Commons Sitting of 25 June 1897

HIGHWAYS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday, 12th July.
SALE OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday, 26th July.
QUESTIONS.

  NILE EXPEDITION (CONGOLESE FORCE).
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received information as to the reported destruction of the expedition of Baron Dhanis towards the Nile at the head of a Congolese force partly enlisted in British Colonies; whether the catastrophe was caused by mutiny: what were the causes of the mutiny; and what number of British subjects have been killed or have disappeared?
  THE UNDER SECRETATARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): We have heard, not of the reported destruction of the expedition of Baron Dhanis, but of the mutiny of the native soldiers in one of the columns under his orders. We have received no information as to the causes of the mutiny, nor do we know whether any British subjects were concerned.

  DINGLE HARBOUR (CO. KERRY).
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if anything can be done to improve the harbour at Dingle, County Kerry, by extending the present pier and by dredging
  558
  the harbour; and if he will consult with the Irish Board of Works as to whether their new dredger could be employed for the latter purpose?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): An inspection of the harbour and pier will be made at an early date, with a view to obtaining precise information as to the necessity for improving the harbour in the manner suggested.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will take steps to prevent the injury to the fishing about the Dingle peninsula, County Kerry, by the encroachment of steam trawlers?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: An application to prohibit steam trawling, in Dingle Bay has been received, and will be inqured into by the Fishery Inspectors as soon as possible.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask whether some effective steps will be taken to prevent the encroachment of steam trawlers along the coast between Queenstown and Youghal?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: That, I take it for granted, will be one of the questions which the Commissioners will inquire into.

  EXCHEQUERS OF IRELAND AND GREAT BRITAIN.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Clauses 4, 5, 6, and 14 of the Act for the Consolidation of the Exchequers of Ireland and Great Britain, 56 Geo. III. c. 98, are no longer enforced; how long have they been in abeyance; and by what Act of Parliament have they been repealed.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): Sections 4, 5, and 6 have been repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act of 1873 (36 and 37 Vict. c 91). Section 14 still stands. It enables the appointment of two Irish Lords of the Treasury, but does not make any such appointment obligatory. In the present Government Ireland is represented by Members holding other and more important appointments.

DEPARTMENTAL APPOINTMENTS (INDIA).
MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will explain why, seeing that domiciled Europeans and Eurasians have in the past proved their fitness by meritorious and faithful services for the higher departmental appointments in India, it is contemplated to reserve such appointments for Europeans educated in England, as indicated by the recent Dispatches of the Government of India to the Secretary of State for India?
MR. CURZON: I have been requested by my noble Friend to answer this Question on his behalf. In reply to this Question I can only say that I have no doubt that the Dispatches to which the hon. Member refers convey correctly the intentions of the Government with regard to the higher appointments to which they apply, though, in the absence of any definite reference to the Dispatches themselves, I cannot say whether their purport is correctly represented in the hon. Member's Question.

BOARDING-OUT ORDERS.
LORD EDMUND TALBOT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in November 1881, the Local Government Board decided that the boarding-out Orders did not refer only to children boarded out by the guardians from the workhouse, but whenever the guardians granted out-relief to a child living with a person not legally liable for its support, that that child would come under the said Orders?
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): There appears to be no doubt that the Local Government Board expressed the opinion, as stated in the Question, with reference to the effect of the Order issued in 1877 as to boarding out; but, as there was some doubt on the subject, the Order subsequently issued in 1889 was in consequence somewhat differently worded as regards this matter.

ARMY DEFERRED PENSIONS.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to
560
the fact that deferred pensions have been granted to soldiers who have served in campaigns prior to the year 1860, but who had left the service on the expiration of their limit or time of service, which did not entitle them to any pension on discharge, the Secretary of State for War will consider the propriety of recommending the grant of deferred pensions on a similar scale to soldiers who have served in India during a portion of the Indian Mutiny and in action during the War of 1860, but who were precluded from seeing active service before the enemy by being detained on garrison duty; and whether, having regard to the fact that the number of these veterans is comparatively very small, and that in many cases their health has been impaired by service in the army at foreign stations, the circumstance of their not holding medals must be regarded as an absolute bar to, their obtaining the deferred pensions granted to others in practically analogous circumstances?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): By the term "deferred pensions" the hon. Member appears to mean special campaign pensions which are being awarded to men who possess a medal for a campaign prior to 1860, and who have a total army service of ten years. The condition as to the medal must be maintained. The medal has been awarded to every man entitled to receive it.

COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, DUBLIN.
MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether the Professors of the College of Science in Dublin on entering their offices received a fixed salary, which it was understood would be stationary, the agreement went being that a certain number of years should be added to the actual term of years in computing the retiring pension, so that a Professor who had served 25 years without any increase of salary would receive a pension equivalent to 35–60ths of his full pay, and whether it was likewise arranged that the pension be calculated on the sum total, salary and fees combined, of the Professor's emoluments; (2) whether by a recent regulation the Treasury has made a rule, which is retrospective, by which all

561
allowances for good service will be struck out, and the pension calculated on the here income irrespective of fees; and (3) whether, having regard to the fact that this rule has been made in direct contravention of the agreement under which the present Professors entered their offices, steps will be taken to protect vested interests, and to prevent this rule from being retrospective in its operation?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): Only four of the eight Professorships are pensionable. Those of the Professors appointed before 30th November 1888 are allowed to add seven years, not ten, to their service for calculating their pension. Those appointed since that date enter under a distinct understanding that this special addition would not be granted. This was done to carry cut a recommendation of the Ridley Commission. It is contrary to Section 17 of the Superannuation Act of 1859 to reckon fees in calculating the amount of a pension, as only moneys provided out of the Consolidated Fund or the Votes can be reckoned for that purpose. I find, hew-ever, that in 1883, by an oversight, one of the Professors was allowed to reckon his fees towards pension, but it cannot be seriously argued that this gives the other Professors a claim to similar treatment. The answer to the two last paragraphs are therefore in the negative.
MR. MACNEILL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that these gentlemen entered upon the distinct understanding that their fees were to be reckoned in the commutation of their pension?
MR. HANBURY: No; on the contrary, they entered upon the distinctly opposite understanding.

LOAN FUND SOCIETIES (IRELAND).
SIR THOMAS LEA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if the attention of the Government has been called to the resolutions passed at a meeting of the Belleek Loan Fund Society on the 2nd inst.; and (2) if any action is contemplated in regard to the condition of these societies throughout Ireland?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ICELAND: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. New rules have been issued by the Loan Fund
562
Board for the guidance of Loan Fund Societies, and these rules substantially embody most of the recommendations of the late Committee of Inquiry. Government are also considering the question of the necessity of further legislation, with a view to strengthen the administration and supervision of the Central Board.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of fair rent appeals from the Sub-Commissions of Down, Antrim, and Armagh heard by the Chief Commission at its recent sitting at Armagh; in how many cases from each of these three counties were the fair rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners increased by the Chief Commission, and in how many cases in each county were they reduced; and whether these alterations in judicial rents were made on the Report of Court Valuers who had not heard the evidence given before the Sub-Commissioners, and who were not submitted for examination before the Chief Commission?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: There were 42 appeals heard at the recent sitting of the Land Commission Court of Appeal at Armagh. In I9 cases from the County Armagh and in seven cases from the County Down the judicial rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners were increased on appeal, while in one case from the County Down the judicial rent was reduced. In the remaining appeals, the orders of the Sub-Commissioners were affirmed in 14 cases, and in one case the application to fix a fair rent was dismissed. There were no appeals listed for hearing at the sitting referred to from the County Antrim. The decisions were arrived at judicially by the Court in each case after hearing the evidence offered by each party, and having before them the reports made by the Court Valuers, in pursuance of the long established practice.

PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS (SCOTLAND).
MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what was the actual expenditure during

563
the year 1896–7 under the Vote of £36,200 for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland (Public Works and Communications), and what surplus remains to be surrendered?
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): Subject to audit by the Controller and Auditor General, the actual expenditure during the year 1896–7 was £27,226. 8s. 5d., and the surplus to be surrendered £8,973. 11 s. 7d.

STREET DISTURBANCES, DUBLIN.
MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the students of Trinity College, Dublin, attacked with sticks the public in the streets of Dublin on Monday night last; and (2) whether he can say if any arrests were made by the police on the occasion, or will he order the prosecution, of these students?
MR. LECKY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this Question, may I ask him whether the origin of these disturbances was not an open-air meeting, with a black flag, bearing disloyal inscriptions, which was held in the immediate neighbourhood of the college for the express purpose of putting down all Loyalist demonstrations in Dublin; and whether, as a matter of fact, panes of glass to the value of many hundreds of pounds have not been broken in Dublin in houses in which loyal emblems are displayed?
MR. W. JOHNSTON: May I ask if it is not a fact that the Young Men's. Christian Association windows were broken, that the windows of the Orange Hall in Rutland Square were also smashed, and that the police were pelted from the National Club next door to the Orange Hall?
MR. JOHN DILLON: May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the first disorder in Dublin was created by the raid of the Trinity College students upon the people? [Nationalist cheers.]
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: In answer to the Question on the Paper I have to say there is no foundation whatever for the statement in the first paragraph of the Question. What occurred on the occasion was this: on Monday night a number of persons
564
assembled in close proximity to Trinity College for the purpose of protesting against the Jubilee rejoicings. Some of the college students, as well as other loyal subjects, were attracted to the spot and cheered for the Queen, but there was no disorder. On the return of the students to the college a drunken man used offensive expressions, at the same time brandishing a stick. He was struck on the head by some one in the crowd outside the college, but there is no reason to believe that the blow was struck by a student. The police were present and prevented any disturbance. No students were arrested on the occasion, as the necessity did not arise; and it is not the intention of the police to take any proceedings against any of the students. In answer to the Question of my right hon. Friend, I believe it is true that riotous bands went through the City of Dublin on that night and attacked the houses of persons who displayed illuminations or emblems of rejoicing on the occasion of the celebration of the Jubilee, and who also attacked the houses of Nationalists who had not hung out black flags or displayed any disloyal emblems. In answer to my hon. Friend behind me, I believe it is the fact that the Orange Hall was stoned and the Young Men's Christian Association building was also stoned, and several persons were attacked in different parts of the City of Dublin whose only offence appears to have been that they cheered for Her Majesty.
*MR. J. G. WEIRasked what were the disloyal emblems to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: They consisted of "Cheers for Allen, Larkin, and O'Brien," "The Manchester Martyrs," "Remember 1798," and things of that character.

COUNTY MONAGHAN MAGISTRACY.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Lord Ross-more, recently appointed Lieutenant of County Monaghan, was a dismissed magistrate; and whether he can state if any similar case of appointing a dismissed magistrate to the Lieutenancy of a. county has occurred in Ireland; and, if so, when?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: Lord Rossmore was superseded in the Commission of the Peace in November, 1883, and was reinstated in August, 1892. He has for 23 years tilled the office of deputy Lieutenant, to which his supersession did not extend. I am not aware of any case similar to that of Lord Rossmore, who, as I have pointed out, though once superseded, held the Commission of the Peace at the date of his appointment to the Lieutenancy of the county, and has never been disturbed in his tenure of the Deputy Lieutenancy.
MR. W. JOHNSTON: Did not Lord Rossmore's dismissal occur under a Home Rule Government, and because——
*MR. SPEAKERintervened, saying that the Question had been fully answered.

SCHOOL CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (SCOTLAND).
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to a statement made at the last meeting of he Lochgilphead and Ardrishaig School Board to the effect that a girl named Blue had been incapacitated front attending school by the consequences of corporal punishment administered to her by the assistant teacher, and that about a year ago she had been punished by the same teacher so severely that she had been seriously ill for three months; and whether the Procurator Fiscal has made any investigation into the facts of the case?
*THE LORD ADVOCATE: My attention had not been called to the statement referred to. No information was in possession of the Education Department, and no information had been given to the Procurator Fiscal. The result of inquiry made by the Procurator Fiscal since the Question was put on the Paper leads me to the conclusion that the statement is without foundation, and that the authors of it failed to exercise ordinary care in testing its accuracy.

FINANCIAL RELATIONS (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the terms of reference to the proposed new Commission upon the Financial Relations
566
between Great Britain and Ireland have been finally decided upon; if the Commission has been formed; and when the Debate upon the proposal will. take place?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question, I have to say that the Commission is not yet framed. The delay has been in part owing to the fact that the Party to which the lion. Baronet belongs and other sections of the Party opposite have refused to take any part in the Commission.

MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the state of Public Business, he can now fix a day for the introduction of the Military Manœuvres Bill?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As my right hon. Friend is aware, I quite recognise the importance of the subject to which he refers, but I am not able to give any pledge at present.

MOTION.
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT (1879) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879, ordered to be brought in by Sir Andrew Scoble, Mr. Bucknill, Mr. H. D. Greene, and Mr. Samuel Hoare; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Wednesday 7th July, and to be printed.—[Bill 291.]

ORDER OF BUSINESS.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Before the Orders of the Day are entered upon, perhaps I ought to say——
*MR. SPEAKER: I must call attention to the fact that it is irregular to interpose a statement between Business appointed "at the commencement of Public Business" and the Orders of the Day but as I presume the right hon. Gentleman is about to make a statement with respect to the Business of the House, no

567
doubt the House will accord the right hon. Gentleman its indulgence.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I ought to ask the indulgence of the House. What I have to say has relation to the statement I made yesterday as to Monday's Business. I stated that the first subject for discussion would be the Scotch Education Bill. Subsequently it came to my knowledge that there is a strong feeling among Scotch Members that as the Bill was only printed to-day it would be premature to take the Second Reading on Monday, so in deference to their wishes I propose to defer the Bill to Thursday. On Monday we propose to set down as first Order the London Water Bill, to be followed by the Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill, and third will be some other Bill on the Notice Paper, the Prison-made Goods Bill, or some other Bill of that kind. [Laughter.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [FOURTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1897–8.

    CLASS II.
    1. Motion made, and Question put,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £8,111, 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 1898, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and subordinate Offices."
    *SIR JOHN LENGdwelt on the convenience and advantage Scotch Members derived under the late Government from the presence of the Secretary for Scotland in the House of Commons. The arrangement greatly facilitated the conduct of Scotch business, giving the opportunity for direct explanation and saving much reference
    568
    and correspondence. All would recognise the ability and courtesy of the Lord Advocate, but his time was greatly occupied with his legal duties. In moving a reduction of the salary of the Secretary for Scotland, he had no intention to say a single word against him personally, he was most courteous and prompt in his attention to all representations made to him. In the first place he desired to refer to a subject that had emerged since he placed his notice on the Paper. There was very strong and general dissatisfaction with the paucity of honours distributed——
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSreminded the hon. Member that no question of that kind could be raised on the Vote for the Secretary for Scotland's office.
    *SIR J. LENGrecognised the fact that the Sovereign was the fountain of honour, and was proceeding to refer to matters which had been brought under the notice of the Secretary for Scotland, the arbitrary and capricious dismissals of teachers by School Boards, and the desire of teachers for the establishment of a superannuation fund.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid these matters should be raised on the Education Vote.
    *SIR J. LENGsaid he would avail himself of the opportunity that Vote offered.
    *MR. WEIRregretted that under the present Government the precedent of having the Secretary for Scotland in the House of Commons had been departed from. The hon. Member referred to an item of £100 under the head of incidental expenses in carrying out the provisions of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act of 1876—an increase of £20. There was also an additional payment of £50 to the inspector. He wished to obtain information as to the cause of these increases; also whether anything had been done to improve the condition of the water of the river Nethy above the village of Causer in the Badenoch district of Inverness-shire. In this the law had been broken, and he considered that the people of the district should not be allowed to suffer from any neglect of officials who were paid to see that the law was obeyed.
    MR. JAMES DALYwas sorry he could not join in the

    569
    compliments which had been paid to the Secretary for Scotland. He saw that he got a salary of £1,800, and he should pay his own private secretary. He was surprised that the Scotch Members had not taken up this point. This gentleman was paid £150 fur his secretary; hut judging from his observation of the way in which he discharged his duty, he thought he could do very well without a secretary; and if the Lord Advocate did not see his way to do without this £150, he should be obliged to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000, according to the notice in his name. He wished to refer to the question of the deportation of paupers from Scotland to Ireland. Since he allowed the Address on the Queen's Speech to pass without a Division, the only opportunity he had of drawing attention to this question was upon the Estimates. The thing to which he alluded was very degrading to Irishmen—it was an insult to them to be told that paupers were sent from Scotland home to Ireland.
    *THE CHAIRMAN or WAYS AND MEANSsaid the question would properly arise on the Vote for the Local Government Board (Scotland).
    MR. DALYalways had great respect for Mr. Lowther's ruling; at the same time the Lord Advocate answered the questions he put to him on this subject for the Scotch Office, and he had no other opportunity of contesting the matter.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Member will be entitled to raise the question in a few moments when we conic to the Vote for the Local Government Board of Scotland. Of course the Lord Advocate replies in this House on behalf of the Local Government Board of Scotland.
    MR. DALYbowed to the Chairman's ruling. But he should take his stand now with regard to the private secretary's salary of £150; and if the right hon. Gentleman could not waive this salary, he should think it his duty to move the reduction of the Vote. At present he contented himself with awaiting the Lord Advocate's reply.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said he was not quite sure to what the hon. Gentleman referred. There was no private secretary in the Estimates with a salary of
    570
    £150. There was a permanent Under Secretary, with a salary of £1,500.
    MR. DALYsaid he saw on the Estimates an item for the private secretary to the Secretary, £150.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid the salary of the Secretary's private secretary was £300. There was a permanent Under Secretary, a private secretary to the Secretary, and a private Secretary to the Under Secretary. To which did the hon. Member refer?
    MR. DALYwas referring to the Papers, when
    *THE CHAIRMAN AIRMAN or WAYS AND MEANSrepeated that the proper place and time to raise the matter was when the Local Government Board Vote came on.
    MR. JOHN DILLONremarked that some time ago the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated that a conference had been proposed on the question of the deportation of paupers. As he understood him, the conference fell through, owing to the action of the Scotch Office.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid he was sure there was a misapprehension. However, the Secretary for Scotland was President of the Local Government Board, and as he understood the right hon. Gentleman's ruling, the point it was desired to discuss would arise on the Local Government Board Vote, and he should then be defending his action as President of the Local Government Board.
    MR. T. R. BUCHANANasked the Lord Advocate if any further action had been taken during the past year in pursuance of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's statement in the summer of 1895, made at a public meeting, that lie was beginning to take action in order to bring about some international arrangement as to the North Sea fisheries. From time to time questions had been asked on the subject, but no progress seemed to be made with the negotations. They had definite information quite recently, that at any rate the Foreign Office had done nothing on the subject; but as Lord Balfour of Burleigh said he was determined to take action on the subject, they would like to know whether any progress had been made in, the course of the last year-and-

    571
    a-half. He knew, of course, that the subject matter of this concerned fishery legislation, but last year, when he raised the question, the Chairman ruled that if he wanted to call attention to the action of the Scotch Secretary on the subject he must do it on the Scotch Vote. He did not wish to criticise adversely the action of the Scotch Secretary. As be understood It, he was the only official of the Government who had endeavoured to do anything; but as far as they knew his endeavours were fruitless. He should like to learn from the Lord Advocate whether there was any prospect of anything being done at an early date to carry out the design of the Act of 1895, with regard to which he thought a peculiar obligation lay on the present Government. They all knew what Lord Balfour's own opinion on the question was, and, seeing the great and the increasing competition in the fishing industry, they would like to be assured that there was some prospect of something satisfactory being done.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that of course he could only answer as far as the action of the Secretary for Scotland was concerned. He had made every representation in his power as to the desirability of doing something of the sort indicated by the hon. Member. He had made representations to the Foreign Office, and having done that, the matter passed out of his control. No one who looked at the question from the Foreign Office point of view could be surprised that some time had passed without any definite result. It was far from a simple question as between this country and other countries, and even in that House, as the hon. Member knew, they were not all at one upon it. He could only say that the Secretary for Scotland would continue to press the matter in the proper quarter; but so far as results were concerned, it was out of his power to make any promise.
    MR. BUCHANANasked if the Lord Advocate would be prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence which had passed between the various Departments on the subject, it order that hon. Members might see what were the objections to any action being taken?
    THE LORD ADVOCATEcould not give any promise, but he thought it
    572
    would be contrary to ordinary precedents to lay an inter-departmental correspondence of that Government on the Table. However, if the hon. Member put a Question on the Paper on the subject he would be prepared to give him an answer.
    *MR. WEIRasked for some explanation as to the increase in the Vote under the head of river pollution.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEreplied that the slightly increased expenses under that heading was simply because more river pollution inquiries had been required, and as each inquiry led to some incidental expenses the increase was thus accounted for.
    MR. JASPER TULLYasked if they allowed the Vote to pass so far as it related to the salary of the Secretary for Scotland, would they miss the right to challenge his action as President of the Local Government Board?
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: No; when the Vote for the Local Government Board comes before the Committee the hon. Member and his Friends will be entitled to move a reduction of the Vote asked for in respect of the criticisms they wish to make upon the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    MR. TULLYsaid the Irish Members were anxious to challenge the action of the Secretary for Scotland on the question of the Deportation of paupers to Ireland, and it was, therefore, incumbent upon them to move a reduction of his salary.
    MR. DALYregarded the explanation of the Lord Advocate as unsatisfactory and moved to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That must be moved on a subsequent Vote. I cannot accept the Motion on this Vote.
    Question put. The Committee divided:—Ayes, 191; Noes, 43.—(Division List, No. 245.)
    2. £27,323, to complete the sum for Fishery Board (Scotland).
    CAPTAIN PIRIEcomplained that the Scotch Fishery Board had to guarantee half of the outlay on

    573
    telegraph offices. Even half was too much. There were many good objects to which the Board could devote the money.
    *MR. WEIRcriticised items in the Vote. £1,500 was said to have been paid under telegraph extension guarantees, when £290. 17s. ld. seemed to be the actual amount so spent. The Board was either incapable or incompetent, or were attempting to throw dust in their eves. The funds of the Board had accumulated by £8,000 more than last year. The Board simply set the Scotch Office at defiance. They should be given to understand that they must attend to orders from headquarters and not do what they liked with funds voted by Parliament for specific purposes. £5,000 was put down for a cruiser, but this was wholly inadequate for a suitable cruiser. The late Mr. Esselmont, the former Chairman of the Board, said that a suitable cruiser would cost at least £11,000. If the Fishery Board were responsible in this business, he thought the sooner some of them were out of office the better. He felt bound to refer again to the question of trawling. Unfortunately nothing had been done by those whose business it was to protect the fishermen, and illegal trawling had become very common. He hoped heavier fines would be imposed, and that rules of a more rigorous character would be provided. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to get a law passed to punish not only the toasters but the owners of these trawlers which committed offences against the interests of the line fishermen.
    *MR. THOMAS HEDDERWICKasked for an explanation of the item under the bead of Purchase of Vessels. He was chiefly interested in knowing whether these vessels were intended for the protection of the fishermen on the north coast of Scotland. It was extremely desirable that they should know what the speed of these vessels was, as everything depended on speed. He concurred with the hon. Member who had just spoken as to the neglect which had been shown by the Government in respect of the protection of the fisheries on the north coast of Scotland from the depredations of steam trawlers. Instead of the law being maintained at present, the fishermen who
    574
    were engaged in an honest business were constantly being attacked, and their nets broken by the trawlers. As a matter of fact, the trawlers frequently escaped simply owing to the incapacity of the Government vessels to follow them up. The Government had made it an offence against the law to trawl within certain limits, and having made that law, they were bound to see that it was maintained.
    *SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURNreferred to the extreme need which existed of fishing harbours on the coast of Scotland, and especially on the north-east coast. This was a matter regarding which there was no difference of opinion, and the Fishery Board were extremely anxious to do their duty in the matter, but they had not got the funds. The question was altogether a financial one. He thought it was very discreditable to the Government, who, had had an overflowing treasury handed over to them by their predecessors, and had been able to find money for all the powerful and influential classes, that they should not give a single penny when the lives and property of the poor fishermen were in question.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSthought the question which the hon. Baronet wished to raise ought to be raised on the Vote for piers and harbours in the Highlands and islands. If he wished, however, to raise the question as regarded the whole of Scotland, it might possibly arise now.
    *SIR W. WEDDERBURNsaid it was with regard to the claim of the whole of Scotland for proper consideration in this matter that he wished to speak. It might not, perhaps, be known to the Committee that very large sums were originally given for the encouragement of the Scottish fishing industry. At the beginning of this century, no less a sum than £11,000 a year was paid in the shape of bounties to the industry, but in 1824 a fixed grant of £3,000 a year was substituted for these bounties, whereby the fishing industry was deprived of £8,000 a year. What had become of this sum since 1824? In 1858 another change unfavourable to the Scotch fishing industry was made. In that year a fee of fourpence per barrel was charged for branding the herrings, which had previously bean done free. No

    575
    one would complain of the fees, if the money were used for the purpose of developing the fishing industry; but the Government placed as a charge on the fees the permanent salaries of the Fishery Board, amounting to £5,000 a year, and pocketed the remainder. He thought that, considering the great needs of the fishing industry, the Treasury might very well have paid the salaries of its permanent establishments out of its own resources, and leave the herring brand fees for useful public purposes connected with the fishing industry. In 1881 the Treasury so far recognised their duty as to hand over the surplus of the fees to the Fishery Board for the purposes of harbours; but they made no restitution, of the fees that had gone into the Imperial Exchequer from 1858 to 1881, amounting to £34,000, which as much belonged to the fishing industry as a house belonged to the man who owned it. There was no justification whatever for the retention of this money, and he claimed in the strongest manner that it should be refunded. The herring brand fees were collected from a harworking class of men who felt the burden keenly. If the money were spent for the good of the industry in which they were engaged they would not complain, but to see a large portion of it swept into the unfathomable gulf of the Imperial Exchequer was enough to disgust any body of men with the Government. Within the last 20 or 30 years fishing boats had immensely increased in size and number. Fishermen were not as hitherto content with fishing near their own shores, but shoved great courage and enterprise in going long distances in search of new fishing grounds. The result was that the existing harbours were absolutely insufficient for the needs of the fishermen. In the southern part of the Moray Firth there was not a single harbour into which a fishing boat could run in all stages of the tide. That state of things was most discreditable to the authorities. In I804 the State gave £11,000 a year to the industry and asked for nothing in return, in 1896 they gave £3,000 with one hand and they took away £5,000 'with the other, so that instead of the State giving anything to the fishing industry of Scotland they were actually making a large profit out of it. He had placed these facts and figures before the Secretary
    576
    for Scotland and they had not been controverted. The noble Lord had suggested that it was a matter that should be referred to the forthcoming Financial Relations Commission, as he doubted whether that could be done having regard to the terms of reference, he would be glad of the opinion of the Lord Advocate on the subject The fishermen had in the matter of harbours shown a great deal of self-denial and self-help. In many places they had raised locally the amount of money necessary to entitle them to grants from the Fishery Board to improve their harbour accommodation, but in many cases the grants had not been given because the Board had no money. He, therefore, appealed to the Lord Advocate to pluck up courage and insist that this money should be advanced from the Exchequer. They all recognised the services of the hon. and learned Gentleman in the Law Courts in defending the rights of the fishermen in regard to trawling, and if he would but take up the financial question from the legal point of view, and see that justice were done, he would further gain the gratitude of the fishermen.
    SIR ROBERT REIDasked if the Government intended to take any steps towards giving legislative effect to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Solway fisheries, which was appointed two years ago, and reported last July. That Report showed a great mastery of the subject, and he was sure that legislation based on it would give satisfaction, not only to the majority, but to all persons connected with the Solway fisheries. If the Lord Advocate would hold out some hope that next year the Government would introduce a Bill, he would find that no difficulties were thrown in his way.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid that the fishing population in north-east Scotland felt most deeply the grievance under which they suffered in respect to fishery harbour construction. For many years past the money available for this construction had been most inadequate, and in years when there had been an overflowing Exchequer no additional grant had been made for this very useful purpose. There was a very strong claim for increased expenditure, particularly in view

    577
    of the money taken from the fishing industry in the years between 1858 and 1881. Grants for the Public Works Loan Commission were practically only available for large works or for the extension of existing works, because the terms exacted were prohibitive to small fishing communities. Even the Provisional Order obtained by the Northeast Aberdeenshire fishermen had to be abandoned because of the terms exacted, although it was the largest and most important community on that coast. The only other sources available for harbour construction were the £3,000 provided for in the Vote under discussion, and a further sum under a Vote in Class 7, which was limited to the Highlands and Islands. This latter sum, moreover, was not only insufficient in amount, but was so distributed that it went to those parts of the country which least required it, and where the fisheries were of least value. Under the Act of 1891 about £36,000 had been expended in four years on the construction of piers and harbours in the Highland counties. But there the value of the fishing industry was much smaller than on the other coast of Scotland. The Fishery Board had power to devote this grant of £3,000 to harbour construction, but there were statutory restrictions to the grant which made the employment of it very difficult. One condition was that the locality should contribute at least a quarter of the expense. In East Aberdeenshire only one harbour had been constructed by tile Fishery Board of recent years, and in two other cases which had arisen in the past five years—one that of a considerable harbour and the other that of a small harbour—the localities were quite unable to raise the amount required. The case for greater expenditure was very strong.
    MR. JAMES BRYCEsaid that the presence of foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth, from which British trawlers had been excluded, was naturally calculated to have a disturbing effect on the latter; and it was desirable to mitigate the irritation as far as possible. The Secretary for Scotland had endeavoured to prevent the foreign trawlers from selling in Scotch ports the fish caught in tile Moray Firth; but there was no such prohibition in respect to English ports, to which the foreign trawlers accordingly
    578
    took the fish. Was there any prospect of steps being taken to prevent this? He was told that the foreign trawlers sometimes, after fishing in the Moray Firth, went out to the North Sea, took a few more fish there and then sold the entire catch in Scotch ports, declaring that the catch had been made in the North Sea. If such statements were accepted, it was an encouragement to the foreign trawlers to persist in their present course. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that those whose business it was to stop the sale of fish caught in Moray Firth required some further evidence than the statement of the master of the foreign trawler, that he had taken his fish in the North Sea and would oblige him to disprove the suspicions of his having caught them in the Moray Firth. This was a matter of some importance, because it had to do with the maintenance of law and order. It would be much more easy to induce their own trawlers to acquiesce for the time being in the prohibition if they did not see foreign trawlers going into the Firth. If they did see them going in, they might be tempted to go in also, and a variety of consequences, which they would all regret, would be likely to ensue. He trusted the Fishery Board and the Scottish Office would take all possible steps to minimise the evils arising from the present state of matters.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE,in replying upon the points raised, said, in answer to the hon. Member for Ross-shire, that the extension of the telegraphs to various remote places was done in the interests of the fishing population themselves. That was a policy which was right at the time, and there seemed to be no reason to go back upon the undertakings that were then given as to the payment of the sums which were guaranteed to the Treasury. The hon. Member was quite right in the assumption he made that the result of the proposals and promises made by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that practically these sums would be halved in the future, because the Department would bear half the guarantee. As a matter of fact, not nearly £1,500 had been used for some time, and, accordingly, next year, the whole of the £1,500 would not be required upon this head. This was not a case in which the Imperial

    579
    Treasury got the money. The money that was not actually expended upon the telegraphs guarantee went into the general pocket of the Fishery Board, and was by them expended on the improvement of their piers and harbours, and upon their general expenditure. Therefore, he thought the strictures of the hon. Member upon the Fishery Board as to their being incompetent went rather beyond the necessities of the case. With regard to the question as to the general policy of the Fishery Board in respect of trawling,, he certainly was surprised at the vehemence of the denunciations of the hon. Member fur Ross-shire and the hon. Member for Wick Burghs, who spoke as if the Government had done nothing. The hon. Member for Wick Burghs said they had made the law, but had done nothing to see that it was kept. He surely forgot that in these very Estimates there was an additional sum of £11,000 for the express purpose of improving the sea police with regard to trawling. This sum was to be expended in the purchase of two new boats, which would certainly put the sea police in a much more efficient state than they had hitherto been. He could not think that the hon. Member was successful in showing there was any grievance in the fact that they had not discussed upon the floor of that House the exact terms of the tendered Estimates. The hon. Member did not find any details because there were no details to give. Tenders had been received, and, aided by expert evidence in what was obviously an expert question, the Department would do their best to secure a vessel which should be so calculated by construction and speed and otherwise as to do the best to protect the fishing industry by showing that the prohibition against trawling within the prohibited limits was respected. Undoubtedly there would always be difficulties, but he thought a perusal of the Report showed that the Fishery Board had been anything but supine in this matter. That Report showed that 23 prosecutions were undertaken last year, and convictions were obtained in 20 cases, the remaining three being not proven. That, he should say, was a very high average of convictions, and was a guarantee that the work was being well done. The fines amounted in the total to £950, or an average fine
    580
    of £47 10s. The hon. Member suggested that the Board should make more stringent bye-laws, but the Board could not make more stringent bye-laws, because in their bye-laws they authorised the imposition of the maximum fines allowed by Act of Parliament. The only effect of making more stringent bye-laws would be that they would be promptly quashed by a Court of Law. The actual fines imposed represented a fairly high average, and showed, he thought, the wisdom of Parliament, when three years ago it altered the maximum fine from £5 to £10. The hon. Member for Banffshire raised a very much more general question as to the provision which was made for harbours in Scotland generally. As the hon. Member knew quite well, the history of the herring brand fee was that since 1881 practically the whole of the money which was taken under the branding regulation was handed over for the improvement of piers and harbours, except only so much as was retained for the cost of the administration of the brand. He could not say that he exactly followed the hon. Member when he spoke of a sum of £800,000 as the produce of what he called Scotch Customs and Excise. He thought it would be against the whole theory of the fiscal arrangements of the United Kingdom to contend that, since the fiscal union, there had been anything in the nature of Scotch Customs and Excise.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURNasked to be allowed to explain the figure. In 1804, £11,000 was received by the Scottish fishing industry from national resources. After 1804, £3,000 was given, so that there was a difference of £8,000 which had gone into the Imperial Treasury in some form or another since 1804. The further sum was made up in this way. The herring brand fees, £5,000 a year, were taken from the herring brand, and putting these together the total amount of £800,000 was arrived at. In some way or another that amount had gone to the benefit of the Imperial Exchequer, and had been lost to the Scottish fishing industry.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid it was a very startling way of expressing it, to say that the sum of £800,000 had gone into the Imperial Treasury from the fishing industry if, as he now gathered, what

    581
    the hon. Member meant was that the Imperial grant which in 1804 was.£11,000, was in 1808 reduced to £4,000 a year, and that he was entitled to take the balance and, multiplying it by the years which had passed since then, represent that as money gone from the fishing industry to the Imperial Treasury. He thought the statement of the ease was quite enough, without any further comment. The hon. Member must have thought his argument was trenching upon a question of a great deal wider significance, and he laid a little net for him, which he thought had been spread too much in the sight of the bird, by asking him his opinion as to whether this sum would or would not be a proper subject to bring before the Commission on, the financial relations of the three Kingdoms. That was not a question of law. It was a question for the Committee itself, and he should not be asked to give an opinion even if his opinion were of any value. The hon. Member for Banffshire had very frankly avowed that he had no fault to find with the administration of the Fishery Board so far as they were spending money which was at their disposal, and his speech really amounted to an appeal to the Government to give the Board more money in order that there could be further expenditure upon piers and harbours. That was a very wide question, and one upon which he, who had merely to answer for an administrative Department, could not say much. The hon. Member knew, of course, that the fishing industry existed in all parts of the kingdom, and that in the matter there was nothing to differentiate Scotland from England. The Government recognised the great national importance of the fishing industry, and they were very anxious that everything that could in fairness be done by Parliament to improve that industry should be done; but it must be a subject for serious consideration whether they could possibly ask for a grant for Scotland alone. He had no doubt, however, that the hon. Member's remarks upon the subject would be considered in the proper quarter. He did not think his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would ever concede the proposition of the hon. Member that because in 1881 the Government initiated a more liberal policy towards
    582
    the fishing industry, and said that anything got from the herring brand fees should, after paying for the cost of administration, be given to public works which directly affected that industry, they should now make good all the sums of money which the fishing industry would have got if the policy started in 1881 had been initiated prior to that year. If the right hon. Gentleman did make such a concession, similar claims must inevitably be made in every direction. He was not in a position to give any definite promise that any attempt would be made to legislate in respect to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries; but he could undertake that during the coming Recess the Secretary for Scotland would consider very carefully the Report of the Solway Commission, and be very glad to put every facility in the way of a satisfactory settlement being arrived at. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen had put a question in regard to the trawling policy. The policy of the Secretary for Scotland had been to carry out what he conceived to be the sprit of the Act, and accordingly to take advantage of such provisions as existed to prevent fish caught within the prohibited area being landed in Scotch ports. There was no section in any statute which enabled similar action to be taken as regarded English ports. The English ports were beyond the administrative action of the Secretary for Scotland, and therefore he could not say whether anything would be done in the matter as far as English ports were concerned. No authentic case had been brought to the knowledge of the Fishery Board of fish caught within the prohibited area being brought into Scotch ports under the pretext that it had been caught in the North Sea, and he was afraid that it would not be in their power to so alter the law as to put the onus of proof on the trawler owner.
    MR. R. B. HALDANEsaid that before the discussion closed, there was a question he would like to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Lord Advocate had answered for the Fishery Board, and had given a very satisfactory answer. The Fishery Board was doing its work with zeal, and, according to its means, very efficiently, but it was pretty clear to

    583
    those who had to do with fishing matters in Scotland that the Board was very much hampered, particularly in the matter of improvement of harbours, by want of money. The policy of the Government had always been to assist those who assisted themselves, but it was a matter of common knowledge that just now there were a number of cases which came within the principles which the Government had themselves very rightly laid down, but which the Fishery Board could not deal with because it had not the requisite money. It was not a large sum that was wanted, and he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he personally would look into the relations between the work of the Scottish Fishery Board in the matter of the improvement of harbours and the means at its disposal? If the right hon. Gentleman would do that, it would be very much to the public advantage. He did not mean to say that the matter had escaped the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention, but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman realised the extent to which the Board was hampered in its work for want of money.
    SIR MARK STEWARTpointed out that the grant in aid referred to was found to be inaccessible in certain cases.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,)said he had listened carefully to the hon. Member, and gathered that what he wanted on behalf of those whom he, with others, represented in that House was, that additional grants should be made to the Fishery Board in order to aid the construction of a larger number of harbours than the present funds permitted. The hon. Member was no doubt well aware that Scotland was already much more favourably dealt with in this respect than England. Scotland in fact had not great cause of complaint. He had seen something of expenditure on small harbours in Ireland, and he must say that a great deal of the money had been absolutely wasted in Ireland. He had no desire to see the same course pursued in any other part of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member, however, made a claim of another kind on behalf of the poorer districts of Scotland; but he might remind him of the Bill brought in the other day by the Lord Advocate.
    *MR. WEIRcomplained that time had been lost, and that there was a muddle somewhere. Here they were near the 1st July and no contract had been signed. There could be no excuse for such delay.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to understand the importance of this industry to Scotland, and he appeared to forget that the other day some hundreds of thousands of pounds were found for England and not for Scotland. He therefore hoped that the question would be considered by the Government, bearing in mind that this was a national industry in Scotland. The matter was being left in a somewhat unsatisfactory condition. There were two points to which he desired to call attention. The one was the question of the negotiations with Foreign Powers with regard to the extension of the area of prohibited waters in the North Sea. He thought the time had come when they ought to know the result, if any, of these negotiations, and whether, in the event of the negotiations being unsuccessful, the Government would be prepared to take any other steps in the matter. That was done under the influence of the English Solicitor General some years ago in the case of the Moray Firth. Then there was the question of the landing of catches in Scottish waters by foreign trawlers at English ports. It was idle for the Government to make regulations with regard to Scottish waters if a foreign trawler had only to slip across the mouth of the Tweed and land his catches in England. He hoped the matter would be considered by the Scotch Office. Though they had not the power to deal with the matter themselves, they could bring strong influence to bear on the English departments, and he hoped that before another year passed, the House might have some definite declaration by the Government as to their policy in these matters.
    Vote agreed to.
    3. £3,422, to complete the sum for Lunacy Commission, Scotland.—Agreed to.
    4. £3,129, to complete the sum for Registrar General's Office, Scotland.—Agreed to.
    5. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £7,951, 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 1898, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board for Scotland, and for Expenses under the Public Health Acts, Infectious Diseases Notification Act, Vaccination Act, Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889, Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, and Local Government (Scotland) Act 1894"
    MR. DALYsaid that for sonic time past he had been putting questions to the Lord Advocate with regard to the deportation of paupers from Scotland to Ireland, and he was sorry to say that although the Secretary for Ireland and the President of the Local Government Board were agreeable to hold a conference, and try to settle this long-disputed question, the right hon. Gentleman had not met them. Last year he moved for a Return of the number of one class of paupers who had been sent from Scotland to Ireland, and from that Return it appeared that 31 paupers had been so deported in the course of one month. If a man who was born in Ireland became chargeable to the parish in Scotland, he could be sent back to Ireland. He submitted that the Irish Members had a great grievance on this point. An Irishman in his young days went to Scotland, he spent all the money he had there, and did his best to improve Scotland with his labour; yet if he became a pauper he was at once sent back to Ireland. If Irish Poor Law Guardians could send Scotchmen, or Englishmen, or Welshmen back to their respective countries if they became paupers, the grievance would not be quite so great; but if an Englishman, a Scotchman, or a Welshman entered a workhouse in Ireland, he could remain there as long as he liked. There was a case of a man who had lived for 50 years in Scotland, who had a wife and family residing there. The moment this man became a pauper, he was sent back to Ireland and was separated from his wife and children. This was a very great grievance that Irish Members had to complain of, and he hoped that this would be the last time the complaint would have to be made. Cases of very great hardship frequently occurred. An
    586
    Irishman lived in Aberdeen 20 years. He had to enter a lunatic asylum, and was at once sent back to Dublin. Such a case as that constituted a great grievance, and as far as he was concerned, in season and out of season, he would try to raise this question; and if the Lord Advocate did not see his way to put an end to this scandal, it would be the duty of Irish members to oppose Scotch business in every way they could, of course, in accordance with the rules of the House. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] That was a point upon which he was always anxious, namely, to act in strict conformity to the Rules of the House. To send men back to a country to whose resources they had not contributed one penny was unjust to the ratepayers, and he trusted that in a very short time this scandalous state of things would be a thing of the past.
    *MR. WEIRcomplained of the conduct of the affairs of the Scotch Local Government Board, the officers of which had been taken, over from the old Board of Supervision. He also, urged that a reasonable time might elapse between the resignation of a Parish Councillor and his appointment to an inspectorship under the Board. A case had occurred in Ross-shire in which a retiring Parish Councillor had been appointed an Inspector with unseemly haste.
    MR. P. J. POWERsaid that 13 years ago he raised the question which his hon. Friend (Mr. Daly) had raised that evening. On that occasion and on several subsequent occasions the Scotch Office had acknowledged the grievance of the Irish people. The same acknowledgment had come from the English Local Govern mount Board. Nothing, however, had teen done to remedy the grievance. The question was again raised on the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland promised to communicate with the Scotch authorities on the subject, but nothing had as yet been done. Year after year large numbers of Irishmen were compelled to leave home in order to earn a livelihood. They spent the best years of their lives in aiding to enrich this country, and when they were incapable of working any more they were packed off to Ireland as paupers. In Waterford and many other unions

    587
    there were often found English and Scotch people who were a burden on the rates. The Irish people were not able to send them back to the countries from which they had come.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid that this was a grievance which the Irish felt very much. It had no political character, but caused a sense of injustice and tended to increase the Irish people's belief that the English House of Commons was not disposed to do complete justice to their country. The subject had been brought to the notice of the House over and over again, and successive Chief Secretaries had expressed a willingness to remedy what they admitted to be a gross wrong. Nothing, however, had been done. From Ireland English or Scotch paupers could not be deported. It was not an answer to say that there were no English or Scotch paupers in Ireland, because it was very doubtful whether that was true, and, even if it were, the fact that there was no reciprocal power of deportation remained. No matter how short might have been the period of an Englishman or Scotchman's residence in Ireland, he could not be sent back to his own country if unfortunately he became a pauper. He must remain and be supported at the expense of Irish ratepayers. If, on the other hand, an Irishman remained in England or Scotland for any length of time he could be sent back to Ireland if he had not acquired a settlement under the English or Soctch laws. There was not the same law of settlement in Ireland. This deportation was a great interference with the liberty of the subject, for an unfortunate man could be sent away against his wishes to the nearest port, and thence to the remotest part of Ireland. What could be more unjust? When such a state of things was permitted to continue it was hardly strange that the people of Ireland should believe that they did not get equal justice.
    SIR MARK STEWARTobserved that the Poor Law in Scotland differed from the law of England as well as from that of Ireland. He hoped that the Government would not give way upon this point. He had been engaged in parochial work for 30 years in Scotland, and so knew a good deal about this subject. The Irishmen who
    588
    came to Scotland to work did not, as a rule, remain very long in one place, and the great majority of them never acquired a settlement. Those who did were provided for out of the rates, and were treated like Scotch paupers. The number deported was small, and there was no real hardship. Speaking as a practical man, he said that very little hardship existed, though he suggested that there might be room for reform in reducing the period of settlement to three years instead of five. This reform would in his judgment meet the whole necessities of the case.
    SIR CHARLES CAMERONthought that, at all events, a claim had been established for an inquiry as to whether some practical means could be found to remedy an anomaly and a grievance. The law of settlement was extremely harsh in a great number of cases, and it was, moreover, extremely expensive. In his judgment a thorough reform of the Scottish law of settlement was most urgently called for. The number of paupers deported could not be very great. It was so small that it would not constitute a very heavy charge on some of the funds which were devoted to Scotch purposes by the Scotch Department. If, however, that solution were not feasible, the grievance might be diminished by a careful reform of the whole subject of the law of settlement in Scotland. He would not venture to dogmatise as to how the question should be dealt with. The claim was not for the adoption of any particular plan, but that the Scottish authorities should enter into a conference with the authorities in England and Ireland in order to see whether an equitable plan could not be devised. He hoped that the Government would give their earnest attention to the matter.
    MR. J. FORTESCUE FLANNERYjoined in the appeal which had been made to the Government for a reasonable and logical treatment of this Question. He had spent some time in the post of Chairman of a Settlement and Removal Committee of a Board of Guardians, and he was aware of the hardship which often occurred in connection with this subject. The hardship seemed to him not to be clearly represented by the speech of the last hon. Member. The hon. Member spoke of the

    589
    differences between the two kingdoms; but the essence of this matter was that after all there was no difference between the two kingdoms; it was a difference between different parts of the same kingdom. It was therefore desirable to recognise the duty of equality of treatment between this country and Ireland.
    MR. JASPER TULLYrecognised the excellent spirit which characterised the speech of the hon. Member, and he hoped that a Division would be taken on the subject. Ireland had a serious and substantial grievance in this matter. Persons of all classes and all shades of opinion in Ireland were agreed about that. It was a. question which, had been long agitated, and it would continue to be agitated until they got relief. What was the law in Ireland? If a man was four years out of an electoral division he ceased to be chargeable to that division, whereas over here it was quite the reverse. An Irishman who came here and lived for 20 or 30 years and then passed some boundary line round Edinburgh or Glasgow, was promptly sent back to Ireland. The hon. Member for Kirkcudbright said very few cases of hardship occurred. If they would only give Ireland equal powers to send back Scotch paupers, pensioners with their families who got a miserable 4d. or 6d. a day for fighting Britain's battles, they would soon find the grievance was a very real and substantial one. He congratulated the Scotch Members on their shrewdness in this matter. Whenever there was a Scotch night, unfortunately Members from the other nationalities did not attend, because the Scotch Members wrapped up their legal terms in a jargon which was not understood south of the Tweed, and so were enabled to pass small Acts to carry out the very things of which Ireland complained. He had always thought it was a mistake that when the Scotch people were getting their Parish. Councils Bill, Irish Members did not fight that Bill, and assist. in wrecking it unless a clause was inserted in it taking away from the Parochial Boards and Parish Councils this power to deport Irish-born poor to Ireland. England and Scotland by their laws had made Irish people paupers. They had killed Measures which would enable them to find employment in their own country, as for example the Indus-
    590
    tries Bill, which was thrown out the other day by the House of Lords. If Irish. people in this large island were to be deported because they were paupers and poor, Ireland at least should have the same right to send back to England and Scotland the people who came over to Ireland.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid they could all concur in the general sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Shipley Division as to the desirability of equal treatment between different parts of the Kingdom, but the practical application of those general sentiments was not so easy as seemed to be supposed. He would be very happy to accept as a solution of the question that Ireland should have the right to deport Scottish and English paupers. If that solution would satisfy Irish Members he could offer it at once. But that solution would not be accepted. Scotland had no objection to confer with the offices in England and Ireland on the question, but she did object to hand over to the arbitration of a Departmental Committee, in which Scotland would be in a minority, the right to upset the whole of her Poor-law system. ["Hear, hear!"] It was all very well to say the law of settlement acted harshly. Of course it. did in certain cases, but would the hon. Member for Bridgeton give up the law of settlement altogether, or would he merely reduce the period? As a matter of fact, the Scottish Office had already made an offer to the Irish Office to reduce the period of settlement from five years to three years, and give a guarantee by way of appeal, so that there should be no harsh carrying out of the right to deport. He agreed with the statement that, on the whole, this law had not been harshly worked, but instead of the absolute right to deport, they were willing to give some sort of appeal to I he Local Government Board, so as to insure that in individual cases it should not be carried out if it. inflicted great hardship. That, he thought, was as much as they were entitled to do in the interest of the people of Scotland. ["Hear, hear!"] With reference to the question as to a certain Parish Council in Ross-shire, where a member resigned in order to be made Inspector of Poor, that was a matter with which the Scottish Office could not interfere without legislation.
    MR. THOMAS SHAWthought the concessions offered by the Lord Advocate amounted to an admission that the law at present was indefensible. The hon. Member for Kirkcudbrightshire was the only independent Scotch Member who had stood up to defend the law of Scotland as it was at present. The hon. Member had ill selected his instance of a good Scotch law, and in his humble judgment that law was opposed to the instincts of ordinary humanity. The hon. Baronet confessed that he had had, as others had had for years, the advantage of Irish labour, and in all probability with great pecuniary advantage.
    SIR MARK STEWART: No.
    MR. T. SHAWsaid, at all events, season after season, year after year, came the Irish labourer, and his labour was gladly availed of, and then, at the end of his labouring days, when he found himself no longer able to work, he was flung back to Ireland because it happened to be the land of his birth.
    SIR MARK STEWART: This is not the class of men who are deported.
    MR. T. SHAWhoped the hon. Gentleman would permit him to give an illustration.
    SIR MARK STEWART: Not wrongly.
    MR. T. SHAWsaid the Committee would be aware that the law in Scotland was that a settlement could not be acquired unless there had been continued residence in one parish for five years. The Committee would also be aware, from inquiries to which he would advert in a moment, inquiries to which the hon. Baronet himself was a party many years ago, this condition of the law led to great hardships of this kind. A man might live and labour in one parish for three or four years, but it was incidental to such labour that frequently his residence had to be changed, and he had to find work in another parish for a similar period, and so on in various parishes he might spend the Whole term of his working life—he might labour in the country for a generation. This was the case to which he referred as one in which the Local Government Board was confronted with this position—that there was no residential settlement acquired because the man had not had a continuous residence in a parish for five years, though in Scotland as a whole he might have lived for 35 years. In such a case as
    592
    that he asked the Committee to say—was it a humane law which enabled Scotland to deport this man under these circumstances, with his wife and family, to take him away from this country where he had laboured so long—to deport him and his family to Ireland because of the fact that he, though a labouring man in Scotland for so long, was born on the other side of the Channel? On these grounds it was well established that the law of which he complained was a brutal and inhuman law. There was another ground upon which the law stood condemned, not looking at it in its social aspect, but in regard to the relations between the countries. There was no reciprocity in this matter. Reciprocity was not wanted, for to make the law reciprocal would be to double the cruelty complained of. The system was out of accord with the spirit of the time in which we lived. This was not the first time, and it would not be the last, that the House had had and would have attention formally drawn to this subject. In 1879 a very powerful Committee sat to consider the whole question. The hon. Baronet opposite was a member of that Committee, which reported in terms somewhat different from the speech he had just delivered, though he hoped he did not differ from the spirit of the recommendations. That Committee said,—
    "Your Committee hold that the question of removal should be regarded not merely in the supposed interest of the ratepayers, but with sympathy and care for the convenience and material advantage of the poor."
    This wound up by recommending to the House of Commons legislation in this sense, and reducing the five years residential settlement to one year. If the Lord Advocate had been able to say now that something of this humane character should be imported into the law of Scotland—if he had given more than the vague promise he had given—it might be accepted, but on the ground that the law was perfectly indefensible, and in its operation was harsh and unjust, he joined with pleasure with his Irish Friends in voting for the reduction.
    MR. JOHN DILLONthought the statement of the Lord Advocate extremely unsatisfactory, and that, in fact, it more than justified everything

    593
    said by the hon. Member for Monaghan with reference to the action of the Scotch Office. He had listened with considerable interest to the eminently characteristic speech of the hon. Member for Kirkcudbrightshire. The hon. Baronet treated this as a matter of small importance, and seemed to think it was not worth while to make it a grievance. It it was the mere bagatelle the hon. Member supposed it to be, why not settle it at once?
    SIR MARK STEWARTsaid the hon. Member was not quite representing what he said.
    MR. DILLONsaid the hon. Baronet went on to say that which was inconsistent with his proposition, and as a reason for opposing any alteration of the Law of Settlement in Scotland said there was on the part of the people of Scotland very great objection to anything that would tend to increase the rates. Yes; hey objected to an increase of the Scotch rates, but not to an increase of the Irish rates. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member and his Friends would prefer that the increase should fall upon Ireland, the poorer country with the heavier rates. Beyond controversy this was a substantial grievance. For upwards of 30 years the injustice had been admitted, and on one ground or another redress had been denied. On what might be called the sentimental side of the question, the injustice was admitted, but met with an absolute refusal of remedy, though if it was a small matter it might readily be dealt with in a manner that would give rise to better feeling on the part of the Irish people. What was the explanation of this question as affecting the Irish labourer? Under the present state of the Scotch law, though he may have given the best years of his life, or the greater part of each year, to labour in Scotland, the Irish labourer was, when power to work failed him, deported back to Ireland. No doubt the Lord Advocate was right when he said reciprocity would not he accepted as a fair settlement of the grievance. ["Why?"] It was not really within practical politics, for everybody knew there was not the slightest possibility of introducing the law of Scotland into Ireland, and it could not be accepted, because, owing to circumstances upon which he was not now going to enter—
    594
    but they had frequently been debated in the House—the conditions of life in Ireland were much lower than in England or Scotland, and the inevitable result by the working of a well-known and invariable commercial law, was that from the country where the conditions of social and commercial life were lower, a supply of labour was sent to the neighbouring more prosperous country where the social condition of the people was higher. Under the operation of this law, Ireland sent over to England and Scotland a large supply of labour, and this labour was sought for by the capitalists of the richer country—by farmers, by manufacturers, and others. It was not from motives of philanthropy that the English. farmer or manufacturer employed Irish labour. It was because they got good value for their money. If any man had a right to complain of the influx of Trish labour, they were not the local ratepayers, but the labouring classes, who thought that the introduction of Irish labour tended to depression of wages, but the manufacturers, the miners, the contractors, the farmers who employed Irish labour did so because it put money in their pockets, because they got good value for their money. It was a monstrous thing, a cruel injustice, that this law should be as it was, when it was remembered how this country had risen to its present prosperous condition by the labour of its people, in which labour Irishmen had so large a share. From lack of employment in Ireland, and this he attributed, justly or unjustly, to the Government under which they lived, Irishmen were driven to place their labour at the disposal of English and Scotch employers, and what Irish Members demanded and were entitled to demand, was that Irishmen who worked in England and Scotland assisting to build up the wealth of the country in which they worked should not be branded as foreigners in the country where they had worked, and that they should be entitled to the same protection of the law in their old age as the men with whom they had worked at the same bench or on the same farm. No matter what the law might be in England or Scotland that law should be extended to Irishmen living and working in those countries, and that was a reasonable demand. It was preposterous for the Lord Advocate to

    595
    attempt to maintain that it was impossible to apply any remedy to this grievance without completely altering the whole law of settlement as regards Scotland. They did not quarrel with the right of the Scottish people to, settle their own Poor Law, but some provision should be made for those who came into Scotland from other countries. It would be perfectly possible, if the question was to be settled and if the Scotch Office insisted that they would not alter the Poor Law of Scotland, to make some special provision for the case of men, who came from Ireland or elsewhere and had lived in Scotland for a certain number of years and had not acquired a settlement under Scotch law, that these men should become chargeable on the Scotch, not on the Irish rates. He thought they had made out a grievance, and that they were entitled to demand that a remedy should be applied to it. Let him say one word as to the extent and Character of the grievance. It had been said in the course of the Debate that the grievance was an extremely trifling one. If it was really so small, was it worth while for the Scotch Office to obstruct the application of a remedy that would remove the bitter feeling caused by it? But he denied that the grievance was small. The rates in Ireland were extremely high, and Ireland was a poor country. They had heard from the hon. Member for South Monaghan, who was himself Chairman or Vice Chairman of a Board of Guardians, that in that one Union within a year £80 was charged upon the ratepayers for the importation of paupers from Scotland. Ho denied, therefore, that it was such an infinitesimal grievance. It was a serious grievance. It amounted to a scandal that a. great British community such as that of Glasgow, Edinburgh, or Dundee should shift from its shoulders a burden of £80 a year and put it upon a poor overtaxed rural community like that of South Monaghan. A return obtained by the hon. Member for South Monaghan showed that in one month—September, 1892—no less than 31 paupers were deported to Ireland from Glasgow, Edinburgh, Paisley, Aberdeen, and other Scotch towns. It might be a mere bagatelle to a city like Glasgow to support these paupers, but it was no bagatelle for poor rural districts in Ireland where the rates were already so high that it
    596
    was almost impossible for the people to bear them. There was another point in connection with this matter which had been alluded to by the hon. Member. Sometimes whole families were deported, sometimes they were separated; and he could imagine nothing more barbarous than to take an old man or woman who had been living for years in Scotland, and who might have children settled there, and although those children might be able to support their own families, yet because they could not support their parents also, the old people were sent away to Ireland immediately they came upon the rates.
    SIR MARK STEWARTsaid that by the law of Scotland the dependants of paupers were necessarily compelled to support their families.
    MR. DILLONsaid they could not compel people to support their parents if they were unable to do so. He had been informed of eases in which great cruelty had been inflicted by sending old persons off to some remote parish in Ireland where they were born 50 or 60 years ago, where they now had no friends or relatives left, tearing them away from all the associations they had formed. Therefore, in addition to the ratepayers' grievance, of which they so justly complained, there was in many instances a great deal of inhumanity in the treatment of these paupers. He thought they were entitled to demand some more satisfying answer than they had received from the Lord Advocate, and in order, if possible, to elicit a more satisfying answer he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £1,000.
    MR. DALYshared his hon. Friend's regret that the reply of the Lord Advocate had not been more satisfactory. It was also very contradictory. He meant to infer that their case was a very trivial one. But if it was so trivial, why was not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to infer that their case was a very trivial the Local Government Boards? For the very reason that he was afraid he should be outvoted by the Local Government Boards of England and Ireland. A weaker case than the right hon. Gentleman had made out could scarcely be conceived. He would read a letter he

    597
    had received from an official of the Carrickmacross Union,—
    "Workhouse, Carrickmacross,
    "7th February, 1896.
    "Dear Sir,—On the other side you will see names and particulars of imported paupers who are in the workhouse.—Your obedient servant,
    "PATRICK JONES,
    "Master of Workhouse.
    "James Daly, Esq., M.P."
    "Peter McEneamy, in house from last year, after spending 50 years in Scotland.
    "Patrick Brady, in house for last four years, after spending 40 years in England and Scotland."
    "There are two or three other cases. Also a removable warrant from Scotland of case last week that did not arrive yet. A man named Patrick Golf was admitted to house last evening in bad health, after spending the last 25 years in England."
    That was what had been called a trivial case. It was no small matter for a little Union of only £50,000 rateable value to have a charge of £80 per annum put upon the ratepayers on account of cases like these. ["Hear, hear!"] Here was the declaration made by Peter McEneamy,—
    "I, Peter McEneamy, of about 65 years, make solemn declaration as follows: I went to Scotland when I was 14 years of age, and spent about 50 years there. I have a. wife and family in Glasgow, and was separated from my wife and family against my will, and sent back here. I told the authorities in Glasgow if I was sent back to Ireland I would jump overboard rather than go back a pauper. I have a burial place in Pathhead Cemetery which I purchased, and I desire to get back there to bury with my family. I have made frequent applications to the Guardians here to send me back to my wife and family.—PETER MCENEAMY. Deported March, 1895."
    And here was another case,—
    "I, Patrick Brady, make solemn declaration, and say I spent over 30 years in England and Scotland. I got unwell in Glasgow Workhouse, and was told by the official there I would either have to leave the workhouse or go back to Ireland. I had to consent to come back here against my will, as I was totally unfit to work.—Signed, PATRICK BRADY."
    He gave his word to the Committee that he had interviewed these men, and they told him that they were coerced by the authorities in the workhouse at Glasgow to consent to being sent back. When he put questions to the Lord Advocate on the subject, he got over it by the thin
    598
    excuse that the men "consented" to go back to Ireland. They were coerced. They had their choice—either to go out of the workhouse and starve in the streets or go back to whatever district of Ireland they belonged to. And in many instances the Irish Boards of Guardians had even to pay the cost of their carriage. He was not speaking on a subject he did not understand, and if he felt he spoke warmly the case deserved it. The Lord Advocate had said that it was a trivial matter—
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: I. beg the him. Member's pardon, but I certainly used no such expression.
    MR. DALYsaid he was sorry to attribute to the right hon. Gentleman anything he did not say. The expression had been made use in the course of the Debate, but if the right hon. Gentleman did not make the statement of course lie apologised. He was glad to see the First Lord of the Treasury in his place, and hoped he would seriously consider this matter, which some of his supporters thought so trivial, and that lie would think it worth while to remedy the grievance of which they complained. With regard to the law of settlement, if the Government would say that a man who left Ireland for two or three years only should be sent back if he became chargeable during that time, he (the speaker) was quite willing to meet the Lord Advocate on that point. What they said was this—that where a man spent 50, 40, 20, or 10 years in England or Scotland, working for the benefit of those countries, it was a shame to send him back to Ireland to be a charge on rates to which he had contributed nothing. He should be supported by the rates of the country in which he had worked and in which he had lost his health. It was quite time that the matter was settled, and he hoped this would be the last occasion on which it might be necessary to bring the grievance before the House.
    MR. CAMERON CORBETTsaid that he thought it would be quite practicable to draw a definite line providing that deportation would not be permitted where a man had been in Scotland or England for a period, say, exceeding ten years.

    599
    The thing which seemed to him most important of all was that whatever regulation was laid down it should be made strictly mutual, and that exactly the same power should be given of deporting Scotchmen and Englishmen from Ireland as was given for deporting Irishmen from Scotland. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. JAMES JORDANthought the statement of the Lord Advocate very unsatisfactory. The discussion that had taken place made it quite evident that the Irish had a great grievance in this matter of the deportation of paupers. Ireland demanded that that grievance should be remedied, and, so far as he understood, the English Local Government Board was quite prepared to remedy that grievance, and Scotland alone stood in the way. He thought there was a peculiar meanness in Scotland standing in the way. Scotland professed to be friendly to Ireland, but in this case the Irish people might well ask to be saved from their friends. The Scotch sucked every spark of life and vitality out of the Irish labourer and then sent him home to be a charge on the rates of his own country. There was nothing of party politics in this matter whatever. He represented a Board of Guardians which was very loyal and constitutional. It was presided over by Lord Belmore, and not very long since this very question of pauper deportation came up for consideration. On that occasion Lord Belmore expressed a very strong opinion on the subject, and the Board passed a resolution against the deportation of paupers. As a member of that Board of Guardians, expressing their views, and having as a ratepayer to pay rates for the support of paupers who were brought from Scotland, he protested in the strongest possible manner against the action of the Lord Advocate and the Scotch Office, and particularly against the action of certain Scottish Members in that House. The Irish representatives had made out a strong case, and had demonstrated that in this matter Ireland was now suffering and bad suffered for years from a crying injustice.
    MR. JOHN COLVILLEspeaking as one who had some little knowledge of the working of the law of settlement in Scotland, considered that the Irish Members had some substantial ground for grievance in this matter.
    600
    There could be no doubt that in the case of some, at least, of the paupers who had been deported, the employers of labour in England and Scotland had had the full advantage of their labour for the best part of their lives, and it did seem very hard that the law should then send the poor people back to their native land without any regard to the benefit that must have accrued to England and Scotland by their labour during the best years of their lives. The hon. Member who had last spoken, however, did not quite seem to realise the difficulty that stood in the way of the Government and of the Lord Advocate in dealing with this question, in respect to the law of settlement that prevailed in Scotland and did not in Ireland. He hoped the Government would give some assurance that an earnest attempt would be made to remedy this undoubted grievance, and to give to that part of the United Kingdom which had cause of complaint perfectly equitable treatment in this respect.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,951, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 97.—(Division List, No. 246.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS IV.
    6. Motion made and Question proposed,—
    That a sum, not exceeding £604,933, 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 1898, for Public Education in Scotland."
    *SIR JOHN LENGdesired to state the grievances of the Sub-inspectors of Schools in Scotland with regard to the denial of promotion to the higher grades of the Inspectorate. A considerable correspondence had taken place between them and the Scotch. Education Department. His hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire asked that that correspondence should be published. As that request was refused, it was necessary to bring the subject before the House. The Sub-inspectors, who now

    601
    included those formerly designated assistant inspectors, felt that great injustice had been done to them front time to time in placing over their heads as inspectors and chief inspectors men (1) absolutely without experience in teaching, and (2) in several instances of inferior scholarships to that which might be found among the Sub-inspectors. The Educational Institute and the teaching profession in Scotland generally sympathised with the feeling of the Sub-inspectors in this matter. The theory of the Scotch Education Department was that the Department should have a free hand to be able to select the best men—the men of the highest qualifications, for the office of Inspectors. If the practice of the Department corresponded with that theory there would be little ground of complaint, as it certainly would not involve exclusion from the area, of selection of thoroughly competent men of great experience, both in teaching and inspection, among the Sub-inspectors. He was not there to contend that. all the Sub-inspectors were qualified for promotion as Inspectors. His contention was that in their number are men quite equal in all respects to the best of their official superiors, and touch better than some of them, especially to one who was appointed so recently as August 1896, and whose appointment had raised the whole question. He did not wish to bring the name of the gentleman before the Committee, but the facts were these. Although appointed one of H.M. Inspectors of Schools he had no experience of elementary schools and no training as a teacher. His University record showed that he took five years to graduate, which a good student did in three. He took no place in the merit list in mathematics, natural philosophy, logic, or psychology. He was only twenty-third in moral philosophy and forty-first in English literature. He was sixteenth in Greek and fourteenth in Latin. In every one of these subjects he was beaten by Training College students, who were being trained as elementary teachers. What. conceivable qualification had this gentleman for the high post to which he was raised over the heads of experienced and scholarly men, who had been Assistant or Sub-inspectors for many years? The only one known in Scotland was that he acted for some time as private tutor
    602
    in the family of an eminent Lord of Session (Lord Kingsburgh), formerly a Member of this House. All that could be said in palliation of this case was that it was not quite so bad as a memorable one in which. a person. in Scotland, who had not, succeeded in business as a miller, had a friend who was an old college friend of the then Secretary to the Education Department. Application was made for a post under the Department, but none of a, subordinate character could be given, because the applicant could not pass the requisite examinations. The Secretary, however, suggested that if the miller would go to college to take honours in Latin he would give hint an Inspectorship for Schools, for which no examination was necessary. The young man did this, and was forthwith appointed one of Her Majesty's inspectors —having never entered the door of all elementary school till be went to inspect such schools in Aberdeenshire. It might be said these are exceptional cases. The truth was, promotion by influence rather than for merit had been the rule. Some very curious facts may be noted. A school known as Milne's Institution, Fochabers, stood at the gate of the Duke of Richmond's residence. Three times in succession the headmaster of that school was appointed right off by the Duke to the post of Her Majesty's Inspector. Was it to be supposed that on three successive occasions, when all other claims had been carefully considered in the public interest, nobody in Scotland was found to be fit for this post but the master of Milne's Institution, Fochabers, who lived at the Lord President's gate? He might refer to other cases, some of them cases of men worthy and estimable in their own way, but not at all qualified for the important duties of school inspectors. He might refer to cases in which the inspectors notoriously had had to rely on their sub-inspectors to do what they could not do themselves. But he was most anxious not to bear hardly upon individuals. It was of the system he complained, and which he wished to see altered, not so much for the sake of the sub-inspectors as of the efficiency and usefulness of the educational system in Scotland. As to scholarship, it was unquestionable that there were more scholarly men in the lower than the higher grades of the Inspectorship.

    603
    Three of Her Majesty's Inspectors in Scotland were not graduates; eleven, when appointed, Intel no teaching experience. Three of the four first-class sub-inspectors were not graduates. Of the second-class sub-inspectors nine were graduates. The extraordinary character of the present system was illustrated by this simple statement:—
    "Before entering the lowest grade, stringent rules have to be satisfied. The candidate must be 25 years of age, must have been trained as a teacher, and have taken a first-class pass in the examination for certificates, and had two favourable reports on class training from an Inspector. Preference is given to Graduates. No such qualification is demanded for a full Inspectorship, and three of the present H.M. Inspectors arc not even Graduates; of the three one was a Chief Inspector."
    While the sub-inspectors were frequently better qualified for their work, were better scholars, better trained, and more experienced in teaching:—
    "It is impossible to differentiate between the work actually done by the three grades of Inspectors. Sub-Inspectors of the first class were not allowed to sign their own reports. They, however, wrote these reports and decided all matters connected with a school grant without the necessity of the school being visited by their superior. On their recommendation grants were given, reduced, or withheld, and, so far as they knew, their decisions had been approved, not only by the Department., but also by school managers. Moreover, the Evening Continuation School system had hitherto been almost entirely worked by the Sub-Inspectors."
    It was not surprising, therefore, that they expressed the feelings of disappointment and humiliation experienced by officers who had given the best years of their lives to a conscientious and efficient discharge of their duties, and who, when a vacancy in the higher grade occurred, found that air applicant, outside the ranks of the Inspectorate, many years his junior, totally wanting in training and experience, and possibly of inferior scholarship, was nevertheless appointed over him to the post for which the sub-inspector was admitted to be qualified and to have distinctly prior claims. These feelings were kept fresh by the fact that for a considerable time such a superior required the constant guidance and advice of the subordinate officials who might be associated with him. The sub-inspectors, while doing a large part of the work of the inspectors, were not only denied the credit but were
    604
    blamed if they took the credit for it. His feeling was that the sub-inspectors had a strong case. The official sentiments which had been expressed were admirable, but the misfortune was that they were not acted upon. How did the statement that their merits would be fully recognised tally with the appointment in August last of a tenth-rate scholar who graduated with difficulty, and who had no school-teaching experience? How did it tally with the appointment of three teachers in succession from one school that happened to be at the Lord President's gate? How did it tally with the fact that there had been only two promotions in the last 35 years? Surely in that period of time there must have been more than two men among the sub-inspectors qualified for promotion. All that he urged was that the Department would honestly act up to its own declarations. The statement that was made when this Question was formerly before the House was by the late Lord Advocate, who said that he had always been in favour as a rule of promotion within the service. He hoped the present Lord Advocate's view would not be less generous. It was in the interests of the education of the people that the inspection of our schools should be conducted by experienced and thoroughly qualified men. He contended that more encouragement should be given to conspicuous merit within the ranks of the sub-inspectors. The public service obtained its best work from men who had no substantial grievance and who had the stimulus of hope. He trusted, therefore, that in future these men would receive fuller recognition from the Scottish Education Department.
    *MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that for many years past grants had been given in support of evening continuation schools in Scotland, and the Education Department had now seen fit to discontinue the grant for such schools to Airdrie School Board. That grant had been continuously given since 1886 till last year. He did not think it was in the power of the Department under the Education Act to withdraw the grant. In answer to a question he had put on the subject, the Lord Advocate had replied that the Department had taken legal advice on the matter, which was to the effect that as there was no restriction as

    605
    to the age of scholars, the attendance at the evening, continuation schools could not be included in reckoning the average attendance. He disputed the justice of t he view. The stun which had been withdrawn was about £120. He would appeal to the Lord Advocate to consider carefully this matter, and to endeavour to meet the views of many School Boards in Scotland.
    DR. FARQUHARSONjoined with the hon. Member for Dundee in his appeal regarding the case of the Sub-inspectors. He was very sorry that the only means they hail of bringing this matter before the House was by threatening a reduction of the salary of the Scotch Educational Secretary. He would himself much rather increase his salary than reduce it, because of the excellent work he did. He entirely threw in his lot with the Member for Dundee in this matter. He had had many opportunities of meeting those gentlemen in different parts of Scotland in conference, and they had all a feeling of soreness and dissatisfaction and disappointment that they had not had the chance of earning promotion to the higher ranks. The system pursued now was an entirely wrong one, and it was extremely disheartening for those gentlemen who had had to bear the heat and burden of the day to be jumped over by younger men from the Universities, who might have a more ornamental qualification, but who had not the first requisite for the work—namely, a familiarity with the work to be clone, and with the machinery for carrying it out. He understood that recently the delicacy and difficulty and complication of the work of the Sub-inspectors had very much increased, and he hoped, therefore, that the Government would give some consideration to the case of those officials. ["Hear, hear!"]
    On the return of the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, after the usual interval,
    *SIR W. WEDDERBURNsaid he wished to add his support to the contention of his hon. Friends the Member for Dundee and the Member for West Aberdeenshire. There was not the least doubt that the sub-inspectors formed the backbone of the inspectorate in Scotland, and every time that an outsider was pitch-forked over their heads very grave and
    606
    serious discouragement was caused to the whole rank and file of inspectors. Therefore he considered that these appointments should be viewed with great jealousy and care, and that they should never be made except in those exceptional circumstances which could be justified on one of two grounds—either first, that there was no sub-inspector thoroughly qualified to receive the promotion; or, secondly, that there were some special circumstances which needed an exceptional man to be placed in the position. They all knew there was a great deal of pressure and influence brought to bear on the authorities who had appointments to make, and therefore he thought the authorities should be grateful for a strong expression of opinion from the Committee that these appointments should be made rarely and with great care, because after all, the duties of the inspectors, whether sub-inspectors or chief inspectors, was very much a matter of experience. The fact that a man had done the work for years created a strong presumption that he was more capable than an outside man, even though his academic qualifications might not be very high. He wished to support the claim that the working bees of the Department should get their promotion. It was quite clear that, if the men did not get the promotion they expected, they would be discouraged, and a good class of men would be discouraged from joining the service and passing through the lower grades. Therefore, the whole body of the officials would be unfavourably affected. A similar grievance had been a good deal brought to, notice with regard to the various grades of sub-inspectors. The complaint was that, although the duties were practically the same, a considerable distinction was made, and that the men were not so freely given their promotion according to seniority as they considered themselves entitled to. He trusted these matters would receive the careful consideration of the Department.
    *MR. ROBINSON SOUTTARsaid that he desired to say a few words with reference to the £2,000 given for agricultural education in Scotland. The sum was not a very large one, but even that amount was so divided up that it was almost useless. It was divided in the first instance

    607
    between agricultural education and agricultural research, and £100 given to this scheme and £100 to that, and so on, until the money was practically inoperative for good. The County Councils and such societies as the Highland Society did something in an amateurish way, but it was all done in a very fitful way and it was very largely useless. The fact was this sort of work could not be done in that way at all. There was a certain jealousy- between the different countries even in Scotland, and there was a feeling that that which was very suitable for one county was not at all suitable for another county. It was entirely impossible to carry out agricultural research by private effort. The experiments ought to be upon a broad basis and they ought to bear, if they were to be of value to landowners and farmers, the hall-mark of national approval. Last year, along with the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire, he had the honour of very informally seeing the Secretary for Scotland on the matter, and a small and informal scheme was laid before him. He expressed very high approval and said that all that was necessary, as far as he was concerned, was to get the requisite grant of money. It was suggested that there should be five stations placed in various parts of Scotland, under one directorate, where experiments would be carried out simultaneously, and that only £5,000 would be needed for the whole thing. He believed they would have in Scotland the means of making returns if this could be done. On the Continent they had had returns, which almost took one's breath away, from agricultural research. In Germany a little agricultural research had given them the great super-phosphate industry which had poured millions into their exchequer. In France one little bit of agricultural research resulted in the finding out of a way of dealing with vine disease, which had been the means of adding greatly to the wealth of the country. It was said that twice as much as was paid to the Germans in indemnity had been saved. A great deal might be done in Scotland. One gentleman had told him that through ignorance of plant life there had been wasted as much as would have paid our National Debt several times over during the past century. The Scotch people were to get for education £150,000
    608
    less than they expected. If the Government would only devote a tithe of that sum to agricultural research they would gain a great deal of kudos and never regret their action.
    MR. COLVILLEsaid that North East Lanark had suffered from the withholding of a grant in respect of an evening school. The school was of the greatest advantage to the district, and he, therefore, trusted the Lord Advocate would seriously consider the propriety of continuing the allowance. Evening continuation schools tended to raise the social tone of a. district, and, therefore, they ought to receive the greatest possible encouragement.
    *MR. ALEXANDER WYLIEsaid that evening schools had been of the greatest benefit to the industrial classes in Scotland; they had enabled many young artisans to rise to professions, and they had otherwise done great good to the community. In the county he represented there was sonic years ago a considerable falling off in attendance at the schools, but recently, fostered by the. grant. and other causes, it had been better. He hoped the Lord Advocate would take what had been said into careful consideration, and endeavour to see that the grant was not only restored, but increased.
    *MR. HEDDERWICKwas not surprised that his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk Burghs should have struck a somewhat plaintive note to-night, for he had been rather harshly treated by the Government he supported. Not only had the Government disbanded a regiment of Volunteers who were no doubt as loyal to their representative as apparently they were to their superior officers, but they were attempting to disband the evening schools. If the Government continued to pursue this high Imperial policy much further in Airdrie he could well imagine that his hon. Friend might speedily find himself in the painful position of representing nothing but the desolate stones of that historic and interesting Burgh. For ten years past this sum of money had been granted to these continuation schools without any question being raised. The schools were of the most beneficial character. They took up young people at a period of life when memory was most likely to be affected. Anyone who would go to the trouble of looking over the statistics of these

    609
    schools would see that the subjects taught were of the highest value; many of them were technical subjects, or such subjects as could not be taught to children of tender years. He understood that the Lord Advocate proposed to cut off the grant because, as there was no restriction of age, the schools were not entitled to earn grant. He did not quite understand the Lord Advocate's position. Under Section 1 of the Education Act of 1872 a public school meant any parish or poor school or any school under the management of a School Board established under the Act. By Section 40 it was enacted that it should be lawful for a School Board to establish and maintain one or more evening schools for the instruction of scholars above 13 years of age, and that such evening schools should be deemed public schools. Section 67 enacted that public schools so established should be entitled, where the rate did not amount to 7s. 6d. per child, to such a sum from the money in the power of Parliament to grant, as should make up the sum to a sum equal to 7s. 6d. It, therefore, seemed to him perfectly clear that these evening schools were entitled to this grant, a grant which, as he had said, they had been in the habit of receiving for the past 10 years. There seemed to be no conceivable reason why the grant should have been cut off, more especially in a year when the House had been voting enormous sums of money for promoting education in England, upon lines which the representatives of the people of Scotland certainly did not approve of. He sincerely hoped the Government would give their attention to the subject.
    MR. J. CALDWELLcordially concurred in all that hail been said as to the inspectors. They naturally looked forward to promotion; it was the natural impetus, but no hope whatever had been held out. Every Sub-inspector ought to have the idea that he would be a Chief Inspector some day, and these men had to do the work of the Chief Inspectors. What were the public schools provided by the Board? It was as much their duty to provide these evening schools as it was to provide day schools. It was well to say that they were following the English Act, but that Act was altogether different. Here the code could be
    610
    altered by a Department, but in Scotland the Code rested on an Act of Parliament. He hoped, therefore, the Lord Advocate would give this matter, which was of so much importance to Scotch education, his closest attention. He called attention also as to the statistics of school attendance, and urged the importance of having these statistics. They ought to have a return every year of the children who were receiving instruction. They ought also to have statistics as to the children under the different standards. These returns as to the standards should be given year by year. Further, they ought to have the ages of the children in the different standards. In the Glasgow School Board they did give the ages of the children. The continual changes that were made altogether prevented a proper estimate being formed of the progress of education in Scotland. Then, with regard to the system of examination by the inspectors. Instead of individual examination, the examination was conducted in a rough and ready fashion. The inspector made casual visits and stated the results of his observations. The system was a very dangerous one. It might suit the teachers and Inspectors, told might be a good one so far as well conducted and efficient schools were concerned; but in the case of other schools it did not afford a sufficient check. With regard to the older scholars, in the V., VI., and ex-VI. standards, there were to be individual examinations. Formerly children who passed the higher standard got a. certificate, and that certificate was much valued. Now they got no certificate, so that there was now no inducement to children to, remain at school longer titan was necessary. Perhaps the greatest blot on the educational system in Scotland was the insufficiency of the training colleges. The supply of teachers who had passed through the training colleges was not in any sense equal to the demand. The Report of the Department stated that the training colleges could only turn out 450 trained teachers every year, and that that number was not equal to the annual waste that was going on, which was calculated at 6 per cent. But no increase in certificated teachers was required to meet the increased school attendance, and the number of certificated teachers was increased last year by

    611
    658; 658 teachers had to be provided for and yet the waste that was going on was not even provided for. The result was that every Inspector in Scotland was lamenting the fact that the number of untrained teachers was going on increasing, when the Department ought to go on training as many as were required. Large numbers were rejected every year because there was no room in the training colleges to receive them. One might almost think that the Scotch Education Department was a trade union, hose object was to limit the supply of teachers and so to keep up wages. The effect on the education of the country was that there was not that choice of teachers there ought to be, and that untrained teachers had to be employed. Why should not every person who was willing to enter the training colleges be trained? According to the Report of the Department the total number of teachers added this year was only 667, and that did not meet anything like the demand. It must be admitted that it was a very poor policy that did not supply as many trained teachers as were required. As regarded the cost of maintenance, in the public schools of Scotland it amounted to £2 9s. 6¼d., and in the Voluntary Schools to £2 4s. 4¾d.; while in England, in Board Schools the cost of maintenance was only £2 5s. 3¼d., and in Voluntary Schools, excluding the Metropolis, £1 18s. 5d. Thus, in Scotland the cost of maintenance in Voluntary Schools was 6s. per child more than in Voluntary Schools in England. What was the effect? Formerly before the School Board came into operation, every parish school was able to turn out pupils qualified to enter the University. That could not be done now-a-days, and the result was that the attendance at the Scottish Universities was going down year by year. He ventured to say that secondary education was in a very bad way in Scotland at this moment. There was a want of connection running up from the elementary school to. the University. Something ought to be done with a view to increasing and improving secondary education. Instead of giving certain schools an addition of only 3s., as was proposed, when the ratepayers and the parents have been sacrificing more than 6s. more than in England, the time had come when those schools which were
    612
    trying to do the work of secondary education in Scotland should be subsidised. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised a sum of about £30,000 or £40,000 and he believed the only difficulty in the matter was that the Scotch Office could not make up their minds what to do with it. He would be glad to know whether the Government were prepared to distribute that money and in what way. Another matter to which he wished to call attention was the question of the Ardchattan Board School. That school was filled and provided ample accommodation for the children of the parish, yet an Episcoplian school was started and received a grant. There were only two families belonging to the Episcopalian Church in the district, and one of them was the family of the school teacher. The establishment of this school was in violation of the Act of Parliament, which said that no new school was to be sanctioned unless it was required in the locality, regard being had to the accommodation and to the religious belief of the parents. The new school at Ardchattan was not required on the ground of accommodation. Was it required on the ground of the religious belief of the parents? Was the Episcopalian doctrine so essentially different from the Presbyterian doctrine that an Episcopalian could not be expected to send his child to a Presbyterian school? In Scotland Protestant distinctions had never been recognised, and the Treaty of Union itself laid down that Episcopacy was not to be recognised in that country. In Scotland, therefore, the Government were not entitled to subsidise Episcopacy in any way as a distinct religious belief. To set up a rival Episcopalian school, and thus to attempt to prevent the Board School from earning the full grant which it would otherwise earn was unjustifiable. Out of pure cussedness the Scotch education Department had been fighting with the ratepayers and the School Board and trying for years to force this school upon them. Such proceedings were not dignified, and it was not to the interest of education that such things should be done.
    *MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid that the hon. Member who had just spoken had referred to him for confirmation of his statement that the attendance at the

    613
    Scottish Universities was less than it had been. The hon. Member quoted that fact as indicating that the people of Scotland under the present system of education did not show the same interest in advanced education as they had done in former years. But he seemed to forget that in recent years there had been changes in the regulation of the Universities of Scotland, which necessarily affected the attendance of students. In those changes he had been privileged to take a small part. One of them was the introduction of an entrance examination, which had diminished the attendance in the meantime at the Arts classes. Circumstances of that kind ought to be taken into account, and the diminution of the numbers at the Universities ought not to be ascribed to any lack of interest in University education. Passing from this point, he wished to associate himself with those who had expressed their sense of the great importance of evening continuation schools, especially in populous places. These schools were an absolute necessity in the interests of education. He did not know what had caused the change in the administration of the Education Department in this matter. He trusted that if the Department found it necessary to withdraw assistance in one form from these schools, it would find some other way of assisting them as effectually. What was felt by all friends of education to be most disappointing was that scholars were taken away front school at so early an age. It had been thought by many that the abolition of school fees would have facilitated the retention of children at school, but unfortunately the change had not resulted in much improvement in that respect. Children taken from school at an early age would not have had an education that was effective, and it was a necessary consequence that what they had not been able to receive in the day school must be otherwise obtained by attendance at the evening continuation schools. He was sorry that the instance in which this new rule had been applied was in the school at Airdrie. He had some knowledge of the educational enthusiasm of the Airdrie School Board, and it was a matter of regret that it should have been one of the first to suffer by the change. Personally he knew what the Board had done in the way of promoting higher education, and their efforts were worthy of all
    614
    praise. The Board had given free education from the lowest grade to the highest in the Airdrie Schools. He hoped that what the Board had now lost would be made up to them in some other form.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that the first point raised by the hon. Member for Dundee (Sir J. Leng) was the promotion of sub-inspectors to chief inspector-ships. The Committee should bear in mind in judging of this question that by the present regulations of the Department sub-inspectors were chosen from one class alone—namely, the certificated teachers in the elementary schools. He could not help thinking that the plea which the hon. Member had urged would, if adopted, be a very double-edged benefit, because it would mean that all chief inspectors should be taken from the ranks of the sub-inspectors, and before this could be done they would have to abolish the regulations under which sub-inspectors were taken from the elementary schools. It appeared that the hon. Member wished very much to keep from being made public any names in connection with this matter, and he was anxious to follow that example. At the same time he did not think that this precaution mattered very much, because, from the hon. Member's reference as well as from his own, there could scarcely be any doubt as to whom it was meant to refer. When the hon. Member characterised a recent appointment as that of a tenth-rate scholar who had acted as private tutor to a Judge of the Court of Session who at one time occupied the position of Lord Advocate, he thought the Committee would be astonished to hear that this gentleman had acted for many years as assistant to Professor Leighton, that he had acted in conjunction with the late Professor Sellar, with Professors Harvey and Goodheart, and that the Education Department had the testimony of these three very distinguished scholars, and also of Professor Butcher that his scholarship attainments were of the highest order indeed. [Cheers.] The hon. Member was therefore giving currency to a piece of mere gossip.
    *SIR J. LENG: I quoted the University record of this gentleman. I presume the Lord Advocate does not dispute that? I cannot see how he can reconcile that record with his statement.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsupposed that it could be reconciled in this way—that the gentleman learned some things after being at the University, where some persons did not learn very much. [Laughter.] They had, however, the testimony of the Chairman of the Glasgow School Board, the Chief Inspector in Scotland, and the head of the whole Department, that the services of this gentleman had been of the most thorough character since he had been appointed to the post. He might dismiss also as gossip what the hon. Member said about some appointments in previous days of various persons who had been masters at the school at Fochabers. It was not the case that the Duke of Richmond and Gordon had anything to do with the matter. One of the gentlemen appointed was one of the most distinguished scholars in Scotland, and therefore, while recognising the perfect right and propriety of raising the general question of sub-inspectors, he rather regretted that the information which had been supplied to the hon. Member had been of a very gossipy and trivial character. The next question was as to evening continuation schools. He did not think that he need point further than to the report of the present year to show that the Department was fully alive to the great benefit of those schools, and that it took a pride in the progress which they were making. He hoped it would not be thought for a moment that the Department did not recognise the great work which was being done by the evening continuation schools, but as to the question as a whole he could not help thinking that the Committee was under a misapprehension. It was not the case, as the hon. Member for Falkirk appeared to allege, that Airdrie had been singled out for exceptional treatment. Nor was it the case that this was a matter which was mooted for the first time this year. It seemed to have been the first time this year so far as Airdrie was concerned, because presumably it had escaped the notice of the Department, but it was not a new departure of the Department this year, because, as a matter of fact, it was done two years ago. When evening continuation schools were still something quite new, nobody thought it worth while to raise the question, but when a great impetus was given to their establishment by the Evening Continuation School
    616
    Code, and the schools began to increase by leaps and bounds, then the Department was brought face to face with what was the legal position under the 67th Section. The argument of the hon. Gentleman had been that a public school meant any public or burgh school under the Act, but the view of the Department was that, inasmuch as the pupils at the evening continuation schools were "scholars," and not "children," they did not fall within the 67th Section, which applied to children only. He thought the Department was perfectly right in its interpretation of the law on this subject. Apart from technicalities, what was the meaning of the "necessitous" clause? It meant that where you had a poor district, there you should come to the assistance of such poor district. But if the Committee gave the interpretation which the lion. Member contended for, they would go in exactly the opposite direction, because evening continuation schools, generally speaking, were not to be found in poor districts at all, but in cities. They would therefore have the extraordinary result of places like Aberdeen described as a "necessitous" and poor district if they counted the scholars at the evening continuation schools. The Department, after all, could only act upon the advice it got, and, in his opinion, as he had said, they had been rightly advised. Moreover, it was exactly the same in England, because, in calculating the "necessitous" grant in England, the average attendance at the evening schools was not included. On the whole, surely the Department could not be blamed for doing what it was bound to do by law; still less could it be accused of having any spite against Airdrie or any other town. Having exhausted the matters of general interest he turned to some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Lanark. As to giving the number of presentations, he understood there was a difficulty, because there was now no individual presentations. The hon. Member complained of changes in the Code, and, of course, it was rather difficult to answer this, complaint. Changes, no doubt, there were from time to time, and one of the effects was to prevent very accurate comparison between the results of one year and another; but he could not help thinking that if there were no changes, the hon. Mem-

    617
    ber would say that the Department was not up to the times, and that there ought to be changes to meet the advance of educational opinion. It was quite obvious the Department could not satisfy both views. As to the hon. Member's remarks upon training colleges, of course the question of supplying trained teachers had always presented difficulties, and the Department had always been very anxious to increase the means of supply. On page 18 of the Report there was special reference to this subject, and the Commissioners drew attention to the changes made in the Code for 1895 which made it possible for the Universities to share in providing the supply by the institution of the classes of Queen's students. They went on to say this had been. taken advantage of to sonic extent, and they were prepared to entertain proposals in the same direction, showing t heir anxiety to do everything they could to facilitate the supply of trained teaching. Something was also said about secondary education in schools, and there again the hon. Member would agree with the general view of the Department that more good would be done by concentrating secondary education in a few well-equipped schools than by frittering away efforts over a large number of schools, many of which had not proper appliances. Then the hon. Member asked a question as to the arrears of school grants. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised the money, and it was arranged that it should be drawn upon, of course in the form of Estimates, as from time to time it was required by the Department, and as a. matter of fact this money was and had been all necessary to pay for the additional two shillings over and above the ten shillings capitation grant. Accordingly the answer he a few days ago on the Education Bill as to the exhaustion of the supply from which the two shillings came included the money winch was due to the Department under the head of arrears of grants; that was to say that by the end of this year that money would be entirely exhausted, and if they had not got the promise from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make up the two shillings in the future they would have been able to pay no more than the ten shillings capitation grant which Scotland got in common with England. This he thought completed the topics raised. ["Highland schools!"] Well, as to the
    618
    manner in which technical education had been dealt with there were Papers on. the Table of the House showing the past policy of the Department. What the Department had tried mostly to do was to induce burghs having command of secondary education funds to put them at the disposal of county committees so that they should be made available in the best manlier. No doubt in the Highlands the position was different, because it was really out of the question to bring technical education at the door of everybody. All that the Department could do was to try to get teaching at convenient and more populous centres, putting at the disposal of persons living in the Highlands such advantages as they were able to offer. But geographical difficulties the Department could not overcome, or hope to bring a certain form of education to everybody's door in the Highlands. As to the action of School Boards he had nothing more to say than had been said by himself and his predecessors, and he was sure the Committee. would not desire to be inflicted with it again.
    *MR. J. WILSONhad listened with a certain amount of regret to the remarks of the Lord Advocate, regret which he believed would be shared in all parts of the House, on the question of the suspension of grants in aid of evening, continuation schools. He had mentioned a town in his constituency, but the grievance was not confined to Airdrie. School Boards in other towns in other Scottish constituencies had been penalised by the action of the Department. Certainly the Government had shown in a. very remarkable way the feeling expressed by the Lord Advocate as "being fully alive to the value of continuation schools" in withdrawing grants with which. so much good had been done. The School Board of Airdrie was one of the first to adopt these schools, and by the aid of these grants free education had for the past 12 years been given to workmen whose education had been neglected in their earlier years. But suddenly, and without notice, the Scotch Education Department had chosen to withdraw this being advised that it was not competent for them to continue it. He maintained that they were not justified in their interpretation of Section 67, and painful though it was to him as a loyal supporter of the Government, he felt

    619
    it his duty to take a Division upon this change of policy. The town of Airdrie had recently had the particular attention of a Unionist Government, first by the disbandment, without inquiry, of a corps of 700 decent working men volunteers, and then by the disbandment of its evening classes by the withdrawal of the grant. As to the first of these two incidents, another opportunity would be found for discussion, but on the question of the continuation school grant he should invite an expression of opinion from the Committee. He had no expectation of a majority, knowing that Members would trip in to the support of the Government at the call of a Division, but he counted on the support of the intelligent opinion of all Scotch Members who had listened to the discussion. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    *MR. WYLIEagreed that the Education Department were legally and technically correct in withdrawing the subsidy for the evening schools. But the fact remained that the grant was supporting many schools with great benefit, and that schools were considered necessitous in former years which probably would not come strictly under that definition. Believing that the grant was of great benefit to many schools—not only to that at Airdrie, but to many in other parts of the country—he should support the hon. Member for Falkirk.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £601,833, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 29; Noes, 55.—(Division List, No. 247.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    7. £2,000 to complete the sum for National Gallery, etc., Scotland.
    *MR. WEIRsaid he noticed that there was an increase of £40 in the grant to the National Gallery. But there was also a sum of £11,040 set aside for South Kensington Museum. That sum, he understood, would not be required in consequence of the condition of South Kensington Museum—the inflammatory condition of the Museum. [Laughter.] He wished to urge on the right hon. Gentleman the necessity for going to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to this paltry grant to the National
    620
    Gallery of Scotland, and making an endeavour to extract from him some of the £11,000 that would not be required for South Kensington.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEunderstood that the appeal of the hon. Gentleman had been addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He saw the right hon. Gentleman in his seat, and if he had not been present during the speech of the hon. Gentleman, he would, no doubt, read his speech on the following morning —[laughter]—and give due consideration to what had been urged in it.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS VII.
    8. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £17,500, 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 1898, for expenditure in. connection with certain public works, and for improved communications, and other purposes, within the Highlands and islands of Scotland."
    *MR. WEIRcomplained that there was a diminution of the grant made for the steamboat services in the Highlands, which meant that the steamboat accommodation in these parts would be greatly diminished. He hoped the Government would be prevailed upon to reconsider their decision in the matter, and provide the necessary money to keep up this communication. He also complained that there had been reductions in the amounts allocated for the provision of piers and harbours, lighthouses and beacons, and other necessary works. The Ross-shire County Council, and the Orkney and Shetlands County Council had sent him petitions protesting against these reductions. The majority of the Ross-shire County Council were supporters of the Government. It was a Tory County Council, and not a Radical County Council, and yet its members condemned in the strongest manner the withdrawal of these grants. The Lewis District Committee had passed resolutions regretting the withdrawal of grants for piers awl road-making in the district. A large proportion of the cost had been promised, and free labour, both for making piers and roads, offered by

    621
    the people. The withdrawal of the grants had had a disturbing influence on the population. Gunboats had been sent there before now to maintain order, in. consequence of the treatment of the people by the landlords. It was not fair that local people interested in these improvements should have to put their hands into their pockets to provide plans, and make other preliminary outlays for piers, boatslips, etc., and after this expense had been incurred and the plans approved by the authorities to find that the Government would furnish no money to carry out the works. He hoped the money would be provided, and that the works would be pushed forward and finished. Under the Light Railways Act the Highland Railway Company would probably make an arrangement for the construction of a light railway across the island of Lewis, but they could do nothing until the Carloway Road was finished. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have some consideration for the little children in the Highlands who had to cross the moors in order to reach the school houses, and regretted that the money which was being devoted to the making of the necessary pathways had been withdrawn.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONreferred to the making of the Carloway Road across the island of Lewis. He believed it was originally anticipated that a sum of £15,000 would be necessary for this road, but it was now estimated that a sum of £8,000 or £10,000 more was required. He wished to know whether the Government intended to finish the road. The prosperity of the island depended chiefly on the development of the fishing industry, and if they could have a light tramway running from the west to the east coast it would do more to develop the fishing industry than anything else. He thought the reduction of the Vote was a very large one; the expenditure in regard to the minor roads had certainly been extremely useful in developing the resources of the Highlands, and they hoped also that the reduction in the case of piers and harbours would be reconsidered.
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he regretted very much the large reduction which was made on this Vote, as he believed the money had done a great deal of good in some
    622
    of the wildest and poorest parts of the country. He regretted also the sudden and unexpected manner in which the reduction had been made. He believed the road to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded was a thoroughly unsatisfactory undertaking; and to spend more money on it would have been foolish. But there were a great number of small works, such as the making of piers and foot-paths, which ought to have been continued. He would also point out that all the money voted for those works in past Sessions had not been so spent; and under the rules of the Treasury the balances had to be returned again. In 1894–5 the amount voted was £36,000; the amount actually spent, £23,000; and the amount surrendered to the Treasury, £13,000. In 1895–6 the amount voted was £39,000; the amount actually spent, £34,700; and the amount voted to the Treasury, £4,300. In 1896–7 the amount voted was £36,200; the amount actually spent, £27,200, and the amount voted £9,000. That meant that in those three years £26,000 out of the amounts voted had been given back to the Treasury. Under those circumstances the reduction of the Vote by £10,000 was most uncalled for. He thought that out of those savings the Vote should have been kept up.
    *MR. HEDDERWICKsaid that in the programme published by the First Lord of the Treasury on behalf of his Party in the General Election of 1895, one of the items was for public works on the west coast of Scotland. Of course, great weight was attached to the words of the right hon. Gentleman, and as a consequence, in many parts of the North of Scotland, relying on the words of the right hon. Gentleman, plans for public works were prepared, were submitted to the Department and approved of; but owing to the reduction in the Vote those works had practically been stopped. He asked the right hon. Gentleman some time ago when the Government proposed to institute the public works which the right hon. Gentleman alluded to in 1895, and the right hon. Gentleman referred him to the Vote in the Estimates; but on looking up that Vote he found that there was a considerable reduction. They were therefore entitled to demand some explanation from the Government of the reduction

    623
    of the Vote, especially as it was admitted by all those who knew the Highlands that the works which had been carried out under the grant were of a highly beneficial character to the Highlands.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that the Committee should remember what was the origin of this Vote. A. Commission reported that it would be desirable in the interests of the Highlands and Islands to undertake certain works of public utility, and an expenditure of about £170,000 was suggested. Parliament had entirely carried out that recommendation, and, indeed, more than the sum originally promised had been expended from year to year. The Estimate this year was £10,000 less than that of last year; but there would not be at all a corresponding decrease in expenditure. As to the general question of helping the Highlands and islands, the First Lord of the Treasury, in the speeches which had been referred to, said that it was a proper thing occasionally to use Imperial money for the development of outlying districts. That promise had been most amply redeemed. It was necessary to look beyond the amount of the particular Vote to what had been done generally for the Highlands. Last year the Government gave a guarantee for a railway, and this year they had promised an additional £20,000 a year to be spent by the Congested Districts Commission. As to the Carloway Road, only £12,545 of the Vote of £15,000 had been spent; but the question would have to be dealt with shortly, because the Estimates had been too small. Subhead C of £1,000 would be used for making minor roads and footpaths. As to the diminution of the sum for steamer communication, the Vote was originally given on the recommendation of the Highlands and Islands Commission that money should be spent for a limited period in improving the existing communications. But it was also recommended that if the experiment were found not to stimulate trade sufficiently to make the service self-supporting, it should be discontinued. Last year a Departmental Committee was appointed to inquire into the results of this steamer service; and the Committee reported that no great improvement in the trade of the districts served had been effected. They went into the matter, and resolved that so far as the direct service from
    624
    Oban to Stromness was concerned, it might very well be discontinued, because there were other ways of taking the mails. So far as the round route was concerned, they recommended that the service of two steamers going in opposite directions might be replaced by a service of one steamer, and, so far as the question of trade was involved, it was quite certain that they were amply justified in their proposal. There did arise the question of postal communication. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, of course, prepared to stand entirely to the promises he made in his Budget speech, and he had his authority to say that, without committing himself in any way, and entirely associating himself with the report of the Departmental Committee, he would be happy to consider the matter from the postal point of view. If he found it necessary, in order to come up to the letter or the spirit of his promises, to reconsider the scheme of the Departmental Committee, he would do so, keeping in view, of course, the question of postal communication, which was not directly before the Departmental Committee. He hoped that would be satisfactory to hon. Members.
    *MR. WEIRwas glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would endeavour to give effect to the promises he had made in connection with postal reforms. He wished to draw attention for a moment to the statement of the Lord Advocate, that £170,000 had been expended on works in the Highlands and Islands. He did not know whether he was aware that the Napier Report strongly recommended that a harbour should be made at Portnaguran, Lewis, at a cost of £30,000. Nothing had been done. A sum had been voted annually for piers, harbours, and minor works, but there was a want of energy, of effort, or of tact on the part of those who had the expenditure of the money. The money ought to have been spent. The Highlands were too poor to allow £10,000 to go back into the Treasury each year. They could not afford to have any money diverted from the congested districts of the Highlands of Scotland. They would have the question of "black" houses to deal with as soon as the Public Health Act became law, and every penny of the £20,000

    625
    would be wanted to build suitable houses for the people. He would like to ask the Lord Advocate what progress was being made with the Carloway Road.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid he could not tell the hon. Member exactly the number of men engaged on the works, but, as he understood, the works were in progress and that the money would be expended.
    MR. DONALD NICOLasked the Lord Advocate, in regard to the satisfactory statement he had made with regard to postal communication, whether they were to have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the same postal facilities on the West highlands as they had at present; whether they were to have, as they had before, a six days' service, or a three days' service, as was proposed in the report of the Departmental Committee?
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid he could not pin his right hon. Friend down to details. The matter would be considered in the light of the Report of the Departmental Committee and of the promise made in the Budget speech.
    *MR. HEDDERWICKsaid he could not regard the statement of the Lord Advocate as satisfactory, and by way of protest against this considerable reduction of the Vote, he begged to move its further reduction by £1,000. [A laugh and ironical cries of "Agreed!"]
    Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £16,500 be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 16; Noes, 55.—(Division List, No. 248.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY [24TH JUNE].
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES I897–8.

      CLASS V.
      Resolution reported:—
      1. "That a not exceeding £238,212, 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 1898, for the expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Mission
      626
      abroad, and of the Consular Establishments abroad, and other expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote."
      *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): May I be permitted to say a word with reference to the discussion that took place yesterday afternoon on the question of slavery in Zanzibar? It may be in the recollection of hon. Members that certain documents were produced by hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House purporting to be authorisations issued by the British Administrator at Mombasa with reference to the restoration of fugitive slaves. I should like to say what perhaps I ought to have said yesterday, that these documents were entirely new to Her Majesty's Government. We were quite unaware of their existence. We have never seen them. They were supplied to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and they were brought before the notice of the House. I take this opportunity of saying that, in the Foreign Office, we shall be very much obliged if hon. Members will give us copies of the originals of these documents in order that we may examine and discover their real purport. There is also another remark which I wish to make with reference to the assurances given by the Leader of the House last night—that we are already sending out specific instructions to our representative at Mombasa that no proceedings of the kind referred to should take place in future.
      MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid he was very glad to hear the statement the right hon. Gentleman had made. He was quite sure that if it had been made the previous night, it would have prevented several Members voting in the opposite Lobby.
      Resolution agreed to.
      2."That a sum, not exceeding £117,463, 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 1898, for rants in Aid of the Expenses of the British Protectorates in Uganda and in Central and East Africa, and under The Uganda Railway Act, 1896."
      3. "That a sum, not exceeding £64,876 (including an additional start of £1,950), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum

      627
      necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the let day of March 1898, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants in Aid, and Expenses incurred under The Pacific Islanders' Protection Act, 1875,' and certain Charges connected with South Africa."
      4. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,128, 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 1898, for Expenses in connection with the Suppression of the Slave Trade, and the Maintenance of certain Liberated Africans."
      5. "That a sum, not exceeding £34,100, 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 1898, for the Subsidies to certain Telegraph Companies."
      Resolutions agreed to.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  6. "That a sum, not exceeding £771,000, 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 1898, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Customs Department."
  *MR. WEIRsaid he had refrained from mentioning a matter in connection with this Vote last night, in the hope of receiving a communication from the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, to whom he had written.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): Is it not a question about a dog license to which the hon. Member wishes to refer?
  *MR. WEIR: Yes.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not be in order in raising that question on this Vote.
  Resolution agreed to.
  7. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,721,272, 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 1898, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department."
  *MR. WEIR: Now, Sir, I have my opportunity. [Laughter.] The case to which he wished to call attention was that of a small crofter, who wrote to say that for the last six or seven years he had kept a collie clog, and latterly the authorities had refused to exempt him from the tax. Last year he was pro-
  628
  secuted for not taking out a license, and was fined in all I8s. He made a similar application for exemption this year, and the officials of the Department had not even the courtesy to send him a postcard in acknowledgment. Apparently the officers of the Inland Revenue had been too zealous in some of these poor parts of the country. The man whose case he was referring to had been fined £1 and costs by a justice of the peace court. He understood that the Inland Revenue had Morrison's case under consideration, and h e only wished that the Department had attended to the business at an earlier stage. He wanted to know what was going to be done. Were people who were legally entitled to exemption going to be prosecuted time after time?
  MR. HANBURYdid not think that the hon. Member had made out a very good case. The hon. Member had tried to prove that the officers of the Inland Revenue had exceeded their duty in prosecuting this man, but the fact that he was convicted by the magistrate was pretty good evidence that they had only performed their duty. The man complained that he was not granted exemption in respect of his dog. Well, what were the cases in which exemption was allowed. A shepherd who kept one or two dogs for the purpose of carrying on his occupation, was entitled to exemption. That exemption this man could not claim because he had not a single sheep of his own, but only a cow, a heifer or a calf. Then a farmer could claim exemption in respect of one or two dogs attending cattle or sheep upon his own farm. But the evidence in this case was that Morrison's dog was of great service to another man in keeping stray sheep off his farm. The dog was, therefore, used on another man's farm, and was not attending the owner's cattle or sheep, and so exemption could not be properly claimed.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn," (First Lord of the Treasury)—put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at Five minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.