Commons Sitting of 6 August 1890

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he does not remember giving a pledge to the House that he would take the Foreign Office Vote first after all the legislation was disposed of? I see that the Scotch Estimates are put down as effective Supply for to-day. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that there is such a place as England, and that it cannot submit to be trodden under foot in this way by Scotland and Ireland. I ask him to remember, further, when a Scotchman says that Scotland is a long way off that it signifies very little whether hon. Members have to travel five miles or 500, because if they have to go away at all they cannot be in the House. I beg to ask him, therefore, if he will not adhere to the arrangement originally made?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: My recollection of what occurred is that I agreed to set aside a particular day for the discussion of the Foreign Office Vote in order that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), who takes an interest in it, should have reasonable ground for knowing when it would come on. In putting down Supply to-day, the hon. Member must see that we have put it down after a number of Bills. We hope that those Bills may be passed to-day, but we can have no assurance that that will be so. If Supply is reached we hope to make progress with the Scotch Estimates, and we propose to put down the Foreign Office Vote for Friday. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who take an interest in that Vote will have due notice, which they could not have now, and will be able to arrange for their attendance. I may add that Supply will be the first Order on Friday, and that the Foreign Office Vote will then, in any circumstances, be taken. I have every reason to hope that we shall practically conclude the discussion of

3
Bills to-morrow, and after the Foreign Office Vote we propose to take Class II. of the Civil Service Estimates in the order in which they stand.
MR. LABOUCHERE: What will be the course of business for to-morrow?
MR. W. H. SMITH: We propose to take the remainder of the Bills to-morrow, and then to proceed with the Scotch Estimates.
MR. CHILDERS: Then it may be quite understood that the Foreign Office Vote will be the first business on Friday?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes, Sir; I think it is for the convenience of the House that a definite fixture should be made.
MR. CHILDERS: I am bound to say that the intimation which has just been given by the right hon. Gentleman is in precise accordance with the original understanding.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I have no objection to the understanding that the Scotch Estimates, under the circumstances, shall be taken, if they are reached, and that the Foreign Office Vote shall be proceeded with on Friday.
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Has any decision been arrived at in regard to the Savings Banks Bill? I think the Government exaggerate very greatly the character of the Opposition, and I am of opinion that three or four hours would dispose of the Bill.
MR. W. H. SMITH: We still entertain the hope that we may be able to come to an arrangement with the Opposition. But when we found 37 notices of opposition given by hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, we were bound to re-consider our position.
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I do not think that they are separate notices from this side of the House.
MR. W. H. SMITH: We are very desirous of passing the Bill, but at this period of the Session we can only do so with the general consent of the House; and if hon. Gentlemen, in sufficient number, refuse their consent, we have no alternative but to yield.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I wish to make another appeal in the interests of the Scotch Members. We understood that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian took an interest in the
4
Foreign Office Vote, and we were all willing to yield to him. But we think it is only justice to the Scotch Members that the Scotch Estimates should now be taken first, and continued until they are disposed of. I need scarcely tell the First Lord of the Treasury that he will not get rid of me by getting rid of the Scotch Votes; but I am aware that there are many of my Colleagues who desire to leave town to whom it would be inconvenient to be kept here on Friday. Surely it would be quite as convenient to take the Foreign Office Vote next week. I should like also to know whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes an all night sitting, because I see that other important Votes are put down after the Scotch Votes.
MR. HOWELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that the opposition which has been brought to bear against the Savings Bank Bill is a strong argument in favour of the passing of that measure?
MR. E. ROBERTSON: May I ask if there will be any more Departmental Bills this Session?
DR. CLARK: The opposition to the Savings Bank Bill is centred on one point. The desire is that there should be an increase allowed in the amount deposited in a Savings Bank in one year, and also in the total amount. That is the only point we are fighting, and if the Government will give way upon that point the Bill will pass early.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I think that the observation of the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) is a sufficient answer to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell). It is impossible at this period of the Session to make an alteration in the business which has been arranged solely for the convenience of an individual Member, however important that Member may be. I have intimated that we intend to put the Foreign Office Vote on the Paper for Friday, and I shall ask the House to consider it on that day. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson), it is impossible to say whether any purely Departmental Bill will or will not have to be introduced. The hon. Member is not acquainted with the exigencies of legislation, but it does occasionally

5
happen that a measure of as purely Departmental character has to be introduced at the last moment. I will promise, however, that the Government will not introduce any measure, or ask the House to consider any measure, which is not absolutely necessary. As to an all night sitting, all I can say is that I believe there is a general and a reasonable desire to proceed with public business.
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I hope that the Navy Estimates will not be taken on Saturday.
MR. W. H. SMITH: They will not be taken on Saturday.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 398.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I am glad to say that the scale of pensions originally proposed has been very considerably reduced by the Committee upstairs, but, notwithstanding that fact, the liability of the rates still remains. The assurance as to the practical saving of the rates, which was given here and upstairs, is an assurance founded on actuarial calculations, and on the hypothesis that there would be no obligation. Therefore, the practical safety of the rates of which we have been assured is at the best a conjectural safety, and I think the ratepayers may take it that the Bill does impose considerable burdens upon them. My main objection to the Bill is that it should be passed without the people of Scotland having had any opportunity of considering its provisions. The First Lord of the Treasury informed us some time ago that if it was the desire of the majority of the Scotch Members to postpone the measure until next Session the Government would be prepared to meet their desire, but he added that an overwhelming majority of the Scotch Members had conveyed to the Government a desire that the Bill should be dealt with in the present Session, and that the Government had yielded to that desire. This statement appears to have been founded on an entire delusion and misapprehension, because the Scotch Members have never
  6
  been consulted at all. There was only a small fraction of the Scotch Members present when they were consulted, not as to whether the Bill should pass or not, but whether it should be taken immediately after the English Bill. I trust that it will be fully brought to the mind of the Scotch people that the Bill is now being passed under the influence of this extraordinary misapprehension and delusion. I do not expect, at this stage, that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to renew the promise he made, but I will again call attention to the fact that he had pledged himself to postpone the measure if the majority of the Scotch Members so desired, and that it has only been kept on the Paper because he has been erroneously induced to believe that the majority were in favour of its being passed. Then, again, the attitude of the Police Authorities in reference to the Bill must be described as one of caution aud reticence. The Town Council of Glasgow have passed no resolution at all upon the subject, and the Town Council of Edinburgh have referred it back to the Lord Provost's Committee, which is a polite way of shelving the whole question. I am, therefore, entitled to say that the Local Authorities have pronounced no opinion at all in favour of the Bill, although it gives them the handling of a large amount of money, for the finding of which they are not responsible. I do not know that any greater temptation could be held out to Local Authorities than this. A cannie bailie of Glasgow told the Committee upstairs that he did not want the Bill, but he should like to have the money. Notwithstanding the great temptation, the reticence of the Local Authorities of Scotland has been most remarkable. Another fact which must not be lost sight of is that the Bill was propounded at a time when the Municipal Authorities had dispersed for their holidays, and, consequently, there was no opportunity of taking their opinion at all. At the same time, as I have said all along, I should not be prepared to accept the opinion of the Local Authorities as conclusive, in consequence of the great temptation the Bill holds out. What is necessary to consider is the popular feeling, and to appreciate that we must go back to the election of 1885, when the question was

  7
  really before the Scotch constituencies, and the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh will have no difficulty in remembering, seeing he was partially responsible for the Bill, that, if the result of that election was to be taken as an augury, the measure would not have passed. I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Motion now before the House,
  "That it is not desirable to proceed further with the Bill until the people of Scotland have had an opportunity of considering its provisions."
  It was never demanded by public opinion in Scotland, or by the Local Authorities; it was introduced at a period of the Session when it could not be properly considered, either here or in Scotland; it has been carried helter-skelter in this House, and the Third Reading has been brought on within a few hours of the proceedings in Committee. Therefore, I protest, in the name of the working class portion of my constituency, against the Bill becoming law under such circumstances.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "It is not desirable to proceed further with this Bill until the people of Scotland have had an opportunity of considering its provisions."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  DR. CLARK: I moved the rejection of the Bill in Committee, and, although the measure has since been modified and some of the objectionable clauses removed, and although it has since become purely a Superannuation Bill, I shall strongly object to it, and beg to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. As we are to have an Autumn Session I think the Government might consider whether the best course would not be to defer the passing of the Bill until then. I oppose the principle of compulsory pensions for police constables who have served a certain period. I am strongly opposed to that principle altogether, and should be glad to see it abolished in the Civil Service, the Army, and Navy, instead of being extended. This year hereditary pensions will be practically got rid of, and I do not think that anybody
  8
  will be mad enough to propose their re-imposition. I also object to the superannuation of the police. Allow these persons, as much as you like, to develop habits of thrift, forethought, and prudence, but if we are to go further, I do not see how we are to stop short of the German system of State Socialism, which gives to every person a pension of some kind or other. It is not the people themselves who are creating State Socialism, but those who are aiding and abetting the Ministers in Power. Then, again, the Bill introduces the mischievous principle of a grant in aid, which is really a system for debauching the Local Authorities by giving them bribes. I also oppose the measure because nearly the whole of our local rates in Scotland—at any rate so far as the counties are concerned—are payable half, and in some cases entirely, by the landlords. It is a burden upon the land, and if this Bill is passed those who got their land upon this condition will get rid of the condition, while in no sense will it relieve them of their privileges. I also object to the method and manner in which the Bill has been brought forward. I was a Member of the Committee which was ostensibly appointed for the purpose of getting information, but the Members of the Committee had no desire to obtain information. They were already convinced, and no time was allowed to the people of Scotland to express their opinion upon so important a matter. Therefore, I intend, as far as I can, to aid my hon. Friend in preventing this conspiracy—I do not use the word in an objectionable sense—on the part of the Government to rush through a most objectionable measure.
  MR. CALDWELL: I also beg to support the Amendment. I am strongly opposed to any system for the superannuation of the police of Scotland. The Bill has been introduced simply because it is regarded as an advisable addition to the measure which has been introduced for England. This is why these Bills are foisted upon the Scotch people, not because they desire them, but because they are essential for England, and it is deemed desirable to supply the same legislation for Scotland. But there is a great difference between England and

  9
  Scotland in regard to the superannuation of the police. In England there is a system of police superannuation, but there is none in Scotland, and even when a Liberal Government attempted to introduce it the people of Scotland scouted the proposal. In the case of Glasgow every Ward Committee has been up in arms protesting against the Bill. In England you have a Poor Law which gives the able-bodied poor a right to local relief, but in Scotland there is no such law, showing the more independent spirit which animates the Scotch people. With regard to the present Bill, it has only been for a short time before Scotland, but even in that short time it has received the most determined opposition. In Glasgow it is unanimously opposed by the Trades Council, which represents all the great trades of the city, and which has given its reasons why the principle of superannuation ought not to have been allowed. Then, again, you have established County Councils in Scotland, but you have allowed no opportunity of considering this measure. They will not meet until the present month, and they will meet to find the Bill already passed, and a most important change introduced into the domestic economy of Scotland. For my part, I think it is a most serious step to impose legislation of this kind upon a country which possesses different laws from those of England, without giving to the constituted Local Authorities an opportunity, at all events, of being heard. There has been no really honest attempt to obtain the opinion of Scotland. There were only 20 Members of the Committee, and they could only represent the views of 20 constituencies. The rest were entirely misrepresented, and had no opportunity of expressing their opinion. Under these circumstances, I think the Amendment of my hon. Friend is quite reasonable The Bill makes a most important change in the domestic legislation of Scotland; it imports a new principle into the public offices of Scotland, and it ought, therefore, to be carefully considered by the Local Authorities before it is allowed to become law. To delay the measure until next Session would not involve much difficulty, seeing that arrangements have been made under the Local Taxation Bill to provide he money for the present year.
  10
  Therefore, no possible disadvantage would arise from delaying the Bill until the Scotch people have had an opportunity of being consulted. The First Lord of the Treasury told the House that there was no desire to push on the measure unless the majority of the Scotch Members were in its favour. There is no such desire on the part of the Scotch Members, and if the measure is forced on during the present Session the responsibility must rest with the Government, and the Government alone. I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  MR. WALLACE: I join in supporting the Amendment, and in condemning the principle of the Bill. I think that, at any rate, it ought to be deferred until the people of Scotland, and especially the working classes, have had a fuller opportunity of considering it. I believe that if it is forced through by the Government a bad and bitter feeling will be created in Scotland, whereas, if a little longer time were allowed for consideration it is not impossible that there might be a reconciliation of feeling, to a certain extent, among the great masses of the Scotch people, in regard to the essential proposals of the Bill. There are three facts of considerable importance which throw some light upon the real opinion of the people of Scotland. I hold in my hand the copy of a Resolution passed by the Edinburgh and District United Trades' Council—a most representative body. That resolution is to this effect—that the Council, while approving of any scheme of superannuation which would be self-supporting, disapprove most strongly of the present measure, as vicious in principle and calculated to promote the unlimited pension of public servants at the expense of the ratepayers. With regard to the attitude of the Edinburgh Town Council, the Lord Provost's Committee recommended to the Council a general approval of the principle of the Bill, though this recommendation was not accepted by the Council as a whole. A most vigorous opposition was offered to the Bill, with the result that 15 approved and 12 disapproved. A certain compromise has been arrived at by the majority of the Town Council, and the Bill has been re-committed for further consideration, so that the House of Commons is not in possession of the

  11
  matured opinion of the people of Edinburgh regarding the principle of the Bill. I think it is clear, beyond contradiction, that there is a very strong feeling on the part of the working classes of Scotland against this measure at the present time, and a very dubious and uncertain feeling, even among those classes of the community which we cannot identify strictly with the artisan and working classes, as they are called. I ask whether with this state of feeling in Scotland it is wise to push on this measure? Even if the measure were a wise one, would it be wise, under such circumstances, to force it on? Would it not be better to exercise a little restraint of temper, rather than to give way to the impulses of a dictatorial instinct, simply for the purpose of defeating us, and letting us see that the Government are masters of the situation? Would it not be better for the Government to hold their hands for, say, six months or nine months longer?
  MR. PROVAND: I desire to enter a few words of protest against this manner of legislating for Scotland. This is another flagrant example of forcing upon Scotland a measure, which, in the opinion of the majority of her Representatives in this House, and in the opinion of the people of Scotland themselves, as far as we have been able to ascertain their views, in the short time at our disposal, is of an undesirable character. I am decidedly of opinion that this question should be left in the hands of the Local Authorities, as it has been up to the present time. In Glasgow there has been some pensioning done by the Local Authorities, and I say it should be left in their hands to give or withhold pensions, as they think proper. They are the best judges. I oppose the Bill chiefly on account of its inequitable character, and its extravagance. Policemen in Scotland, when you take into account their clothing and allowances, are paid at as high or at a higher rate than the average of skilled labour. Yet by this Bill it is proposed to add something like 4s. a week to their wages, because it would take about that sum spread over a period of 25 years to buy an annuity of the amount now proposed to be given as pension. That is my chief ground of objection to this Bill. No doubt some method
  12
  of pensioning is expedient, but it should be left in the hands of Local Authorities. Why should there be any hurry to pass the Bill in these last days of the Session? We have to come back here in two and a half months, and between that time and the end of the financial year there will be four and a half months, which will afford ample time and opportunity for re-considering this question, and passing a Bill in such a form as to satisfy the people of Scotland within the financial year. Here, however, we have another example of the Government, in reference to Scotch questions, taking the bit between its teeth and passing a Bill by their smoke-room majority in opposition to a majority of the Scotch Members. A few nights ago, in reference to one of the Divisions on this Bill, it was pointed out how many Scotch Members supported the Government. They were, I think, supported by 12 Members, three of whom were official Members, and, therefore, bound to support any proposal of the Government, which left them with nine supporters, or nearly one-eighth, of the Representatives of Scotland. Then, again, numerous resolutions have been passed in Scotland against the measure, and I would ask the Government whether they can quote a single resolution in favour of it; I do not think they can quote one. No Town Council or Local Authority will support it in the form in which it is passing, and I shall, therefore, support the Amendment, in order, if possible, to give the people of Scotland an opportunity to re-consider the question. I hold that all the Members who refuse support to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundee deliberately declare that they will not give the people of Scotland an opportunity of considering this most important Bill, which will form a precedent for the display in a future Session of the remarkable energies of the present Government in the direction of pensioning all classes of public servants. I, therefore, hope to find every Scotch Member except, perhaps, the solitary one I see sitting opposite, supporting my hon. Friend.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: I do not rise for the purpose of prolonging this

  13
  discussion, for I hope the House will come to a Division upon it immediately, but rather lest my silence should be misapprehended. Hon. Members have been well within their rights in uttering a protest against a Bill to the principle of which they have been throughout opposed—and I may here acknowledge the course taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundee, last night, who refrained from prolonging the discussions in Committee, his rooted animosity being against the principle as distinguished from the details of the measure. I will not now recapitulate the arguments which have induced the great majority of the House to establish by this Bill a system of police superannuation for Scotland, but I cannot accede to the view that the subject is a novel one to the people of Scotland. For years this question has been a subject of consideration with the authorities and those interested in it, and Bills have come from the Government of which the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh was a Member, which directly affected Scotland in this matter. The subject, therefore, has been before the authorities and the public of Scotland in a definite form for a long time. As to the special points of the present Bill, it does not represent a Party triumph; it embodies the views of successive Governments; it embodies the mature conclusions of hon. Members from Scotland on both sides of the House; it is a Bill which contains material concessions, and is, to a large extent, a compromise; and it rests upon a liberal grant of Imperial funds to the Scottish Police Authorities—a grant which will enable the system to be worked without encroaching on the rates. Accordingly, whatever opinions may be held upon the theory of police superannuation, this Bill, at all events, is one which cannot be objected to on the ground of any burdens falling on the working classes. In these circumstances, I shall not feel surprised if, upon going to a Division, it is found that the prudent proposals which the Bill embodies in legislation is supported, not by a Party majority, but by a large preponderance of Scotch opinion on both sides of the House.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: After what has been said
  14
  by my hon. Friends on this side of the House, I think it necessary to say a word to excuse myself for being obliged, through the attitude of my constituency, to connive at the passing of the Bill. My constituency did not shilly shally with the matter, but point blank refused on such short notice at this season of the year to give an opinion upon the Bill. In principle, I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Dundee that, as a matter of right, the Bill ought to be postponed until the people of Scotland have had an opportunity of considering its provisions; but, from the point of view of expediency, I connive at the passing of the Bill, because I think we might go further and fare worse. The Government have had their Moscow, and in their retreat, a few of my hon. Friends and myself, devoted guerillas, have harassed them bag and baggage. Having abandoned nearly all their baggage, the Government are trying to force through a small remnant in the shape of this Superannuation Bill. We harassed them on the English Bill, so that when they came to the Scotch Bill they were most anxious not to see the same tactics renewed by the old enemy, with reinforcements from amongst the Scotch Members. The Scotch measure was, therefore, placed before us in an attenuated form. If it were not passed, the Government might have time to frame another, and with the bad precedent of the English Bill before them might make it stronger than the present measure. I, therefore, am inclined, as I say, to connive at the passing of this Bill. In spite of contrary opinions entertained in many quarters in Scotland, I am in favour of the superannuation of public servants. Under the present systems you find Chief Constables in active employment up to the age of 72, 75, and even 80 years. Well, if it had been the lot of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian to be a Chief Constable, he would, no doubt, have made an excellent one at that age, but there are very few men like him, and I think there are a large number of aged Chief Constables who are inefficient by reason of their advanced age, and should be got rid of. I sympathise with the Glasgow Bailie, who said he wanted the money but not the Bill; but we cannot get the one without the other, and as the

  15
  Bill has been attenuated and cut down I do not think it will do much harm.
  MR. HUNTER: I wish to say only one word in explanation of the vote I am about to give. I have supported the Government throughout all the stages of the Bill, but on one condition, that the ratepayers should not be made liable. The Committee came very near cutting out the clause putting liability on the ratepayers. But, considering all the circumstances of the case, though the excessive sum of money given by the Exchequer is more than sufficient to satisfy all the requirements, if the Bill is prudently administered, I shall vote against the Third Reading.
  MR. C. S. PARKER: I think it only fair to contradict the allegation of one of my hon. Colleagues from Scotland that the opinion of Scotch Members has been pronounced against the Bill. I have consulted the Division List, and I have found that, except the few who have now spoken against the Third Reading, there are only five who voted against the principle of the measure. It may be admitted that Scotland has been rather hurried in the matter. It is unfortunate that if the Bill is to be passed this Session it was not proceeded with earlier, but it was read a second time six weeks ago, and it has been carefully revised by a Committee made up entirely of Scotch Members. The hon. Member for Aberdeen having supported the Second Reading now votes against the Bill because, as he says, it imposes a liability on the ratepayers; but he admits that with prudence that liability will come to nothing. I think it would have been better to have left out the words objected to, as the liability is to mean nothing; but the Government did not take that course, and, as a result, they have lost the support of the hon. Member for Aberdeen. However, they have the "connivance" of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, whatever that may mean. I think there has been ample time for Scottish opinion to be expressed on the measure. From my own constituency I have heard nothing against it. I believe it is the wish of the majority in Scotland, as well as of the majority of the Scotch Members, to accept the money and the Bill as amended. The
  16
  principle has been affirmed by a majority of thirty-five to eight among Scotch Members, and the minority seems to be no larger against the Third Reading.
  (1.28.) The House divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 26.—(Div. List, No. 237.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time.
  Verbal Amendment made.

FACTORS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL [LORDS.]—(No. 366.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I beg to move the Second Reading. Since the English Bill on this subject was passed it has been urged that its benefits ought to be extended to Scotland. There is really no difference between the general laws of the two countries on the subject, and the slight variances it has been necessary to adopt have been carefully considered. I would recommend the House to adopt the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I do not rise for the purpose of offering any oppossition to this Motion, but I cannot help expressing my regret that the application of the Bill to Scotland was not considered when the main Bill was passed last year. The present Bill is really almost unintelligible. I think it is exceedingly inconvenient for the mercantile classes to have to refer to an Act which does not explain itself, but which refers back to an Act of the previous year.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The reason why the Bill is in its present form is that the greatest authority on drafting now living, who is now a Member of the House of Lords, announced that this was the proper form.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The reason why the Grand Committee last year did not apply the Factors Bill to Scotland was, that the Factors Act did not apply to Scotland. I may point out that in last year's Act enormous changes were made in the terminology of the Statutes—changes so great that they may reeult in some legal surprises.
  MR. CALDWELL: It was considered last year by Scottish Legal Authorities that it would not be wise to include Scotland in the measure then passed, on account of the law of the two countries. I would remark that the present measure was brought forward in the month of July. This is another illustration of an English Act being applied to Scotland before the Local Authorities in Scotland have had an opportunity of pronouncing on the measure in its Scotch form.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  EDUCATION OF BLIND AND DEAFMUTE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS].—(No. 365.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 3.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella).
  Amendment proposed, Clause 3, page 1, line 12, to leave out "sixteen" and insert "eighteen."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I should have been most happy if I could have acceded to the Amendment, but I must point out that we are by this Bill placing new burdens on the Local Authorities, and it is necessary to proceed with caution. The point has been carefully considered, and I am not able to accede to the Amendment. I am satisfied that, at all events for the present, it would be injudicious to go further than we are doing with the Bill at present in adding to the burdens of the Local Authorities. I may say I am ready to assent to all the other Amendments standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella).
  MR. BUCHANAN: I think it is a matter of regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accede to this Amendment. I do not know whether he will be prepared to
  18
  accept 17 years as a compromise. I do not think that the burden that will be imposed on the Local Authorities will be one of very considerable extent, and I am sure it is not the kind of burden that will be objected to either by the Local Authorities or the ratepayers.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am sorry I cannot accept that proposal. It is true the number of children is not very large, but the principle is one of some gravity.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I take some interest in this question as far as my own country is concerned, and I may say I think the principle of the local rates paying nearly exclusively for these children is a wrong one. This is a question of public charity, and I think the whole nation should bear the cost.
  MR. C. S. PARKER: I am sure the Scotch Members are obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for his opinion on this point, but his remarks might, I think, be used to enforce the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan). He said money spent on purposes of this kind should come from an Imperial source. But only the other day the Government agreed to place £50,000 from Imperial Tax at the disposal of the County Councils in Scotland, and I presume that funds might be available out of that money for this purpose. Considering how far natural infirmity places these children behind ordinary children, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consent to raise the age to seventeen.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Other Amendments agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  DR. CLARK: This is rather an extraordinary clause. You place these children under the care of the School Board; you give the School Board power to educate, clothe, and maintain them, and you give the Sheriff authority to decide summarily on questions arising between the School Board and the Parochial Board. However, as philanthropic people are anxious that this experiment should be tried, I will raise no objection, especially as I trust that before long the case of the care of the poor

  19
  and education will be added to the work of the County Councils.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."
  DR. CLARK: I think this the most objectionable clause in the Bill, and I know that 99 per cent. of my constituents would strongly object to it. Personally, I have no objection whatever to a Catholic child being maintained and educated at the expense of Protestants, but it is a new principle, and I think a very objectionable one. I do not see why if a parent is unable to maintain his child he should go to the State and say, "You have got to teach and maintain my child in a school belonging to any special denomination." I suppose if the man were a Mahomedan he could, on the same principle, maintain that the child must be sent to a school where Mahomedanism was taught, and if he held the views of the hon. Member for Northampton his child would have a right to go to a place where agnosticism was taught. I think you are going too far. Where they are boarded out they must be boarded with people of exactly the same denomination, and it might be very difficult in some cases to fulfil this condition. It might be necessary, for instance, to send a very long distance from some districts in Scotland to find a Roman Catholic family with whom a child could be boarded. However, I have no objection, and I am quite aware that the principle has been recognised in Scotland where school fees are paid by Parochial Boards.
  COLONEL NOLAN: This proviso is absolutely essential for the protection of the minority, and there is a strong Catholic minority in Scotland deserving protection. Without such a provision it would have been the duty of Irish Members to have taken an interest in the Bill that would have considerably prolonged discussion.
  MR. C. S. PARKER: I agree that this is necessary for the protection of the minority. It is no new principle, and to that conclusion the hon. Member for Caithness himself seemed to arrive when he mentioned the case of children educated by Parochial Boards. The principle is that in such cases, so far as is
  20
  possible, regard should be had to the religious convictions of parents.
  DR. CLARK: I have no sectarian bias on the matter, only it might be very difficult in the boarding-out to find persons belonging to the same religious persuasion.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I do not think so. In the case of the Parochial Boards, no friction of the kind has been found to exist.
  Other Amendments agreed to.
  (2.5.) Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
  MR. SPEAKER: Are there any Amendments?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: No.
  MR. HUNTER: I think there were some Amendments.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is why I asked.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I said "No" under the impression that there were no Amendments down to Report.
  MR. SEXTON: To take Committee, Report, and Third Reading at one sitting at a time when Supply is not taken, and the Appropriation Bill not reached, seems rather straining the relaxation of rules usually allowed at this period of the Session.
  MR. SPEAKER: Only by the consent of the House can it be done; in such a case as the present, if there is the least objection the Bill stands over.
  MR. SEXTON: I do not make an objection.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed with Amendments.

CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 386.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I think Irish Members interested in this Bill have reason to complain of the way in which it has been dealt with. It may be in

  21
  the recollection of the Committee that the Second Reading was taken a fortnight ago, and the Committee stages of the English and Scotch Census Bills were taken on the following day. I do not know why such an interval has been allowed to elapse before taking this stage, and it is unfortunate that several Irish Members interested in the subject have left town in the interval. Reading the three Bills one cannot but be greatly struck with the differences between this Bill and the English and Scotch Bills. The Amendments which I have on the Paper are in no sense intended to obstruct the progress of the Bill; in fact, I have never obstructed the business of the House, and I am not likely to begin the practice on a subject of this kind. Anyone who looks at the Amendments will see from their character that my intention mainly is to assimilate the Census Law in Ireland to that of England and Scotland, and this I wish to do in three particulars principally: first, as regards the mode of taking the census; secondly, as to the nature of the particulars to be inquired into; and thirdly, as to the time when the abstract of the results is to be laid before Parliament. In the first place there is a radical distinction in the ways in which the Irish Bill and the English and Scotch Bills are drawn. In England and Scotland it is provided that in the week ending with the Census day, officials shall leave or cause to be left at every house in the district, a Schedule or paper containing certain definite questions, the answers to which are to be filled in by the occupier, and the paper to be returned. But the Irish Census Bill contains no single word in reference to this matter; there is not a word requiring that a paper shall be left at the house, and, so far as the working of the Bill is concerned, there is nothing to prevent the Constabulary or the Dublin Metropolitan Police, who act as enumerators, calling at the house the day after the Census night and then ascertaining by mere verbal inquiry from the occupants the various particulars sought to be obtained. I daresay I shall be told that in practice the distinction is not so great as it seems in theory, and that in the last Census papers were employed. Yes, they were, but the whole thing was done not by means of papers, but partly by verbal inquiries,
  22
  subsequent to the giving out and receiving of papers, inquiries in some cases of a most inquisitorial character, inquiries which I say no enumerators, even if they were of a civil character such as they are in England and Scotland, ought to be allowed to make, still less when they are Members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, having in view the strained relations which often exist between the Constabulary and the people. For instance, an inquiry such as this, I think the Committee will agree, is wholly improper: Persons are returned as deaf and dumb, and a circular is sent round requiring Sub-Inspectors to find out the causes for this affliction, whether it is due to fright, or supposed fright, to the mother before the birth of the child, or whether it may be due to other causes, such as the inter-marriage of cousins. Now, it does seem to me inquiries such as these are highly inquisitorial, and if you adopted the English system, an honest and a straightforward system, setting down distinctly certain questions to be answered, and not going beyond these, then you would have a method that would not discourage those feelings of self-respect which we are anxious to generate among the people. You should go about the business practically and directly by Act of Parliament, and not by instructions from the Lord Lieutenant, and it is for security that this should be done, as in England, with protection for the self-respect and liberties of the people. I beg to move my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, leave out from "shall," to "visit," in line 16, inclusive, and insert—
  "Shall in the course of the week ending on the Saturday next before the Census day, leave or cause to be left at."—(Mr. W. Macdonald.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: I am quite certain, from the character of the Amendments he has put down, and from the tone of the hon. Member's speech, that he and the Government are at one in the endeavour to obtain the same result, namely, to have this Census taken for Ireland in as

  23
  perfect a manner as is possible. I am bound to say that I go to a great extent with the speech of the hon. Member. My right hon. Friend and I have considered the matter very carefully, and with the Report of the Census of 1881 before us, in order to see how the work was then carried out. I quite agree with two principles underlying the Amendments of the hon. Member. I think it is desirable there should be a limit placed upon the character and nature of the inquiries, a statutory limit, as in the English and Scotch Bills. This is the first principle which underlies the Amendment of the hon. Member. The second principle he is anxious to enforce is also, I think, a very good one, that the necessary information shall be acquired, as far as it possibly can be, by means of papers left at the houses of residents, to be filled up by the occupants, oral inquiry being resorted to only when such information is not given, or to make the information clear. I entirely agree with that. I have gone carefully into the matter, and I find that under the Act of 1880, for the purpose of taking the Census in the following year, certain full, careful, and elaborate directions were issued by the Department, and very elaborate forms were, as a matter of fact, left at houses. With reference to inquiries such as must sometimes arise of a somewhat delicate character in reference to lunatics, idiots, &c., I find every care was taken by instructions to insure these inquiries being made with the utmost delicacy. Now it occurs to the Government that the intention of the hon. Member in both respects can be carried out by an Amendment of the Bill, while preserving in substance the method which has been pursued in Ireland in every Census Act since 1841. I observe that when the Census Act of 1880 was before the House there was a discussion in Committee on various matters of detail, not of the exact character of those raised by the hon. Member, but various matters of detail, and I find that Mr. Shaw, speaking on behalf of the Irish Members, stated that the Bill was perfectly satisfactory to the people of Ireland. Now, the present Bill is perfectly identical in form with the Bill Mr. Shaw then accepted as satisfactory, and I think hon. Members on both sides will agree that the results of the
  24
  inquiries made under the Act of 1880 have been eminently satisfactory, and, so far as the substance of the inquiries and the statistics are concerned, they leave nothing to be desired. But the hon. Member is anxious to go further, and to secure that the language of the Irish Bill should follow that of the English Bill, and that inquiry should not go beyond those questions set down. Well, I would direct the hon. Member's attention to the Amendment of which my hon. Friend has given notice, which I think entirely carries out what we agree is proper to be done, while preserving the machinery of the Irish Acts. This Amendment, which would come in on Clause 4, runs as follows:—
  "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Census shall be taken by means of, and in the manner prescribed by, the several forms and instructions which were issued under the authority of the Act of the Session of the forty-third and forty-fourth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter twenty-eight, and which are contained in the Appendix to the General Report of the Commissioners appointed under that Act, dated the twenty-first day of September, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, and presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty, and such matters and particulars as were contained in and prescribed by the said forms and instructions, and no other matters or particulars shall be inserted in the forms and instructions to be prepared under the authority of this Act."
  I have carefully gone into these forms and instructions, and I am in a position to state to the Committee the exact nature of the inquiries which were made, and no inquiry, as the hon. Member will see, beyond these can be made if the Amendment of my right hon. Friend is adopted. I take the details of the Family Returns, which is that with which the Amendments of the hon. Member principally deal. Name and surname; relationship to head of the family; age; sex; religious profession; rank, profession or occupation; condition of marriage; where born; Irish language; whether deaf, dumb, blind, idiot or lunatic. These are the absolute inquiries, and no more; and therefore I think the Amendment of the Chief Secretary will give, in substance, what the hon. Member desires to obtain, and no more. As a matter of convenience, and for purposes of comparison, it is desirable to

  25
  alter the form of the Bill as little as possible, and having regard to the machinery for carrying out the work. It will be a safer course, I think, to adhere to the outlines of the Acts passed by successive Parliaments since 1841, rather than to make changes in the working of a system which, in its result, compares not unfavourable with that in England. I certainly would urge the Committee to retain the old form, only making those changes which will ensure the object we have in view.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted Mr. Shaw, the leader of the Irish Party in 1886, in reference to the Bill of that year, but he has not informed the Committee, as I think he should have done, that the words used had reference to the religious census.
  MR. MADDEN: I said, distinctly, the points of detail under discussion were different, but that Mr. Shaw said of the Bill that it was satisfactory.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: But it was in reference to the matter under discussion—the religious census. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the particular form employed by the enumerators in 1881, and he spoke of it as if there had been only one form employed, whereas, in fact, there were several forms. I admit, if there is a limitation to the particular form he cited, then the difficulty will be largely got over. But I do not gather that is the intention, but that the limitation is to include all the forms used in taking the census in 1881. There was a form of inquiry which included information as to the outbuildings in connection with every man's house, and I cannot for the life of me understand what advantage there is knowing whether a particular outhouse is used as a cow-house or a calf-house—I suppose they are distinct in some way—or whether it is a boiling house or anything else. This is an inquisition which will be carried on by the constabulary. I do not see what right the Government have to ask these things, nor do I understand what advantage can possibly be derived from the collection of these statistics. It is well worth noting that on a subject on which information is really desirable, namely, that of sanitary accommodation, not a single word is asked. It is a monstrous
  26
  thing that the police should be directed to make all these inquiries. You only do it because you have been in the habit of governing Ireland as a conquered country, and because the people are terrorised more or less by the police. And then in regard to the educational census, not only are inquiries made as to the number of persons in a school or college on a given day, but also as to the studies in which each person engages. I do not think that such inquiries should be made without the consent of the House is first obtained. The questions as to afflicted persons are very inquisitorial. Not only must the paper set forth the nature of the affliction, but it is asked whether the person afflicted was born so; what is the cause of the affliction; whether it is due to fright, to the blood relationship of the parents, or to hereditary transmission. I say it must be extremely painful for the relatives of these poor people to be asked such questions as these by policemen. It is both ungenerous and unmanly to ask them, and the act is all the worse because you impose a penalty of £5 for refusal to answer. You have established a police terrorism, for you place the constables in a position so to put a question as to induce the people not to answer, and then to punish the refusal. The Government are always telling us that the laws for England and Ireland are equal; if they are, then you will give the Irish people the protection which you give to Englishmen and to Scotchmen, and you will not enforce this inquisitorial system.
  MR. WEBB: We object to this Bill because it differs essentially from the English and Scottish Census Bills. Under the English Bill a definite and clear return to be filled in has to be left at every house; but in the case of Ireland, the police are instructed to put a number of verbal inquiries of a most inquisitorial character. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted Mr. Shaw's expression of approval of the forms which have been in use since 1841. It is true that he did approve them, but it must be remembered that the present temper of the people of Ireland differs from that which prevailed in 1880, and they are not so ready to submit to questioning of this nature. I think it is

  27
  sought, by means of this census, to obtain many unnecessary particulars. For instance, the christian and surnames of all inmates of hospitals and asylums are to be given. Why would it not be sufficient to give the initials? I do not see the object of these inquisitorial proceedings, which are made the more objectionable because you employ constables for the work instead of civilians.
  MR. SEXTON: I think the reply of the right hon. Gentleman has not met the objections of my hon. Friend. He desires that the same course shall be pursued in Ireland as is adopted in England, that the census paper shall be left in advance at the house, and that when it has been properly filled up, there shall be no more interrogations about it. I further think there should not be repeated visits, but only one visit, and that the questions put should be relevant to matters not answered on the paper. These inquiries being answered, no further visits should be paid. I am not at all aware that the Chief Secretary's Amendment will prevent the enumerators from causing annoyance and giving offence to the people. The House should remember there is a radical difference between the enumerators in England and in Ireland. In England the particulars are taken by civilians, whose presence is not objectionable to the people, but in Ireland they are taken by the constabulary, and it cannot be disguised that in many districts of the country the relations between the police and the people are such, in consequence of the prosecutions which have been conducted by the constabulary, that there will be a disposition to refuse to answer questions put by them, even though such questions would have been treated as harmless if asked by another person. Again, I would like to know why the inquiry should be more strict, and embrace such a greater variety of subjects in Ireland than it is to in England and Scotland. Surely, what is sufficient in the case of England and Scotland ought to suffice for Ireland. Of course, we are anxious to know what is useful about ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that Mr. Shaw, in 1880, approved the form of the Bill of that year. But he will not deny that many questions have considerably advanced
  28
  since then, and that the relations between the people and the constabulary have become much more strained. Our ideas with regard to the rights of the people have also advanced, and Irishmen are not now disposed to submit to the same hind of inquisition. Of course, if any public, national, or Imperial purpose is to be served by putting these questions, they ought not to be objected to. But there are a large number of questions in the form, the use of which I cannot discover. What use it is to compel the master of a household to state what members of his household are afflicted with disease? There may be some use in ascertaining the proportion of afflicted people to the rest of the population, but there can be no use in making their afflictions public. Again, what is the use of obtaining the names of persons in hospital suffering from disease? Why should their identity be disclosed? It might be painful, and even injurious, to them. It is all very well to ascertain to what extent a disease prevails, but the identity of individuals should not be disclosed. The Irish people are quite as sensitive as other people in the matter of domestic afflictions and calamities, and I can very well imagine the pain that people in Ireland will feel at being called upon to give these details. In the present circumstances of the country it is extremely necessary that the inquiry should be conducted with every consideration and delicacy. If all these details are gone into there will be a widespread disposition on the part of the people not to answer the questions, and the reliability and usefulness of the census will be brought down to a minimum.
  MR. DILLON: I very warmly support the views of my hon. Friend, and I feel most strongly the necessity of limiting these questions in Ireland. I object to the employment of the constabulary for census purposes. It is perfectly plain that they will desire to inflict annoyance on people whom they consider obnoxious, and will make all kinds of offensive inquiries. They will probably go to a man in an offensive and insulting manner, and when he indignantly refuses to reply to the questions put, the police will have it in their power to get him punished. In view of that, I think the inquiries should be

  29
  limited, and, above all, inquiries of a painful or offensive character should not be made. The number and character of the questions to be asked should be limited to the same dimensions as those provided for by the English Act. The Bill is very different from the Bill for Scotland, and I ask, Is there any reason why that should be so? With regard to the provision requiring the names of persons in hospital suffering from diseases to be furnished, I regard it as nothing more than a piece of useless cruelty, and I hope it will be struck out of the Bill. It is impossible to suppose that it will be in the power of any Government to secure that everyone of its enumerators would be free from spite or some feeling of that kind. It seems to me a useless thing to compel the divulgence of the Christian names and surnames of the persons suffering from various diseases. Such information would have no scientific value whatever. Let them by all means obtain from the doctors of asylums and hospitals such information with respect to the diseases in those institutions as may be necessary to useful medical statistics. But just imagine what would be the result were a doctor, in addition to giving particulars as to the various diseases, to be compelled to give the Christian names and surnames of all the persons suffering from those diseases. I venture to say the hospital would become exceedingly unpopular, and it would be avoided by a great many patients in the future. I think all the necessary information can be obtained without identifying particular persons with particular diseases.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has, I think, taken a very appropriate view as to the unpopularity of demanding Christian names and surnames of persons suffering from various diseases. But I would point out that the relations between the people and police in 1881 were more acute than they are now, yet I have not heard that any evil arose from the pursuance of the practice by the police in 1881, when the work of the census was carried out without causing any of the evils which now loom so largely in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But I am prepared to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I
  30
  have to express my willingness to provide for a penalty on any enumerator who divulges a secret obtained by him in exercise of his duty. I am prepared to go further. I am quite ready to meet the one or two specified objections which have been raised by the hon. Member for West Belfast or the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo. The hon. Member for West Belfast said that, in spite of the Amendment I have placed on the Paper, it might be possible to demand answers to questions outside those included in the Schedule used under the Act of 1881. I do not think that could happen, but in order to prevent the possibility of it, I am perfectly ready to amend my Amendment, so that no loophole shall remain through which anything of the kind could be done. I have no objection to extend to workhouses the relaxation which has already been granted under the Act of 1881, and I see no reason for requiring the Christian name and surname.
  MR. SEXTON: I made another point. I was anxious that the enumerator should not have the power to make recurrent visits and ask fresh questions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As regards that point, I have already said that I am prepared to provide that no question outside the form shall be asked. But subsequent questions, from the very nature of the case, must be asked in order to clear up obscure answers. For the sake of accuracy, it would be unfortunate to lay down a provision which would preclude the clearing up of any question not effectually cleared up by the answers already given.
  MR. SEXTON: The Act of 1881 included form for second answers, although the answers in the first paper were perfectly conclusive. I think the matter ought to be disposed of in the first paper.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is sometimes rather difficult to dispose of the matter in the first paper, and I should be unwilling to allow of less opportunity to obtain information than was the case with regard to the last census. Hon. Gentlemen will see that these statistics are not collected in the interests of a particular Party or Government, but, except for scientific and economical investigation, in the interests of the

  31
  population itself. If the statistics of 1891 are not comparable to the statistics of 1881, the information loses a great deal of worth which it would otherwise possess for scientific and economical purposes. I should be sorry indeed that the increased consideration which hon. Gentlemen have given to the subject since the census of 1881, has led them to the conclusion that, in the interests of Ireland, they should have statistics of less value than those of 1881. The hon. Gentlemen seem to think that the questions asked in Ireland are of a specially inquisitorial character, but in reality they are far less minute than those asked in Switzerland and Germany. I hope hon. Gentlemen, therefore, as the Government have shown no indisposition to meet them, and as they have obviously safeguarded in every possible way the collection of statistics similar to those collected without objection in 1881 in Ireland, will not on their part raise any objection to that which is necessary for the continued value of the Irish census statistics.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I would point out that there is still a broad line of demarcation between us and the Chief Secretary. According to the Amendment now explained by the Chief Secretary, these subsequent questions will continue to be asked. In fact, all the 21 forms will be put in force, and all these inquisitorial questions about sick and afflicted people will be asked, and repeated visits will be made: In the first Return people are to mention if anybody belonging to them is sick, and then for the subsequent Return the police are to find out, not merely in private houses, but in hospitals, from what diseases the patients are suffering, and how they were acquired. I say there is no right to make such inquiries, which merely harass and persecute the people. Again, you require statistics which I say are of no interest either from a scientific or any other point of view, such as statements relating to outbuildings and so forth. What good is done by ascertaining whether a man has an interest in a cow-house or a piggery. All these statistics are practically useless. I should not object to inquiries which might lead to information of any real value, but I object to such questions as I have referred to, and which are utterly
  32
  unimportant from a statistical, scientific, or any other point of view.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that he is entering upon a discussion of a very general character, and not confining himself to the Amendment before the Committee. I think the time has come when it is desirable that the discussion should be limited to the Amendment.
  MR. SEXTON: Possibly my hon. Friend might have shortened his remarks if the Chief Secretary had agreed to an arrangement under which all these questions could have been put at one visit. We strongly object to two visits from the police in order to get the people to fill up these papers, and this objection applies with special force to the inhabitants of the rural districts. We want to save them a second visit from the police, and I may put that as our first objection, our second objection is that there is no limitation as to hours at which these visits may be paid. We say that they should be made at daylight, as it would be highly inconvenient if they were allowed to be made at night, after dark. There surely can be no objection on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to limiting the hours of these visits to between 10 in the morning and 4 in the afternoon, remembering that they are to be made in the month of April.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no objection whatever to the visits being made by daylight, and I will take care that they shall not be made after dark. With regard to the other point with reference to a second visit, that is a matter upon which I should like to have the opportunity of consulting the Registrar General. I will, therefore, put down the Report stage of the Bill for Friday next, in order that I may have time to make the necessary inquiry.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: I move that the hours at which the visits shall be paid shall be between 10 in the forenoon and 4 in the afternoon.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I have now to move a further Amendment standing in my name, Clause 2, page 1, line 21, after the word "age" insert

  33
  "capacity to read and write." When I first put down this Amendment, I had hoped and expected that the Government would have made the same provision with regard to England and Scotland. It seems to me to be reasonable that they should ascertain whether the people generally could read and write, but I was met by the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) that it would be an invidious thing to ask anyone whether he could read and write. Therefore, the question stands thus: You have no objection to ask an invidious question of the Irish people, while you refuse to put it to those of England and Scotland. The value of the statistics will, of course, be greatly reduced by the want of the means of comparison as between educational attainments of the people of Ireland and Great Britain. I, however, merely move this Amendment and merely leave the matter in the hands of the Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Committee will perceive that I can hardly accept this Amendment, because it is inconsistent with the view I laid down a short time ago.
  Motion made, and Question, "That these words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I think the clause ought not to pass if the work of obtaining the Returns remains in the hands of the police, and I wish earnestly to impress on the Government the desirability of employing in Ireland a similar force to that which is employed in England in obtaining the census statistics. It may be that to-day a body of police may, under the orders of the Chief Secretary, be called upon to smash up a meeting of several thousands of people, and next day to go round to the people's houses seeking information for the purposes of the census. In such a case it is very probable there would be numerous refusals to afford any information whatever. Take the case of Drogheda, where the people are not allowed to travel over the country without passes
  34
  from the police. Are those people likely to give the police any information as to their private affairs? The Government ought to see that only those persons are employed to collect this information who have the respect of the people. Take the case of Tipperary, where we have recently had many baton charges. Is it wise to send the men to ask for information from those whose heads they have so recently smashed? As one of those who had his head smashed, I say it is very unlikely that such persons will give the required information to the police. They would be much more likely to tear up the papers, which in many cases might be regarded as summonses or warrants, because, as a rule, they are the only kind of papers which the police are employed to take to the people. What is likely to happen in such cases as those of Letterkenny, Coolgreany, and the Olphert and Massarene estates? At Coolgreany a man was shot down under the eyes of the police, and no attempt was made by the Government to bring the murderer to justice. In such a place the police will hardly be likely to get the information they may ask for. I would add that even in Belfast, the police, if sent to Sandy Row, would hardly obtain such information from the people. Moreover, it is well-known in Ireland that a traveller who loses some portion of his property is hardly likely to recover it through information given by the people to the police. They will give it to the parish priest, but not to the constabulary. I would suggest, as an alternative, that the Government should employ either the national teachers, the clerks of Unions, the Petty Sessional clerks, the postmen, or the rate collectors; through either or all of those bodies the necessary information might be obtained. It is expecting too much from human nature to suppose that these people who have been treated as the Irish people generally are treated by the police, will give information to members of that force. I would earnestly and respectfully press upon the right hon. Gentleman that if he wants good and satisfactory information, he should employ in its collection a different body of men to the police. I agree with one of my hon. Colleagues as to the necessity

  35
  of limiting the number of questions, and I hope upon the points I have put, the Chief Secretary will be able to give the Committee a satisfactory assurance. Is it not too much to expect of the people that they should submit to be questioned in this way by the police? I think the Government will see that, in the interest of the accurary of the Census Return, it will be better to carry out my suggestion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be sorry were the discussion to degenerate into an argument as to the merits of the police, or the merits of the Irish policy of the present Government. I would remind hon. Members that, on the whole, it appears that the police have been able to carry out those functions in Ireland which are not specially associated with their duty as policemen, to the general satisfaction of the inhabitants, even in those parts of the country where it is urged that they are brought into conflict with the police.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the agrarian statistics, we dispute their accuracy.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; but there are other matters. From every inquiry I have been able to make, and from every deduction I have been able to draw from the experience of the last census, I think there will be no reason to fear that collusion and friction between the enumerators and the population which is foreshadowed by hon. Members. If we thought that any such result was likely it would be a matter of grave anxiety to us, but we do not think there is any ground for the ominous forecast which the hon. Members have made.
  MR. SEXTON: I think the right hon. Gentleman can hardly deny that the Constabulary Force in Ireland has had imposed on it a great variety of embarrassing functions. These constables are to make inquiries in the district in which they carry out their ordinary duties, and, undoubtedly, if a man has broken a bead to-day, he is not the most proper person to make inquiries of the person to-morrow. There can be no doubt that the agents mentioned by my hon. Friend as enumerators would, in
  36
  present circumstances, collect the census more smoothly and more trustworthily than the Constabulary Force. If the right hon. Gentleman will undertake that instructions shall be given enjoining the police, as a matter of duty, that they are to intrude as little as possible on the domestic life of the people, and that in the course of making inquiries they shall comport themselves with courtesy, and in a respectful manner, I shall advise my hon. Friend not to press his objection.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: If this instruction has to be put into the clause, I do not think the police are competent to carry out the duty.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the object is met by the general regulations laid down by the Registrar General, but if there is any deficiency in that respect, I shall be glad to see them amended.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to issue instructions as to the putting of inquisitorial questions?
  MR. SEXTON: Does the Family Return include inquiries as to illness which might be considered of an inquisitorial character?
  MR. MADDEN: Every care will be taken to issue proper instructions.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  (3.39.) Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 19, at the end to add the words—
  "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the census shall be taken by means of, and in the manner prescribed by, the several forms and instructions which were issued under the authority of the Act of the Session of the 43rd and 44th years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter 28, and which are contained in the appendix to the general Report of the Commissioners appointed under that Act, dated September 21, 1882, and presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty, and such matters and particulars as were contained in, and prescribed by, the said forms and instructions, and no other matters or particulars shall be inserted in the forms and instructions to be prepared under the authority of this Act; and no question shall be put for the purpose of obtaining information other than the information required by such forms and instructions, provided that, in the case of Hospital Returns, it shall be sufficient, instead of the same and surname of each inmate, to

  37
  state the initial letters only of such name and surname."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. SEXTON: The Word "hospital" is not sufficient. The same principle ought to be applied to all institutions to which patients are admitted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Would "hospitals, workhouses, asylums, and gaols," satisfy the hon. Gentleman?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That part of the Amendment would more properly come in Clause 3.
  MR. SEXTON: What redress will be provided in case the police insist on putting unnecessary questions?
  MR. MADDEN: I do not know what we can do more than prescribe the questions, and say no others are to be put. Nothing more is done in England.
  Amendment amended by the omission of the words from "provided that in the case of hospital Returns," to end.
  Amendment, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  MR. SEXTON: I think the words "or further particulars" are unnecessary. They look like an invitation to the police to make excursions into unnecessary matters.
  MR. MADDEN: The hon. Gentleman is unnecessarily apprehensive.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: This is a very important clause, because of the penal consequences. According to the clause, as it stands, anyone is liable to a fine not exceeding £5 for not answering questions put to him, for giving a false question, or for obstructing the police. I propose that, instead of this, you should simply take the provision of the English and Scotch Bill, and impose a penalty for refusing to fill up the papers, or making a false Return. It appears to me very evident that you are going to have a much larger inquiry for Ireland than for England and Scotland. If this inquiry
  38
  is to be made a good one, and one that will be of any real use at all, the concurrence of the people is necessary. You ought not to impose penalties unnecessarily. The Government have met us, to a certain extent, in the Amendments they have made. It is now distinctly provided that the Return will be made simply by papers left at people's houses. What is more reasonable than to say that people will be fined if they wilfully refuse to fill up the papers, or wilfully falsify the Return? That is quite in conformity with the custom of England and Scotland, and I think it is as much as you have any right to ask. Take the case of deaf and dumb people. Are you going to ask when and why they became deaf and dumb, because it might happen that an unfortunate mother would not care to say, the affliction was the result of a fright she had before she gave birth to the child. Are you going to prosecute a woman for refusing information on such a matter? You have no right to do anything of the sort.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 6, page 2, line 26, leave out from "every," to "pounds," in line 31, and insert—
  "If any occupier wilfully refuses or without lawful excuse neglects to fill up the said schedule to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, or to sign and deliver the same as herein required, or who wilfully makes, signs, or delivers, or causes to be made, signed, or delivered, any false return of all or any of the matters specified in the said schedule, he or she shall forfeit a sum not exceeding five pounds."—(Mr. W. A. Macdonald.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. SEXTON: I think the point raised by the Amendment of my hon. Friend is well worthy of attention. There is one person in each house who would be naturally called upon to answer, and I think it would be expedient that the penalty should be limited to that person. One of the objects of my hon. Friend is that it should not be at the discretion of the Government to distribute these penalities amongst all the persons in a family, whether or not they were competent to answer the questions or not. I do not think the acceptance of the Amendment would really limit the efficiency of the collection

  39
  of the census. What is the penalty in England? If any person refuses to answer, or answers falsely, he may be liable to a fine of £5. The Committee will observe that in England there are only two things for which the penalty can be imposed. In the Irish Bill, however, there is a third cause of penalty, and that is wilfully obstructing. What is this wilful obstruction that is to be punished, which, if it occurs in England, is not to be punished? Wherever there is wilful obstruction there must also be a refusal to answer. I must press for the exclusion of these differentiating words in the Irish Bill.
  MR. MADDEN: This clause has been found to work well for a great many years, but, as I understand the hon. Member, he agrees that refusing to answer or wilfully giving a false answer would amount to obstruction. [Mr. SEXTON: Yes.] It is possible there may be obstruction quite independent of refusing to answer. For instance, the door may be shut in the enumerator's face [Mr. SEXTON: That may happen in England.] I am not responsible for the English Act. The machinery in Ireland for taking the census has been found to work well, and I put it to the hon. Member that there may be obstruction which is something over and above refusing to answer.
  SIR H. JAMES: I would suggest the withdrawal of the clause, and the bringing up of a fresh clause on Report. This Clause 6 was intended to meet cases of the non-answering of questions, but you are now going to make a Return in writing, and, therefore, "answering such questions" in Clause 6 are not apt words to deal with the state of things under the amended Bill. It would be better to re-consider this clause, which I do not think, in its present form, will be of any avail whatever.
  MR. SEXTON: I cannot consider the Irish Bill superior to the English Bill, because there are more penalties. You have had the census taken four times in Ireland in the course of the last half century, and what I want to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is this: Has such obstruction arisen in Ireland as to make this penalty
  40
  necessary? I am not aware of it. Considering the spirit in which the Debate has been conducted, and the people of Ireland will probably take their tone from the tone of the Debate, I think it would tend to the efficiency of the census if you were to strike out the penalty. I have no fear that any obstruction will be given, and I think it would be really prudent on your part to strike out the penalty.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is agreed that where a man locks his door, so that the police cannot ask the necessary questions, he ought to be punished. It is also agreed that the punishment is not excessive, and it is further agreed that if the words proposed to be omitted are left out it will be possible for the inhabitant to do anything to prevent the necessary questions being put. If any competent lawyer in the House will say the offence of simply shutting the door against the police will be adequately met by the clause, as amended in the way the hon. Gentleman desires, I have not the least objection to the Amendment. If, on the other hand, the Legal Authorities in the House are of opinion that the case of obstruction would not be met by the clause as proposed to be amended, I am sure hon. Gentlemen will agree we ought to leave the clause as it is.
  MR. SEXTON: The same thing may occur in England or Scotland, and yet there is no provision such as this in the English or Scottish Bill. I imagine that if you appeal to the people of Ireland in the same intelligent spirit in which you appeal to the people of England and Scotland the same results will follow.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is it to be understood that refusal to answer questions would be regarded as obstruction?
  SIR H. JAMES: There are no questions put in England: it is more a case of receiving a paper and filling it up. This clause is intended to meet the case of Clause 2 in the original Bill. Now, you have altered it by adopting the system of making a Return on paper, and yet you are keeping Clause 6 for non-answering questions. What is the meaning of the words "such questions" in Clause 6? Suppose a Return is not

  41
  filled up at all, do you mean to have any penalty? If so, your Clause 6 does not provide for it.
  MR. MADDEN: If a Return is not filled up in England there is a penalty. If a Return is not filled up in Ireland the enumerator calls, and it is for not answering the questions then put that the penalty is inflicted.
  SIR H. JAMES: Suppose a person locks his door and will not make a Return, what penalty have you for that?
  MR. MADDEN: That would be obstructing.
  SIR H. JAMES: I do not agree with you.
  MR. MADDEN: Clearly, if a man shuts his door in the face of the enumerator, whose duty it is to put the questions, he is obstructing the enumerator in the discharge of his duty.
  SIR H. JAMES: Why not provide that the penalty shall be inflicted for not making the Return? The present words are certainly ambiguous.
  MR. SEXTON: These general words about wilful obstruction may give rise in the hands of an undisciplined constable to no end of abuse. I am persuaded that "refusing to give answers" would cover such a case as shutting the door in the face of the enumerator. The words of which we complain might apply to many things which are not in the contemplation of the Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What we desire to penalise is, in the first place, a refusal to make a Return; secondly, a refusal to answer questions which are legally put; and, thirdly, a refusal to allow a question which may be put to be put. We will undertake to bring up a fresh clause on Report which will meet the views of hon. Members.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: Is it intended that there shall be a penalty in respect of a refusal to answer subsequent questions? A form will be left with a man before the census day. One of the questions to be answered is whether a person is deaf or deaf and dumb. When the paper is filled up, the policeman will take it to his superior officer. The superior officer may see that such and such person is returned as deaf and dumb, and he may require that
  42
  it should be stated whether that person was born deaf and dumb. In fact, under this Bill a number of subsequent questions, which are quite unknown in England, may be asked, and I want to know whether any penalty can be inflicted if a person refuses to answer.
  MR. SEXTON: I think the principle ought to be accepted, that when a responsible person makes an answer to any question his answer should be accepted, that he should not, by means of subsequent questions, be subjected to a kind of cross-examination.
  MR. MADDEN: There will be nothing inquisitorial or of the nature of cross-examination. Perhaps, instead of postponing the matter until Report, I could now suggest an Amendment which would meet the views of hon. Members. I suggest that the clause should read—"Every person refusing to allow any such question to be put, or refusing to answer, or wilfully giving a false answer to such questions," taking out the words "or wilfully obstructing."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. SEXTON: You provide a penalty in case a person refuses to answer a proper question put to him, but you provide for no penalty on an enumerator if he puts a question which is not proper. If you do not care about providing for a penalty in such a case, I certainly think the instructions to the enumerators should show most clearly that no unnecessary question is to be put.
  MR. MADDEN: There shall be a distinct clause in the instructions to that effect.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: You have a penalty for breach of secrecy; why not have a penalty for insolence and unnecessary questions?
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 (The persons taking the accounts to certify and affirm as to their correctness, and deliver them to the officer appointed to receive them).
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 6, page 2, line 30, after the word "refusal," to insert "or."—(Mr. Madden.)
  Question, "That this word be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 6, page 2, line 30, to leave out the words, "or wilful obstruction."—(Mr. Madden.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Penalty on persons employed if guilty of wilful default or neglect).
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 7, page 2, line 38, after the word "accounts," to insert—
  "Or who shall make any communication or disclosure of any information obtained by him in taking the said accounts for any other object than that of rendering the census as complete as possible."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WEBB: We recognise in this Amendment a desire to meet us. I will, therefore, ask leave to withdraw a clause to same effect I had placed on the Paper. We are anxious that the census should be properly taken, and we think that special publicity ought to be given to this clause, and to the instructions to the enumerators regarding the delicacy with which they should pursue their inquiries.
  MR. SEXTON: What is meant by "allow"?
  MR. MADDEN: That applies to every question that could be legally put.
  MR. SEXTON: I scarcely appreciate the settlement.
  MR. MADDEN: If the door was shut in the face of the enumerator that would be met by the words "every person refusing to allow such questions to be put."
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: Will the Amendment cover the point I raised as to subsequent questions?
  MR. MADDEN: My view is, that when a definite answer is given to a definite question, that answer should not be made the subject of cross-examination. If a subsequent distinct inquiry becomes
  44
  necessary, it is a distinct question and must be distinctly answered.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 6, page 2, after the word "to," to insert the words "allow any such questions to be put or."—(Mr. Madden.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 6, page 2, leave out from the word "them," in line 27, to the word "shall," in line 29.—(Mr. Madden.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I beg to propose to leave out "twelve," in line 39, and insert "five." This is a very reasonable Amendment, and I hope the Government will see their way to accept it. An abstract in the case of England and Scotland is to be laid before Parliament in five months, but in the case of Ireland a period of twelve months is allowed for the preparation of the abstract. The officers in Ireland are not at all over-worked; they are well paid; and I do not see why the Irish abstract should not be presented at the same time as that for England and Scotland.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 9, page 3, line 39, to leave out the word "twelve," and insert "five."—(Mr. W. A. Macdonald.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As a matter of fact, the Irish Returns were in some former years laid before Parliament sooner than the English Returns, but I think it better not to fix the shorter time in the Bill, as the limited staff in Ireland may possibly not be able to get the Returns ready within the time named.
  MR. SEXTON: I remember that in 1881 the Irish Department did outstrip the English Department, and that the efficiency of the Department in Ireland was a matter of congratulation in this House at the time. I have no doubt that, for the credit of the Department, the Registrar General will be very happy to abbreviate the period of 12 months as much as possible.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I beg to move the second new clause, which I consider to be essential. There are in every country a number of persons who, unfortunately, are houseless, besides many others who are travelling on the day the census is taken, and they ought to be enumerated as far as possible. I leave it to the Chief Secretary to propose a method for obtaining a census of these persons. There is very inadequate provision in the Bill for obtaining a Return as to travellers. Every hotel keeper and lodging-house keeper is required the day after the census day to put down the names of the persons who have visited the hotels or lodging-houses. It seems to me that the proper period to fix would be the census night and not the night after. And, then, as I say, there is no provision at all for endeavouring to enumerate houseless persons, although to render the census complete it is essential that a record of such people should be taken, and to effect it it seems to me that some such clause as that I have put on the Paper should be accepted. I may say that the clause I move is in the English Act. It is as follows:—
  "The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant shall obtain, by such means as shall appear to him best adapted for the purpose, returns of the particulars required by this Act with respect to all houseless persons, and all persons who during the night of the census day were travelling or on shipboard, or for any other reason were not abiding in any house of which account is to be taken by the appointed persons, and shall cause such returns to be included in the abstract to be laid before Parliament."
  New Clause (Provision as to houseless persons) brought up, and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time".
  MR. SEXTON: This provision is contained in the English Act and the Scotch Act, and it is obviously requisite that it should be inserted in the Irish Bill if we are to have a complete census of the population. There will always be a certain number of persons who are not housed, and unless some account is taken of them, the census will not be complete. There cannot be any objection to allowing the police to deal with the matter. The police, I think, would be
  46
  best able to do so, and it is a task which might very well be committed to them.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As it is desirable to have as complete a census, as possible, I think I can very properly accept the clause of the hon. Member.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  (4.37.) Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.—(No. 389.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Amendment again proposed, in page 1, line 27, after the word "esquire," to insert the words "Chistopher Thomas Redington, esquire."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Christopher Thomas Redington, esquire,' be there inserted."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: The hon. Gentleman has raised the question whether it is desirable that there should be on the Commission some Representative of Ireland, and proposes to move to add the name before the Committee and another name, against which, in the abstract, I do not wish to say a word. But I wish to put it to the hon. Gentleman that it would be entirely against all precedent to move in the House of Commons any addition or substitution in the names of the Commissioners. They are an entirely non-political body, serving on purely honorary terms, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Motion. We are quite prepared to recognise the sentiment expressed by the hon. Gentleman that Ireland should be represented on the Board; but I put it to the hon. Member strongly that he should not make the addition of names the subject of a Motion in this House. The name the hon. Member has moved is that of a highly respected Irish representative gentleman, but who has not, I believe, that special financial knowledge which is the qualification of every other gentleman

  47
  whose name is on the Commission. The other name of which the hon. Member has given notice (Mr. A. O'Connor) is that of a Member of this House, who, undoubtedly, has taken considerable part in the discussion of financial questions in this House, and is quite competent to give an opinion on such matters; but it is the name of one whom I may say, without disrespect, that he is distinctly a politician, and his nomination by the vote of this House would be introducing a novelty into the constitution of this Board I should be anxious to deprecate. If the nomination were agreed to, it would lead to other Political Parties nominating their particular Representatives; and I earnestly appeal to the hon. Gentleman to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, when I will undertake to propose a name of a non-political connection which will completely satisfy Irishmen on both sides of the House. I do not wish to cast the slightest reflection on the gentlemen nominated by the hon. Member. I approach this matter from an entirely business point of view, and I hope that the matter will be withdrawn from Parliamentary contest.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman is acute enough to know that he has not given me the slightest satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman has had ample time to consider the question since Mr. Redington's name was first proposed, and he has not yet suggested the name of which he speaks so vaguely as one that will be generally acceptable. When I moved this name some time ago, the Chancellor of the Eechequer could not resist it except on the ground that he had had no time for consideration and consultation. He has had that time since, and now what is his position? Let me remind the Committee of the circumstances. I found this Board of 16 gentlemen engaged in distributing, by way or loans, money from the Imperial Exchequer, to which Ireland contributes her share; and yet the Board does not contain a single Irishman. This is under a Unionist Government, who profess the desire and the wish that Ireland should take her share in the transaction of Imperial business. The Board, I say, does not contain the name of a single gentleman representing
  48
  or connected with Ireland. What is the use of talking about objection to the introduction of politics? Three Members of Parliament—two of them supporters of the Government—are on the Board, so that politicians are only to be tabooed when they happen to be Irish. Ireland is interested in these financial matters, and yet from this Board and from the Board in Ireland Irish representation is completely shut out. The right hon. Gentleman makes an appeal to me, but does he realise the position in which I am placed in regard to these names? He does not contest my principle. The principle that Ireland ought to have a representative on the Board cannot be contested, and no exception can be taken to the names I propose. The right hon. Gentleman can only object to the name of Mr. Redington that he is a country gentleman and not a financier, and then he objects to the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal because, being a financier, he is not a country gentleman, but engaged in politics. It is enough to suggest something that a man is not when we show positive qualifications. Mr. Redington's qualifications are undoubted; he enjoys the favour of the Crown, inasmuch as he has been appointed to the position of Deputy Lieutenant of his county; he has served on the Grand Jury for several years; he has served on a Royal Commission, and assuredly I shall not subject that gentleman to the affront of withdrawing his name after I have put it forward to give effect to the principle for which I contend, and which the right hon. Gentleman does not resist. As for Mr. A. O'Connor, the Government are often enough glad to make use of him. My hon. Friend is on the Chairman's panel, a body of Members against whom no exception can be taken; they occupy a distinguished position in the confidence of the House; and this year he has been at the head of the Standing Committee on Trade, where he has acquitted himself so well that a Cabinet Minister went out of his way to pay my hon. Friend a special compliment, regretting that the Forms of Procedure did not allow the passing of a vote of thanks by the Committee. Amid the wreck and ruin of the legislative work of the Session, such success as the

  49
  Government have had with their Bills has been largely due to the efficient direction of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Trade by my hon. Friend. That is all I have to say. You call us the Separatist Party, and in the name of the Separatist Party to-day I ask you to give some manifestation of the faith you claim to have in Unionist principles when I submit to you these two representative names for the Board engaged in the administration of revenue to which Ireland contributes a considerable share. I shall submit both names to the Committee, and the discredit and dishonour of rejecting them, if they are rejected, will rest on the majority supporting the Government. I shall desire on election platforms no more conclusive proof of the sham, the hollowness, of Unionist professions of equal treatment of the two countries. I shall take a Division on the name of Mr. Redington.
  (4.47.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 112.—(Div. List, No. 238.)
  MR. GOSCHEN: If the hon. Member will permit me, I may make a proposal that may be satisfactory to him. Fully acknowledging as we do the ability of the hon. Member for East Donegal and his competence to deal with financial questions, we should, with even greater reluctance than we did just now, vote against the nomination of the hon. Member. We were unable to accept the two names proposed; but I now make this suggestion to the hon. Member, that, in recognition of the claims of Ireland to representation on the Board, we accept the name of the hon. Member for East Donegal, adding thereto the name of Sir Edward Guinness. This is a name I hope will be accepted by hon. Members opposite.
  MR. SEXTON: I am perfectly satisfied.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, after line 27, to add "Arthur O'Connor, esquire, M. P."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, after the name last inserted, to add "Sir Edward Cecil Guinness, Baronet."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The new clauses on the Paper are not in order.
  (5.0.) Bill reported; as amended to be considered to-morrow.

  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.—(No. 408.)
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL. (No. 403.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask whether any new Acts have been put into the Schedule this year? I also wish to know what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill, which stands upon the Paper? Will not the needs of the ensuing year be sufficiently met by the inclusion of the Sunday Closing Act in the Continuance Bill? Then what is the effect of including in the Schedule three Irish Acts relating to land? I regret to see that both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney General for Ireland are absent from their places.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That question should be asked on Clause 2.
  Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  MR. SEXTON: I have only to put the same question. Perhaps some Member of the Government can answer.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: I may explain that the Irish Law Officer had not been able to have any luncheon, and is now getting some refreshment. The right hon. Gentleman will be sent for. I may point out that the Irish Sunday Liquor Bill is in the hands of private Members, and is not

  51
  a Government Bill. If the Members interested can find an opportunity for bringing the Bill forward, it is not the intention of the Government to place obstacles in their way; but, in order to guard against all eventualities, the Government have included in the Continuance Bill the Irish Sunday Closing Act.
  MR. STOREY: I wish to ask for an assurance that the Government will not permit private Members' Bills, including the Irish Liquor Bill, to be brought in at the end of Government business after a prolonged Sitting. Now that the 12 o'clock Rule has been suspended, Government business can go on until any hour in the morning. It would not be right to allow private Bills to be taken at 3 or 4 a.m.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I must remind the hon. Member that the Resolution carried yesterday applies only to Government business. The Liquor Bill is not a Ministerial measure, and, therefore, the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule will not apply.
  MR. STOREY: The point of my inquiry is this: Government business may go on to any hour of the morning, and a private Member would be kept waiting. What I suggest is that the Government should undertake to oppose the Bill. Otherwise a private Member who objects to it might be kept in his place until 3 o'clock in the morning simply to say "I object."
  MR. HOWELL: I wish to know whether the Government, during the Recess, will consider the propriety of making some of these Bills permanent Acts. Many of them have been Continuance Bills for a great number of years. If they are worthy of being kept on the Statute Book year after year, surely it is time some of them were made permanent Acts.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury not to accede to the request of the hon. Member for Sunderland. Why should private Members be prevented by the Government from getting their Bills through? If the hon. Member objects to any Bill—being, perhaps, the only Member who objects to it—it is surely not too much to expect
  52
  that he should be in his place when it comes on. The effect of the hon. Member's suggestion is that no private Bill should go through after 12 o'clock.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: I find that paragraph 6 of the Shedule relates to the county cess in Scotland. I wish to impress upon the Government the uselessness of continuing a Bill of this kind. Apparently, there is no inherent power of enforcing penalties on the cess collector. There was the case of a collector in Kerry last year who ran away with £2,000, and there was the case brought before the House of another collector who had £42,000 in the bank credited to his own name, and not in the name of the county. These serious irregularities occur, and the Lord Lieutenant has no power to enforce that there shall be regularity in the administration of the public funds. I think it is too much to pass this blank cheque, as it were, to the Grand Juries of Ireland, who can do what they like with the public money, and actually employ the Irish Police to collect the money out of which the public are robbed and cheated by these collectors. I merely wish to emphasise the fact that the people have no control over these Grand Juries, which are not representative, and are virtually created by the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. MURPHY: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Irish Attorney General is not in his place, because I should like to get some explanation of the continuance of the dwellings of the Working Classes (Ireland) Act. An Act has been passed this Session for the purpose of consolidating all these enactments relating to the dwellings of the working classes, and it very likely repeals this Act which you now include in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
  MR. SEXTON: The Act to which my hon. Friend refers is an old Act, and I do not think you could make much of it one way or the other. With regard to the question I asked of the Irish Law Officer, I think we know what he will say, and that we need not wait for him.
  Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  [Mr. MADDEN entered the House.]
  Schedule.
  MR. SEXTON: Now that the Attorney General for Ireland is here, I wish to ask him what will be the precise effect of continuing for a year three of the Irish Land Acts?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: The hon. Gentleman asked why in the Schedule reference is made to the Leaseholders' Clause in the Act of 1887. The object is to extend for another year the time during which leaseholders can make applications under the Act of 1887.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it the object to continue the officials of the Land Commission?
  MR. MADDEN: Yes; it is the object to continue them for another year.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.

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

  CLASS II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £7,533 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Officers."
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I rise to move to reduce the salary of the Secretary for Scotland by the sum of £100. I wish, first, to draw attention to the great inconvenience caused to Scotch Members by the postponement of the Scotch Estimates to this very late period of the Session. Had the Votes been taken in their regular order, it would have been possible to discuss many most interesting points which must now be passed over in comparative silence. The second point to which I wish to call attention is the manner in which the Secretary for Scotland has treated the Scotch fishery interest. I myself have never made
  54
  these Scotch fishery subjects a Party question, because it is one on which I think both sides of the House may not only agree, but may do much good by that agreement. I have to complain, however, of the treatment which this matter has received at the hands of the Secretary for Scotland, and doubtless this is a matter which is very much a personal one as between the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland and myself. About three years ago the Secretary for Scotland asked me to preside over a Committee to inquire into the mussel fisheries of Scotland and to report upon that and other cognate matters. Accordingly, I and two Colleagues entered upon that inquiry, and we made a Report which I was assured was a very reasonable and moderate Report. I then asked the Secretary for Scotland what course he intended to take upon that question, and he said would it not be better for me to put my views and those of my Colleagues in the form of a Bill. I said I would do so, and accordingly I carried that promise out. A Bill was drawn up, and the principal part of that Bill was the giving to Scotland of the same advantages which England already possesses in regard to District Fisheries Committees. England obtained these advantages two years ago, and we naturally desired that they should be conferred upon us; but when our Bill was formed, objection was taken to the method adopted for the introduction of a representative element on the Scottish Fishery Board. It was thought that the proposals for the election of representative members were too vague, and accordingly the Government, when that Bill was introduced last Session, opposed it. This Session I re-introduced the Bill with some Amendment especially relating to the point on which objection was taken the year before. As an illustration of the character of that Bill, I would state that on the back of the measure beside the names of hon. Members sitting on this side of the House from all parts of Scotland are those of the hon. Members representing Inverness (Mr. Finlay) and Argyllshire (Mr. Malcolm). I do not think the House would be inclined to class these two gentlemen with any radical or revolutionary proposal, and both of them have told me they think the

  55
  Bill an excellent one, and that they agree with every word it contains, the hon. Member for Argyllshire being himself particularly interested in those matters which the provisions relative to the mussel fisheries would effect. But, nevertheless, I was again met by the non possumus of the other side of the House, although that opposition was to a certain extent modified by the promise of the Government that they would introduce a Bill upon the subject in another place. Well, Sir, I kept on putting questions as to when that Bill was to see the light It so happened that the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland took a trip to the Northern Isles about the middle of the Session, and none of us were able to find him, because he was beating about among the Orkneys. His absence under these circumstances was assigned by the Government as a reason for the late introduction of the measure. At last that Bill did appear, and what did I find? Why, that it was actually drafted from my own measure; that is to say, it was my own Bill cut down and mutilated. That fact gave me the hope that it would be proceeded with; but when, eventually, it came before the House of Lords; the Secretary for Scotland said he could see no chance of carrying the measure through, and therefore he moved the discharge of the Order. I cannot understand what valid reason there was for such a course. I regarded the Bill as a very modest attempt to realise the object we had in view; and I was prepared to accept the Government measure, not, perhaps, with gratitude, but at any rate on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, in a belief, and certainly in the hope, that I might have been enabled to improve it to some extent. There was one provision in that Bill which proposed to divide the Scotch coasts into four district areas. I should have tried to extend that number, my own Bill having originally provided for six District Committees, but I had considerable doubt as to whether the number should be six or eight. I do not, however, wish to go into all the minutiæ of the Bill. What I wish to put before the Committee is that England, having already its District Fishery Committees, and all sides agreeing that it is impossible for
  56
  us to satisfactorily manage our Scotch Fisheries without some such arrangement, the Government having also indicated their opinion that a considerable reform is needed, especially in regard to the constitution of the Scottish Fishery Board, and in the management of the mussel fisheries of Scotland by the appointment of a Committee over which I had the honour to preside, it is, I say, a scandal and a shame that nothing should have been done this Session on so important a matter, about which there was practically a general agreement. I suggested earlier in the Session that the two Bills should be referred to a Select Committee; and if the Government had assented to that course, we should have been able to take a great step in advance in regard to our Scotch fishery business this Session. For the reasons I have just given, I, now beg to move the reduction of the Vote for the salary of the Secretary for Scotland by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries), be reduced by £100, part of the Salary of the Secretary for Scotland.—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I desire briefly to second the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. When we realise in Scotland that nothing has been done in these matters during the present Session, great discontent will be created throughout the fishing community. You can find time to wrangle for a couple of days over a question of how a few thousand pounds are to be expended in connection with the local taxation scheme, and yet you say it is impossible to consider a Bill such as that brought on by my right hon. Friend and adopted by the Government for dealing with important and vital interests affecting the Scotch fisheries. The subject of the reform of the Scotch Fishery Board is one which is constantly being discussed among the fishers of the North. It is one on which deep feeling is entertained. The body as it exists is one that has done little or no good; it has removed very few evils, and there is very slight hope that it will ever serve any really useful purpose. At any rate, the complaints which have at different times been addressed to the Board by the

  57
  fishermen of Scotland have received very scant attention.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that his remarks are getting somewhat beyond the proposal contained in the Amendment.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I was only emphasising certain matters on which the people of Scotland were anxious that there should be legislation during the current Session. I will, however, only add that I extremely regret that nothing has been done in this direction, and that this subject should have been treated with culpable neglect by Her Majesty's Government.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: I think hon. Members will see that, looking at the period of the Session at which we have arrived, and at the amount of business which must necessarily be got through, it would be impossible to pass such a Bill as has been recommended by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, especially when it is remembered that the right hon. Gentleman has just indicated much larger and more ambitious views than those to which the Government propose by their Bill to give effect. Were those views enforced by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends it is clear that it would be practically impossible to secure the passing of such a measure. The withdrawal of the Bill has, therefore, been inevitable, but at the same time there can be no doubt that its introduction has had good effect of placing on record a definite, although perhaps, a moderate proposal. I trust that hereafter, when this matter comes up for practical treatment, we shall be enabled, as I hope will be the case from what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman, to secure the co-operation of hon. Members on both sides of the House to secure a reasonable and satisfactory proposal on this important subject. I will not now enter into details with regard to this question, especially after the rulings we have had from the Chair, but I can assure the Committee that the Government will bear in mind the anxiety that has been expressed in many quarters that there should be legislation on this subject, and that they will give a full consideration to the reasonableness of the views that
  58
  have been expressed during this discussion.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I can hardly accept the explanation which has just been given by the right hon. Gentleman as satisfactory, because I cannot think the Government has been so pressed for time in regard to this matter that they could not have brought forward at an earlier period some measure on the subject. My Report on the mussel fisheries was presented to the House in 1889, and I subsequently introduced a Bill which was practically the same as my Bill of this Session, except as regards mere points of detail. In fact, last Session I was thanked for the valuable contribution I was said to have made on this subject, and I was assured that the matter would be carefully considered during the Recess. Therefore, I can hardly conceive what excuse the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of which he is a Member can have for not having proceeded with a Bill on the subject this Session. If those who preside over the Scotch Department were really anxious to deal with this important question they ought to have produced their Bill at the beginning of the Session after the consideration they were supposed to have given to the subject during the Recess.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: I join in the regret which has been expressed that the Government have not dealt with this matter in relation to the constitution of the Scotch Fishery Board this Session, but atany rate we have been enabled to extract a promise from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that next Session the Government will proceed to consider that matter and deal with it in a practical way. The fact that the Government have agreed to take the question up at all is tantamount to the expression of an opinion that the existing Board is entirely out of date. I trust, therefore, that after the promise just made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman we shall have a Bill next Session very much in advance of the proposal hitherto made, and that some tangible result will be arrived at. If my right hon. Friend goes to a Division on his Amendment, I shall have much pleasure in supporting him, because I cannot but join in the protest which has

  59
  been made against the Government's neglect of the Scotch fishing interest.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER: I have only to say that I feel it my duty to support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, and, in doing so, I must express my regret that no reform of the Scotch Fishery Board has been carried by the Government this Session. There is among the fishing community of Scotland a widespread feeling that the organisation and administration of the Fishery Board should be improved. If the Amendment of my right hon. Friend is pressed, I shall be bound to give my vote in its favour as an expression of my disappointment.
  (5.35.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 113.—(Div. List, No. 239.)
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I have now to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £50, in order to make a protest on one point in connection with the Secretary's Office. Most of the Scotch Members on this side of the House hold a strong opinion that the Secretary of Scotland ought to be a Member of this House, and not of the House of Lords. I am well aware that in the conditions under which this Vote comes before the House it is impossible to attempt anything like an adequate discussion of this question, and I would guard myself against any misunderstanding by stating that I do not wish to say a word against Lord Lothian personally, because I believe the Scotch Members generally are perfectly well satisfied as to the personal qualifications of the noble Lord. Nor do I desire to say anything derogatory to the character and conduct of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is in this House the representative of the Secretary for Scotland, but I must protest against the system of keeping the Secretary for Scotland in a House in which we cannot have recourse to him. We believe that the office he holds was created with the intention that the Scotch Secretary should be in this House, but as long as the post is filled by a Member of the other House it will fail to receive the confidence of those who sit in this Assembly. Having said this, I will content myself with
  60
  simply moving the reduction of the Vote by £50.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item (a) (Salaries), be reduced by £50, part of the Salary of the Secretary for Scotland."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
  MR. HUNTER: This is a most important question in connection with the office of Secretary for Scotland. Every year we have to complain of the manner in which Scotch business is conducted, and one of the principal grounds of our complaint arises from the fact that the gentleman responsible for the conduct of Scotch business is not a Member of this House, and therefore inaccessible to its Members; and the result is that communication between Members of this House and the Secretary sitting in the other House is practically impossible. Another serious injury to Scotch business arises from the fact that in regard to Scotch measures the Lord Advocate, who represents in this House the Secretary of State, is here simply as an agent instead of as the principal. Great difficulty thus arises, because the Lord Advocate is not always in a position to consult his chief on questions that arise in Debates in this House. We desire, therefore, to enter an emphatic protest against a system which greatly reduces the efficiency of the office. If we do not succeed in inducing the present Government to make the change we desire, I trust that at any rate their successors in office will give some consideration to Scotch opinion and see that that change is effectuated.
  (5.50.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 105.—(Div. List, No. 240.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. ASHER: There is a matter connected with this Vote of some importance to my constituents to which I desire to call the attention of the Committee. I allude to the scheme of the Educational Endowment Commissioners for the administration of certain endowments in the County of Banff. I know that I should not be in order in discussing the alteration

  61
  which has been made upon that scheme, but my constituents have grave cause for complaint as to the course taken by the Secretary for Scotland in this matter. A deputation, consisting of the Duke of Fife, the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duff), and myself, and a large number of gentlemen representing the educational interests of Banffshire, waited on the Secretary for Scotland for the purpose of asking him so to frame the scheme as to make the bursaries under it tenable in schools for higher education to be approved by the Scotch Education Department, and which were near the bursars' homes. The Secretary for Scotland adopted the views of the deputation, and remitted the scheme to the Commissioners, who altered it accordingly, and it was thereafter approved in that form by the Scotch Education Department. My constituents, of course, assumed that the scheme which had been thus adjusted would have the support of the Government. But on the morning of the day on which the House adjourned for the Easter Recess, a Motion was made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ipswich for undoing the very thing the deputation had got the Secretary for Scotland to get inserted in the scheme. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who represents the Scotch Department in this House voted in favour of this Motion without giving any explanation of the unusual course he was adopting. Under these circumstances I say we have serious cause for complaint, and we are entitled to know whether the Secretary for Scotland has changed his mind, or whether the Scotch Education Department has changed its mind, and if so why this change was not communicated to the deputation who waited upon the Secretary for Scotland. I accept entirely the responsibility of not being in my place to defend the scheme as it stood. That is not the question. The question is, whether we were not entitled to look to the Secretary for Scotland to take care, after what had taken place with regard to the adjustment of the scheme, that the scheme and the views embodied in it and approved of by the Scotch Education Department should receive the support of the Government
  62
  in this House. This is the only opportunity I have had of bringing the matter before the House. I thought the occurrence I have mentioned must have happened through an oversight, and I, therefore, introduced a Bill for the purpose of restoring the scheme to the form in which it stood when it passed the Education Department. I have had no opportunity of discussing this matter in connection with that Bill, the measure having been systematically blocked by the Government and the hon. Member for Ipswich since its introduction. So far as I have been able to discover there is not a single Scotch Member in the House opposed to the Bill—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. ASHER: I may, Sir, have gone beyond the limits of the question before the Committee, but my point is that we are entitled to complain that the Secretary for Scotland did not take care that the alteration which had been introduced into the scheme of arrangement with him would be supported by the Representative of the Scotch Education Department in this House, or at any rate that he did not give us notice of any change of opinion or intention so as to put us on our guard.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: As my constituents are very much interested in this question I wish to endorse the views of my hon. and learned Friend. My constituents are sorely vexed about the matter. Throughout the County of Banff, except in one parish, the people are unanimous in wishing that the views of the Commissioners had been carried out. I am at a loss to understand how it was that the Lord Advocate opposed the views of his Colleague Lord Balfour of Burleigh. The Commission recommended a certain course, which was adopted by the Government, but subsequently the hon. Member for Ipswich—a Scotchman, but not a Scotch Member—brought forward a Motion by which the recommendation was upset. The First Lord of the Treasury voted for his Colleague Lord Balfour of Burleigh, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman supported the Amendment, and,

  63
  very naturally, my constituents were very much astonished at what took place. I cannot go into the merits of this question, but I would emphasise the statement of my hon. and learned Friend who expressed surprise at the representative of a Scotch Department going directly against the views of the Commission.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I cannot help thinking that the speeches we have just heard arise from a misconception of the position of the Government as to a scheme of this kind. The hon. Member for Banffshire goes the length of saying that because Lord Balfour of Burleigh was a party to a certain scheme that, therefore, we were bound to adhere to it. That is altogether erroneous. What has occurred is this. These schemes require, in the first place, to obtain the sanction of the Scotch Education Department. That sanction is given, not on the footing of any absolute or implicit approval, but as showing that the Scotch Education Department do not see cause to interfere with the scheme. The scheme then has to lie on the Table of the House, when a Motion may be made to reject it. In several cases, when schemes have received the approval of the Scotch Education Department the Government have formally agreed to Motions to reject them. That took place in two instances only a few weeks before this Banff scheme came up, namely, in the cases of the Fergusson bequest and the Orphan Hospital of Edinburgh. In each case the Government intimated that the Motion to reject the scheme would not be opposed. In the case under discussion the Government left the matter open, and the Government Tellers were not employed. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will see that he goes too far when he attributes misconduct to a Member of the Government every time he votes for the rejection of a scheme which has received the imprimatur of the Scotch Education Department. In this case we did not cast the weight of the Government against the scheme, but left it an open question, and, that being so, every
  64
  Member on this Bench who was impressed by the statement of the hon. Member for Ipswich very naturally voted with him. All that can be said against the Secretary for Scotland is that he received a deputation, and listened with great patience to their statements, the result being that the scheme was remitted to the Commissioners and altered in accordance with their view; but that did not preclude the Government from taking the course they did when the scheme came before them in the House, that is to say, from allowing it to be considered on its merits.
  MR. ASHER: I do not for a moment suggest that the Government are bound to support all the schemes of the Commissioners, but in this instance the Secretary for Scotland had arranged the terms of the scheme, and we therefore had a right to expect that the Government in the House of Commons would support the views of the Secretary for Scotland. I addressed a question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate a short time ago, as to the course he took in regard to this scheme, and he informed me that he had been convinced by the arguments of the hon. Member for Ipswich. I then, naturally, looked at the reports of the observations of that hon. Member, but neither in Hansard nor in the Times could anything in the form of an argument be found. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has never given a single reason for the change of opinion of the Secretary for Scotland.
  MR. CRAWFORD: I am glad this point has been brought before the House, as it is a matter which has excited a good deal of feeling throughout Scotland. The doctrine laid down by the Lord Advocate in this case is an important one. He says that when the Commissioners have framed a scheme and submitted it to the Education Department——
  THE CHAIRMAN: This is irregular save under very special circumstances, which bear on alterations made in schemes through the influence of the Secretary for Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman desires to discuss these schemes he must wait for the Scotch Education Vote.
  MR. CRAWFORD: I was going to discuss the action of the Secretary for Scotland as Vice President of the Education Board in regard to these schemes.
  THE CHAIRMAN: His action as a member of the Scotch Education Board must be discussed on the Scotch Education Vote. There were special circumstances which made the first part of the discussion not inappropriate.
  MR. CRAWFORD: I will only say that I entirely demur to the doctrine of the Lord Advocate, that the Government are entitled to throw over schemes which are approved by the Secretary for Scotland, as head of the Education Department.
  MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton): We have had a great many interesting discussions, because these are Scotch matters, but the English taxpayer is entirely lost sight of. The Votes are put off to such a time that it is almost impossible for the advocates of economy with any effect to call attention to the most gross and reckless waste on the part of the Government in regard to these Votes. This is a new office, created only a short time ago, and yet I find that there is a Secretary for Scotland at a salary of £2,000 a year, an Assistant Permanent Secretary at a salary of £1,500, and another Under Secretary at a salary of £1,000. Besides these officials there are five clerks, who really do whatever business there is to do in the office, and two private secretaries, six messengers, and five charwomen. I would point out that whenever these new offices are established, instead of distributing the work fairly, and taking a sufficiency of men to do it, the Government immediately foist into high places a number of gentlemen with the sole object of giving them salaries. That is the result of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, and of the Estimates being put off from one year to another. I think the attention of the public ought to be drawn to the matter.
  MR. BARCLAY: I desire to say, having had business relations with the Scotch Office, that the
  66
  offices in the Department are by no means sinecures. I should say that instead of there being an excess of clerks there is a deficiency.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have often called attention to this matter, but have refrained from doing so to-day, because I wished to save time, and because I am a patriotic Scotchman, and this is money which goes to Scotland. I think care should be taken to properly organise these Departments, and to see that highly-paid officials are not appointed to do the work which, properly speaking, should be done by ordinary clerks.
  DR. CLARK: The Assistant Permanent Secretary is only paid at the rate of an ordinary clerk in the English Home Office, next door to the Scotch Office. The Secretary for Scotland only receives £2,000 a year, whereas the Secretary for Scotland gets £5,000. In connection with Scotland, everything seems to be screwed down to the lowest.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  2. £3,795, to complete the sum for Lunacy Commission, Scotland.

  3. £4,025, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Scotland.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  MR. BRYCE: I hope we shall be able to dispose of the Foreign Office Vote as well as the Scotch Estimates to-morrow.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I think we should have some explanation as to the meaning of this proposal to report Progress. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House proposed that the Rules should be suspended, so that we might go on for any length of time. Is that only to apply to Sittings after 12 o'clock? If so, my strictures of yesterday are correct, and the right hon. Gentleman wants to force us to sit after midnight, and to pass Votes when our energies are exhausted.

  67
  At present, our energies are not exhausted—mine are not. I am quite fresh, and am ready to go on to a reasonable hour—to 11 or 12 o'clock. I think it right to draw attention to the conduct of the Government in this matter, for it shows how hollow and loose are their assertions when they charge us with impeding the progress of Business. As a matter of fact, the object of this Motion to report Progress is to enable Ministers to go and indulge in an orgie in another part of London with a corrupt Corporation. To enable this to be done, the Session is to last one day longer. After this, I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not complain of my humble efforts to advance the business of this House.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I shall always be careful not to attribute to the hon. Gentleman anything which he does not attribute to himself. No one has insisted more on the orderly conduct of business than the hon. Member for Northampton—always, Sir, from his own point of view. I am in the recollection of the House, I know, when I say that it is not customary to sit much beyond 6 o'clock on Wednesdays, and, recognising that great progress has been made within the last two days, I do not think it fair to impose too heavy a task on hon. Members. As regards the Foreign Office Vote, referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, I am entirely in the hands of the House, and I have undertaken to place the Vote as first Order of the Day after the Bills have been disposed of, which undertaking has met with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers). If the House generally wishes that the Vote shall be taken before the Scotch Votes, I am perfectly willing to accept such an arrangement. I cannot ask the House to sit to an unreasonable hour on Thursday, but if the Scotch Estimates are completed at 10 or 11 o'clock, there would be no objection to take the Foreign Office Vote then. However, as I say, I am entirely in the hands of the House, having, earlier in the day, promised that the Vote shall be taken as the first Order on Friday.
  MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman has not quite understood me. I did not suggest that, the Scotch Estimates having been introduced, they should be stopped in order to interpose the Foreign Office Vote, but that the Foreign Office Vote should be taken after the Scotch Estimates are concluded.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am perfectly prepared to assent to that. I could not ask the House to sit to an unreasonable hour to consider the Foreign Office Vote. If the Scotch Estimates should be concluded to-morrow at a reasonable hour—say 10 or 11 o'clock—there would be no objection to going on with the Foreign Office Vote.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I think there was a definite arrangement made at the commencement of to-day's Sitting that the Foreign Office Vote should be taken on Friday. The object was that there should be a clear day for the discussion, and that it should take place at a reasonable hour. I do not say it should not go on till a little after 12, but that it should not be continued till 1, 2, or 3 o'clock in the morning. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to report Progress at about half-past 12 if he takes the Foreign Office Vote to-morrow?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If we finish the Scotch Estimates to-morrow at 10 or half-past 10 there would be every desire to meet the views of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, and if the discussion has not been completed by, say, 1 o'clock to report Progress.
  MR. PROVAND: Are we to understand that the Scotch Votes will be taken first to-morrow?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: After the Bills.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.
  It being after Six of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at half after Six o'clock.