Commons Sitting of 15 July 1889

QUESTIONS.

  POLICE PENSIONS.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the case of George Elmslie, ex-sergeant of the Metropolitan Police, whose pension was reduced £1 19s. 6d. per annum, by reason of two

  385
  reports for misconduct in 23 years' service; and if the view expressed in February, 1887,
  "That each offence of drunkenness should at the time receive such punishment as the Commissioner might consider it to deserve, hut that this punishment should carry with it no penal consequences with respect to pensions; unless the Commissioner recommended a reduction when he forwarded the applicatian for pension;"
  and, having regard to the fact that George Elmslie's pension was recommended by the late Commissioner in January, 1888, when he was apparently under the notion that a former ruling
  "That every offence of drunkenness should be attended by a fixed deduction from pension"
  was imperative, if it is possible to allow the full pension to which George Elmslie is entitled to be paid him?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I fear that it is not possible to re-open the question of pensions such as Elmslie's, which was granted nearly a year and a half ago. If my hon. Friend will confer with me I will point out to him the difficulties of the case.

  SHIPPING BOYS TO CANADA FROM REFORMATORIES.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in the ease of Frederick William Francis, aged under 16, who was confined in the Devon and Exeter Reformatory, Brampford Wood, the term of the lad's detention would in due course have expired in August next, but that on the 12th April last the master of the school, by direction of the directors of the Reformatory, notified Frederick Francis, the father of the lad, that it was proposed to send his son, Frederick William Francis, to Canada; that, although the father in writing refused to assent, the directors, without the knowledge of the father, obtained an order from the Secretary of State for the discharge of the boy from the Reformatory at an earlier date than the expiry of the term, and actually shipped the boy to Canada without the knowledge of, and in direct opposition to the expressed wish of the father; and, whether he will state under what authority this was done, and whether
  386
  the action of the directors has his—sanction?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; the facts are as stated, except that Francis was 16 years old last January. The practice of the Home Office follows a circular issued in 1885 to the effect that a parent of bad character should not be permitted to exercise a veto on the disposal of a child who has been brought up in a reformatory or industrial school. This boy was sent to Canada, where there was an opening for him, as a reward for his good conduct in the school. He was very anxious to emigrate; he was discharged by my authority three months before the expiration of his sentence to enable him to go. I satisfied myself that the father-was a man of drunken and dissipated habits, who had thrown his other children on the parish, and had only contributed 4s. to the support of this boy during the whole time that he was in the school. The boy, moreover, positively refused to go back to his father, who, as he alleged, had ill-treated him. I may add that when the boy wrote to his father to inform him of his intention of emigrating he received no reply.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to make further inquiries in order to ascertain whether he has not been misled in regard to the communication with the father?
  MR. MATTHEWS: What I said was that the boy himself wrote to his father and got no answer.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the father not only denies having received such a communication from his son, but complains of the boy having been sent away without any communications having been made to him?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; I am not aware of that.

  IRELAND—THE OLPHERT ESTATE.
  MR. MAC NEILL (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether 82 applications on behalf of tenants on the Olphert estate to have fair rents fixed, although received by the Land Commission before the 1st November, 1887, were not heard till June last at the sitting of the Sub-Commissioners at Dunfanaghy and Falcarragh; whether in 20 instances tenants who had lodged

  387
  their notices had, in the interval of more than a year and a half which had elapsed between their application to the Court and the hearing of their cases, been actually evicted from their holdings by Mr. Olphert, and had lost their status as tenants; whether in a still greater number of cases tenants had in this interval, by service of registered letters, been converted into caretakers, thus losing their status as tenants; whether the evicted tenants and the tenants who had been converted into caretakers were held by the Court to have no locus standi, their cases being dismissed with costs; whether the other tenants declined under the circumstances to have their cases heard, electing to stand by their fellow tenants, whom they considered unjustly deprived of their rights; and, on whom rests the responsibility for this delay?
  THE CHIEF SECEETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Land Commissioners report that 92 applications on behalf of tenants on the Olphert estate to have fair rents fixed were listed for hearing before a Sub-Commission in the months of May and June, 1889. These applications had been in most, if not all, cases lodged on or before November 1, 1887. With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3, the Commissioners have no information; but it is to be borne in mind that none of the tenants could have lost their status except through their own default, their interests having been amply safeguarded by statute. The Commissioners are unable to state the motives which influenced the other tenants to withdraw their cases. There was no unnecessary delay in listing the cases on this estate, which had to wait their turn according to priority of date. The Commissioners are ready in all instances to list a case for hearing out of turn on special grounds, of which pending eviction is one, in which an application supported by sufficient evidence is made to them to do so. But no such special application was made from this estate.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Are there no means of getting information in reference to the second paragraph of the question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot get the information through the Land Commissioners, but if my hon. Friend will
  388
  suggest any other means of obtaining it I shall be happy to make inquiry.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to give notice that I will ask a question on the subject on Thursday.

  DESIGNS AT THE PATENT OFFICE.
  MR. BLUNDELL MAPLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, at the Patent Office in Southampton Buildings, Chancery Lane, there are now about 700,000 designs, the registration period of which has expired, and if it is in contemplation to have them destroyed; and, would it be possible for these designs to be permanently classified and preserved, that artizans and others might have the benefit of access to them?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): There are 504 volumes of expired designs in the Patent Office. I have been in communication with the Master of the Rolls and the Lords of the Committee of Council on Education with regard to their removal to South Kensington. The Master of the Rolls has assented to their removal, and the Department of Science and Art have applied to the Treasury that authority may be granted for the provisional occupation of part of the wall space of a room in the Exhibition galleries in Queen's Gate, but the Treasury refuse sanction to such an arrangement.

  SWAZILAND.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the ease that the King of Swaziland has lately granted two concessions, giving power to the grantees to impose licenses in their discretion, to fix customs tariff, and to collect revenue there from; also to make treaties with Foreign States for that purpose; whether it is the case that these concessions are now owned by the Transvaal Government; whether he can lay on the Table copies of the concession; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will tender to the King any advice as to the propriety of the course he is taking, so as to prevent the interests of Her Majesty's subjects being prejudiced by such concessions?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The Secretary of State has been informed that such concessions are among the numerous ones which the King of Swaziland has signed; but he has no information that they are among those which have been acquired by the South African Republic. As regards the alleged concession relating to licenses, lie has heard that it was revoked on the 2nd March. Copies of the concessions are not in the Secretary of State's possession, and, therefore, cannot be laid on the Table. The state of affairs in Swaziland is receiving the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government. They expect to receive valuable information from Colonel Martin, who, it is believed, is now on his way to that country.

  IRELAND—THE SHANNON DRAINAGE.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what reply the Lord Lieutenant has sent to the resolution of the Limerick Fishery Conservators, requesting the Lord Lieutenant to direct the Board of Works to furnish the Conservators with plans of the proposed Shannon Drainage Works, the Board of Works having refused that information, stating, "it is opposed to the rules of this Department to supply plans"?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The resolution referred to was duly acknowledged. I find that the Board of Works forwarded on the 12th instant to the Secretary of the inland fisheries, Limerick district, the general plan of the works now under execution at Lough Allen and Killaloe, and also a plan furnished by the chief hydraulic engineer. They also added that the chief hydraulic engineer will be prepared to afford personal explanations at his office as to certain points connected with the Shannon scheme.
  MR. COX: Has that letter been sent since the resolution was passed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe the information was given in connection with the resolution of the Conservators.

  THE LIMERICK FISHERIES.
  MR. COX: I wish to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland if he has received
  390
  a copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Limerick Fishery Conservators at their meeting on the 4th instant, in which the Limerick Board of Conservators state that they have time after time declared unanimously, both at monthly meetings and at meetings specially convened, to consider the probable result to their fisheries of the Shannon Drainage Bill in its present form, and of the working of the sluices at Killaloe, that, in their opinion, the Shannon Drainage Bill will ruin the fisheries, and, further, that it has been proved to them that through the injudicious working of the sluices at Killaloe, much harm has already resulted to the fisheries; and, what reply, if any, he has sent to the resolution of the Board?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I have received a copy of a resolution to the effect mentioned in the question. In my reply to the Secretary of the Board of Conservators, I stated that my answer in this House to the question put to me on the subject was founded on information officially supplied by the Board of Works; that it was plain that a difference of opinion existed between the Board of Works and the Board of Conservators as to the effect of the drainage works on the fisheries; and that the Conservators would have a full opportunity of putting forward their view of the case before the Select Committee to which the Drainage Bill would be referred on its passing a Second Reading in this House.
  MR. COX: After the conflicting statements which have been made is it not desirable that there should be an independent inquiry?
  MR. MADDEN: The case is one which must be decided by the Select Committee.
  MR. MAC NEILL: May I ask the Chief Secretary whether, as far back as November, 1888, he did not receive a memorial stating that the proposed drainage works would involve the wholesale destruction of the salmon fry?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer off-hand any question as to a memorial presented in 1888. I may add that although I introduced the Drainage Bill, all questions relating to the proposed works should in future be

  391
  addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury.

  ROYAL ARTILLERY, SCOTTISH DIVISION.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is a fact that orders have been given to transfer the depot of the 1st Brigade, Scottish Division, Royal Artillery, from Leith Fort to Dunbar, thereby depriving the Artillery of the quarters which it has occupied since 1855, when Lord Lauderdale's house at Dunbar was acquired for its occupation; whether this has been done in face of the strongest representations from the officer commanding the 2nd Brigade, Scottish Division, Royal Artillery, supported by the most influential remonstrances from the counties of East Lothian, Berwickshire, Linlithgowshire, and Peebleshire; whether he is aware that the 2nd Brigade, Scottish Division, Royal Artillery, is one of the few Militia regiments that has of recent years been able to maintain its established strength; that the occupation of these quarters has been greatly instrumental in making the 2nd Brigade the numerous and efficient body it now is, and that its removal from them will seriously damage the discipline and recruiting of the Brigade; and, whether, before allowing such a step to be taken, he will refer the whole subject for inquiry and decision to the Committee now sitting at the War Office to inquire into the deplorable falling off in numbers of the Militia under their present organization?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): This matter is now under consideration at the War Office; and I shall be very glad indeed if it is found possible to meet the wishes of the localities interested.

  CROWN LEASES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND.
  COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R.,); I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if, in any future agricultural leases granted by the Crown, he will take care that power is reserved to withdraw from Crown tenants such lands as may be required by a Local Authority for the purposes of allotments?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON, Leeds, N.): It is a common, though not invariable, practice at the present time to insert in Crown leases of agricultural land a clause for resuming possession of part of the land, or in some instances the1 whole, making compensation and a reduction of rent to the tenant. But it would be prejudicial to the interests of the land revenues to give an assurance that such a provision as mentioned in. the question shall always be inserted.
  In reply to a further question by Commander BETHELL,
  MR. JACKSONsaid: I am afraid it might prove injurious to the Crown Revenues if the power which the hon. and gallant Member suggests were inserted in Crown leases. I believe that the object of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is, as far as possible, to provide that land shall be at the disposal of the Local Authority for allotments, and with that object the Treasury are entirely in sympathy.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: Why should not the Crown property be subject to the provisions of the Act of 1887 as well as other property?
  MR. JACKSON: If my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to put a further question, he had better place it on the Paper.

  THE RAILWAY DISASTER AT ARMAGH.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a Copy of Resolutions adopted by the Town Commissioners of Dungannan, in regard to the recent railway disaster at Armagh; whether it is a fact that, upon the 518 miles of railway worked by the Great Northern Company, only 23 miles are worked upon the block system; whether the Company has a single engine or carriage fitted with a brake fulfilling the requirements of the Board of Trade; whether the railway regulations, as compiled by the Board of Trade, stipulate for a brake van at the end of each train, and if it be a fact that this regulation is not carried out by the Great Northern Company in the case of the limited mail trains between Derry and Dublin; and, whether the Board of Trade, in view of the recent disaster,

  393
  intend to take any steps to compel this Company to carry out the regulations?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The answer to the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is yes. The company has no engine or carriage fitted with a brake fulfilling the requirements of the Board of Trade. One of the precautions recommended in the working of railways is that there should be a brake vehicle with a guard in it at the tail of every train, but the Board of Trade have no power to enforce this precaution.

  THE DISTRESSED DISTRICTS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state the intentions of the Government with reference to improving the means of communication and developing the material resources of the districts in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, the object of the recent visit to the locality by the Secretary for Scotland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): No, Sir; I am not yet in a position to do so. The Secretary for Scotland has informed me generally of the impressions made upon him by his visit to the locality in question, and we are very desirous to render aid in some of the directions which he has pointed out, but no actual plan has been formulated.

  IRELAND—MR. GILL AND MR. COX.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Edward Caraher, Sessional Crown Solicitor for Drogheda, acted within his power in sending by post, to London, on the 1st instant, summonses addressed to Mr. Gill, M.P., and Mr. Cox, M.P., calling on them to appear for trial by a Stipendiary Court at Drogheda on that day week; whether he was authorized to forward, with the summonses, a demand that the honourable Members should put into his hands, by the following Thursday, an undertaking that they would appear at Drogheda on the succeeding Monday; what authority he had to intimate, as he did by letters accompanying the summonses, that unless such undertakings to appear on
  394
  Monday the 8th instant reached him by Thursday the 4th instant, "new warrants would forthwith be issued," but if such undertakings were so given, "no action would be taken on the warrants already issued;" whether the required undertakings not having been given, the new warrants were issued; and, whether, if they were issued, any steps were taken to execute them?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am advised that the reply to each of the inquiries in the first and second paragraphs is in the affirmative. The intimation was made by the authority of the Attorney General for Ireland. No new warrants were issued. I may add that the course adopted by the hon. Gentleman was taken after I had called his attention to some observations by the right hon. Member, in which he suggested that the employment of warrants instead of summonses was superfluous.
  MR. SEXTON: What I want to know is, whether a summons sent by post from Ireland to London is a summons properly served?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman must be well aware that a summons served in this country has no legal force in Ireland, and that the only way of proceeding against persons in this country for offences committed in Ireland is by warrant.
  MR. SEXTON: In future, in a ease of this kind, when a summons has been issued will the authorities wait until the summons is returnable before they issue a warrant?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In this case warrants were issued; but the hon. Members concerned had left Ireland before the warrants were executed. I was asked in this House whether warrants would be executed, and my reply was that they would in due course. The right hon. Gentleman said that would be an unnecessary mode of procedure in the case of persons who had shown no disinclination to appear in answer to a summons. I called the attention of the Attorney General to the matter, and no further warrants were issued.
  MR. SEXTON: The point of my question still remains. What I wish to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman is, whether he will arrange that when summonses have been issued the Government will wait until the day upon which

  395
  they are to be heard before issuing warrants?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In the event of a summons being issued to Members of Parliament, there will be no attempt, of course, to issue a warrant until it is clear that the person summoned does not intend to appear.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right ton. Gentleman whether the prosecution of Mr. Cox, M.P., and Mr. Gill, M.P., having failed in consequence of the rejection by the Magistrates of the evidence of the police reporter, as being unworthy of credit, the Irish Government will defray the expenses imposed upon these honourable Members by reason of this unfounded charge?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have ascertained that there is no precedent for the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to give notice that on the Vote for Criminal Prosecutions in Ireland I will move that the expenses in the case of these two Members he paid out of that Vote.

  THE LISTOWEL RAILWAY STATION.
  MR. MAHONY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is a fact, that the Railway Company have been ordered to erect a footbridge across the line at Listowel Railway Station, county Kerry; and, if so, when the work is likely to be commenced?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Board of Trade has expressed the opinion that a footbridge across the line at Listowel Railway Station is desirable, but they lave no power to order one.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in each case in which a Provisional Order for electric lighting has been granted by the Board of Trade the proposed Provisional Order was first formally submitted to the Local Authority of every district in which the Order would have effect, and the consent or refusal of that Local Authority was directly invited, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of the Electric Lighting Act of 1888; if he has yet satisfied himself whether the County Council for London is, in regard to the embankment, bridges, and some
  396
  main roads, the Local Authority in some parts of the Metropolis; and whether, in addition to a general approval of a model form, the London County Council was invited to consent to any Provisional Order affecting their jurisdiction as Local Authority, and whether they consented; if so, how it comes that they now oppose Provisional Order Bills Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5, and how it comes that the Corporation of Birmingham oppose the Birmingham Bill?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Draft Provisional Orders have been in all cases submitted to the Local Authorities in the Metropolis, including the County Council for London. In settling the final terms of those Provisional Orders I have endeavoured as far as possible to give effect to the wishes of those Local Authorities, but it has not been possible for me in every case to satisfy every authority as regards every clause of the Orders. I may mention as an instance that some of the clauses inserted at the instance of the London County Council are objected to by one or more of the Vestries. I have very little doubt that the Committee to whom the Orders have been referred will be able to deal satisfactorily with the few objections still remaining.
  In reply to a further question by Sir G. Campbell.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid: The Local Authorities have differed on the matter, and we cannot please everybody.

  THE ARSENAL GAS STOKERS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that large numbers of the Arsenal gas stokers are leaving their employment therein, and going to other factories where the hours of labour are only eight per day; and, whether he will consider the advisability of making the normal working day in the Arsenal eight hours, in order to avoid losing the services of the picked workmen in this industry?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; I am not aware that large numbers of the arsenal gas stokers are leaving their employment. Two men have applied lately for discharge in ordinary course. The stokers in the gas factory have been informed that the question of altering

  397
  the length of their working day is under consideration; but I shall not act until I know fully the course adopted in similar works not under Government.

  THE FALKLAND ISLANDS.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Mr. James Smith of Stanley, Falkland Islands, who forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Colonies two memorials, dated respectively the 1st May and 7th May, 1889, making grave and specific charges against Mr. Ker, the Governor of those islands, has had any opportunity of seeing the explanation forwarded by Mr. Ker to the Colonial Office in reference to those charges; has the Secretary of State for the Colonies been satisfied with an ex parte statement of the Governor in answer to charges which Mr. Smith has expressed himself ready and willing to prove, and for which, on behalf of the colonists, he demands a searching public investigation; and will the Secretary of State for the Colonies have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House Mr. Smith's memorials and the answer of the Governor thereto, which have been forwarded to the Colonial Offices?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Mr. James Smith has not seen the explanation sent by the Governor in reference to his charges. The Secretary of State is satisfied with the Governor's statement in answer to the charges which appear to have been made on imperfect information. Mr. Smith has asked for an inquiry, but has not expressed himself ready and willing to prove his allegations. There is nothing to show that he represents the views or wishes of any other colonist, and he has on previous occasions shown personal hostility to the Governor. The Governor is expected to come to England shortly on leave, when he will be able to give any further information that may be required with reference to these personal attacks upon him. Pending his arrival the Secretary of State must decline to present any papers, nor can he promise that he will do so.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Smith, in making these charges, was backed up by the public opinion of the country expressed at public meetings?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: No, Sir; I am not aware of that.

  THE EX-SULTAN OF PERAK.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the ex-Sultan of Perak has now been kept for more than twelve years in confinement at Port Victoria, in the Seychelles Islands, with the exception of a short period during which he was allowed to visit Mauritius, although, at his trial, no evidence was adduced to show that he was implicated, either directly or indirectly, in the murder of Mr. Birch; whether he has repeatedly declared his innocence of the charge brought against him, and has requested leave to visit England at his own expense for the purpose of placing the facts of the case before the Government; but his request has been refused; whether he was the only one of the suzerains of the Malay Peninsula who asked for a British protectorate over his country, helped to bring about the surrender of the turbulent petty States, and secured the Pangkor Treaty; and, whether, in view of the services rendered by him in the past, and in view of the grave injustice alleged to have been done, the Government will undertake to give to the subject their most careful consideration?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The Executive Council of the Straits Settlements were fully satisfied of the guilt of the ex-Sultan, who, under the instructions of Lord Carnarvon, the then Secretary of State, was accordingly, after very careful consideration of all the circumstances, removed to the Seychelles. Nothing has since occurred to throw any doubt on the justice of the decision then taken. The ex-Sultan owed his elevation to the Sultanship to the Colonial Government as one of the conditions of the Pangkore Treaty. Her Majesty's Government are now considering whether, after the long term of his residence in the Seychelles, and his uniform good conduct, any steps can be taken to ameliorate his position.

  THE ADVANCE OF THE DERVISHES.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House what

  399
  is the latest news as to the position and movements of the force of invading dervishes in Nubia, and as to the dispositions that are being taken to repel them?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have not much additional news to communicate to the House. The advance of N'jumi's force has now been checked for several days, and he is still near Abu Simbel. Sir Francis Grenfell has gone to the front from Assouan to inspect the position. It is also reported to us that there is Dews of a further reinforcement of 1,500 dervishes at Sarras. The friendly Sheikh of the Second Cataract with his men has captured two guns complete at Gemai, near Wady Halfa.
  SIR W. LAWSON: May I ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now obtained the information he promised to get as to whether it is true that a proclamation has been issued calling for the infliction of the death penalty on all natives who should traffic with the dervishes?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): If the hon. Member will be good enough to give notice of the terms of the question, I will endeavour to obtain information.

  IRELAND—THE RECTOR OF CARNAL WEY.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the criminal proceedings instituted against the Rector of Carnalwey, County Kildare, and others, for disturbing graves and indecently exposing and removing human remains in the churchyard of Carnalwey parish, in which two out of four Magistrates at the Petty Sessions Court, Kilcullen, on Monday 24th June, were for returning informations to the assizes, while two dissented, and the informations were refused; whether he is aware that on an application being made by counsel to the Judge at the Assizes at Naas, on the 2nd instant, to allow a bill for the same offence to be sent up to the grand jury, the Judge refused permission, and stated that the case should go back to the Petty Sessions Court, adding, that any one Magistrate could return informations; and, whether,
  400
  having regard to the strong feelings that exist among all classes in the locality on this matter, he will state what steps he intends to take to secure a proper adjudication at the next hearing in view of the fact that the local Magistrates are unwilling to act?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that it is the case that some graves were disturbed in connection with preparations for the enlargement of the church. When the case came before the Petty Sessions Court several faculties granted by the Archbishop to the defendant, giving him permission to dig up any graves which interfered with the proposed enlargement, were produced, and on that evidence a majority of the Bench refused information. One of the Magistrates constituting the Bench appears to have dissented. The Judge of Assize did refuse to allow a Bill to be sent up to the Grand Jury, stating that one Magistrate in Petty Sessions could return informations, should the case be brought on there again. So far as the Constabulary Authorities are aware, there is no reason to believe that the local Magistrates are unwilling to act in the matter.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there is still outstanding an old chronic quarrel with the French about rights on the coast of Newfoundland; and, whether, looking to the character of the case, Her Majesty's Government have proposed to refer the whole matter to arbitration; or, if not, whether they will now do so?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The dispute in question relates to the interpretation to be placed on Art XIII. of the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, and on the arrangements made at Versailles in 1783. A summary of it is given in Lord Derby's despatch of June 12, 1884 to the Governors of Newfoundland, which was laid before Parliament in January 1886, together with an arrangement signed at Paris in April of that year for the settlement of the several points at issue. That arrangement has, unfortunately, not taken effect, as the Legislature of Newfoundland refused their consent to it, and questions continue to arise from time to time as to the interpretation of the Treaties. Whether those questions

  401
  or any portion of them can with advantage be referred to arbitration is a matter which requires careful consideration, and on which Her Majesty's Government cannot undertake at present to express an opinion. As I have before said, difficulties arising out of the respective claims of the two countries have hitherto been prevented from becoming acute by the conciliatory action of the Governments and of their officers.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: As Her Majesty's Government have been considering this question for upwards of a century and a half, it might be thought that one conclusion or another had been arrived at by this time.
  SIR J. FEEGUSSON: As no serious quarrel has resulted, this shows the advantage of not being in a hurry.

  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHEELAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the great public inconvenience caused by the withdrawal of the Post Office sorting van from mail trains on the Highland Railway to the north of Tain; whether it is the case that letters posted at certain post offices in the said locality, and addressed to local offices only a few miles distant, are not delivered until next day, and are meanwhile carried far past their destination by trains that stop at every station, and carried back over the same ground on the following day, thus causing a delay in delivery in many cases of over 24 hours; and whether, in view of the injury thus done to the trade of the district, the Postmaster General will consider the advisability of continuing the Post Office sorting van on to Wick, or to Helmsdale at least?
  A LORD OF THE TREASUEY (Sir H. MAXWELL,): In the absence of the Postmaster General, I have to say that the answer of my right hon. Friend is as follows:—I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member calls my attention. The inconvenience complained of has, I think, been much exaggerated. No evidence of injury to trade has been laid before me, and the correspondence affected is very small in amount. Having regard to the very large expenditure already incurred in maintaining the postal ser-
  402
  vice in this district, I cannot hold out any expectation that the sorting tender will again be run in the mail train north of Tain unless the railway company are prepared to run it without requiring additional payment.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the postal facilities, instead of having been increased, are decreased?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: I am unable to express an opinion, as the matter does not affect the Department with which I am concerned.

  THE ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith whether he will consent to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the correspondence which took place between the Oxford University Commissioners and the Charity Commissioners as to the capital sum of £20,000, part of the endowment of the Rev. Edward Meyrick, at Jesus College, Oxford, which it was proposed to deal with by a scheme under the Endowed Schools Act for the benefit of education in Wales?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: As far as the Charity Commissioners are concerned, there is no objection to the presentation of the correspondence referred to.

  MILITARY BANDS AND POLITICS.
  CAPTAIN SELWYN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is a fact, as stated in an evening newspaper of the 12th instant, that Mr. Dan Godfrey's band will play in the Library of the National Liberal Club on the 26th instant; whether the band so described is one of the bands of Her Majesty's Brigade of Guards; and, whether this band is to play by leave from the Military Authorities at political demonstrations?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am informed that the band which will perform on the occasion referred to is a private band, conducted by Mr. Dan Godfrey, jun., who is a civilian.

  EDUCATION IN WALES.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will

  403
  add to the Report of Her Majesty's Inspector for the Welsh Division the list of the attendances, grants earned, and the accommodation provided in each public elementary school within the division; also, whether he will issue instructions to Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in Wales embodying such of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Elementary Education Act relative to the utilization of the Welsh language in elementary teaching in Wales as are embodied in the Education Code, or take some other means to make these provisions, unanimously approved by the Welsh people, effective?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The Report of Her Majesty's Inspector is in too forward a state of preparation for this to be done now; but I will consult the Stationery Office as to how far it might be possible to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion on the next occasion. In regard to the second question of the hon. Member, I deeply regret the postponement of these changes which were welcomed with complete unanimity throughout Wales. They will, I trust, be introduced into the next Code. It will, however, be observed that in the Code of 1888 managers are empowered to submit to the inspector progressive schemes of lessons in the subjects named in the second schedule, and this provision does enable instruction in all the class subjects to be adapted to the special circumstances of Welsh schools. Welsh, as the hon. Members are aware, is already recognized as a specific subject.

  THE MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Attorney General if the Director of Public Prosecutions is justified under the present law in taking action in a case arising under "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887," if the circumstances indicate that the ends of justice are likely to be defeated, or if there is necessity for fresh legislation upon the subject?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): The duties of the Director of Public Prosecutions are controlled by rules which came into force on the 25th day of January, 1886. Under these rules the Director can take
  404
  proceedings in any case in which a prosecution is, in his opinion, required in the public interest, or the action of the Public Prosecutor is necessary to-secure the due prosecution of the offender; moreover, under these rules the Secretary of State, or the Attorney General, can instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to take up any particular case. There is not, in my opinion, any necessity for fresh legislation.

  IRELAND—CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the claim, in the matter of Irish University Education, put forward in resolutions adopted by the Standing Committee of the Catholic Bishops of Ireland, at a meeting held on the 21st of March last; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to adopt the measures necessary for removal of the grievances complained of in those resolutions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The resolutions of the Standing Committee of the Catholic Bishops of Ireland have, I believe, been forwarded to the Prime-Minister and the First Lord of the Treasury. I have not seen a copy until to-day. The resolutions deal with many questions, and cover the whole field of education in Ireland. Without giving; specific answers to the various points alluded to in them, I may say that some of them, notably higher education, have long been under the consideration of the Government, and in respect of these we hope to be able to make proposals to the House.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Have Training Colleges been included in the consideration of the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, they have been; and something ought to be done with regard to them; but I do not think they are to be put on the same level of interest as higher education.

  THE TRIAL OF FATHER, M'FADDEN.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government intend to exercise their strict legal right of selecting a

  405
  jury when Father M'Fadden and others are tried at the adjourned Assizes at Maryborough, on the 16th of October next, with reference to the death, of Sub-Inspector Martin?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am advised that the conduct of the prosecution is in the hands of the Attorney General for Ireland, who will take such course as he may deem necessary for securing the ends of justice.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Will the Attorney General be advised by Her Majesty's Government in Council, or will he act entirely upon his own judgment, in causing jurors to stand by? I hold in my hand a list of 200 jurymen summoned to try a charge of riot, of whom no less than 65 were ordered by the Crown to stand by, whereas the prisoners were only allowed to challenge six.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The matter rests entirely in the hands of the Attorney General.
  MR. W. MACDONALD: Is it true that n Maryborough, where the trial is to take place, only last week 27 special jurors were ordered by the Crown to stand by; and that after the jury had been sworn one juror said, in open Court "I object to try a man for his life, with a packed jury." If this is true, will not the right hon. Gentleman exercise some influence with the Attorney General to prevent the recurrence of a similar state of things?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware whether the facts alleged by the hon. Member are true or not; but in any case they are exceedingly irrelevant, and would not form any justification for my interference here.

  MUZZLING OF DOGS.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any order has yet been issued by the Privy Council as to the general muzzling of dogs throughout the country, in face of the fact of the large number of cases of rabies which have recently occurred; and, if he will state what powers exist for the destruction of stray dogs by Local Authorities?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): It has not been deemed expedient to pass a General Order at present; but the Privy Council have issued an Order requiring the muzzling of all dogs within the Metropolitan Police District (a radius of 15 miles from Charing Cross) from August 1 to December 31. The Returns of rabies in the Metropolis and neighbourhood during the first six months of 1889 show a steady increase of the disease. The police in the Metropolis have power to destroy stray dogs; but Local Authorities generally have no such power under the Dogs Act of 1871, unless a mad dog, or a dog suspected of being mad, is found within their jurisdiction. It is possible that some Local Acts may give Local Authorities greater power; but the Privy Council have no information on the subject. Under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878, the Privy Council can only sanction the detention, but not the destruction, of stray dogs.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Has there been a large increase of mad dogs?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not aware that there has been a large increase, but there has been an increase.

  THE BANN DRAINAGE BILL.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, after the vote of the House on Friday, the Government will re-consider their intention to proceed with the Bann Drainage Bill this Session?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman must be well aware of the peculiar circumstances under which the vote on Friday was given, and the cause of the comparatively low score on this side of the House. The Government certainly see no reason to alter their intention with regard to the Bill.
  MR. PHILIPPS: What was the cause referred to?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.
  MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will, during the Recess, take into serious consideration the advisability of paying compensation for slaughter in pleuro-pneumonia out of a central fund, instead of county rates, having regard to the extreme un-

  407
  airness of the present system towards the agricultural interest?
  MR. H. GARDNER: Do the Government possess any information as to any attempt to conceal cases of pleuro-pneumonia owing to the fear of increasing the rates of the locality where the cases occurred; and whether, as the stamping out of pleuro-pneumonia is a matter of Imperial interest, he will consider the advisability of charging the compensation on the Imperial Exchequer?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The last question is one of which I can have no personal knowledge, and it is obvious that notice of it should be given. With regard to the question on the Paper, I have to say that the Government will be prepared during the Recess to take into consideration the question to which my hon. and gallant Friend has called attention; but I would remind him that the question is not by any means a new one, and that it has more aspects than that which is put for ward with justice.

  THE NEW RIVER COMPANY.
  MR. JAMESROWLANDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the New River Company are trying to enforce Section 70 of the Act of 1847, which gives power to water companies to collect the water rate one quarter in advance; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will bring in a short Bill to repeal this section, or whether they will give facilities to a Bill for the above object if introduced by private Members?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Section 70 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, provides that the water rates shall be paid in advance by equal quarterly payments. The section has almost invariably been incorporated since 1847 with every Local Act or Provisional Order by which Local Authorities or companies have been authorized by Parliament to make charges for the water supplied by them. It is also incorporated with the Public Health Act, 1875, and therefore applies to cases where water is supplied by Sanitary Authorities under the general law. The power which the New River Company possess in this respect is therefore in no way exceptional; and the repeal of the section referred to would. seriously affect the statutory rights of
  408
  the great majority of Corporations, Sanitary Authorities, and companies who supply water for domestic purposes. The Government have no intention of bringing in a Bill to repeal the section.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Has not the enforcing of the power in question pressed heavily on struggling ratepayers?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not aware of the fact; but if it is so, the delay in enforcing the power shows the great moderation with which the company have exercised their rights.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to give notice that I will move for leave to introduce a Bill to abolish the section.

  INTERNATIONAL MARITIME CON FERENCE.
  Mr. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state to the House who will represent Great Britain at the International Maritime Conference, to be held at Washington in October; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the technical character of many of the questions to be discussed, will either include among the representatives two or more captains from the Merchant Service, who have had actual and recent experience of the present conditions under which signalling, whether in clear weather, or in fogs, or at night, has to be carried out in the North Atlantic, or will add to the number of official representatives two or more assessors, of practical experience, as above stated?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is intended that the British representatives shall include persons of the qualifications mentioned; but the choice is not finally settled.
  MR. CHANNING: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second part of the question?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is intended to include two merchant captains.
  MR. CHANNING: I will put a question on the same subject on Thursday.

  THE NEW MAGAZINE RIFLE.
  SIR SAMUEL WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made with the construction of the new magazine rifle, or with the conversion of

  409
  the old rifle to the new pattern; and, whether the troops in Upper Egypt now repelling the attack of the dervishes, and those about to be sent there, will have the advantage of the improved weapon?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am glad to be able to say that satisfactory progress has been made with the new rifle. The preliminary stage of preparing all the gauges for all the parts of the rifle has been necessarily a long one; but I should like to take this opportunity of contradicting a report which I have seen, that any change of pattern has been found necessary which will produce any delay. The British troops on the Nile will not be armed with the new rifle.

  LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS] (No. 199.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, &c., with Amendments.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 252.)
  Minutes of proceedings to be printed. (No. 252.)
  Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be taken into Consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. (Bill 332.)

  GRAND JURY OF KERRY CASE (RE SERVED BY CHIEF BARON PALLES.)
  Copies ordered "of the Case reserved by Chief Baron Palles as to the duty of the Grand Jury for the County of Kerry, assembled at the Summer Assizes, 1885, in relation to an application to them to present the sum of £3,192 11s. 4d. under 43 and 44 Vic. c. 14, and 44 Vic. c. 33, together with the Schedules and Appendices attached thereto, and the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench thereon."
  "And, of the Instructions issued by the Lord Lieutenant to the Associated Cesspayers of the Baronies of Trughenacmy, Magunihy, Clanmaurice, Corkaguiny, and Iraghticonnor in the autumn of 1881, under the provisions of the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Amendment Act, regarding the proposed guarantee for the Fenit Pier and Harbour."—(Mr. Mahony.)

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  George Wyndham, esquire, for the Borough of Dover.
MOTION.

  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.
  On the Motion of Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Bill to amend the Regulation of Railways Acts;
  410
  and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks Beach and Baron Henry De Worms.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 333.]

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
Order for Consideration of Special Report of Select Committee read.
Special Report read.
MR. BRADLATUGH: Perhaps, as the Member of the Committee out of whose examination of witnesses this case arose, the House will not consider that I am improperly intruding myself if I make a brief statement before the Government say what course they intend to pursue. The House will be aware that the Select Committee on Friendly Societies made a special Report that, in their opinion, Richard Martin had conspired with other persons to deceive the Committee with false evidence. And the House will know that the Committee is one dealing with Friendly Societies under Section 30 of the Act of 1875—that is, collecting Friendly Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies. The case that comes before the House now is in relation to one of the Industrial Assurance Companies, by which persons are assured for small amounts, collectors being employed to collect at the houses of poor people. I think the inquiries of the Committee have already shown not only the necessity for the appointment of that Committee—which is now in its second year of work—but that there probably may be need for some more close examination into the affairs of these Societies by a Royal Commission, and I hope the Government will follow up their good work on this question by getting such a Commission appointed. This special Report of the Committee arises immediately out of the answers given to myself in the examination of Richard Martin, when he admitted that a cash book which he had handed in as one of the cash books of the company had been written out under the direction of himself and three other persons, whose names he gave, by the present secretary to the company, the writing out of the book beginning at 11 o'clock on the night before the sitting of the Committee and ending some time in the night, and this

411
book being, as the Committee are of, opinion, and as I am of opinion, concocted solely for the purpose of deceiving the Committee. It is because I trust the Government will do nothing to bring this man to the Bar of the House, but will take measures to bring him before a tribunal which I hope may be more fitted to deal with him, and with any others with whom he has conspired—if he has conspired with others, as I believe he has—that I desired to make this statement. It is clear that the House, in its judicial capacity, could deal with the case at once; but I do not think the House acts best in its judicial capacity on statements made to it, nor do I think it is worthy of the dignity of the House to deal at its Bar with petty criminals who would be best dealt with by a Police Magistrate. This is a case in which, on the admission of the man himself—and I will not go outside his sworn answers, all the evidence having been taken on oath—he and some others paid a small sum of money—£500—for the purpose of reviving an old Assurance Company, so as to avoid that which the Legislature has decided shall be done in all these cases—namely, a deposit made of £20,000 to show bona fides on the part of those who go to the poor for their money. The whole of the transactions of this society, from the time of taking it over until now, have been so irregular in their character that unless they had been intended to be fraudulent the irregularity is inexplicable. The premiums have never been paid into any bankers, and the banking accounts on July 1st, with something like 150,000 policies out, show £3 2s. 6d. to credit at one bank and £3 13s. 6d. overdrawn at another. The witness gave most extraordinary answers. It is just to him that I should say that the Chairman of the Committee has sent me a letter from Martin stating that his replies were given in a state of great mental confusion, but as his mental confusion extended over both sittings and only arose when he was confronted with inconvenient facts—for he was very distinct when he said he had paid a sum of money on his shares, and his confusion only arose when asked how he had paid it and when he had paid it, and it turned out that he had not paid it at all—I suggest that there can be no escape on the ground of mental
412
confusion. The Yorkshire Provident Association, as it stands on the evidence reported to this House by the Committee, to be taken at its best is a society without any means whatever except £300, in two debentures—one at Burnley and the other at Leeds—has to face a vast liability to a large number of poor unfortunate people, who can never possibly get their money unless other unfortunate people can be induced to pay premiums. The thing is fraudulent from beginning to end. The mere fact that this man committed perjury at his examination will not, I hope, be treated as a breach of privilege. I trust the Government will think it right to appoint a Committee to examine into this special Report and the whole question connected with this Assurance Company, and if it is possible to do it—as I believe it is—will send the case to a Court having criminal jurisdiction, so that there may be a full investigation into the frauds which I allege it has been attempted to perpetrate on poor people during the past three years. It is because I hope the House will not treat this as a question of privilege that I have taken leave to make this statement to the House before the Government submit their proposal.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I need scarcely assure the House that this special Report has received the most careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but I do not think it would be fitting or desirable that I should follow the hon. Member for Northampton into the merits of the case, as I feel that no expression of opinion should be given with regard to them until there has been a thorough examination of the matter; though I have no doubt the hon. Member may have ample grounds for the opinion he has expressed, it would not be well for the House to pronounce upon the conduct of this man or this society until after a full investigation. The Government have considered the evidence very carefully, and I am bound to admit that there are circumstances connected with this man's evidence, both with reference to the answers he gave and, I should think, the manner in which he gave them, as well as the transactions in which he was concerned, which call for the fullest and strictest investigation.

413
It must be plain to everyone that the House cannot deal with the case, not having seen the book in which the entries were made. The book has very properly been sealed up for the purpose of being kept intact until inquiry is made, and I gather that it is necessary that the matter should be sifted and investigated by further evidence. This House, fully assembled, is not fitted to deal with such evidence, and I, therefore, do not think it necessary—though I admit the gravity of the matter—to give further reasons for the Motion I mow submit. I venture to move—
"That a Select Committee Tie appointed to inquire into the affairs of the Yorkshire Provident Assurance Company, to consider the special Report of the Select Committee on Friendly Societies, and to report to the House what action should be taken thereon."
I have ventured to put in the last words of the Motion because it has been on previous occasions found inconvenient that the House should not receive some sugges-from the Select Committee. The question as to what action should be taken will be left open, and probably those who make the investigations will be the best able to offer a suggestion as to the course which should be followed. My reason for inserting the opening words is that I am not quite sure whether without special power the Committee would have power to inquire into the special affairs of the Assurance Company. It might be said they only had power to inquire into the general organization and the rules of the society. I think it is better that power should be given to the Committee on the terms I have submitted.
Ordered, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the affairs of the Yorkshire Provident Insurance Company, to consider the Special Report of the Select Committee on Friendly Societies, and to report to the House what action should be taken thereon."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
SIR E. WEBSTER: I think I am entitled now to move the names of the Committee.
SIR W. HARCOUET: Notice should be given.
MR. SPEAKER: As this is a matter of privilege, standing on the Paper as such, the hon. and learned Member is entitled to move the Committee without Notice.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Solicitor General, Sir C. Russell, Mr. Forrest Fulton, Mr. F. W. Maclean, and Mr. Molloy be appointed the Committee."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not make any objection to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the names he has given, but I think that in matters of this kind we ought not to lay down precedents that may be dangerous in the future. I do not see on the Notice Paper any intimation that this is a matter of privilege, and I rather understood that the hon. Member for Northampton disclaimed treating it as a question of privilege, desiring that it should be dealt with otherwise with a view to its being made a criminal charge. That alters the case very materially, and I certainly think the House should not embark on the initiatory stage of criminal proceedings without due notice. As to the names of the Committee, it is very material that we should reserve to the House generally its judgment, and particularly in cases of privilege. I hope the House will not imagine that I am saying this by way of captious objection to the names on the present proceeding. I only desire to impress upon the House the necessity of guarding precedents, for there might in future cases of breach of privilege be names suggested without notice, to which some might object and for which Members might like to substitute other names.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I believe it will be held by the authorities that when evidence of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Northampton has been given and a Committee has reported as the Friendly Societies Committee reported the question is treated as one of privilege. I admit that precedents must be carefully guarded, and if I had not understood that precedents were in favour of the course proposed, I would not have asked the Attorney General to make the proposal he has made. Even now if there is any desire that the nomination of the Committee should be postponed until to-morrow, there will be no hesitation on the part of the Government to accede to it. It is, however, always desirable in these matters, to proceed with convenient haste, and if the matter is dealt with at once, it shall be on the distinct understanding that

415
this is not to be regarded as regulating future action.
MR. GLADSTONE: No one can complain of the spirit of this conversation. Perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, will say what the practice in these cases is.
MR. SPEAKER: Any case of perjury before the Committee of this House is an offence which constitutes breach of privilege upon which the House could immediately take action. The hon. Member for Northampton put the case before me the other day, and stated that he would move that the Report of the Committee be considered to-day. It would have been more in order, perhaps, if the matter had been put on the Paper in a different form, and I had intended that it should be, so as to draw special attention to it—that is, with a line separating it from the other Orders of the Day. As, however, the question is one of privilege, the names of the Committee can be proposed immediately, although I do not say the course may not be objected to, if the House thinks proper.
MR. GLADSTONE: That, I think, is quite enough.
DR. CLARK: I would propose that the names of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. W. F. Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) be added to the Committee, as those Members have sat on the Friendly Societies Committee, and are familiar with the circumstances of the case.
MR. W. H. SMITH: It is for the House to say what other Members shall be on the Committee. The Government have no objection to the suggestion.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I must say I think it would be better—and in this I believe I am expressing the views of the Chairman of the Friendly Societies Committee—if this Committee were composed of Members who would bring fresh minds to bear on the question. It should not be dealt with by those who are prejudiced—as I myself certainly am.
The Select Committee was accordingly nominated of Mr. Solicitor General, Sir Charles Russell, Mr. Forest Fulton, Mr. Francis W. Maclean, and Mr. Molloy.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to call for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That three be the Quorum.

BANN DRAINAGE [GRANTS, &c.]
Resolution reported.
"That it is expedient to make a free Grant, not exceeding the sum of £20,000, out of moneys to he provided by Parliament, for defraying a part of the costs of any works to be executed under any Act of the present Session for the improvement of the Drainage of Lands, and for the prevention of Inundations within the catchment area of Lough Neagh and the Lower Bann, and also to authorize the Board of Works in Ireland to make advances, out of money s to be provided by Parliament, for the purposes of the said Act."
Resolution read a second time.
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
MR. BIGGAR: I feel called upon to oppose this Motion for a variety of reasons, one of which is that the Bill, if passed into law, would be practically inoperative. Though the Bill has only been introduced a short time, I find that on the 11th of July, 1889, a resolution was passed by one of the South Derry Boards of Guardians, interested in the district of the Bann, protesting against the scheme, and asking a number of other Poor Law Boards to join with them in opposing it. I think the time of this House should not be wasted in passing Bills which will be inoperative. A large amount of this money, if it is granted, will have to be expended in preliminary surveys and unremunerative work. It will be entirely thrown away, no benefit whatever accruing from it. As the Session is far advanced, I think it would be well if the Government withdrew the Bill and introduced a more carefully-considered measure at the commencement of a future Session. I beg leave to oppose the Motion.
The House divided:—Ayes 153; Noes 95.—(Div. List, No. 205.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND BILL (No. 187) AND LOCAL GOVERN MENT (SCOTLAND) SUPPLEMEN TARY PROVISIONS BILL (No. 188).
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 187).
A Clause (Special provisions as to service franchise occupiers,)—(The Lord Advocate,)—brought up, and read the first time.
Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. MARJORIBANKS: I hoped in rising to have received from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate some sign which would have rendered my remarks on this clause unnecessary, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has made no such sign. I am afraid that I must say a few words more in continuation of the discussion of Friday last. I wish to point out how large is the proportion of service franchise voters compared with the other voters of all kinds. In my own constituency, for example, out of 5,842 voters there are no fewer than 2,127 service voters, against 3,715 voters of all other kinds. The effect of the clause will be to give power to the employer to fine the employés for being on the register of voters for the County Council. There appears to me to be no adequate reason for placing an additional column on the Roll when no such additional column on the roll is required for Parliamentary voters. With regard to the second part of the clause, I consider it most objectionable. Let me take the case of ordinary farm servants. Large holdings are common in Scotland; there are farms of 500 to 700 acres producing a rent of from £750 to £1,000 a year, upon which probably some 12 or 14 farm servants are employed, who will become voters under this Act. They will get the vote because they dwell in certain houses; but such houses are as much part of the farm as the stables and farm buildings, and it is impossible to separate them from the farm. They cost nothing to the farmer or occupier of the holding, but they have been built entirely by the capital of the landlord, and if relief is given in respect of them it should be given to those by whose capital they are maintained. An endeavour to separate them into separate holdings will prove a ridiculous, impossible, and useless task. In practical working, the clause will either be a sham, or if it is put in
418
force it will be used to gratify spite and create quarrels between the employer and the employé. I shall therefore oppose the clause with all my power, and shall certainly press the opposition to a Division.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): It is only right that I should say a word upon this clause. I confess that I do not see that it merits the hostility which the right hon. Gentleman has manifested towards it. The Government have borne in mind what was said in the course of the Debates on the Second Reading concerning this point. Much that was said was very much to the purpose, and indicated a view not very different from the view we had ourselves. Then hon. Members were all agreed that the service franchise voters should, like all other voters, feel the rise and fall of rates; that they should have an interest in economy, and be brought into direct contact with the question of economy, in order that their conduct might be influenced thereby. On the other hand, it was pointed out by some hon. Members on the Opposition side that the service voters did pay rates indirectly to their masters. The Government examined the question, and found that there was a great deal to be said to sustain that allegation. They took it for granted that these men were paying rates because they had without question been put upon the Parliamentary roll. Take the case of the miners. In that case the rates undoubtedly enter into the computation as to what the miner shall receive in the shape of wages. The service covers a wide range of service, and a considerable number of miners are included. Then we say, "If you have an arrangement with your master by which you are not liable for rates, and there is a lump sum which covers the rates, there is no question about the matter; but if the master is paying your rates and you are paying nothing, directly or indirectly, then we shall have a right of relief against you." Can anything be fairer than that? You have there a recognition of the rates being indirectly paid, and when that is so the voter will never be asked for a farthing. Henceforward it may be necessary to say in the hiring that the wages shall cover the house and rates. The service men will all vote, and will not pay, except in those cases where they

419
are let off the rates and another person pays them. I think that, in the circumstances, the Government have made a suitable arrangement of the matter.
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I rise to answer the somewhat mild remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. Many of us on this side of the House have no objection, in fact we rather approve of the first half of the clause, which provides that the amount of rates paid by a service franchise house shall be entered in the rate book. But we object to the second half as an unnecessary interference between employers and employed—between the relations of the man who rents a main block of buildings and the man who occupies a single cottage in the block. If there is any meaning at all in the last half of the clause it is that the Government still adhere to the principle that the personal payment of rates, or the liability in certain circumstances to personal payment, is in some sense a guarantee that a man is a good citizen and fit to vote. This clause does not carry out that principle fully; but it does so in a manner which gives no. guarantee from a public point of view. But it gives the master a hold over the man, without giving the slightest guarantee that the man is a solvent ratepayer. On this side of the House we object to the recognition of the principle altogether. There is a large and increasing number of us who object to the principle of ratepaying being a qualification for the franchise. The clause as it stands will considerably weight the Bill; it will give a good deal of trouble; and it is an unnecessary interference with the private relations of the employer and the employed. I think the Government will do well to leave the matter alone.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 164; Noes, 129.—(Div. List, No. 206.)
Question proposed, "That this Clause be added to the Bill."
MR. D. CRAWFORD: I beg to move an Amendment to the clause by leaving out all the words after the word "entry," in line 9. It has been the distinction between Scotland and England for a very long time that in England the fact that a man was rated to the poor was regarded as a necessary qualification for the Parliamentary franchise, whereas in Scotland
420
that was not so. There was a considerable conflict of opinion in Scotland when the last Reform Act was passed. By the old definition of a dwelling-house in the Act of 1868 as the foundation of household suffrage, the word dwelling-house was defined as premises in respect of which a man was rated to the poor. That provision was repealed in 1884, and all reference to the rating was taken out. Many Members of the House are aware that it was largely due to the efforts of Scotch Members and other people acquainted with the affairs of Scotland, that the service franchise was admitted into that measure at all. It was pointed out that if that were not done a large part of the very best citizens of Scotland would be deprived of the right of voting. The principle having been to the fullest extent given effect to by the Act of 1854, it is attempted in this clause to go back upon it and to say that a man shall not enjoy the right to vote for a member of the Council unless his employers report that he has paid his rates for the house he occupied. That is a double mistake, because, in the first place, it refers to the necessity of paying rates, which is foreign to the Scotch system; and, secondly, because it puts it into the power of the master to insist upon that payment. And there is not the slightest doubt that the exercise of that influence by the employers at elections would have a most disturbing, and, I may say, a most corrupting effect upon the result of the elections. Upon this ground I move to leave out all the words after line 9.
Amendment proposed to the proposed new Clause, to leave out all the words after line 9.—(Mr. Donald Crawford.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I must say that I could not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman in his argument. The first nine lines of the clause would be absolutely useless without the following part of it; and I would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is a very difficult way of raising a question which has been already decided.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause added.
MR. HOZIER: I beg to withdraw the clause which stands on the Paper in my name.
MR. JOHN WILSON: The clause which stands in my name is one to do away with an anomaly which exists between some of the large boroughs of Scotland and what are called Royal boroughs. The borough of the division which I have the honour to represent contains 55,000 inhabitants, but it has not the privileges of a Royal borough some of which do not contain a tenth part of the population. The only point on which such large boroughs are in touch with the County Authorities is in the levying of small rates. I am glad to state that this matter has been arranged, with the concurrence of the hon. Member for South Lanark, who, all through this Bill, has acted as guardian of the interests of the county, and you may assume, therefore, that on the part of the County Authorities there are no objection to this clause being added to the Bill. I am sure I may appeal to the sense of fairness and justice of the Lord Advocate, and ask him to add this clause to the Bill.
New Clause (Royal Burghs,)—(Mr. John Wilson)—brought up, and read the first time.
Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. HOZIER: I hope the Government will see their way to accepting this clause of my hon. Friend, and I am fully authorized to say that the County Authorities of Lanarkshire see no objection to the proposal which is contained in it.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I rise at once for the purpose of saying that the Government cannot accept this Amendment. The question was mooted in an earlier part of the Bill, and I then announced that I opposed any change in the status of the Royal burghs, and to that position I must adhere. I resisted the proposals which came from the side of Glasgow as I now resist this proposal; and I cannot say that I see any substantial reasons, on the merits of this proposal, which would induce us to confer on police boroughs of the size referred to a status which they do not possess.
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I confess that my sympathies are with the view taken by
422
the Lord Advocate, and perfectly appreciate his position as to the way in which this proposal would affect Glasgow and some of the big burghs grouped around it; but, being free from the right hon. Gentleman's responsibilities, I cannot but agree with my hon. Friend who has moved the new clause; and I would even go further than he has done, for he has very modestly put it that a police burgh shall be a burgh having not less than 30,000 population. I cannot see why there should not be some self-governing limit laid down, so that every community above that limit should have self-governing powers.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. HOZIER: I beg to move the new clause which stands in my name, the reason for which is that the Act can be more efficiently carried out in larger areas than the burghs.
New Clause (Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act)—(Mr. Hozier)—brought up, and read the first time.
Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This is undoubtedly an important subject; but I would suggest to my hon. Friend that the clause he proposes is not the most convenient way of raising the question. The question is, whether the Acts of Parliament relating to the health of cattle can best be enforced in districts of the existing size or not; and on this subject there are great differences of opinion. On the one hand, the smaller Local Authorities are very jealous of their existing privileges; and, on the other hand, there is a growing opinion that the areas are too small for the efficient working of the Acts. However, be that as it may, this is not a question of local government, but of the law relating to the health of cattle, and ought not to be brought up incidentally on a question touching the municipal privileges of burghs, but should rather be dealt with on a review of the best methods of carrying out those Acts. Therefore, seeing that agricultural questions are at the present time coming forward for discussion, I would suggest that my hon. Friend should reserve this proposal for some occasion on which it can be more deliberately and more appropriately considered.
MR. BARCLAY: I agree in thinking it desirable that such a Committee as has been suggested should be appointed, as there is a strong feeling that the powers of the Local Authorities in the smaller burghs are not sufficient; but I think there is much force in what the Lord Advocate has said, and I hardly think the clause can be practically dealt with in this Bill. For instance, it contains no provision with regard to the expenses that would necessarily be incurred by the Joint Committee, and unless some such provision were made there would be difficulty in carrying out the clause. I hope the new Minister of Agriculture will take the question up, as it is one of great importance to agriculturists.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am in some doubt as to the way in which I should give my vote; but I think there is some reason in what the Lord Advocate has said; and I would point out that the Bill already deals with this question in regard to burghs of a certain size, many of which would be glad to be thrown into the counties, but would be sorry to have the interference of the counties in these matters, unless the counties bore their fair share of the expense.
MR. HOZIER: In view of the appointment of a Minister of Agriculture, and after what has been said by the Lord Advocate and others, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. J. C. BOLTON: I have now to move the clause which stands on the Paper in my name. I understand that the last payment of the grant in aid will take place in November next, and that the first payment from the share of the Probate Duty and licenses coming to Scotland will not occur until after the termination of the year ending March 31, 1891. I am not sure whether the Secretary for Scotland should not be the person indicated as charged with the duty here imposed instead of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; but I hope the clause will not be refused by the Lord Advocate on that ground.
New Clause (Local Taxation, Licenses, and Probate Duty Payments,)—(Mr. Bolton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that, as it seems to me, there is no need for this clause. I ought, perhaps, first of all to remind the hon. Member that I undertook on a previous occasion that the question of the provision of the necessary funds should be considered, and that is now being done; and whatever course may be taken with regard to the local distribution of the money, the difficulty which has occurred in England will not occur in Scotland, where it fortunately happens that the bulk of the License Duties are payable in May, so that about that time the authorities would be in a position to make the required payments. The County Councils' financial year begins on the 15th May, and consequently they would be in funds in due time.
MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what proportion of the money comes in in May?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I cannot give the precise amount; but the proportion of the License Duties paid in Scotland in May is very large—so large that there can be no deficit in regard to these funds.
MR. J. MACDONALD CAMERON: I can confirm what the Lord Advocate has stated—namely, that the bulk of the License Duties are paid in May; and the hon. Member for Stirlingshire may, therefore, be satisfied that the County Councils will have sufficient funds to meet all requirements.
MR. J. C. BOLTON: The explanation of the Lord Advocate is quite satisfactory as far as it goes; but I would point out that there is nothing in the Bill requiring the payment of the money. Take the Probate Duty: I do not see how a division is to be made until the total amount to be divided is known; and the same remark may apply to the License Duties. I think there ought to be some provision in the Bill authorizing the payment. If the Lord Advocate includes some such provision I shall be satisfied.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): That question was carefully considered, and it was deemed unnecessary to insert

425
any provision in regard to it in this Bill. The Treasury will have power to make payment in round sums from time to time, and I believe the money will be given earlier than if this clause were passed. Payments may be made in June, November, January, and February.
MR. BOLTON: That being so, I beg to withdraw the clause.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CALDWELL: The new clause which I am about to propose is one of the new clauses brought forward on behalf of Lanark and Renfrew with a view to preserving their status quo. I quite understand it is the intention of the Government that nothing shall be done in this Bill which will, in the slightest degree, prejudice the consideration of the question of the extension of the boundaries of the City of Glasgow, which will be brought on again next Session. The Lord Advocate has already consented to a clause which deals automatically with the representation of these particular districts, and I think it desirable that the financial arrangements should be dealt with as proposed in my new clause. I desire that this boundary question shall not be prejudged in any way; but simply to secure that the money applicable to the territory in dispute shall remain in the control of the Secretary for Scotland until the whole question has been decided by Parliament.
New Clause (Payments to Lanark and Renfrew,)—(Mr. Caldwell)—brought up, and read the first time.
Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It is hardly necessary for me to say that I cannot accept this Amendment. The proposal of the hon. Member would tie up until some future period—until, in fact, the settlement of the dispute as to the boundaries of Glasgow—a considerable sum of money. I may, however, say, for the information of hon. Members opposite, that we propose to accept a general saving clause—not naming Glasgow or any other place—providing that nothing in the Bill shall prejudice any application made in any part of the country for any extension of boundaries,
426
nor shall it prejudice the answer made to such application.
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I think the last object of Glasgow would be to deprive any neighbouring county of the advantages of self-government. I think the course suggested by the Lord Advocate is reasonable and sufficient to meet the demands of the Glasgow Corporation.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: In rising to propose the clause which stands in my name, I do not intend to go into the whole question of the payment of Municipal Councillors, because it involves the same principle as the payment of Members of this House. But I wish to say a few words on this subject, and to explain that my reason for bringing this clause forward is that I desire to provide for the expenses of those who will take part in the County Government of the future. I presume that the Government have introduced this Bill in deference to a popular wish, and in order to place County Administration on a more popular basis; and it seems to me it would be impossible to secure real popular representation unless some small salary were provided to meet the expenses which would be incurred by such working men as may happen to be elected in the County Councils. The proposition contained in my clause is that a day's salary shall be granted, together with travelling expenses. I think that that is a moderate proposal. It would not place a large burden on the rates, while it would meet a popular want. I am not often fond of precedent; but in this House it is sometimes necessary to have precedents, in order, I suppose, to strengthen the back sinews of the knees of the weaker brethren. There is a precedent in regard to this clause. The Lord Advocate will correct me if I am not right in stating that for a considerable time in Scotland men who are required to serve on juries have been allowed to claim their expenses for the day.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: In Civil cases.
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Then we have this precedent—that men required to serve in Civil cases are allowed to claim their day's expenses.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes; ten shillings a day.
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: That, then, I quote as a precedent in favour of my proposition. I know it is considered by Members of this House that the payment of members of Municipal Authorities for their services involves a principle which is not generally acceptable. But there are certain instances I will bring shortly before the attention of hon. Members which I think may weigh in some degree with the Members of the Committee. We have two or three Members sent specially to this House to represent the Trades Unions, and their maintenance here costs an undue and unfair tax upon members of their particular trade. Now, I wish to interest the working classes in the Municipal Administration of Scotland, but I do not think it right, if working men are found willing to take their part in this work, that the trades to which they belong should be called upon to support them. In the London County Council there is a working class representative who was elected by the citizens of Battersea—I mean Mr. John Burns—who has had to be paid by his fellow working men, although it is admitted that he has proved one of the most useful members of the Council, and has rendered very valuable service. I presume it is hoped that in Scotland working men will find seats on the County Councils; and in order that no difficulty shall be placed in the way of the attainment of that end, I venture to move the clause which stands in my name.
New Clause (Payment of travelling expenses of members of County Councils,)—(Mr. Cuninghame Graham,)—brought up, and read the first time.
Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I admit that the hon. Member has advanced his argument with great moderation and clearness; but the Government cannot entertain his proposal, neither do I think that the precedents he has quoted are in any way germane to the present proposal. I hope the Committee will not be drawn into the discussion of subjects of this kind. The question of whether we should give remuneration to persons for the discharge of public duties is a general one which cannot be
428
raised now, and it ought not to be decided on without mature consideration.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I agree with the Lord Advocate in so far as the actual payment for attendance in the discharge of public duties is concerned, but I think that there is something in the question of travelling expenses. This point was considered last year when the House was engaged in the discussion of the English Bill; but we have from the first declined to be bound by that precedent. It may happen that suitable persons for election on the County Councils may live a considerable distance from the county town, and it therefore seems to me desirable that their necessary travelling expenses should be paid. I do not see how that practice could be abused to any large extent, while it would undoubtedly have the effect of enlarging the choice of the electorate, and not in the least degree prejudice the larger question which, I quite agree with the Lord Advocate, we could hardly touch on this occasion—namely, the general question whether for public services rendered direct remuneration should be given. If my hon. Friend will eliminate from his clause the proposal to pay a day's wages, and confine his proposal to the payment of reasonable and necessary travelling expenses, I shall be ready to support him.
MR. C. GRAHAM: I will certainly modify my proposal, and beg therefore to ask leave to withdraw my clause in order to submit the modified proposal.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause,
"Members attending County Council meetings or attending Committee meetings, or performing duties in connection with the Council, shall he entitled to claim reasonable travelling expenses,"—(Mr. Cuninghame Graham),—read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
DR. CLARK: Are we to understand that the Government are as much opposed to the payment of travelling expenses as of salary, and are not prepared to compromise the question? This point would not, of course, arise in connection with burgh administration; but when a man has to travel 50, 60, or

429
80 miles—partly by rail, partly by steamer, and partly by road—I think, unless you make some provision for the payment of expenses, you will seriously limit the choice of many districts in their representatives. If you intend that the County Councils shall be composed of the best men in the county, irrespective of social position, the only way to secure that will be to pay their travelling expenses; because a charge of, say, £1 per journey would prove a serious tax upon the smaller class of farmers who may be expected to act as the representatives of rural districts, especially in the Highlands. I hope that the Lord Advocate will look at this matter altogether apart from the general question of the payment of Members, for unless some such concession as this is made we shall have the rural districts represented solely by urban residents. I hope the Government, therefore, will reconsider their decision, and at any rate make provision for long and costly journeys.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I, too, hope that the Government will give way. Take the case of the burghs I represent. They will have to send representatives to the County Councils, and as they will have to travel a considerable distance to the county town, and unfortunately the burghs are served by a monopolist railway which charges heavy fares, the travelling expenses will be a severe tax on the representatives selected. The smaller burghs will, no doubt, be insufficiently represented on the County Councils unless the Government acquiesce in this moderate proposal.
DR. McDONALD: Unless the Government give way on this point we in the Highlands will be practically unrepresented on the County Councils. In my county, representatives, if chosen, will have to travel by sea and land, by boat, by railway, and by coach, and sometimes on foot, a distance of 100 or 120 miles. How can it be expected a poor man will go that distance and pay his own expenses, when the Government are giving so little work to the County Councils? The result will, in fact, be that the outlying districts will be unrepresented. The representative of the Island of Lewis will have to spend a couple of days in travelling in order to attend the County
430
Council meetings, and is it to be expected anyone will do that unless the out of pocket expenses are paid? I think the Government will be doing a serious injustice to the people of the West Highlands, where distances are so great and locomotion so difficult and so expensive, if they reject this Amendment.
MR J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I thoroughly sympathize with the object of the clause; but I do not see how any means of paying the travelling expenses of County Councillors can be adopted without recognizing a principle which Parliament has not yet sanctioned. I should be glad to find it possible to devise some way of preventing cases of unusual hardship; but any such means must be carefully safeguarded from forming a precedent in the matter.
MR. ESSLEMONT: In the case of the county I represent, it will be necessary for some of the members of the County Council to travel 50 or 60 miles. I think the proposal embodied in the Amendment is a very reasonable one. The Lord Advocate says it introduces a new principle; but he must remember that we are introducing into Scotland for the first time Municipal Government in the counties. Scotch counties are exceptionally situated; in some districts the population is very sparse; and I am quite satisfied that the people of Scotland would be willing to pay reasonable travelling expenses for those who attend the meetings of the County Council. I admit that the question of also allowing a day's wages would be fraught with considerable difficulty, but that has now been withdrawn; and I hope the Government will take a wider view of the clause as it has been modified, for I believe the principle involved will prove as acceptable in the Lowlands as in the Highlands.
DR. CAMERON: I may point out that the principle has already been adopted in some of the Scotch burghs, as the Glasgow Corporation maintain two or three carriages to take the baillies from their houses to their municipal duties. I believe also that in the junketting the Town Councils take when inspecting waterworks and lighthouses, in addition to reasonable travelling expenses, substantial refreshments are provided.
MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Invernessshire): I have listened to the re-

431
marks of the Lord Advocate with considerable interest. I would ask the Government to specially consider the case of the county I represent, and also the County of Ross. I am sure they wish the crofters to be represented on the County Councils; but it will not be possible unless their travelling expenses are paid.
MR. ASQUITH: I trust that the Committee will not be satisfied with the somewhat vague assurances given by the Lord Advocate. On this occasion the right hon. Gentleman has failed to grapple with the practical difficulty laid before him, so afraid is he lest the House should furtively recognise a principle which may have a wider application in the future. I am not at all afraid of wider applications of the principle contained in the Amendment; and, whether or not the clause is accepted, I hope the principle will be heard of again on a much larger scale. For the purposes of this discussion it is sufficient that we should confine our attention to the special difficulties peculiar to local circumstances in Scotland. These can be dealt with on their own merits without regard to the wider application of the principle. It has been pointed out by one of my hon. Friends that you are establishing an entirely new kind of representative body, altogether differing from the Councils which exist in boroughs—a body which will represent a very wide area, between extreme portions of which and the centre there are often imperfectly developed means of communication. Now, if a body of that kind is to be really representative and to perform its duties to the satisfaction of the constituencies and of public opinion, the Government must make some provision for the practical difficulties which are peculiar not only to the Highlands, but more or less to the whole of Scotland. Otherwise these County Councils will not be representative in the best sense of the word, because either a large number of people will be artificially excluded from sitting upon them, or their management will fall into the hands of cliques and committees. I certainly think this moderate proposal will commend itself to the vast majority of Scotch Members, and I therefore trust that the Government will reconsider their decision.
DR. MACDONALD: In the Highlands some County Councillors will have to travel very long distances to attend the meetings of the Council. Some, indeed, will have to be away from home for days. Surely it is not reasonable to ask men to do this for nothing.
MR. A. SUTHERLAND: I desire to support what has been advanced in favour of this Amendment. The improved system of Local Government provided by this measure will practically be of no avail unless this Amendment is carried. Owing to the great distances which County Councillors will have to travel the people will be entirely excluded from representation. I hope the Government will see their way to accede to the Amendment, because its acceptance is of vital importance to many parts of Scotland.
MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: I beg to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It seems to me the Lord Advocate desires to give way, if he can; but he does not like the wide application of this principle. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree to the principle being applicable to the crofter counties? [Opposition Cries of "No!"] I am speaking in the interes of the Highland counties. If you can get the wider issue I should be glad to support you; but if you cannot, let us have the narrow issue.
MR. LYELL: As the Representative of an Island constituency, I am happy to support all that has been urged in favour of some remuneration being given to members of County Councils attending meetings. Under the provisions of the Supplementary Bill a very considerable quorum is required. Unless some remuneration is given the result may often be that a quorum will not be obtained, and that those who do attend the meetings will have to go away, leaving the business of the county undone. Gentlemen will not willingly undertake a long journey unless they feel reasonably certain that a quorum will attend, and that satisfactory business will be done. I hope the Lord Advocate will see his way to accede to the Amendment.
MR. R. T. REID (&c.): I desire to say a few words with regard to the insidious proposal which comes from my hon. Friend

433
(Mr. Macdonald Cameron) who is a Highland Member. One is disposed to be conciliatory to the Highlanders, but I do not think we ought to allow the Lowlanders to be thrown over for the purpose of giving special advantage to the Highlanders. What is good for the Highlands is good for the Lowlands. It must be remembered that there is a large number of counties in the Lowlands where long distances will have to be travelled. This is so in Dumfries, for instance. There are many parts of that county in which there is no adequate railway communication, and in which considerable distances have to be covered by road. Under these circumstances it is that I hope there will be no attempt to separate the Highlands and Lowlands; but that we shall all stand shoulder to shoulder, for the purpose of seeing whether we cannot get this advantage at the hands of the Government.
MR. WALLACE: I join with my hon. Colleagues in pressing the desirability of the Government assenting to this Amendment. The Lord Advocate seems to fear that the principle advocated will spread to other regions than those in question, but the proposition is simply to pay the travelling expenses of members of County Councils going to and from meetings. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is alarmed lest such a concession would lead in the direction of the principle of the payment of members for their services. The two things are totally different. In the one case the proposal is to pay members for the services which they render to the community; but surely it is a totally different matter to make a payment that shall make it possible for members to render services to the community. That is all that is proposed by this Amendment.
MR. CALDWELL: I have nothing to add to the arguments on the general question; but I must point out that in any case special provision should be made for the Highland counties. Parliament has admitted that there is exceptional distress in the Highlands. Surely there would be nothing inconsistent in accepting this Amendment so far as the Highlands are concerned. It must be borne in mind that there is hardly a single railway in the Highland
434
counties, and that therefore County Councillors will be put to much greater expense and trouble in attending meeting of the Council than their fellows in the Lowlands.
MR. BARCLAY: If the proposal is somewhat novel the circumstances are also novel. The case of Town Councils cannot possibly be regarded as a precedent. In the first place Town Councillors live in the burgh, and certain of their expenses are paid out of the Commonhood. It is of very great importance that all the outlying districts of counties should be represented on the Council; but this will not be possible unless some such an Amendment as this is adopted.
MR. M'LAGAN: I would suggest that all those who have to travel beyond a certain distance should be entitled to have their expenses paid—say 20 miles.
DR. CLARK: I trust the Lord Advocate will, in any event, allow the clause to be read a second time, so that whatever modifications may be deemed desirable may be inserted in it.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 188.—(Div. List, No. 207.)
MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: I beg to move to report Progress, not for the purpose of delaying the discussion of the Bill, but simply for the purpose of directing the attention of the Lord Advocate to the votes of Scotch Members in the Division just taken. It appears from calculations private Members have made that 42 Scotch Members voted for the clause and only 10 against it. I shall certainly bring the subject up again on Report, and I trust that between now and then the Lord Advocate will consider whether he cannot concede the point we have contended for for the Highland counties if he cannot for the whole of Scotland.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (&c.): The importance of the question which is raised by the clauses I have placed on the Table is so great, and it is so thoroughly understood in the country, that my remarks need bear no proportion to the length of the clauses. There is no question upon which the people of Scotland have given their opinion with greater clearness than upon the subject of taking up land, if necessary by com-

435
pulsion, for the public good. In my clauses I believe will be found the kernel of land law reform—namely, that the authorities created by this Bill should have the power where necessary to check careless or mischievous use of land, and to secure the full development of industry and agriculture. I quite recognize it may be held that the owners of property should be left in peaceable enjoyment of their rights, and free from vexatious interference, and that it would not be wise, perhaps, at the outset, that our local Councils should plunge into great schemes of land speculation without any supervision whatever. I look more to the cultivation of the soil by a system of individualism, than by a system of co-operation; but I believe the County Authorities may be trusted in most cases to use such rights as I propose should be conferred upon them with discretion. I believe that legislation of this character will give a stimulus to careless or incompetent landlords to recognize the duties and responsibilities which attach to the ownership of land. There is the question of feus for building and industrial purposes, and I could give many instances in which such feus have been refused by landowners in fishing villages and localities where such facilities are necessary for the due development of local industry. If this question were dealt with in this Bill, it would lead to some system of cheap registration of title. Taking an existing rent at half-a-crown a year, a feu for permanent tenure might be obtained for £5; such a reform is possible. Then as regards gardens and small holdings, these have not been developed as they ought to have been under the present land system. It is impossible for an extensive system of small holdings to be created where the cultivation of land is carried on under landlord and tenant, because the expenditure upon permanent buildings and other improvements is so great, that it becomes almost impossible for the landlord to equip a large number of small holdings; but there is no doubt that anything that would increase the number of small holdings would be a benefit to agriculture and an improvement of our social system. At present there is not a sufficient admixture of small holdings in Scotland. I may refer to the Highlands and show that something more extended is possible,
436
and has been done there for the creation of small holdings, and therefore the Government might well accept my clause. Under the Crofters Act there was introduced a system of compulsory leases in the Highlands, and that means that by the Land Court land may be taken at a compulsory rent from the nominal Owners, the right to the occupation of which had been previously refused. If this system were carried out without restriction, it would lead to the abolition of private proprietorship in land. With restrictions it has been shown to be unworkable, and the difficulties have been proved to exist, and hence the passing of the Crofters Act. It is evident that some safer plan, some other alternative must be discovered, for meeting this Highland land difficulty, or a Land Act must be introduced next Session, and that I think is not an object Her Majesty's present advisers have in view. The result of compulsory leasing means possibly the loss of capital value. Under a system of expropriation the capital value of the land is reserved; therefore, having accepted this principle of leasing in the Highlands, I cannot see why Her Majesty's Government should not appreciate from their point of view the principle contained in expropriation. I have spoken of the difficulties of feuing, and in regard to this there are special considerations in the Highlands. I do not agree always with some of the representations made of the enormous extent of land available for cultivation and lying waste in the Highlands, but I do know cases where land is lying waste and where it is desirable in the interest of the community to check scandals of this character by reserved powers, which would not come into operation unless the proprietor declined to avail himself of the opportunity of doing the right thing, and in that case there would be the remedy securely safeguarded. It would form a far-reaching security for the rights of property and for rights not less important, the rights of the people I would ask the Government to think twice before they reject my proposal, because if the question is approached by them in the same spirit as that in which they dealt with the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, in regard to rights of way, I warn them they are fostering bad times for land-

437
owners whose interests they imagine they are securing.
Another New Clause (County Council to have power to take land,)—(Mr. Munro Ferguson,)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman has introduced a very large and important subject in this clause by which he proposes to impose a still further duty on County Councils. I desire at the outset to say that I approach the consideration of this question in a completely friendly spirit, and the observations I shall have to make will show the Committee we are prepared to deal with the matter in a practical way. But, in the first place, I desire to limit our proposition to that which I think is attainable, and not entering upon the wide programme of the hon. Member for Leith. He proposes that the County Councils shall deal with cases where there is a desire for land for building purposes or for the development of any lawful trade or industry, or for allotments or small holdings. Now, as regards buildings, I cannot say that I think it is possible the Committee would authorize County Councils to acquire land for what is really a speculative purpose; and, in the second place, I greatly doubt whether, in limiting the power to the developing of any lawful trade or industry, you are not entering the region of speculation, and assigning an anomalous and heterogeneous duty to the County Council. Then I take the question of small holdings, and I do not think the Committee will be disposed to take up that question in this incidental way, a question that has engaged the attention of Parliament, and is now the subject of consideration by a Committee upstairs. Accordingly, I think these are considerations that the limits of our present business forbid us to enter upon. But there remains the question of allotments, and that seems to me to stand on a more satisfactory footing. The Committee will remember that when some two years ago the subject of allotments was dealt with for England, there was apparently a concurrence of opinion among Scotch Members that it was not such a matter of
438
urgency for Scotland that it could not stand over for another opportunity, when the subject of Scotland should be before the House; but, at the same time, there was no disposition to declare that the subject of allotments had not a direct interest for the Scotch people, and it was thought that when the opportunity presented itself, it might be considered desirable to confer some such powers in this respect on Local Authorities as exist in England. Now, we have County Councils and District Committees to be equipped for dealing with affairs in which the district is interested, and so the Government consider that the opportunity may with advantage be taken of conferring upon County Councils or District Committees power of applying to the Secretary for Scotland for Provisional Orders for allotments. Presumably, the hon. Member for Leith has framed his clause with the desire of raising the subject, and hardly expected that it would be accepted as practically a working out of the principle. He does nothing more than say, in general terms, that land should be put into the hands of the County Council. He does not lay down the way in which the Council shall deal with it, as Paliament did in the English Act, where there are provisions for securing that the land shall reach the right hands, and for regulating the use of the land; in short, the matter was carried out in detail, both as to acquiring possession and disposing of the land. Accordingly, I do not think that this clause can very well be accepted; but I will undertake to bring in on Report a clause that shall represent the substance of what I have referred to. The matter must be worked out in detail how the land is to be applied, how the money is to be provided, on what parts of the county the rates shall fall, with just regard to the interests of those who are and those who are not concerned. With the general question of acquiring land for building and industrial purposes, I cannot undertake to deal in this necessarily incidental manner; but the question of allotments is better known and lies within a smaller compass, and to that extent I hope to meet the wishes of the hon. Member.
MR. MUNEO FERGUSON: Only one word on the subject of building. But, first, I am sure I may express the

439
general feeling of satisfaction with which we on this side have heard the Lord Advocate's statement. The only subject to which I will refer is that of feuing for buildings. Fishing villages will be under the jurisdiction of County Councils, and in those villages there are often the greatest difficulties in obtaining sites for dwelling houses and even land for the drying of nets. I could give a number of instances in which such powers as I propose to confer on County Councils would be exercised very appropriately by this authority, and the Lord Advocate will observe that I am ready to provide that the power should be safeguarded in every way.
MR. BARCLAY: I must express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for his promise to deal with the subject of allotments. But I would press upon him to entertain the question, of the Council acquiring land for building. I can assure him that such a power is very necessary around the coasts of Scotland. In one of the villages in the constituency I have the honour to represent, the overcrowding from the want of house accommodation prevails to a scandalous extent. The plots of land the fishermen require are very small, and the landlord's agents will not trouble themselves to give such small feus. It would be a great advantage if the Councils were authorized to obtain a few acres of land for the purpose, and it is hardly possible that it could do harm to anyone. I think if the Government insist on Provisional Orders being obtained, the expense would add materially to the cost of the land. Only an acre, or a couple of acres, would probably be required in a village, and the cost of a Provisional Order, however economically it were gone about, would, I suppose, be £100; and that in regard to small pieces of ground would amount to a prohibitive price. What possible risk or harm to landlords would there be if a couple of acres of their land were taken under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act? They would get an ample price, and there would be every possible safeguard for amenities of residence, where there should happen to be such. The question of allotments is no doubt important, but not so important as obtaining land for building purposes in villages. I can understand
440
the objection to County Councils embarking in speculative buildings near towns; but this we propose in an entirely different matter, and within proper limits and restrictions. I do not see the necessity of a Provisional Order. I cannot see that such an authority given to County Councils would interfere with landlords' rights to any appreciable extent. If the Government would undertake the matter boldly, I am sure it might be worked out with advantage to all concerned.
MR. R. T. REID: I agree that these clauses might very well be improved, and I say so with the more reason because I myself drew up the clauses, following, so far as I could, the Allotments Act of 1887. The Lord Advocate, however, will not deny that our demand is not an extreme one, and I believe the power is amply safeguarded. So much for the form, and now for the substance. The Lord Advocate is prepared to give land for the purpose of allotments. Now, I will undertake to say that, although in some parts of Scotland allotments are no doubt wanted, the governing reason why the people are so anxious that the Councils should get land in this way is for domestic buildings and for lawful trade purposes. I will give the Committee particulars of the tenure upon which houses are built in a small town in Dumfriesshire that will rather astonish those who think that the system of feudal servitude has died out. In the town of Thornhill, with some 1,200 or 1,300 inhabitants, and between 200 and 300 houses, all the land in and near the town is owned by the Duke of Buccleuch, and every house in that town has been built and is held now upon one year's tenure of the land; and it is within the power of the Duke of Buccleuch, according to the terms of agreement upon which buildings have been erected for 40 years past—and no other land could be got for building—to take possession of every house at six months' notice on condition of paying half the value of the house. It is only fair to the Duke to say that the power is not used, but it exists. More than that, it is necessary before a transfer of any house can be made for a humble petition to be presented to the Duke for his sanction, which he may refuse if he thinks proper. Whenever a bequest is made

441
on the death of an occupier, a petition has to be presented to the Duke praying him to allow the terms of the will to be carried out, and sometimes, in fact repeatedly, this permission has been refused when the Duke has thought that another relative of the deceased is more in need, or more deserving, than the person to whom the bequest is made; and in utter disregard of the bequest the house is handed over to whom the Duke thinks proper. There are conditions against sub-letting, and the taking lodgers, who may be poachers or persons obnoxious to the Duke of Buccleuch. There are about 20 crofts in the neighbourhood; the demand for them is enormous, but not one more can be obtained. No new houses are allowed. Although a railway passes the town, and it is one of the most beautiful parts of Dumfriesshire, no house has been allowed to be built for 40 years. I say advisedly that is a condition of feudal servitude. No other language is apt to describe it, and the feeling in Dumfriesshire on the subject is intense. I should be ashamed of my countrymen if it were not intense. It is not because the Duke of Buccleuch abuses his right, for in point of fact except as to his dealing with bequests as I have mentioned, the late Duke of Buccleuch was known to be an admirable landlord, and was very much respected. But here are people living under circumstances that this House ought never to suffer people to live under, dependent on the breath of one man, because he is the owner of the land. In other places in Dumfriesshire, the same state of things exist, and no one can deny my statement. Now I think the Lord Advocate can understand why Scotch burghs object to be hide-bound in this way. It is no use merely offering us allotments; that is the smallest part of our demand, though, of course, we shall act on the maxim of taking thankfully what is offered and asking for more. But I want the Lord Advocate and the Committee to appreciate the importance and gravity of the subject. We are now establishing County Councils to protect the rights and interests of localities, and it is obvious that people in such places as Thornhill will look to the County Council as the authority to interfere on their behalf, and to put reasonable facilities in their way for meeting their
442
pressing requirements for land at a reasonable tenure. While grateful to the Lord Advocate for his concession as regards allotments, I hope my hon. Friend will press his Motion to a division.
MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: There is no doubt that the most important part of the clause my hon. Friend has proposed is the part relating to building. I do not at all depreciate the concession the Lord Advocate has made about allotments. I dare say allotments may be very useful in some parts of Scotland. The demand generally for allotments is not great, but I should like to see it increase. But, meantime, this is only an example of what we have too often had repeated in the course of this Bill. We are offered a particular thing, not because we want it, but because the English people have it. That is the only reason why allotments have been singled out from the powers mentioned in the clause and granted. If the Government wanted to give Scotland what is most useful and yet were disposed to narrow the concession to the utmost limit, they would have singled out and granted the building powers. My hon. and learned Friend has given a striking illustration from Dumfries showing the necessity of such a provision as this, and I should like to mention an instance from the County of Lanark, the small town of Motherwell—not very small either, some 18,000 or 20,000 inhabitants—and a rising town. A great part of the land around the town belongs to two landowners. In the direction in which the town is extending and the best part of the town the land is the property of the Duke of Hamilton. Land is given for feuing on condition that houses of a certain value and appearance are erected in order to furnish security for the feu duties, and that is quite usual and proper; but there is one condition added. This is a coal and mineral district, and the Duke reserves the right to withdraw coal under the foundations of the house, and if the house is demolished or damaged thereby the builder of the house is to have no recompense or compensation. This is the only condition upon which land can be got in that part of the country, and, as may be supposed, this condition excites the utmost indignation among the townspeople; and I think

443
the Committee will agree it is a condition wholly inconsistent with the duty of a landlord. I believe we have a remedy in this Amendment in giving the Council power to acquire land compulsorily when it is necessary, and according to the scope of the Bill it would come within the jurisdiction of the County Council. It is because of instances such as have been given that there is this earnest and growing desire that Local Authorities should have the power of acquiring land compulsorily.
MR. ESSLEMONT: There are hundreds of fishing villages around our coasts under similar difficulties; and I have frequently brought such under the notice of the Secretary for Scotland. There are hundreds of cases in my county where fishermen have built their own houses, and pay large sums comparatively for the feu, and yet have no security of tenure, the landlords can take possession at a year's notice. On the merest scraps of land, they have been obliged to erect houses that are in a shameful unsanitary state. Now, I submit that to ask individual fishermen to come for Provisional Orders is out of the question; but I hope the Lord Advocate will, on consideration, see that the County Council could exercise authority in this matter, meeting all requirements, without great expense. I should be the last to advise, and I never have suggested that land should betaken without every reasonable compensation to the owners. I am willing that they should get five times as much as they would get under ordinary circumstances of sale. I express my gratitude to the Lord Advocate for the concession he has made, but still I ask him cannot he give his serious attention to those cases which are very numerous, more especially in connection with the fishing industry, with a view to seeing that a man may have the means of getting a reasonable tenure of his dwelling without great expense. These houses cost from £50 or £80 to £150, not large sums but large to the people who build them, and they are deprived of the credit the property ought to give them because the house, in the absence of feu terms of tenure, is practically the property of the landlord.
MR. COOHEANE-BAILLIE (St. Pancras,): We have heard two instances of what may be con-
444
sidered an unjust system of tenure, and whether the Lord Advocate can see his way to a clause dealing with such cases as those of Thornhill and elsewhere I do not know. But I would ask him not to go beyond that and give powers to the County Council for the acquisition of land for the development of a district, because you will at once have the danger of the authorities plunging into wild land speculations, and that is by no means an essential or desirable policy for County Councils to embark upon. On that point I hope the Lord Advocate will not give way, but if he thinks fit to meet such instances of peculiar tenure as that at Thornhill and the difficulties of the fishing villages I see no objection.
MR. DUFF: The Committee will have observed that there has been no opposition to the clause of the hon. Member for Leith from Scotch Members, and I am glad that the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cochrane-Baillie) has only partially opposed it. I quite concur in the remarks of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen as to the case of fishing villages on the east coast. In my own constituency there are numerous instances in which fishermen have built their houses upon land upon which they have no sort of tenure. This matter was dealt with in the Report of the Fishery Board for 1884, and a suggestion was made for giving feus by a cheap and easy process. I asked the late Lord Advocate to give effect to the recommendation and he replied that the matter might be dealt with in the coming Local Government Bill. I would ask the present Lord Advocate to say that he will consider the question in connection with his proposed new clause.
MR. J. P. B. ROBEETSON: I would remind the Committee of the specific question before us. The case of the hon. Member for Banff and others is not a case where it is desired to obtain land for purposes for which they cannot get land, but a case in which persons already in possession desire a better title. This is, it must be observed, a distinct question, and I cannot see that it is possible to deal with it in the Bill. I greatly doubt whether, while empowering County Councils to acquire land for allotments, the Committee will agree at the same time to give the Councils power to ob-

445
tain titles for those which already have land. While I have very great sympathy with these persons in the position of those whose cases have been cited, my point is this, they have either a legal right in the property they hold or they have not. If they have, as I should suppose and hope they have by agreement between owner and occupier, certain rights of property, what do you want the County Council to do? Do you want the County Council to turn men who are not proprietors into proprietors? How can you do it except by furnishing them with a title? Now, that seems to me an entirely different chapter of legislation. I do not prejudge the question as regards people for whom I have a great deal of sympathy in their peculiarly difficult position; but we are here with a Local Government Bill, and is it reasonable that we should analyse the land tenure of Scotland as the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries has? He cited the instance of Thornhill as a tenure of land that ought not to be tolerated, and as a scandal.
MR. E. T. REID: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say, I instanced that as evidence of the evils that result from the inability to get land. It is an instance showing why we should comply with the popular desire, that people require land and cannot get it.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes, but the whole of this shows that it is a question of land tenure which cannot, I think, be dealt with in this hap-hazard way. I trust the Committee will exercise due reserve and caution on a subject that has incidentally come across our view; and in considering a Local Government Bill, will not be too rash to pronounce upon the subject. I will only say that we, in dealing with allotments, enter upon a subject to which Parliament has recently devoted attention; but we cannot touch those other matters that require most careful consideration, and do not naturally arise upon this Bill.
MR. ESSLEMONT: One word of explanation. May I ask the Lord Advocate to give attention to the subject of those people who have not the land he speaks of, and cannot get it? We want some machinery in the Bill by which the County Councils can get land
446
at a fair price. What is contended is, that these people have no tenure; that the land belongs to the landlord. What we want is an expeditious and reasonable way by which the authority can obtain the land, in order that they may get a title for possession.
MR. FINLAY (&c.): I am sure the Committee is sensible of the fair way in which the proposal has been made, and all must agree that the clause deals with a subject of great necessity. Of course any argument that goes to show that the County Council should be vested with powers to build, would also go to show that they should also be vested with powers to acquire land on which houses are built in order to give a good title. I hope the Government will go as far as practicable in this direction. At the same time we must be sensible of the difficulties and complexities of the subject. One other word I desire to say. I think there are many other proposals of public utility, not mentioned in the clause of the hon. Member for Leith. There are many proposals for which it would be right the County Councils should take or hold land. If anything can be done in this direction I should be glad to see general words inserted in the Bill which would empower the County Councils to acquire land for purposes of general utility, and I hope that the Government will go as far as possible in the matter.
MR. ASHEE (&c.: I hope the Lord Advocate on further consideration may see his way not to lose the present opportunity of doing something to remedy this great grievance in some parts of Scotland. Over a great part of the East Coast an immense number of fishermen at the present moment occupy houses on the most unsatisfactory tenure. They have built their houses upon sites to which they have no title whatever. Now, I think that that fact by itself shows that there is something grievously wrong, either that they are not able to get land for the purpose from the landlords, or it shows that the expense of completing a title is so great as to deter people from the expense of getting a proper title, and they prefer the risk of building with no title at all. The Lord Advocate has an opportunity of going a long way towards putting the matter right. I quite appreciate the objection to giving the authorities

447
power of going into building speculations; but with, the exercise of very little ingenuity checks and restrictions might prevent any danger of that kind. If the County Council had power to take land for building purposes, they could acquire a title at much less expense than the individual fisherman could. If the Council took, say, an acre of land, and divided it into small parts for cottages, it would be a comparatively simple matter between the Council and the individual fishermen. If power were given to the County Council to obtain from the landlord on fair terms land, including the sites of existing houses, that would enable them to give a good title to those who had built houses or who might build them hereafter. I have myself known instances of fishermen, after 25 years' occupation of the houses they had built, being suddenly required by the landlord to pay 50 per cent, more for the rent of the land on which the houses were built, and they had no alternative; but to pay it, or leave their houses. I quite understand that this is a matter not to be dealt with summarily; but I would ask the Lord Advocate whether, in drafting his clause in reference to allotments, he could not take this into consideration.
SIR J. KINLOCH: Most of the Members who have spoken have dwelt upon the necessities of inhabitants of growing burghs and of fishermen in their villages. I should like to put in a word for agricultural labourers, on whose behalf I think the County Councils should have power to acquire land for the erection of small holdings. There is a rising demand for these small holdings, and what I desire is that the County Councils should have power to acquire large farms and to divide them into small holdings for the encouragement of ploughmen and agricultural labourers.
MR. MARK STEWART: But supposing the County Councils have the power and divide these large farms; how is the capital to be supplied to equip and cultivate the farms and provide dwellings on each? Is all this outlay to be provided from the rates? If the Lord Advocate gives way too much to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House there will be a strong feeling excited in Scotland against the Government and also
448
against the Bill. I, therefore, hope that the Government will remain firm.
MR. S. WILLIAMSON (&c): I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in carrying out his good intentions in the promised clause, will have regard to the question of buildings. I will not add anything to what has been said in reference to fishing villages, though it is a subject in which I take a deep interest. I would back up the appeal of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness in favour of giving the Councils power to take land for purposes of public utility. There are in East Fife many rising towns chafing under these hide-bound conditions, to which the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries referred. There was an instance not long since in which the only landowner in the town refused to grant a site for a Town Hall. Why should the opinion of one man be able to oppose the wishes and necessities of an entire community? I trust the Government will give consideration to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member, with a view to allowing County Councils to take land for purposes of public utility, subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland.
MR. THORBURN: I join in the appeal, and though we are very grateful for the concession as regards allotments, that is of less importance than the building question. The conditions of farm labour in Scotland differ from those in England, and do not allow the labourers so much time for allotment cultivation. Still there is a limited demand, and it will encourage the cultivation of gardens, an object much to be desired. The provision as to allotments will meet a limited demand; but there is a great grievance in the fact that the extension of industries in burghs is impeded by the refusal of landowners to grant feus. It would be for the advantage of the public if the County Council were empowered to acquire land for purposes of public utility, as suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Inverness; and I hope that on the Report the Lord Advocate will introduce some provision of the kind.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I shall be grateful to the Government for conceding the powers to the Council in regard to allotments, providing they

449
give us something agreeable to the feelings of Scotchmen on this matter. I hope the Lord Advocate knows what he means when he speaks about allotments. I have been very much exercised in my mind to know what an allotment is. We do not know the word in Scotland, and I think, when we find out what it means, we shall say we do not want it. What we want in Scotland is houses with gardens attached. For the great majority of the working men one acre of land with a house on it would be enough. In England I find people are forbidden to build on allotments. I say, then, that if allotments are restricted to what they are in England they will not satisfy our demand. If, however, you can give the County Councils power to take land in the neighbourhood of populous places in Scotland, and to establish allotments of not more than one acre and with houses built on them, it will be an enormous boon; and we shall not only have half a loaf, but, for practical purposes, three parts of a loaf. Building feus are very important things indeed, but I want to go a little beyond them, and have feus of land suitable for garden cultivation and on which houses can be built. I hope the Government will see their way to bring up the clause before the supplemental part of the Bill goes through Committee, because it may be a very difficult thing to adjust the proposal to Scotch habits and Scotch wishes.
Dr. McDONALD: I hope in framing the clause the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will not adopt the limitations proposed by my hon. Friend. We find in the North of Scotland that the limitations introduced into the Crofters Bill have ruined the whole system, and the Act has not succeeded in consequence. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will take very good care that the County Councils are not allowed to be so stupid as to ask for land which it is not proper they should ask for.
The Committee proceeded to a Division.
The Tellers being come to the Table, Dr. Clark, Member for Caithness, informed the Chairman that Five Members in the Aye Lobby had not been counted. The Chairman asked if there were any Members who claimed to record their Vote?
450
Whereupon Mr. Spencer Balfour, Mr. Thomas Ellis, Mr. William Sinclair, and Mr. Patrick Joseph O'Brien, came to the Table, and claimed to record their Votes. The Chairman inquired of each Member whether he had been in the House and had heard the Question put, and they severally stated that they had been in the House and had heard the Question put, and that they desired to record their Votes to the Ayes.
The Chairman directed the Tellers to add their Votes to the Ayes.
The Tellers reported the numbers accordingly; Ayes 99, Noes 128.—(Div. List, No. 208).
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I beg to move that the 23rd Clause be put forward until after the consideration of the Local Government (Scotland) Supplementary Provisions Bill.
Motion made, "That the 23rd Clause be postponed until after the consideration of the Local Government (Scotland) Supplementary Provisions Bill."
Question put, and agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS BILL (No. 188)
Clause 1.
Amendment proposed, Clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out "December," and insert "February."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I beg to propose the next Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment proposed, Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out "eighty-nine," and insert "ninety, and on the first Tuesday of December in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson).
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BARCLAY: I think it would be much more convenient to have the election in November than in December.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is referring to the first Amendment. That has now been passed over.
MR. BUCHANAN: The question which my hon. Friend refers to arises partly on this Amendment, which relates to the time of the election after the first election. Midwinter would be an exceedingly inconvenient time for the County Council elections to be held, and particularly in the Highlands, where the electors often have to make long journeys in order to record their votes. I shall be inclined to support any proposal that may be made for holding the elections at a more sensible time of the year.
MR. BARCLAY: I move to leave out "December" in order to insert "November." There is in my constituency a strong feeling that the month of December would be very unsuitable for the election, and particularly for those who enjoy the service franchise. I do not see why the county elections should not take place at the same time as those in the towns, and I think the first Tuesday in November would be much more satisfactory than the date proposed.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to leave out "December" in order to insert "November."
Question proposed, "That the word 'December' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
DR. CLARK: I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. I happened many years ago to be elected on a Tuesday in December, and the result was that we had to wait for three days to get the ballot-boxes in on account of a snowstorm, and it was impossible for a number of voters to get to the mainland to record their votes. In many burghs men had to be imported to act as polling clerks, and if the county elections took place about the same time these people could be utilized with very little increased cost to the county.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This, of course, is entirely a matter of convenience and detail, but I am afraid that November would be too early for the election. One of course sees that the further we get into winter the less convenient the election will be. But the Parliamentary roll is just ready by the 1st of November. Now, in burghs, where the roll is
452
always accessible, the election can take place at once. But you have to consider the case of the more scattered counties, and I do not think you could have the election before December, as the roll is not ready until November. There is another matter to consider. By an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay), the Town Councils are to elect their representatives to the County Councils. It is quite clear that it must he the fresh Town Council that should elect, and the fresh Town Council is not itself appointed until November.
MR. BARCLAY: I wish to point out that under the Bill as now worded, there will be in police burghs two separate elections, one for Police Commissioners in November, and another for County Councils in December. The difficulty which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just suggested is not a serious one, because the Amendment I proposed, and which was agreed to, was that the County Councillors should be elected in burghs at the first meeting of the new Town Council.
MR. FIRTH: I should like to say that in the interests of uniformity, as both the municipal and County Council elections in England and the municipal elections in Scotland are in November, I think it will be well to make the County Council elections in Scotland in the same month, but later in that month.
MR. CALDWELL: The roll ought to be ready in all parts of the county on the third Tuesday in November, and that would get rid of the difficulty that would otherwise be caused by farm labourers removing on the 26th of November.
MR. BARCLAY: I hope the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will consider the question before Report, and if so I will withdraw my Amendment.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I cannot undertake to reopen the question of County Councillors being elected by police burghs, because it was very fully considered by the Committee, but we will see if we can do anything to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen with regard to the date.
Question put, and agreed to.
Other Amendments made.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2.
On the Motion of Mr. J. P. B. Robertson the following Amendments were agreed to:—In page 3, line 1, leave out "in," and insert "for;" page 31 lines 4 and 5, leave out "County Council," and insert "returning officer;" page 3, line 5, after "appoint," add—
"Provided that, if the returning officer shall so determine, the county electors for two or more electoral divisions may, by public notice timeously given, be directed to poll at the same polling place, and such place shall be conveniently situated for the majority of such county electors."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I wish to ask the Lord Advocate whether the proposal to omit this clause will not cause some obscurity in connection with Clause 4. I wish to know whether the Town Council at large will elect the County Councillors, or whether as, in the case of the School Board, it will be one or more votes for one man?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The point is worth considering, whether there should be as many votes as candidates.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON moved, Clause 5, page 4, line 10, before "or," insert "non-acceptance of office."
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is it not desirable to make some definition as to the time in which an elected Member should accept?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think that is provided for by a subsequent clause.
MR. FIRTH: When such an election takes place under the Bill of last year, no vacancy is to be filled up within six months of the triennial election.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. BARCLAY: The Amendment which I now move is to provide that in the event of a vacancy, the election to fill the vacancy shall be by the Council of
454
the burg and not by the County Council.
Amendment proposed, page 10, after "disqualification," insert "of a Councillor not being a Councillor elected by a burgh or police burgh."
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I cannot see that the point is one of great importance. The reason for filling up a vacancy by co-optation is to avoid the expense of such election. I am, however, quite ready to concede the Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. SHIRESS WILL (Montrose, &c.): I only wish to know, in moving this Amendment in my name, whether the Lord Advocate will reconsider the matter to which it refers? I move formally.
Motion made, Clause 5, page 4, line 10, leave out "the County Council," and insert—
"election; and such election shall he held by the same persons and in the same manner as an election to fill an ordinary vacancy, and the person elected shall hold the office until the time when the person in whose place he is elected would regularly have gone out of office, and he shall then go out of office."
Question proposed, "That the words 'the County Council' stand part of the Clause."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press this proposal, as I am unable to assent to it.
MR. SHIRESS WILL: I do not propose, under the circumstances, to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, Clause 5, page 4, line 13, leave out after "county," to end of Clause.—(The Lord Advocate.)—Agreed to.
Motion made Clause 5, page 4, line 13, after "occurred," add—
"and shall remain in office so long only as the person in whose room he was appointed would have remained in office."—(Mr. Hozier.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6, 7, and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9.
Amendment proposed, page 5, line 16, leave out "but," and insert—
"Provided that any district for the purposes of maintaining and managing highways shall also be a district for the purpose of the administration of the laws relating to public health, and."—(The Lord Advocate.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed, page 5, line 38, after "burgh," insert—
"And shall be held to have contained according to the census of 1881 a population of more than 7,000."—(Mr. Hozier.)
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment, which I do not think at all necessary, as the matter is dealt with in a special clause.
MR. HOZIER: That being so, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11.
The following Amendments were agreed to:—Clause 11, page 6, line 14, leave out "a county," and insert "from and after the passing of this Act, counties and burghs; "lines 14 and 15, leave out "it has at the passing of this Act," and insert—
"They respectively have, or in the case of counties still subject to local Acts of Parliament regulating highways will have, after the appointed day:"
Lines 15 and 16, leave out "County General Assessment (Scotland) Act, 1868," and insert "'Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878;'" Amendment proposed, line 20, before "boundary," insert—
"Sheriff in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine, and thereafter the."—(The Lord Advocate,)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. D. CRAWFORD: This is a question of which it may truly be said that it is in no sense a Party question, and I am confident if the Government see their way to accept my suggestion they will do so. From information which has reached me from various quarters I am fully persuaded that the creation of expensive machinery to deal with the boundary question is totally
456
unnecessary. I think the duty may very well be entrusted or future years—just as it is proposed for the first year—to the Sheriff. There is one consideration to which I should like to draw the attention of the Lord Advocate,, and that is as regards the adjustment of the difficult question of expenses as between county and burgh. Now, in the distribution of the local taxation licences we propose that some system shall be devised for throwing them into a common fund, and thus the question of expenses would not arise. Of course, if this question remained, it might prove one of the best defences of the proposal for the appointment of a Boundary Commission. But we hope that this thorny question of expenses and interest as between burgh and county will not arise, but that the licences will be dealt with on some general principle. Is it not the fact that the Boundary Commissioners in England have found their duties to be exceptionally light? I am sure the Government would not appoint the Boundary Commissions simply for the purpose of creating a few offices; and I would earnestly ask them to consider whether the Sheriff could not do the work sufficiently well under proper precautions.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Upon this subject I may point out to the hon. Gentleman that the duties of the Commissioners will only arise when the boundaries of a burgh run into two counties, or where it is a dispute as to the boundaries of two counties. In such a matter it is evident you must, for the determination of the question, have a tribunal which stands entirely outside the county, and that a Sheriff certainly does not do. Take the ease of a boundary to be rectified between two counties. Each county has a Sheriff; which Sheriff is to decide the dispute; or, if both are to adjudicate, who is to be the umpire? If you are to have Sheriffs entirely outside the counties, why then that is only the Boundary Commission under another name. Already questions have arisen which will require very close examination, and it will be better to have an absolutely impartial body than to entrust the duty to an official who already has considerable duties to perform.
MR. D. CRAWFORD: It seems to me that this is a question for the discre-

457
tion of the Government; but I think it my duty to point out that in the opinion of many of us on this side of the House the proposal would mean a very unnecessary expenditure of public money, and that the duties might be very much more economically performed.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This is a matter, as has been said, very much for the discretion of the Government. It is also a matter of experience, and it has been pointed out that the Boundary Commissioners appointed under the English Bill of last year have found their duties not nearly as heavy as was anticipated by the House. If that be so, I really think it is worth while for the Government to consider whether all this expense and machinery for a special Boundary Commission is necessary. I attach the greatest importance to the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. D. Crawford), because he was himself a Boundary Commissioner under the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act of a year or two ago, so that he must be well aware of the work which will come before the Commission. My hon. Friend thinks it may be possible to dispense with the creation of this body, and I really hope that his views will be taken into consideration. I do not think there would be much difficulty in arranging that the question of boundaries should be settled by the Sheriff, especially as the Boundary Commissioners would be men with no knowledge of the locality.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This is entirely a matter of administrative arrangement. It is desirable, however, that the work of settling the boundaries should be settled by persons who are entirely impartial. Nothing I have heard in the Debate has removed the impression from my mind that the appointment of a Boundary Commission is the best plan of settling these questions. On the question of expense, it may be observed that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite is right in thinking that the amount of work will be light, the expense will be correspondingly light. No doubt also the people concerned would look with more confidence on an impartial body of men than they would on the Local Authorities.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. DUFF: The next Amendment, standing on the Paper in my name, is drawn after consultation with the Road Trustees of the County of Aberdeen and the County of Moray, and has received their approval. It is only a temporary provision intended to be in force until the Boundary Commissioners define the boundaries of counties. The Bill as it stands at present presents an anomaly in this respect—that taxation and representation do not necessarily go together; but, according to this Amendment, certain members of both parties would not be represented on the County Council. But I think that objection can be overcome by a subsequent Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour.)
Amendment proposed, Clause 11, page 6, line 21, at end, add—
"Where the boundary of a road district has been fixed under a Local Road Act, passed prior to the General Road Act of 1878, the existing boundary so defined in said Local Act shall continue in force for all rating purposes for the maintenance and management of roads and bridges, notwithstanding any provisions in this Act to the contrary."—(Mr. Duff.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I must own that there is great reason why care should be taken not to disturb an arrangement which has been ratified by Parliament, and which is found to be most convenient. If, however, we were to adopt the course suggested in the Amendment we should, as it were, divorce the administration of the roads from the administration of other county affairs. Then the question arises, what electorate is to determine in the one question and the other. Are they to be the same or different? I have carefully considered the problem involved in the Amendment, and I think a solution may be found in the action of the Joint Committee appointed by the two counties. Whether that be so or not, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I completely sympathize with the object he has in view, and in one way or other I am quite certain we shall attain it.
MR. DUFF: If the Amendment be withdrawn will the right hon. Gentleman bring up a clause to carry out the object in view?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I will either do that or enable the hon. Gentleman to make a proposal of his own if he differs from me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12.
Amendment proposed, Clause 12, page 6, line 24, after "counties," insert "so far as expedient."—(Mr. J. B. Balfour.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment proposed, Clause 12, page 6, line 25, after "counties," insert "or parishes."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
Question proposed, "That those words lie there inserted."
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask whether the Boundary Commissioners are to deal with the question of burghs wholly within one county? I think the Lord Advocate is aware that one of the burghs in my constituency is very unfortunately situated, and there are others in much the same position—the Parliamentary and Royal burghs differing entirely in their extent. The Boundary Commissioners I am afraid would not have power to deal with a question of this sort.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: No, Sir; that would not fall within the scope of the Boundary Commission. The Committee has already decided that the municipal boundary is to decide the area of the burgh—that is to say, where the Parliamentary burgh differs from the municipal boundary the latter shall prevail.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the Lord Advocate state the names of the Commissioners?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: No, Sir; I cannot just now. I think it will be perfectly satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman if I do so on Report.
DR. CAMERON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some indication of the number of the Commissioners, and of the character of the Commission?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think a very small number will be sufficient. It seems well that there should be a very limited number, so that there may be concentrated action on the part of all of them.
DR. CAMERON: How will the Commission be composed? Will there be a mixture of the legal and engineering elements?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I do not think the legal element ought to preponderate. My impression is that the Commission ought to be one consisting of business men, who would deal with the matter on intelligible as well as scientific principles.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14.
The following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 8, line 5, after "parishes," leave out "and," and insert "or;" line 6, after "burgh," insert "or to group parishes or parts of parishes;" lines 7 and 8, leave out "parishes or police burghs," and insert "districts formed under the provisions of this Act;" line 14, after "equal," insert "but subject always to the provisions of this Act."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
MR. J. B. BALFOUR: The primary idea of the publication required by the clause is, no doubt, that the matter should become known to all persons interested, and for this purpose local newspapers are unquestionably useful. But there are reasons that also render it desirable that there should be publication in the Edinburgh Gazette. Thus there are railways in Scotland which traverse 1,200 miles of country, and it cannot be expected that their officials should read all the local newspapers published in the country so traversed, while they could read the Edinburgh Gazette. I move my Amendment.
Amendments proposed, page 8, line 17, after "in," insert "the 'Edinburgh Gazette,' and in;" page 8, line 17, after "such," insert "other."
Amendments agreed to.
MR. HOZIER: The Edinburgh Gazette may be very interesting reading, but it is not much read, either by my

461
constituents or by me, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not object to my Amendment in line 21.
Amendment proposed, page 8, line 21, after "Gazette," add "and once in each of two successive weeks in some one and the same newspaper circulating in the district."
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
DR. CAMERON: Perhaps the Lord Advocate can now give us some general idea of the line upon which these County Councils should be constituted. It will be remembered that at an earlier stage of the first Bill my hon. Friend the Member for North Lanark brought the matter forward, and a Division was taken on the general question whether the divisions of the county for electoral purposes should be scheduled in the Bill. It was promised then that there should be laid before the House information as to the general rules that would be followed. It was stated that there was a general idea that the number of Councillors should be about 60. I think before we pass away from this clause we should have some general idea of what are the Government proposals on this point.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am not aware that whatever may be the number decided upon any modification of this clause will be necessary. I shall certainly be prepared at a very early stage to give the information.
Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Before the Bill leaves Committee?
Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes, certainly. We have been making sufficient progress to justify a hope that we may get through the Bill to-night; but I shall be prepared to report Progress before the Bill is finished, to allow of the statement being made.
Dr. CAMERON: For the right hon. Gentleman to ask us to accede to this clause laying down instructions to the Sheriff without any information on the point, is "rather a large order," to use a common expression.
MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: Will the statement be a verbal one?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I hope to make a verbal statement in such a
462
form that it shall be perfectly intelligible.
DR. CLARK: I think it was understood, from the President of the Local Government Board, that a statement should be submitted which, if the Committee desired, should be scheduled in the Bill.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am in the recollection of the Committee, but certainly no such pledge was given that the statement should be scheduled in the Bill.
DR. CAMERON: I think the arrangement was that the statement should be laid upon the Table, and when any member of the Committee could have an opportunity of moving that it be scheduled in the Bill.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: To that I calmly adhere. I will undertake that the Bill shall be laid on the Table before the Bill leaves Committee. We shall present it for information with the hope that it may find acceptance, but it will be open to the Committee to make any suggestion on the information supplied.
MR. J. C. BOLTON: Will the numbers of the Councils be approximately equal, because the circumstances of the counties vary very much?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member will observe the effect of the words, subject always to the provisions of this Act. A general view will be taken of the whole circumstances, and having regard to all the matters referred to, you reach a standard of equality, and, according to this, you make them as far as possible approximately equal.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 15.
The following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 8, lines 23 and 24, leave out "of each county;" line 26, after "in," insert "section 14 and sub-section (1) of;" line 31, after "Gazette," insert—
"And once in each of two successive weeks in some one and the same newspaper circulating in the district;"
Line 35, after "Acts," insert—
"(4.) All expenses properly incurred by the Sheriff under this Section shall be deemed to be part of the expense of making up the register of county electors, and be defrayed and provided for accordingly."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16.
The following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 8, line 39, leave out after "and," to "or," inclusive, in line 40; line 41, before "and," insert "and parishes;" page 9, line 1, after "may," insert—
"If the Commissioners shall, in the whole circumstances of the case, deem it necessary or expedient."
Line 2, after "and," insert "that;" line 2, after the second "county," insert "or parish."
Amendments agreed to.
Amendment proposed, page 9, line 8, after "provided," insert—
"Provided that in determining any alteration of boundaries the Commissioners shall take into account how far the proposed alterations may affect the revenues of the districts concerned; and shall hear any County or Local Authorities affected by any such proposed alteration before determining the same."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: If it were not for local circumstances, I should have accepted this unsuspiciously; but anything that comes from that extremely controversial legion around Glasgow raises suspicion at once. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that he should omit the words from "take" in the second line down to "shall."
Sir A. CAMPBELL assented.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following further Amendments were agreed to:—
Page 9, line 8, after "provided," insert,
" Provided that in determining any alteration of boundaries the Commissioners shall hear any County or Local Authorities affected by any such proposed alteration before determining the same."
Page 9, line 25. leave out "scheme," and insert "order."
Page 9, lines 29 and 30, leave out "have effect only as," and insert "be deemed to be."
Page 9, line 35, leave out "referred to a Select Committee," and insert "deemed to be."
Clause 17.
Amendment proposed, page 11, line 4, before "adjustment," insert "any."—(The Lord Advocate.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18.
On the Motion of the Lord Advocate, the following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 11, line 22, after "number," insert "of county councillors, the number"; line 28, leave out "small."
On the Motion of Sir John Kinloch the following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 11, line 28, after "parishes," insert "or parts of parishes; "line 29, after "parishes," insert "or parts of parishes;" line 30, after "parishes," insert" or parts of parishes."
MR. CRAWFORD: I have an Amendment to propose which does not appear on the Paper. I am not quite certain whether this is a popular Amendment and I daresay some parishes will much object to be grouped with others for rating purposes. But I feel very strongly that in many cases it is desirable to enlarge the area of rating and therefore I have no hesitation in submitting this Amendment to the judgment of the Committee. There is one observation which might be made by way of objection to this Amendment, and that is that the Secretary for Scotland is already empowered on the petition of a County Council to unite certain parishes for these purposes. There are many parts of Scotland in which I admit it would not be expedient to put this Amendment in force. But there are other parts where the parishes are so numerous and so small that obviously they do not form a convenient area for rating purposes, and we have long been anxious in those cases to have an opportunity of enlarging the rating area. Now, this proposal is guarded in the Bill itself by two precautions. One is, that the Secretary for Scotland can only take action on the petition of the County Council, which is responsible for the district affected; and the other is that no alteration in the boundaries can take effect except it is contained in a Provisional Order, which must be ratified by Act of Parliament. I think the importance of maintaining the independence of small parishes is so great that unless we had these two securities—the security of origin and that of confirma-

465
tion—I should not take the responsibility of making this proposal to the Committee. Under the circumstances, however, I would urge upon the Lord Advocate the importance of giving some legislative. assistance for the enlargement of areas of rating when it is necessary.
Amendment proposed, Clause 18, page 11, line 32, to insert a new subsection with a view to uniting all the parishes and school districts within a county district into one area of rating.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. and learned Member has given evidence of the great interest he takes in this subject; and I am not surprised—after the Debate we had last Friday—that he should have brought forward this Amendment. But I must point out that he is stepping outside the province of this Bill by entering into the region of rating areas for purely parochial rates. I do not see how we can very well vest the District Committees of the County Councils with the duty of raising rates over the administration of which they will have no control whatever. At present it will be observed that we leave the administration of the school and parochial rates to the School Board and Parochial Board respectively. We do not transfer those duties to the County Councils; and I do not see by what logic or reason you can make the District Committee of the County Council—which has nothing to do with these rates—the rating authority for them. I agree that it may be desirable to unite parishes, in some instances, for the collection of rates; but that must be done on considerations which are entirely separate from those now before the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman is pursuing a more ambitious course than we necessarily find it possible to adopt.
MR. CRAWFORD: The Bill itself transfers certain duties and rates of the Parochial Boards, and I thought I was only following out that principle when I made this proposal. It would be possible—if the Lord Advocate preferred it—not to make the District Committee the rating authority, but I do not think that my proposal is unreasonable, seeing that each of the Parochial Boards would be represented on
466
the District Committee. Still, if the Lord Advocate will approve of my Amendment to the extent of saying there ought to be a wider rating authority, I shall be content to leave it in that position.
MR. BARCLAY: I am afraid that the proposal of my hon. Friend is premature. The great object of the present Bill is that each County Council shall determine the district which is most suitable for administration and rating, and when we have attained that end, then it will be time enough to try and secure uniform rating for all purposes over the district. The great difficulty in dealing with the question of county government is the inequality of the rating area, and the desire is to break up the county into suitable districts for administration and uniformity of rating. I hope that the County Councils, after some experience, will be able to divide the counties into districts and areas most suitable for uniformity of rating and administration, and then when they have gained sufficient experience, we could have a Bill to amalgamate the whole administration under the District Committee with uniform assessment and a consolidated rate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19.
DR. FARQUHARSON: I wish to introduce a word in this clause which will, however, have the important effect of making the clause compulsory instead of permissive.
Amendment proposed, page 12, line 27, leave out "may, if they see fit," and insert "shall, except where otherwise allowed by Board of Supervision, from time to time."
MR. MARK STEWART: My Amendment, which follows, will have practically the same effect. My experience is that unless you make the carrying out of these powers of appointing medical officers and sanitary inspectors compulsory, few Boards will take the trouble to enforce them.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This is certainly an Amendment of great importance, and I have very great sympathy with the objects disclosed by the hon. Members. But at the same

467
time, I do not think it would be wise for the Bill to, in so many words, compel the County Council to equip a full sanitary staff. I think it is quite sufficient to give them a broad hint that it is their duty—except under exceptional circumstances—to appoint a medical officer and sanitary inspector. It is wise to give a stimulus to sanitary organization throughout the country, but doubt if it is wise to proceed by compulsion. Still in order to enlist the active co-operation of the County Councils, I think it would be as well to use more general terms.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Of course, we have always been taught to understand that the word "may" in an Act of Parliament means "shall," and if the Lord Advocate consents to the omission of the words, "if they see fit," thus leaving the word "may," and agree also that that shall be taken as meaning "shall," I shall be quite content. But he speaks of "exceptional circumstances" in which the County Council may be placed in regard to the appointments of medical officers. Now, I cannot conceive any such exceptional circumstances. Upon what occasions can it possibly be that it will not be the duty of a County Council to appoint a medical officer, and a sanitary inspector? Are there any conceivable reasons why a county should be left without this sanitary organization? I do not believe there are any such exceptional circumstances, or any grounds whatever for such a suggestion, and therefore I am quite prepared to support my hon. Friend in insisting on the use of the imperative phrase.
MR. FINLAY: I apprehend that my hon. Friend the Lord Advocate will hardly say that the word "may" means "must." There was an idea abroad for some time, such as has been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs, that the word "may" in an Act of Parliament meant "must" or "shall," but it has recently been decided by the highest tribunal that the word "may" means nothing else but "may," and not "shall," and it is only where some antecedent duty of exercising certain functions exists that the word "may" can be construed as imposing a duty.
SIR W. FOSTER: The object of the Amendment before the Committee is, I take it, to insure that the exercise of these powers shall be compulsory. In the past, permissive legislation has not proved satisfactory in Scotland. We have very few Medical Officers of Health there, and we want to insure that there shall be a complete sanitary organization in every county, and that the establishment of that organization shall be one of the primary duties which the Local Authorities will' be compelled to carry out. We think it is essential for the health of the community and for the general well-being of a district that this should be done. I can quite understand that the Lord Advocate has in his mind the case of some of the smaller counties, and that he thinks that the compulsory appointment of these officials would be to them a matter of considerable expense. But there is no reason why these smaller counties should not unite for the appointment of a thoroughly efficient officer for the combined districts. We believe that medical officers appointed under these circumstances have much greater influence as sanitary advisers than if they are appointed for smaller areas. The experience gained under the Local Government Act passed last year, affords an additional reason for making this provision compulsory. Up to the present time only a small number of counties in England have taken it upon themselves to exercise this power of appointing Medical Officers of Health, and we hold that it would be better for the sanitary condition of the country if every County Council would; carry out the objects of this provision.
MR. FIRTH: There is still another reason to which I wish the attention of the Lord Advocate to be drawn. Under Section 20 District Sanitary Officers will be responsible to the County Councils, and it is obviously necessary that the County Councils should have an officer qualified to advise them, otherwise the-Reports of the sanitary officers would be useless.
DR. CLARK: I hope that in this-case the Lord Advocate will adopt the Amendment. I think each county should appoint as medical officer a man who will devote his entire time to the work. But still, it would be pos-

469
sible for two or three small counties to combine in order to secure the services of a thoroughly efficient medical officer. I do not see why the Lord Advocate should object to this Amendment, unless, indeed, it is desired—and unless also it is the intention of the Government—to permit some counties not to appoint medical officers and sanitary inspectors. If that is their desire, then by all means let us make the clause permissible; but if it is the intention of the House and the Government that there shall be in every county a medical officer of health and sanitary inspector, then we ought to adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Our desire was rather to leave the counties to take the initiative in this matter, but the expression of opinion which we have had to-night shows that this is one of those prominent questions upon which we ought to take the liberty of directing the action of the County Councils. That being so, the Government have no desire to stand in the way of so peremptory an indication of opinion as has come from hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Caithness has pointed out what may prove a practical difficulty in the way of enforcing this provision in some of the smaller counties, and we shall have to consider whether there cannot be some modification of the clause in the direction he has indicated. It is possible that there may be counties in which some arrangement might be agreed upon other than restricting the medical officer to the work of his office. It might be possible, for instance, to find some method of arranging for the suspension of the prohibition as to private employment, with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland. Under these circumstances, the Government will not offer any opposition to the substitution of the word "shall" for "may."
DR. FARQUHARSON: I think the difficulty could best be met by empowering two or three small counties to combine together for the appointment of a medical officer. It is constantly done in England, and the system has been found to work extremely well, for by means of it the services of highly qualified men have been obtained, and that is much better than getting a little snip of the time of an already over-worked
470
practitionor, who may be elected to discharge the duties in a smaller area.
MR. BARCLAY: In my opinion, it is desirable that there should be at least one officer for each county. I think it would be unfortunate to have too large districts.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed, "That the Clause as amended, stand part of the Bill."
SIR W. FOSTER: I should like to call attention to the fact that a a very important Amendment is left out with reference to the Sanitary Inspector and I move to insert after "Council,"
"Provided always that the Sanitary Inspector or Sanitary Inspectors under the Act shall he subordinate to the Medical Officer of the district or county to which they are appointed."
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The introduction of these words might lead to complications with regard to Inspectors in towns. I have no doubt that the Sanitary Inspectors who would be in the service of the County Council would more or less be under the Scientific and Chief Officer of the Staff.
DR. FARQUHARSON: (Aberdeenshire, W.) It is rather a pity the Amendment is not accepted, as we might have made the Inspector work in harmony with the Medical Officer. I think it is a great pity that it should not be definitely laid down that the opinion of the Medical Officer should be made paramount and supreme, and that the Sanitary Inspector should be made a secondary person.
MR. CALDWELL: If the Sanitary Inspector should be made subordinate to the Medical Officer, you would interpose a difficulty in the way of prosecutions under the Public Health Act.
MR. FINLAY: The words are so very vague that I do not know whether they could be used.
SIR W. FOSTER: The difficulty will be more and more felt as time goes on. If the officers are independent of one another, you will be liable to their clashing in sanitary work, which will be made exceedingly difficult, and perhaps inoperative. However, I will withdraw the Amendment, and leave

471
it to the discretion of the County Council.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20.
Amendment proposed, page 13, line 10, leave out "periodical."—Agreed to.
Amendment proposed, page 13, line 13, leave out from "Board" to end of Clause.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. FIRTH: Where is the control of the County Council over the District Authority if these words be left out? If the Report is not sent in, the contribution is not made.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: My objection is that it is very undesirable to fix the penalty which is to be paid. My opinion is that it should be open to the supervision of the official charged with a public duty to mete out the penalty which should attach to the offence. I think you had better not consider a case of the kind on the ultima ratio of consequences to the defaulter.
MR. FIRTH: We are working under this clause at the present time, and it is important to see why this alteration should be made. The chief object of appointing the Medical Officer to the County Council is that there should be a central control over the Reports from the districts.
DR. CLARK: Supposing a Report is not sent in, and suppose the Council were, not to dismiss the official, the Council would, therefore, be compelled to see that the Reports were sent in. It seems to me that would be a strong inducement to the District Committees to see that the Reports were sent in to the County Council.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: On the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire we have struck out the word "periodical," and accordingly the Reports will go before the County Council. I think that makes it still more undesirable that we should lay down a peremptory rule. In every ease where there was a failure to report, the County Council would stop the allowance for salary. On the whole, it would be
472
much better that the authority of the County Council should be maintained, less by specific threats than by some such course as I have alluded to.
MR. CALDWELL: The effect of this Amendment is to leave out the whole of Sub-section 2.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. FIRTH: These words "from any such Report" seem to govern the whole of the clause; and if that be so, then the County Council must judge of the sanitary state of the district from report only.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: There is something in what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. I would suggest that after "Council," the words "from any such Report" be left out, and then the clause would read generally.
MR. FIRTH: Yes, that would meet the case.
Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21.
MR. HOZIER*MR. HOZIER moved, Clause 21, page 13, line 24, leave out from "board" to "allow," in line 26, and insert "County Council shall expressly otherwise determine."
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
DR. CLARK: I rise for the purpose of getting some information from the Lord Advocate. The clause states that no person shall be appointed who has not qualified for surgery, sanitary science, and midwifery. The latter qualification I consider necessary. The Irish College, I believe, used to give a certificate for midwifery. I think what is really meant is that in all cases a regular medical practitioner shall be appointed, and it is very important to determine whether you intend in the future to compel every Medical Officer of Health to qualify in sanitary science. No man, in my opinion, ought to hold such a position unless he has studied sanitary science. I should like,

473
however, to hear from the Lord Advocate what is the principle underlying this section.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The intention is merely that the Medical Officer shall be a person qualified to practice in all branches of the medical profession. The matter was discussed on the English Bill, and it has been thought right that this provision should be made in the Bill for Scotland.
MR.F.S.POWELL: Having taken a strong interest in the English Bill, I would say that the idea of this clause is the same as that of the English provisions which were introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Sir L. Playfair), who is known to be an eminent authority on such questions.
SIR W. FOSTER: I remember what took place on the English Bill, as I myself placed the clauses on the Paper, which were moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, according to the Act of 1886. The present state of the law is that all medical men on the register shall be qualified in medicine, surgery, and midwifery. I think it would be better if the Lord Advocate would allow two or three years to elapse before insisting upon the full qualification in sanitary science, seeing that in Scotland there is no absence of qualification in midwifery.
MR. HOZIER: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following Amendments were made:—Page 13, line 28, omit "midwifery," in order to insert the words "sanitary science or public health;" page 13, line 39, leave out "fifty," in order to insert "thirty"—(Dr. frarquharson); page 14, line 5, leave out "from the district," to "thousand," in line 7.—(Mr. M. Stewart).
Clauses, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: This is an excellent clause, but I do not think it will be quite effective as it at present stands,
474
seeing that burghs are often the offenders in the matter of river pollution, and that the County Councils will not be able to touch the burghs. I would propose in line 23 to insert after the word "counties," to insert "and burghs." By this Amendment the Secretary for Scotland will have power to assent to joint applications for Provisional Orders from the counties and burghs affected. In this way you would deal with a river throughout the whole of a county, and would not exempt from the operation of the clause that part of a river running through a burgh.
Amendment moved, page 14, line 23, after "counties," insert "and burghs."—(Sir G. Campbell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the Act of 1876, which confers on every Sanitary Authority in Scotland the power of enforcing the Rivers Pollution Act. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the Parochial Boards within the burghs are the Sanitary Authorities; therefore the burghs themselves have the power to enforce the Act. In this clause we propose merely to make County Councils another authority having power to enforce the Act. It would be altogether superfluous to give the burghs in this clause a power they already possess.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I only propose to amend Sub-section 3 by providing for the appointment of a Joint Committee.
MR. J. B. BALFOUR: The objection is that it would give a Joint Committee all the powers of a Sanitary Authority, which powers part of the proposed Joint Committee—namely, the burghs—already possess.
MR. CALDWELL: Take the case of a river that passes through a burgh, which burgh pollutes the stream. If that burgh is a Sanitary Authority who ought to enforce the Rivers Pollution

475
Act, you are not likely to get anything done. In such a case it would be desirable that the power of enforcing the Rivers Pollution Act throughout the whole county should be vested in the County Council. This power the County Council would have under the Amendment.
Question put, and negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 23.
Amendment moved, page 14, line 36, after the first "of," insert "promoting or."—(Mr. Hozier.)
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I cannot accept this Amendment. The hon. Member will see that according to the provision in page 23, line 8, the County Council will have power to promote a Bill for the purpose of confirming a Provisional Order made in pursuance of the Act. That will vest the County Councils with the powers that any County or Burgh Authority no w possesses in regard to promoting Bills. I do not think, however, that this Committee would approve of giving County Councils power to promote Bills generally.
MR. FIRTH: This clause is exactly the same as a clause in the Local Government Act of last year. During the passing of that Act through Committee we had a very serious and extensive discussion on this point, and the opinion of the House was very closely divided. We had upon it, I think, the closest division that was taken in the course of the proceedings on the Bill, the clause without the words giving power to promote Bills being carried by a majority of only 8. I myself am of opinion that the Councils ought to have this power. This clause refers to the Act of Parliament that gives power of promotion to various other authorities. It gives this power to municipal burghs—any municipal burgh in England or Scotland has the power—and yet the County Councils which we ought to desire to make as important and powerful as possible are
476
not to possess it. The Act goes further than that, and says that any Local Board, or body of Commissioners, or body of Trustees acting under any general or local Act of Parliament for the lighting; and cleansing of a district may promote Bills; therefore, the power goes down much lower than the County Authorities. This absence of the power to promote Bills in Parliament seems to me to be one of the greatest absurdities in the English Bill, and it is now proposed to extend it to Scotland—this refusal to the County Councils of powers which you give to infinitely less important bodies. I do not think the Lord Advocate has given any reason why the County Councils should not have this power.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 24.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to move in line 13, after the word "county," to insert the words, "or large burgh." I think that, seeing that the county will include the small burghs, the large burghs that stand by themselves should have similar power of making bye-laws.
THE CHAIRMAN: The proposal of the hon. Member would not come within the scope of the Bill, which deals with County Government and not with Local Government.
Amendment moved, Clause 24, page 15, line 15, after "county," insert "for the prevention of vagrancy."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson).
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, Clause 24, page 15, line 23, leave out from "has" to-"and" in line 25.—(Mr. Hozier).
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think it is desirable that when County Councils frame bye-laws the greatest publicity should be given to the changes-made.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I would move the omission of Sub-section 5 in order to ask what its effect will be, because, as I have said, the large burghs being excluded from it, it is difficult to see how these bye-laws can be generally effective.
Amendment moved, "To leave out Sub-section 5."
Question proposed, "That Sub-section 5 stand part of the Clause."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am afraid a very rigorous drafting critic would say that these words are surplus-age, but that is the worst that can be said of them. This clause does not carry us within the sacred precincts of a Scotch burgh.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: Are we to understand that it is not competent for the County Councils to make bye-laws for the smaller burghs without the consent of the Town Councils?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Other Amendments agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25.
Amendment proposed, page 16, line 13, after "appointment," leave out to end of Clause, and insert—
"Or remuneration. Where the Parliamentary area of a county or burgh differs from its area within the meaning of this Act, the Secretary for Scotland may determine which shall be the administrative and rating authority under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts in any portion of such area, and his determination shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have the same force and effect as if it were enacted in this Act: Provided that such determination shall not limit the powers of the Boundary Commissioners under this Act."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26.
The following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 16, line 32, leave out "hereinafter," and insert "hereinbefore."—(Mr. Hozier.)
Page 16, line 37, after "Acts," insert "or for the latter purpose only, as the case may be."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson).
Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
Clause 28.
The following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 17, line 36, leave out "purposes," and after "several," insert, "branches of expenditure;" page 17, line 38, leave out "purpose," and after "several," insert "branch."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
Page 17, line 39, leave out "add," and insert "state."—(Mr. Hozier.)
Page 18, line 8, after "are," insert "under the said annual value or are."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
Amendment moved, page 18, line 9, after "unfurnished," insert "except in respect of the amount payable by the occupier."—{Mr. Mark Stewart.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BARCLAY: I do not think we ought to agree to this. The landlord should pay all the rates as proprietor of the house if it is empty. This may arise through his asking too high a rent for it.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I can sympathize with the hon. Member. Where there is an absolute case of un-occupancy the rate should not fall on the owner; and in that sense the Amendment is quite fair.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 97.—(Div. List, No. 209.)
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30.
Amendment made, page 18, line 39, after "ratepayer," insert "and any officer of Inland Revenue."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31, agreed to.
Clause 32.
Amendments made, page 19, line 12, leave out after "burgh," to "council,"

479
inclusive in line 13.—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
Page 19, line 17, leave out "first," and insert "fifteenth."—(Mr. Hozier.)
Page 19, line 18, leave out after "whatever," to end of Clause.—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33.
Amendments made.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34.
Amendment proposed, page 20, line 27, after "provided," insert—
"And from and after the appointed day all provisions in regard to the audit of accounts of any administrative body whose powers and duties are by this Act transferred to the county council are hereby repealed."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35.
MR. D. CRAWFORD: I beg to move to insert at the beginning of the clause—
"The Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer shall at the request of any county council audit the accounts of such council free of charge. Where such request has not been made."
I need not point out to the Committee that this is an important Amendment in the interest of economy, and also of uniformity. The authorities in Scotch counties are obliged to have a valuing officer who is called an assessor, for the purpose of valuing the land in the county for rating, and some years ago they were empowered, if they thought proper, to avail themselves of the services of the Government officer, who is employed to value land for imperial purposes free of charge. Nearly all the counties in Scotland—all but five or six—have availed themselves of that option, and the system has worked exceedingly well.
Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 28, at the beginning of the clause, to insert—
"The Queen and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer shall at the request of any county
480
council audit the accounts of such council free of charge. Where such request has not been made."—(Mr. Donald Crawford.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BARCLAY: We have now arrived at a point when I think we may conveniently report Progress.
MR. W. H. SMITH: We have made great progress, and I do not object to Progress being reported.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

AUDIT (ARMY AND NAVY ACCOUNTS) BILL. (No. 314.)
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

REVENUE BILL. (No. 315.)
Order for Second Heading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR H. DAVEY: I shall not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but I hope that before the Bill goes into Committee the Government will carefully consider the effect of the 18th clause of the earlier Act. The effect of that clause was to impose the great burden, both on vendors and purchasers of real estate and other property, of having their contracts stamped with an ad valorem stamp corresponding to the whole amount of the consideration money. The 15th Clause of the present Bill, as I read it, makes confusion worse confounded, and increases instead of remedying the burdens of the 18th Clause of the earlier Act. I trust that before the Bill goes into Committee, the Attorney General will be in a position to propose some improvement of the 15th Clause, which will make the Bill more acceptable to the House.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I do not quite agree that Clause 18 imposes burdens on vendors and purchasers of real property. I think that observation goes too far. At

481
the same time I will give my attention to the matter in the interval which elapses between to-day and the Committee stage, and I hope my hon. and learned Friends will give me their assistance in framing a clause to meet any objection.
SIR W. LAWSON: I trust the Committee stage will be taken at a time when we can have full discussion. Clause 25, which relates to the liquor traffic, will cause a good deal of discussion.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL (No. 230)
Order read for the consideration of Lords' Amendment.
THE PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Michael Hicks Beach,): I hope the House will agree to take this Bill now for this special reason, that with the repeal of the London Coal Duty, certain legislation as to the weighing of coal falls to the ground, and it is important that legislation should be substituted in order that the public may not be defrauded.
Lords' Amendment considered, and agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOT LAND) ACT (1883) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 58).
Lords' Amendments agreed to.

TECHNICAL EDUCATION BILL. (No. 27.)
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2.
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE,): As this clause now stands we find that the just claims of the voluntary schools are excluded from the Bill, and with the view of bringing voluntary schools within the scope of the Bill, I have to
482
move the Amendment of which I have given notice. I can only say how deeply I regret that in the many and very long discussions in and out of the House, upon technical education, I can offer to the Committee no more clear solution of this long-standing controversy. It is quite obvious that we, who are supporters of voluntary schools, find it impossible to let the clause stand as it now does, and we consider it our duty to bring these schools within the Bill. I do hope that hon. Members may see fit to accept the Amendment, or that at least the discussion may find some solution of the difficulty, and I am sure the time thus occupied will not be wasted.
Amendment proposed, Page 1, line 9, after the word "board," to insert the words "or Local Authority."
Question proposed, "That the words 'or Local Authority' be there inserted."
SIR HENRY ROSCOE: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether he would consent to postpone this Amendment, because it will be observed there is another Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, which comes later on, and this, I think, we on this side of the House are disposed to accept. It is important to remember that what we have attempted in this Bill is to give aid and assistance in the matter of technical education in ail large centres of industry where School Boards exist and so also we are anxious to do all in. our power to assist voluntary schools in connection with these Board Schools. The Bill of 1887, which the Government introduced, restricted itself to this particular question just as we do now. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible to accept my suggestion and to leave this matter over until we reach the Amendment which stands later.
MR. J. G. TALBOT: I rise to confirm what has been said by my right hon. Friend. I admit the matter is urgent, and I think we are all agreed upon that. But we

483
must take care that in settling the matter we do justice to all sides. But I am hound to point out to those who take such a laudable interest in the matter that this is, as it stands, a one-sided Bill, that it permits technical education only in cases of school sunder School Boards. Now, the supply of elementary education to the country comes from "two sources—from the voluntary schools as well as from the School Board—therefore, I think my right hon. Friend is taking the right and manly course in moving his Amendment. The hon. Member for Manchester refers to the Amendment, which is not under discussion, and so I suppose I should be out of order in dwelling upon it at length. I may, however, say of it that it does not satisfy me or those with whom I am acting on this question—it does not cover cases in which there are no School ^Boards. However, we cannot enter upon the discussion of this controversial point, because the rules of debate do not admit of it. I am as anxious as anybody that an attempt should be made to promote technical education, but I cannot *do so by a Bill which does not deal with equal fairness with the voluntary schools of the country as well as Board Schools.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I trust that the Vice President of the Council will see his way not to insist on the Amendment which he has moved, and which I do not think he supported with any extraordinary warmth of conviction. The subject of technical education has now been so long before the country that it would be very little short of a scandal if we failed to give some expression to what is the almost universally-acknowledged desire, that additional facilities for the promotion of technical education should be given. And it would be much to be regretted if a difference of opinion on a much-controverted subject connected with primary education should be allowed to stand in the way of that important object. The hon. Member
484
for the University of Oxford must be aware that if he insists on raising in connection with this subject the very burning and difficult question of the application of rates to voluntary schools, it is impossible that any Bill on this subject can be passed either in the present Session, or, as far as I can judge, in any Session in which we are not able to devote a very great deal of time to the question. Under these circumstances it is, I think, well worth while for the House to consider whether it is not possible that a compromise such as that which has been indicated by the hon. Member for Manchester might be arrived at. Those who are interested in voluntary schools must be aware that they can hardly hope in the present Parliament, or in any Parliament that we are likely to see for some time to come, that they will be able to apply the direct assistance of rates to voluntary schools, and I ask them to consider whether it is at all probable that within any reasonable period they would obtain a greater concession on the part of the supporters of Board schools than is now within their reach, and also whether, on account of the difference of opinion which has arisen, they will take upon themselves the responsibility of preventing the application of local funds to the promotion of technical education in the face of the expressions of opinion which have proceeded from the localities interested in favour of this Bill. It would be very unfortunate if the industrial centres which desire to devote their local resources in some manner or other to the promotion of technical education should be debarred from doing so owing to what is not a very essential difference between the supporters of voluntary and Board schools respectively.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I am sorry to say, in reply to the noble Lord, that we find the Bill fails in a matter of detail. But I do not think, from the point of view of high principle, that the local rates should not be applied to voluntary schools; and I do not think there is a very great difference between the Amendment as

485
proposed by my right hon. Friend and the compromise which is offered by the hon. Member opposite. Whether the School Board goes to the rates or the voluntary schools go to the rates is not a very great difference of principle; but there is a very great difference of opinion between us as to the fairness with which voluntary schools are treated in the Bill, and, therefore, I hope that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend will be accepted. It is most important because, as the Committee is aware, it is not every parish in England that has a School Board or anything like it; and those parishes that have not, would be excluded from any benefit of technical education that this Bill would give. Apart from that I say, is it desirable that voluntary schools should go hat in hand to the Board and ask to have the advantage of technical education? We know that voluntary schools started in a position of superiority to Board Schools, and they have always been acknowledged to be in a position of equality. We have always thought that it is the Local Authority which should decide whether the School Board should or should not have technical education. We are willing that the School Board should decide for itself whether it should have technical education or not, but not that they should decide for the voluntary schools. It is, I think, a most reasonable Amendment, and I hope it will be insisted upon.
MR. ARTHUR ACLAND: I think, as the noble Lord said just now, that it would be a great misfortune if we were to fail to give the country the advantage of technical education through entering upon this question of the application of rates to voluntary schools. But I may point out that whatever may be the personal opinion of hon. Members opposite that of the Government has been distinctly expressed, and when the Royal Commission proposed that assistance from the rates should be given to voluntary schools, the right hon. Gentleman, on the part of the Government, declared that he did not propose to disturb the settlement arrived at in 1870, by accept-
486
ing that recommendation. Apart from that, the reason why we object to the Amendment, is that this clause is intended to deal entirely with School Board districts, and the discussion should be confined to that question. The Bill proposes to deal only with great centres of industry, and non-School Board districts may be dealt with hereafter. We ask the Vice President of the Council to consider whether he could in lieu of his own Amendment consider with favour that which will be proposed by the hon. Member for Islington later on.
MR. FISHER: We are quite as anxious for a settlement of this question as hon. Member opposite. But if technical education is a good thing, then it is a good thing whether it is engrafted upon School Boards or upon voluntary schools. What hon. Members opposite are endeavouring to secure, is not a triumph for technical education, but for Board Schools. The position may be stated thus; they say:—"Our first is Board Schools; our second is Board Schools; and our whole is Board Schools." Whereas the difference on our side is that we put it this way:—"Our first is voluntary schools; our second is Board Schools, and our whole is technical education." When we find that hon. Members opposite agree in promoting technical education whether it be engrafted upon voluntary schools or upon Board Schools, then we shall be able to support the measure. But until that time comes, until voluntary schools are fairly treated in this respect, we shall oppose any measure of the kind, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will stick to his Amendment.
SIR U. KAY SHUTTLEWORTH: I am sorry to hear the tone of the hon. Member's remarks so different to that in which the Committee was addressed by the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member accuses us of wishing to gain a triumph for the Board Schools; but, indeed, there is no feeling of the kind in any section of the Committee. The

487
feeling of the Committee is expressed, I think, in the words of the Vice President when he desired that we should arrive at a settlement of this question, and that at least, after all these efforts we should make some advance in the matter. The noble Lord opposite admitted that there was no great difference of principle between the suggestion of my noble Friend (Lord Hartington) and that made by the Government. If there is no great difference of principle surely that is one argument why we should try to arrive at an agreement. In the first place rates will be applied directly to the Board Schools, but voluntary schools will benefit by the assistance which School Boards will give in technical instruction for the use of voluntary schools. We cannot advance this Session so far as to secure technical education in parishes where there are no School Boards, but we may make some advance at all events in those parishes where Boards do exist, and if there is no difference of principle between us surely we ought to arrive at a compromise.
MR. GEDGE: As representing a large borough, where there is no School Board, I must protest against the distinction which is to be made in favour of those places, even small parishes, which happen to have a School Board given to them, but taking away from large boroughs like Stockport the advantage of this Bill. As it does not seem possible from the discussion we have had that we shall arrive at any solution of our differences to-night, I move to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)
MR. CHANNING: I would appeal to the hon. Member to allow us to debate the matter a little further. This Bill is desired in all parts of the House, and suggestions may be thrown out in debate which would lead to a working compromise.
MR. F. S. POWELL: I should deeply regret if this debate were brought to an abrupt close. I hope it-will be understood that the differences of opinion that have been displayed do not arise altogether on this side of the House. Many Members on this side are, I am sure, as anxious to promote technical education as any can be on the Opposition Benches.
SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: As a member of a School Board I should like to have this point argued out a little longer in order that ye may be more precisely informed as to the nature of that compromise that has been alluded to by the hon. Member for Manchester and by the noble Lord opposite. How is it to work, this compromise, in School Board districts? [Interruptions.] I think I am entitled to get an answer. It is difficult to carry on a speech by way of conversation; but I think I am in order, for, as I understand the Motion, we should report Progress, and I wish to put forth reasons why we should not yet report Progress while we are imperfectly acquainted with the nature of the compromise which has been alluded to. I should like to know how it will work in School Board districts. I do not know, Sir, whether I should be in order in proceeding further with this question?
THE CHAIRMAN: No.
SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: Well, then, I will not enter into the subject; but I think it is desirable that we should have a little more time in order that we may have an opportunity of considering whether the compromise should be accepted or not.
MR. MOLLOY: Although I do not agree with much that has been said on this side of the House, I am disposed to support the Amendment of the Government. I think we might be allowed to debate the Bill a little longer.
MR. GEDGE: As there seems to be a desire on the part of the Committee

489
to continue the Debate, I will withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. DELISLE: As to the Amendment, I should like some explanation, for I cannot say that I am satisfied with it. It appears to me that the control of Board School remains in the hands of the School Board; but in the Amendment which is proposed it would seem that the managers of voluntary schools are asked to give up part of their control into the hands of the Local Authority. It is the Local Authority that is to determine whether technical education shall be given in the school or not, whereas in the Board Schools the Board itself determines the question. Now, we are anxious to have technical education promoted; but we are not prepared to sacrifice the principle of complete independence which we have always maintained in regard to voluntary schools, and before I agree to the Amendment which has been proposed I should like to have an assurance that the managers of voluntary schools will not be deprived of any of their existing rights.
SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I understand the managers of voluntary schools will have complete control in the question. If they desire to have technical education, they will apply for it, and, on showing cause, obtain it.
MR. DIXON: Perhaps it would be well if I were to give the explanations which have been asked for by some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. The objection we feel to the Amendment of the Government is that it involves the payment of rates to schools which are not managed by representatives of the ratepayers. Now, the compromise that we have to propose is that contributions may be made out of the rates towards the cost of technical education
490
in voluntary schools; but that the management of such technical education should be in the hands of the School Board. Our proposal is that either or both of the two following courses may be taken: the School Board may open a school or class for the giving of technical instruction, which shall be open to scholars from Board Schools and voluntary schools on equal terms, or the Board may send technical instructors into a classroom in a voluntary school, the cost of such instruction to be paid by the School Board, who shall also receive the Government grants, and the said classroom shall be considered to be a School Board classroom whilst the technical teaching is going on. The result of this arrangement would be that in large towns where there are School Boards it would be quite possible to give scientific instruction to boys in voluntary schools. Now, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman raises at once the old difficulty which we settled in 1870, after discussions of great length and vehemence, and I am quite sure that if this Amendment is carried it will raise an amount of strong feeling and of agitation that will very much astonish hon. Gentlemen opposite. I desire to take this opportunity of impressing upon the Government that they are treading upon very delicate and dangerous ground: so long as they merely permit important educational questions to remain in abeyance, the acquiesence of Liberal Unionists will be comparatively easy, but the moment they sanction such reactionary measures as those now proposed strenuous opposition will certainly arise both in this House and in the country.
MR. TOMLINSON: I do not doubt that the hon. Member for Birmingham has sincerely desired to propose a compromise which should be fair to the supporters of the voluntary schools. But he does not appear to have really grasped the difficulties of the question. I have the case of the supporters of voluntary schools in places where there are also School Board schools to be dealt with by those who represent

491
such places. I represent a large industrial population in which there is no School Board. This so-called compromise in no way meets my case, and I decline to accept as satisfactory a proposal which would be inapplicable to the borough I represent, unless they are willing to have the infliction of a School Board forced upon them.
MR. MOLLOY: I am sorry to see this difficult question raised, and I had hoped that we might have passed further into the Bill before we encountered this difficulty. For myself I shall support the proposal of the Government. It must be remembered that there are 163 boroughs in England and Wales which have no School Boards at all, boroughs such as Birkenhead, Stockport, Preston, Warrington, and others. The noble Lord opposite appears to-night in a strong democratic character, and I am sure I do not know why. I think if this measure is limited in the way you have proposed it will do but little good. It can extend to only about one-third of the country, and I feel therefore bound to support the Government in the interests of technical education and of voluntary schools.
SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I would make a brief appeal to the hon. Member for Manchester and to the hon. Member for Rotherham. I understand the proposed compromise is that in a School Board district the School Board is to have the option of having classes for technical education, and of admitting to those classes children from voluntary schools. The point I make is this: that the proposed arrangement with the School Board is optional. I suggest that it be obligatory; also to have the option of establishing inside the voluntary school-houses classes for the techical education of the children of those schools. Naturally, the voluntary schools do not like to go hat in hand to the School Board, but is it not possible to make this arrangement obligatory upon the School Board, so that
492
they shall be compelled to comply with any well-founded application of a voluntary school either to have some of its scholars admitted to the School Board classes specially, or to have a School Board instructor sent specially to its class-rooms?
MR. ILLINGWORTH: The question to be decided is whether hon. Members opposite will be content to accept the system, providing payment out of the rates for technical education under the control of representatives of the people, and thus secure that technical education shall reach to all parts of the country. There are so many difficulties in the way that if this controversy, which was supposed to be settled in 1870, is raised again, then I am afraid that technical education must be postponed until this much larger question is settled. For my part, I think that the question cannot be settled until School Boards are universal throughout the country.
SIR W. HART DYKE: I can assure the Committee that no man has struggled more incessantly than I have for the last two years to find some fair solution of this difficulty; and more than that, some of the acutest and most intelligent men, both at South Kensington and at the Education Department, have also been puzzling their brains to find a solution. Now, the difference between the one side and the other in this question that has been raised is whether there should be a direct or an indirect application of the rates. I regret very much that as yet we do not seem to have found any way out of the difficulty.
It being after One of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
And, it being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House adjourned at one minute after One o'clock.