, and that the Government will not misunderstand the feeling of Scottish Members on this question.
DR. CAMERON: I have no desire to continue the discussion; but it appears to me that we have lost sight of one very important point in connection with this Office. One of the real reasons for the creation of the Office was the hope that it would get rid of the constant changes which took place in the administration of the Office by the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate generally came in quite now to his duties, and with no knowledge of the Rules of the House, and as soon as a vacancy occurred on the Scottish Bench he was removed. The result was that the Parliamentary life of a Lord Advocate rarely exceeded two and a-half years. It was, therefore, desired that a Secretary for Scotland should be appointed, who should be entrusted with the entire administration of Scottish affairs. It was hoped that a somewhat more permanent policy might run throngh the administration. Unfortunately, that expectation has not been fulfilled, for short as was the Parliamentary life of the Lord Advocate, previously, the life of the Secretary for Scotland is apparently much shorter. Since the Office was created, we have had no fewer than five Secretarys for Scotland, and of those no fewer than

1749
three have been in "another place." The result is that we do not know how we stand now even so well as we did under the former system. Formerly we had the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate before us in all matters of importance, and we knew where the administration of the one began and the other ended. Now, it is impossible for us to tell where the jurisdiction of the Lord Advocate ends and that of the Secretary for Scotland begins. The hon. Member for Hawick (Mr. A. L. Brown) the other day addressed some questions to the Lord Advocate with respect to a correspondence between the Secretary for Scotland and the Fishery Board, and the Lord Advocate disavowed any knowledge of or any responsibility for the letters.
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: What I said was that I declined to make any comment on the conduct of the Secretary for Scotland. I knew of the circumstance quite well.
DR. CAMERON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman no doubt refused to make any comment, and he declined to give the explanations asked for, as it would have been unbecoming in him as a subordinate official of the Secretary for Scotland.
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I never used the word "subordinate." I was careful not to do so. I said a junior official.
DR. CAMERON: I deny that the right hon. Gentleman is a junior official. If he is a junior official in anyway, he is the junior official of the Home Secretary. This, however, only illustrates the position in which we stand. We do not know where the responsibility of one official begins and that of another ends. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont) has pointed out, when we asked for an explanation, and expect to receive it, from the Lord Advocate, we are told that we must go to the Secretary for Scotland. My hon. Friend wants to know how we are to get at the Secretary for Scotland. We are compelled in this House to ask all sorts of questions, and we are required to approach all sorts of Ministers on different matters. Probably an appeal may lay to the First Lord of the Treasury, who knows absolutely nothing about Scottish Business, and who gave us some wonderful informa-
1750
tion the other day about the Scottish Sheriff Courts, having arrived at the conclusion, because the word "Sheriff" was made use of, that the matter must be one which affected Scotland. Upon other matters we have been obliged to put questions to the Secretary to the Board of Trade, who has nothing to do with Scottish Business, and is not likely to waste too much time in giving the information we desire. Then, again, matters relating to teinds come under the First Commissioner of Works, and if we want to know anything about Excise questions we have to apply to the Secretary to the Treasury. I remember that when you, Mr. Courtney, were Secretary to the Treasury, we had to apply to you on various points, and I must say that you generally dismissed us with a minimum of information. The other day, when the question of Scottish vaccination was concerned, we had a reply from the President of the Local Government Board, who protested that he could do nothing for Scotland, because he had no control over that field of action. Those are the reasons why the Office has not given the satisfaction which it ought to have given. We want more concentration of Scottish Business in the hands of the Scottish Secretary, and we want, above all things, that the Secretary for Scotland should be a Member of the House of Commons, in which House alone Scotland can be said to be represented.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: If the Amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall certainly vote for it, on the sole ground that the Secretary for Scotland ought to be in the House of Commons. That is the only reason that would induce me to vote for a reduction of the salary of that officer. As a matter of fact, the Secretary for Scotland and his assistants have at this moment a ridiculously small amount of work to do. We have an establishment for Scotland quite apart from the Educational Department, for which we pay the Secretary £2,000 a-year, the Under Secretary £1,500, the Assistant Secretary £950, together with a private secretary and other officers. It is quite patent that the heads of the Office are much overgrown in proportion to the body. I think the remedy is that we should not attempt to get rid of the difficulty by reducing the Office, but by increasing the work. I believe that

1751
that could be done to a very large extent. I entirely disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Robertson) in the view he has expressed that the work of Scotland should be administered by the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate is all very well in his way; but I do not want to see the Business of Scotland placed in the hands of a lawyer. I do not think, however, that this discussion will have been wasted in view of the Bill which is to come before us to-morrow for increas-the power of the Secretary for Scotland. On the contrary, I think that it has been a good thing to clear the air, as it were. Two important changes ought to be effected—one of which is to bring the Secretary for Scotland into this House, and the other to increase the work.
MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT: I have no wish to anticipate the discussion which is to take place to-morrow; but I believe we are all agreed in thinking that, having got the Secretary for Scotland, we should make the Office as important as possible, and that the Secretary himself should be an important person, having his due weight in the councils of the nation. That, I think, might be done in two ways—first of all, by adding to the responsibility of the duties which he has to perform; and, secondly, in taking care not to limit the class of Members from whom the Office may be filled. I should say that it is desirable to get a distinguished Member of Parliament who is thoroughly recognized by the nation as suitable for a seat in the Cabinet, and a Member who would be well acquainted with the affairs of Scotland, whether he happens to represent a Scottish constituency or not. For that reason, I was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland filling the post. We must remember, however, that Parties in this House are very unequally divided, and in appointing a Minister for Scotland, there are probably not more than half-a-dozen Members to select from, and we ought to be able to draw from a considerable surface if it is desirable to get a man, such as I have indicated, to do the work. I have said that I do not wish to anticipate the discussion which is to come on to-morrow; but there is one question which I should like to put to the Lord Advocate. I wish to know whether there has been
1752
any instance, whatever, of a certificate having been granted by the Inspector who was appointed under the Rivers Pollution Act. I believe that a special Vote of £50 a-year was thrown upon the Estimates by the Act of 1876; but as far as I know the Inspector of Rivers Pollution under that Act has never granted a single certificate. That is one point in the Act of 1876 to which I would draw the attention of the Government. But there is another, and that is that if there is to be a system of inspection at all, it ought to be an effective one. The late Inspector—I do not know whether the person who at present fills the office entertains the same view—maintained that unless the wording of the Act of 1876 was materially strengthened he could not conscientiously give a certificate. He was required to certify that the means used to prevent the pollution of rivers were absolutely the best that could be applied, and as he was not prepared in any instance to say that the best means had been applied on that ground he refused to give any certificate whatever. In the next place, a certificate, if granted, although, as I have said, there has never been an instance in which one was granted, would have been ineffective. That is to say that although a manufacturer at Hawick or Galashiels did the work satisfactorily, any riparian proprietor who considered the steps taken to render the discharge from certain works innocuous, incomplete, and unsatisfactory, can bring his action against the manufacturer and enforce process. Now that is certainly a most unsatisfactory state of things, and if Parliament gives a power of inspection and enables a certificate to be granted the decision of the Inspector, when it has been arrived at, should be respected. Unfortunately the manufacturer, whatever expense he may go to in order to render the discharge from his works into the river absolutely innocuous, is at the mercy of any riparian proprietor lower down who chooses to bring an action against him. That is not a position in which these gentlemen ought to be placed, and I hope the Lord Advocate will give his attention to the matter.
MR. A. SUTHERLAND: Before the Lord Advocate rises to reply, I wish to say that we ought not to rest satisfied with an arrangement which

1753
leaves the Secretary for Scotland a Member of the other House of Parliament. I also object most emphatically to the Lord Advocate being made either in principle or in practice a Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Secretary for Scotland. I look upon the Office of Lord Advocate as one of greater dignity and standing in Scotland than the Office of Secretary for Scotland has proved to be. The Office has been created for the avowed purpose of increasing administrative efficiency in Scottish affairs, and to promote Scottish Business in Parliament; but a sufficient commentary on that is furnished by the fact that it is necessary to meet, at this period of the Session, in order that Scottish Members may be able to make some arrangement for advancing Scottish Bills.
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I have to say, in reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot), that to my knowledge the Inspector under the Rivers Pollution Act has done work, and good work, and has granted certificates; but I quite concur with the hon. Member in thinking that an arrangement by which we have an Inspector for Scotland, who is resident in London, and paid by salary, is not a proper arrangement. How it works I do not know. I have called attention to it in the Department, and I hope some better arrangement will be made in this respect. Then, with regard to the Office of the Secretary for Scotland, and the changes in the Office of the Lord Advocate, I think the only occasions on which during the last seven years there has been any change have been occasions when Her Majesty's Government as a body have changed. For instance, there was no change between 1880 and 1885, and the only reason why there have been three changes during the last two years is, that during the last two years there have been three changes of Government. Since its creation the Office of Secretary for Scotland has been filled by five persons; but it must be remembered that on two occasions the change was in consequence of a change of Government. The Duke of Richmond and Gordon was the first holder of the Office, and I believe that one of the main reasons that influenced Her Majesty's Advisers in that appointment was that in him they had one who would hold a seat in the Cabinet. That example
1754
was followed in the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), and I will leave it to that right hon. Gentleman to say whether the Office was a sinecure Office. As regarded the changes which have since been made, the late Liberal Government appointed a nobleman who was exactly in the same position as the Marquess of Lothian, of not having hitherto held an important or any paid Office under the State, and when the present Government came into Office, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was appointed, and was afterwards admitted to the Cabinet. And now the Marquess of Lothian has been appointed, and, from my own knowledge, the noble Marquess has given a great deal of attention to Scotland, and has been most anxious to do his duty in the Office. As during to-morrow we shall have a further discussion on the subject, I hope hon. Members will meanwhile be satisfied with having raised these points. While there is great unanimity in the direction of increasing the importance of the Secretary for Scotland's Office, we have not had the same unanimity on other matters that have been discussed, and the real point is whether that Office is to be made one of sufficient dignity and strength for the carrying on of Scottish Business. That object, I hope, will be secured by the measure which is to be discussed to-morrow.
DR. CLARK: May I ask if anything can be done in reference to the appeals from the judgment of the Crofters' Commission? That Commission is under the Secretary for Scotland, and I think that something should be done to expedite its movements.
THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not desirable to discuss every item of the Vote upon the question now before the Committee.
DR. CLARK: I only wished to point out the desirableness of having a decision upon a few test cases.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is quite impossible to discuss that question upon the present Vote. It can be raised, much more appropriately on Vote 3.
MR. R. PRESTON BRUCE: I should like to ask the Lord Advocate to explain the cause of the unsatisfactory manner in which the local

1755
taxation Returns are presented. The remarkable delay which has occurred in presenting them has been pointed out by the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. Donald Crawford), and I wish to know from the Lord Advocate whether it is owing to their being compiled by too many different and independent persons, or to there being an insufficient staff at Dover House? If that is the case, I hope some effort will be made to bring them into one single department, so that with greater expedition they may be presented in due time. In connection with this subject, an hon. Member has already referred to the great number of heads of departments at Dover House, and the extraordinary disproportion between the heads of the staff. Now, if there is business enough for all these heads, it is strange that they do not require more clerks. It strikes me that the evils complained of may, on the other hand, have arisen from not having a sufficient staff of clerks.
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: The hon. Member has correctly stated the evil, which is the rather inefficient state of the lower staff for the purpose of overtaking matters of detail.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question again proposed.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: May I ask what is the Question now before the Committee?
THE CHAIRMAN: It is the Vote of £5,143, to complete the Vote for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Secretary for Scotland.
DR. CAMERON: There is one point I wish to call attention to—namely, the fact that Sir Francis Sandford, the permanent Under Secretary, is to have his pension from the Education Department as well as his salary of £1,500 a-year in his new Office. I think that that is introducing a very vicious system.
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I may explain that the salary of the new Office is fixed at £1,500; but of that Sir Francis Sandford only draws £1,000, because he has already £500 for his pension.
MR. ANDERSON: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make a statement in reply to the question of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Robertson) as to the real
1756
cost of the Secretary for Scotland's Department? It has been stated that it costs only £10,000 a-year; but it has been pointed out that it really coats much, more, and I should like to know what the cost really is.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A Lord of the TREASURY): It is impossible to answer the question with exact accuracy. I must remind the hon. Member that many of the duties undertaken by this Department were formerly under the Home Department; but if the hon. Member wishes it, I will have a statement prepared, showing exactly the cost of the present Scottish Department, and the saving effected.
DR. CAMERON: My point was that if a public servant has work in him, he should not be abolished and pensioned, and then when he has a pension be placed in another lucrative office. If Sir Francis Sandford receives no part of his pension while he is in receipt of a salary, I have not a word to say; but that does not appear to be the case, because, as a matter of fact, he receives £500 in the shape of pension for his former services in connection with the Education Department. Are we to understand that he receives his full pay and a portion of Ms pension as well?
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: His salary is £1,500 a-year, and while he holds office he draws £2,000, but does not draw the rest of his pension.
DR. CAMERON: Then he does not draw £500 on account of his pension?
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: No; he draws no pension; he only draws up to what the full salary of his former appointment could have come to.
DR. CAMERON: Then may I ask what his pension is?
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: The salary of the Under Secretary for Scotland is fixed at £1,500; but of that he receives only £633, being the difference between his pension of £1,333 6s. 8d. and his former salary of £2,000.
DR. CAMERON: Then he does receive one-half of his pension in addition to his salary to make up the difference between the Office he now holds and the one which he held formerly?
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: He could not be employed at a less salary than that which he formerly enjoyed, and in order to make the £ 1,500 equiva-

1757
lent to his old salary, he receives £500 from his pension.
DR. CAMERON: I think this is a very objectionable system in principle; and as there has been no Division upon the Vote before, I think I ought to take one as a matter of principle. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) will agree with me that to have a berth of £1,500 a-year filled by an official drawing £2,000 a-year is not a sound principle. I will therefore move the reduction of the Vote is respect of the Under Secretary's salary by £500.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, for Salaries, be reduced by the sum of £500."—(Dr. Cameron.)
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) will not divide the Committee upon this point; because, after all, there is a real saving effected. If the Under Secretary had no work to do, his services might be dispensed with altogether.
DR. CAMERON: I have always understood that it was the rule in Government Offices in the Civil Service, that if a person drawing a pension take active service, the pension is stopped and he only receives the salary. I wish to see that principle applied in every case.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): May I explain that when a man in receipt of a pension accepts a new office, his salary for the new office and the pension are not together to exceed the amount of the salary of the office he has vacated. In this case, the pension was £1,300 a-year, and that added to the salary of the new Office would have exceeded the amount of the salary of the office Sir Francis Sandford vacated, and therefore the new salary has been reduced to the amount necessary.
DR. CAMERON: That principle is, in my opinion, equally objectionable; because if the pension is high and the remuneration of the now Office low, the officer will be allowed to draw a much larger salary than the Office is considered to be worth. You may be effecting a saving; but it occurs to me that Sir Francis Sandford is not only receiving his salary, but a considerable portion of his pension as well.
MR. ESSLEMONT: Are we to understand that the pension is paid on account of the abolition of office?
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: No; there was no abolition of office.
MR. ESSLEMONT: Then, I think it is highly objectionable that a public servant should be able to retire on a pension of £1,300 a-year who is perfectly capable of taking a fresh office at £1,500 a-year. The fewer of these retirements we have the better. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) will not press the Amendment, because I think that if we had to pay the pension and the salary as well, we should be paying £2,800 odd. At the same time, I entirely deprecate the mode by which gentlemen are retired at a pension of £1,300, who are still capable of filling situations of this kind.
MR. STEPHEN MASON: Let me point out that, by this arrangement, if Sir Francis Sandford drew his pension of £1,300, and another man held the new post at £1,500, the present cost would be exceeded by £800.
MR. CALDWELL: I believe that Sir Francis Sandford's sole object in accepting the new Office was his great desire to benefit by his experience the work of the Scottish Office. He could have retired and saved himself a great deal of trouble; and his only motive, I believe, was one of liking for his work.
DR. CAMERON: I am afraid my hon. Friends hardly realize how the Pension List is increasing. However, as it is late in the Session and we are all desirous of getting on, I will not divide the Committee; but I have brought the matter forward, because the principle is a wrong one to retire a person with £1,300 who is still capable of work. The Secretary to the Treasury knows very well how this burden of pensions is anually growing. All I can say is that if Sir Francis Sandford was capable of active work, he ought to have stuck to his post. I do not see why we should give these enormous pensions to gentlemen who are fit to do work when wanted. In my opinion, the only economical rule to follow would be to take the difference between the pension and the pay of the office, and I strongly object to the principle of sanctioning by silence in this House the holding of an office worth only £1,500 a-year, and paying

1759
£2,000 for it. By allowing a public servant to draw in every case an allowance up to his former salary, we are, I am afraid, adopting a very dangerous principle.
MR. JACKSON: I must remind the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow that Sir Francis Sandford, according to the Rules of the Service, was entitled to retire, because he had served the full time necessary to entitle him to retire with this pension. The hon. Member says that he ought not to have been allowed to retire while there was any work in him; but Sir Francis Sandford was entitled to claim his retirement and pension. Under the arrangement now made, Sir Francis Sandford will receive the difference between his pension and his former salary of £2,000 a-year—namely, £633 odd, and if another person had been appointed, we should have had to pay the pension of £1,300 odd and the salary of £1,500, making upwards of £2,800. As far as the question of pension is concerned, Sir Francis Sandford was entitled to it by the Rules of the Service; but it has been thought advantageous to make use of his services in another capacity, and by that means a saving has been effected of £800 a-year.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £4,067, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue."
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: May I ask who it is who moves this Vote?
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I do.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: There are some items in the Vote which appear for the first time; and I want to know distinctly who is responsible for them?
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has given Notice of his intention to move the reduction of this
1760
Vote. I also intend to move certain reductions, which amount to £1,000. In the first place, I propose a reduction of £625 on account of the Lyon King-at-Arms, of £260 on account of the Clerk and Law Agent of the Bible Board, of £97 for Her Majesty's Limner, and of £218 on account of Queen's Plates. I want to know whether Her Majesty's Limner supplies any pictures for the money allowed to him?
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,067, be granted for the said Services."—(Sir George Campbell.)
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I must press for an answer to the question I put as to whether Her Majesty's Limner supplies any pictures.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: The hon. Gentleman asks whether Sir Noel Paton, who is the present holder of this office—an office of extreme antiquity—supplies any pictures. My answer is that he does not. The office is entirely an honorary one, and the small salary attached to it is a slight recognition on the part of the State—it used to be on the part of the Monarch—of the measure of eminence attained by a living artist. These recognitions of distinction in the fine arts are not confined to this country, but are made, I believe, in every civilized country in the world. I do not think my hon. Friend can complain that in this case the recognition is too handsome.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I doubt whether any other country has a Lyon King-at-Arms.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: My observations referred to Her Majesty's Limner.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) on the protest he has made. This is the first time I ever heard a Scotsman object to anything that was to come out of the Consolidated Fund. I should vote for the reduction of this item; but, unfortunately, I have paired. The office of Lyon King-at-Arms is a sinecure. He does nothing, and the heralds do nothing. The whole business of heraldry is a relic of past ages. I have always opposed the Vote for these Kings-at-Arms, whether in England or in Scotland; and I shall always, when I have not paired, vote against it.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: The hon. Member says that heraldry is a relic of past ages. In the same way, all history is, to some extent, a relic of past ages.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes; but we do not pay for it.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: The Office of Lyon King-at-Arms is not a sinecure. The cost is really cheaper than appears on the Vote, and certainly is much less than the cost of Ulster King-at-Arms.
DR. CLARK: How much does he receive under Class III.?
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: the extra fees received by the Lyon King-at-Arms were formerly payable to himself and the heralds and pursuivants of the Scottish College of Arms; but now they are payable to the Treasury.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: What does he receive these fees for?
An hon. MEMBER: For preparing pedigrees.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I wish to take this opportunity to refute a statement made last year by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), to the effect that the Lyon King-at-Arms sent out circulars. It has been found out that the circulars in question were sent out by a lawyer in Glasgow, who has been dead 10 years.
MR. LABOUCHERE: As far as I can learn the Lyon King-at-Arms had a jackal, because he evidently benefited by these circulars in supplying the coats of arms. He receives fees for granting heraldic devices, if there are any Scotchmen who do not possess them. I consider the whole thing a premium on snobbism of the lowest kind, and I have a strong feeling that the whole of it ought to be done away with.
DR. CAMERON: I think that a portion of this officer's salary should be given to the person who touted for him.
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: He has been dead for 10 years.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: He never touted.
DR. CAMERON: Some years ago I received one of these circulars; but it so happens that I was not in the position of having assumed any arms, and therefore the circular had no terror for me,
1762
and the threat of having to pay a penalty of £40 fell harmlessly upon me. It is said that the jackal acted without the authority of the Lyon King-at-Arms. He is now dead; but he distinctly stated in a letter to me that he was not acting without the authority of the Lyon King-at-Arms. It is said that the touting has now ceased; but I understand that a circular of the same kind was issued last year. I should like to know, therefore, whether gentlemen of this kind are employed to bring grist to the Treasury mill?
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I have already tried to explain that this jackal, as he has been called, had no connection whatever with the Office of the Lyon King-at-Arms. He was an impostor, who worked entirely in his own interest.
DR. CLARK: I think the Committee ought to have a complete explanation of the remuneration of this officer. I am told that he receives a further allowance under Vote 3, and I want to know what the actual amount of his fees is? I think the Scotch Lord of the Treasury ought to be able to give us the information.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I will tell the hon. Member how much the Lyon King-at-Arms receives under Class III. when that class is reached.
DR. CLARK: That is an evasion. If the hon. Gentleman will tell me he does not know I can quite understand.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 157: Majority 79.—(Div. List, No. 368.) [6.50. P.M.]
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £15,925, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland, and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays."
MR. MARJORIBANKS: I think the discussion of this Vote would be shortened if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) would now state what position the Government intend to take up with regard to the Fishery Board. We do not at all

1763
consider that the Fishery Board is constituted in a satisfactory manner, and we desire to impress on the Government the necessity of saying what they intend to do with regard to it in the future, We contend that the Board ought to contain some man having practical experience in the matter of fisheries, and also acquainted with the fishing grounds on the coasts of Scotland. Then we want to know what is going to be done with reference to the constitution of the Board. It is an open secret that the relations between the members of the Board have been of the most strained character, the result of which has been that they have not worked together, and what has been done has not been done satisfactorily. I trust, therefore, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will give us some information on this subject, because I believe that his doing so will save a good deal of difficulty through our being able to discuss the question with knowledge of what is going to be done.
MR. J. W. BARCLAY: The reply given to-day by the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian) to the representations made to him was satisfactory to those Members who heard it; but the Fishery Board has not come up to the expectations which have been formed of it, and an opportunity will be afforded to the Government in October next of reconstituting the Board on a more satisfactory basis. The fishermen desire to have placed on the Board some person practically acquainted with the system of sea fishing, and they desire preeminently that some member of their own body should be appointed with the necessary experience. There seems to be in the way of that a practical difficulty—namely, that such members of the Board would require some remuneration for their services. But if it is found to be impracticable on that ground the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland ought to find out some persons along the coast who possess the confidence of the fishermen. Reference has been made to the scientific portion of the Board, and there is disappointment among many at the result of the scientific efforts which the Board has made. But I think that on that point the public should observe a greater amount of patience, because scientific facts are col-
1764
lected very slowly, and it is only after the collection of a considerable number of facts that useful conclusions can be drawn. For my own part, I shall be sorry to see any interference with the scientific investigations which are now going on, and I believe it would be a misfortune if we were abruptly to bring them to a close. The present members, I believe, are men of business, and I hope the noble Marquess will see his way to have those investigations continued. But it would be undoubtedly of great advantage to the scientific side of the Board if they had associated with them men of practical experience in fisheries; they would be able to exercise some influence over the investigations, and would, no doubt, open out points on which practical fishermen would desire to have information. Even if there was on the Board a representative of the fishermen themselves—if not a fisherman, a man practically acquainted with the wants of the fishermen—I think it reasonable to believe that the Board will become a useful institution; but hitherto it cannot be said that the Fishery Board has fulfilled the expectations formed of it when it was reconstituted five years ago. I hope, however, the Government are about to replace some of the members with more practical men, which will give the Board a now lease of life.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I think hon. Members will agree with me that the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland has said all upon this subject that can be usefully said at this stage—that is to say, that the suggestions made to him with regard to the appointment of practical fishermen on the Board, or of someone who knows the wants and possesses the confidence of the fishermen, will receive his most careful consideration. I may add that there is every desire to meet the views of all hon. Members which are practicable. I am glad that the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) has pointed out that the scientific investigations which are going on are of greater importance than some hon. Members have supposed, and that it requires patience on the part of the community. That is a thing, however, which it is difficult to obtain; but I hope that my hon. Friends who have influence with the fishermen will persuade them

1765
that these scientific investigations will be of extreme value, although they may not be brought so rapidly to a conclusion as practical suggestions can be carried out.
MR. ASHER&c.): I do not ask to know the names of the persons whom the Government propose to substitute for the members of the Board who will cease to hold office in the course of the ensuing year; but I am glad that the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland has given us an assurance that his own inclination was in the direction of appointing a fisherman to the Board, and I desire to impress on the Government the great necessity there is for that view being carried out. As the Representative of the Elgin Burghs, I come in contact with as large a number of fishermen as any Scotch Member in this House, and during the past few years the fishermen have been directing their attention to the expiry of the term of office of the present Board because they are not in feeling with it, and I must say, individually, that they have, with regard to its constitution, a considerable grievance. It seems to me extremely desirable that the duties entrusted to the Board should be performed by persons having the confidence of the fishermen, and who are acquainted with their wants. I am quite aware that there are difficulties in connection with this matter. One difficulty rests on financial grounds so far as regards a member of the fishing class becoming a member of the Board. It can scarcely be expected that such a man could give the time that would be required of him without his services were paid for. I think the Government would do well to consider whether a portion of the money voted by this House might not be applied for the purpose of enabling a fisherman, or representative of the class, to incur the expense of doing duty on the Board. However that may be, there is no doubt that the fisherman of Scotland desire that some person chosen by themselves should be on the Board, and they have recommended the appointment of a gentleman who possesses their entire confidence. My own opinion is, that it would be satisfactory if the services of a person of the fisherman class could be availed of for doing this duty; but there is no doubt that the gentleman they have selected would
1766
admirably discharge the duties of the post by reason of his knowledge and experience, and I hope the Government will keep this matter distinctly in view. What the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland said to-day has encouraged me in the hope that, on the reconstruction of the Board, the representative element will receive a large share of attention.
MR. ANDERSON: I had not the advantage of hearing the remarks of the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland on this subject; but I gather that the Government propose to take the matter into consideration. The hon. and learned Member for Elgin Burghs (Mr. Asher) may consider the statement of the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland satisfactory; but I confess that I do not regard it in the same way. It is a very poor thing to be told that the matter will be taken into consideration, because we know how little comes out of these promises as a rule. As far as the financial part of the case is concerned, I think I can suggest a satisfactory means of finding the money to pay the fishermen who it is desired should be appointed on the Board. There is one matter I do not understand in connection with this Vote, that is the £800 a-year paid to the Chairman. That large sum is paid to a gentleman who has never had anything whatever to do with the fishing industry; it was given to a gentleman who it was thought should have some reward for his political services, and who the fishermen consider is entirely unfitted for the post which he occupies. It is my intention to propose the reduction of this gentleman's salary. I think £300 or £400 a-year would be ample remuneration for him, and I suggest that the balance should go to pay the fishermen who are to be appointed to the Board. That is a proposal which I hope will find approval with hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope the Government will support me in that proposal, and that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will tell us that they have come to the conclusion not to keep up this enormous salary. I want to avoid dividing the Committee on my Amendment; but I shall be compelled to do so, unless we have a satisfactory statement from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. There is

1767
another matter of great importance that I desire to refer to. It is to me a great disappointment to find that the Fishery Board have done so little with regard to fishing harbours. To promote and improve the smaller fishing harbours is one of the most important things connected with the fishing industry of Scotland. Perhaps some hon. Members have seen the Report of the Scotch Fishery Board; it has only been in the hands of hon. Members for a few days, and we have not had time to examine it. It is strange that this Report should have been presented to the Secretary for Scotland on the 2nd of May last, and that it has only been laid on the Table of the House within the last week. We have had a valuable Minute recently issued by the Board of Trade. That Minute goes fully into the question of loans for harbours; it refers to the powers of the Scotch Fishery Board, and it does not deal with the question of harbours, because it says that this matter is to be handed over to be dealt with by the Scotch Fishery Board. Now, the Government having considered the questions in this Minute, I think the Committee are entitled to hear from them a distinct pledge as to whether they are prepared to legislate on the lines suggested by this Report of the Scotch Fishery Board, because it is acknowledged in the Minute that some preference must be given in the case of harbours which are in the hands of poor fishermen. I do not think that that is enough. I think we ought to have some legislation which will put it in the power of these fishermen to go to the Public Works Commissioners and borrow money. We know that the owners of small fishing harbours have no means of getting money except, as is pointed out in this Report, through their industry; but that where facilities have been given they have got money together with wonderful quickness. All we want is to have some body or corporation which will give to the fishermen some locus standi, and enable them to borrow money on the security of the rates. I hope to hear from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate or from some other Member of the Government—perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Baron Henry De Worms)—before this Vote is taken, that there is a serious intention on the
1768
part of the Government to take this matter in hand.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
" That Item A, Salaries, &c, be reduced by £300, in respect of the Salary of the Chairman of the Board."—(Mr. Anderson.)
MR. R. T. REID&c.): I have only one question to ask, and that without making any comment on the Vote. Can the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate hold out any hope that the Government will be able to bring in next Session a general fishing law, which will deal with the many questions especially relating to the Solway?
MR. BUCHANAN: I did not stay long enough at Dover House to hear the whole of the statement of the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian); but if I am right in thinking that it is proposed to put the scientific department in future under some other conditions, I need not say another word on that subject. Technically, Professor Ewart is the only scientific member of the Board, and the £2,000 a-year voted by this House is entirely in his hands, to be disposed of in any way he pleases. I do not think the Committee is aware that there is nothing in the Fishery Act which would allow of the disposal of the money and funds of the Board in this way. As far as I can understand, the only words in the Fishery Act which could in any way be used to justify this expenditure are those which provide that the Board shall take such measures for the improvement of fisheries as the funds admit. It is under these vague and general terms that we continue this payment, without any attempt being made on the part of the Government to distinguish the purposes for which this money is to be employed. Very admirable work has, no doubt, been done; but I am bound to call attention to the fact that you have here a large grant amounting to no less than £2,000 a-year for scientific purposes which is not administered by a scientific Board, but, practically, as I have said, by one individual, who may, to all intents and purposes, disburse it in any way he pleases—that is to say, in any way which he thinks will be for the benefit of the fisheries. I wish distinctly to enter a caveat against the argument that this is a grant of £2,000 for scientific purposes in Scot-

1769
land. I entirely deny that it is for that purpose. I think it would be well if the Government, when the appointments to the new Board are made, would appoint a Board for a shorter term than five years.
MR. R. W. DUFF: As I was Chairman of the Committee which recommended the establishment of this Board I wish to say a few words on the Vote. One of the recommendations was that a certain sum of money should be given for scientific investigation in connection with the Scotch fisheries. During the investigations of that Committee it came to our knowledge that the United States of America and Norway were making large strides in this direction. I believe that the United States are paying £50,000 a-year for the purpose, and that a considerable sum is also paid in Norway. I am glad to hear from the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) that he approves of this expenditure for scientific purposes. I must remind my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) that this Board was the outcome of the Committee, and that the Committee distinctly recommended that the money should be expended on scientific investigation. Although I do not follow the hon. and learned Member, I think they have done some useful work. No doubt the Board has made mistakes, and that as much good as was expected has not been got out of it; but still, as I have said, considering the time it has been in existence, it has done useful work. We know that one question which has occupied the Board is that of trawling, and they are now investigating the results of trawling upon inshore fisheries. Then this Report contains valuable information with regard to mussels and oysters. On the whole, I think that, considering the amount of money expended, we shall get from it a very good return. With regard to the constitution of the Board, it at present consists of nine members; three of those are Sheriffs, appointed, as I understand, ex officio. I am inclined to think that the legal element is somewhat over represented on the Fishery Board; and I think that two Sheriffs would be quite enough. I agree with what has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Elgin (Mr. Asher) with regard to the appointment of practical men on the
1770
Board. I quite see that there are difficulties in the way, and I remember talking this matter over with Lord Dalhousie when he was Secretary for Scotland, and he had the idea that we might have local Fishery Boards, who should by some process of selection send a number of representatives to the Board. I think it would be very difficult to get a direct representation of fishermen on the Board; but I think we may get over the difficulty by having District Boards to nominate representatives, and that I think would be more effectual for the purposes intended. Allusion has been made to harbour loans.
THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is an Amendment before the Committee to reduce the salary of the Chairman of the Board.
MR. R. W. DUFF: Then I will refer to that particular part of the Report another time, and I, of course, bow to your ruling. With regard to the salary paid to the Chairman, I do not think it is too high, having regard to the salaries of Commissioners in Ireland and others who hold analogous appointments, and I do not think you would get anyone to do the duties for a smaller sum.
MR. HALDANE: I must say that, notwithstanding any reform in the constitution of the Board, I shall be glad to see another £2,000 added to the Vote for scientific investigation. No doubt it is true that the whole constitution of the Board requires overhauling, and it is a very satisfactory thing that the Government say that this question is under their consideration. I agree with the hon. Member for Banff-shire (Mr. R. W. Duff) that the official legal element is too largely represented, and that it would be better to have a different arrangement. No doubt if practical fishermen could not be got, at all events curers, perhaps, might be got to bring valuable experience to the deliberations of the Board. We are placed in a state of things in which everyone acknowledges that it is impossible to take a single step in advance. Now £2,000 is, in my opinion, not sufficient. I have made inquiries, and I find that the investigations are prosecuted inefficiently for want of money, and I hope the Government will see their way, at all events, of having the constitution of the Board overhauled. In the meanwhile,

1771
with regard to the reduction of the Chairman's salary. I do not see my way to support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson). No doubt when Sir James Boyd was appointed he was not an expert in fishery matters; but he has now gained experience, and I do not think that £800 is too large a salary.
MR. ESSLEMONT: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane) says that £800 a-year is not too large a salary for the Chairman of the Fishery Board. That is quite true if he devotes his whole time to the work he has before him; but it is my opinion that the money would be better distributed by giving £500 a-year to the Chairman of the Board, who, I believe, does not devote a very great deal of his time to this particular department, and £300 to get practical men from different parts of Scotland whose attendance on the Board would necessarily entail upon them a considerable expense. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Haldane) has spoken of the scientific portion of the Vote. I am aware that there has been a misunderstanding between the scientific members of the Board and other members, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) is quite right in saying that there should be more definite instructions laid down, so that the expenditure of the money should be under the control, not of scientific professional men, but that of the whole Board. I am aware that Sir James Boyd was appointed with very little practical knowledge of the fishing industry; but since he has received that appointment he has given five years of careful consideration to the subject, and he must therefore have acquired a great deal of information which will be useful. Although I shall vote for the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Anderson) who proposes to reduce this Vote, I should like to give it as my opinion that, under all circumstances, the present Chairman is not the very best man to occupy that position. I am sure that the fishermen in Scotland will look with very great interest to the re-appointment of the Board. There are still live appointments to make, and if out of these there are no practical representatives of the fishermen it will cause great
1772
disappointment. I can assure the Committee that practical fishermen do not at present look upon the Board with much satisfaction; but if you have other men who are their own representatives to give their side of the question, I think they may come to believe that scientific investigations are much more valuable than they now suppose them to be. I believe that a larger sum would be well expended if we can satisfy ourselves that it is expended properly.
DR. R. MACDONALD: There is a subject connected with this Board which I brought before the House not long ago, and to which I desire again to call attention; it is the inefficiency of this Board in doing its work. The Committee will remember that there was a grant of £2,000 made to the Fishery Board for the purposes of supplying boats and gear to poor fishermen in parts where the Acts of Parliament were to apply. I find there have been 300 applications made to the Fishery Board for boats and nets by crofters, and that not one of these has been granted. The Board has not distributed the money at its disposal; but it is a fact that they have been engaged for 12 months in drawing up rules and regulations as to distribution, among which it is provided that the crofters must pay down 25 per cent of the value before they can get anything at all. Some of my hon. Friends who represent these constituencies, and I, myself, have had some informal communications with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, and we are anxious to know whether any change is going to be made in the terms on which loans are obtainable. We suggested terms which we thought would be reasonable, and we want to know whether those terms will be accepted, or whether this House, having granted money for these purposes, the Board is, like a dog in a manger, to keep and do nothing with it. The fishermen, as I have stated, have waited in the expectation of getting the boats, and, now the fishing season is over, they have no means of getting them. There is nothing to justify the driving of such hard terms with these fishermen. It has been said in favour of the system that it is necessary to be very careful, because what has happened in Ireland will happen in Scotland—that is to say, if I the fishermen could not repay the loans,

1773
and the Government were to proceed and sell the boats, the sales would be Boycotted, and they would get no money back. But I reply that Boycotting has not yet begun in Scotland, and that the argument has no weight. I hope we shall have an assurance from the Government that a change will be made in the terms, and that the fishermen will be able to get the money without difficulty, and in accordance with the intention of the Legislature.
MR. ANSTRUTHER&c.): As far as my experience goes, the fishermen are not satisfied with the representation they have upon the Fishery Board; and although I cannot support an Amendment to imply any censure on the past action of the Board or Chairman, who I think has discharged his duties in a satisfactory way, at the same time I take it that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Anderson) is intended to assert the principle that we desire to be carried out—namely, that of having some popular representation on the Board. I shall, therefore, be open to support the Amendment, because I am convinced that the fishermen are desirous of having on the Board gentlemen who are in their confidence, and whoso views are in accordance with their own, and who are capable of giving effect to those views.
MR. MACDONALD CAMERON&c.): A great many representations have been made to me with regard to the constitution of the Fishery Board. The feeling is that the Chairman of the Board, no matter how excellent a gentleman he may be, has not the knowledge of fishing which entitles him to his position. Remarks have been made with regard to the experiments that have been and are being conducted on the coast. I have had some experience in scientific investigation, and I do not think that the view of the subject taken by my hon. and learned Friend, that these experiments are not likely to produce as much good as is expected from them, is a correct one. The agricultural interest of this country has received very considerable assistance from scientific investigation, and has developed a good deal in consequence. The fishing industry is the only one which has not had the aid of science, and I am looking for a great benefit to be derived
1774
by the fishermen on our coasts from the experiments which are being conducted. Although we may not be able to reduce this Vote, I hope, in the end, we shall produce such an impression on the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that he will take care, when these appointments are made in November next, that a more capable and practical man will be put on the Board as Chairman, and that we shall have the benefit from the man in that position which we have a right to expect.
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I sincerely hope my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Anderson) will not press this Amendment on the Committee, for the simple reason, that the whole effect of it must be to cast a slur upon the present Chairman of the Fishery Board. I quite understand the object which my hon. and learned Friend has in view, and that he thinks £500 a-year would be quite sufficient salary for the Chairman if the duties which he has to perform are insufficient to occupy the whole of his time. That is a fair way of stating the case; but I understand that there is a further object in view—namely, to set free a sum of money for the purpose of enabling practical fishermen to occupy seats on the Board without loss to themselves. That is a most proper object, and one which might possibly turn out to be the best and most efficient way of improving the Board itself. But that cannot be effected by the Amendment now before the Committee, the only effect of which would be to prevent the money being handed to the Chairman, while it would not enable the Government to devote it to any other purpose whatever. For that reason I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press the question to a Division. With regard to the future, as I have slated already, these matters are occupying the attention of the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian) and others; but I submit to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid) that it is impossible that we should be able to make up our minds as to what will be done next Session. If I were to pledge myself on behalf of the Secretary for Scotland to what has been suggested this evening, I should be pledging myself to a large number of suggestions of a contradictory kind.

1775
The advantage to be gained from a discussion of this character is the bringing forward the views of hon. Gentlemen and their constituents, in order that from their views and those of their opponents some likely and sensible scheme may be worked out; but it is quite impossible for Members of the Government to pledge themselves, while giving satisfaction to the country, to endeavour to please everybody. I therefore hope my hon. and learned Friend will be satisfied with what I have said, and with the assurance that none of the matters which have been brought forward to-night will be lest sight of; and, further, that the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland has very much exercised his mind already upon this matter.
MR. MARJORIBANKS: I, also, hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press this Motion to a Division. Whatever may be the defects of the Board, I know that a great deal of work is got through, and I do not think the Committee ought to cast a slur on the Chairman of the Board by reducing the Vote for his salary. I cannot agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) that we could afford to give him the Recess in this matter.
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: Give us until October; it will be only a short, time.
MR. MARJORIBANKS: I should not like to trust to the amount of consideration that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be likely to give to the matter during the month of September. He will be more likely to be giving consideration to other matters during that month.
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: We shall be here.
MR. MARJORIBANKS: Though we do not ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give us the names of persons, yet I should like to press him to say whether the Scotch Office have not already formed some sort of idea as to the conditions which are going to be applied to the Fishery Board which is to be re-appointed in a very few weeks now. I do not think we have a right to be met in this House upon this point by a demand for time when only a few weeks intervene between now and the date of the re-appointment of the Fishery Board. I think we ought to have given
1776
to us some idea of the policy to be pursued as to the re-appointment of that Board. It is not sufficient to tell us that the suggestions made in this Committee will receive consideration. The time has come for something more than that. There is a system adopted with regard to Boards of Conservators in England in which the fishermen can elect members to represent them on those Boards. That, it seems to me, might possibly be a very good system to be adopted in Scotland. I do not say that the elected members should take their places at every meeting of the Board, which would be three or four times a week; but when certain questions of great importance to fishermen are being discussed, or when proposals for new legislation are being considered, that is the time that the elected representatives of the fishermen should take their places upon the Board, and should give the official members of it the benefit of their knowledge and experience in regard to the requirements of the fishermen. These men are much more likely to know what would be beneficial to them than any other gentlemen, however willing and desirous they might be to advance the interests of the fishing industry and to do good to the fishermen. I do press for a more definite answer from the Government.
DR. CLARK: I think the present condition of affairs very unsatisfactory. I see the right hon. Gentleman who used to be Secretary for Scotland—now the Chief Secretary for Ireland—six months ago was considering and investigating this matter. His Successor has been considering it; and the result of this joint consideration of these two right hon. Gentlemen is that we are now told that there is to be still further consideration, and that they want until October. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) ought to be aware that in September, under the Act of Parliament, the present six Members of the Scotch Fishery Board will cease to be members, and that he will require to replace them. He will find that the first meeting of the new Board will be held early in October. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is anxious to discuss the matter, and we can get some information from him, I shall be glad to sit down and give place to him. If

1777
he does not wish to get up and give us some information, I would impress upon him that next month these Members will require to be appointed, and I wish to say that before we grant this money we require to know something with regard to the constitution of the new Board. Every hon. Member who represents a fishing constituency is entirely dissatisfied with the old Board, and I will tell you why we are dissatisfied with it. We are dissatisfied with it because we think that its powers and functions have been used in a very unsatisfactory fashion. I will point out how the Board have acted. There was a question put to my hon. Friend the Member for the Ross Division of Herefordshire (Mr. Biddulph) with regard to the measures to be taken to prevent destitution in the Islands of Scotland. This House was going to lend money to the crofters to enable them to buy boats and nets, these poor people being practically paupers, or in the first stage of pauperism. This Fishery Board, by the Act of Parliament, had to lay the conditions under which the money was to be lent to the crofters. They require, of course, the sanction of the Secretary of State. The matter was referred to him, and he signed the requisition, and then the conditions were laid down by the Fishery Board. Well, unless those conditions are changed and modified you will never lend a single penny to the crofters for the purchase of boats and nets, because the people from whom you are asking £80 or £100 would scarcely be able to raise 80 or 100 pence. The banks have been in the custom of lending money to these people hitherto before they got ruined by the state of the herring market on the Continent. The Treasury have been lending money on worse conditions than private firms, and they have made those terms because they will not give the fishermen the fishing rights, for the reason that hon. Gentlemen wanted them for sporting and other purposes. The Government have not given a single farthing; they have laid down impossible conditions, and it is this Fishery Board I maintain that is responsible for it, together with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Eastern Division of Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour). I should like the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the question of the hon. Member for Ross before we vote this
1778
money. I trust he will tell us whether he still intends in another year to prevent the intention of Parliament being carried out, and to prevent these fishermen from getting their boats and nets on such conditions as have hitherto enabled the fisheries of Scotland to be developed. These men have power to grant loans for the construction of small harbours. We lose numbers of fishermen along our coast every year because we have not sufficient harbours of refuge. We have numbers of widows and orphans among our fishing community because the Fishery Board has not carried out the functions which Parliament conferred upon them. They had a surplus of £20,000 from the herring brand, and we have compelled them to give something out of this amount for harbours. But what have they done? They have not given contributions to several small harbours as the fishermen have desired; but they have given £10,000 to one harbour. It was not the intention of Parliament that this money should be given for the construction of large harbours; but the idea was to make a number of small ones all along the coast. A surplus of £5,000 or £6,000 was obtained last year from the herring brand. Let the Committee remember what that is—at is, in reality, a tax upon the fishermen. If you were to use that to develop and promote the fishing industry you would be using it properly, but they have not done so; and now, when towards the end of their career they have to disgorge something like £20,000, they are spending it in the way I describe. With regard to the mussel beds the Fishery Board, instead of looking after them in the interests of the fishermen, are doing their best to get the Board of Trade to grant the foreshores to private individuals. We desire these foreshores to be developed by the Fishery Board in the interests of the Scotch fishermen, so that the latter may not be put to the inconvenience and expense of going to Ireland for bait, where their advent is a source of much disquietude among the Irish fishermen. As a matter of fact, everything the Scotch Fishery Board has done it has done badly, and I certainly shall go into the Lobby if a Division is taken as a protest against the way in which they have done their work. The Chairman of the Board is a very good business man no doubt. As Lord Pro-

1779
vost of Edinburgh, and as Director of various Companies, he, no doubt, discharges his functions admirably; but, in addition to this, he is quite prepared to be one of the members of this Fishery Board, and to do the business of a member of that Board. I hold, however, that the sum which is paid this gentleman is a totally unnecessary expenditure, and that you do not want a paid Chairman at all. What you want is a paid Secretary. The Secretary is at present very much underpaid; as a matter of fact, he is not paid as much as his own clerk. You give his Inspector £200 more than you give himself. Why is that? I have nothing to say against the Secretary. The only thing I have to say about him is that he is a gallant gentleman who deserves well of his country, and that it is time the House should give him a pension and appoint a man 20 or 30 years younger to do the work and act as Secretary to the Fishery Board, and to do some of the work now performed by the Chairman. The position of affairs is simply this—the old Board was very unsatisfactory because of its composition. Its members were, generally speaking, ignorant of their work, and Parliament has since conferred upon them special executive powers which they have put in force. Under these circumstances, we have the right to ask the Government whether they are going to adopt the principle of having men on the Board who will represent two things? The first thing you want them to represent is the district. You have hundreds of miles of sea coast, some places English-speaking and some places Gaelic-speaking. We desire that both descriptions of population shall be represented on the Board. And, secondly, we want practical men, fishermen and fish curers, to be put on the Board—men who know something about the wants of the districts, and can advise the Board as to the carrying out of their general duties. Notwithstanding that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who was formerly Secretary for Scotland, and the noble Lord who now occupies that position have investigated this subject, still these are the facts which are given to us, and probably when we meet again next year we shall have the same points to discuss. We may be able to pass an Act next year. I trust we shall, as I think we
1780
shall never be able to settle this matter without legislation. I think we have a right to ask three questions—in the first place, why do the Fishery Board lay down these absurd conditions, and prevent loans being granted to the crofters? Secondly, will the Government take stops to see that the districts are properly represented on the Board? And, thirdly, will they also see that experienced men, either fishermen or fish curers, are appointed on the Board on its reconstruction?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I think that possibly the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that legislation may be required before this question is finally disposed of; but whatever plan is ultimately adopted I can safely prophesy that no kind of plan, however good and ingenious, will prevent the kind of criticism which the hon. Gentleman passes on the action of the Fishery Board. What is the Fishery Board, to do? They have to administer a certain amount of money, practically public money, for the benefit of fishing communities, differing, some of them, in the language they speak, in the character of their industry, and in the localities in which they live. How can you possibly obtain from any Board, constitute it as you will, a method of carrying on its work which will give equal satisfaction to all the persons interested? The hon. Gentleman has thrown out a suggestion with regard to representation. I am inclined to think we ought to look in the direction of representation for the amelioration of the Fishery Board; but how prodigious are the difficulties in the way of any scheme of that kind. If we go by the population of the districts represented, is it not clear that the localities where the population is greatest will monopolize the benefits, and that the poorer districts in which the hon. Member is so deeply interested will suffer in consequence? The hon. Gentleman is the spokesman for the poorer towns and fishing villages in the North of Scotland, or of some of them, and I would ask him to reflect upon this—that I am by no means sure that those people he represents are those who would gain most by the form of representation he proposes. The representation would have to be impartially distributed amongst the parties con-

1781
cerned, and power would naturally flow in the direction where the voting power was greatest. Then the hon. Gentleman says we ought to have men on the Board practically experienced in the fishing industry of Scotland. Again, I agree that we ought to look in that direction for remedying the condition of the Board; but we must not lose sight of the difficulties that would meet us in that direction. If we represent the West of Scotland what would the East say, and if we were to represent the North what would the South say? If you were to represent all the districts so as to prevent jealousy your Board would be of such a size that unless you broke it up it would not be able to carry on its work. These are some of the difficulties that meet you when you try to deal with this question. The hon. Gentleman spoke as if the Government took up a non possumus attitude on this question; but that is not so. The Government are not adhering to any one particular plan against the plans which hon. Members have proposed. No plan has been agreed upon by the Scotch Representatives. We are all agreed that something should be done; but seemingly no one can make up his mind as to what shall be substituted for that which now exists. We can all deal in generalities; we can all say that we wish for a representation of the districts; but when you sit down to devise a plan that will satisfy every interest concerned, I believe all who hear me will agree with me that the difficulties are so great as to be practically insuperable, and to preclude any idea of coming down to this House and putting before it such a worked-out scheme. I hope the Committee will feel that the Government, in saying that they desire to deal with this question in the direction which has been indicated by hon. Members opposite, desire to carry out the wishes of the Committee; but to give a more definite statement we consider would be little short of madness. With regard to the question of loans to fishermen, the system hon. Members ask for would not be assisted by giving further representations on the Fishery Board, because the question is really a Treasury one. The Fishery Board are anxious to keep as much money as they can to give away to the fishermen. The difficulty does not lie there. The difficulty, as I say, is altogether a Treasury diffi-
1782
culty. You cannot ask the taxpayers of this country to give money to a special industry, however deserving the industry may be, unless adequate security is offered. If the security is in excess of what is demanded, then the subject of granting the loan will, no doubt, be favourably considered. I am sure the Treasury would agree to that; but it is impossible that you should expect that the Treasury should lend money on bad security.
MR. ANDERSON: I was appealed to by the Lord Advocate and the right hon. Member for Berwickshire not to press this matter to a Division; and I have been told that if I do press it to a Division it will be casting a slur upon Sir Thomas Boyd, the Chairman of the Board. Now, I do protest that I have no intention in the world of casting any slur upon the Chairman of the Board; and I protest most emphatically against being told, if a Member gets up and emphasizes the position he has taken, on the matter under discussion, that he cannot do it without casting a slur upon the Chairman of the Fishery Board. This is a monstrous position to assume. It is sufficient for me to say that every hon. Gentleman who votes with me in this particular Division casts no slur upon the Chairman of the Board. I do not know the gentleman; but, so far as I have been able to ascertain, I believe him to be a most estimable person in every way. But that lie is the proper person to be appointed Chairman of this Board at a salary of £800 a-year I consider very questionable. I think that when you are establishing a Fishery Board and a Chairman comes upon it, who may be a very good Director of a Company, but who has no practical knowledge of fishing matters, there is every reason for a change of system. The Chairman may be worth £800 a-year or a great deal more for some purposes; but that is not the question hero. He has no practical knowledge of the fishery industry. This gentleman carried on, and I believe Bill carries on, a very lucrative business in Edinburgh.; An hon. MEMBER: No; he has retired.] But he is a Director of several Companies, so that the Chairmanship of this Board is not his only source of revenue. It is impossible to suppose, under the circumstances, that very much of his time

1783
is taken up by the work of the Fishery Board. My main proposition is this—I say that for a Chairman of this gentleman's position £500 a-year is sufficient. And I emphasize this by saying that the £300 which would be so saved could be spent on other purposes by the Board in the interests of the fishing trade. I wish to press this matter to a Division—I intend to do so. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenat has made some statements which make us still more determined to take that course, because he has said to us—"Why do you come without apian? What plan do you Scotch Members submit on this subject?" I should have thought the proper persons to bring forward a plan would have been the Government. I have asked several Questions this Session of the Lord Advocate and of the First Lord of the Treasury, months ago, and other hon. Members have done the same; and I have been told over and over again that the matter was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and that a plan would be proposed. But here we are at the end of the Session, and within a very short time of the expiration of the Board, and yet neither the ex-Secretary for Scotland nor the Lord Advocate can tell us how the matter stands. I think we have a right to complain of the manner in which we have been treated by the Scotch Office; and if anything could make me more determined than I am to bring this matter to a Division, it would be the generally off-handed way in which the right hon. Gentleman has asked us to give a plan.
MR.MACDONALD CAMERON&c.): There is one thing which we Members who represent fishing constituencies are agreed on, and that is that we shall reflect the opinions of our constituents on this subject. We are distinctly agreed upon one point, and that is that our constituents on the reconstruction of the Fishery Board wish to have practical men put upon it. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will promise me or the Committee that when the appointments are to be made next month he will put practical men on the Fishery Board, I, for one, shall be perfectly satisfied—I make that statement boldly and freely to the Committee. But if the right hon. and learned Gen-
1784
tleman only wants time to consider what the construction of the next Board shall be in order that he may re-appoint it for five years, and so shelve the difficulty, then I should be prepared to act with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. I say I shall be prepared to act with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and so I should were it not that I have paired for the rest of the Session. The Lord Advocate must not think that we Scotch Members are not agreed upon this point. We are agreed on this—that our constituents say to us distinctly that the Board is unsatisfactory, and that it must be so reconstituted as to include upon it practical fishermen.
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: We are agreed that some change should be made; but the only question is how that change is to be effected.
MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: It was the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant who said that we Scotch Members were not agreed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) is perfectly accurate in his statement, and I withdraw whatever observation I made imputing to him the declaration that we are not agreed. I should be sorry to accuse the right hon. and learned Gentleman of anything, because we all know his genial manner in the House, and we must all appreciate the effort he always makes to be agreeable. It was the Chief Secretary who said that there was a diversity of opinion amongst the Scotch Members, and that if the Government prepared a scheme it would please nobody. As a matter of fact, that is not the case—we are agreed upon this matter. We reflect the feeling of the people we represent, and we desire to see practical men put upon this Fishery Board.
MR. A. SUTHERLAND: With regard to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, he seemed to raise considerable objection to the scheme which has been foreshadowed on these Benches being carried out. I think all these objections are illusory. I beg to ask the Committee how could the Scotch Fishery Board possibly be more unsatisfactory than it is at present? The Government have given no answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) as to the loans which

1785
the Fishery Board is empowered by Act of Parliament to grant to fishermen. My hon. Friend has pointed out that although the Act has been passed for a year, and although power has been given to grant those loans, not one penny has been advanced, nor has the Government yet told us whether the conditions for the granting of those loans will be modified. It has been proved that the conditions at present imposed are prohibitory; and what we wish to know is whether those conditions are to be removed? It is well known that if the crofter fishermen were in a position to raise 25 per cent of the amount they require, it would not be necessary for them to come to Parliament at all, as they could then get the money from the local banks. The conditions which are at present imposed, I think, ought to be removed; and the fishermen should be allowed to borrow money on conditions that they could accept. I beg to call attention to an answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) on March 31. The hon. and learned Member asked—
" Whether the Government intend to reconstitute the Scotch fishery Board by placing thereon some persons practically acquainted with the fishing industry; or whether, on the termination of the tenure of office of the existing Board, it is intended to re-appoint the existing members of the Board; and when the Annual Report of the Scotch Fishery Board will be laid upon the Table of the House? The hon. and learned Member also asked, whether any changes were contemplated with regard to the scientific advisers of the Board? "
The First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), in reply, said—
" I cannot answer the last Question without Notice. The question of the reconstitution of the Fishery Board is receiving the attention of the Government, and will be duly considered prior to October next, when the term of office of six members of the Board expires. It is hoped that the Annual Report of the Board will be laid upon the Table of the House about the end of May. A preparation of the Report, which will this year contain, besides the usual elaborate statistics of various fisheries, details of the experiments made in the waters closed against beam trawling, necessarily involves the expenditure of much time and labour."—(3 Hansard, [313] 84.)
Now, I wish the Committee to bear this in mind—that on March 31 the First Lord of the Treasury declared that the question of the reconstitution of the
1786
Fishery Board was receiving the attention of the Government. Surely, then, they ought to be now in a position, to tell us what they actually mean to do. They have had ample time to come to a conclusion; and I trust that before this Division is taken, or if they want to avoid a Division, they will state exactly what has been done in the matter, and answer the question put to them by the right hon. Member for Berwickshire.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I understand perfectly the answer of the Government. I understood that the Lord Advocate says that practical men will be placed on the Board.
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I did not say that. I said the Government would consider the matter, and that I thought practical men should be placed upon the Board.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I think from what the Government have said we are warranted in going that length.
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: We did not go that length.
MR. ESSLEMONT: Really this is not treating us fairly. We understood the Government to go that length.
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: We did not say that.
MR. ESSLEMONT: Then do you intend to place practical men upon the Board?
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: Yes.
MR. ESSLEMONT: Then it is so intended. Let me remind the Lord Advocate that when I put a Question to him the other day upon this important subject the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave me a chaffing answer.
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I remember the occasion referred to. I answered the hon. Member's first Question; but as there was considerable noise in the House at the time I only heard a part of the second Question; and I did give the hon. Member a chaffing answer, but it was in perfect good humour.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I do not dispute the good humour; but he certainly gave me a chaffing answer, and that was not what I had expected on such a subject. What I would say is this—that I think we ought to be satisfied with the answer we have now received. I would, however, resent the action of the Chief Secretary, who, I understand, is speaking for the Secretary for Scotland, in telling

1787
the Scotch Members that they have not made up their minds. The Report we have received on the subject of the Scotch fishers is of immense importance. We did not have it in our hands until the other day, and Her Majesty's Government have not allowed us an opportunity of discussing it, and of coming to a conclusion upon the matter. It must go out to the public, therefore, that if the Scotch Members have not made up their minds on the subject it is because Her Majesty's Government have not given them the opportunity of discussing the matter. I think now that we have received an explicit answer from the Government that we ought to remain satisfied.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): There are two courses open to us. The first is to make the appointment of the Fishery Board for one year——
DR. CLARK: You must appoint it for five years under the Act.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I am stating the desire of the Government to meet the wishes of those who represent the people of Scotland, especially those who represent the fishing industry of that country. The aim of the Government is to constitute a Board in a manner which will entirely meet the object which hon. Members have in view. It must not be supposed that the Government desire either to continue the gentlemen on the Board who are inadequate or unfitted to perform the duties, or have any secret purpose to defeat the object for which the Board ought to exist—that is to say, to advance the interests of the fishing industry and of the fishermen. Therefore, the Government desire, in seeking to gather the views of hon. Members from Scotland, particularly those acquainted with the fishing industry, to take the steps which will best enable them to constitute a Board in the way which will most fitly represent the men whose interests are to be defended. We are asked to appoint practical men. It may not be possible to get practical men.
DR. CLARK: Yes; it is.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order !
MR. W. H. SMITH: Well, if it be possible, we will do so; only we do not wish to enter into any engagement in regard to which it may be said later on that we have been guilty of bad faith,
1788
or of "taking in" hon. Members opposite by holding out expectations that we could not fulfil. But I say the Government desire to constitute a Board without any reservation whatever, so as to make it a practically useful Board, and if we can put on it men acquainted with the fishing industry we shall do so. Hon. Gentlemen, however, are aware that a practical fisherman is not a person who, as a general rule, is able to give much time to matters of this kind. Still, if we find practical fishermen, or men who have sufficient acquaintance with the matters involved, we will endeavour to obtain the advantage of their knowledge and experience on the composition of the Board for the benefit of fishermen. My only desire is to dispel from the minds of hon. Gentlemen any idea that there is any motive on the part of Her Majesty's Government to prevent any practical individual being put upon the Board, or to get practical interests neglected. We will do our best to get practical men on the Board. We want the Board to be a practical one, and will do all we can to make it so. Then, an hon. Member made a remark upon the question of boats. What we have to consider in connection with this matter is, whether there is sufficient security for the money asked; short of that there is no difficulty thrown in the way at all. Hon. Gentlemen, however, must be aware that fishing-boats and gear are things that deteriorate in value every year—that commence deteriorating from the very moment they are put to use. Therefore, we are bound to protect the Exchequer; in doing that, however, we do not wish to impose any conditions which are not absolutely necessary. I can assure hon. Members that the whole question is looked at from that point of view, and that only such conditions will be imposed as are necessary to secure the Revenue from the loss of the money advanced.
MR. R. W. DUFF: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee an assurance that there will be a representation of fishermen on the Board. The right hon. Gentleman has not said whether the representation, whatever it may be, will be direct or indirect, although he promises the House that there shall be a representation of some kind.
MR. W. H. SMITH: The representation is something that involves a formal system of election, and all that kind of thing. Now, I do not enter into any engagement of that sort, as it would involve an Act of Parliament, and arrangements of a difficult character. But the Government will endeavour to secure that there will be representation of the experience and knowledge of practical fishermen.
MR. R. W. DUFF: That is what I desired to elicit from the Government, whether there will be practical representation. I think, after the assurance we have had from the First Lord of the Treasury, my hon. Friend will do well not to press his Amendment to a Division. I understood the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to say that you might appoint this Board for only one year; I do not think that it is possible. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will forgive me if I am wrong; but I think the Act says that the Board must be appointed for five years. However, so far as I am concerned, I am quite content with the assurance we have received that practical fishermen will be represented on the Board.
MR. ANDERSON: I do not wish to differ from any hon. Gentleman on this side of the House, and certainly not with the hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. R. W. Duff), who is thoroughly familiar with the subject we are now discussing; but I am certainly not satisfied, for my part, with the assurances we have received from the Government. It seems to me to be that they will "endeavour" to secure the practical representation of fishermen. That, to my mind, is a statement which may lead to this in the future—"We have endeavoured to do this thing, but have not been successful." I can quite understand a matter of superhuman difficulty; but then everybody knows that it is quite possible to get fishermen practically acquainted with the trade to act on the Board. I could mention half-a-dozen practical fishermen who would be able to serve on the Board; and I dare say any of my hon. Friends around me could do the same. I am not, therefore, satisfied with the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury; and I ask that we should have a
1790
distinct assurance that practical men will be put upon the Board.
MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: We do not wish to worry the Government for the sake of worrying them; but we want a distinct promise on this matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury promise, or will the Lord Advocate promise, that when the time comes for the re-appointment or reconstitution of this Fishery Board next September, he will communicate with the Scotch Members representing fishing constituencies, and ask for their assistance or aid in the matter of finding practical men to act upon the Board?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot go beyond the engagement that I have given. I have made a distinct engagement that I will endeavour to carry out, in a reasonable and proper way, the wishes of Scotch Members upon this matter. That engagement I shall perform. I think, however, that the hon. Member will see that the Government must be responsible for the appointments they make, and that, though they are always glad to receive suggestions from the Scotch Members, it will hardly be possible, in making these appointments, to ask the advice of those Members.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I have thorough confidence in the First Lord of the Treasury, for I knowing good faith. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if the Government find it impossible to carry out their promise, whether they will make the appointment for a short time—say, for a couple of months?
MR. A. SUTHERLAND: Seeing that the conditions upon which the loans for boats are granted are practically prohibitory, will Her Majesty's Government take into consideration whether those conditions cannot be altered; and whether loans cannot be granted upon a smaller scale?
MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member must see the necessity for there being that security which the Government deemed to be adequate. How-ever, we will inquire into the question, and see in what way we can meet the necessities of the case. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kin-

1791
cardine (Sir George Balfour), I must again say that we cannot go further than we have gone. I am sanguine that we shall be able to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen; but we are obliged to comply with the provisions of the Act of Parliament.
DR. CLARK: The Government cannot comply with the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because they are bound to appoint the Commissioners for a full period. Next month you will be appointing the Board, and you will be reconsidering its powers; and I hope the Government will take this matter into consideration. I hope that practical men, and not sugar brokers and timber merchants, will be appointed upon the Board.
MR. ANDERSON: I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily; but I wish to say I think this discussion has been effective in inducing the First Lord of the Treasury to take an interest in Scotch questions, and to give some attention to them. I should be acting wrongly if I did not accept his assurance that the Government intend to carry out the general wishes of the Scotch Members on this subject.
MR. MARJORIBANKS: I would ask what is the future policy of the Scottish Office and the Fishery Board as to the question of trawling? I was a Member of the Trawling Commission, and if one thing was clear in the evidence we took to all who read the Report it was this—that without doubt, in all the inshore waters, a very great amount of damage was done to fishing by the practice of beam trawling; and we recommended that the Scotch Fishery Board should have power to limit trawling within the Scottish territorial waters. The Fishery Board have interpreted the power they received as though it was only conferred upon them for experimental purposes. That I entirely deny. They have, no doubt, power to close waters for experimental purposes where they like; but they also have power and consent to close the whole territorial waters around the Scotch Coast against trawling altogether. What I ask is that they should exercise that power, and that not in a halfhearted manner, but vigorously. There has recently been a very interesting Report on the subject of trawling on
1792
the French Coast. There have been great complaints with regard to this method of fishing, and the Minister of Marine in that country ordered a Report to be made. In this Report it is stated that in consequence of trawling the breeding grounds are ruined, and the waters are void of life—in fact, that the whole of the fishing coast of France is in a complete state of decadence. In another portion of the Report it is stated that the various methods of trawling pursued and the increase in the number of trawlers has led to most disastrous results; and again it is said, with regard to the methods of alleviating the damage done, that there must be either a temporary or permanent suspension of trawling. So long as the use of heavy and powerful trawlers is permitted, the condition of French fishing is not likely to improve. In fact, the gentleman who drew up the Report is of opinion that trawling should be suppressed altogether in France. I am bound to say, for my own part, that I hold the opinion very strenuously that the whole system of trawling requires revision. With regard to territorial waters, I am perfectly confident that the only course to take in them is to suppress trawling altogether, and I hope to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate that that is the view the Scottish Office take, and the view they will impress upon the Scottish Fishery Board.
MR. ESSLEMONT: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman replies to the question addressed to him, I should like to be allowed to thank the hon. Member who has just sat down for bringing this matter forward. I had some time ago a correspondence with the Scottish Fishery Board upon this very question. Aberdeen Bay was closed against trawling for a considerable part of last year, and I had universal testimony from fishermen in Kincardine and Aberdeen, and along the whole of the coast, that as a result the ordinary fishermen are returning to those waters, and are making an excellent living. The general statement made was, however, from the fishermen along that coast, that since the Bay had been again opened up to trawling the fishermen were placed in such circumstances that they look forward to serious destitution, if they are not altogether

1793
deprived of their living. The complaint is not only of the taking of the fish, but the fact is that the steam trawlers conduct their enterprise of trawling in such a way as to make it perfectly impossible to prosecute the white fishing. The trawlers come with the aid of steam, and encroach upon the forbidden waters; they run through the nets of the white fishermen, those men being perfectly helpless to follow them or to find out the damage they have done to their nets. Did I believe that there is good economic reason that steam or beam trawling should be conducted in order to increase the protection of those waters, I should be the last to forbid it; but I think we have no evidence whatever that that is the case. On the contrary, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick has just stated, we have evidence of quite a different kind. Now, Sir, I complain very strongly of the Scotch Fishery Board in this matter. They were making an experiment there; no one was finding any fault with it, but in a moment everyone was surprised and disappointed to find that Aberdeen Bay was opened up on account of a representation from one gentleman in St. Andrew's, and another in Granton. The course the Fishery Board took was against the strongest representation of the Aberdeen fishermen; it was done, forsooth, on the representation of persons, two-thirds of whom, at least, were altogether unacquainted with the fishing in the Bay. The Committee will excuse me for feeling some irritation that a step of such vital importance should have been taken by the Fishery Board without consulting those who represent the people, and by a mere caprice of the Board. The living of hundreds of families has been spoiled by this course. The Board said this water was too little for their purpose, but they must have had more water if necessary. What we complain of is that the law should be uncertain on this matter, and that people should be deprived of their living. I should like to see if there is anything in this Report to justify the action taken by the Fishery Board in regard to the opening up of Aberdeen Bay. The right hon. Member for Berwick suggested as the only satisfactory protection in this matter that beam trawling should be prohibited altogether in territorial waters. I perfectly agree with that, and I think that,
1794
if something of the kind is not done, we are very likely before long to have something like an open rebellion.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: There is one point of my hon. Friend's statement to which I would draw attention. It was with great surprise that I learned that Aberdeen Bay was opened up again to trawling. The first intimation I had of it was the statement made of the wrong being done. I do complain of the manner in which the Fishery Board have carried on their business, and I hope we shall hear some satisfactory explanation of this matter.
MR. ANDERSON: I am glad to say that beam trawling has been prohibited in the Moray Firth, by an order which has just come in force. It is said that the Fishery Board have only power to close territorial waters for the purpose of making experiments; if that is the view of the Fishery Board, I take it to be a very mistaken one. The Fishery Board say they opened up Aberdeen Bay because it was not large enough for the experiments they were making.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I was informed by the Fishery Board that they had not the power to keep the Bay closed for any other than an experimental purpose.
MR. ANDERSON: That is what I understood. This is a most important question. If the Act of Parliament is examined—no doubt the Lord Advocate has it before him—it will be seen that though experiments are mentioned it does not at all follow that when an order is made closing a part of the coast against trawling, that that only is to take place for the purpose of making an experiment. If the fact is as is contended by the Fishery Board, the sooner the Lord Advocate brings in a Bill to omit the original Act the better. There was a Division in the Committee of which the right hon. Member for Berwick was a Member, but the opinion then formed, which is manifest in the Report of the Board on page 74, was that beam trawling lessens the number of the fish, and injures the inshore trawling. This year they say the evidence already collected seems to indicate that by restricting trawling to the territorial waters, those waters would in course of time yield more mature fish, and serve as nurseries and feeding grounds during certain months of the

1795
year for shoals of herring, and cod, and of other valuable fish. It is a most extraordinary state of things if we are to be told after this statement in their own Report that trawling is to be re-established in Aberdeen Bay because they consider that it is not large enough for making experiments. Now, on this question, fortified as public opinion is by this Report, I shall hear with some surprise that the Act bears the construction which the Fishery Board have placed upon it, and I hope that the Government will at once take steps to have the construction corrected. There is plenty of time this Session to have it done. In a fortnight's time you could have the whole thing put right, and it is of such importance to the fishing industry that there ought to be no mistake at all about it. Not only does the trawling injure the fish, but the question of trawling is of the utmost importance to the older fishermen who cannot go to sea. The steam trawls cut and injure the lines as we have heard, and it is the older men who use those appliances, because they cannot go to sea. I hope the Lord Advocate will tell us what his view is on the question, so that there may be no mistake about it.
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: There can be no question whatever that under the Act of 1885, the Fishery Board have power to put a stop to any particular mode of fishing they hold to be injurious to any part of the territorial waters, but they also have the power under that Act to close any part for the purpose of making experiments; and I think all Members of the Committee will agree with me that the very fact that authority is given to close certain parts of the territorial waters as may be required for the purpose of making experiments, indicates plainly that at first they must have an experimental stage in order to satisfy those who are enquiring what is the real effect of steam trawling, or whatever other mode of fishing they are dealing with upon the fishing in that quarter. Certainly it would be a very extraordinary step indeed, if, while experiments are going on, and the results of the experiments are not yet fully ascertained, trawling were prevented in the territorial waters all round Scotland. There is no question at all that, if it is proved by experi-
1796
ments that beam trawling cannot be carried on without inflicting injury to fishery everywhere, then everywhere beam trawling must be put down under this Act. There is no question about that, but everybody must agree that this is a matter that ought not to be decided without exhaustive experiments. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Esslemont) has said that the experiments in Aberdeen Bay have been most unfavourable at the time to the fishermen. I understand that another place has been selected for another experiment, and that the result may turn out to be the same as the result in Aberdeen Bay. While they are at the experimental stage, the Fishery Board cannot be blamed for selecting such places as they think best for experiments, and if they find a place is not suited for carrying on experiments, they cannot be blamed for changing the ground of experiment. As to the question of injury done to fishermen along the coast by the way in which beam trawling is conducted, let me say that there is great difficulty in their carrying out what we may call the sea police, for the purpose of preventing real injury being done to the fishermen by the manner and the way in which beam trawlers carry out their operations, even though these operations may be perfectly proper as regards fishing itself. This is a matter which requires consideration, and I am afraid the Act of 1885 has not been thoroughly operative in enabling the fishermen to obtain redress against those who commit depredations upon their fishing grounds. I think it is perfectly certain that if we find beam trawlers as a body are prepared to conduct themselves in such an outrageous manner as to do real injury to the nets of the other fishermen, that may be quite sufficient ground for such legislation as may prevent them coming within certain limits. If it turns out that you cannot, by the exercise of such sea police as we can organize, really put down what is a grievous wrong, then undoubtedly the Legislature must step in and. deal with the matter in a satisfactory manner.
DR. CLARK: I think the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is very satisfactory, and I shall take care that what he has said shall go North to the people who feel very

1797
strongly in regard to this matter. If the Fishery Board were to live any longer I might impress upon them the desirability of having proper boundaries. By the boundaries they have determined upon in the Moray Firth they have still left a large section of the Bay open to trawlers. It has been alleged that the trawlers drive the fish up the Bay, and that in this way the fishermen of the locality are benefited. Judging from the reception which trawlers receive when they enter the Bay I should say that the local fishermen do not believe that this is the case. Trawlers are stoned and the law otherwise broken. If the learned Sheriff, who is a member of the Fishery Board, had been present upon any occasion when a trawler made its appearance he would know that the fishermen do not want steam trawlers and do not benefit by their presence.
MR. ASHER (Elgin, &c.): I entirely agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) that this much debated question of trawling will never be settled until the whole of the territorial waters have been closed to trawlers; but, at the same time, I must express my concurrence with the interpretation of the Act given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. The Act undoubtedly empowers the Fishery Board to close the territorial waters to any system of fishing which they are satisfied is injurious, and also to close territorial waters for experimental purposes. The reason why the Act took that form was that the Act followed upon the Report of Lord Dalhousie's Commission. That Commission reported that after taking a great deal of evidence they could not make up their minds whether trawling was injurious or not, and they practically, therefore, devolved upon the Fishery Board the duty of discovering whether trawling was injurious or not before territorial waters had to be closed. I confess I always thought it was a very unfortunate thing that the Dalhousie Commission did not take up much higher ground, and report as the result of the evidence laid before them whether, in their opinion, the whole of the territorial waters ought to be closed against trawlers. In face of the Report of the Commission it is impossible to
1798
carry legislation further than has been done in this Act. The practical question is how soon under the Act as it stands can trawling be put a stop to within territorial waters? Now, in the Report which the Fishery Board have issued they have taken a decided step in the direction of coming to a conclusion that trawling is injurious to the fishing within the territorial waters, and it seems extremely desirable that they should press on their experiments as quickly as possible, because there is no doubt that there is incidental to the system of partially closing waters for experimental purposes a great deal of injury to fishermen along the coast. Suppose the Scotch Fishery Board close the territorial waters of a particular district for experimental purposes, the immediate effect is to send all the trawlers to the adjoining district, and consequently the line fishermen in the district not closed have to submit to the injury of double trawling on their ground. This is not a theoretical objection. It is a very serious grievance to the fishermen to have trawling increased on their ground, because an adjoining ground has been closed for experimental purposes. There is no doubt that a certain period for experiments must be allowed, but it seems to me that it is extremely desirable that the Fishery Board should make up their minds as quickly as possible that trawling is an injurious mode of fishing in territorial waters, and that they should close territorial waters once for all; for, I am perfectly convinced, that this question will never be satisfactorily settled until this is done.
MR. R. W. DUFF: I do not want to say anything more about trawling; but simply to say that the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) fell into an error in regard to the harbour which is being constructed in my constituency. He said that this harbour was to cost £10,000. As a matter of fact, the Fishery Board are only to contribute £3,500, and the whole cost of the harbour is only to be £7,234. I also desire to say that I have not received an answer from the Lord Advocate in regard to the increase of the charge upon the Herring Brand.
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I will give the hon. Gentleman an answer at some future time.
MR. ANDERSON: I now desire to call the attention of the Lord Advocate to a very important question which I raised some time ago, and which he promised should have his attention. The question relates to the action the Scotch Fishery Board has taken in the past, and may take in the future, with regard to the small fishing harbours. It is a matter of the greatest possible difficulty for fishermen living in villages to keep their harbours of sufficient depth to allow the present fishing boats to enter at all states of the tide. The consequence is that in these harbours—I know several, but I speak more especially of two which are situated in the constituency I represent—this state of things prevails. The harbours were made some time ago when the draft of the boats was less than it is now. By drifting and so on the entrances to the harbours become shallow, and they can only be entered for a few hours each day. What the fishermen want is some power to raise money to put and keep those harbours in proper condition. It is a matter of no difficulty to accomplish, if the Government will take the thing in hand, it may be most effectually carried out by very simple legislation. The Scotch Fishery Board have in their hands certain funds they devote to harbours, but I regret to think they have not been very discriminating as to the harbours to which they have devoted their funds. I am sorry the Lord Advocate is not now in his place, because I should like some reply from the Government upon this point. I beg pardon, I see the Scotch Lord of the Treasury (Sir Herbert Maxwell) is here. On page 24 of the Report of the Board it will be seen that no less than 29 harbours have applied for assistance in this respect, and that the Fishery Board have not given any assistance to them. The fishery Board did for the first time hold out a ray of hope to the fishermen using these harbours for, if the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) will follow me, he will find that on page 24 of their Report the Board say—
" We have come to the conclusion that a general measuse, not very extensive in its scope and purely permissive in its character, ought to be passed for the purpose of enabling fishermen to organize, under the name of District Fishery Board, a local authority, which should be empowered to manage harbours."
And then the Report goes on to give no less than eight provisions which they
1800
think ought to be contained in such a measure They suggest, among other things, that this Local Authority should have power to levy rates, and that the area of the jurisdiction of the power they suggest should not be confined simply to the harbour itself.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am of opinion that that subject is quite outside the power of the Fishery Board at present. It is a question of legislation to be discussed independently of this Vote.
MR. ANDERSON: On the point of Order, Sir, I should have thought that the suggestion of the Fishery Board in their Report is a matter which comes under this Vote. At any rate, I presume I am entitled to consider the action of the Fishery Board in not having given assistance to those small harbours, and what I desire to ask the Government is what steps are going to be taken by them for the purpose of putting the Fishery Board in a better position to give assistance to these fishery harbours, and, if necessary, to place the Fishery Board in possession of larger funds which would enable them to give greater assistance? I think this is a fair question to put to the Government, though I doubt very much whether I shall receive a satisfactory reply. Complete ignorance is shown upon these matters by the Government, and I am afraid the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) will not be able to give me the assurance I desire. The Report from which I have quoted was prepared in May, and it certainly ought to have been dealt with by the Government long ago. We ought not have been left in the dark for so long a lime, and then have the matter left in the hands of the Junior Lord of the Treasury, who, I imagine, has had no opportunity of considering it, and who, I dare say, never expected to be called upon to make a statement upon this subject. [At this point the Lord Advocate entered the House.] I hope to hear some statement from the Government which will reassure those who have to make their living in these small harbours that the Scotch Office and the Board of Trade between them will do something in respect of these small harbours. I have referred to the harbour loans, perhaps the Lord Advocate——
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member must see he is travelling back to the question I ruled outside this

1801
Vote. The only question to be discussed is the administration of the fund at the disposal of the Fishery Board.
MR. ANDERSON: I must confess, Sir, I was rather disturbed by the entrance of the Lord Advocate.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY) (Wigtonshire): It is quite impossible for me to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman what the Government intend to do in regard to the recommendation made only a week ago; but I can tell him what the Board has done in the direction of the reconstitution of these harbours since its reconstruction in 1882. Previous to that time it had improved 28 harbours and piers, and since that time it has improved five harbours and piers in Banffshire. As to what the Government can do and will do, it depends of course very much upon what funds they have at their disposal. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Junior Lord of the Treasury is not very competent to answer on the subject of Scotch harbours.
MR. ANDERSON: I do not say that, but I suggested that the hon. Baronet had not of necessity had his attention called to the question.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I know there are two sides to Scotland, the West and the East Coast. The Government have considered the claims of the West as well as the those of the East Coast. The funds at the disposal of the Fishery Board are limited, and the Board have done their best in the past to distribute the funds among those cases which seemed to them most pressing. I assure the hon. and learned Member that any moral influence which I have in the Government will be directed towards obtaining a fair and candid consideration of all the conflicting claims of the many harbours round the coast of Scotland.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(4.) £3,982, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, Scotland.
(5.) £3,895, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Scotland.
(6.) £21,317, to complete the sum for the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, and for Public Health, Scotland.
(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
" That a sum, not exceeding £37,955, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and others, connected with Criminal Proceedings in Scotland, including certain allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83."
DR. CAMERON: One very unsatisfactory feature of these Scotch Votes is the large number of notes referring to payments granted to officials. In this Vote, for instance, we find the sum of £850 for a Legal Secretary to the Lord Advocate, and then there is a note to the effect that the Legal Secretary to the Lord Advocate receives occasional fees for preparing Bills, &c. There is another point I wish to turn to, and that is the amount received by the Secretary to the Lord Advocate for the preparation of Bills under the authority of the Lord Advocate. I find that that sum amounts to £800. My reason for calling attention to this item in the Vote is that some years ago there was a Secretary to the Lord Advocate who received a moderate salary, I forget exactly the amount, and there was also attached to the Scotch Office a draftsman, a gentleman of very great ability and a very excellent draftsman. I believe that there was some unpleasantness, at all events, there was a re-arrangement. Mr. M'Lellan received a certain salary as draftsman, and received certain allowances for expenses. When the re-arrangement took place the usual plea was urged—namely, that it was in the interests of economy. Mr. M'Lellan was dismissed, and his emoluments were to a considerable extent added to the emoluments of the Lord Advocate's salary. I do not think that was a very satisfactory arrangement. It did not attract much attention at the time, but it is almost impossible for a gentleman to discharge adequately the duties of the Lord Advocate's Secretary and to do all the drafting of Bills. I should like the Lord Advocate to say whether the whole drafting is done by his Legal Secretary, or whether it is done to a large extent outside.
THE CHAIRMAN: The item for drafting comes in the next Vote.
DR. CAMERON: What I wish to point out is that a portion of the salary and emoluments received by individuals is not mentioned in the chief head under which it comes. That is a practice which was greatly adverted to when the Committee was sitting upstairs, and I wish to direct special attention to it now. There are a number of other points in this Vote to which I think it right to call attention. I find, for instance, that the Crown Agent receives £1,200 per annum. and I should like to know from the Lord Advocate whether the Crown Agent is engaged in any private business; is he a land agent or does he practice privately?
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: The Crown Agent has invariably been a Writer to the Signet in Edinburgh, and the present Crown Agent is a member of the firm of Tods, Murray and Jamieson. It is obvious that a gentleman in such a position cannot be asked to give up his other means of livelihood.
DR. CAMERON: I asked that question because it forms a portion of another and a greater question. I beg to move the reduction of this Vote in connection with the administration of the criminal business in Scotland. Probably the best way of doing that will be to move to reduce the Vote by £500 in respect of the expenses for criminal prosecutions under the authority of the Lord Advocate. In the course of last autumn a number of proceedings were taken to which attention was called at the time in the Island of Skye and elsewhere. I am not going to enter into the details of these proceedings, but I wish to draw attention to two or three cases which I think justify my contention that we should be chary of granting too much money for this purpose. There were several arrests made in a most arbitrary fashion, in a most expensive fashion, and in a fashion for which there is no earthly reason. There was a clergyman—an Established Church clergyman—in the Isle of Skye, who had been present at a meeting, and a report of which appeared in the newspapers. That report, however, gave an erroneous account of some resolution adopted at the meeting and, a month after the meeting had taken place—a month after this resolution had been passed—proceedings were taken against this clergyman, and against another person who had been present at the
1804
meeting. The authorities alleged that the resolution in question was criminal. They had no evidence whatever of its being passed, except the statement in the newspaper to that effect. Without taking the smallest trouble to ascertain the correctness of the report, they laid hold of this clergyman. They sent an expedition to his house, they had him surrounded by Marines, marched off to prison, and kept in prison some days before he was released on bail. Mr. J, M'Pherson, the gentleman who induced the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) to take an interest in crofter matters, and acted as the right hon. Gentleman's guide when he travelled through the Highlands, was the gentleman who was arrested along with Mr. Macallum. Mr. M'Pherson's house was surrounded, and he was arrested and carried many miles to gaol, and kept in gaol for seven days, being released about 10 o'clock on a Saturday night, when he had to walk some 35 miles to his home, which he reached about midday on the Sunday. When these gentlemen had been arrested, the Crown took steps to procure evidence against them. They hunted the whole island for persons who were present at the meeting, and they procured the attendance of their witnesses in a very high handed manner. I am credibly informed that fishermen, engaged in their occupation, were seized and told they must go at once to the Procurator Fiscal and give in their depositions. There is not the smallest reason why the Rev. Mr. Macallum should not have been brought before the Sheriff, neither is there any reason to suppose that Mr. M'Pherson would have taken himself off if he had been summoned. On a previous occasion, when he came in contact with the law, he pledged himself to give himself up to the Government, and, as a matter of fact, he travelled at his own expense to Greenock for the purpose of complying with his promise. There is not the smallest reason to believe that Mr. M'Pherson would not have given himself up in this case. There is no reason why he should not have been summoned; there is no earthly reason why so unnecessary an expense should have been gone to in the way of making a military demonstration for the arrest of this man for what was

1805
really a political offence, if it was anything at all—namely, complicity in the drawing up of a resolution which turned out afterward not to have been correctly reported. There was no reason for arresting these men before evidence had been got against them; but, as a matter of fact, the hunt for evidence did not take place until these men had been clapped in gaol. When one of them threatened proceedings, a fresh hunt for evidence was made, and an Inverness newspaper office was completely ran-sacked for evidence. For months afterwards the magistrates hunted for evidence. These were not right or creditable proceedings, and I think the Committee should, by diminishing the Crown expenses connected with them, mark their sense of the injustice perpetrated. Furthermore, I maintain that, in respect to conviction cases, the law of Scotland is strained to its utmost limits, the whole resources of civilization appear to be turned against the population for the purpose of securing convictions. A man in Skye wrote a letter to the Secretary for Scotland, in which he denounced the conduct of the official who was in charge of the expedition as that of a judicial monster. Having sent the letter to the Secretary for Scotland, he thought proper to print it, and a copy of it was circulated in the Highlands. He was seized and cast into prison. Now, I do not defend his action in using the term "judicial monster" towards Sheriff Ivory; but I maintain that, if he were made accountable at all, he should have been made accountable for his words in a Civil Court, and should not have been summarily seized and put into prison on a charge for which the Crown Authorities did not, when they came to investigate the matter, even think of prosecuting. I got a letter this morning relating to an eviction. It was from Mr. Donald McKie. There was an eviction riot in Argyllshire, and some men were arrested in connection with it. Among them was this Mr. McKie. He denied he was near the place until after all the disturbance had occurred, but he was prosecuted, and he was sentenced to 30 days' imprisonment, although he had witnesses to prove he was not at the place during the progress of the riot. He appealed, but, owing to some technical mistake, the hearing of his appeal was put off for 19 days, and he was
1806
kept 19 days in prison. When at length the appeal was heard he was liberated. Such a thing may happen under all circumstances; but it is an extraordinary fact that it is in the Highlands where you find mistakes against prisoners occurring with the greatest frequency. When this man's innocence was proved before the Appeal Court he naturally complained of his treatment, and wished the authorities to prosecute the witness who had testified he was present at the time of the riot, and who had got him imprisoned. Now, you see the point of my question—whether the Crown Agent acts as land agent? This man assorts that the Crown Agent is the agent for an estate in the neighbourhood of the place where the riot occurred, and that the witness on whose false testimony he was convicted is a tenant on that estate. I do not say that the Crown Agent was influenced by this fact, but I maintain that the injured person naturally attributes the refusal of the Crown authorities to take any action against the man whose false evidence had sent him to prison, to the fact of the Crown Agent being agent for the estate on which this man was tenant. Now, there is another side to the question, and that is the lethargy which marks the action of: the Crown Office in other matters. Some time ago, I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman a Question concerning a fraudulent bankruptcy case in Glasgow. A man named Ferrier bought a number of articles of jewellery, and pledged them within four months of his sequestration. In the second place, he entered the money he received on the pledged goods as having been received from his bank; and in the third place, he obtained other articles of jewellery on false pretences, having, according to his own contention, obtained the articles on the plea that some customer was waiting to buy them from him. These are all offences under the Debtors (Scotland) Act. The man was reported to the Sheriff by the trustee in the ordinary way, and the Sheriff reported him to the Lord Advocate for prosecution. Nothing was done then, the case lingered for many months—the sequestration occurred in September—and he was brought up in the month of April following, charged not under the Act expressly passed for dealing with this class of offence, but charged with fraudulent imposition. The man pleaded

1807
guilty, but Advocate Depute refused to move for sentence. Now, I do not wish for vindictive administration of the law, but I do certainly say that when Parliament takes the trouble to pass an Act that Act should be enforced. I think the law should have been vindicated by this man being brought up and receiving some sentence. The mercantile community should have been shown that the pledging of goods obtained on credit within four months of sequestration, and the falsification of accounts, and the obtaining of goods by false pretences, constitute crime under the Debtors Act. The Lord Advocate replying to my Question on the subject told me the case did not occur within four months of sequestration. That is quite wrong. I have it on good authority that there are four instances in which all these three breaches of the Debtors Act occurred within four months of sequestration. Take another case in connection with the administration of law in the Highlands, as showing the invidious-ness with which justice is administered. Some men made themselves very notorious in connection with the Skye expedition. For instance, a namesake of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate—but I believe no connection of his—Mr. Macdonald the Sheriff's officer, made himself very notorious. Among other charges, charges of assault were brought against this man; of course the Fiscal would not act. Very shortly before the expedition Macdonald had burned down a house. He evicted the tenant, and having done so was seen to burn down the house. He had no authority whatever to do that; he was guilty of firing neither more nor less. An investigation of the matter was made and he was reprimanded. He was reprimanded by the Lord Advocate through the Sheriff of the county. I venture to say that if it was right to strain the law to such, an extent as to seize a man who called a Judge a "judicial monster," and put him in prison; if it was necessary to strain the law in the case of the clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Macallum; if it was necessary to drag fishermen from their work to give evidence against Mr. Macallum, it was necessary to administer the law in a more stringent manner than was done in the case of this Mr. Macdonald. When this man burnt down a house
1808
without the slightest authority to do so, when he did so to the detriment of the dwellers in the house who afterwards were obliged to vindicate their rights in a Civil Court, I think the authorities were bound to give greater consideration to the matter than they did in order to show that they were actuated by a desire to administer even-handed justice. I have pointed out the reason why I have moved the reduction of this Vote; in the first place, the useless expense, offensively and unnecessarily gone to, gone to in a manner the Lord Advocate tells us he himself disapproved of in connection with the arrest of the Rev. Mr. Macallum, and Mr. M'Pherson; the unnecessary expense to which the county was put by the putting in prison of the man who called Sheriff Ivory a "judicial monster," without seeking a remedy—if any remedy was necessary—in the Civil Court; the laxity, on the other hand, of the administration of the law in other cases to which I have drawn attention, especially in the case of Ferrier; and the laxity in another set of cases of which I have quoted that of Mr. Macdonald as a type, and furthermore the prevalence of the system of the Procurator Fiscal and others engaged in the administration of justice acting as land agents and in other private capacities. This is a practice which, as I have shown to-night, exists not only in the case of Procurator Fiscals, but in the case of the Crown Agent, greatly to the detriment of the popular belief in the impartiality of the administration of justice in Scotland. I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by £500.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Item C, Criminal Prosecutions under the authority of the Lord Advocate, be reduced by the sum of £500."—(Dr. Cameron.)
DR. CLARK: I have very great pleasure in supporting the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron); all the points that he has called in question I feel very strongly upon. Now, as to the Crown Agent, I have been able to get from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate the information that this most important of all Scotch Law Officers next to the right, hon. and learned Gentleman himself, is a member of a firm who attend to the estates of Scotch landlords, and that on these estates there is

1809
occasional trouble. The fact that the Crown Agent acts in a double capacity has caused a great dual of suspicion in some portions of Scotland regarding his impartiality, The Crown Agent is one of those curious men like the Lyon Kin g-of-Arms, who holds a number of offices.
THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that this Amendment only refers to criminal prosecutions.
DR. CLARK: This man ran as a Conservative candidate for one Division of——
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
DR. CLARK: Well, he is one of the leading Conservative electioneering agents, and I think that a gentleman who occupies the very important position of Crown Agent ought to give his entire services to the Crown, and ought not to be a member of a practising firm of solicitors. Then, with reference to the other point raised on Sub-head D—"Sheriffs' Accounts, Procurators Fiscal, not paid by salaries, &c." It has reference to the Procurator Fiscal at Portree. This gentleman is not paid by salary, but by fees, and probably the prosecutions that we complain of will add to his income. The action of the Fiscal in the case of the Rev. Mr. Macallum and Mr. M'Pherson wag entirely unwarranted. The rev. gentleman, Mr. Macallum, was going to preach for one of his friends some distance away, and just as he was starting they seized him and rushed him into prison upon some vague report that, a month or live weeks previously, he had used inflammatory language at a meeting. The report was discovered to be entirely incorrect. he had never used inflammatory language at all; but the Procurator Fiscal thought it proper to prevent a congregation hearing the eloquent sermon of this rev. gentleman; for, instead of allowing him to preach to them, he ordered him to spend his Sunday in prison, and all because some stupid report had appeared regarding a speech Mr. Macallum was supposed to have made. All that was required was that a summons should have been served upon the rev. gentleman, to which he would certainly have attended. Instead of that he was imprisoned. the same thing occurred in the case of Mr. M'Pherson. You took this poor crofter
1810
by sending a gun-boat to arrest him, also for a mythical crime, and then the Procurator Fiscal kept him in prison for seven days, refused to allow anyone access to him, and only turned him out of prison late on Saturday night. He was then 40 miles away from his home, and he was obliged, in order to reach it, to walk all night. Previous to this M'Pherson had been interdicted by the Superior Court of Ireland. He was required to deliver himself up in Edinburgh, and he went to Greenock and hunted about to find someone to arrest him. It was difficult for him to do this, as he could anly be arrested by an officer of the Supreme Court. In this case, also, the Procurator Fiscal ought to have summoned him. There is another case which comes under Sub-head E., and which also ought to be considered—a case respecting the same Procurator Fiscal. I am not going to say anything about Sheriff Ivory, because we hare had him in Quarter Session, where he was found guilty and punished; but I mean to say a word respecting the Orkney Fiscal, whose salary, I think, ought to be reduced. This is one of the Fiscals who first begun the absurd practice of using gun-boats in the prosecution of trivial matters. A lad of 14 years of age was supposed to have sent a threatening letter to a gallant gentleman in the Army; this was the first offence the lad had committed, but it was thought necessary that a gunboat should be sent to intimidate him. The next complaint we have to make against this Procurator Fiscal and Factor, for this man represented both the Crown and the landlord, is an organized attempt on his part to intimidate the people. There was a rev. gentleman, a Minister of the Free Church, and a member of the School Board, who lent to a Conservative candidate the use of a school free, and who oven went further and gave the candidate the gratuitous use of his own lamps to light the school, in order to enable the candidate to address the people there. All the clergyman wanted was the ordinary right of a Scotch elector to heckle the candidate, and he asked two questions—namely, whether the candidate intended to support the landlords, and whether he intended to support Lord Randolph Churchill and his obstructive Party in the House of Commons. The Procura-

1811
tor Fiscal created a new crime upon this occasion, which was, that the rev. gentleman would not sit down when the Chairman rose, but persisted in asking impertinent questions. the result was that this Procurator Fiscal—this Tory agent—notwithstanding all that the poor minister had done to oblige the Conservative candidate, actually dragged the minister up upon this frivolous charge, and got him sentenced to four days' imprisonment. We got the Quarter Sessions to suspend the sentence, and, upon hearing the appeal, the Quarter Sessions unanimously resolved that this was a frivolous prosecution, that no crime had. been, committee!, and they therefore ordered the immediate liberation of the rev. gentleman. A good deal of money was spent upon the prosecution, and the other ministers of the Island have been wanting to know how much was spent. Until now the Lord Advocate has been supporting the Sheriff and the County Authority in refusing to give any particulars to the ratepayers, especially to the ministers, as to the amount spent by the county in trying to constitute the heckling of a Conservative candidate a new crime. Seeing that the Court unanimously decided that heckling is no crime, seeing' that the senior lord of the Court, in giving the decision, said he could not characterize the charge, I think this House should curb officials like the Orkney Procurator Fiscal—should take a little oft' his salary for such work as I have described. I do not think that other Procurators Fiscal at Portree and Orkney should receive the salaries asked for them because of the way they have misused the power placed in their hands. I cannot help thinking that we have frightened some of the Procurators Fiscal, and that they will not trouble us again in the same fashion. I strongly support the reduction of the Vote proposed by my hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron).
MR. MACDONALD CAMERON&c.): I have pleasure in supporting what has been said by my hon. Friends the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark). I will not detain the Committee by going over the ground that has been traversed by those hon. Gentlemen, but I think it would conduce to the well-being of the country
1812
if the Law Officers of the Crown were not in any way to engage in private practice. This House knows, and I think the House gives the Scotch people credit for the fact, that the Scotch people are a law-abiding people. If, however, the fountains of justice are poisoned, you cannot expect that the people will continue to be law-abiding. I assure the Committee that recently the people have been very sorely tried in respect to the administration of justice, and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, as the official Representative of Scotland in this House, will take care that in case of vacancies arising in the Law Offices the gentlemen appointed will devote their whole attention to the duties of their office. I do not for a moment suppose that this House will ever deny a fair day's wage for a fair day's work.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I think it will be granted that in prosecutions, as in the management of other Public Business on a large scale, things will occur which are not satisfactory. Some arrests were made which were not wise, and in eases in regard to which another mode of procedure would have effected what was wanted perfectly well. What has happened in consequence of these cases, however, will perhaps prevent such occurring in the future. In regard to the Crown Agent I must take this opportunity of saying to the Committee that so long as the Crown Agent is an official who has to pack up all his things and go off whenever the Government changes it cannot be expected that any gentleman holding a good position will give up that position and take the office upon a salary, with the possibility that at the end of three months or six months, or at the end of three or four years he may be turned out. Up to the present time the Crown Agent has always been a man holding a very high position, and I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that in all cases of criminal prosecutions the present Crown Agent, with whom alone I have had to do, has taken no part in any of them. I have further to inform hon. Members that as regards criminal prosecutions in cases which come up to the Crown Office in Edinburgh the Crown Agent has no discretion whatever, he is merely the official who manages the business of the office,

1813
who sees that the correspondence is properly carried on, that the proceedings are properly brought up and sent on to the Crown Counsel, and they are sent to the Crown Counsel without any advice whatever on his part, and without his interference in any way with the papers which come up from the Procurators Fiscal in the county. I am sure I shall be borne out by my right hon. and hon. and learned Friends on the Front Opposition Bench when I say that the Crown Agent does give the Lord Advocate most useful advice in regard to matters of a civil nature. He spares himself in no way to give him advice upon civil matters, but he has nothing whatever to do with actual criminal prosecutions. I hope that what I have now said will allay the feeling which seems to exist as to the Crown Agent's supposed interference in criminal prosecutions. As regards Procurators Fiscal it is perfectly true that in many cases they have not confined their attention to the duties of their office, and that they do not receive salaries sufficiently adequate to justify their being called upon to so restrict their attention. I think that the present is not a desirable state of things, and if we could by any possibility cure it I should be the very first to do so. As far as we have boon able to, we have in many cases, both in the time of my Predecessor and myself, made arrangements whereby in the future a Procurator Fiscal shall be limited to the duties of his office. But, Sir, so long as Procurators Fiscal are only local officials in a particular county, and are not members of the Public Service, liable to be moved and entitled to be moved in the way of promotion from one place to another, I do not think we can absolutely get rid of the present difficulty. It is quite impossible to expect that in outside places like Portree, Orkney, and Loch Maddy you can ever get efficient men for such work as that of Procurators Fiscal for a small sum. It is quite impossible to expect a man to sit down in such places as these upon an inadequate salary, without the slightest prospect of an improvement in his position.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): Why not?
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: If you get a clever and able man he will naturally aim at becoming something better than a Procurator Fiscal on a
1814
desolate island on a salary of £250 a-year.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Why should he not be promoted to a superior position?
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: Because at present Procurators Fiscal are not members of the Public Service, but are the local servants of the Sheriffs of the counties in which they servo. If we could have Procurators Fiscal put upon the Public Service, so that we could do as we do now with Sheriffs' substitutes—move good men from outlying places to better places, where they will have more society and better salaries—I believe it would be a great benefit. If the Members of the House of Commons who have the control of the public purse are willing that Procurators Fiscal should be put upon the Public Service at an enormously increased cost to the public, I think that a great improvement in this direction might be effected. But so long as things are in the present position there will be great difficulties in the way of an improved Service. Personally, I have made every effort, and I know that my right hon. and learned Predecessor the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) did the same, in every case where it was possible, to secure an efficient person, and to improve the salary, and, as far as possible, exclude the official from engaging in other business. In many cases, however, it is extremely difficult to make such a regulation.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I should like to receive some further explanation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Are we to understand that the Procurators Fiscal still hold office during the pleasure of the Sheriffs, and are liable to be turned out at the pleasure of the Sheriffs? if that is not so, I do not in the least understand why it should not be possible to promote a Procurator Fiscal who has shown himself an efficient man.
MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: The Procurator Fiscal for a county is nominated by the Sheriff subject to the approval of the Secretary of State; but he cannot be transferred to another county if he prove himself efficient, because the Sheriff of the other county has his own nomination.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: But we think important

1815
public officials of this kind ought not to be the nominees of the Sheriffs. It is for the Lord Advocate to introduce a change. I wish a Procurator Fiscal, whatever his salary, to be nominated by the responsible officer of the Government, and not to be a mere nominee of the Sheriff. It scorns to me that that is an extremely necessary change to make; and I also think that we should be able to promote Procurators Fiscal, and that we might do this without any very large increase of the public charge. I believe that your ruling, Sir, will not enable us to go beyond the question of criminal prosecutions and Procurators Fiscal; but, if we could, I should like to say that it is impossible for us to arrive at any conclusion as to the emoluments of public servants, whether they are Crown Agents, Procurators Fiscal, or anything else. I understand that the system by which public officials are paid is by fees and salaries; but in Scotland you pay officials salaries while, at the same time, they receive fees. There are many notes to this Vote showing that such and such officials also receive certain, fees. You really have a general system under which it is impossible for a Member of Parliament or anybody else to get at I what the real emoluments of these legal officers are.
MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: I quite admit what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has just said in regard to the difficulty of dealing with Procurators Fiscal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says we cannot get a thoroughly good man, under the present circumstances, to consent to be located in one of the Western Islands of Scotland. If, however, you will put Procurators Fiscal on similar terms to Inland Revenue and Custom officials, to Post Office officials, or constitute them a separate and distinct department, the members of which are bound to go anywhere, you will be able to overcome the difficulty. Men will go to the most outlandish places because they are ordered. If some such system as I suggest were adopted, there is no doubt that the source of justice would be greatly purified. I do hope the Lord Advocate will see his way to advise the Government to put these particular officials upon a footing which will be satisfactory.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 173: Majority 101.—(Div. List, No. 389.)
Original Question again proposed.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I rise, Sir, to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will give me the credit of moving' this from a sense of public duty, and from no personal feeling in regard to the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. I observe that in connection——
THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment the hon. Member has given Notice of is to reduce the item A. He cannot do so after the Division which has just occurred, He may move it on item C.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I rose in my place, Sir, to move my Amendment some time ago, but you called upon the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron).
MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn): Go against the whole Vote.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): Several of us, Sir, who are anxious to draw attention to the matter in question, have been deprived of an opportunity of doing so. The hon. Member for Glasgow began by making remarks upon the whole Vote, and he gradually went on to move the reduction of a particular item before any of us knew that anything was going to happen.
DR. CAMERON: The hon. Gentleman may move the reduction of the whole Vote.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I will not occupy the attention of the Committee for any length of time, but the circumstances of the case I wish to bring under the notice of hon. Members are these. We have been promised a reorganization of the Scotch Office, and, as I said before regarding the Secretary for Scotland, we were to relieve the Lord Advocate of his political functions. I am not now speaking of the very important functions that the Lord Advocate performs in connection with the administration of the Criminal Law of Scotland; but what I ask is, that since we are voting £2,000 for the Secretary for Scotland to be our political Representative, why should we

1817
continue to pay exactly the same sum to the Lord Advocate, who has not these duties to perform? Now, if the Committee will look into this Vote, they will find that there is a sum of £2,388 a-year paid to the Lord Advocate, and that there is also a sum of £850 a-year paid in lieu of fees abolished by Act of Parliament in 1852. The reason that I have moved the reduction of the Vote-by £738 is that I think the salary paid to the Lord Advocate should be £2,000, and that his receipts in lieu of fees abolished should be only £500, making altogether a sum of £2,500. Now the reason for my moving this reduction is, that we are placing the Lord Advocate in respect of his political Office in a higher position than we place the Secretary of State for Scotland; and if it were not that comparisons are odious, I might say that in return for a less amount than that which you pay the Lord Advocate you have the duties of the Chairman of Ways and Means—most important and responsible duties—performed. In regard to the fees abolished; I quite admit that during the time that some past occupants of the situation filled the Office the Lord Advocate now holds, it was quite right to give a Vote in lieu of the foes abolished, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Lord Advocate has ample opportunities for devoting his great talents to professional duties for which he is paid, so far as I can see, a sum equal to £5,000. Now, we are taunted by some English Members that we are always willing to take large sums of money when we can appropriate them to ourselves in Scotland—that we are always ready to receive money if it comes out of the Treasury. But here is a distinct case to the contrary; here is a case in which we do not want our officials to be paid too highly. I have another reason for asking for the reduction of this Vote. I think, as has been indicated by Questions put in this House, that the Lord Advocate might be relieved altogether of his political position in this House. He is superseded by the Secretary for Scotland, and he is superseded by the Home Secretary, and he has no real position or authority, and I do not see why his should not be a terminable situation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has said with regard to these Votes, that we must pay these officers well, for the reason that they
1818
are subjected to the exigencies of Party, and are liable to be turned out of Office when there is a change of Government—that they take temporary Offices under Government which they might lose in the course of two or three months, and that, therefore, they cannot be expected to relinquish their professional emoluments for the Office. My answer to that is that the Lord Advocate need not necessarily be placed in that position at all. If you remove from the Office of the Lord Advocate his political position, then for that reason the Lord Advocate for Scotland need not necessarily be in this House, and may remain in the enjoyment of his official emoluments for a longer period than the existence of a single Government. There is a Gentleman in this House who is very much underpaid—that is to say the Solicitor General for Scotland—and my suggestion is that there should be a redistribution of the emoluments of these Offices. I am not at all sure what these professional Members of the Government from Scotland do, because it seems to me, if we look at the general Votes of the House, that salaries are paid to other officers for doing the work. I suppose we may look upon some of these high officials as merely superintending. I suppose it is necessary that someone should advise the Government as to Scotch law, and I think that that function falls very naturally upon the Gentleman who fills the Office of Solicitor General for Scotland. He does not seem to be provided with professional clerks to do this work, and I certainly think he is very much underpaid, receiving only £900 or £1,000 a-year, while the Lord Advocate has £3,238 a-year, besides a great amount of assistance in the performance of his duties. I should, of course-, excuse the right hon. and learned Gentleman for defending his own position and emoluments, but I am very sorry to see the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) is not in his place——
An hon. MEMBERS: He is here.
MR. ESSLEMONT: Then I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. I have no doubt he will rise in his place and defend the emoluments of the Lord Advocate. I hope, however, he will take into consideration the important fact, that I do not, in any way, desire to

1819
deprive Scotland of it fees, but merely desire that a Gentleman who represents one of the counties of Scotland should have a fair salary, as compared with, that received by a Gentleman who merely represents the Professions, -who sits for the Professions holding a place which I think to be untenable. Notwithstanding the very aristocratic constituency of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate——
THE. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
MR. ESSLEMONT: I was going to say that notwithstanding the aristocratic constituency that sends the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to this House, I think that anyone who takes a political position here should be in touch with his constituency. Hence my reason, though I may be quite out of Order—and, as a matter of fact, I believe I am out of Order—in questioning in any way how any hon. Gentleman finds his way to this House—for moving this Amendment, as I think it is not fair play that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate should receive such rich emoluments whilst the right hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland receives such poor remuneration for his services, which are so well acknowledged: I will not, under the circumstances, put the Committee to the trouble of dividing upon this Amendment. I know that my Friends who are supporting me will be very much disappointed, because I know that they desire very much to effect this economy. But we are promised a new Bill with regard to the Secretaryship for Scotland, and we are promised much better services, generally speaking, than we have had hitherto. My complaint is, that with ail our paid officials we have got no Scotch Business done, and have been entirely neglected. We will not pay the money unless we get better services; and this Motion, therefore, will be a warning to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move the reduction?
MR. ESSLEMONT: Yes, I will move it.
Motion made, and Question, "That £37,217 be granted for the said Services,"—(Mr..Esslemont,)—put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £43,465, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day or March 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice in Scotland, and other Legal Charges."
DR. CAMERONrose to speak to the Question.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I had hoped that it would have been possible to complete these Votes this evening; but we are under an engagement to take the Technical Instruction Bill now, and if, therefore, there is likely to be any discussion upon any of these Votes, we shall be compelled to postpone them.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I want to say, by way of caution, that we Scotch Members must not be supposed to approve of all these Votes contain. It is only through the necessities of the case that we refrain from opposing them.
DR. CAMERON: It would be impossible to allow all these Votes to go without, discussion.
MR. W. H. SMITH: Well, I move to report Progress.
DR. CAMERON: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to proceed with the Scotch Votes—when next we go into Committee?
Mr. W. H. SMITH: No; when next we go into Committee we shall proceed first with the English Votes.
MR. R. W. DUFF: When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take the Scotch Votes again?
MR. W. H. SMITH: In their proper order.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. W. H. Smith,)—put, and agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL.
(Sir William Hart Dyke, Sir Henry Holland Mr. Jackson.)

[BILL 332.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE) : I urn sure the House will forgive me if I occupy the attention of hon. Members for a few moments—and they will be very few, because I am sure that it will he most valuable that we should have an adequate discussion on the Bill—but I think hon. Members will admit that I had the misfortune to introduce this measure under somewhat adverse circumstances. I hope, looking at the manner in which I was obliged to introduce the Bill, that I may be now permitted to make a few observations. I think the importance of the Bill will be admitted by all. I am glad to notice that nearly all the Amendments which have been put down to the Bill begin with the statement that this is a subject deserving of all our attention and consideration. Now, Sir, I hear many objections to this measure, more especially with regard to its application to agricultural districts; but I should like to defer my remarks upon that point for a few moments, and to speak upon what might be called the primary object of the measure. I take the primary object of the measure to be the enlargement of the powers of the Science and Art Department at South Kensington under the administration of the Lord President and Vice President of the Council—the enlargement of their powers so as to enable them to supply technical instruction of a primary character to enable scholars who have passed the Sixth Standard of education, or an equivalent to that Standard, to have an opportunity of getting two or three years' more scholastic training in day or evening schools—in other words, giving them elementary technical instruction, not by any means teaching them, a trade, but affording them that training of the eye and the hand, either in woodwork or in ironwork, or in other subjects, and by that means giving them greater facilities for acquiring a trade. I think there are two great advantages to be gained by these proposals. In the first place, I think it a very great advantage that a student should have continuous training—that the best of our scholars should have continuous training for two more years; and I think that the second advantage will be in turning labour from markets which are now overstocked into new channels. It will be a great advantage to turn our scholars from many of the present desired means of
1822
obtaining a living—from those cravings after clerkships and other occupations which have long since been glutted, the supply having long since exceeded the demand. A great advantage will be to send the best of our scholars amongst the artizan classes, out amongst the great army of industrial competitors, better equipped than they would otherwise be for holding their own in the struggle. That, I take it to be, is the primary object of the Bill; and now as to some of the objections to the Bill. What is it to cost? I have heard urged against the measure that it will be a great instrument for increasing the rates. Well, with regard to that, I should like to divide the operation of the Bill, as it were, at once under two heads—that is to say, the head of expenditure which will come under the building powers that will be granted to Local Authorities for the extension of buildings; and the head of expenditure necessary to enable classes to be held in the existing buildings. With regard to this matter, I am strongly of opinion—and I think I shall be supported by many who have made a long study of the question—that, so far as the training which this Bill will afford is concerned, it will be found possible to provide a vast amount of it immediately in existing buildings. Well, if that be so, I should like, if I may be allowed to do so, to quote what the actual cost of this measure is likely to be as regards the ratepayers if this training is conducted in existing buildings. And here I may say that this technical instruction is not a now proposal. This special form of training has for many years past been tried in our Large centres; therefore, this is no now experiment as regards the subjects upon which instruction is to be given. Hon. Members, no doubt, have got information upon this head themselves; but I should like to quote one or two instances of what the actual cost has been where this special form of training has been, carried out in existing schools. I have one or two instances hero. I will first take an instance of an institute in Perth. This institution is an endowed school, it is true; but here is the exact sum which will provide for an education, such as I have described, for a year. The cost of setting up benches, the cost of tools, a lathe, a metal bench,

1823
and other sundries in this institute came to £80 10 s.
An hon. MEMBER: How many boys?
SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: Kindly allow me to finish. In that school 160 boys could easily be taught in each room for a session. There are 20 benches, with eight boys at each bench. This provides for the instruction of these boys at the rate of 4s. 6d. per head per annum. Therefore, in this institution, at all events, the chief expenditure -will be for the teaching. In this case the teaching is afforded by an Art master supplied by the establishment. Now I take another case, which is very similar. I take it from the paper read by Professor Rucker before the British Association. The case I have given shows the expenditure involved in setting up a workshop for wood and a workshop for iron. In the second case, I would mention the expenditure for fitting up benches, tools, lathes, and so on was £68—that was in Manchester, at an institution affording manual instruction. Therefore, when we come to the question of expenditure under this Bill, I think it is only fair to urge that, so far as this class of training is concerned—and it will be of au elementary charastcer—I think it only fair to say that the experiment is one which has for years past been fairly and fully tested. Therefore, I think it only fair to argue further that, as regards the expenditure of the rates on the class of training to be obtained under this Bill, it will be reduced to a minimum. There is one point I should like to deal with at this stage. It is complained that there is a distinction made in the Bill with regard to subjects which may earn grants, and it has been urged that the earning' of grants will add to the demand which will be made upon the rates under the Bill. That is perfectly true; but, at the same time, when subjects are taught in these schools which are in existence in connection with the Science and Art Department, if you take the grants given to the children and the fees which, the children pay, I believe it will be found that the demand which will be made upon the rates in this respect will be reduced to an infinitesimal amount. It may be argued what guarantee is there that, if you give these powers, the Local Authorities will not set up after
1824
all a very expensive kind of training of a secondary character? I believe we have this guarantee—that our artizan classes are united in demanding that there should be some safeguard against the teaching of trades. I believe that every form of instruction that actually taught a trade would meet with the greatest obstruction from the working and artizan classes of the country. [Cries of "No, no!"] I have had a great deal of information from the working classes on the subject. Protest after protest has been received from them on this subject. I could read many resolutions on the matter to the effect that this Bill, whatever it may be, shall not be a trade-teaching Bill. Another point I should wish to put before the House is this—that the effort this Bill will make will not be a solitary effort in the cause of technical instruction. I should like to point out to the House the enormous sums that are now being voluntarily spent in this country in respect of this class of instruction. I should like to inform the House, as it may not be generally known, of the vast sums being yearly spent in this way by the City and Guilds of London Institute. I apprehend that a measure of the kind which I ask the House to assent to will tend to stimulate the efforts that are being made by such bodies as this. the greatest praise is duo to the Clothworkers' Company and to its secretary for the admirable work it has done in this direction. They have established a largo Institute and Training College for teachers. I would point out that this measure will act as a feeder to establishments of this kind, and that it should be directed, not to cause any injury to such institutions, but rather to supplement their efforts by feeding them with the best class of scholars we can get. The question that arises is this—Is it not worth our while to make an effort in this direction, seeing how much has already been done in this country? Is it not worth while for us to make an effort to give our youth the benefit of that technical education to which they may have to look for much in the future; and in regard to the support that they may get from the institution that I have named and the grants that they may win there, it is not worth while to make a sacrifice for that purpose? Then I should like to refer for one moment to Clause 3

1825
of the Bill, which is a clause which provides for an appeal to the ratepayers in case of a resolution being passed in the locality for the adoption of the Bill. Before I determined upon introducing; the Bill a great difficulty arose in our minds in this respect. I saw it was impossible to earn' out the provisions of such a clause as this in the Metropolis. Well, I had the honour to moot a number of Metropolitan Members from both sides of the House upon this matter; and the conclusion we have arrived at with something like unanimity is—and I propose to insert this provision in the Bill—that at the end of Clause 2, page 1, I should insert—
"Provided that the Local Authority shall not incur any expense on the erection and enlargement of any school building for the purpose of this Act until after the date of the election of the Local Authorities next after the passing of this Act."
It is obvious when you come to bricks and mortar that a largo expenditure may be incurred, and the ratepayer may be fully burdened already. The point is, that no such work as that shall be done until an appeal has been made to the local ratepayers. I know that much objection is made to this clause by the other side, and that it is generally desired that this provision which I have read in connection with the Metropolis should be extended to all districts that come under the operation of this clause. In my opinion, the clause will work well. The scheme under the Bill is one which must be of very slow development, and what I want to do is to make the measure operate in such a way that full and ample notice shall always be given to the ratepayers to enable them to consider and discuss the matter before the Bill is put into operation. I believe that when a proposal under the Bill is made and has been fairly and frankly discussed amongst the ratepayers they will be able to come to a decision upon it when next the Local Authorities are elected. There are other provisions in the Bill to winch I would refer, such as this establishing classes in existing buildings. I propose that if the ratepayers should demand that a decision or poll be taken the ratepayers so demanding a poll should provide adequate security for the cost of such undertaking. It may be that I take a sanguine view of the matter; but from
1826
all the study which I have been able to give to the question, and from the knowledge I have been able to gather with regard to it, I believe that the expenditure in cases where the schools will be established in existing buildings will be so small that in no case will the poll be demanded. I, however, make this proposal—that if a poll is demanded those demanding it shall give security for the cost of it.
MR. RATHBONE: Do we understand that that is to be previous to the vote of the Governing Body or afterwards?
SIR. WILLIAM HART DYKE: I will answer that question presently. I should like to say one word with reference to an Amendment on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton). I do not know if I am in Order in doing this; but, if I am, I will proceed. I do not think the hon. Member gives sufficient credit to the permissive character of the Bill. I do not think it can be urged that the Bill does directly involve a charge on the rates. I think the word "may" may be here inserted. This measure is absolutely incomplete as regards its operations, and I am rather inclined to take credit for that than otherwise. There is a desire that we should proceed gradually as this is a new proposition; and I must say I cannot think it any disadvantage to be shut out from the Bill for twelve months or so until they have seen how it works elsewhere. In some places the measure would apply to a comparatively small number of children. As an experiment it is absolutely restricted to those children who have passed Standard VI.; and here I may say that, though I have been urged to lower the standard required in the Bill, I have felt myself unable to do so. I think that to take that course would produce nothing but disaster. It would make this at once a very expensive measure. I repeat that it is an experiment, and that, as such, it is absolutely restricted as I say. I regret that this Bill does so little directly as regards the training of our agricultural children; but I know for myself, speaking as a distressed agriculturist—not only as a landowner, but as an unfortunate farmer, and I believe many hon. Members who sit behind me will join me in this

1827
statement—that what we want in the training of our agricultural children is not so much the sort of training they would got under this Bill as the kind of I training they would get on model farms. They require a practical training. I regret that this Bill does not afford a practical training for agriculturists; but I do not know that the fact that it does not do that is a reason why agriculturists should reject it. What would be the result of applying the Bill in agricultural districts? I admit that it would be difficult in every isolated district for the Bill to apply, for the simple reason that the material is not there to carry on the schools. You would not be able to get a sufficient number of children in Standard VI. to fill the schools. But when the Local Government Bill is passed, then will he the time to extend this measure to all the districts throughout the country. I contend, however, that when it, is applied, it can only be applied in this way. You will have to collect your children from a considerable area, and when you have done that you will be able to train your agricultural children in the principles of agriculture. There are syllabuses for training in agriculture in the United Kingdom, as anyone may see who looks into the matter. No apparatus will be required in these agricultural schools, all you will want will be the building, which you will be easily able to obtain, and after that your only expenditure will be in teaching. I venture to say that the grant received from the State, plus the school fees, will cover more than four-fifths of the expenditure. I admit that this theoretical training is not so much what agriculturists want; but, so far as the measure itself goes, the training will throw hardly any now burden upon the ratepayers. As for this question of model farms, I, for one, should certainly advocate their adoption; but I would remind my hon. Friends that a system of model farms would not be so cheap a system as that under the Bill. I would refer to two model farms which hon. Members know very well, as they are notorious ones. Take the farm at Glasnevin, the Albert Farm and the Munster Farm. Last year the net cost of these two farms was something like £2,671. Therefore, however anxious we may be to advocate this system of model farms, though, no doubt, the work could be
1828
carried, out more cheaply than it is in these two instances, yet I would like to point out that when this measure is objected to as involving an addition to the rates, this sum of £2,671 spent on these model farms, if applied under the provisions of this Bill, would find, at 8s. per head, education for 6,678 children. Therefore, comparing the two systems, it is, I think, impossible to contend that the model farm system would not be a more expensive one than that system of training which I am asking the House to accept in this Bill. I have little more to say as to this measure. I have heard it adversely criticized, and I have heard, on the other hand, many urgent appeals made from all parts of the country that it should immediately be passed into law. It has, as I say, been criticized from various points of view. I am told that it is a Bill to establish free education. I do not know how that rumour ever gained credence, because one of the rules of the Science and Art Department which will administer this Bill especially demands that fees shall be paid. I am told by some that this Bill goes too far, and by others that it does not go far enough. I see it criticized most adversely in the journals devoted to the interests of the School Board; they say it aims at the destruction of the School Board system. I have heard the Bill criticized as being injurious to the voluntary school system. I can only say I have considered all these subjects most deeply, and I am, at all events, consoled in this—that it may possibly be that in this measure, which may be opposed from different points of view, we have struck the mean between the different contentions. Whatever the fate of this measure may be, I am certain of this—that the time cannot be long delayed when this question must be dealt with, although I know that this Bill may be adversely criticized as regards its unequal operation. I am quite certain that the acknowledged demand for this Bill must meet with great consideration at the hands of this House. It is long since we admitted that our industries were suffering most severely from the lack of industrial training on the part of our people. We have long admitted that, as far as our industries are concerned, we are practically fighting foreign countries with one hand tied behind our back, and that it is really time

1829
when we should see what we can do with both our hands. I admit the evil, and all I urge upon the House to do is to deal with the Bill in a practical manner, and to provide a remedy. I beg to move the second reading of this Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the speech he has just made. He said everything which could possibly be said in favour of the Bill. I had hoped his speech would have boon such that I should have been able to withdraw the Amendment which I have put upon the Paper. I regret that the result of his speech, able as it has been, is otherwise. I regret I shall be obliged to move my Amendment in the interests of the artizans who want a Bill of this kind, and who see and feel that this Bill is inadequate, and in the interests of the ratepayers who are to pay for this Bill, and who know it is an unfair and unjust Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said perfectly truly that every Amendment which had been put down to his Bill declared the satisfaction of the Mover at the fact that this question was going to be taken up. Why, of course, I was glad the question was going to be taken up; I was glad the Government was going to take up the question of technical education; but I must say that I was amazed when I saw the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. Now, Sir, I do not intend to make a local taxation speech. [" Hear, hear ! "] You need not be afraid of that. I take it for granted that on both sides of this House, and especially at the hands of a Conservative Government, it is acknowledged that the incidence of local taxation is unfair and ought to be remedied. From the Government we have had nothing but fair words, and yet now, at the close of the Session, they bring down to us two tremendous Hating Bills. They, our own Government, pledged to relieve the ratepayers from the unfair incidence of taxation, have forgotten all their promises and their fair words, which are now transformed into very hostile deeds. Indeed, I almost fear that the prevailing epidemic has influenced the Members of the Conservative Front Bench, and that Mem
1830
bers of the Government think that they have a right to change their opinion suddenly and abruptly. They have told us often they intend to see that justice is done to the ratepayers; but they have forgotten all they said. Perhaps next Session or the Session after they will do something. Let me cite a few figures to show the present position of the ratepayers. the ratepayers are now in the unfortunate position of owing £185,000,000, and the Local Authorities who manage matters for the ratepayers are now spending a yearly income of £55,000,000. These are big sums, £55,000,000 of expenditure, and £ 185,000,000 of debt. It is upon these Local Authorities the Government intend to place another burden. My right hon. Friend says this is a very small burden. Let me point to the precedent of the education rate. We were promised at first that the education rate should never go beyond 3d. in the pound. It is more than 3s. in the pound now in some places. There are some 1,800 places where the rate is over 3d in the pound, and there are only 200 places where it is under 3d. If the rate for technical education begins very low it will soon be very big. We, who sit on this side of the House, are asked to shut our political eyes and open wide our political mouths. The right hon. Gentleman puts in food; but it is very indigestible—it is only half cooked. He has made no estimate of the effect of his Bill. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to tell us something about the cost of the education this Bill proposes to give; but he has not done so. All he has told us is that the apparatus in two instances he mentioned cost 5s. per head per annum. But he has not estimated the number of persons whom he thinks will take advantage of this Bill. He has I not told us what buildings will be required, nor has he taken the trouble to define the instruction which will be given. I distinctly asked my right hon. Friend the other day something about all these matters; and he told me, with that transparent honesty which is the secret of his political success, that he knew nothing about the cost, or the buildings, or the number of——
SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I really must object to the interpretation which my hon. Friend in his good nature has put upon my words. I never

1831
said I knew nothing about these matters. What I said was that these matters must be left to the localities; that the localities will have to decide upon the curriculum; and if that comes within the regulations of the Science and Art Department they would get a grant.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: At all events, the right hon. Gentleman considers that this Bill will not entail much cost. That is not the spirit in which to approach the great question of technical education. It is no trifling question as to whether we should maintain our industrial leadership. I think we ought to do something more than is proposed in this Bill, and in quite a different method, in order to maintain our leadership in the industrial competition of the world. This is a very big question. I do not venture to put it before the House as a question of no account, involving no expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council thinks that perhaps 20,000 persons may possibly take advantage of the benefits of the Bill; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I mean the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the London School Board, my hon. Friend the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcestershire (Sir Richard Temple)—considers that 50,000 persons in London alone will avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill. Fifty thousand persons in London alone ! My hon. Friend is a man of business and of figures. He says 50,000 persons in London alone will avail themselves of the benefits the Bill gives: but the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council thinks that not more than 20,000 persons in the whole of England will take advantage of the Bill. For my own part, I prefer to accept the opinion of so accurate a Member as the hon. Member for the Evesham Division of Worcestershire than the vague generalities of my right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend (Sir Richard Temple) thinks it will cost the London rate payers about £175,000, and that the fees will amount to 70 s. a-year for each scholar. The House will agree with me that 70 s. a-year will exclude every artisan who is earning from 20 s. to 30 s. a-week. I think, therefore, I am justified in saying that the Bill is inadequate as regards the artizan, and that it imposes a very heavy charge upon the ratepayer. But,
1832
Sir, let us see what is required in Germany for technical education. This education costs £5 per head. In France the cost is £8 per head in the very lowest class, and it rises by four classes to £120 per head per year. £120 a-year includes 45 s. for a bottle of wine for the mid-day meal, which is, no doubt, a piece of interesting information for those who advocate penny dinners out of the rates.
MR. MUNDELLA: Does the hon. Gentleman say the cost of technical education in German elementary schools is £5 per head?
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: So I see from the Report of the Committee.
MR. MUNDELLA: the hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I adhere to my figures. Now, what will be the effect of this Bill upon voluntary schools? My right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council is very fond of tolling us that he is offering a great boon to the voluntary schools, because, for the first time, he is going to allow voluntary schools to be aided by a rate. I am not quite certain that he will be able, in view of the opposition of his Friends on the opposite side of the House, to carry his point, because his Friends opposite particularly object to any aid being given out of the rates to voluntary schools. But, after all, what is the so-called boon worth to the voluntary schools? Voluntary schools will never get it, because it is to be given or withheld at the pleasure of Board schools; and do you think it is very likely that Board schools will give a rate in aid of voluntary schools which are in competition with them? Why, Sir, you might as well expect the Carlton Club to subscribe to the funds of the Reform Club, or the Reform Club to subscribe to the Carlton Club, as to expect a Board school to set up a technical department in a voluntary school. It is utterly and entirely impracticable; not a single penny will be given to voluntary schools from the rates. Practically, voluntary schools are excluded from the operation of the Bill; and what will be the result? A fatal blow will be struck at the voluntary schools of the country. Not only will a fatal blow he struck at those schools, but a fatal blow will be struck at the second grade schools—endowed and unendowed. Both these classes of schools will be knocked out of

1833
the running, and the cost of the education which they now give will be thrown upon the rates. Such is the position you have to face; and I should like to ask hon. Members whether they quite appreciate what the result to the rates will be if voluntary schools are abandoned, as I am perfectly certain they will be abandoned in five years, if this Bill passes? There are now, in round numbers, 3,000,000 educated in voluntary schools. According to the School Board standard, the cost of these children is a little over 19 s. per head per year—about £3,000,000. £3,000,000 will have to be provided out of the rates if the voluntary schools are given up. In addition to that, the schools and schoolrooms will have to be provided by the School Board; and the cost of providing school accommodation is, according to the School Board rate, about £12 per child—say £30,000,000 in the aggregate. If you strike down voluntary schools you place on the rates an initial charge of £30,000,000, and a yearly charge of £3,000,000. I declare that this Bill, if it is carried in its present form, will strike a fatal blow at the voluntary schools of the country. These are the difficulties which we have to face. Now, is it necessary, in order to provide proper technical education, that we should place upon the rates this tremendous burden? The Technical Education Committee, in their Report, suggest—
" That steps be taken to accelerate the application of ancient endowments to secondary and technical education."
Here is a way out of the difficulty. Use the means you have. Use the secondary schools, whether endowed or unendowed, in the country, and have in each one of them a class or department for the technical education of artizans. And then the same Committee made the additional suggestion—
" The great national agricultural societies should give aid to the establishment in the counties of secondary schools for teaching agriculture."
That Commission did not forget the agricultural community; but my right hon. Friend has forgotten them. He has entirely forgotten that there are such people as agricultural labourers, and yet I thought my right hon. Friends who sit on the Front Bench had taken the agricultural labourers entirely under
1834
their own wing. Well, there are, as anyone can see who reads the Report of the Technical Education Commission, a number of schools doing exactly the work the right hon. Gentleman, has described as the work we desire to be done. I want that work to be helped forward by grants out of the Consolidated Fund and not out of the rates. The axiom upon which we ought to go is the affiliation of our technical education to our secondary education, and not to our elementry education, and establishment of an artizan technical department in all the endowed schools. In that way we shall relieve altogether the rates, and we shall get a far better education. We ought, I think, to develop the means we have. We ought not to take a leap in the dark as it were. A Royal Commission is now sitting upon technical education, and I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman sent his Bill to that Commission and asked their opinion in regard to it? It is extremely important we should know what the Royal Commission think of the Bill of my right hon. Friend. The very questions which the Royal Commission propose to answer aro—What, if any, technical instruction there ought to be in elementary schools; under what conditions rate aid ought to be given to voluntary schools; and what should be the relations between the Central and Local Authorities as to the kind of instruction and payment by results? We should be rather acting in a hurry if we pass this Bill before the Commission has reported. By this Bill we are turning the whole system of our education topsy turvy; we are destroying our system of voluntary schools; and we are destroying our system of second grade schools. I say wait until the Report of the Royal Commission. We are promised a revision of local taxation. Before you put any more burdens on the ratepayers let that revision take place. You propose by this Bill to place an additional burden upon the wages, upon the lodging, upon the food of the labourers and the artizans, and before imposing that burden I ask you to make the incomes of the millionaires liable to local taxation. Before you make the unskilled labourer pay for the education of those who are above him in the social scale, I think you ought to place the great incomes of the rich under a like

1835
liability. I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name—namely—
" That while this House is desirous of seeing increased facilities for Technical Instruction afforded, it is not prepared to proceed with a I measure which impedes a new charge on the ratepayers for that purpose, until such changes have been made in the incidence of local taxation as will secure the equitable contribution of all classes of the community to the rates."
COLONEL EYRE: I beg the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I second the Amendment which has just been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton). Representing as I do a large agricultural constituency, the line I particularly wish to take has reference to the effect of the Bill upon the incidence of local taxation. I have no objection whatever to that part of the Bill which relates especially to technical education—indeed, I would go a little bit further than the Bill; I would even make technical education compulsory on a certain condition. The condition should be that if the nation has to benefit, as I believe it will do, by technical education, the nation ought to pay the whole of the expenses. It seems to me that it is unjust that in the case of a national question, and one of great interest like this, local interest should pay more than its share towards what the whole of the nation benefit by. The laws of our country for many years past have been in the direction of forcing a considerable sum of money directly into the land. Trustees, and especially the officers of Friendly Societies, hare been limited in their investments. They have been obliged to invest their money either in Government security, savings banks, or mortgages upon land. Any additional tax you put on land will, to a certain extent, injure the investments of the Friendly Societies T have mentioned. I am quite ready to admit it may be in the smallest degree. Let me call the attention of the House to the enormous sums of money which trustees or officers of Friendly Societies are at this moment investing in mortgages. The Nottingham and Manchester Unity of Oddfellows have a capital of about £13,000,000, which represents the savings of all the poorest classes of the community. Of that £13,000,000, considerably over half is invested in mortgages on land. I understand that by
1836
this Bill you wish to benefit the poorer classes. What are you doing? You are making a fresh mortgage on land by forcing technical education on the local rates. Every additional taxation that you put on land will more or loss injure the securities in which the working classes have invested their capital. I maintain that wherever there is great national benefit the nation should pay for it, and this technical education will be of enormous advantage to the whole nation. Not only that, but I believe it will be of special advantage to the agricultural interest. I believe it would be far better for many young children if they were learning practical and technical education in the fields at the present time than to be wasting their time learning lines of Latin and other subjects that can never do them any good—[Laughter]—hon. Members below the Gangway opposite may laugh; but perhaps they are not—I hope they are not—so well acquainted with agriculture as I am; but I know it is with the greatest difficulty that agriculturists can get any one of the ages of 14 and 15 who is able to be of any use to the farmer in assisting him upon the farm. In former times it was different, and a child lost nothing by it in health or ability, or even in education. I do not wish to occupy the attention of the House any longer. I have placed before the House the point which I maintain—namely, that this is an additional tax on land, and whatever the nation benefits by it it should be paid for nationally, and not locally.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words while this House is desirous of seeing increased facilities for Technical Instruction afforded, it is not prepared to proceed with a measure which imposes a new charge on the ratepayers for that purpose, until such changes have been made in the incidence of local taxation as will secure the equitable contribution of all classes of the community to the rates."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN); I hope the House will excuse me for intervening for a few moments at this early stage of the debate between those who wish to speak

1837
upon the general effect of the Bill. I am anxious at once, on behalf of the Government, to correct a few of the misapprehensions which I gather from the two speeches we have hoard exist as to the effect of this Bill. Now, it has been argued, and especially by the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down, that this would be a tax on the land. I think I shall be able to show that the land need bear no share whatever of the burden that may be imposed by this Bill; but that, on the contrary, the point which is urged by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and also by my hon. Friend who proposed this Amendment—namely, that the contribution should come from national funds—would be more detrimental to the agricultural interest than the proposal contained in the Bill, and for this reason—that the agricultural interest contributes to the National Revenue in a large measure, and the burden upon those who pay the taxes upon land would be increased if the whole of the cost of this Bill should come out of national funds rather than out of rates. I would urge upon all hon. Members who object to any increase in the taxes upon land that this Bill is entirely voluntary in its operation, and that it will only be applied where the representatives of the ratepayers think it would bestow an advantage to the population. I am bound to say I think this Bill will have little operation in agricultural districts. Let us assume for a moment that the effect of this Bill will be what expect it will be—namely, that it will be adopted in large towns and not in agricultural communities—vrhat would be the result? Why, the rates would be paid by the towns, and not one shilling would fall upon the agricultural districts. How much more would it he against the interests of the agricultural community if those technical schools, founded in towns for the benefit of the manufacturing community and the industrial classes, should be supported out of the National Exchequer, to which the agricultural classes contribute largely? I own it seems to me more just that those classes who will derive benefit from the Bill should be taxed, rather than the whole population, including the agricultural community, which is not likely to derive any benefit from the Bill. If the Bill were such that, while its benefits were con
1838
fined to certain classes, other classes suffering greatly from depression were called upon to contribute to the cost of these technical schools in any large measure, I should say it was an unjust Bill, and that the whole of the financial arrangements would have to be revised. But as the Bill is drawn it appears to me the main point is this—that if a community thinks the Bill will be of advantage they can charge themselves to carry it out; but that other portions of the country which do not think it desirable to come under the operation of the Bill will not be charged, and in that portion of the country where the number of children are not forthcoming to render it desirable to inflict this charge the people go scot free, and will not be called upon to contribute to the expenses of the Bill. If that be so, would it be wise on the part of any portion of the country to resist a measure that would promote the prosperity of any other portion? I am sure no Member on this side of the House would wish to contend that there is not the greatest solidarity between the interests of the industrial classes and those of the agricultural classes; and if by this Bill we should enable the manufacturing and industrial classes to compete more successfully against the industrial classes of other countries, not only would our commercial and industrial classes benefit by it, but the agricultural classes of the whole country would have their full advantage from the greater development of our commerce and industry. If we can establish, as I believe we can, that the weight of taxation, the comparatively small addition to the public burdens will not fall on any part of the country that does not elect to secure the direct advantages of this Bill, I think we may all unite in giving these optional powers to those great centres of industry which so much desire them, and which are eon-tent to come under this Bill. As the Bill is drawn, I do not believe the rate in any single agricultural district could be increased, unless, indeed, it should be found that any particular agricultural community thought it could establish schools from which direct advantage might result to the agricultural class. I am prepared, on the other hand, to admit to the full that if this Bill is passed the advantage that will accrue from it establishes a serious

1839
claim on the part of the agricultural Community to call for similar measures in their own interest for similar development of whatever particular education may best be to the advantage of that community. It is not, perhaps, by the education of agricultural children after this fashion that you will be able to promote bettor farming, or that higher education of the kind now contemplated will directly affect agricultural interests. We may have to provide other measures. But the House, I am sure, will be under a heavy obligation to the agricultural community, if it passes this Bill to assist the industrial and commercial community, to pass similar measure, when called upon, in order to promote whatever form of education may best advance agricultural interests. On behalf of the Government I have to say that, while we promote this Bill, which we believe to be urgent and necessary in the present industrial condition of the country, we shall be perfectly prepared to examine hereafter in what way the agricultural community can best be served by further educational changes, by the establishment of Colleges or by such other arrangements as they may think necessary for promoting better agricultural knowledge and better farming throughout the country. That is a pledge we cheerfully undertake to give to those interested in agriculture. Then, Mr. Speaker, let me point to some—that I may call without offence—exaggerations in the speech of my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment. We have carefully considered the number of children who may derive some advantage from the present Bill, and I was startled to hear the figures to which my hon. Friend alluded, because we know the maximum number, though not the minimum number, of children whom it may affect. We know the maximum number of children who can derive advantage from the Bill are those who pass the Sixth Standard.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Or examination equivalent thereto.
MR. GOSCHEN: Yes; but the children who reach Standard VI. cannot be multiplied indefinitely, We trust there may be au ever-increasing number; but the number of children are not there—they are not in existence—who would be able to pass the examination as suggested by my hon. Friend. What is the num
1840
ber of children who pass the Sixth Standard in England and Wales in one year? Searcely more than the number my hon. Friend assigned to the Metropolis alone. Sixty thousand children passed the Sixth Standard in England and Wales last year; but those 60,000 were not all boys. If half of them are taken to be girls, or I will give an outside figure and say there are 32,000 boys, that reduces the number considerably below the formidable figure mentioned by my hon. Friend. Of these 32,000 boys who pass the Sixth Standard in one year, there are a large portion who do not belong to the industrial and commercial classes at all, but who belong to the agricultural districts, and many of them will be scattered throughout the country, and will settle down to agricultural or other pursuits, which will not lead them to avail themselves of this higher technical instruction. The estimate of the Science and Art Department, who have great experience in the matter, is that they do not consider there will be more than some 4,000 boys who will ultimately avail themselves, under the present system, of the advantages of the Bill, and we have some guide as to the number by estimating the statistics of Manchester and other large towns. But, of course, this is for one year, and we must multiply that by the three years they will be under this additional training, and the estimate of the Science and Art Department is that at present some 12,000 boys would probably avail themselves of the arrangement made in every three years. Those figures have been carefully worked out, in order to supply that which my hon. Friend was justified in asking for—namely, the kind of number that might be expected to take advantage of this Bill. The House will see it is far from the formidable number alluded to by my hon. Friend. Perhaps my estimate may be under the mark, and I do not disguise my own opinion, that I should be glad if there were a larger number of boys who would avail themselves of this technical education. I should be glad if they rose from 12,000 to 20,000 and more; but if they do, I venture to repeat that they would only be admitted to the benefits of the measure on the distinct resolve of the ratepayers themselves. We are not laying upon the ratepayers any compulsory expenditure, and I should be glad to associate myself

1841
with those who see in this direction constantly increasing danger, and who are anxious to keep down the alarming amount of rates which is assuming proportions which rival the heavy Imperial taxation of the country. But in this particular instance we are not imposing rates on any Union, upon any School Board, upon any Town Council, or upon any Local Authority, that the ratepayers themselves do not desire to see this charge imposed upon; and hon. Members will have seen from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council that we propose to surround the adoption of this measure with every precaution, so as to secure that the ratepayers themselves shall have the matter in their own hands; that no surprises shall be sprung upon them; that they shall have ample opportunity to make up their minds. I perfectly appreciate the anxiety that exists with regard to the question; but though I do not know what my hon. Friend behind me will say to it, I repeat what we have repeated before for so many years—that although our hopes have been disappointed, we do in the nest Session, of Parliament, and I trust in the first months of the next Session of Parliament, intend to deal with the question of rating, and revise that system which has given rise to so many heart burnings, and which is presumed to involve so much injustice. We shall deal with that question; but, in the meantime, I trust no action will be taken to retard this optional Bill through the fear, which, I think, is delusive, that there will be an increased burden placed upon agricultural communities. Do not let us, on that account, retard what we believe a national advantage—namely, the improvement in technical training of the artizans of our industrial and manufacturing towns. We ought not to prevent them from making use of these arrangements which are entirely optional, and which otherwise could only be obtained at great expense. If this were a Bill which throughout the country was going to increase the rates, I should say Her Majesty's Government ought not to propose it; but in the form in which it is proposed we believe it may safely be adopted, and that the ratepayers need not be afraid of it, while, at the same time, it may satisfy a need that is generally admitted to be urgent, and which
1842
has got the sympathy of the great majority of the people of the country.
SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: Sir, I hope that, as being connected with elementary education throughout the Metropolitan area, I may be allowed to say a few words in defence of this Bill, and to explain those formidable figures that have been, not quite correctly, attributed to me. I hope to show in a few words that this measure is educationally sound, and financially safe as regards the ratepayers. I would ask my hon. Friends who sit around me to consider what is the object of the Bill. It is to enable the Local Authority to provide technical instruction with part of the moneys raised by any district local rates. And why is it necessary to give this enabling power? Because those Local Authorities have constantly been endeavouring to apply a portion of their funds to this most important national object, and have found such application to be illegal. I speak from painful experience, as I and my colleagues in the finance department of the School Board of London have several times tried and been stopped by the Auditor of Public Accounts. I would ask my hon. Friends around me to remember this Bill is only to enable, and not to compel, and is to be administered by the Local Authority. And what is the Local Authority? Why, it is the School Board. Those School Boards are answerable to the ratepayers, being elected triennially by them; we are really the creatures of our masters the ratepayers. I speak feelingly, as we shall all have to give an account of our stewardship next November 12 months. I ask my hon. Friends who sit around me, and who are so alarmed about this measure, to consider whether it is likely, or even possible, that the School Board for London, or for any other great industrial centre of the country, would dare to go contrary to what they knew to be the wishes and feelings of the ratepayers? I am quite sure that if they ventured to do so they would not have long to remain in office, as they are elected triennially, and an election must come in a few months. This measure will only be called into effect if the ratepayers on the whole desire it, as I earnestly hope they will; therefore I, for one, believe it is not necessary to have

1843
what is now known as the plébiscite arrangement. My first care, when I heard of this measure, was to ascertain from my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council that this plébiscite arrangement was not to apply to the Metropolis. Being secure of exemption, ourselves, I am sure we hope all our brother and sister towns may be equally exempt. I hear now from my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council that we are not to build any new buildings until after the next election. As regards London, I think I may venture to say that would not be complained of; because, if this Bill were now to pass into law, I trust we should be able to give accommodation in all those 400 magnificent buildings we have in various parts of the Metropolis for what may be called the initial classes of technical instruction under this Bill. Therefore we should not need any new school building until after November 12 months, the dies irœ of the members of the School Board. But I venture to point out that by this arrangement the erection of new buildings will be sure to be one of the election cries in November 12 months; and, looking forward to that dreadful day, and knowing how many election cries there will be all over the Metropolis, I am sorry to anticipate that we shall have still one move cry. But, if it must be, we submit; though, at the same time, I do hope it will be found possible to exempt us from this condition, as we have been already exempted from the other condition. I am anxious to point out to my hon. Friends around me that the cost of this technical instruction is to be defrayed from the local rates, as set forth in Clause 4. I have heard sometimes there is to be a separate rating; but my hon. Friends will perceive that that is not the case. There is not to be any separate rate whatever. The cost is to be defrayed from the local rates, and that means the rates now levied in all towns in the country for elementary education. Therefore, the expense of the technical instruction will be mixed up with the rest of the expense of elementary education; and if the administration is prudent, the School Boards ought to save some portion of their own expense; and if they are careful to recoup themselves as much as possible by fees I hope that this new expense will not be appreciable—perhaps it will hardly
1844
be felt at all. Thus there ought to be no additional burdens on the ratepayers. I must remind those who feel nervous about this that it will apply to those children of the better classes whose parents are well-to-do, and who will be able to pay the fees. I am sure all London know I can answer for the School Board here that we shall do exactly as much as we can; and I have no doubt that our colleagues in Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and elsewhere, will do the same. Therefore, it is not correct to say this measure proposes to give free technical instruction to the masses; it is nothing of the kind. There will be no cases on the free list, otherwise than in a few incidental cases of youths of exceptional genius and talent, who would be selected by examination, and who may obtain access either free or at a very low fee. It is only those children of extraordinary talent to whom we wish to give a chance to rise and achieve distinction through their own industry; it is to them alone that anything like free education will be given. I am again anxious to point out that my remarks hitherto have applied to School Boards; but School Boards are not the only institutions that are to benefit by this measure. The voluntary schools are to benefit in an equal degree, and to those of my hon. Friends around me who doubt that I would refer particularly to Clause 4 of the Bill and its various sections, which lay down, as specifically as possible, that these funds are to be applied to other schools besides those under the School Board, and that means the voluntary schools. I confess I have listened with the greatest pain and apprehension to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire on this subject. He seems to think there is enmity between the School Board and the voluntary schools. I venture to affirm there is not. Why, Sir, it is quite the contrary in the Metropolis. The majority of the present School Board for London are distinctly favourable to the voluntary system, and were elected upon that ground after election pledges having been given. I can answer for myself, and several of my colleagues, that the promotion and prominence of the voluntary system of education is among the dearest and nearest of our hopes; and yet we are told, if we have to apportion

1845
a part of these funds to the voluntary schools, it will be done in a grudging spirit. Why, Sir, I cannot imagine anything more contrary to the fact. It will be our duty, as well as our pleasure, to take care that the benefits of this measure shall be meted out to the voluntary schools equally as to our own schools. It will be our clear legal obligation to do this under Clause 4; and if there should be the slightest doubt as to the extent and stringency of that obligation, I entreat that words may be inserted in Committee that may make this absolutely certain according to legal phraseology. As I have already pointed out, only a, small portion of the children in the voluntary schools have passed the Sixth Standard, and this measure could only apply to them. Supposing, then, that the voluntary schools were to send their children to our schools for technical instruction, instead of receiving a portion of the funds from us—that is to say, if they prefer to come to us, instead of receiving a subsidy from us—that at the best, or the worst, would only take a mere fraction of the 400,000 children who are happily in the voluntary schools of London. Therefore, I can assure my hon. Friends that this idea of injury to the voluntary schools can be described by nothing- short of the common term "bogus." Then I must point out that this instruction is not to be given to everyone, but only to those children who are tit and able to avail themselves of its advantages. Therefore I, for one, was very glad to perceive that it is provided in the Bill that no child shall be eligible for this instruction unless he or she has passed the Sixth Standard. That was the Standard that occurred to me and several of my colleagues on the London School Board before we heard of the introduction of this Bill. I know it will be said that the Sixth Standard is too high. It appears that some of ray hon. Friends on the other side of the House think that the Fifth Standard is high enough. But I would commend to their attention the potent argument used by the Vice President of the Council in favour of the Sixth Standard. We must not make the benefits of this scheme too common; and when I speak of Standards, may I direct attention to the figures attributed to me by the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division of Shrop
1846
shire? I am answerable for having written of 50,000 children as likely to come under this scheme of technical education. But when I did so, I was speaking of what might ultimately happen not in the dim and distant future, but in a future removed by unknown, years from the present time. I have here the paper from which these figures were taken; and I find what I wrote was this—that we hoped soon to have 10,000 scholars in the Sixth Standard in London, that that number might rise to 20,000, and ultimately it might rise to 50,000. That was presented to the House, no doubt, in perfect good faith; but still in quite a different way by the Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton). Now, I have one more point to submit to the House, and that is this—that this instruction is really to be scientific, although elementary. And when the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division says that this is indefinite, I would refer him to Clause 8 of the Bill, which lays it down that technical instruction consists of those branches of Science and Art which are prescribed by the Science and Art Department; and those who refer to the Rules and Regulations of that Department may find out immediately what those branches are. And as for me and my colleagues not having thought out what we mean by technical instruction, T would refer to the fact that we have drawn out a curriculum, accompanied by a time table. Those who know anything of these matters will know that, having done this, we have worked out the scheme to its ultimate details. This scientific instruction is to be separate from the manual and industrial instruction which is sometimes spoken of by some of my hon. Friends. Of course, this manual and industrial instruction is co-ordinate with and auxiliary to technical instruction, but it is a very different thing, and at our School Board it is never spoken of as technical; it is called manual, which is a better and a more accurate name. I regret that the benefits of this measure do not extend to the agricultural constituencies, one of which I represent in this House. But if the benefits of this measure do not accrue to them, neither need they be under any apprehension of having to bear its burdens Still, I think that technical instruction is as

1847
much wanted by the rural as by the urban population, and I hope that if we now have this measure for the towns we shall hereafter have a sister measure for the counties. I hope that if my Colleagues in the representation of the counties will now help us to pass this measure for the towns, that when the time comes we shall help them to pass something as good or better for the counties. One word before I sit down with regard to the School Board for London, with which I am connected. I believe that it is a magnificent organization; that it has excellent buildings, and a highly trained stall; and though I do not presume to speak in its name—no one can exactly answer for the Board—I can answer for myself and some of my colleagues, that the Board generally is animated by the sincerest and heartiest desire to do its best for this noble cause of technical instruction, and is anxious, in conj unction with the voluntary schools, to see that there shall be established in this Metropolis a system of technical education worthy of the greatest manufacturing centre in the world.
MR. MUNDELLA: I feel that we are conducting this discussion under the greatest possible disadvantage in having to deal with this great and important question at nearly an hour after midnight. It is impossible for us adequately to discuss the question under consideration at the present moment; and it is also a great disadvantage that the country cannot express its opinion on the subject. Still, I am not going to quarrel either with the time or the opportunity that presents itself to take a step in advance in the direction of technical education. Since I have been in the House I have been always ready to accept any measure advancing the cause of education from any Party, and also under any circumstances. I am anxious to give my support to this measure, although it has some features which are very repugnant to me, which I think to be unnecessary, and which I am sorry to see coupled with education. I acquit the Vice President of the Council of the authorship of Clause 2. I believe it has not been imposed by the Vice President on us, but has rather been forced on him; and after what he has said to-night I hope that the measure which he considers sufficient for the Metropolis will be regarded as sufficient
1848
for the country. We do not ask more than that we should be put in the country on an equal footing with the Metropolis, and we shall not accept less. Indeed, rather than accept less, I should prefer to see this measure postponed to another year. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: No, no !] I am astonished that an hon. Gentleman, who is the champion of municipal rights, should be willing to put all the enterprising towns in the North of England in a worse position than the whole of the Metropolis and Scotland. I will not be a party to that, nor do I believe that the Government can desire it, I think, indeed, that the Vice President has to-night sketched out a plan as applicable to London which may also be made applicable to the whole of England and Wales. Now, I must say that I should like to have heard something of a higher tone pervading this discussion. I was sorry that the Vice President of the Council felt obliged to adopt almost an apologetic tone, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer a persuasive one, in order to induce hon. Gentlemen opposite to adopt this measure. What are the facts of the case? You have had a Royal Commission sitting for three years, and investigating all the systems of technical education throughout the world. They have reported that our industries are suffering grievously, because we have hitherto neglected technical education. But, beyond that, you have had another Royal Commission on Trade Depression presided over by the late Lord Iddesleigh, and that Commission has also reported that one of the gravest causes of trade depression is that we have allowed ourselves to fall into the rear in matters of science and art and technical education. I should like to quote from one of the last speeches of Lord Iddesleigh delivered in December last. He said—
" Depend upon it that our rivals on the Continent—if we are to look upon them as rivals—will press us hard. They are advancing very fast, and the supremacy of Germany particularly is now beginning to make itself felt. Nothing can be more remarkable than to see that German energy, which displayed itself so conspicuously in the Franco-Gorman War, is pushing forward in every direction, and is absorbing, to a very great extent, all the avenues to industrial greatness and power."
That was a speech which Lord Iddesleigh made in December last; but the

1849
last speech he made was even a stronger speech on this question than the one I have quoted. I will refer to one passage in it, in which he said that—
" Parenthetically he might remark that, having been himself for the last two years engaged in the conduct of a Commission which was to inquire into the condition of trade and agriculture in this country, he had had very strongly impressed upon him as Chairman—as it had also been very strongly impressed upon his Colleagues—the very great importance of extending and improving the technical education of the people of this country."
Lord Iddesleigh then went on to argue, in the most forcible language, that it was of the utmost and the most vital importance that we should not delay dealing with this question. Then let me remind the House of a speech made by the noble Marquess the Member for the Rossendale Division of Lancashire, in which he spoke of the vital importance of not neglecting this question. Professor Huxley, in a letter to The Times, said, too, that—
" The organization of industrial and commercial education is not the least of these great problems. That it has to be solved, under penalty of national ruin, proves to be no mere alarmist fancy."
I believe this to be the case. I have advocated the cause of technical education for 30 years, for I have seen how, slowly but surely, year by year, and step by step, the Germans, more than any other nation, have made advances, solely through the superior instruction of their people. I wish I could impress on the House what the Germans themselves feel on this subject. I have here one of the latest authorities, the work of Dr. Conrad on German Schools and Universities, which is preceded by a preface written by my hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce). What does he say? He speaks of the effect of this education in its bearings on the national economy, and says—
" It is at present with our working class in general as with the individual soldier in our present system of war; there is in both cases much greater scope than formerly for independent thought and action. From knowing only the new state of matters, we have lost the standard for estimating the greatness of this change, and an idea of it can only be formed by going back with the elderly people among us to former decades, or by a comparison with different countries. The present writer has directed special observation to this point, and has established the superiority of the German as compared with the English workman. No doubt, the Englishman, by his enormous perseverance,
1850
and his wonted diligence and sense of order, gets through considerably more work in the sphere of action to which he has been long accustomed; but he is far behind the German in capacity of adapting himself to new circumstances, and in executing on his own reflection and independently a complicated task. The same feature is noticed as well among artizans as among factory workers, and we have been repeatedly confirmed in our opinion by large English employers of labour who know Germany well and by German workman who had lived for years in England. This, however, is only the result of the better and more general training which our working class obtained in our schools, and especially in the better class of our lower burgh schools. An increased attendance at these, therefore, is in general to be encouraged."
And then he goes on to show how their artizans are excelling ours. I have myself seen, as a consequence of the adoption of technical education, not only the increased facility of German workmen, but their increased adaptability in the development of new trades and diversities of industry—a matter of still greater importance, and one of greater importance to this country than to any other country in Europe. I hope that we shall all agree that this is a question of vast importance. [" Hear, hear ! "] I accept that cheer as an indication of general assent; but why, then, did the hon. Member for the Oswesiry Division of Shropshire talk about the incidence of taxation, and the propriety of putting off the question of technical education until the question of the incidence of taxation is settled? I should myself be glad to see that question settled soon; but I think that when it does come on for settlement it will be found that there are some things not so pleasant to do as to talk about. There will be some such people who will then have things brought home to them—if the subject is dealt with in a proper manner—in a way that they have not yet realized. But when hon. Members talk of local taxation, they should remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave £250,000 out of his Budget for the relief of one class of local taxation. I venture to assure the House that 10 per cont of that amount will, for the next few years, be sufficient to pay the drafts on Imperial taxation under this Bill, I wish, indeed, that instead of 10 per cent it might be 50 per cent. If it were the larger sum, so much the better. Lot us have the courage of our convictions. Do not let us shirk this matter, if it be, as I believe it to be, vital to the interests of the country. If that be

1851
so, are we goings as Professor Huxley said, to spoil the ship for a half-pennyworth of tar? Are we going to lot the matter fall into arrear as hitherto? Take the matter of modern languages. We have allowed the people of other countries, and especially the Germans, to become our intermediaries in commerce, because? we have neglected the teaching of modern languages. What are the Government about to do for the teaching of modern languages? I suspect they are not going to give a farthing. Modern languages are not included in. the curriculum of the Science and Art Department. And there is nothing in this Bill that authorizes the grant of a farthing for modern languages. I hope, however, that they will soon be included in the curriculum. The grants under this Bill will be wholly inadequate, so long as they are confined to the subjects included in the curriculum of the Science and Art Department. we want grants not only for abstract but for applied science. If, for instance, you want to encourage proficiency in dyeing, you must give us a dyeing grant, and so on. The hon. Member opposite talked about this kind of education costing £5 a-head in Germany. [An hon. MEMBER: Five marks.] No; it is over that. But the whole cost of the education of a pupil for a year in a German real schule is only 76 s., 38 s. of which is paid by the State. If, indeed, the hon. Member was talking of the higher technical schools of Germany, such as those at Charlottenburg, at Aix-la-Chapelle, or at Zurich in Switzerland, then, no doubt, the expense might be higher. And when I mention Zurich, let me remind the House of what was done by the Swiss at Zurich. A Member of the Swiss Diet applied for a reduction of the grant to the University of Zurich. An independent inquiry was ordered, and the result of it was that the Federal Parliament increased the Vote, and at this moment £20,000 per annum is given as a Federal grant to the University of Zurich, because, as the Swiss say, "it has paid us well." And it has. Because it has converted the Swiss from being a nation trading only in the flesh and blood of their people as mercenary soldiers into a great industrial and trading nation, and that, too, although they were without either a harbour or a mine. Let me now pass on to another point, and tell the
1852
I hon. Member for the Oswestry Division that there is no danger that this Bill will injure the voluntary schools. We have for some time had a school at Sheffield giving technical education of good quality. At Manchester there is a school which gives excellent technical instruction. Indeed, there is a better laboratory there than at many a University, Well, has the school at Manchester; has the school at Sheffield; has the institution given in either of these schools injured the voluntary schools? No; on the contrary, there are scholarships under which those pupils who pass the Fifth Standard can enter these schools, and through those scholarships the children of the voluntary schools as well as those of the board schools enter these technical schools. I should not have thought that scientific teachings could have been made matter of sectarian difficulty. I hope the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division will dismiss from his mind this fear of injury to the voluntary schools, and that the hon. and gallant Member for the Gainsborough Division of Lincolnshire (Colonel Eyre) will equally do away with the idea of this measure diminishing the security for mortgages on land. The Vice President has spoken of the measure as one to increase the powers of the Science and Art Department. Well, I am afraid it will not enlarge their powers much in the way of making grants. I had hoped that the Government would have shown that they care enough for technical education to give us something out of the national funds to stimulate and develop local efforts. It is not fair that they do not do so. Still I will take the measure, in the hope that they will soon give grants for all the subjects taught in the technical schools. Now, there is something to be said about the cost of the technical education to be given under this Bill. That cost must necessarily be small, because it is confined within very narrow limits. You are not setting up great and important institutions, but are simply allowing School Boards and Town Councils gradually and tentatively to feel their way to a system of technical education. There will be but a small expenditure, either of rates or grants, during the first few years that this experiment will be made. That being so, I think the experiment might well have been made without

1853
raising any alarms, or introducing any difficulties as to the proposed plébiscite. Nothing has done so much injury to the Bill as the 3rd clause. Bradford, Nottingham, Sheffield, and other towns have threatened either to petition against the Bill on account of that clause, or, at least, to petition against the clause. And I would really ask the Government—" Is it fair that you should invite a conflict of opinion on a question where there should be no conflict? "You are creating a discussion—almost a sectarian discussion—on a question on which there can be no difference of opinion. And for this purpose you are inviting any 50 ratepayers to call for a poll of the town, which they say would cost £1,000 at Bradford. You say that the fact of a poll being thus costly will act as a security against persons lightly resorting to it; but the truth is that the people who will call for a poll will not care for an outlay of £1,000 at the charge of the ratepayers. And what will be the. result of this poll? You will by it get persons committed against technical education, and hereafter they will be against technical education. Why have this division? we are willing to take every security in the interest of the ratepayers; but why do you treat us in England worse than the people of Scotland, where you know that you dare not introduce this poll? Or why is there to be a plébiscite for the rest of England, while you do not introduce it into the Metropolis? Why, I ask, should there be a plébiscite for the rest of the country and none for the Metropolis? Does the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke) know that at this very moment in Sheffield, Birmingham, Newcastle, and Manchester, they are educating their children at much less per head than is the case in London, and yet a plébiscite is to be imposed on those who have worked the School Board system with, economy, while it is not to be imposed on those against whom the authorities are constantly making the charge—I do not say they are making it justly—that they are working it by extravagant and excessive taxation? I say that the rule it is proposed to adopt in this matter is a most invidious one; and I will also tell the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Hart Dyke) that, much as I
1854
value the step proposed to be taken by this Bill, nevertheless, if Clause 3 is to be allowed to stand on its present footing, I will put a Notice against the Bill to reject it on the Motion for going into Committee. I say it is not fair to deal with the Municipalities in this way, and to put them to all the expense that would be involved by the adoption of this clause. There would be nothing but bad feeling arising out of it, and it would be very unwise to force this state of things upon it. I will now leave this part of the subject; and I leave it to the good sense of this House and of the country generally, in the hope that the clause will be dropped at once. I nest come to the question of the Standards. Why, I ask, is it that you propose to take the Sixth Standard in England, where the number of children who pass that Standard is lower than in Scotland, and the Fifth Standard in Scotland, where the number is much higher than in England? [An hon. MEMBER: The Standards are not equal.] I beg pardon; the Standards are equal; and I will warrant it that the boy who is able to pass the Sixth Standard in England would also be able to pass it in Scotland. In point of fact, if you were to apply the same tests to the Scotch schools that are applied to the English schools, you would find that you were putting the Scotch schools in a difficulty. We have screwed ours up more than has been the case in Scotland; and our Sixth Standard is much more, rather than less difficult, as compared with that of Scotland. Let me point out to the House exactly how this matter stands. What, let me ask, is the number of children presented, not passed, in the different Standards? The number presented in Standard II. is stated at 565,000; the number presented in Standard III. is 550,000; the number presented in Standard IV. is 454,000; in Standard V. the number presented is 265,000; while in Standard VI. the number presented is only 103,000. These figures, it must be remembered, apply to the numbers of children who are presented, but all of whom do not pass, and one-half of these are girls. Now, why should we not begin with the Fifth Standard in England as well as in Scotland, seeing that there are so few children who pass out of our schools in the Sixth Standard? The Government

1855
say that nobody shall receive technical; education under this Bill unless he can produce a certificate that he has passed the Sixth Standard. If this be so, and you limit the operation of the Bill to those who have passed the Sixth Standard, the result will necessarily be that very few will have the chance of obtaining the technical education it proposes to confer. Why, 20,000 children passed the Fifth Standard in the course of the year. Why not let them have the opportunity of obtaining something in the shape of technical education, and of carrying on their literary education at the same time? They could not possibly pursue a course of scientific study, involving the writing of notes and the reading of test-books, without continuing their whole education; and as I think, therefore, it will be a deplorable thing to limit the technical education it is intended to give to the Sixth Standard, I trust that this House will be pleased to dispenses with that limitation. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council has, in the course of the speech in which he moved the second reading of this Bill, quoted to the House some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Education. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had had the courage to do what the Royal Commission suggested—namely, to put England on an equality with Scotland. What the Royal Commission recommended was that the Standards should be raised and put on an equality throughout the United Kingdom. You make Standard III. the minimum for half-timers, and Standard V. the minimum for full-timers in Scotland. Ono of the best educated towns in this country—Huddersfield—was only 20 years ago one of the worst. There the Standard for half-timers is IV., and for full-timers VI., and no difficulty is experienced either by the manufacturers or by the parents. You would confer an immense advantage throughout the whole of England if you would only have the courage to do Something like this. I must apologize to the House for having spoken at such length; but I should have liked to have said a good deal more, for I have not said one-half of what I might have said had time been more propitious. But I do ask, with regard to this question of the Standard, and also as to Clause 3,
1856
that the Government should make some distinct pronouncement by which we shall be able to get rid of these two blemishes on the Bill, so that we then can all heartily support the measure. and help the Government, as far as we can, to do something for the benefit of the country.
MR. CHAPLINI am sorry, Sir, to interpose in this debate; but in doing so I shall only occupy the time of the House for a few moments. I hope, therefore, the House will allow me to state, in as few words as possible, the grounds upon which I differ from my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke), and upon which I am induced to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton). Now, Sir, I would ask the House to consider, in the first instance, what is the Amendment which has been moved to the Motion for the second reading of this Bill? It is this—
" That while this House is desirous of seeing increased facilities for Technical Instruction afforded, it is not prepared to proceed with a measure which imposes a new charge on the ratepayers for that purpose, until such changes have been made in the incidence of local taxation as will secure the equitable contribution of all classes of the community to the rates."
Why, Sir, that is just one of those Resolutions—just, if I may say so, one of those old-fashioned, full-flavoured Tory Resolutions—which, I must confess, I myself and all my hon. and right hon. Friends now seated on the Government Bench have been in the habit of persistently and annually voting for during the last 18 years in which we have sat in the House of Commons; and I want to know-why we are to change our course on the present occasion? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) has told us to-night. He said, in answer to my hon. Friend behind me, that, in the first place, the land need not bear any share in the new taxes that are to be imposed under the operation of this Bill; secondly, that if the new taxes were placed on the Consolidated Fund, such, a procedure would have the effect of injuring the agricultural interest far more than the provisions of this Bill; and, thirdly, that the Bill is a voluntary measure, and will, in all probability, have very little opera

1857
tion in the agricultural districts, the addition to the burdens of the agriculturists in those cases where the Bill might be adopted being exceedingly small. It is quite true, and I fully admit this part of the argument, that the land need not bear any further addition to its present burdens on the passing of this Bill; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot for a moment deny that it may have to bear such additional burden, and that probably in many cases we may have to incur extra taxation of this kind. With regard to what he has said about the Consolidated Fund, my answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that, speaking as a Representative of the agricultural interest, we are perfectly prepared to take any risk that may arise under those circumstances. As to the imposition of only comparatively small burdens on the land through the operation of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman himself cannot deny that there is, at all events, some danger of the agriculturists' burdens being increased as a result of this measure, and what we say is that we are not prepared to accept the risk of any additional burdens. It is precisely because there is a risk of that kind that we are with great regret compelled to oppose the Bill as it stands at present. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer also held out to us a bait. He said—" If you give us this Bill to-night, it will become our duty in the next Session of Parliament to carry whatever measures in regard to the subject which may be deemed most to the interest of the agricultural party." The most effective reform in educational matters that I know of, as far, at least, as agriculture is concerned, would be this—that the sons of agricultural labourers, the boys who formerly used to work in the fields, should be allowed to go back to work in the fields at a considerably earlier age than they do at the present time. But this is really not a reform to which the Government or my hon. Friend would think of acceding for a moment; and therefore I must be allowed to say I do not derive any very great consolation from the promise the right hon. Gentleman holds out to us that if we will only accept this Bill we shall in the next Session of Parliament have an educational measure brought in that will confer great benefit on the agricultural
1858
interest of this country. And now, Sir, I desire to say a word or two in reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). The right hon. Gentleman appealed to us on this side of the House to aid in passing this measure, as one of vital interests to the artizans and working classes of this country. We have no objection to pass this Bill, or any measure of the kind; on the contrary, we have every possible sympathy with it; we agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a measure of technical education would undoubtedly be for the benefit of the people of this country; but what we contend is, that this measure is intended to promote a national object and to serve a national purpose, and that consequently the cost of putting it in operation ought to be defrayed out of the national funds. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) contrasted what is being done in Germany with the system adopted in England, and pointed out that the technical education afforded in Germany is one of the reasons why that country is so rapidly catching us up hand over hand in her competition with us in the manufactures we send to countries all over the world. But the educational system is not by any means the only difference between this country and Germany, The right hon. Gentleman quoted Lord Iddesleigh. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, has he ever studied the Report of the Royal Commission on the Depression of Trade over which Lord Iddesleigh presided?
MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, I have, and I quoted from it.
MR. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman says he has studied it; and, that being so, I ask him did he not find another great difference between this country and Germany in this respect, that this great increase in their progress towards catching us up in regard to our manufactures has been accomplished by Germany under a system of Protection to which he would not for a moment agree——
MR. MUNDELLA: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; the Report states exactly the contrary. It is only quite recently that Protection has been adopted in Germany, and the German people have suffered from it.
MR. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that if the Report

1859
proves anything at all it has proved this, that Germany has made the enormous advance to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded owing to the adoption of the system of protection. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, will not agree in this for one moment, but it will be remembered, as we were told the other day, that we are the only civilized country in the world that does not approve of protection. I do not, however, wish to be led into a discussion of this character. I would rather in adhere strictly to the question which is now before us, and that question, as far as I am concerned, is this—namely, whether the burden which will be imposed by this Bill is to fall upon the rates, or whether it is not? Our only objection to the Bill—my only objection to the Bill—is that it does involve the risk of additional burdens falling on the rates, and I can assure the House that the condition of the agricultural interest is such at the present moment that it cannot possibly bear any additional burden being imposed upon it. I do not think or believe for a single moment that either the Government, or the House of Commons, or the public at the present time, in the least degree appreciate the extreme gravity and the extremely critical character of the agricultural situation. If matters remain in their present condition much longer, the true state of affairs will come as a great shock and surprise to the public at large. I cannot help referring to a question on this very subject, to which it certainly did appear to me a sufficient amount of consideration had not boon given by many hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House. The question was asked of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government whether he would interfere with rents in such a way as to lighten the burdens falling upon the agriculturists. I confess that it does seem to me an absurd idea, to suppose that any further lowering of rents in this country would bring about a better state of affairs in the agricultural districts. Rents have already fallen as much as 30 s. and 35 s. per acre in many parts of England, and——
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The right hon. Gentleman is deviating from the Question before the House.
MR. CHAPLIN: I bow, Sir, to your ruling at once, and apologize to the
1860
House for having gone into anything that may be termed a deviation from the question. All I was endeavouring to show was that as the agricultural interest is situated at the present moment, it is impossible that any further burdens can be borne by it, even to the extent of that which is contemplated by the Bill now under the consideration of the House. All I have further to say is that whatever may be the general opinion on this subject, there are many of us in this House who are perfectly sensible that unless the Government can give us a far more positive assurance than they have done that there shall be no more risk of additional burdens being thrown on the hind by the Bill now before us, we shall feel it our bounden duty, however much we may regret the necessity of having to take that stop, to oppose the measure.
SIR HENRY ROSCOE: Having had the honour of being a Member of the Royal Commission to which reference has more than once been made, I desire, even at this late hour, to express my sense of satisfaction at the Bill which has been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke) in opposition to the strictures of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton), who seemed to think it was too late to bring forward a measure of this kind. On the contrary, I think the House generally is satisfied that it is better late than never; and that the Bill will meet, as I trust it will, with the approbation of a large number of Members on both sides of the House, I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few moments, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council whether it would not be possible to place the large provincial towns on the same footing as that upon which he proposes to place the Metropolis as regards the provisions of Clause 3. I may state that I represent a district in which the number of inhabitants within a circle of 36 miles is equal to the population of the Metropolis, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the provision in the Bill to which I object will not meet with the approbation of the great manufacturing towns in the part of the country to which I have referred. I cannot conceive why we in the North of England should be

1861
placed on a different footing from the inhabitants of the Metropolis, and I trust that in passing this Bill, which I hope they will be able to do, the Government will see their way to the removal of what otherwise will be regarded as a slur on the manufacturing towns of the North.
MR. J. G. TALBOT: I must apologize for addressing the House at this late hour; but I happen to occupy a peculiar position with regard to this Bill, which. I desire to point out to the House. I am a Member of the Royal Commission on the Elementary Acts to which reference has been made. It is quite true that there have been two Royal Commissions which have dealt with this subject, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman—a Royal Commission on Public Instruction and one on the Depression of Trade; and both of these have no doubt supplied valuable information with regard to this subject. But it is also true that the Royal Commission, upon which I had the honour to sit had this—among other subjects—committed to its charge, and I am not revealing any secret when I say that the subject of technical instruction is one of those on which, in the course of a few months, we mean to report. I am consequently placed in this position—I am unable to support the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke), and I am also unable to support the Amendment, because the matters to which I refer are still under the consideration, of the Commission of which I am a Member. But I would say one word more in regard to this matter, and that is that I think it somewhat hard upon the Members of the Royal Commission to which I belong that Her Majesty's Government should put before this House a question which is still under the consideration of that Commission; for, whereas the other Commission has reported on technical instruction generally, the Commission on which I have a seat intends to report on technical instruction in connection with the elementary schools. But although I find myself unable to give a vote upon this Bill, there are one or two matters to which I desire to call the attention of the House before I sit down. I want the House to consider whether they think a proper answer has been made to
1862
the following questions:—How far ought technical instruction to be given in the elementary schools; does the Bill involve the disputed question of payment by results; and is not the gate for giving technical instruction foreclosed by the Bill? These are matters of grave consideration, with regard to which the judgment of the Royal Commission is at present fettered so that if this Bill be pressed they will not be in the same position they now occupy. Then, there is the question of proportion which the Local Authorities ought to bear of the burden of education, which is another matter of very grave importance; and the whole of these are questions which are at this moment under the consideration of the Royal Commission; and there are matters which ought to be brought under the notice of the House. This is the first time the authority of the School Boards has been sought to be extended to secondary education. Again, this Bill for the first time lays down a system, of education which applies only to one part of the country, and ignores all those districts which are not either under School Boards or Town Councils. This is a matter well worth being reported on, because there are 7,000,000 of people not under school boards at the present moment, and the greater part of those are entirely left out of the provisions of this Bill. Then, with regard to the subjects to be taught. The Science and Art Department is by this Bill to be made supreme, and might at any moment make a change in what is to be taught. The words are—"May from time to time be sanctioned by that Department." I say that this is a matter which ought to be carefully considered before the Bill is allowed to pass. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) in his very interesting, and, from his point of view, convincing speech, tried to assuage the feelings of those who are afraid of the demands that may be made upon them under this Bill by saying that the demand upon the ratepayers would be exceedingly small. I will here trouble the House with a few figures, taken from the last Report of the Science and Art Department, which show the extent of the grants earned in the large towns from the Science and Art Department. In Crewe the Mechanics' Institute earned £326; in Derby, the Central School of Science

1863
and Art, £389; in Bristol, the Merchant Venturers' School, £591: School of Science and Art, £465; Bolton, School of Science and Art and Church Institute, £745; Liverpool, Free Library and Museum, £804; Manchester, School of.Science, £1,233; Central School of Science, £1,983; London, St. Thomas's, Charterhouse, School of Science and Art, £1,0 lo; Birkbeck Literary Institution. £1,013; Newcastle-on-Tyne, School of 'Science and Art, £1,150; Birmingham, £ 1,325; Bradford, £1,727; Sheffield, £1,000; and Glasgow, £1,435. I mention these figures for the purpose of showing that at the present time large sums of money are being expended and paid for purposes similar to those that would come within the operation of tin's Bill. Of course, this Bill is to have an operation widely extending the system, and ratepayers must be prepared for an increase in their burdens. I am not complaining of this. I only wish to point out that it is not a small matter, and therefore I think that the House should pause before they hurry on the passing of a Bill which deals with a matter now sub judice. I really cannot see how the matter is urgent, if it is at this moment in the hands of a Royal Commission. All I say is it is not that small matter it has been described. It is worthy of proper consideration; and I doubt if this is the best way of securing our object. I would much prefer to enlarge the voluntary principle, drawing out local interest, local influence and expenditure, and supplementing these by grants. This is a system of buttressing up by more State aid these branches of education—very important branches of education, I admit—but, I ask, is the House in a moment of enthusiasm going to take a great leap in the dark, and open the door to what will be in the future a largely increased expenditure'? I am unable to vote "Aye" or "No" to the question, but I thought it right to express these views.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I hope after the second reading of the Bill has been agreed to the Government will be disposed to reconsider their determination with regard to the third clause which, as it stands at present, is perfectly indefensible. As the Bill was originally introduced it was proposed to exclude
1864
the Metropolis, but now I understand it is not the intention to leave the Metropolis in that position, but that a limitation shall be placed on the provision of new Technical Schools by the School Board until a now Board is elected, that the Metropolitan Board shall be only able to spend money provided for under the heads C and D of the 4th clause. Now, it appears to me that the principle the Government intend to adopt in regard to the Metropolis is equally applicable to all great towns under the Bill. I have not heard a word—and I have heard all this discussion urged—why other large towns should be treated in a different manner to the Metropolis in respect to this proposal. I believe the opponents of the Bill on this side would be satisfied if the clause were so modified as to prevent school boards of large towns from embarking on large expenditure which might not be in accordance with the wishes of the ratepayers until after the elections have taken place. That seems reasonable, and as it is the manner in which the Metropolis is going to be treated, I do not see why it should not apply to all other towns. It does appear to me there is great force in the objection of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) to a decision by plébiscite. It would have the effect of establishing two hostile camps on the question, and would probably introduce into school boards an element of opposition and antagonism very desirable to avoid. I think hon. Members on this side would be perfectly willing to place any reasonable limit on the power of school boards to pledge the ratepayers to an indefinite expenditure until the ratepayers have had an opportunity of expressing their opinion. Why other large towns should be placed under conditions to which the Metropolis is not to be subject I fail to understand. One argument may have had influence. If it was thought the introduction of some such provision was necessary to conciliate the opposition of those who dread the imposition of new burdens on the rates, I think the Government must feel convinced that their object has not been attained. Hon. Members from Shropshire and Lincolnshire have shown they are opposed to anything that may have the effect, however remotely, of adding to the burdens of the ratepayers

1865
even with the consent of the representatives of the ratepayers themselves. Much as they desire facilities should be given to technical education being extended, they would not vote for a Bill unless the expenditure fell on the Consolidated Fund. Under these circumstances, it seems to me the opposition of those who take that view is not to be conciliated by any such proposal as that in the Bill. Without asking any pledge from the Government now, I venture to urge on them the adoption of the reasonable proposal of my right hon. Friend.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot) said he should not vote on the Bill, because he is a Member of the Royal Commission on Education; but as I also have the honour of being a Member of that Commission he will, I trust, allow me to express a hope that the fact may not prevent the hon. Gentleman from voting, for if no subject is to be dealt with at all that is referred to a Royal Commission, it would materially hamper our proceedings; and the House would lose valuable time if it always felt bound to wait until a Commission reports. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the House passing the Bill in a moment of enthusiasm, but he forgets that we have been discussing the subject for a long time past, and that it has been the subject of an elaborate inquiry by a strong Commission. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Oawestry Division of Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton), who moved the Amendment, expressed an opinion in favour of seeing a system of technical education introduced; but I must confess the tenor of his speech appeared to me to be in an opposite direction. I will not say anything in favour of the omission of Clause 3, or of substituting the Fifth for the Sixth Standard, for these matters have been ably dealt with by previous speakers, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to consider one other point. We have a certain amount of manual instruction in infant schools, and we shall now have technical education for the Sixth standard and boys of a higher grade; but we want something to bridge over the interval. This might be done if he could add manual instruction to the other class subjects, and
1866
allow school boards to select the subjects in which to present children for examination, not limiting the number to two. At present, as the House is aware, only two class subjects can be taken. All children were obliged to take English, and a great number took geography; so that history and elementary science were almost excluded. Last year 20,000 schools presented children in English, and 12,000 in geography; history was presented in 375, and elementary science in 43 only. There is an idea that it is difficult to introduce a larger number of subjects. On the contrary, the want of variety is, I believe, one of the drawbacks in our system. Mr. Matthew Arnold, in his recent Report on certain points connected with elementary education in Germany, Switzerland, and France, has pointed out that in German elementary schools, there is a "fuller programme "and a "higher state of instruction" than in ours. Taking Hamburg as a good typical case, he says that the weekly number of hours for a Hamburg child between the ages of 10 and 14 is 32; with us, under the Code, for a child of that age it is 20. And then, or rather but then the Hamburg children has, as the obligatory matters of their instruction, 13 matters in all. In one of our schools, under the Code, the obligatory subjects were three—English, writing, and arithmetic. Of the optional matters they generally take, at the outside, four—singing and geography, and perhaps algebra and physiology. That makes in all, for our school week of 20 hours, seven matters of instruction, or, at the outside, only half as many as in Germany. If we were allowed to take, beside the three obligatory subjects, English, history, geography, elementary science, and manual instruction, we should still only have nine subjects against 13 in Germany. That increase of variety would itself be an advantage. Mr. Arnold says—
" I often asked myself why, with such long hours and so many subjects, the children had so little look of exhaustion or fatigue, and the answer I could not help making to myself was that the cause lay in the children being taught less mechanically and more naturally than with us, and being more interested."
If we keep children until they are 13 years old, there ought to be no difficulty in imparting to them the elements of geography, history, and the natural

1867
phenomena by which we are surrounded. I will not dwell on this now; but I venture to express a hone that the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to modify the Code, so as to bridge over the interval between the infant schools and the children who will be dealt with by this Bill. If he does that, he will have the honour of removing a blot in our English system of education of which I fear it may be said with truth oven now in the words of Pope—
'' We ply the memory, we load the brain,
Bind rebel wits and double chain on chain;
Confine the thought to exercise the breath,
And keep in the pale of words till death."
My right hon. Friend's Bill has done much to remove this reproach; I trust it may soon become the law of the land, and that, following out the same principle, he will either modify the Code, or make some other arrangement so that manual instruction may be encouraged, or, at least, rendered possible between the elementary school and the stage at which it can be taken up under the present Bill.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I venture to express a hope that my hon. Friend (Mr. Stanley Leighton) will not oppose the second reading. If we had supposed for a single moment that this Bill imposed the slightest burden on the agricultural interest, we should have had the greatest hesitation in asking the House to accept it. But we have satisfied ourselves that it is almost impossible that that result can follow. It is just conceivable that one or two school boards might combine to take advantage of the Bill against the general opinion; it is conceivable that they might do so, but the circumstances under which such would be possible would be present on very rare occasions. So exceedingly difficult would it be, that I venture to think it would be almost impossible, and it would be most unwise for my hon. Friends, as representing agricultural interests, to plant obstacles in the way of urban communities availing themselves of the advantages of this Bill. There is a real community of interest between agricultural and urban communities, and I hope my hon. Friends who represent agricultural interests will not place themselves in that anomalous and undesirable position of appearing to stand in the way of an
1868
improvement of the position of the manufacturing population simply because of the bare possibility of an additional burden being imposed on the rates in agricultural localities. I advocate the Bill more as a tentative measure and an advance in a direction indicated as necessary by the experience, the research, and the accumulative evidence of the last four or five years. We deplore the depression of trade, we deplore the difficulties under which the agricultural interest is suffering, and I venture to say there is no portion of the question more important, that needs more careful assistance—not by an extravagant system—from the Government than the training of our manufacturing population for the work of life. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Mr. J, G. Talbot) deprecates boldness in legislation on the subject, because a Royal Commission on Elementary Education is now sitting, but it has been well observed by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Lubbock) that, if we wait until the Commission, has reported, we may for a very considerable period defer any improvement, however necessary it may be shown to be. I may here remark that, so far as I know, this question of technical education is not specifically referred to the Royal Commission. It may come in as an element for consideration in the questions that arise in dealing with elementary education; it is not shut out from their consideration, but it is not specifically referred to them as was the case when the Royal Commission was appointed to investigate the whole question of technical education. We have had the result of two Commissions; are we to wait for the result of another to which the question was not specifically referred? My view is, that the question is urgent, not that we should embark upon the building of a great fabric of technical education, but we should endeavour to graft on the existing system of elementary education, such instruction as experience has shown to be available, and which can be economically given in combination with existing elementary schools, and this we believe will be an enormous advantage to the artizan population of the country. I will not detain the House at this very late hour. We are most anxious to read the Bill a

1869
second time, and desire to wait until the next stage for further discussion when we shall have had an opportunity of considering the suggestions that have fallen from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) and from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) in regard to the conditions under which school boards may avail themselves of the measure. The idea of the scheme has been to provide what we believe necessary, and indeed vital to the future interest of manufacture in this country, and that the advantage to the manufacturing population should be obtained at the smallest possible cost to the ratepayers and taxpayers. We believe that great beneficial results can be obtained under the measure.
SIR RICHARD PAGET: I hope there will be no disposition to curtail the debate by interruptions, for I have so profound a conviction of the importance of the Bill, now submitted to us for the first time, that I may feel it my duty to move the adjournment of the debate. I think the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) is under some misapprehension as to the motives which inspired the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) in moving the Amendment which is now before the House. I take it that the Amendment is moved as a protest, on a matter of principle. It is a principle we have fought for year after year until at last we have attained a position that leave us with some reasonable chance of success. We have contended against the system upon which local taxation is based, and high authorities on both sides of the House are with us. It is supposed by many that this Bill will aggravate existing inconveniences and increase the burden on the rates, but what I want to point out is this, that while hon. Members have expressed their views on the question of rating, under the impression that this will add to the burdens upon land and agriculture, I do not say that the burdens on agriculture will of necessity be increased, but I contend that this Motion is moved in accordance with a principle often fought for in the House, and which I venture to think has plenty of vitality in it—namely, that the basis of rating, for the purposes of local taxation, is unjust,
1870
and that you are adding, by this Bill to the incidence of taxation, on a basis which has been universally condemned. This is but the beginning of an interesting discussion on a matter of very high importance, and there are a great many points in regard to the Bill which have not yet been urged before the House. One of these I should like to mention. The whole of the machinery of the Bill hangs upon the administration of the Science and Art Department. Money is to be entrusted to that Department, and they are to supersede the Education Department for the purposes of this Bill. In the Bill of my right hon. Friend there is a clause virtually placing the Science and Art Department in a position of superiority, and makes them largely responsible for what the Bill will bring forth.
SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: The Council and Vice President have an equal responsibility.
SIR RICHARD PAGET: I am quite aware of the fact to which my right hon. Friend refers. But the Bill does what I say it does, it takes a matter out of the hands of one Department, and places it in the hands of another. And what is this Department which is now to be responsible for this new departure in our educational system? Have hon. Members taken the trouble to study the 34th Report of the Science and Art Department—the Report for the present year? Have they taken the trouble to see what is the opinion of the examiners whose duty it is to probe the work of this Department, and ascertain whether it is efficient or not? Have they observed that the remarks of the examiners of the Department are by no means of a praising or complimentary nature, either to pupils or teachers? Such remarks as these are sprinkled and scattered all over the pages dealing with the Report of the examiners—" The absurd nature of the answers; "the general want of thorough knowledge of fundamental principles;" "absolute ignorance of simple facts;" "inadequate teaching," "teachers not I possessing necessary knowledge of physiology," "they believe the teachers are to blame" And these are the teachers who are to undertake this vast amount of new work! [Cries of "No, no!"] From what other class can you get them? These are the teachers entrusted

1871
with tins special work. The examiners may be rather hard; but, considering that we are now asked to take this new departure, should we not pause for a time, and see where we are going? Would it cot be wiser to see If you have got an efficient shall which can teach before you introduce a system which may break down for want of this teaching staff"? There is only one other remark I will make, though, if it were not for the lateness of the hour, there are many points to which I would refer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) gloats over the expenditure on technical education in Germany, Switzerland, and elsewhere, and thumps the box with energy while he cries—"Shame on you people of England that you do not spend your money freely in the same way." [Cries of "Hear, hear ! "] You cheer that, but will you cheer when I say—"Shame on you people of England that you do not spend money for the improvement of agriculture, as other nations do?" [Renewed cries of "Hear, hear ! "] A cheer, but slighter. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that Germany, Franco, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, and other countries spend thousands yearly on thoroughly equipped agricultural departments that do good service to the State. And what are you doing hero? A few years ago there was an association called the Liverpool Financial Reform Association, which set itself the duty of imparting the principles of Free Trade; but under their auspices—[Cries of "Question ! "] This is very much to the question, if hon. Members will be good enough to listen. Under the auspices of this Association, a great deal of high and dry Free Trade doctrine was preached. Not long afterwards the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) appointed a Departmental Committee of the Treasury to consider the question of Irish agricultural schools. Ireland at this moment has two such schools; but Ireland at that time had 20, and more than that, Ireland had no loss than 80 schools attached to workhouses. What did the Treasury do? They crushed and killed them all. The very thing that Ireland wanted was crushed out by the apostles of high and dry Free Trade, who preached their doctrines as late as 1884.
1872
The Munster dairy school was condemned to extinction, but was rescued by an expression of popular opinion. I should like to proceed with this subject, which has much to interest those who are concerned with agriculture. We are told that this Bill is to enable us to compete with foreign nations, who are rapidly outstripping us in the commercial race, and our manufacturers are suffering. But is not the most suffering industry that of agriculture? Is it not the case that it is at this moment in a critical condition beyond precedent? But in this Bill nothing is proposed to be done for that industry which, beyond all others in the country, is suffering most bitterly. It is idle to say that agriculture is not a manufacture. You cannot deny that every grain of corn grown, every head of cattle raised is the result of manufacture as much as anything that comes from the loom. If we are to have this new departure in education, this putting aside of the high and dry Fair Trade principle of not allowing the State to interfere for the assistance of particular industries, if you are going to say that any industry, whose produce is subject to bitter foreign competition should receive State aid, then I claim for agriculture the full right to be placed on a footing of equality. I hope, Sir I am not wearying the House with my few observations. There is much more that might be said on this matter. The subject is one of a very serious nature, and the Government proposal indicates so complete and entire a change, so fresh a departure that we have a right to demand it shall be seriously examined. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield has indicated his implacable hostility to the Bill if one clause is not taken out, and he has intimated that if that clause is insisted on, he will move an Amendment on the Motion to go into Committee. Well, if we all take that line, the Bill, I venture to say, will die a natural death; and I am justified in expressing my opinion that the support of the right hon. Gentleman to this Bill is at best but skin deep. Sir, I think this Bill is one which, at this late period of the Session, can scarcely receive the amount of attention which it deserves. With regard, Sir, however, to the Amendment now before the House, I would venture to say this—that it was, I believe, put

1873
down to raise the question of principle, and not through any fear of any fresh burdens to be thrown on the land. The Amendment asserts that an entirely new principle is contained in this Bill, that you are by it creating expenditure, but that you are not saddling that expenditure on the right horse. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was listened with great interest by all of us. We heard from him a distinct pledge—and I look upon him as a man of his word—that not only will he bring in a measure dealing with the incidence 'of local taxation next Session, but that it shall be one of the earliest measures which the Government will undertake. I also understand him to give us a pledge that he is prepared to deal thoroughly with the question of scientific technical teaching for agricultural purposes. In view of those two pledges, and seeing that this Amendment was moved merely to raise a question of principle, I would beg to ask my hon. Friend who moved it, to be satisfied with having raised the question of principle, to be content with the debate which has taken place, and to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I trust that the House will allow me to make one or two observations even at this late hour, for though I have put down an Amendment, I do not intend now to move it. I wish to refer to an important point within the scope of the Bill. We have been informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the number of boys likely to come under the operation of this Bill is not more than 12,000. Now, I had hoped that the Bill would have been made more generally applicable to our scholars, that it would have raised the general level of the education of the poor, and that the children attending elementary schools would be able to get some benefit from it. But we have to be content instead with the small crumb given us this night, and I think that the feeling throughout the country will be one of great disappointment when it is found that the Bill scarcely touches the general education of the country. The level of elementary education in this country is excessively low, the great mass of the children pass out of school at an early age, poorly equipped for the battle of life. Many of us entertained strong hopes that this Bill would
1874
have been made the means of elevating the general level of education, and of at least giving the children of the poor—of the great mass of the poor—a chance of gaining some little technical education, fitting them for the work of after life. But, as a fact, the Bill will only benefit those who are already able to pay for this knowledge; it will not touch the great mass of the population which stands so much in need of it. It is a matter for sincere regret that there is this limitation confining the operation of the Bill to a comparatively small class.
MR. C. W. GRAY: I do not propose to detain the House many minutes; but I wish to ask the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) to withdraw his Amendment, as the First Lord of the Treasury has so distinctly given us to understand that there is very little chance indeed of this Bill, if it is passed, increasing the rates on the agricultural interest. That, at any rate, is how I understand the First Lord put it, and it is only on that understanding that I can give this Bill my support. As to the principle of technical education, I thoroughly agree with it; but we are in such a position, Sir, at the present time in many parts of England, as to the state of agriculture, that it would be actually dishonest on our part to vote for anything, however good it might be in itself, if it would cause an increase of our rates. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not advise the purchase of an article at 20 s., however valuable it might be, if there was only 18 s. to buy it with.
MR. R. G. C. MOWBRAY: I only want to make one remark, and that is, to urge upon the Government the claims of that class of constituency of which I consider my own to be typical—namely, those which are essentially urban in their character; but which, owing to the circumstances of their cases, have neither school board nor town council which can put this Bill into active operation. Now, Sir, I represent a constituency which numbers more than 67,000 people, and for only a portion of that district, consisting of 25,000 people, is there a town council or school board. Therefore, if the Bill is passed as at present framed, the bulk of the consti

1875
tuency will be left entirely outside its scope. I would earnestly urge upon Her Majesty's Government to, if possible, extend the term "Local Authorities" so as to include Local District Boards, elected by and responsible to the ratepayers practically in the same way and on the same principle as town councils and school boards. That is the object upon which I ventured to rise. We have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in the interests of agriculture a measure will be brought forward next Session, in order to enlarge the scope of this measure; but I venture to think that the present measure should, at any rate, be made effective as regards Constituencies such as mine, not agricultural, but urban, where the people arcs engaged in cotton mills and bleaching, dyeing, and print works—industries for which technical education is most essential. I hope the Government will take this idea into consideration.
MR. BARTLEY: I do not wish to make a long speech at this hour of the night; but Laving been for 20 years engaged in carrying on science schools, I must say I think we ought to take a little time in discussing the actual provisions of so important a measure, rather than in raising every possible side issue to delay it. I protest against the reasons put forward from this side of the House with the object of postponing, and, indeed, shelving this measure. We have been urged to oppose it, and we have had the Royal Commission thrown at us as a reason for delaying it, as if every Commission did not last for years and years. Why should we postpone until the conclusion of that Commission's sittings a measure so vital to the interests of our artizan population? We have had the old controversy of the voluntary schools versus the board schools trotted out again, and the local taxation grievance has been once more urged, in order to delay the Bill. I thought these fossils on this side of the House, at least, were dead; but I am afraid that they are alive and kicking. All I can say is, Sir, that this very moderate measure, which is an experimental and tentative one, but which, no doubt, is the beginning of great things, should certainly be got through this Session. As regards expenditure, I will deal with these points in Committee. There are several points in which the Bill may be amended; but in my humble judgment—and I
1876
speak with experience, having had to do with the Science and Art Department for many years—I believe that the great objection to this Bill is that ninetenths of the expenditure will come on the Imperial taxation, whereas, in my humble judgment, such things as technical education should fall, partly, at least, on local rates. If they do, we are sure to look after the expenditure very much better than when the Imperial purse is the sole paymaster. Sir, I wish to urge that this Bill should now be read a second time, and I trust that if passed it will show the country clearly that on this side of the House there is a great number of Members strongly determined to promote a sound course of technical education.
MR. LEES: I wish to say only one or two words. Until the last two speakers had addressed the House, one would have thought that there was no such thing as a Tory Member—that there was no agricultural Member. But there are a great many Tory Members on this side of the House who represent large urban constituencies, and I, speaking as one of them, disagree with much that has been advanced in opposition to this Bill.
MR. DE LISLE: I am sorry, Sir, to stand between the House and a Division; but I wish to explain that I neither wish to vote for or against the Government, and I would suggest a way out of the difficulty. There are other Bills mush more important which in consequence of the introduction of this Bill, will probably have to be shelved. This measure, I think, is chiefly supported in the interests of those engaged in manufactures, and it seems to me, considering the grave state of agriculture, that it would be most unfortunate to devote the remainder of the Session to such a measure as this. I therefore hope that Her Majesty's Government will see their way—the principle of the Bill having been affirmed—to drop the Bill. Many of us fear that the working of this measure would prove, accidentally, not intentionally on the part of those who framed it, injurious to the interests of voluntary schools. I urge this more particularly, as I desire to see them carry into law the Tithe Kent Charge Bill, which——
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! the hon. Member cannot discuss the Tithe Rent Charge Bill now.
MR. DE LISLE: I was only using it as an argument in favour of withdrawing this Bill. There is, I think, no serious reason why we should proceed with legislation on this subject before next Session, especially when we consider that a Royal Commission is now engaged upon the whole subject of education, and that the subject of Statesuported technical education is receiving special attention; and when they have got the principle of the Bill affirmed. I hope that the Government will see their way to let it slide.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I wish merely to say that I have been rather misunderstood by the leader of the House. I brought this Amendment forward as a protest against increasing the burdens of the ratepayers, not only the rural ratepayers, but the urban ratepayers also; and I wish to point out that those in towns are heavily rated as well as those in the country. I also attacked the Bill, because I considered it a retrograde measure dealing with technical education in the wrong way. I further objected to it, because it is directly hostile to the voluntary school system. Under these circumstances, I cannot withdraw the Amendment.
Question put, and agreed, to.
Bill read a second time.
MR. MUNDELLA: Before the right hon. Gentleman fixes a day for Committee, I hope he will allow me to suggest that it be an early day, so as to ensure that we get the Bill passed into law.
SIR RICHARD PAGET: I hope, after the debate that has taken place tonight, the Government will see the necessity of not taking the Committee stage in a hurry, so that the House may have an opportunity of considering what Amendments are necessary.
Bill committed for Tuesday next.

SUPPLY.—REPORT.
Resolutions [8th August] reported.
Resolutions read a second time.
First Nine Resolutions agreed to.
Tenth Resolution postponed.
Remaining Resolutions agreed to.
Postponed Resolution to be considered upon Thursday.

REVENUE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Customs and Inland Revenue; and for other purposes connected with the Public Revenue and Expenditure.
Resolution reported—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir Herbert Maxwell.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 365.]
House adjourned at tweny-five minutes after Two o'clock.