Commons Sitting of 23 July 1889

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  Ordered, That in the case of the Metropolitan Electric Supply Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.
  Bill considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Herbert Gardner.)
  MR. BATJMANN: At a former stage of the Bill I abandoned opposition to it, on the understanding that there should be ample opportunity of considering the Bill as amended. But the reprinted Bill has only been deposited this morning, and there has been no time for Members to read it or to study the Amendments which have been made in it. Considering that the Bill relates to the supply of the electric light for 50 years, and that consumers had no locus standi before the Committee, it seems unreasonable that the Bill should be rushed through the House in this manner. The Bill as first printed contained some very objectionable clauses, and it will be my duty to oppose it unless an assurance can be given that they have been removed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I am able to give the assurance the hon. Member desires. The Amendments have been made by the Select Committee and the Bill is now absolutely identical with other Provisional Order Bills.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I also feel it my duty to protest of the rapid way which has been adopted of disposing of important Bills of this character without giving hon. Members

  1087
  an opportunity of considering them or of putting down amendments.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
  MR. BAUMANN: When we reach Clause 25, I propose to move an amendment to substitute two years for three years as the period for which consumers shall be bound in unscheduled streets.
  MR. SPEAKEE: It is now too late to move the Amendment.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: My hon. Friend can raise the question on the other Bills when he has had an opportunity of seeing them.
  MR. SPEAKER: On the question that the Bill be read a third time, the hon. Member can move the rejection of the Bill but not to amend it.
  MR. BAUMANN: I would humbly submit that we have not yet had an opportunity of considering the Bill as amended. I may be mistaken, but I thought the clauses, as amended, would have to be gone through.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Bill, as amended has been considered, and the Question now before the House is, that the Bill be read a third time. If the hon. Member wishes to oppose that Motion he can do so.
  MR. BAUMANN: I thought the Question was that the Bill be now taken into consideration.
  MR. SPEAKER: No; that has already been done.
  MR. BAUMANN: Then I can only say that I am very sorry that I allowed the stage to pass. I will move my Amendment on the other Bills.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Bill considered.
  Clause (Reservation of right of person to supply his own and adjacent premises,)—(Mr. Bartley,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. BARTLEY: Of course no one has a right without an Act of Parliament to cross a road or to take up the streets; but if one or two houses choose to combine to supply themselves with the electric light and set up an engine, I do not see why they should not have power to do so.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have looked into the matter, and there is no doubt whatever that the provisions of the Bill will in no way interfere with or take away the rights of individuals which the hon. Member refers to. It will be competent to any person to supply his own or his neighbours' premises with the electric light so long as he does not break up or cross the public street. Still, the insertion in this Bill of the proposed clause might beheld to prejudice the rights of gas and water companies in the Metropolis, and I therefore hope that it will not be passed.
  MR. BARTLEY: On that assurance I will withdraw the clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BAUMANN: I now propose to move in Clause 24 to leave out the word "three" and insert "two." I move the Amendment rather with the idea of ascertaining what may be the feeling of other metropolitan Members, because the metropolitan Members are the only representatives whom the general public have in the matter. I may remind the House that all the consumers will not live in scheduled streets. The districts proposed to be supplied are not very numerous, and consist principally of the large streets and squares of London.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I will accept the Amendment.
  MR. BAUMANN: The right hon. Gentleman has cut short my remarks in the most agreeable manner by accepting the Amendment. I will only add that the object of the Amendment is to reduce from three to two years the period for which consumers are to be bound in unscheduled streets. By guaranteeing the supply for two years the undertakers will get 40 per cent upon their outlay.
  Amendment moved, Clause 24, line 34, to leave out "three" and insert "two."
  Question, "That 'three' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That 'two' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. BAUMANN: I may remind the President of the Board of Trade that the adoption of this Amendment will involve a great many other Amendments.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I will undertake that the Bill shall be amended so as to carry out the understanding which has been arrived at.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  YORKSHIRE PROVIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I wish to draw your attention, Sir, to the Orders of the Day. The order for the consideration of the Report of the Select Committee stands No. 8 upon the Orders of the Day, but it had been ordered as a matter of privilege to stand as the first Order, and it did so stand in the Orders of the Day for Monday. I wish to ask whether it ought not to be the first Order now; and, if so, whether it cannot be considered before the other Orders?
  MR. SPEAKER: I am at a loss to know why the same course has not been pursued to-day that was followed on Monday, that is, placing the Order first on the list of Orders of the Day. As to the point of order, there are several instances in which Orders of the Day and Notices lower down on the List than others have been taken first on the ground of privilege; and, following those precedents, I shall now allow this Order to be taken first as a question of privilege.

QUESTIONS.

  SCIENCE AND ART SCHOLARSHIPS.
  MR. SAMUELSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if, as one of the Royal Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851, he is aware whether the
  1090
  character and scope of the various science and art scholarships, local exhibitions, free studentships, national scholarships, &c, administered through the Science and Art Department with State aid, in response to local demand, were considered by the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851 when they decided to sell a part of their Kensington Estate in order to raise funds for establishing science and art scholarships; whether the Commissioners had before them the various forms of State aid supplied through the Science and Art Departments to various local institutions when they determined to offer grants in aid of local institutions; what amount of aid in respect of science and art scholarships and grants to local institutions the Commissioners intend to give; and what are to be the conditions for the administration of such aid?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the Secretary that the Commissioners met this day (Tuesday, 23rd) and agreed upon a Report to Her Majesty, which will be duly communicated to Parliament. At present the Government have no information in regard to the action of the Royal Commissioners referred to in the question of the hon. Member.

SUBSIDENCE OF MAIN ROADS AT NORTHWICH.
MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has been informed that a further serious and alarming subsidence of one of the main roads out of the town of Northwich took place on the night of Wednesday last; whether he is aware that practically the whole of the great damage to property caused by the pumping of brine in Cheshire and Worcestershire is the work of two wealthy and prosperous corporations-—namely, the Salt Union and Brunner, Mond, and Co., and yet that it is impossible to ascertain which of them causes any particular subsidence, and that therefore property owners and Local Authorities have no means of redress; whether he is aware that the same danger threatens the towns of Fleetwood, Barrow-in-Furness, Middles-brough, and West Hartlepool, and that if the danger be there more remote, the

1091
interests involved are indefinitely larger; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will give favourable consideration to the prayer of the petition of the North-wich Local Board for a Royal Commission to inquire into the facts, and to suggest a remedy?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCIE,): I have received no information as to the serious subsidence of one of the main roads out of the town of North-wich, except so far as the fact has been mentioned to me by the hon. Member. I have no reason to doubt the statements in the question as to its being impossible to ascertain what particular works cause any subsidence, and as to the difficulty which is thereby occasioned to property owners and Local Authorities in obtaining redress. I have received no representations as to similar difficulties arising at Fleetwood, Barrow-in-Furness, Middlesbrough, or West Hartlepool. With regard to the concluding part of the question I have been asked by the Northwich Local Board to receive a Deputation in support of a memorial for the appointment of a Royal Commission, and I will arrange for receiving the Deputation proposed.
MR. BRUNNER: I have heard since I put the question down upon the Paper that the Winsford Local Board have authorized a deputation to wait upon the right hon. Gentleman. May I ask if he will consent to receive that deputation?
MR. RITCHIE: Yes.

ARMY ACCOUTREMENTS.
MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what firm or firms have had accoutrements or other work for the British Army made in French prisons; why the Director of Contracts, in the recent Departmental Report, considers that such a fact "hardly calls for remark"; whether this fact was known to the War Office at the time, or when did it become known; what penalty was inflicted; what contracts have since been given to these firms; what are the present rules under which "it could not occur again"; have the firms which so offended now factories of their own; and, even in the case of contractors having factories of their own, how often has any penalty
1092
been enforced for non-compliance with such rules?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): I answered a similar question last year. The case referred to occurred in 1885–6 when, at a time of great pressure, the contractors, Messrs. Pullman, had a small portion of the whole contract done in a military fort where French prisoners are detained. The matter was fully explained last year. The facts were not known at the War Office till two years after the contract had expired, and the practice ceased. At the time foreign competition had been invited for War Office orders of this kind; therefore it would be difficult to object to English material being stitched abroad.
MR. HANBURY: Do I understand that, according to the information supplied to the War Office, Messrs. Pullman are the only firm which is having accoutrements or other work for the British Army made in French prisons; because my information is to the contrary effect?
MR. E. STANHOPE: I know of no other firm.
MR. HANBURY: Has not the right hon. Gentleman power to punish the persons who have entered into these contracts?
MR. E. STANHOPE: I think not. I did not make the contracts. They were entered into in 1885. I believe there is nothing in them which would enable me to enforce a penalty.

DEFECTIVE SWORDS USED IN INDIA.
MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received Papers from India concerning the results of testing swords and side arms in the hands of troops in India; whether he will lay the Papers upon the Table; and, whether he can now state the purport of the information received?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): Papers have been received from India respecting the swords and bayonets, though the testing is not yet complete. I will lay the Papers on the Table if the hon. Member will move for them. If I tried to state the purport of the information received I should far outstep the limits of

1093
an answer to a question, and I am afraid that I should try the patience of the House.

ARMY MEAT CONTRACTS.
MR. HANBUBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is true that, on the 16th July, Captain Stack-pool, one of the Government Inspectors, paid an unexpected visit to the camp of the 3rd Battalion York and Lancaster Regiment, and condemned the meat supplied to the troops, ordering it to be destroyed as unfit for human food; who were the contractors for such meat; what were the terms of their contract; and what quantity had they previously supplied to the troops in this or previous years under the same contract, and under other contracts, if any.
MR. E. STANHOPE: Captain Stack-pool is an Officer of the Army Service Corps, among whose duties is the inspection of meat supplied to troops, for which he has been specially instructed. He inspected the meat on the occasion referred to, and rejected it; but his power did not extend to its destruction. The contractor was Mr. Summers Gill, of Carleton, Pontefract, as to whom action will be taken when a Report from the General Officer Commanding, which is now expected, is received. The contract was in the usual form. The contractor has held nine contracts for the supply of meat.
MR. HANBUEY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the point of my question which has reference to the price and the terms of the contract.
MR. E. STANHOPE: That is not the point of the question put to me.

THE CONVERSION OF THE NATIONAL DEBT.
SIR WILLIAMHAECOUET: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon Table a Paper setting forth the transactions relating to the Conversion of the Debt during the present year; whether any arrangements have been made for the rendering of an annual Report by the National Debt Commissioners; and when the Return moved for last Session relating to operations on the Debt in past years will be presented?
THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EX-CHEQUEE (MR. GOSCHEN, St. George's, ): I certainly intend that the whole of the financial operations under the Converson Act of last year, and Redemption Act of this year should be fully and completely set forth. The details will, I hope, interest the public as well as the House; I will consider how best to fulfil this intention as soon as the transactions are concluded. Meanwhile I will lay a statement which-will show how we stand up to date. The National Debt Commissioners have in hand the preparation of their first annual Report. As it will contain a retrospect of the Debt it is a work involving much labour, and the House will readily understand that the conversion and redemption operations have entailed much extra work on the National Debt Office, but the Commissioners hope to present their Report early next Session. The details required for preparing the Return moved for by the right hon. Member are now completed, and the Return itself will be ready for presentation almost immediately. I should like to take this opportunity of removing certain misapprehensions-which, I think, prevail in the mind of the right hon. Member. I am grateful to him for having moved the preparation of the Return, but he probably little appreciates the immense amount of labour which the Return has involved. Unfortunately the records of the operations of annuities in old days are very defective, and compare very ill with those that are now kept; and in order to estimate the capital liabilities of the State prior to 1854 innumerable calculations had to be made which have necessarily taken, much time to prepare, and of which the information contained in the Return will give no idea whatever. The House will readily understand that the Treasury and National Debt Commissioners could only be responsible for laying a Return founded on actual calculations, and not on mere estimates.

IEELAND—LAND VALUATIONS.
MR. MAHONY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in the electoral division of Toberroe, in the Union of Glennamaddy, County Galway, the townland of Kilmacrickard, the tenants' holdings are entered in the

1095
books of the Valuation Office, in the area column, as containing 375a. 1r. 11p., held jointly, whereas in the valuation column each tenant is separately valued for the land contained in his holding; and, if so, whether he can state on what principle the separate valuation has been assessed?
THE CHIEF SECEETAEY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Commissioner of Valuation reports that when the valuation of the district was made in 1856 there were no defined boundaries of the holdings in the townland of Kilmacrichard, consequently the valuation for rating purposes was made in globo at £78, and this sum was divided amongst the tenants in proportion to their respective interests therein as then ascertained, and each tenant's proportion of the valuation is separately set out in the land column. He adds that this is the course adopted in all such cases.
MR. MAHONY: Is there not an annual revision of the valuation? Do not the revisers go down every year to each district?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that it is the fact; but if the hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper I will make inquiry.

THE FENIT PIER.
MR. MAHONY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will undertake to have the Papers recently ordered to be printed in relation to the Fenit Pier and the Kerry Grand Jury in the hands of Members before the Vote for the Irish Board of Works is taken in Supply?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Papers referred to which were recently ordered to be laid upon the Table have been this day forwarded for presentation. Upon the hon. Member obtaining an Order from the House to have them printed, it will no doubt be carried out by the responsible officer without delay.
MR. MAHONY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that in the instructions issued by the Lord Lieutenant to the cesspayers of the baronies connected with the Fenit Pier Loan, and on faith of which the cesspayers gave a guarantee for £95,000, the following passage occurs:—
"No portion of it (the loan) can be expended on the present canal, or in payment of the
1096
balance of the canal debt due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, or of the instalments of the present loan";
but that, in spite of this passage in the instructions, £2,500 was paid to the National Bank in discharge of a debt due by the canal, £300 and £290 were paid to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in discharge of the debt due by the canal, and £3,192 11s. 4d. was paid to the Irish Board of Works in discharge of the instalments on the Fenit Pier Loan referred to in the Lord Lieutenant's instructions as the present loan; whether interest has to be paid and capital repaid by the taxpayers as regards these sums, although these sums were paid by the Fenit Harbour Commissioners in direct contravention of the Lord Lieutenant's instructions, on the faith of which the taxpayers gave their guarantee; and, whether, if these facts be as stated, he will take steps to enforce the instructions of the Lord Lieutenant?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry to say that I have not been able to make myself fully acquainted with the facts of the case. Some days must elapse before I can be in a position to answer the question.
MR. MAHONY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give me any idea whatever as to whether these instructions were issued by the Lord Lieutenant, and whether or not they have been carried out? I wish to know whether, in the event of a similar undertaking being given, it will be similarly broken?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think there has been anything of the kind.
MR. MAHONY: I put the same question to the First Lord of the Treasury, and the answer I got was that the Treasury, who are responsible for the action of the Board of Works, only cared for the security.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I answered that question, and I should not like it to go forth that that is the purport of the answer.

THE STAMP DUTY.
MR. STAVELEY HILL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended, by Clause 15 of the Revenue Bill, to abolish the sixpenny Stamp Duty now payable on a contract for the pur-

1097
chase of land, and to substitute for such stamp an ad valorem Duty upon such contracts?
MR. GOSCHBN: I have asked my ton. and learned Friend the Attorney General to answer the question if my ton. Friend will repeat it later on.

THE YEOMANRY AND VOLUNTEERS.
SIR WALTER FOSTEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether members of yeomanry Cavalry Corps, when up for annual training, and members of Rifle Volunteer Corps, when in camp, are supposed to be subject to Military discipline in having1 to ask leave of the Officers commanding before returning to their homes for a night?
MR. E. STANHOPE: Members of Yeomanry Corps, when up for annual training, are under the Army Act, and subject to Military Law as soldiers. Members of Rifle Volunteer Corps in regimental camps are not under the Army Act, but are under discipline under the Volunteer Act, and cannot quit their duties without first obtaining leave from their commanding officer.

DEFECTIVE BAYONETS.
Lord HENRY BRUCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the published statement is correct, that 60 per cent of the bayonets of the Inniskilling Fusiliers, when tested by experts, were condemned, as totally unfit for use; and, if he would consider the expediency, after the experiences of the Egyptian Campaigns, of having the whole of the bayonets belonging to the Regular and Auxiliary Forces thoroughly tested?
MR. E. STANHOPE: The Inniskilling Fusiliers have just returned from service abroad, and as usual their arms have been thoroughly overhauled; 25 per cent of the bayonets failed under the tests recently prescribed; and about 30 per cent were condemned for being too small at the point, or otherwise imperfect. The arms of all Regular Forces at home are thoroughly tested every year, and those of the Auxiliary Forces in regular succession.

GOVERNMENT GAS STOKERS.
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can
1098
now inform the House as to the result of his inquiries as to the number o* hours worked by the gas stokers employed by the various Gas Companies of London; If it is a fact, as has been asserted by the Labour Elector newspaper of 13th July, that, at the following gas factories—namely, East and West Greenwich, Bankside, Kent Road, Rotherhithe, Vauxhall, Fulham, King's Cross, Shoreditch, Bromley, Kensal Green, Nine Elms, Beckton, Bow Common, and Lower Sydenham, the hours have been reduced to eight per day; and, whether he will now take steps to remove the discontent of the Government gas stokers, and avoid possible strikes, by reducing their hours of labour in a like degree?
MR. E. STANHOPE: The inquiries are not yet completed, and I am not prepared to accept or reject the newspaper statement which the hon. Member has quoted. I know of no discontent or dissatisfaction, I am glad to say, among the Government gas stokers, and they are aware that their case is being inquired into.

POLICE SIGNALLING BY ELECTRICITY.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the satisfactory results of the electric police signal system which has been in operation in Islington, the Government propose to take steps with a view to its general adoption?
MR. MATTHEWS: The question of the adoption of this system is now under my consideration. I am making inquiries as to the probable cost of any practicable scheme. Until this is ascertained I cannot say definitely whether the system is one that can be used with advantage either generally throughout the Metropolis or in particular districts.

IRISH PRISONERS.
MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the names of the prisoners at present confined, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, in Derry Gaol; and specify the religious denomination of each, respectively?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In consequence of the observations which were

1099
made by Mr. Speaker yesterday, the hon. Gentleman must be content if I simply give a general answer that all the prisoners to whom he refers are registered as Roman Catholics.
MR. JOHNSTON: Is the hon. Member for the Camborne Division (Mr. Conybeare) one of them?
[No answer was returned to the question.]

THE GOVERNMENT OF MALTA.
SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Executive in Malta have decided to abandon the partial elections which had been ordered for the purpose of filling the seats in the Malta Council of Government vacated by the resignation of six out of the fourteen elected members; whether the Council has now been dissolved, and directions issued for the holding of a general election; and, whether such election will be held under the Letters Patent of 19th March, 1888?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de Worms,): The answer to each of my hon. Friend's questions is in the affirmative.

THE GOLD FIELDS OF THE YURUARI.
SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a concession, granted by the Venezuelan Government and confirmed by Congress, for the construction of a railway from Las Tablas to the goldfields of the Yuruari, has been acquired by an English Company; whether complaints have reached Her Majesty's Government that this concession has now been cancelled by the Venezuelan Government without cause shown; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence on the subject?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): I would answer the first and second part of the hon. Member's question in the affirmative. The matter has not yet reached a stage at which it would appear that any advantage could result from laying the correspondence upon
1100
the Table; but Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the British Company concerned, and have recently expressed their views to the representative of the company.

IRELAND—MR. GILL AND MR. COX.
MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what has been the result of the inquiry into the circumstances under which the unreliable evidence was put forward by Police Constable Robinson in the trial of Mr. Gill, M.P., and Mr. Cox, M.P., at Drogheda?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not been able to obtain the information. The question was put down without sufficient notice having been given.

PROCLAIMED MEETING IN COUNTY MEATH.
MR. MAHONY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that a meeting announced to be held on July 21st at Bective Abbey, County Meath, the object of which was to raise funds for the support of certain evicted tenants, was proclaimed; whether the district is a perfectly peaceful one; and, whether he will state at whose instance and for what reasons this effort to deprive the people of the district of the right of public meeting has been made?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The meeting was proclaimed on a sworn information, there being reason to believe that the object of the meeting was to prevent the farms from being taken, and that the holding of it would be an overt act in the general conspiracy now existing with that object. The proclamation was signed by Mr. M'Carthy, the Resident Magistrate of the district.

GOVERNMENT GRANTS TO SCOTLAND.
MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the case that for the current financial year ending 31st March, 1890, England is in full receipt of the Probate Duties and Licenses, whilst under the Local Government (Scotland) Bill for the same financial year Scotland is to receive only the Probate Duty, and that instead of the Licence Duty (amounting in the case of Scotland to £323,341),

1101
Scotland is only to receive £265,500 in name of Grants; and, if so, how the Government propose to give to Scotland the £57,841 to which according to the above arrangement Scotland is being deprived?
MR. GOSCHEN: I must demur to the statement of the hon. Member that Scotland is being deprived of something due to her. She has received her proportion of the relief from Probate Duty pari passu with England, and that relief amounted to about £155,000 last year, and will be about £230,000 this year—all clear gain. No doubt there is further relief in store for her next year, the equivalent of which England and Wales are already receiving in the present year. But the relief in question, which consists in the receipt of the proceeds of licences in lieu of certain grants surrendered, is inseparable from the reconstruction of Local Government which was effected in England and Wales last year, and is being carried out. as regards Scotland, now. The hon. Member's grievance simply amounts to this—that Local Government in England was dealt with a year sooner than it was in Scotland; and, in view of the impossibility of undertaking two such large measures simultaneously, I do not think that grievance is a substantial one.
MR. CALDWELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Scotland ought to suffer to the extent mentioned in the question?
MR. GOSCHEN: I deny that Scotland is suffering; but it is not necessary that I should enter into a controversy with the hon. Gentleman as to whether Scotland has its share or not. I may add that the money granted in England is granted for the relief of the ratepayers, and it would appear that the people of Scotland have certainly not shown that they were suffering under the same grievances as England.
MR. CALDWELL: Is Scotland getting an equal share with England?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Further Correspondence which has taken place on the subject of Lighthouse Illuminants (in
1102
continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 60, of this Session.)?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: As a question arising out of the Reports of the Trinity House on the experiments made at the South Foreland in 1884 and 1885 has been referred to a committee of the Royal Society, the hon. Member will agree with me that it will be well to wait for the Report of the referees before presenting to Parliament further Papers upon this subject.

KENSINGTON GORE.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the names of the different persons, public bodies, and institutions, which have sent protests to the Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851 against the proposed sale of part of the inner gardens of their estate at Kensington Gore for private buildings?
SIR L. PLAYFAIR: I wish also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a deputation of the Mayors of nearly all the largest towns in England and Wales have waited on the Commissioners to urge that their property in South Kensington shall be sold and realized for the benefit of Provincial Museums?
MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Secretary that five memorials have been received in reference to the building plan of the Commissioners, which are all in the same form, and have been signed on behalf of the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, the Corporation, Cutlers' Company, Chamber of Commerce, and School of Art of Sheffield, by the Mayors of Birmingham, Burslem, Hanley, Longton, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stoke-upon-Trent, and Worcester, the Chairman of the Fenton Local Board, the Chief Bailiff of Tunstall, the Presidents of the North Staffordshire and Worcester Chambers of Commerce, and by three manufacturing firms in the Provinces. I understand that no objection to the new building plan has been addressed to the Commissioners by any of the Governing Bodies of the public institutions at present standing on the estate; and, moreover, that in considering the details of the plan great care was taken to avoid any injury to the interests of those institutions. The fact mentioned

1103
by the right hon. Gentleman opposite is, I believe, correct—namely, that a deputation of the Mayors of nearly all the largest towns in England and Wales waited on the Commissioners to urge that the property should be sold.

THE AXLES OF RAILWAY CARRIAGES.
MR. OHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any action has yet been taken by the Railway Companies, as a result of the recommendation of General Hutchinson last May, in his Report on a serious accident to an excursion train near Peni-stone, owing to a broken axle, to the effect that it was time for a conference of locomotive superintendents to be held, to determine how many miles axles should be allowed to run
"Before being submitted to an exhaustive examination as to the existence of flaws;"
and, whether, if no action has been taken, the Board of Trade will, by a Circular Letter or otherwise, urge on the Companies the necessity of such a conference being held without delay?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: A letter was addressed to the Secretary of the Railway Association asking whether arrangements could be made for the conference referred to in the question. I am informed that the matter has been brought by the Railway Association before the several Railway Companies, and that steps are being taken to arrange for such a conference, which, however, cannot be conveniently held before the holidays.

CONSTITUTION HILL.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will explain to the House the nature and extent of the works which are proposed to be executed on either side of the arch at the top of Constitution Hill; and, whether an Estimate for the cost of the same will be presented to Parliament before the close of the present Session, or when?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER or WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): The works about to be executed at the top of Constitution Hill will be of a simple character. They will be carried out with a view of providing a means of ingress on one side of the arch and of
1104
egress on the other side, somewhat similar to those now in use on either side of the Marble Arch. Advantage will also be taken of the occasion to level the ground at the foot of the arch so as to take away the present uneven appearance. In these works we shall, I believe, have the cordial co-operation of the vestry of the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square, so far as the land and roads outside of the Green Park are concerned. I do not think it will be necessary to present an Estimate on the subject during the present Session.
MR. H. GARDNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when Constitution Hill is to be opened to the public as promised?
MR. PLUNKET: It will not be possible to complete the approaches in time to open it this season. It will be opened in the autumn.

THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he has received a Petition from dissatisfied Bondholders of the Provident Association of London, complaining of the confiscation of their savings, and praying that the Association should be included among the Friendly and Benefit Societies whose working and constitution are being investigated by a Committee of the House of Commons; and, if not, what steps-have been taken in this matter; and,, whether the Government will extend the scope of that Committee's powers, so as to include the numerous Building and other Societies now in an insolvent state?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. Smith,): The subject was brought under my consideration by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West flam, and I was asked to receive a deputation on the subject. This request I was obliged to refuse, as I did not possess either the authority or the information which would enable me to take any action in the matter, nor did I consider it was part of my duty to investigate grievances of bondholders or of shareholders who, if they have been wronged, have their legal remedy. I am informed that the Select Committee on Friendly Societies will shortly report, and it would be impossible, therefore,

1105
at this period of the Session to extend the scope of their inquiries as suggested.

ITALY AND AFRICA.
COMMANDER BETHELL: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true, as reported yesterday, that Italy has withdrawn from the combined operations on the coast of Africa?
SIR J. FEEGUSSON: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend ought to give me notice of that question.

THE ROYAL GRANTS.
MR. BEADLAUGH: May I ask when copies of the proceedings before the Select Committee on Royal Grants will be in the hands of Members?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I have received a copy already, not as First Lord of the Treasury, but as a Member of this House.
MR. BEADLAUGH: No copy was delivered to me, and on inquiry twice at the Vote Office I was informed that none were accessible.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I received a copy about half an hour ago.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
SIR W. HAECOUET: May I ask what is the business for to-morrow?
MR. W. H. SMITH: The Tithe Bill.
In reply to Mr. MATHER (Lancashire, S.E., Gorton),
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid the Technical Education Bill of the Government would be introduced in a day or two.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to remove doubts as to the validity of certain marriages solemnized in Basutoland and in British Bechuanaland." [Marriages (Basutoland, &c.) Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to provide for modifying the constitution of the Court of Appeal for the Windward Islands." [Windward Islands Appeal Court Bill [Lords.]

MOTION.

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Viscount Cranborne, Bill to provide Technical Education in England and
  1106
  Wales, ordered to be brought in by Viscount Cranborne, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Bartley, Mr. Francis Powell, and Mr. Fisher.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 347.]

YORKSHIRE PROVIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY (SPECIAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON FRIENDLY SOCIETIES).
Report from the Select Committee read.
THE SOLICITOE GENEEAL (Sir E. CLARKE,): Arising out of that Report, I beg to move—
"That the shorthand notes of the evidence given by Mr. R. Martin before the Friendly Societies' Committee with respect to the Yorkshire Provident Insurance Company and the books and papers produced by him, and also the letter addressed to Sir H. Maxwell by Mr. R. Martin, and certain books forwarded by him to the Clerk to the Committee, be placed in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions in order that criminal proceedings may be instituted against the persons responsible for the management of the Yorkshire Provident Insurance Company."
Having regard to the nature of the recommendation made by the Committee, I think it is desirable to put that Motion before the House without making any observation on the subject.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the shorthand notes of the evidence given by Mr. Richard Martin before the Friendly Societies' Committee, with respect to the Yorkshire Provident Insurance Company, and the books and papers produced by him, and also a letter addressed to Sir Herbert Maxwell by Mr. Richard Martin, and certain books forwarded by Mr. Richard Martin to the Clerk to the Committee, be placed in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions, in order that criminal proceedings may be instituted against the persons responsible for the management of the Yorkshire Provident Insurance Company."—(Mr. Solicitor General.)
MR. BEADLAUGH: I do not propose to make any remarks upon the Motion which has been submitted by the learned Solicitor General, especially as that Motion is, in fact, what I respectfully suggested to the House on the consideration of the original Report. There are, however, one or two brief observations I should like to make which arise out of the investigation of the Friendly Societies' Committee. I do not propose to deal with the case of Mr. Martin, because, as that case is to be the subject of a criminal investigation, I presume it would be improper to do so. But there were other persons associated

1107
with that gentleman in the Yorkshire Provident Insurance Company, and I wish to say that the question of industrial insurance affects something like 10,000,000 policies now existing, with an average small payment of 1½d. a week. I believe I have grounds for assuring the Government that in many hundreds of thousands of these cases there has been clear fraud committed, which it was impossible for the Friendly Societies Committee to investigate within the terms of their Reference. The Act of 1875, which was intended to protect the people, is inoperative, either from difficulties in the way of carrying it out, or from misunderstanding as to what it meant.
A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,): I do not want to enter further into this Debate; but, as Chairman of the Committee on Friendly Societies, I wish to guard myself against being considered to agree with all that has fallen from the hon. Member for Northampton. I cannot help saying that I think it would have been better, in the interest of the inquiry which has been conducted throughout the present Session, and part of last, if the hon. Member's remarks, reflecting, as they do, most seriously upon the Industrial Insurance Companies, had been withheld until the Committee had decided on their Report. I am far from agreeing with all that the hon. Member has said.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I hope I may be allowed to explain that I did not wish in any way to commit my fellow Members of the Committee to my views. But I will undertake, if the Government will appoint a Statutory Commission, to put them in the way of proving the allegations which I have made.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): The Government are fully alive to the great importance of the question which the hon. Member for Northampton has put before us. There is no topic more deserving of consideration than the question of security for the savings of the people, and it is a matter in which the Government has always taken deep interest. But the House ought to suspend its judgment with regard to any particular cases, and ought not hastily to accept the idea that these Industrial Insurance Companies are generally in an unsatisfactory condi-
1108
tion. I hope there will he no panic on this important point. I shall be glad to communicate with the hon. Member for Northampton, and the Government will give their best consideration to the question whether there is or is not a case for the steps which the hon. Member proposes. I can assure the House that if materials are placed before the Government from which they can form a judgment, there is nothing which would occupy them more seriously during the Recess than this question, which has such vast bearings on the savings of the people.
Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND) [GRANT, &c.].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to make a free grant not exceeding the sum of £600,000, or an annual payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, in aid of the construction of Light Railways in Ireland; to authorize the Treasury to give a guarantee, not exceeding the sum of £20,000 per annum, on the capital of such Light Railways, and to make an immediate payment of any guarantee for which they would be subsequently liable; and to authorize the payment of the expenses of working any line so far as they are not paid out of the receipts."
  MR. STOREY: I feel it my duty to resist this proposal and to divide against it. The Committee will perhaps note that the proposal is that £600 of public money is to be devoted to railways in Ireland. I should like to point out that this money is not allocated to any specific railway. No plans are placed before us. We are not even informed in what part of the country the railways are to be made. In fact, the proposal is an absolutely speculative proposal. The House of Commons is asked to hand over £600,000 of the public money, as a gift, to be placed under the control of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and this money is to be spent by the Lord Lieutenant and the Board of Works with the consent of the Treasury, how they like, where they like, and when they like. Well, Sir, I submit that this is, to begin

  1109
  with, an absolutely unconstitutional proposal. The ancient practice of the House of Commons has certainly been to spend money. Some of us think that that has been too much the practice, and from of old the desire of all constitutional ministries—and if not of ministries certainly of independent members—has been to carefully scrutinize all expenditure. I myself might be in favour of spending a certain amount of the public money in making a light railway in Connemara, but I should not be in favour of making such a line in any more favoured part of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary gives us no information about his proposal. The Government, in fact, have no plans. If they had any plans it would have been their bounden duty to place them before us. Having no plans, they ask us blindly and against all precedent to devote £600,000 as a gift to Ireland for light railways. Granting, for the sake of argument, that it might be worth while to make a gift of public money for the construction of light railways in Ireland, before the House of Commons is asked to give this large sum it ought to have some reasonable knowledge where, how, and when it is going to be spent. It is mainly on this constitutional ground that at the present time I rest my objection to this proposal.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: When I addressed the Committee on this question, I spoke of the Government proposal as one to give £600,000 of public money. I stand corrected by the hon. Member for Cavan (MR. Biggar) and the last speaker. It is a great deal more than £600,000 that is proposed to be given. The total will be more like two millions and a half sterling, including the capitalized value of the £20,000 a year, and what has already been granted. Whatever the sum be, however, I join in the protest of the hon. Member for Sunderland. In Committee I put down an Amendment providing that the House should not grant this money without having some general indication of the way in which the money was to be spent, and I have on the Paper now a notice which expresses that view. I do not desire that the Government should bind themselves to the exact specification of the railways they wish to make, but that it should be an instruction to
  1110
  the Committee to specify the directions and districts in which the railways are to be made. At the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary did not volunteer an answer to the appeals made to him to give us information on the point. His intention seems to be to go about with a bag of money in his hand and to give it to whom he likes and withdraw it from whom he likes. The fact is, the Government know that if they stated their intentions every Member for Ireland whose constituents did not get any of the money would vote against them. I do not deny that the Government are, under these circumstances, wise in their generation in withholding this information. I wish to ask an important question, which I think has not yet been answered. If this Resolution is passed how is the money to be provided? Are the Government going to put it on the Estimates, or is it to be raised by means of loans?
  MR. COSSHAM: I think there is one advantage in the bringing forward of this proposition. Many of my hon. Friends around me were under the impression that somehow these light railways were going to be made without taxing the British taxpayer at all. I think this proposal will open their eyes, and give them a rude awakening. We are asked to vote this money blindfold. I refuse to do it. We are asked to vote this money, partly, I believe, for corrupt purposes. I refuse to do that. We are asked to loosen the purse strings in order to demoralize Ireland, and I object to do that.
  MR. CHILDERS: The proper time for discussing this question in detail will be in Committee on the Bill, but I think we ought to know what will be the exact effect of this particular Resolution. As it is worded it is very difficult to understand. As far as I can understand, the first part of the Resolution authorizes a free gift not exceeding £600,000 for Irish light railways, and the second part authorizes a guarantee, irrespective of that, amounting to £20,000 a year, which would equal a capital sum of £600,000. These two sums together would therefore come to £1,200. But there is more than that. The resolution also authorizes the pay-

  1111
  ment of the expenses of working any line, so far as they are not paid out of the receipts. Now, the raison d'être of this proposal is that the promoters of schemes of this kind have hitherto found that they will not produce their working expenses. I therefore wish to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—because the matter is purely a Treasury one—whether I am right in saying that this Resolution contains a proposal for £600,000 as a free gift, for what may be another £600,000 in respect of guarantee, and £300,000 in respect of these railways not paying their working expenses. Will this Resolution practically amount, in other words, to authorizing the Treasury to spend something like £1,500,000 in connection with these light railways?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. A. J. BALFOUR,): Though the right hon. Gentleman's appeal was made directly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer I think, perhaps, I can satisfy him in regard to the financial part of the scheme, as to which he has, I think, fallen into one or two serious errors. There are not two sums of £600,000, but only one such sum. That sum of £600,000 may be used for the construction of the railways in one of two shapes, either as a capital sum to be given as a free gift, or as guaranteed interest, the capitalization of which would amount to £600,000. In other words, the Government offer this grant of £600,000 in two alternate shapes. They say—"We may give it if convenient as a free gift, or we may give it if convenient as guaranteed interest." The clause as to the working expenses was inserted by the Treasury to guard themselves. Under the Bill the lines will in certain circumstances come into the possession of the Treasury, and if the Treasury has no power to work them at all they will be obliged to dispose of them at once, and to take any price offered at the moment. The Treasury think that in order to protect their interests, should a line lapse to them, they must have such power as will enable them to work the line for a period which will give them the opportunity of disposing of the line on the best possible terms to themselves; but there is no question or intention of making the Government for any lengthened period
  1112
  responsible for the working of any line whatever.
  MR. CHILDERS: If that is the explanation of the Government the Resolution is all wrong. It really ought to be altered, because, as now worded, it commits the House to £1,200,000, besides the deficiency in working expenses, which I have estimated at £300,000.
  MR. G0SCHEN: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not think there is any intention that the various alternatives given in the Resolutions should be added together.
  MR. CHILDERS: They are not alternatives, that is the point.
  MR. GOSCHEN: This Resolution will cover the various parts of the Bill, but it may be passed by the House without giving the Government authority to incur any expenditure not authorized by the Bill, and the Bill is distinct on the point. This is one of the best known forms of the House to draw Resolutions wider than the provisions of the Bill in order to cover the various alternatives which the Bill may ultimately embody.
  MR. CHILDERS: I would suggest that the Government should report progress, and between now and Thursday should, in conjunction with the Treasury, again look at the Resolution and bring it up in proper shape.
  MR. JACKSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman has taken exception to the Resolution in a manner which is unnecessary. The Resolution has been prepared, I believe, in the usual way, and it seems to me that if it had been prepared in any other way it would have been insufficient for its purpose. As has been explained, the proposal is to place at disposal the sum of £600,000. That sum might be used in either of two ways—either it might be given as a capital sum by way of free gift, or it might be given as a guarantee not exceeding the sum calculated at 3 per cent. But if it is used in one way it cannot be used in the other, and that is clearly laid down in the Bill. With regard to the form of the Resolution, it appears to be necessary that the House should authorize the grant of a sum to the extent of £600,000, and it is also necessary that the House should give the power to exercise to the full extent the giving of a guarantee to that amount, in order that

  1113
  the power may be exercised either in the one way or the other.
  MR. S. BUXTON: It is unfortunate that there should be any misunderstanding. It is clear from the Bill that it is not intended that the whole sum should exceed £600,000, whether given as a capital sum or as interest. I so far agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland that I think the Government should state that they intend to specify certain districts as the most deserving districts within which the railways should be made. I have already, on the Second Reading, expressed a strong hope that the Bill will become law this Session. I believe it will be a great advantage to Ireland, but I think precautions ought to be taken in order to prevent the money being snapped up by the richer parts of the country. The richer districts can look after themselves, and this Bill is intended to assist railways where otherwise, in the natural course of things, they would not be made.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 230; Noes 76.—(Div. List, No. 243.)
  Resolved, "That it is expedient to make a free grant, not exceeding the sum of £600,000, or an annual payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, in aid of the construction of Light Railways in Ireland; to authorize the Treasury to give a guarantee, not exceeding the sum of £20,000 per annum, on the capital of such Light Railways, and to make an immediate payment of any guarantee for which they would be subsequently liable; and to authorize the payment of the expenses of working any line so far as they are not 'paid out of the receipts."
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 334.)
Order for further consideration of Bill as amended, read.
MR. MARJORIBANKS MR. MARJORIBANKS (Berwickshire) moved the omission of Clause 29, containing special provisions as to Service Franchise occupiers. The right hon. Gentleman said: The clause as it stands would have the effect of enabling the employer of any person otherwise entitled to the Service Franchise to disqualify such person by omitting to comply with these provisions. I think that this is a mistake, and I would ask the Government, even at this late stage, to give way on this small point. The
1114
Government say that it is a very small inconvenience which the clause imposes upon the voter, and that being so is a reason why it should be omitted altogether. I trust that the Lord Advocate will consent to omit the clause, and thereby make this concession to the Service Franchise holders as complete as possible.
Amendment proposed in page 21, line 37, to leave out Clause 29.—(MR. Marjoribanks.)
Question proposed, "That Clause 29 stand part of the Bill."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I think the clause is necessary, in order to secure that the persons upon whom the Service Franchise is conferred should have an interest in local economy.
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I look upon the clause as being invidious and inconvenient, but the subject has been fully discussed in Committee, and it is therefore undesirable to spend any more time re-discussing it now. I think, however, that my hon. Friend will be justified in taking a Division.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 194; Noes 133.—(Div. List, No. 244.)
MR. CALDWELL: In rising to move this Amendment I ought to explain the nature of it. According to the Bill the Returning Officer is to be appointed by the County Councils; but in the event of his dying or becoming otherwise disqualified, then, under the Bill, the Secretary for Scotland is to appoint somebody to act in his place. Now it must be obvious that the Secretary for Scotland is by no means a proper person in whom such an appointment should be vested. Take the case of a county in the North of Scotland, at a great distance from London. Suppose the Returning Officer were to die on the day of election, or suppose that he became suddenly incapacitated through an accident happening, what would be the result? According to the Bill you would have to send to London to get the consent of the Secretary for Scotland for the purpose of appointing a successor, and before you could possibly get that consent the election would be all over, and much confusion would have been caused.

1115
Now it is clear that appointments of this kind could be more easily made in the county. As the original appointment is to be made by the County Council, surely that is the proper authority for making subsequent appointments, and it would be far less inconvenient to leave such appointments with the County Council than to make it necessary to communicate with the Secretary for Scotland, who might possibly be in London at the time. The Sheriff is a public official, and is generally resident in a county town. He would be accessible at any time, no matter how short the notice might be. He could be consulted at once by the County Council in regard to the appointment of a successor to the Returning Officer, and the whole matter could be arranged in the course of two or three hours instead of its being necessary to send to London, and to spend two or three days in communicating with the Secretary for Scotland. It must be obvious that matters of this kind can be more easily managed in the county than by reference to London, and I cannot understand on what ground the Government insist on sending everything to London to be decided on, instead of allowing these matters to be settled in the localities most interested. It may be said by the Lord Advocate that it is open to the Returning Officer to appoint his deputy; but we all know that the powers of a deputy expire with the expiration of the powers of his principal, and, in the event of the death of a Returning Officer, I venture to say that the deputy would cease to hold any power to act. This is a matter of considerable importance locally, and I repeat that by insisting on the clause as it stands, the risk will be run of rendering elections nugatory in certain instances. Even if the appointment is to be made by the Secretary for Scotland, it is well to remember that that official will have to consult the views of the Local Authority as to whom he will appoint. But for the difficulty of summoning a meeting of the County Council, there would be no reason why, in the event of the disqualification of the Returning Officer, the County Council should not have the power of electing his successor without appeal to the Sheriff or to the Secretary for Scotland. There is, however, a difficulty in adopting that course; but
1116
there is no reason why appointments of this kind should be delegated to London, when they can be far more conveniently made in the county town where the Sheriff resides and where he can, in conjunction with the Local Authority, select a suitable man on the spot. I therefore beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 4, to leave out the words "Secretary for Scotland," and insert the word "Sheriff."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'Secretary for Scotland' stand part of the Bill."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This is a matter of very small detail, and I think I shall meet the general sense of the House if I discuss it at proportionate length. The reason why the Secretary for Scotland has been selected for this duty, is that it is very desirable to have one Central Authority in all burghs and counties, entirely removed from considerations of local character.
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 21, after the word "election," to insert the words "in a county."—(The Lord Advocate.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I hope that this Amendment is intended to meet the objection which I have already raised. It is to the same effect as the one I put on the Paper, although I must say I should prefer the wording of my own Amendment, as being more intelligible to the ordinary public. I would suggest that there is some little obscurity in the use here of the word "county."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: May I point out to the hon. Baronet that the word "county" which is used in this Amendment is one of the five words explained in the definition clause. It is a county as distinguished from a burgh.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: But the County Councils are composed partly of Councillors from counties, and partly of Councillors from contributory burghs.

1117
I will not, however, press any objection to the Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. CALDWELL: My reason for proposing the next Amendment is that it would be more convenient to leave out the words "elected by a burgh," and insert the words "elected under Section 8 of the Act." It would prove convenient, for instance, in case we proposed to extend Section 8 to the case of police burghs.
Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 25, to leave out the words "by a burgh," and insert the words "under Section 8 of this Act."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'by a burgh' stand part of the Bill."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think it would be more convenient to accept the Amendment which appears in the name of the hon. Member for Forfarshire. It is quite obvious Clause 33 ought to form a complete code in itself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. A. ELLIOT: I will, in the absence of the hon. Member for Forfarshire, move the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 26, after the word "council," to insert the words
"and being a councillor elected by a burgh the vacancy shall be filled up by the town council."—(Mr. A. Elliot.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
MR. CALDWELL: This next question raises a most important matter. It is the first line on which arises the point as to who are to be the ex officio members of the Council, and it is therefore necessary that we should challenge the matter at this stage. The point is, shall there be ex officio members on the County Councils? I think all experience shows that the County Councils should be allowed to act upon their own responsibility, and manage their own affairs from the very commencement. The argument of the Government is that there ought to be continuity of policy. But this argument acts two ways in connection with the present question. The affairs of the county have hitherto been
1118
very well managed by the Commissioners of Supply, and in that regard it is said to be desirable that there should be a continuity of policy. But we are also taking the management of matters connected with public health from the control of the Local Authority, because those matters have been badly managed, and how, then, does the argument stand that there should be in that continuity of policy? It appears to me that what is sought to be secured is not so much continuity of policy as to retain in the hands of landed proprietors the powers which they have hitherto exercised. You make a show under this Bill of conceding popular representative Government, but you affix conditions which will secure to the landed interest a certain amount of representation on the County Councils, with the object, as you say, of ensuring a continuity of policy. Now we object to that. Take for instance the case of the Education Act. When the Education Act came-into operation, it was controlled to a large extent under the parochial system by the ministers and elders of the parish, but when you introduced the School Board, you got no such thing as a continuity of policy. You simply called the School Board into existence for the first time; you made it a Board purely elected by the ratepayers, and you did not place upon it one single ex officio representative of the old educational authority. That was in accordance with the spirit of Scotch legislation. The Education Act of 1872 was brought in by a Liberal Government and was based upon Liberal lines; and that was the reason why you allowed the people to elect their own representatives, and why you allowed those representatives to begin their work ab initio without influence or control from the old educational authority. Then, again, take the case of this House. It is probably very important that in the case of this House you should have continuity of policy, but whatever may be your views about that, you never think, when you are summoning a new Parliament, of calling a number of ex officio Members of the old Parliament with a view to securing continuity of policy. Such a principle is utterly repugnant to anything in the nature of popular representation. But it does not follow because you do not appoint ex officio Members

1119
that, therefore, there is no continuity of policy. Although there are no ex officio Members in this House we know very well that the more prominent Members of the old Parliament are invariably elected to the new Parliament. The same thing will occur in regard to the county elections. The men who have hitherto taken an active part in the management of the county business are sure to become Members of the new Councils without there being any necessity of appointing them ex officio Members. The result is that you can attain the object which you have in view without allowing these men to be appointed as County Councillors to go through the odious process of selection which this Bill establishes. There is no reason why all gentlemen who are to become Members of the first County Council should not undergo the process of election and receive the mandate of their constituencies. The majority of the people of Scotland are undoubtedly Liberal in politics, and they can perfectly understand the difference between Liberalism and Conservatism. In Scotland Liberalism means trust in the people and the representatives of the people, while Conservatism means want of trust in the people and the giving of certain privileges to certain classes of the community. The Education Act was passed by the Liberal Government. In that Act the Government gave the control of education to the representatives of the people, free and untrammelled, but in this instance the Conservative Government do not propose to entrust the chosen of the people the management of the people's affairs free and unrestrained. You propose to put upon the new Council certain men who are notoriously Conservative. Instead of making an endeavour to treat the business of Scotland in a way which is in accordance with the wishes of the people of Scotland, you insist upon filling this Bill with your Conservative notions. It is because of many acts of this kind that Conservatism never can make progress in Scotland. Proceedings such as the Government have resorted to in the case of this Bill carry conviction to the minds of the Scottish people far more quickly than any amount of argument concerning Liberal and Conservative principles. The Government have certainly made this Bill in a great measure a Liberal Bill. It has
1120
been made Liberal in many particulars, but the fact is not due to the action of those who drew the Bill, but to the attitude of those on the Opposition Benches, who have brought in Liberal Amendments. The Government are so blind, that though they know that a policy of the kind embodied in this clause is utterly at variance with the feelings of the majority of the people of Scotland, they insist in introducing in the Councils the ex officio element. Experience shows that people will not look at the advantages of a Bill so much as they will look at the disadvantages of it. In politics people do not consider what is given to them so much as what is withheld from them. What have the Government done in respect to education? They have conceded free education—
MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order! The hon. Gentleman is entering into matters which do not appertain to the subject now before the House.
MR. CALDWELL: I accept your ruling at once, Sir, and will now move the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, in page 26, line 7, to leave out Sub-section (4) of Clause 37. (Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'The Chairman of the County Road Trustees' stand part of the Bill."
DR. CLARK: I hope the Lord Advocate will accept this Amendment in order that we may come to Section 107, when the whole question can be considered. After all, this is one of the transitory provisions, and it ought surely to be amongst the rest of such provisions, instead of amongst the temporary ones. I do not want to discuss the matter now and again upon Section 107, but we may probably have a Division on this principle, because it will be a very serious matter to the smaller counties to have four or five nominated members to possibly only 20 elected Members.
MR. D. CRAWFORD: A word with reference to the manner in which this Amendment has been argued. The arguments adduced by the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division had absolutely no bearing on the Amendment. If this sub-section were struck out of the clause it would not prevent the Government estab-

1121
lishing ex officio members when we come to Section 107. On the other hand if this sub-section remains in the Bill, it will not prevent us moving that there shall be no ex officio members when we come to Section 107. There is a good deal in the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Caithness, namely, that this is in reality a transitory provision, and that, therefore, it is hardly in its right place in the Bill. But I most respectfully enter my protest, considering that we are anxious to get this Bill through, against Amendments being argued at prodigious length, with prodigious prolixity and verbosity, and upon grounds which are totally irrelevant to the Amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withDRawn.
MR. ESSLEMONT: Before we leave this clause I desire to call attention to a matter of some importance. There is no schedule relating to County Council elections, while the Lord Advocate knows that the schedule relating to Town Council elections has been very unsatisfactory. I merely call the attention of the Lord Advocate to the matter in the hope that he will consider it in a later stage of the Bill.
On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE the following Amendments were made:—Clause 37, page 26, line 8, before "section," insert "one hundred and seventh;" line 12, after "named," insert the following sub-section:—
"(5.) Sub-section five of section eighty-nine of 'The Roads and Bridges (Scotland)'Act, 1878,' shall not apply to any of the purposes of this Act, except the purposes of the last-mentioned Act;"
Line 22, leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act;" Clause 38, page 26, line 26, leave out "the said Acts," and insert "this Act;" Clause 39, page 27, line 33, before "of," insert "one hundred and seventh;" Clause 41, page 28, line 7, leave out "for police purposes fixed or ascertained," and insert "fixed or ascertained for police purposes;" Clause 42, page 28, line 17, leave out "and burghs;" line 22, after "and," insert—
"(b.) The boundaries of burghs for the purposes of this Act shall be held to be the boundaries thereof as the same are or may be ascertained, fixed, or determined for police purposes under the provisions contained in any general or local Act of Parliament, or when no police assessment is levied as the same are or may be
1122
ascertained, fixed, or determined for municipal purposes; provided, that police burghs shall not in any case be deemed to be burghs for the purposes of this Act, except for the purposes of, and subject to, the provisions of 'The Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878;"
Clause 43, page 28. lines 33 and 34, leave out "or parishes;" line 34, after "counties," insert "or parishes."
Amendment proposed, in page 28, line 35, after the word "say," to insert the words—
"James Arthur Crichton, Esquire, Sheriff of the Lothians, the Honourable Thomas Henry Pelham, and Colonel Edward Donald Malcolm, C.B., Royal Engineers (of whom the first-named shall be chairman)."—(The Lord Advocate.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HUNTER: I really think the hon. and learned Lord Advocate should offer some explanation with regard to the names he proposes. One of the names—Pelham—does not appear to me to have a Scotch sound, and I do not know why Colonel Malcolm should be one of the Commissioners unless it is that he occupies a high place in the Primrose League.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The three names are tolerably well known in Scotland, and I do not think that to the aggregate composition of the Commission, so far as politics are concerned, Gentlemen opposite can take much exception. So far as Colonel Malcolm is concerned I have no doubt he shares the political opinions of his family and is a Conservative. He is a distinguished engineer officer, and has been selected upon the ground that in the definition of boundaries it is desirable to have the benefit of his experience. Sheriff Crichton is an experienced man of business as well as a sound practical lawyer, and his politics are not those of this side of the House. Mr. Pelham has acted as a Boundary Commissioner upon two occasions, and has proved a most capable and valuable public servant in that regard. His politics, I understand, are not those of the Government. The Government has been anxious to equip such a Commission as will be a working Commission, representing an adequacy of legal knowledge, and, at the same time, experienced in

1123
the special business of the definition of boundaries combined with the high engineering skill which Colonel Malcolm will bring to bear.
MR. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I do not wish to take any exception to the names, but to put a question which affects the War Office more, perhaps, than any other Department. I do not know whether Colonel Malcolm is still the Commanding Royal Engineer in North Britain. If he is, it seems a somewhat unusual thing that he should be made a member of this Commission.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I understand Colonel Malcolm does hold that position, but that arrangements will be made by the War Office whereby he will be released from his military duties in order that he may serve on the Commission.
Question put, and agreed to.
Other Amendments made.
MR. CALDWELL: In moving to leave out "shall," in line 4, page 35, and insert "may," I will only say that according to the Bill the District Councils are to be the parties who are to have charge of the public health. The feeling of the Committee was that the party charged with attention to the public Health should have a Medical Officer and a Sanitary Inspector. Surely it is far more important that the District Councils should have a Medical Officer of Health and a Sanitary Inspector than the county as a whole. The draughtsman originally inserted the word "may," and he was right, because the Medical Officer is to hold no other appointment, and it may happen that men might be appointed where practically there was no work.
Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 4. leave out the word "shall," and insert the word "may."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Bill."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This was a decision rather of the Committee than of the Government. The matter has been fully considered, and I am quite prepared to stand by the decision of the Committee.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I agree with the Lord Advocate that this was rather a decision of the Committee than of the
1124
Government; but, at the same time, I think the Committee were carried away by a wave of sanitary enthusiasm a little further than it was desirable they should be. Take the case of the County of Clackmannan. It consists of three or four parishes, and yet you are going to appoint a Medical Officer and Sanitary Inspector, who shall have no other work to do. I think the House is rather rash in this matter.
DR. CLARK: I think my hon. Friend is somewhat mistaken. This is a permissive clause, and the County of Clackmannan will be able to allow its Medical Officer to practice if it thinks fit.
DR. FARQUHARSONIn the present condition of affairs many counties have no Sanitary Officers at all. I think it right that small counties should be allowed to combine with others, in order to obtain the services of well qualified men.
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendments proposed, in Clause 49, page 33, line 41, alter "situate," insert "or partly situate"; Clause 50, page 35, line 20, after "Committee," insert "as the Local Authority."—(The Lord Advocate.)
Amendments agreed to.
DR. CLARK: I think the Committee made a mistake in agreeing to the words in Clause 52 that exclude the appointment of medical men who are not certified as qualified in midwifery. I never could understand why this qualification was inserted; but I now find it is in connection with the Act passed in 1866, by which every examining body was required to examine in midwifery as well as medicine. Prior to this, examination in midwifery was optional, and many medical men were placed on the Register, not having gone through the examination in midwifery. Now, the Amendment I have to propose is to provide that the qualification shall be that of a registered medical practitioner, and that would include those who passed before 1886, and who will then be qualified for appointment as Officers of Health. The clause as it stands would limit the appointments to those qualified and placed on the Register since 1886.
Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 36, after the word "he," to insert the words "is a registered medical practitioner, or unless he be legally qualified."—(DR. Clark.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: If the Lord Advocate will look at the Local Government Act for England, he will find that, in order to do what was considered just, a certain number of years were allowed in order that in a certain period any Medical Officer might complete his qualification.
DR. CLARK: It comes under the next clause.
SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: The two Acts should run on all fours.
DR. FARQUHARSON: I think that as a qualification the term "registered medical practitioner" covers everything that is required.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment. I think the hon. Member had better stop at the words "medical practitioner."
DR. CLARK: Striking out the remaining words, "unless he be legally qualified, &c."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes.
Amendment amended by leaving out the words "or unless he be legally qualified," and Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment proposed, to omit the words from "be," to end of sub-section.—(The Solicitor General for Scotland.)
Amendment agreed to.
DR. CLARK: Clause 52 carries out a kind of compromise by which, after three years from now, no man can be appointed a Medical Officer of Health, unless he is qualified in sanitary science, public health, or State medicine under the Medical Act of 1866; but there is an exception to this, and that is if a man has continued in an appointment during three years in a district where there is a population of 20,000; but anyone who has been so acting in a district with a population under 20,000 will not be qualified. Now, this was the course followed in the English Act, but it is not applicable to Scotland. The figure of 20,000 is a large population for Scotland, and it is
1126
not reasonable that where in one parish a man is considered qualified because the population is 21,000, in the next parish, under otherwise similar circumstances, a man is disqualified because the population happens to be 18,000. You might give a man three years in which to qualify, and at the end of that time, if he has any brains, he will become qualified in State medicine. Better drop the rest of the section out altogether, and provide that at the end of three years only those qualified in sanitary science, public health, or State medicine shall be appointed.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 52, line 36, to leave out from "1866" to end of sub-section.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think this may safely be accepted, leaving to the County Council a definite qualification in which to exercise their choice.
Question put, and negatived.
DR. FARQUHARSON: If the Amendment I now have to propose needed any defence, which I do not think it does, I might leave that to the Lord Advocate himself. The right hon. Gentleman last night made a most excellent speech in favour of the principle upon which my Amendment is founded. He told us, in most convincing terms, that scientific work must be fearlessly done, and the people who carried it out must have a certain position of independence, and I think everyone must admit that the work of a scientific Medical Officer may very often be of a disturbing nature to vested interests, and will cause worry, vexation, and annoyance, and sometimes loss to the Local Body, who may reflect that annoyance upon the medical officer, and end it by putting an end to his occupation of office. On this account I would give to the officer the right of appeal to the judgment of another body remote from any local feeling.
Amendment proposed, in page 36, line 17, at the end of Clause 52, to insert as a sub-section the words—
"Every medical officer and every sanitary inspector appointed under this Act or under the Public Health Acts shall be removable from

1127
office with the sanction of the board of supervision."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
Question proposed, "That the proposed sub-section be there inserted."
MR. CALDWELL: I think the word "only" should come in after the word "shall."
Mr. W. FARQUHARSON: I am not particular as to the position.
SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I hope the Lord Advocate will consent to this.
MR. HUNTER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not assent to this. Certainly I think the County Council, the Local Authority, should be entrusted with the control of its own officers.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I respect the views of my hon. Friend (Dr. Farquharson), and admire the enthusiasm with which he acts up to what he thinks right in matters that concern the profession, but I am a little alarmed at the extent to which the Government seem disposed to meet the views of the profession. I join in opposition to the Amendment, for although there is reason for the officer carrying out his duties in an independent manner, it is more important that the Local Authority, the County Council, should be independent in its own house, and have control over its own officers. I have seen a great deal of the evil results of a state of friction between an officer and the Local Body under whom he acts, and I am quite sure that these evils are infinitely greater than the risk of a competent officer being dismissed by the Local Authority. I think you may trust the Local Authority in this matter.
MR. CAHPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the argument on a former occasion was that while it was undesirable that a Medical Officer of Health should be at the mercy of a Local Body in a small district, the County Council was a large enough body to guarantee him against any abuse of the power of removal. I understand that a Town Council has full power to remove its Sanitary Officer, and I do not see why a County Council should not have similar power. While I disagree with the Amendment on this positive ground, I do so also on the negative ground, that we are not very much enamoured with the Board of Supervision to whom it is proposed to entrust the decision on appeal.
DR. McDONALD: I think it is most desirable there should be a power of appeal. I am not so satisfied with the Board of Supervision as the authority, and would prefer the County Council, but there should be an appeal somewhere. It must be known to anyone who looks at the administration in England that the usefulness of the Medical Officer is impeded by the fact that if he takes action against a nuisance upon the property of a member of the Local Body, or a relative of one, immediately there is a section of the body up in arms against him and an intrigue commenced for his removal from office. Sooner than have no appeal at all I would support the Amendment.
MR. ESSLEMONT: We shall certainly ask the Committee to divide against this if it is accepted by the Government. We have for many years heard this argument about possible injustice to teachers and other officers under the control of Local Bodies, but the fears are never realized. With all deference to my hon. Friend and Colleague in the representation of Aberdeenshire, I think it would be a mistake to make the Medical Officer independent of those who pay him for his professional services. In a body such as the County Council there will be no fear of individual pressure being brought to bear against a Medical Officer. So long as the officer conscientiously discharges his duty, so long will he be trusted by the community, and individual animosity will not prevail against him.
DR. CAMERON: I heartily agree with part of my hon. Friend's proposal, but I think the Sanitary Inspector should be removable. I know in Glasgow, for instance, where we have a model of good sanitary administration on the part of the Officer of Health there was for a time considerable difficulty in consequence of his absence of control over the Sanitary Inspector, and I think it would much more conduce to good sanitary administration if you had the Sanitary Inspector removable. As a matter of fact, the tenure of office of the Medical Officer of Health in burghs—I do not know whether by regulations or custom—but it is the fact that in certain towns the tenure of office has been for life. In some towns, in Greenock, for instance, a provision ap-

1129
pointing the Medical Officer for life has been inserted in local Acts. In Greenock I understand the Medical Officer refused to take office, except upon condition of life tenure, and the condition was inserted in the local Act. The Medical Officer in this town had many difficulties to encounter, and local prejudices were so strong against him that, but for this safeguard, Greenock would probably have long since dispensed with the services of its Medical Officer, which have been of the greatest benefit to the town and have greatly reduced the death rate. Some safeguard of the kind is desirable in the Bill. I am as little enamoured of the Board of Supervision as any hon. Member, but having it we must put up with it. I would, however, suggest to my hon. Friend that he should modify his Amendment by omitting the reference to the Sanitary Inspector, leaving this official more under the control of the Medical Officer of Health. By this you will have a more scientific and efficient administration.
THE PEESIDENT OF THE LOOAL GOVEENMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I only wish to correct an impression of the hon. Member for Ross (Dr. McDonald) that in England Medical Officers of Health are removable by the authority appointing them.
DR. McDONALD: After a few years.
MR. RITCHIE: They are appointed with the sanction of the Local Government Board, and their dismissal requires the same sanction.
DR. CLARK: There is a sort of Medical Trades Union which, like other Trades Unions, tries to get as much as it can for itself and its members. Still, I support the proposal, because I think some security of tenure of office for the Medical Officers is desirable. They, like all other men, are amenable to pressure, and it is to be feared that without some security of tenure we shall not have the Public Health Act carried out as it should be. To give more security I would have an appeal somewhere to the Board of Supervision or the Secretary for Scotland, and I should rather prefer the latter. I dislike the composition of the Board of Supervision; but I think, on ground shown, they would not refuse to support the action of the representative County Council, and act as I
1130
remember they did some 20 years ago, when I had occasion to press for the removal of the Medical Officer at Govan, who was using his power in a way that he should not have used it. Of course, there is this to be said on behalf of the County Council—that it is a large and representative body, in which individual prejudices will not have much influence. Still, upon the whole, I think it would be much better, in order that the Medical Officer may carry out the Act thoroughly, that he should have some right of appeal from those who may be interested parties to some independent judgment—to the Secretary for Scotland, as I would prefer, or to the Board of Supervision. So I support the proposal in its modified form.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I hope my hon. Friend will adhere to his Motion as it stands, and not desert the Sanitary Inspectors, who require protection in their duties quite as much as the Medical Officers. I may observe that, in point of fact, the right of removal will still be with the County Council, but there will be this right of appeal against what may be an abuse of this power of removal.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 229; Noes 126.—(Div. List, No. 245.)
Another Amendment made.
MR. CALDWELL: Mr. Speaker, the Amendment in my name raises a very important question, though it does not require to be discussed at any great length. It is whether the County Council shall have the power of promoting, as well as opposing, Bills in Parliament. That power is recognized in the case of the burghs of Scotland. The County Councils occupy a position analagous to that of the burghs, and it certainly seems hard that the latter should have this power while the County Councils, which are more important than many burghs, are denied that power. As to the question of the expense of promoting Bills in Parliament, the County Councils would be amenable to the ratepayers, and I think the power might reasonably be left in the hands of the County Council to settle whether or not a Bill shall be promoted.
Amendment proposed, in page 37, line 2, after the word "of," to insert

1131
the words "promoting and."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'promoting and' be there inserted."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The Committee will observe that the County Council has power to promote Provisional Order Bills, and that appears to be the proper measure of initiation to entrust to it, and I cannot concede the proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite. The analogy of the burghs is not quite sound, or at all events it must be accepted with very grave reservations. The burghs meet the cost of legislation by moneys out of "The Common Good," and they are not allowed to apply to the rates for the purpose. That is rather an important distinction when you come to use the burghs as a precedent for the County Councils.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: It seems to me the analogy of the Provisional Order Bills applies the other way. If it is expedient to give the County Council power to promote Bills in the form of Provisional Orders, I do not see why they should not have the power of promoting Bills in another form. It is difficult to conceive any reason why the Council should be deprived of the power of promoting important local Bills, as long as they have no legislative power of their own. It does seem to me that this centralizing of legislation here is inconvenient and unjust in every way. There is a provision with regard to certain subjects, that the burgh cannot promote a Bill in Parliament without taking a plébiscite. I have no objection to that course if it is necessary, and perhaps if the Government were to modify the clause in that direction my hon. Friend would accept the modification.
DR. CAMERON: With respect to the Lord Advocate's statement as to the burghs promoting Bills out of "The Common Good," that merely means the Common Fund, which burghs have at their disposal, and which is often spent for worse purposes than the promotion of Bills in Parliament. I think it would be very much better to allow the County Councils to promote as well as oppose Bills, in the same way as Town Councils do, and to drop out this sub-section, providing that no consent of the owners of property and ratepayers shall be re-
1132
quired to the expenditure of public money, either in promoting or opposing Bills. That would be precisely analagous to what exists in burghs. There is no difference between money spent out of the common fund and out of the rates; and you will get a system which has been found to work well, and a system of control which has been long known in England, and which would certainly prevent any abuse of power.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division, for we are minimising the powers of the County Council to an extent that renders them hardly worth fighting for. We ought to stop this minimising of the powers of the County Council somewhere; otherwise they will scarcely be worth having.
MR. HUNTER: The Lord Advocate stated that the County Council had power to promote Provisional Order Bills, the system with regard to which is admirable when there is no obstruction to overcome. But if there is any obstruction, we know that the system only doubles the expense and increases the difficulties of the Corporation. Therefore, to say that they are authorized to promote Bills in the form of Provisional Orders is to give them a power which is of comparatively little use, and I entirely agree with what has fallen from my hon. Friend for East Aberdeenshire, that this Bill is ridiculous in creating the elaborate machinery of the County Council, only to deprive it of jurisdiction. And I think we must fight every point on which the question of the power of the County Council arises.
The House divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 185.—(Div. List, No. 246.)
MR. CALDWELL: The next Amendment is somewhat consequential on the last. I will not move it, but will take the Division—with which I have no reason to be dissatisfied—as applying to this Amendment. I have, however, an Amendment on the Paper to Clause 55 which I will move. I desire to omit the words which enable a County Council to make bye-laws for the prevention and suppression of nuisances not already punishable in a summary manner by virtue of any Act in force throughout the country. This clause introduces a new summary power of punishing, and it seems to me rather a serious thing that, in a County Council

1133
Bill, which really relates to the management of the county, and the creation of new bodies to enforce that law as it is, we should interpolate a power practically changing the existing law and machinery of the law. We do not know how far this power may extend. The Public Health (Scotland) Act applies to all burghs and counties in Scotland alike, but you are proposing to alter the general law relating to public health which applies to every part of the United Kingdom. You confer certain powers on the Authorities created under the Bill, but leave outside altogether the burghs, which will then require to be conducted according to the powers at present existing. It was one of the great objections taken to the Burgh Police Bill of last year, that though brought in to deal with matters of public health, applicable to burghs alone, its effect was to alter the general law that applied to the whole country. This clause in the same way alters the law, and is in no way confined to the management of counties.
Amendment proposed, in page 37, line 24, to leave out from the word "vagrancy," to the word "and," in line 27.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. D. CRAWFORD: I hope the Government will adhere to the clause as it stands. It is a perfectly reasonable proposal that the County Authorities should have power to make bye-laws. Town Councillors and Burgh Commissioners have those powers and no similar powers exist in the county. I would point out this also, that while it is undoubtedly necessary to take a second Division on Report on very important points, a decision has already been taken on most of these matters in Committee. It hardly seems to me right that, on a small point of this kind which has been decided in Committee, there should be again a full discussion. If we are to accept, as a rule, that all points discussed in Committee are to be again discussed on Report, we might as well do away with the Committee stage altogether. The hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment had no less than 60 Amendments to the Bill on Report—I took the trouble
1134
to count them. That is most unreasonable, and would in itself afford a reason to us for supporting the Government against an Amendment like the present.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: If the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. D. Crawford) is anxious to see the Bill pass quickly, he should not suggest that it is not right to move Amendments on Report. I must express astonishment at the hon. Member for the St. Rollox division moving this present Amendment, however. We have just voted with him on an Amendment, the object of which was to resist a provision by which the powers of the County Councils will be minimized, and now he comes forward himself with an Amendment to minimize their powers and deprive them of the power of making bye-laws. The power he objects to seems to me an excellent one. It is given to the English County Councils, and I hope the House will not for a moment think of depriving the Scotch County Councils of it.
DR. CLARK: I do not think this matter was discussed in Committee, although I strongly support the clause. Certainly I should like to see the word "nuisance" defined a little better in the clause, because we know how it has been used in some districts of the Highlands. This power of making bye-laws seems to me necessary. At the present time Medical Officers of Health in burghs are able to prevent scarlet fever infection in milk shops; but they are not able to do so in the country where the milk comes from, and whence the disease is often brought. The County Councils should be able to pass bye-laws to enable their Medical Officers to prevent diseases of this kind from being carried into the towns.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I am certain my hon. Friend (Mr. Caldwell) does not mean to press this Amendment, which is a ridiculous proposal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE the following Amendments were agreed to:—Clause 55, page 38, line 14, after "burgh," insert "or police commissioners of any police burgh;" Clause 58, page 39, line 23, before "this," insert "section thirteen and fourteen

1135
of;" line 24, after "Act," leave out to "to," inclusive, in line 26.
MR. CALDWELL: The burghs are to contribute directly to the County Council, but they have themselves to get in the money they contribute, and it is impossible for them to get it before January. How, then, will they be able to pay it in November, as they will be required under this section? They will have to borrow and pay interest. I beg to move to insert January in place of December.
Amendment moved, in page 42, line 18, to leave out the word "December," and insert the word "January." (Caldwell.)
Question, "That the word 'December' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
MR. CALDWELL: I now move to omit from Clause 65 (borrowing by County Council) Sub-section (c), which authorizes the County Council to make advances of money borrowed upon the security of the rates to persons or bodies of persons in aid of emigration or colonization. This Amendment is a very important one, and is not one which has been moved in Committee. This question has never yet been discussed in connection with the Bill. I observe that the County Council is to be empowered to make grants to bodies of persons "corporate or incorporate" with a guarantee of repayment "from any authority in the county." I venture to say that when the emigrated person leaves the county the interest of the county in that person practically ceases or should cease, and if you allow the rates to be used for a purpose of this kind you are going to establish in this offhand way what is felt in Scotland to be a very dubious policy—that of emigrating the people instead of developing the resources of the district with a view to enabling the people to remain in the country to earn an honest living. We cannot dissociate this power in the clause for the important fact that the parties interested in the County Councils will be the ratepayers, in a great measure the landed proprietors, to whose interest it will be to expatriate as many of the people as they possibly can with a view of saving the rates. Thus it will be seen the matter to be decided
1136
is a most serious one, and one which we should not allow to be put in an Act of Parliament for the first time without a full discussion, and without the House understanding that in giving effect to this principle it will be doing a thing in Scotland which ought to, and no doubt eventually will, be made equally applicable to the counties of England. There is all the more objection to this subsection that a Committee has been appointed to determine the conditions under which emigration ought to be conducted. I venture to say, therefore, that in a Bill which proposes merely to reconstitute a new authority powers in excess of those which any Local Authority at present possess ought not to be given.
Amendment proposed, in page 42r line 35, to leave out Sub-section (c) of Clause 65.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That Sub section (c) stand part of the Clause."
DR. CLARK: I hope the Government will, for the present, accept this Amendment, because I think that having appointed a Select Committee of the House to consider the matter, which Committee is sitting—having only to-day reported the evidence it has already taken—you ought to wait for the Report of the Committee before dealing with the subject. I do not think this question of emigration and colonization should be decided until we have more information regarding it. There have been tentative efforts made, and the whole thing is under consideration, and when the Report is before you you must deal with the subject in a general way, without limiting your policy to Scotland, if you desire to confer this power on the County Councils. I have, throughout, been anxious to see the powers of the County Councils extended, and if I support this Amendment to lessen their powers it is because the Government have always refused to give them useful powers. I do not think it is a useful thing for a County Council to be able to get rid of the people who pay the rates and who create the wealth of the country. I suppose the meaning of this sub-section is that in some of the northern counties you may get rid of the inhabitants—who are too numerous—in order to make room for the deer. This seems to be a way to get in the thin ends

1137
of the wedge. I object to the sub-section on that ground, and I also think that it will be an insult to the Emigration Committee to deal with the subject until they have reported.
MR. RITCHIE: So far as insult to the Committee is concerned, I must say that what the sub-section authorizes is not likely to interfere with the recommendations of the Committee, which are most likely to deal with State-aided emigration. Of course, it is quite possible that they may recommend that the County Councils should have powers of this kind. There is nothing compulsory about these powers. All they would do would be to give the County Council authority, when it was thought that certain families might, with advantage to themselves and the county, be removed, to advance money to emigrate them on security being given for repayment of the money advanced. There is no question of risk, for there will be the security of the bodies to whom the money is advanced, or of the colonies themselves. The hon. Gentleman opposite says that if this is good for Scotland it is good for England. But, in reply to that, I would point out that the English County Councils have the same power. These are very proper powers to give to the County Council. When we are setting up such an authority it is not trusting them unduly to enable them to advance money on the security of the rates of the locality for purposes of emigration. Such a power in many cases may be exercised with extraordinary advantage, not only to the people concerned but to the county itself. I trust the House will give this power to the Scotch Councils, corresponding to the power we have already conferred on the English Councils.
MR. CHILDERS: There is great force in what the right hon. Gentleman has said. But throughout his observations he has confined himself to emigration. Under the old English Poor Law Act there is a power to assist persons to emigrate. I do not say that that power has in every instance worked well, but I do not think it has caused any mischief. But there is a word put in the clause of a very different character to emigration—namely, "colonization." Emigration may cost £5, £10, or £15 a head, but colonization may cost £100.
1138
The charge under a scheme of colonization might be extremely heavy. Though the county is to have a guarantee from some authority, it does not say what authority. It mentions the colonies, but colonial security, in some cases, may be very doubtful security. Though these guarantees are necessary there is no other restraint put on the County Councils. They might spend £10,000 or £20,000 on colonization without any other restraint. I would suggest that the words "or colonization" should be omitted. The words are very wide and they are inconsistent with the principle on which for 50 years we have, under our Poor Law, acted.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: It is unfortunate that this important clause should have been passed through Committee without being discussed at all. When we got to the latter part of the Bill in Committee it was shoved through with insufficient discussion. It will be difficult to deal with this clause as it should be dealt with on Report; and I, therefore, hope that the Government will consent to make this clause one of those in respect of which the Bill is to be recommitted. I agree that there is great danger in the wide character of this clause. Not only are powers to be given for emigration and colonization, but they are to be given to bodies "corporate and incorporate." That means, or may mean, jobbing emigration companies, of which there are a great many in Scotland. These companies may be influential in certain counties, or may manage to get the ear of County Councillors. It seems to me dangerous to give the Local Authorities power to lend money to bodies like these, who profess to own land in certain places, but which land nobody has ever seen. There are many land companies who are paying large dividends, but there are many who have come to grief, and there are many more who may come to grief, and by whom the ratepayers might be let in to a considerable extent. The clause speaks of getting colonial guarantees, but my impression is that you would not get the Government of any colony to guarantee anything. If you did, you would have no power to enforce the guarantee. The matter is one that requires amendment, and I hope the Government will consent to drop the clause, and allow it to

1139
be one in respect of which the Bill shall be re-committed.
MR. D. CRAWFORD: I hope the Government will listen to the appeal which has been made to them with regard to this clause, my objections to which go even beyond those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh. We are most anxious that the administration of the Poor Law should be brought into connection with the County Councils; but our efforts to accomplish that were resisted and defeated, and I do not think the clause ought to be allowed to stand in its present shape in relation to a single detail of Poor Law administration—namely, the handing over to the County Councils the question of emigration. The clause is a fancy clause, and we do not want fancy clauses in this Bill.
MR. PROVAND: The proposal contained in this clause has no parallel in anything that has been suggested in past legislation relating to Local Government. Though it might not be of great consequence in relation to England it assumes a very different shape when applied to Scotland, in some parts of which the clause would be simply inoperative, while in those parts where it would be put in force it would be a most dangerous power to confer on the Local Authority. Whether the assistance comes from local or Imperial taxation the result would be exactly the same. All Scotchmen on either side of the House ought to oppose this clause, the scope of which is somewhat remarkable, because it authorizes the levy of rates for the purpose of sending the people out of the country, and enables the Local Autho-emigration agent. I say that this is a dangerous power to confer, and the Government would do better to omit it.
DR. McDONALD: I hope the Government will allow this matter to be further considered. I daresay it is in the memory of the House that at one time all sorts of influence, including that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, was used among hon. Members here for the purpose of getting up an emigration company, and that meetings were even held in this House for the purpose of promoting such a company; from which fact it is easy to imagine what sort of influence
1140
may be used in the future if this clause should pass. What, for instance, is to prevent the landlords of the Western Islands, when they meet together at Inverness or Dingwall, from proposing that certain parishes in Lewis or elsewhere should be depopulated under this clause, and the people sent abroad by means of the County Council? Alluding to the company I have referred to, the newspapers have found fault with us for not supporting it; and on making inquiries on the subject, I found that out of every £400 which might be advanced for emigration to America they would expect to be repaid about £2,500. If this is so, where is it all to end? I would suggest that if the Lord Advocate would consent to strike out the letter e from "emigration" and limit the clause to "migration," there would then be no opposition to it. In that case the money of a county would be used for migrating the inhabitants within its own boundaries, and there would be no objection to that.
MR. A. ELLIOT: I would put it to the House whether it is supposed that the crofters would have no representation on the County Councils capable of protecting their interests in this matter? Is it to be supposed that those who do not send representatives of their own class to this House are therefore unrepresented here? Why, then, should it be supposed that the County Councils would improperly discharge their functions in this or any other matter? Are the Scotch County Councils likely to be less fair than the English, and is it alleged that the English County Councils are making rash use of their powers? In my opinion, the judicious use of this clause would confer immense benefit on the country; but if there is any possibility of "migration" being included in it, I should be glad to give my support to that proposal.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I would ask leave to move an Amendment to the clause—namely, in line 37, to omit the word "colonization," in order to insert the word "migration."
MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment suggested by the hon. Gentleman could not be accepted at this stage.
MR. HUNTER: I would point out that while the Government have refused to give the County Coun-

1141
cils a great many powers that would be indubitably good, they now insist, against the opinion of a large majority of the Scotch Members, on foisting on those bodies a power of a most objectionable character. At the present time there is an artificial prejudice against foreigners and foreign products; and yet the very men who protest against foreigners most loudly are the first to vote for emigrating the people to foreign countries. For my part, while I think that voluntary and spontaneous emigration is a very good thing, I altogether object to State aided and State-directed emigration. It is, in fact, a practical admission that our civilization is a failure, and that what the Socialists are saying is true. What could be more absurd and irrational than to bring up a large number of human beings to an age at which they may be useful to the country, and then to suggest methods by which they should be sent abroad? We have heard a good deal about the necessity for emigration from the Highlands; but having looked into the question, while I admit that here and there the population has increased more rapidly than in other places, I say that the whole of this story about the over-population of the Highland districts is sheer moonshine and nonsense. The evils met with in the Highlands are due to bad laws, and not to any grudgingness on the part of nature, nor to any excess of population. Moreover, I say that if anything could justify the turning of people out of the country, it would be impossible to devise a scheme more objectionable than that embodied in this clause. If you empowered the County Councils to spend money when, how, and where they might deem most expedient in emigration, something might be said for the clause; but what is it you do? Why, the Imperial Parliament is here made to suggest that County Councils should enter into financial arrangements with land companies, which are usually formed by a number of enterprising speculators, who go to the colonies and buy large tracts of land for nominal sums, and then come here and propose through the medium of the County Councils to send out an adult population capable of turning that land into valuable property. Why, Sir, this is neither more nor less than
1142
Scotch coolie emigration for the benefit of another country. These emigrants do not go out as independent individuals, but are tied hand and foot, and placed at the mercy of the speculators. Why do the Government insist on this clause? The Scotch Members do not want it, though certain landowners would probably like to make use of it to their own advantage, through means obtained on the credit of the localities. If it is said the County Councils may be trusted not to abuse this power, I agree that this might be so in the case of the Lowlands; but in other parts it is very possible that by means of the ex officio members and the enfranchisement of a large number of ratepayers there might be a landlord majority who would do great mischief. Again, if this be a bonâ fide plan for assisting emigration, why not leave it free? Why thirl the people to the land companies? I remember receiving an invitation to attend a meeting, already referred to, under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, though I did not go, as I thought we ought not to mix up politics and land speculation. Nor do I think we ought to encourage these companies, which do harm not only to the Colonies, but to the people they send out, because those people go out loaded with debt, and bound to the land speculators under a monstrous and indefensible system. If the Government will give the County Councils power to deal with this matter with perfect freedom, their sincerity will then have been tested. This clause however, limits emigration to the Colonies. We all know that a large number of the voluntary emigrants do not go to the Colonies, but to the United States, and I object to the County Councils being limited as to the destination of the emigrants. The way this clause is worded seems to show that it is the result of influence brought to bear on certain persons in high quarters by land speculators, and I say let the action of the County Councils be free and un-trammeled in the matter; at any rate, if it must be trammeled let it be for the benefit of the emigrants and not of the speculators.
MR. H. COSSHAM: I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that it is delusive to speak of the over-population of the Highlands

1143
and Islands of Scotland, as it is common to do. I remember that when in the Isle of Skye I never saw evidence of this, while, on the contrary, I saw cases in which whole districts had been utterly depopulated for the benefit of the landowners. In some places, where happy villages used to stand, there is now nothing but desolation. I hope hon. Members on this side of the House will oppose the clause tooth and nail. What is wanted is that the land should be placed more within the reach of the people, so that there should be less poverty and wretchedness.
MR. A. L. BROWN: I am somewhat surprised to find that no Member of the Government has risen to reply to the arguments that have been used on this side of the House. Looking at this subject from a merely electioneering point of view, I should say it would be better for us if the Government refuse to give way to the almost unanimous wish of the Scotch Members on this subject, because I can hardly conceive anything that would raise a stronger feeling in Scotland than the fact of its being passed.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: There are two conditions to any scheme of emigration under this clause which make it quite impossible that it should be turned to the uses suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite—there must be willing emigrants, and the willing action of a County Council which would be popularly elected. There is no power which can be conferred so safely on the County Council as this one.
SIR W. FOSTER: I should like to say I look at this clause as being entirely out of place in the Bill, which I am sorry is disfigured by its presence. I take it that the prime object of this Bill is to improve the conditions of life for the people of Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol has said, we have in the past allowed large tracts of land in Scotland to be depopulated for sporting purposes. This condition of things has grown up under a bad system of local and Imperial control. The prime object of this Bill is to improve local Government; and surely when we establish an improved system of local Government in Scotland we may expect better conditions to arise for the people
1144
which will make the necessity of emigration less than ever. The object of legislation is mainly to make the conditions of life more favourable to the poorest classes. It seems to me very strange to introduce into the Bill a clause to encourage or suggest emigration as a possible way out of the difficulties arising out of bad social conditions. On these grounds I shall vote for the Amendment, as I look upon emigration as the last resort of impotent statesmanship. I am sorry the Government should have introduced into this Bill a clause the object of which is to get rid of the people whose condition the Act itself is intended to improve.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 67.—(Div. List, No. 247.)
MR. PROVAND: I beg to move the omission of the word "colonization," in Clause 65, page 42, line 37, and the substitution of the word "migration." The first thing which struck me is the very great latitude which, is implied in the use of the word "colonization." I should like the Government to tell us exactly what is meant by the word "colonization," because the Government have taken the right to assist emigration in the clause already. That is intelligible, and we can understand what it means—namely, to assist a poor man to go to some other country where his chance of doing well is better than the chance he has at home. But to take powers of "colonization" implies, I should say, that the County Council must follow a man where he goes and take care of him for some indefinite period. There have been attempts made at colonization, but I am not aware that any one of them has been marked by any great success. A certain percentage of the men who go away voluntarily fail, but I think an even larger percentage of those who have been expatriated in batches have failed. Those who go in the way proposed by this clause will really leave all independence. They will be bound within certain limits in whatever colony they are sent to. They will lack that independence which an emigrant has who goes away by his own motive, or even an emigrant assisted by Government. I suppose it will be found necessary to modify this clause, and I should like the Government to state at the outset

1145
how they propose to limit the power which County Councils will possess under this clause to raise money with which to attempt colonization. The last attempt of this kind was made last year, and, judging from the information we have received, it has practically been a failure. There is nothing at all about this clause which would be dangerous in any part of Scotland except in the north-west. There is not the least risk of the County Council of Mid Lothian, for example, borrowing money in order to send any of the inhabitants of that county to Canada, Australia, or anywhere else; and judging from what has fallen from the hon. Member for Roxburghshire, it is quite certain that no County Council in that county would think of raising money to apply to the purpose of colonization. The only part of Scotland in which any use may be made of this clause will be the Highlands. It would be applied only in those parts where the landowners find men are less profitable than sheep or deer, and where it is to their interest that the men should leave in order that they may have more land for sheep and deer. There is another source of danger, and that is that in the Highlands of Scotland it is not likely that any man outside the landlord class will belong to the County Council [Cries of "Order."] I was trying to illustrate the difficulties there will be in getting what I may call a dispassionate County Council in the very parts of Scotland which are the most likely to make use of this clause.
MR. SPEAKER: The question is that of the difference between "migration" and "colonization."
MR. PROVAND: It is a very strange thing that power should be given to raise money for colonization, whereas no power is given to raise money in order to assist a man from one part of a country to another. The County Council are not to be allowed to rate themselves to assist men to move from one place to another at home, and develope the resources which lie at their hand, but they are to have power to rate themselves in order to send men abroad to develope some other country. That appears to be most unfair and most dangerous, therefore I move that the word "migration" should be inserted for "colonization." We know there is plenty of land in the Highlands for all
1146
who desire lo live there. There is probably within the limits of any county as much land as would supply all that is required by the over-population of any other part of the same county.
Amendment proposed, in page 42, line 37, to leave out the word "colonization," and insert the word "migration."—(Mr. Provand.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'colonization' stand part of the Bill."
MR. RITCHIE: I suppose that by moving to leave out the word "colonization" the hon. Gentleman desires to deprive the County Councils of any power to assist those who wish to go to any of our colonies, and to settle there. [Sir G. CAMPBELL: "Oh, oh !"] As an alternative the hon. Member proposes that County Councils shall have power to purchase land at home and to settle people on it.
MR. PROVAND: In this Bill power is expressly taken to aid emigration. I have not said a word against that. What I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain is the meaning of "colonization"—to tell us how far the Local Authority is to follow a man in another country.
MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Gentleman asks what colonization is. I thought I heard some sounds of dissent from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy when I said the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Provand) wants to prevent County Councils enabling people to settle abroad. Colonization means that people shall not only go abroad but shall settle on land there. The hon. Gentleman objects to people going abroad to settle on land.
MR. PROVAND: I object to other people being taxed to pay for it.
MR. RITCHIE: First of all the hon. Member objected to colonization, and said, if I am not mistaken, he had never known of any success attending any scheme of colonization. Perhaps I may inform the hon. Gentleman that at any rate, so far as regards the evidence which has been given before the Committee over which I presided, the emigration or colonization of the crofters has been attended with remarkable and astonishing success. Not only is that shown by evidence which has been given before the Committee, but it is shown by all the

1147
information that has ever come home with reference to the position of the crofters sent out to Canada. Their position is such that it may be said with truth that nothing would tempt them to come back and resume the life they have left behind them. So far, then, as the Scheme of Colonization which we have set on foot in connection with the crofter districts has gone, it has been successful. The hon. Member talks about loss of independence, but in what position do these men find themselves? They find themselves in absolute possession of a magnificent tract of 160 acres of land, with every surrounding which tends to foster rather than to discourage the feeling of independence. Now, we consider that to strike colonization out and leave only migration would be to cripple the proposal of the Government; and not only that, we believe that if the County Councils do take this question into consideration at all, they will do so with infinitely more safety, with much greater security for the money advanced. If you assist a man to migrate simply, you lose sight of him and of the security; but colonization is altogether different. The individual, or the family, is settled on the land under circumstances which imply a guarantee for the payment of the money advanced. We cannot, therefore, consent to fetter the discretion of the County Council in this respect, striking at the power we propose to give them to assist colonization; and I must say the whole discussion has displayed an amount of distrust of the County Councils I should hardly have expected from hon. and learned Gentlemen who have, in other directions, been so excessively anxious to extend the power of County Councils. The assumption is that, in reference to colonization, County Councils will totally disregard the interest and welfare of the people in their county, and enter into some kind of combination with persons or bodies of persons for the purpose of depopulating their own county and sending their people abroad in order to make their position worse. Well, we have greater confidence in the representative body we propose to set up. We say that to confer on County Councils in England those powers and in the same breath to say we have not
1148
sufficient confidence in the County Councils we are setting up in Scotland to give them similar powers, shows an amount of distrust with which we have no sympathy. The hon. Member proposes to strike out colonization and put in migration; the hon. Member is so tender of the feelings of the ratepayers that he will not give the County Council power beyond migration. Now, what would have to be done if the hon. Member had his way? He speaks of only enabling the people to go from one part of the country to another, but that is not all that is intended under the term migration; that in itself would do the people no good unless you are prepared to settle them upon land in another part of the country. It would be of no earthly use simply to pay their railway fare from one part of the country to another where they might be in even a more wretched condition than before. Migration means not only assisting the people from one part of the country to another, but the purchase of land to settle them upon. What would be the position of the ratepayers having to purchase land at home instead of getting land in Canada for nothing at all, and where the people would be settled with every reasonable expectation of being able in a few years to repay all the money advanced? We cannot assent to the Amendment; we cannot assent to the proposition that migration is better than colonization; we cannot assent to the proposition that colonization is bad in itself. Nor can we assent to the proposition that underlies the whole of this proposal, which implies the existence of a distrust of County Councils shown by hon. Members opposite.
MR. MARJORIBANKS: The right hon. Gentleman has administered a lecture to my hon. Friends that I think was entirely uncalled for, and he has waxed very wroth over the definitions of colonization, emigration, and migration, but it seems to me the subject did not require all this, and that it might have been dealt with with some of that urbanity we have been accustomed to from the right hon. Gentleman in discussions upon Local Government. My object in rising is to suggest a compromise to my hon. Friend. I do not see that we advance matters very much by drawing subtle distinctions between emigration and

1149
colonization, and I think we might accept the Division just taken as the decision of the House that emigration and colonization shall stand together. What I would suggest to right hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they should meet my hon. Friend so far as to agree to want the migration in addition to emigration and colonization. The right hon. Gentleman says that migration means much more than the conveyance of people from one part of the country to another, but does not the same definition apply to emigration? You will not say our duty is fulfilled by simply transporting people across the Atlantic and leaving their settlement there to chance. I have some small knowledge of the Highlands, though that may have been acquired in following pursuits that do not altogether meet the approval of some of my hon. Friends, but I can assure them that even sportsmen have their sympathies, even sportsmen are desirous of benefiting the people among whom they dwell and with whose assistance they enjoy their sport. My belief is that there is ample room for the people of Scotland to find holdings and for the sportsman to have his sport in Scotland. I do not believe that the two things are necessarily incompatible. From all I have seen and heard I believe that the very greatest benefits would accrue to the Highlands from an efficient system of migration that would relieve the congested districts and settle the people removed in some other part of the Highlands. It is work that might readily be undertaken by a body like the County Council, either within their own county or in conjunction with another County Council from one county to another. I think if my hon. Friend would modify his Amendment as I suggest, introducing the word "migration" and leaving the other words, it would receive the support of Scotch Members from both sides.
MR. ILLINGWORTH: I was a little surprised at the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board reserving all his energies until the last moment, and then getting into a fit of enthusiasm about trust and mistrust of the County Council. Why, all through the progress of the English measure the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were continually seeking to curb the power of
1150
the County Councils. Never a question comes before the House as to the powers of borrowing to be allowed to a municipal body, though the outlay contemplated may be for the most substantial purposes, but every disposition is shown, by the right hon. Gentleman to restrict those local powers, though they may be in relation to essential matters in which the locality would be greatly benefited—in reference to water supply, gas, roads, sewage, or any purpose of general utility for the people in relation to whom the municipal body may have duties to discharge. I confess I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to grapple with the enormous power it is by this clause proposed to give to the County Council. The Lord Advocate, in dealing with another point, pointed out how unfair it was to fix upon one branch of a subject and not look at the whole question, in which one part balanced the other. Now, here we have the two questions of emigration and colonization; they cannot mean the same thing or the two words would not be used, and I say is there not a possibility that in some particular County Council there may be some influential members largely interested in some scheme of colonial colonization, and will they not use their influence for the purpose of inducing the County Council to embark upon this policy of lending and borrowing on the security of colonial land? It is, to my mind, a highly dangerous policy for a County Council to follow. Without for a moment indulging in any hint or suspicion of anything of a corrupt character, I cannot but regard this proposal as most dangerous for a County Council. Of course English Members have left these discussions to Scotch Members to a great extent, but this proposal goes far beyond anything we have in the English Local Government Act ["No, no."] Notwithstanding these expressions of scepticism I repeat there never has been made under any English Bill a proposal to enter into such a scheme of foreign land purchase and taking security from abroad. There is no more safety in such a proposal for Scotland than for England, and, going so far a field from local government in this Bill, there is no telling where we may not be ultimately landed. Why, after the restrictions we have placed upon Municipal

1151
and County Government in England, should we throw the reins over the shoulders of these Scotch County Councils, and allow them to squander the ratepayers' money as they please? I hope a Division will be taken on this unsafe proceeding.
DR. CLARK: I am sorry the President of the Local Government Board has gone, because I was about to say that if he would accept the same definition of emigration as he has given us of migration, then we would accept the phraseology if he would only give us the thing we want. I take it the last Division was in favour of emigration, and we are committed to emigration. I have no objection at all to emigration, for I believe the colonies have a greater future than the mother country. I do not object to Scotchmen going to strengthen the colonies. I only ask that you should, while you send away the people from the congested districts to cultivate these prairie lands, also promote the cultivation of our waste lands at home. I lave no objection to foreign colonization if we have home colonization too. I look at this matter from a practical standpoint. You have congested districts in the Highlands, and you have not far off wide belts of more or less fertile land where men have been cleared in the past to make room for sheep. This clearance of the land for sheep raising was the original cause of the congestion. It was supposed that sheep would pay better than land. But the Highland landlords have long since discovered the blunder that was made, and they do not get any economic return for their land from the southern people who come North. I do not object to sport. I like sport myself; but I do not think a Yankee alternately drinking champagne and shooting deer constitutes sport. True sport is never without some element of danger. The value of land in the Highlands, the seat of sporting estates, has fallen rapidly and is falling.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is dealing very discursively with the question before the House. He can scarcely raise the whole economical question of rent and land value on this question.
DR. CLARK: I will not, Sir, enter into it more fully. All I wish to do is to point out the advantages of a system of migration from the congested districts to districts where land purely occupied
1152
by tenants is fallen in value. This migration would relieve the crowded districts, increase the value of the rates, and add to the wealth of the county and the country. It can be done with ample security. There are numbers of estates the value of which has greatly fallen which the County Council could buy, and upon which they could settle the people they migrate from the congested districts. I know this is the case in Caithness, and I believe it is so elsewhere. Why, then, should the only outlet be Canada, British Columbia, and other colonies, while land can be acquired at home, and where the security is ample and more under your control than land in the Colonies? All I ask is that the people should have a choice, that those should go to Canada or other Colonies who wish to do so, but that others should have the chance of re-cultivating the land upon which their fathers lived, land now lying waste, and restoring it again to fertility, to the increase of its value, and the increase of the trade of the country. I am not objecting to emigration; all I say is, give a man the choice of settling upon land at home, or of being expatriated. Whatever reasons there are in favour of emigration apply with greater force to home colonization.
SIR. CAMPBELL: I hope the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Berwick, will be accepted. I do not object to the word colonization as likely to do much harm. I am inclined to think it is surplusage, because you cannot colonize a man until you have emigrated him. The right hon. Gentleman, in enlarging upon the advantage of colonization in Canada, left out of view the field for emigration in Iowa and Dacota. I am not quite sure whether, if you assist a man there, it would come within the scheme of colonization. Indeed, my objection to the word colonization is, that it smacks of land companies and jobbery. I would have preferred to have the word left out, but since we are to have it, then I think we might very well accept the amended suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick, and add migration. I should just like to say a few words on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman when he spoke of the result of crofter emigration. He has anticipated what may be done by the

1153
Crofter Committee. The work has only just begun, and it is much too early to speak of this emigration as a tremendous success, as he has done. What evidence there may be I do not know, but this I do know, and I can say emphatically and without hesitation, that the people who emigrated from the crofter districts were not of the poorest class, but they were comparatively well-to-do. There was no attempt to select the poorer people, and so to give relief to the congested districts of the Mother Country. The emigration was carried out by a Government Agent and an Agent of the Colonial Government; and the Colonial Agent practically selected those who were to be sent out, and they were selected as being likely to benefit the colony rather than to benefit the Mother Country. It is absurd, after an experience of a few months, to speak of this scheme as a success. It must be tried for years, and then we shall be able to decide upon the success of it. At present it has been tried only upon a very small scale and with selected emigrants; and these few people have been petted, made much of, and cared for on the other side of the Atlantic, as being a sort of decoy ducks of the Emigration Agent and the speculative land companies. So far, there has been no fair test. As to migration, I think that something might be done by doing as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness suggests, and populating those places at home which have passed out of cultivation. My hon. Friend says that in Caithness there are many estates that can be availed of for this purpose, and for this Caithness is eminently suited. It has a soil something like the Orkneys, where we have a model system of small cultivation successfully established. I do not see why, with a good system well carried out, we might not make of Caithness another Orkneys. Migration need not absolutely be confined to agriculture, I really do not see why we should not migrate people to Glasgow, where they would have an opportunity of usefully employing their labour. Glasgow wants labour and cannot get good Scotch labour; Glasgow is too full of Irishmen, and I daresay the same might be said of many other towns. Certain it is that we have admirable material for labour
1154
in the Highlands. I do hope Her Majesty's Government will agree, while they insist upon retaining colonization, to add this word migration.
MR. CALDWELL: This Amendment involves two things; the omission of colonization and the substitution of migration. Now the objection to colonization is, that it takes from the country, and not from the poorest of the country, a certain amount of labour and energy, the development of which takes place in another country, and the value of which goes to that new country; it is of no benefit to the country from which the emigration takes place. Now in the case of migration what we claim is that it is for the benefit of the district from which the labour is removed, and it is equally of benefit to the district to which the labour is transferred, and that you do not only take away the most active among the people but you can remove the most necessitous also. We ask that the people should be retained in the counties, and that the money should be lent by the County Councils for the purpose of developing the counties themselves and promoting the prosperity of the people within them. There is the greatest distinction to be drawn between giving the County Councils authority to lend money that is to be taken abroad for the purpose of developing a foreign country, and migration, which means the development of the country itself and the spending of money under the eye and supervision of the Local Authority. The President of the Local Government Board says we are anxious to limit the powers of the Councils, and that was rather a curious statement to come from him, seeing that while he is ready himself to give the Councils power to send the people abroad, he refuses to give them power to migrate the people to different parts of Scotland. He is ready to give power to carry out the policy of his own party, which is to send people out of the country. What is the clause we are going into Committee on? It is a clause authorizing the County Council to give advances on account of allotments. If that is adopted, why should we not give the County Councils at the same time power to migrate the people to these very allotments the Councils are to acquire? It cannot be said that

1155
Scotland is over-populated, seeing that we are only 4,000,000, spread over a large territory. We have plenty of room for migration, and we say that before giving the people facilities for emigration and colonization, we should take into consideration the large extent of territory that is available in Scotland itself for migrating the poorer classes from the islands to the main land. All I want is, that if the County Councils are to have powers in the direction desired by hon. Gentlemen opposite, they should also have powers in the direction we desire.
MR. PROVAND: I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn? [Cries of "No."]
The House divided:—Ayes 114; Noes 74.—(Div. List, No. 248.)
DR. CLARK: I desire to move to insert "and migration," so as to enable the County Councils to advance money for migration.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot make that Motion. If the last Amendment had been merely to omit "colonization," an opportunity would have been afforded subsequently of moving to insert "migration"; but as the Amendment was to omit "colonization," and insert "emigration," and as that has been negatived, the hon. Member cannot, by the Forms of the House, make the Motion to which he refers.
MR. FIRTH: Would it not be possible to put in the words "at home and abroad" after "colonization"?
MR. SPEAKER: No; that would simply be an evasion of the Rules of the House.
On Motion of The Lord Advocate, the following Amendments were made:—Clause 65, page 43, line 1, leave out "the said Acts," and insert "this Act"; Clause 65, page 43, line 3, after "borrow," leave out to "year," inclusive, in line 5.
MR. CALDWELL: I have an Amendment on the Paper that Section 67 be omitted, and I refer to it for the purpose of calling the attention of the Lord Advocate to a suggestion as to the County Auditor. In Scotland we have an Accountant to the Court of Session
1156
who is a paid Government official, and I leave it to the Lord Advocate to say whether this person should be referred to here or not. Without moving my Amendment, I would refer to the next proposal to leave out "seven" and insert "fourteen." The accounts of the County Council are to be open to the inspection of the ratepayers seven clear days before the audit; but in Sub-section 4 we find that the ratepayers must lodge complaints six clear days before the audit. That only gives one day for lodging complaints. If you are going to hold to that six days, then you should at least have the accounts open for inspection 14 days before date to give a reasonable time for the examination of the accounts.
Amendment moved, page 44, to leave out Clause 67.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That Clause 67 stand part of the Bill."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: We have had an immense number of communications from officials conversant with the subject, and this point has never been alluded to. Therefore, I should not think it necessary to make any alterations in the clause.
MR. HUNTER: The right hon. Gentleman can hardly have followed this with his usual close attention. A ratepayer making an objection must give notice six clear days before the audit, and these accounts are only accessible to him seven clear days before the audit. So that having only one day at his disposal it is clear he cannot make objection.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I should be quite ready to consider the point, but I thought the hon. Member's observations applied to the first point. The hon. Member addressed himself in the first place to Clause 67. On the second point I am willing to meet the hon. Gentleman.
MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is to leave out Clause 67.
MR. CALDWELL: I withdraw that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed in, Clause 68, page 45, line 30, leave out "six," and insert "two."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Amendment agreed to.
On Motion of Mr. J. P. B. Robertson, the following Amendments were made:—Clause 71, page 48, line 38, leave out "or road trustees;" lines 40 and 41, leave out "or road trustee;" page 49, line 8, leave out sub-section (8); line 8, after "councillors," insert "or members of district committees;" Clause 74, page 50, line 15, after "purpose," insert "of this Act;" Clause 75, page 51, line 23, after "districts," leave out to "highways," inclusive, in line 24; leave out line 26, and insert—
"in the case of a county containing fewer than six parishes, or which has not been divided into districts for the purposes of the management and maintenance of highways therein."
MR. CALDWELL: The next Amendment is rather an important one, its object being to provide that the District Councils shall consist of elected members of the County Councils alone, and that there shall be no representation by delegates from the Parochial Boards. The Lord Advocate himself, I think, has supplied to us the best reason for the Amendment, as he says he wishes to have continuity of policy as regards the Commissioners of Supply. Well, as regards the Parochial Boards the reason for taking the administration of the Public Health Act out of their hands is that they have mismanaged the matter, and yet the proposal is that the Parochial Boards shall have an equal, if not a greater voice, with the County Councils in dealing with matters which the Lord Advocate says shall be dealt with on the District Councils. At present the members elected to the Parochial Boards consist for the great part of owners. You have, as a rule, some 20 owners to seven ratepayers, so that the members selected by the Parochial Boards will be representative of owners, and will be able to swamp the members elected by the ratepayers. The object of the Amendment is to prevent that being done.
Amendment proposed, in page 51, line 30, to leave out from the word "districts," to the word "district," in line 32, inclusive.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I rise mainly for the purpose of saying that this was one of the questions most carefully, deliberately, and repeatedly discussed in Committee. The hon. Gentleman has added nothing to the arguments which were addressed to the Committee, and I do not think I should be justified in occupying the time of the House by going fully into the matter.
DR. CLARK: I hope the Government will make some modification in the clause. This matter was somewhat sprung upon us, the number of County Councillors being given to us late in the day. We have since found that some of the counties will only have four or six parishes with 20 Councillors, while in others you will have twice as many parishes as members of the County Council. Some parishes should have more than one member on the District Committee. I had hoped that we might have had some of the parishes grouped, and not have had a parish of a quarter of a million inhabitants with one representative. But there seems to be no relation between taxation and representation, and you merely take the counties, some with 50 or 70 parishes, and some with only six parishes; so that, in some cases, the elected County Councellors number four times the number of the members for Parochial Boards, while in other counties the members for Parochial Boards number two or three times the number of the elected Councillors. I had hoped that the Government would have done something to prevent the County Councillors being entirely swamped in those counties where there are a number of small parishes.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: Sir, sometimes one is excited at night, and the morning brings with it reflection. The more I think of this matter, the more I think that Parish Councils are unnecessary; and it seems to me that you are spoiling the measure by introducing an unequal and unnecessary element, an element which is not fairly representative because it is not uniform.
SIR W. FOSTER: I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider this matter. The more I have thought of it the more I am convinced that the scheme will not work satisfactorily in the interests of the public health. I am

1159
very anxious that the initiative in this work connected with the public health should be given to the County Council, and that the power of outvoting should not be given to three or four or half-a-dozen representatives of Parochial Boards. It happens in rural districts that certain of the members may be interested in the very cottages proposed to be improved because of their unsanitary condition, and they obstruct, and the work is not done. In England this difficulty is constantly cropping up. Whole ranges of property are pulled down, and the people are driven to the outskirts of the town or into villages because it would cost the owners more money to put their property into a sanitary condition than they think worth, considering the profits derived from it. If you have an unequal representation like this of different interests in different parts of the country, you will have the work done efficiently in some places and inefficiently in others, and you will have friction and dissatisfaction which will necessitate sooner or later the revision of the Bill, after it has become an Act. On this ground I ask the Lord Advocate to give some further consideration to this subject.
The House divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 86.—(Div. List, No. 249.)
MR. HOZIER: There is very naturally a strong objection to fighting over again questions that have been already decided in Committee, but this question of the appointment of Assessors was never discussed in Committee at all. It therefore affords an instance of the usefulness of the Report stage. There is no more persuasive speaker than the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, but he is also able to realize that there are moments when silence is not only golden, but very golden in Committee, and in moving the insertion of the words to which I object he made no regular speech, but merely said—"I move, Sir." Yet by these words he effected an entire revolution in the relations that have subsisted since 1857 between the counties and burghs on the one hand, and the Treasury and Inland Revenue Department on the other, in regard to this matter of the appointment of
1160
Assessors. According to the new proposal we shall have in future to go cap in hand to the Treasury to ask as a favour that which hitherto we have demanded as a right. The original Act for the valuation of land in Scotland was passed in 1854; but there was an amending Act passed in 18i7, to which I specially refer. The first clause of the latter Act says:—
"It shall be lawful for the Commissioners of Supply of each county and the Magistrates of each burgh in Scotland, respectively, if they shall think fit, to appoint the officer or officers of Inland Revenue, having the survey of the Income Tax and Assessed Taxes within such county or burgh to be the assessors or assessor for the purpose of the said Act; and such officer or officers, when so appointed, as long as such appointments remain unrecalled, shall in all respects and for all the purposes aforesaid, stand, in the place of and shall have, use, exercise, and perform all the powers and duties of the person or persons whom the said Commissioners and Magistrates respectively are authorized to appoint for like purposes, under or by virtue of the third section of the said Act; and in such case the expense attending the making up of valuation rolls by such officer or officers shall be defrayed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, or as the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury shall direct in that behalf."
There is good reason to believe that this was proposed by the Board of Inland Revenue themselves, because they were anxious that there should be uniformity of valuation and taxation. 30 counties and 45 burghs have availed themselves of the permission accorded in this Act, and have employed the surveyors of Inland Revenue as Assessors for the purposes of the Act of 1854. The advantages of this arrangement are, in the first place, economy. The work has only to be done once. In the second place, there is the advantage of uniformity, as between taxation and rating. Only one Return is required from one official, instead of people being pestered by double applications for double returns. Moreover, there is only one tribunal to which appeals have to be made in case of dissatisfaction. If the Lord Advocate's Amendments, which were introduced in Committee, are allowed to stand, the option will no longer remain with the public. It will actually be in the power of the Inland Revenue to deprive the counties and burghs of the services of the Surveyors at once by moving them from district to district, and so compelling a county or burgh to apply to the Treasury

1161
for permission to employ those appointed to succeed. This is in no way a Party question. I hope to have the support of Members in every quarter of the House. Finally, and most emphatically, let me point out that the whole question is still sub judice. A Committee on Eating and Valuation in Scotland is sitting, and has not yet reported. That Committee has had this very question before it; and, as far as indications go, there is not much likelihood of the Report being in favour of the view taken by the Treasury, and embodied in the words which by my Amendment I propose to omit. I beg now to move my Amendment.
Amendment proposed, in page 54, line 17, to leave out from the word "office," to the word "burgh," in line 26, inclusive.—(Mr. Hozier.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. FIRTH: I think the Government ought to have consulted the Local Authorities before insisting upon a change by which they will be so materially affected. I would suggest that the whole matter might very well be postponed, as it does not appear to be at all germane to the present Bill.
MR. THORBURN: It appears to me that this is an insidious attempt on the part of the Treasury to evade a responsibility which at present belongs to them.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I can quite confirm what has been said as to the admirable manner in which the existing arrangements have worked. But, Sir, the position of the matter is this—the Assessor's duties are not entirely local. He has to make up the county valuation roll. Formerly the counties paid for that; but the Treasury, finding that roll to be the basis of taxation, entered into the arrangement now embodied in the Act of Parliament. They said to the Local Authorities—if you take an officer of Inland Revenue, then we shall pay the cost of making up the valuation roll. Over and above that there comes the Act of Parliament which makes the Assessor the official to make up the Parliamentary register. That, again, is a purely county function. For the expense of making up the
1162
valuation roll where an Inland Revenue officer is employed, the Treasury pays; but of course for the registration it does not pay, and there you have this predicament—that the officer of Inland Revenue, who is primarily paid by the Treasury for his whole time, is also, to a certain extent, the servant of the Town Council. The Treasury have no desire to terminate the arrangement; but the present change of functions in regard to county administration has suggested this alteration. You have, as incident to the change in county administration, yet another roll of voters to be made up, and the duty of making it up falls by Act of Parliament upon the Assessor. That implies more attraction towards the County Authority as his masters, and more remuneration for him from that quarter, and accordingly it detracts from what I may observe is primarily his duty as an officer of Inland Revenue. Under the circumstances the Government have proposed these two simple changes. The first is that where the Assessor is an officer of Inland Revenue, any regulation made by the County Council with respect to his duties and conduct shall be subject to the approval of the Treasury. That means no more than that the County Council are not to assign to him duties that will detract, or take him away from his primary duties as an officer of Inland Revenue, without the consent of his paymasters. Now, is not that in itself a fair arrangement, there being a joint interest in this public servant? I think it is necessary that while one body has to pay him, the other ought not to be allowed to throw upon him any engagements which are inconsistent with his duties to his paymasters. The other recommendation of the Government provides that henceforth it shall not be lawful to appoint an Assessor without the consent of the Treasury, but it also provides that such consent shall not be necessary in the case of the re-appointment of an Assessor. Where you have got an officer of Inland Revenue acting as Assessor, the mere circumstances of his changing masters and of its being necessary to re-appoint him from time to time, will not bring into force the embargo by the Treasury. That seems to me to be only fair. It is provided, however, that if a County

1163
Council, upon a vacancy occurring, proceeds to appoint a new Assessor, then the consent of the Treasury shall be necessary. We must remember that year by year the work of the office increases; the task of making up the register of Parliamentary voters becomes heavier, and now that you have got a separate roll to be made up for the County Council, the position of the Assessor requires re consideration, and I think it is only fair that the Treasury's consent should be asked to any re-arrangement that is proposed to be made. When the present arrangement was made thirty years ago, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the balance of work on the Imperial side and on the local side was totally different, and I hold that this new arrangement is necessary in order to provide that the taxpayer shall not be called upon to pay for an officer whose time is more or less engrossed in local concerns. I, therefore, must stand by the arrangement, which I think is both satisfactory and equitable.
MR. HUNTER: There are two objections to the proposal of the Government which the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with. In the first place, the Treasury voluntarily submitted this very question to adjudication by the Committee upstairs. There was no obligation on the part of the Treasury to do so, and I think it is rather taking an advantage of Scotland for the Treasury, after voluntarily entering into arbitration on the point, themselves to proceed to decide it without hearing the Report of the Committee. The next point, I admit, is a very small question. It is as to the alleged want of remuneration complained of by Imperial Officers. But by this very Bill the Government have taken £56,000 of Scotch money out of the Probate Duty. We are £56,000 to the bad, because this money is taken out of the Probate Duty instead of out of the Estimates, and I submit it will be a long time before the Assessors will earn anything like that £56,000. It is, therefore, most mean, niggardly, miserly, and miserable for the Government to quarrel over this little matter, and to interfere with arrangements which have proved of the greatest possible convenience to Scotland, for by this interference they will incur the risk of upsetting and injuring our system of
1164
making up the electoral rolls—a system which is admittedly superior to the system which is in vogue in England. I hope the Government will give way on this point. If they take the most exaggerated view of the value of the services of these gentlemen, they will find it impossible to show that they earn anything like the £56,000 which is to be appropriated out of the Probate Duty.
MR. MARK STEWART: There is a very strong feeling in Scotland as to the smallness of the remuneration given to these Inland Revenue Officers. They have far too much to do; they are overburdened with work; they have to work extra hours; they are compelled to put on many extra clerks, and their remuneration is very small. Therefore, if the Government think fit to persevere with this Amendment, I hope the Treasury will take this matter into consideration, and pay the Inland Revenue Officers far better than they do at present.
MR. D. CRAWFORD: I hope that the Government will not persevere with this Amendment, which was introduced in Committee in a most unexpected fashion, for it was wrapt up in a very long clause dealing with the duties of the County Clerk. I have been long acquainted with the position of Assessors and with the value of their services, and I had not the slightest conception that by three lines the Government intended to make in the law affecting them changes of such considerable importance. Now, although I am sure the Lord Advocate had no intention to conceal his purpose, I do put it to the House whether, when you are practically repealing an Act of Parliament dealing with a subject by no means closely connected with a Local Government Bill, some explanation ought not to be given. No explanation was, as a fact, given on this point. The alteration ought not to have been smuggled into the Bill. The Valuation Act of 1854 laid on the County Authorities the duty of making out the valuation rolls, and that provision has been of the utmost service to the administration of all Departments of the Public Service in Scotland, for it is one of the most successful public institutions in the country. The value of these rolls was recognized in 1857

1165
by an Act of Parliament which enabled the County Authorities to avail themselves gratuitously of the services of the officers of Inland Revenue for the purpose of making them out, and it was further provided that if the Local Authorities did not avail themselves of the services of the Inland Revenue officers, the rolls would not be binding on the Department for the purposes of Imperial taxation. This was a bargain between the State and the Local Authorities, and I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are acquainted with details of county administration in Scotland if it has not worked satisfactorily. I say it is a most wanton thing by a clause in a Local Government Bill to attempt to disturb that arrangement. I cannot but think that this has been forced on the Scotch Office by the Treasury, and I repeat that it is particularly inopportune to propose this change when a Committee upstairs are actually considering the point as to the propriety or otherwise of keeping up this arrangement. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for South Lanarkshire thinks with me on this point, and indeed forestalled me in proposing this Amendment, and I earnestly trust that when the Government realize what the feeling is on both sides of the House they will give way.
SIR DONALD CURRIE: It seems to me that this is simply a question of the control by the Inland Revenue of its own officers. In the last few days I have received, and have made inquiry into, communications as to the claims of the Assessors. No one will dispute their claim to credit for the admirable work which they have done. I think the question of the emoluments of these officers may safely be left in the hands of the Treasury and of the Secretary for Scotland.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I desire that there shall be no misunderstanding with regard to this question. I think it will be admitted by the learned Lord Advocate that from all parts of Scotland very strong remonstrances have come upon this question. Hitherto the arrangements have worked admirably, and I think there is no cause whatever for the intervention of the Treasury. I hope that in the face of the unanimous view of Scotland on this matter
1166
the Government will not persist in the change.
MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: I should like to corroborate what has been said with regard to the strong feeling that exists as to the introduction of this change into the Bill. The protests directed against it have been very numerous, and I hope the Lord Advocate will agree to expunge the provision.
The House divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 125.—(Div. List, No. 250.)
DR. CLARK: The Amendment I have placed on the Paper raises one of the questions that we were unable to discuss in Committee. We rushed through the Bill without having the opportunity of discussing some of the points that arise upon it. The object of my Amendment is to prevent the County Councils from paying pensions to all their servants. Under the clause as it stands County Councils will be able to grant pensions to everyone they appoint in any capacity whatever. I think the officials of County Councils should be taught prudence, and should learn to save, like other people, for a rainy day.
Amendment proposed, Clause 81, page 54, line 37, to leave out from the word "allowance" to the word "circumstances."—(Dr. Clark.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. HUNTER: This is a very important question, and I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate should not have a single word to say about his revolutionary proposal. I believe that at the present time there is no Local Authority in Scotland that has the power to charge pensions upon the rates. This is the introduction of a new and, as many of us think, a most pernicious principle. It seems to me that the whole system of pensions is wrong. It is quite true that the Bill makes it permissive; but we all know what is the result of giving a permissive power of this kind—namely, that the officials who are constantly in communication with the County Council will give the members no peace until they consent to grant them pensions. I hope that

1167
hon. Members on both sides of the House who understand the huge evils that grow up under any system of pensions will help us in Scotland to protect ourselves from the introduction of a principle wholly foreign to our Scotch traditions, and in itself wholly objectionable.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This subject is one very fairly open to consideration. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in saying that there is no organized system of pensions in Scotland, and that the matter is open to consideration. The question is not matured for settlement with regard to the Departments of the Civil Service in Scotland, and it seems to me that the better way to deal with it will be to reserve it for consideration along with the more general question. I am, therefore, prepared to assent to the Amendment.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. CALDWELL: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment proposed, Clause 82, page 55, line 10, after the word "office," to insert the words "but without any additional remuneration therefor."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think it would hardly do to provide that there should be no additional remuneration where there is a transfer of duties much more onerous than those originally imposed on the official. I think it would be better that the matter should be left to the County Council.
MR. CALDWELL: I should have thought that the Lord Advocate would himself have seen that this was reasonable. We have inserted the very same words with regard to other offices—namely, that the officials are to act without any additional remuneration.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. CALDWELL: I beg to move the next Amendment that stands in my name. This is one of those clauses that was passed the other night without any discussion whatever. I would merely point out that there are certain schools
1168
under certain schemes of the Educational Endowment Commissioners, where at the present moment they charge school fees in the elementary standards. The object of this clause is, that in all those schemes where school fees are paid for the elementary standards, the money shall be applied to those standards that are above the elementary standards. There is, however, one omission, and the object of the Amendment is to provide that all such schools should be placed in the same position as the Board Schools.
Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 22, after the word "school," to insert the words, "or in any school authorized under any scheme of Provisional Order."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I cannot accept the Amendment, as it does not square with Clause 22.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment proposed in page 55, line 24, to leave out from the word "applied," to the word "enacted," in line 26 inclusive.—(The Lord Advocate.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. BUCHANAN: I should like to have a word of explanation respecting this Amendment. As I understand the purport of it, those funds which are at present being applied in payment of School fees may in future be turned to any purpose which the Governing Bodies and the Scotch Education Department may approve, apparently without any restriction whatever. This is giving very wide powers to the public bodies and to the Education Department, and I would suggest that some direction should be given in the clause as to the purpose for which the funds should be used. I would also suggest that some provision should be introduced

1169
for ensuring publicity and also providing for some right of appeal.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I may say I am in substantial agreement with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) in the Amendment which stands in his name a little further down on the Paper. The object of the clause is simply this. We have set free certain funds which hitherto have been applied in payment of school fees. It is obviously desirable that no inference should be drawn from that, that persons who have received school fees are deprived of some of the benefits that have gone along with school fees in the administration of certain trusts. It is manifest that the funds which are set free ought to go to other purposes which are most like the payment of school fees; and the object of the clause is to carry this out.
MR. HUNTER: I have only one remark to make, and it is that I hope the Government will consider whether they cannot apply this surplus money in aid of continuation schools.
Question put, and negatived.
Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 29, at end, to add the words—
"Provided that when funds are allocated as aforesaid for elementary education those funds shall still he applied for elementary education, or for technical education of an elementary character, so long as there remains any elementary education for which fees are still exigible. If no fees are still exigible for such education, or if after paying any fee so exigible, and for hooks and stationery any surplus remains, the funds or the surplus so remaining shall he devoted to such other purposes (if any) included in the scheme, Provisional Order, deed or instrument as the governing body, with the approval of the Scotch Education Department, may direct."—(Sir G. Campbell.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
MR. CALDWELL: I beg to move to leave out "Christmas Day, or Good Friday," in line 26, and insert "New Year's Day." Christmas Day and Good Friday are unknown as Scotch holidays, and I do not see why we should introduce in a Scotch Bill words which really have no meaning in Scotland. New Year's Day,
1170
which is really the great holiday in Scotland, is not mentioned at all. I do not see why we should follow the English Act so slavishly as to adopt these words.
MR. SPEAKER: Amendment proposed, Clause 90, page 57, line 26, leave out "Sunday"—
MR. CALDWELL: No, no; Christmas Day, or Good Friday.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman move "Sabbath?"
MR. CALDWELL: No, Sir.
Amendment proposed, in page 57, line 26, to leave out the words "Christmas Day or Good Friday," and insert the words "or New Year's Day."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I hope this Amendment will be accepted. There is something to be said for Christmas Day, but Good Friday is an institution totally unknown in Scotland.
MR. HUNTER: I hope the Government will not put us to the trouble of a Division, for divide we must if they refuse the Amendment. I object to this system of attempting to Anglicise Scotch institutions. I do not object to the English people having Christmas Day and Good Friday, or whatever other days they wish; but the only day which is really kept as a holiday in Scotland is New Year's Day.
The House divided:—Ayes 180; Noes 110.—(Div. List, No. 251.)
Amendment proposed, in page 58, line 35, after the word "election," to add the words—
"Or the limits within which the valuation roll for a county or burgh is made up as at the passing of this Act, or the right of assessing for the cost of making up such valuation roll or the register of Parliamentary voters for any county or division or burgh."—(The Lord Advocate.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed, in page 59, line 22, at end of Clause 97, to insert the words—

1171
"But the inhabitants and ratepayers of such police burgh shall cease to be liable to be rated or assessed by the County Council under the Public Health Act."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed, leave out Clause 100.—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
Clause omitted.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 102, page 60, line 38, to add as a new paragraph.—
(Definition of population.)
"Wherever in this Act reference is made to the population of burghs or police burghs, such reference shall be deemed to be made to the population according to the Census of 1881, unless it shall be established to the satisfaction of the Secretary for Scotland within 10 days after the passing of this Act that in the case of any burgh or police burgh it has a larger population as at the passing of this Act, and in any such case such reference shall be taken to be to the larger population so established."—(The Lord Advocate.
DR. CLARK: This amounts to a revolution in some of the provisions of the Bill, and I think the Lord Advocate might tell us how it is proposed to determine the question of population if there is not to be a census.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I have explained this, I think, about six times, and the proposal has met with no opposition. We propose a much more flexible system than that of taking the figures of the last census. It is proposed that the Town Clerk shall produce that moderate amount of information that will satisfy the Secretary of State that, upon a reliable calculation, the figure is as stated. I do not imagine that Town Clerks will find any difficulty in doing this.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether 10 days after the passing of this Act is not too brief a period wherein the Town Clerk is to make his representation?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: No doubt at first that would seem so; but it is necessary to set the machinery going as soon as possible after the passing of the Act; but, in order to obviate any difficulty, the Town Clerks and other
1172
officers of the burghs interested will be communicated with before the Act passes, in order to give them time to make the necessary preparations.
MR. ESSLEMONT: Will any assistance be given to the burghs in the way of suggestion as to bow the Secretary of State may be satisfied? A census will be an expensive process, and it will be difficult for a burgh to carry it out. Will any regulations be laid down by the Scotch Department in the matter?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It is irregular for me to say anything more, but I may just add that there will be no pedantic adherence to rules in the case, and we shall be glad to give any assistance by suggestion.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I am quite satisfied.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed, in Clause 103, page 61, line 9, after "recited," insert "or under the provisions of any local Act"; line 12, after "part," insert the expression "Highlands and Islands of Scotland," shall mean the counties of Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, Orkney, and Zetland; line 18, leave out "except where otherwise expressly provided"; line 21, after "Acts," insert "or the Valuation Acts," as the case may be; leave out lines 22, 23 and 24, line 29, after "be," insert as a new paragraph; the expression "The Valuation Acts" means the Act of the seventh and eighteenth Victoria, chapter ninety-one, and any Acts amending the same.
Amendments agreed to.
MR. CALDWELL: In Clause 104 I beg to propose the addition of the word "up" after "fill." [Laughter.] The object of my Amendment, which appears to afford hon. and right hon. Gentlemen so much amusement, is to correct an accidental omission. The words run "and may from time to time fill any

1173
vacancy." Of course it should be "fill up" any vacancy. [Laughter.]
Amendment proposed, Clause 104, after "fill" insert "up."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The sympathy in the House with the Amendment is so universal that I feel it would be in vain I should attempt to resist it. [Laughter.]
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed, Clause 106, page 64, line 21, leave out "meeting," and insert "and second meetings."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Amendment negatived.
DR. CLARK: I have to move the omission of Clause 107, and I do so because it contains what I recognize as the thin end of the wedge for the introduction of English Aldermen. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate has taken credit for the fact that in Scotland we would not hear of Aldermen in connection with this Bill, but now we have a proposal that there shall be a larger number of non-elected members than you have in some of the English County Councils, and in a considerable number of Scotch counties there will not be more than 20 elected members. The Commissioners of Supply will provide four members, but the Commissioners of Supply are not an elected body; they sit by right of property qualification, and the number four is, I think, out of all proportion. The original project was to add the Convener of the county, the Lord Lieutenant, and the Chairman of the County Road Trustees. To two of these I have no objection, but see how the arrangement will work out in Caithness. The Lord Lieutenant (the Duke of Buccleuch) was appointed a few days ago the Chairman of the County Road Trustees; he is also the Convener of the county, and so, practically of the four Councillors appointed by the Commissioners of Supply, there will be only one who will have any practical acquaintance with the business of the county. With the increased power given to County Councils in regard to emigration, there might be danger in having so many nominated members on the Council, but I hope we shall be able to fight them upon that point should it arise. It is simply because I think the number of four is too many nominated members
1174
to have on the Council I oppose Clause 107, and move its omission.
Amendment proposed in page 65, line 4, to leave out Clause 107.—(Dr. Clark.)
Question proposed "that Clause 107 stand part of the Bill."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I admit the importance of this question, but it has twice been thoroughly discussed in Committee, and I cannot say that the hon. Member has advanced any argument of a novel character that should induce me to enter into the controversy again. I do not think any useful purpose will be served by my doing so. Of course, if the hon. Member thinks that after the decisions at which the Committee has arrived it is his duty to divide the House, he will be within his right in calling a Division.
Question put, and negatived.
It being midnight, further proceeding stood adjourned.
Further proceeding to be resumed to-morrow.

REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL. (No. 333.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading, read.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: I ask the permission of the House to make a short statement as to this Bill. The Bill has been introduced for the purpose of enabling the Board of Trade to enforce the adoption of certain precautions and certain modes of working which we regard as greatly in the interest of the Public Service, among them being the block system, the improved coupling system, and the substitution, where necessary for the public safety, of bridges for level crossings. I am aware that it will be quite impossible to pass the Bill this Session if it is really opposed. I have had several communications on the subject from hon. Members, and I regret to say that I have found very large and persistent opposition to our proposals with regard to the coupling system. It will, therefore, be impossible for me to proceed with that part of the Bill this year. If the Bill is read a second time to-night I will undertake in Committee to strike out the coupling clauses and to fix the Com-

  1175
  mittee for next week. I beg to move the second reading.
  An hon. MEMBER: I object.
  Postponed until to-morrow.

PASSENGER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS.] (No. 327.)
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 261.)
Order for Committee read.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to move that the order for Committee be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to the Grand Committee on Trade.
MR. BIGGAR: This is a very technical Bill, and raises very important issues, and as many Irish Members on both sides of the House take a special interest in the Bill, I hope it will not go to the ordinary Committee.
An hon. MEMBER: I object.
Postponed until to-morrow.

STEAM TRAWLING (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 335.)
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

MOTION.

  PAYMASTER GENERAL BILL.
  On the Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to amend the Acts relating to the office of Paymaster General, and to make better provision for the discharge of the duties of that office, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 348.]

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES) BILL. (No. 4.)
Considered in Committee.
Clause 3.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, to leave out the words "County Council," and insert the words "joint
1176
Education Committee, as hereinafter mentioned."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'County Council' stand part of the clause."
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION (Sir W. HART DYKE,: When this Bill was last in Committee we were discussing the question of a joint Education Committee. Since the last discussion I have had the opportunity of seriously discussing the situation with my colleagues, and, looking to the fact that the Amendments proposed by the Government will make a vast and comprehensive change in the whole system of intermediate education in Wales, Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that there is something just and fair in the objections which have been urged from both sides of the House, and therefore we are prepared to consent that the joint Education Committee shall consist of five members, three to be appointed by the County Council and two by the Privy Council. When we come to Clause 6 I propose to amend it in that way.
Question put, and agreed to.
Several Amendments agreed to.
Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 3, line 10, leave out from "taught," to the end of line 24, and insert—
"To a scholar attending as a day scholar a the school established or regulated by a scheme and that the times for prayer or religious worship or for any lesson or series of lessons on a religious subject shall be conveniently arranged for the purpose of allowing the withdrawal of a day scholar therefrom in accordance with the said Section 15."—Sir W. Hart Dyke.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question"
MR. STUART RENDEL: I hope that when his Bill is re-committed the Government will re-consider one of these words—I mean the word "day" before "scholar," which one word "day" I beg the Government to omit. The question of boarders is one about which the feeling is very strong in Wales. The Amendment, as it stands, would take away the protection which we wish to confer on boarders. I hope it may be possible to leave out the word "day."
MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman would be rightly advised if he acceded to this request. He is hardly aware of the great amount of feeling which this matter has excited in Wales.
SIR W. HART DYKE: I appreciate the point which has been raised, but I cannot accept any Amendment virtually tending to widen the clause, which already extends the Cowper-Temple clause to day schools. If this is merely a question of verbal Amendment, so as to give better effect to the existing provisions of the Endowed Schools Acts, I will consider the point. I cannot undertake to extend the clause.
MR. T. ELLIS: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman? I think it would be rather hard if a Nonconformist child were a boarder at a school in Wales and were compelled to attend lessons on any religious subject in connection with some other religious denomination. It would be a very small change in the Bill to allow the child to be withdrawn from such instruction.
Viscount CRANBORNE: I certainly hope that the proposed change will not be made. Though I do not belong to Wales I care for the interests of the denominational schools, and I certainly think that the right hon. Gentleman has already gone to the extreme limit of what he ought to do.
MR. MUNDELLA: The intervention of the noble Lord appears to me to be singularly unfortunate. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendments have changed the character of this Bill, considering the sharp collisions there are between Nonconformists and the Church in Wales. I think this clause should be allowed to extend to Board scholars as well as day scholars. The Welsh people do not object to religious teaching because there is no part of the Queen's dominions where such teaching is more given than Wales, but they do object to any particular denominational teaching being given to children whose parents object to it.
MR. G. T. KENYON: The noble Lord (Viscount Cranborne) has thrown an apple of discord into the debate, although he does not appear to know much about the question. I think the suggestion made from the other side of the House is well worth the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, and I would suggest that the matter should be left open for consideration at the Report stage.
Question put, and negatived.
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Other Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6,
SIR W. HART DYKE: I beg to propose the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 6, page 3, line 34, leave out from "Act," to end of clause, and insert—
"There shall be appointed in every county in Wales a Joint Education Committee of the County Council of such county, consisting of three persons nominated by the County Council, and three persons, being persons well acquainted with the conditions of "Wales and the wants of the people, nominated by the Lord President of Her Majesty's Privy Council."—(Sir W. Hart Dyke.)
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN: I desire to insert after "wants of the people" these words, "preference being given to persons resident in the county, for which such Joint Committee is appointed." I have communicated these words to my right hon. Friend, and I think he is prepared to accept them.
Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, after "people," to insert—
"Preference being given to persons resident in the county for which such Joint Committee is appointed."—(Sir Hussey Vivian.)
Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
SIR W. HART DYKE: Of course the Government of the day, who would be responsible for the working of this Bill, must appoint the very best persons either within or without the county. As far as these words are concerned,

1179
however, I have no objection to that insertion as indicating that where it is possible to find two men in the county to represent the county that should be done.
SIR J. PULESTON: Would not the same principle apply to the appointment of persons by the County Council?
SIR W. HART DYKE: I would leave that equally open.
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment proposed, Clause 17, page 7, line 25, leave out from "children," to end of clause, and insert—
"Or, where the benefits of such endowment are divisible between two counties or between the counties in Wales, or any of them, and any place outside of Wales, then means so much of the endowment as the Charity Commissioners may determine to be applicable for the benefit of the county of the joint education committee."
"(2.) Any school or endowment of a school to which Section 75 of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870,' applies, and any endowed school to which Section 3 of 'The Endowed Schools Act, 1873,' applies, shall, if the school is in the county of a Joint Education Committee under this Act, be for the pnrposes of the Endowed Schools Acts and this Act an educational endowment and endowed school within the county of such Committee."—(Sir W. Hart Dyke.)
Amendment agreed to.
SIR W. HART DYKE: Perhaps I may be permitted to say a word with regard to the commencement of the operation of this Act. I find the County Council do not meet until November next, and they would then take action with regard to this matter. I would suggest, therefore, that the Act commence in November.
SIR H. VIVIAN: Our meeting is on October 17th.
SIR W. HART DYKE: No doubt hon. Members will consult with regard to that.
MR. S. RENDELL: I propose to move a new Clause, to the effect that the Charity Commission should report annually to both Houses of Parliament the proceedings under this Bill during the preceding year. I believe such a course would be of very great advantage to the working of this Bill. It would stimulate the Joint Committees,
1180
keep them in touch with one another, and conduce to the harmonious and consistent as well as energetic operation of the Act throughout the entire Kingdom.
SIR W. HART DYKE: I have drafted a Clause—
"That the Charity Commissioners shall include in the Report of their proceedings under the Endowed Schools Act a Report of their proceedings under this Act."
MR. S. KENDEL: We do not at all wish that the proceedings under this Act shall be included in the general Report of the Charity Commissioners. What we desire is a special and separate Report, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will accept my new clause.
SIR W. HART DYKE: Very well.
MR. S. RENDELL: I move, then, the following new clause:—"The Charity Commissioners shall in every year cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament a Report of the proceedings under this Act during the preceding year."
Question, "That this clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
Question, "That this clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Bill reported, as amended, to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 349.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to the National Portrait Gallery Bill, with an Amendment.
NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY BILL. (No. 279.)
Lords' Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

FISHERY ACTS AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 91.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 339.)
Read a second time, and committed for this day.
It being One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House adjourned at One o'clock.