§ Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £10,802, be granted to His 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, 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Office, Expenses under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, and Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, including a Grant in Aid of the Congested Districts Fund."
§ Question again put. Debate resumed.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL
At the interruption of the Debate on this Vote I was endeavouring to explain why so many of my colleagues from Scotland were disappointed at being unable to take part in the discussion on the Vote for the salary for the Secretary for Scotland. There has been more desire on the present occasion to criticise that Vote than has been the case for a great number of years. The cause of that desire and the reason for the dissatisfaction which prevails is that there is a general feeling, not only among Liberal Members, but throughout Scotland generally, of disappointment and dissatisfaction at the recent administration of Scottish affairs. With regard to the Secretary for Scotland personally, of course we say nothing. We all recognise he was a most popular Member of this 972 House; personally he is all that could be desired, but politically he seems to have been entirely too weak for the strong officials of the Scottish Office. My first explanation of the dissatisfaction which prevails is that there appears to be no community of interests between the office of the Secretary for Scotland and the majority of representatives of Scotland in this House. Of course, the reason for our disappointment undoubtedly is that he is probably not aware of the opinions of Scottish Members with regard to certain methods of Scottish administration; and, although it has been ruled out of order to discuss on the present occasion the question of the House in which the Secretary for Scotland should sit, I must say it is a matter of great regret that there is not someone representing the Scottish Office in this House more in touch with Scottish Members than the right hon. Gentleman can possibly be whilst sitting in another House. I should like to give some indication—some reason—why we make complaint of the administration of Scottish affairs. In the first place, I may take the financial point. We complain that on all matters affecting the financial interests of Scotland there has been no real stand by the Secretary for Scotland in the interests of Scotland. When Ireland comes to be considered, millions are thrown across the Table at the mere suggestion of an Irish Member, but time after time Scottish interests have been completely sacrificed because we have no one at the Scottish Office who has been able to stand up properly to the Treasury in the interests of Scotland. Take the unemployed administration money to which Scotland was entitled. We know that large sums of money were lost so far as Glasgow is concerned simply by the failure of the Scottish Office to make proper demand and to put on pressure in regard to the amount to which Scotland was entitled. That is one question. Then I take the case of appointments, and there I complain that the Secretary for Scotland is governed too much by political considerations when he makes appointments in Scotland, whether it is the case of a doctor or an auditor, or whether it is the case of a higher post, such as the administration of the constabulary. I do not complain, as the Under-Secretary for the Board of Trade from his hilarity probably imagines, that the preference is given in favour of Liberals. By no means, my complaint is that the man must be a high and dried 973 Conservative before he has any chance of appointment in regard to the general administration of Scotland. I complain that the Scottish Secretary has shown himself to be that type of Radical which unfortunately exists at the present time who thinks that the only way to satisfy his conscience and to make a successful administrator is to do everything that his political opponents would desire. That is the case throughout Scotland, and it is true if you take appointments in any part of the country. Week after week I get complaints from Liberals throughout Scotland until I cease to take any interest in them to the effect that it is quite out of the question for them to have any part in the appointments in Scotland if their sympathies with the Liberal party are known.
I say that is a very remarkable and incredible state of affairs under the present Government and the present administration of Scotland. Hon. Gentlemen who sit on that bench who know anything of the administration of Scotland know that what I say is true. It was largely through the influence of my friends and myself that a vote of censure was prevented from being passed by the representatives of Scotland at their annual meeting complaining of this administration in the last few years, and I am only giving to the Committee now what we all think, and that is that the Secretary for Scotland has not taken that full advantage of his opportunities which he might have taken and of the enormous powers which he possesses with regard to administration and other matters. That has been one of the reasons why there has been disappointment on these benches to-day. I will take one case, of which there are many with which I will not trouble the Committee. I will take, for example, the expression of opinion on the part of the majority of Scottish Members that the headquarters of the Scottish Office should be in Scotland, and not in London. We sent a memorandum, signed by forty-two Members, who are a majority of the representatives of Scotland, asking that that simple reform should be carried out. The Noble Lord has the power to do that. He has the power by administration to carry out that report, made by the representative opinion of Scotland with absolute and complete agreement, and I think we are entitled to complain that more heed was not given to the representation which we made then, which has been disregarded by the present Secretary for Scotland. For 974 all these reasons I make a humble protest before this Vote is passed that the Secretary for Scotland is, in my opinion, greatly out of touch with Scottish opinion, as his appointments throughout have disqualified Liberals notwithstanding what their capacity may be. Therefore I say he has not shown that capacity and that enthusiasm in the Administration of Scotland or in regard to its legislation which the occupant of his office ought to show, and for these reasons I make a humble protest against this Vote.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. PIRIE
As the one who had the honour of introducing the deputation to which allusion has been made to the Secretary for Scotland, presenting the petition signed by forty-two Members of Parliament, which proposed that the Noble Lord should as an administrative act change the head- quarters of the Scottish Office from London to Edinburgh, I think I am justified in claiming the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I dwell upon that point. It is almost incredible, from the point of view of Members who hold Liberal principles, to have to believe that the Secretary for Scotland, professing to acknowledge the right of self-government and advocating a strong degree of Home Rule, should receive the deliberate and studied opinion of forty-two Scottish Liberal Members of Parliament requesting him to carry out a mere adminstrative act and treat it with contempt. The Secretary for Scotland was good enough to say at that time to the disappointed deputation that the government of Scotland was one conducted under abnormal conditions; but I should like to know what has been done during the years that he has been in office to render those conditions any more normal. Nothing whatever has been done, and I say that the question of this transference is not to be allowed to rest. He was told—I think I told him myself—that he need not imagine that by his rejection of this entirely justifiable demand that the matter ended. Indeed, we told him that, so far from that, the fight was only just beginning, and I think I speak on behalf of many of my colleagues when I say that the Scottish people are determined to see this question settled in the sense that the deputation demanded. Of all the Departments we look upon the Scottish Education Department as being the one that should be most closely in touch with Scottish feeling, and as the one of which we are justly proud. Besides that, we have ample 975 authority for this change—the authority of no less an educational expert than the present Secretary of State for War. It seems to me, however, that when Scottish Members get upon the Treasury Bench they seem to lose all sense of obligation as Scottish Members. I will, however, make exception in the case of two Members of the Government out of the four who are present. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] I will name them. One of them is the Chief Whip (Master of Elibank) and also the Gentleman who holds a dual post, including that of Lord Advocate, because he has not only to answer for his own Department, but for a Department for which he is not responsible, but which it is very desirable he should be responsible for.
But apart from this, when you have a Member such as the Secretary for War declaring, as he did in the preface to a book on Scottish educational reform, that of all reforms necessary for the efficacy of Scotch education the transference of the Department from Dover House to Edinburgh was the most urgent, surely you might have expected the Secretary for Scotland to give greater consideration to the demands of his Scottish colleagues than he did. That demand was backed up at the same time by Scottish educational opinion, as represented by a large deputation from Scottish School Boards, which waited on Scotch Liberal Members. The Secretary for Scotland must not imagine that this question is by any means settled. We do not intend to allow it to remain dormant. It is true he has to a certain extent taken some small steps to allay feeling on this point by the transference of a few members of the educational staff from London to Edinburgh, but that is by no means enough. We shall not rest satisfied as regards the Scottish Education Department until all notices emanating from the Scotch Education Department are sent out from Edinburgh. Then there are many of us who wish to take further steps. We should like to see the whole of Dover House transferred bodily from London to Edinburgh. We believe it would assist enormously in the good administration of Scottish affairs if Dover House was handed over to the Treasury to make the best bargain they could by selling it, and with the proceeds to establish proper Scottish offices in Edinburgh. We believe it is only by a system of devolution that proper efficacy and proper control of Scottish administra- 976 tion can be secured. For these reasons I am exceedingly glad that the opportunity, which so seldom comes of criticising Scottish administration, should have taken the form it has to-night.
§ Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON
I sympathise with the desire which has been expressed that the Scotch Bureaucracy should, at any rate, be made residential. In Ireland, where there is a strong bureaucracy, it, at any rate, lives in the country. We have a no less powerful bureaucracy governing us in Scotland, and that, unfortunately, is situated 400 miles away in London. If we are to be governed by a bureaucracy I should infinitely prefer to see it at home, and, therefore, I would not only urge the change of the Scottish Education Department from London to Edinburgh, which was carried by the Scotch Liberal Members at the time the Education Bill was before the Grand Committee, but I entirely agreed, and I have long advocated, that the Scottish Office itself should be in Edinburgh. All that is wanted here would be a small office for the convenience of the Secretary for Scotland and of the Scottish representatives. I do not believe in government by bureaucracy, which was, unfortunately, fixed upon Scotland at the time of the Union, and which has been developed at a rapid rate ever since and with considerable rapidity of late years. Therefore, I hold that the proposals which have been made to-night are eminently reasonable. The Debate to-night has shown the need for these changes, and, little as I believe in bureaucracy and much as I desire to see my country under the control of her representatives instead of a bureaucracy, I think the change which is proposed is one for the better, and I entirely sympathise with the views which have been expressed.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
I really think it is time that someone on this side of the House should rise to support the Government. I congratulate the Lord Advocate and the Chief Whip on having obtained some measure of confidence from the hon. Member, and regret that the Solicitor-General so early in his political career has so entirely lost the confidence of such veterans as the hon. Members (Sir H. Dalziel and Mr. Pirie).
Sir HENRY DALZIEL
I did not refer in any way to the Solicitor-General. On the contrary, I have the fullest confidence in him.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
That shows the usefulness of the intervention of the Opposition, but it still leaves me in wonder as to what ails the Solicitor-General and the Under-Secretary of the Board of Trade. I agree with the hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Dalziel) that we should not complain if it was true that all the preferment was given by the Government to their opponents in Scotland, but I do not at all think that is the fact. I think that at any rate as far as legal ability is concerned they have invariably chosen the best man.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
The hon. Member's comments were quite general, and at any rate there has been some preferment given which cannot be said to have been given to political opponents. I understand the view of those who would sever the Educational Department, which I agree is one of the most, if not the most, important Scottish Department, from all direct contact or control by those who are the representatives of the Scottish people. But when Parliament is sitting you have the Lord Advocate, the Secretary for Scotland, and all the Members for Scotland in London, and the Department would be severed from all communication with these Gentlemen except by correspondence. Many Scotch people would prefer to have it in London and some would prefer to have it in Glasgow, but it would not be a satisfactory position if one could not communicate with the Education Department unless one went to Edinburgh, Glasgow, or Aberdeen, as the case might be, or perhaps to Dundee. I am certain anyone who has had experience in connection with the Education Department in Scotland would find it much more convenient to go to Dover House and Whitehall than to any office they could have in Scotland.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I was unable to quite separate the part of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Pirie) which dealt with the 978 Education Office from that which dealt with the Scottish Office. If hon. Members desire to have the Education Office in Scotland, that point should be raised on the Education Vote.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
We on this side of the House are well pleased to find that there is such a spirit of independence indicated on an occasion like this, but there is no Motion before the House, and no chance of giving practical effect to their protests. I am not surprised to find that that protest is made under circumstances when there is no opportunity of giving effect to their views by taking the opinion of Parliament.
§ Colonel GREIG
I have listened to this Debate, and I have come to the conclusion that practically there is only one solution for these difficulties which we in Scotland suffer from at present. I have very much sympathy with the feeling expressed by the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) and others. I have watched the proceedings in regard to the Scottish Office narrowly, and I have come to the conclusion that these difficulties are not brought about through the fault of Scottish administrators or administration. They are simply the result of the system which exists at the present time. This House is a congested district. In one quarter it has taken the form of a distinct and independent Nationalist party, which, irrespective of all other considerations, is held together by working on these lines. Sometimes that effects objects for their own country which are beneficial, and at other times it leads them into courses which some of us may regret, and which may seem to us to be detrimental to the general interests of the Kingdom. I should very much regret if a Scottish party were formed to take such a line as that. It may be that we do not press sufficiently our own particular grievances. It may be that Scottish administrators think that we do not sufficiently press them. If that is so, I believe it is simply due to the fact that we think there are higher interests to which we must pay attention, and that it would be unfair to the general interests to press these particular matters in regard to Scotland. Suppose you were to transfer the Scottish Office to Edinburgh, it would then be out of touch with this House. The solution of the whole question to my mind—and I say it unhesitatingly, having considered it from every point of view, and having before me the successful experiments in our 979 Dominions beyond the Seas—is to have provincial legislatures in every portion of the Kingdom.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is now raising a very large and interesting question, but as it involves legislation it cannot be discussed now.
§ Colonel GREIG
I shall not discuss that matter further. We have had a discussion to-night of Scottish matters, but when they are brought forward what do we find? We find that the enemies of liberty on the other side of the House throw in objections with the view of embarrassing the Government. Although I sympathise very much with what has been said by hon. Gentleman around me, I shall vote with the Government to-night.
§ Mr. W. H. COWAN
I cannot see why there should be any hesitation on the part of the Government to remove the Scottish Office to Edinburgh. The Government have received a petition signed by forty-two of the elected representatives of Scotland urging them to take this step. I think I am not speaking too strongly when I say that they have treated that petition with contempt. The Scottish Members do not mean to allow that demand to be treated with contempt. There is a very strong and widespread feeling in favour of the removal of the Scottish Office to Edinburgh. Really it is a ridiculous thing and an anachronism that the administration of Scottish affairs should be conducted in London. We do not see why Scotland should be treated as a conquered country. When Scotland came into the Union it was a free and independent State. It came in on a footing of absolute equality, and for a long time the administration of Scotland was conducted by the Minister entrusted with it, in consultation with the Scottish representatives, and in accordance with their wishes. What we now ask is that the Scottish Office should be transferred to Edinburgh, and controlled from Edinburgh, and should be administered in sympathy with the views of the Scottish Members, and not in accordance with the views of the English majority in the House of Commons. We do not see see why in a House of 670 Members, where we have only a representation of some seventy Members, we should labour under such a disadvantage as this. It is because we think that the transfer of the Scottish Office to Edinburgh is the first step 980 towards obtaining control over Scottish affairs and their administration by the Scottish people and their representatives that we shall strongly press this point.
§ Mr. RAINY
One question which I would like to ask the Lord Advocate is whether when he speaks in this House on Scottish affairs he may he taken as speaking for the Secretary for Scotland? When the Town Planning and Housing Bill was going through Committee there was a certain Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Munro Ferguson), of which I had charge, and it was withdrawn on the specific assurance of the Lord Advocate of the day, now Lord Shaw, that the Local Government Board for Scotland would be materially strengthened. I was given to understand not that it meant that architects would be appointed, but that there should be an addition to the Local Government Board for Scotland. So far as I know no such official has been appointed. I would be glad, therefore, if the Lord Advocate would give us an assurance that when he makes a statement it does bind the Secretary for Scotland, and that we can count upon the assurance given.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSON
I believe that we are discussing the salary of the Secretary for Scotland. I desire entirely to dissociate myself from some of the hon. Members who have attacked the Secretary for Scotland. Of course, the Secretary for Scotland who could please all the Scottish Liberal Members was never yet born. He is an impossibility. The Secretary for Scotland may have his faults, but he has passed some very good measures, particularly the Education Act of 1908. While English Members have been struggling with three Bills he passed a measure which ought to be a model for the English Bill when it comes on. Reference has been made to the removal of the Scottish Office, and if we got Home Rule I suppose it would be in Edinburgh. But so long as the Scottish Members attend Parliament at Westminster the Scottish Office ought be as near to them as possible. When you get Home Rule take it where you like, I am finished with it; I do not want to go to Edinburgh. So long as Members from Scotland attend here, however, it is absolutely necessary that they should be in touch with the Scottish Office. Take some of the Offices in Scotland—the Office of 981 the Local Government Board in Edinburgh, for example. There was a little question about the appointment of a doctor in my Constituency in the Highlands.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I really must point out that there is a separate Vote for the Local Government Board, and the hon. Member cannot discuss that question.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSON
I was only about to show the undesirability of removing the Scottish Office to Edinburgh. It was about eighteen months before the question of the appointment was settled, though it might have been dealt with in three months if the Local Government Board Office had been in London. I entirely dissociate myself from the Vote against the salary of the Secretary for Scotland. Scottish Members on the Front Bench have been very highly approved by my hon. Friends, but they do not approve of the absent one. They have had opportunities of attacking him before, and it would be better if there was some one here to defend him. I wish to support his salary, and none will be more grateful than I if he can see his way to help forward measures for Scotland. It is quite clear that there is somebody else anxious to get the post, but I do not see anyone better qualified for it than its present occupant.
§ Mr. BARNES
I have no desire to cut down the salary of the Secretary for Scotland, but I do wish to join in the expression of the wish that he should be a little more in touch with Scottish Members. I have had occasion, with several Scottish Members, to go to the Scottish Office, and I have found that, after representations have been made on various questions, precious little attention has been paid to them. A deputation of Scottish Members went to the Scottish Office some four or five months ago, and, as I think, they made out an unanswerable case for something being done for the better administration of the Public Health Act in Scotland. We put the case to the Scottish Secretary that potato diggers and poor agriculturists who come from Ireland every year were housed under shockingly bad conditions. Names were not given, but the localities were made known where people had been actually found in hen coops, or places of that sort. There was scarcely room to move about the floor, and there these poor persons had to sleep. The answer to us was that the matter was in the province 982 of the county council. Nobody denied that. Here was a case where the county council had not administered the Act which it was within their particular province to administer. Although we pressed the Scottish Office on that occasion, as we had done on previous occasions, we got absolutely no satisfaction. Something was said about officers of the Scottish Office being sent to the districts, but, so far as I know, not a single word has been heard from that day to this as to any action taken by the Scottish Office with a view to protecting those people. I quote that as one instance to the Lord Advocate and ask him whether he could not see his way to the more efficient working of the Scottish Office in that particular matter. I desire to refer to another matter which has been dealt with by the Scottish Trades Congress, by the Glasgow Trades Council, and I think by other trades councils as well, as to the fact that no Scottish representatives have been appointed on the Trades Committee and Commissions that have been set up.
§ The CHAIRMAN
This is a question we have had up before, and the Secretary for Scotland does not seem to have been responsible for the appointment of the Committee.
§ Mr. BARNES
I am aware that the Home Office has made those appointments, but my point is that the Scottish Office has been asked on several occasions to make, as we thought, proper representations to the Home Office with the view either of getting that Scottish representation or a separate Scottish Committee set up to inquire into some of these matters. We put it to the Scottish Office in regard to home work that there are special conditions appertaining to that home work in consequence of the peculiar social conditions, shall I say, peculiar housing conditions, and otherwise in Scotland different from those in England. There, again, we have got no satisfaction and no explanation why the representations that we have made to the Scottish Office have not been given that consideration to which we think, at all events, they have been entitled. The complaint we are putting up now is not that the Scottish Office is not in Edinburgh, though I for my part should prefer that. I think the hon. Member who spoke last would have a bad quarter of an hour if he made the same speech in Edinburgh or Glasgow as he did here.
§ Mr. BARNES
I was trying to save the hon. Member's feelings, because I do not want to suggest that he would have a bad quarter of an hour in Aberdeen. Our demand at this moment is not for Home Rule, although most of us are in favour of it, but that the proper representations made to the Scottish Office here in London have not had that fair and sympathetic consideration to Which we think they are entitled.
§ Mr. EUGENE WASON
I recognise this as a demonstration of the new Scottish Home Rule Association. I do not take that to myself, and I should not have intervened if it had not been for one or two of the speeches I have heard. The question under discussion is that of the salary of the Secretary for Scotland. It is an old story that the absent are always wrong, and he is not here to defend himself. I can only speak myself as being one of the oldest Scottish representatives here. As one who has known the Secretary for Scotland for twenty-five years, I can say that I have never yet approached him on any subject connected with Scotland that I have not received his most sympathetic and respectful consideration. Aberdeen is divided on this question. We have the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Pirie) on one side and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) on another. I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) said with reference to the deputation which waited on the Secretary for Scotland respecting the conditions under which certain industries in Scotland were treated, and especially the potato industry, of which I know a good deal, in Ayrshire.
I do not think my hon. Friend quite accurately stated the fact, though the inaccuracy was doubtless unintentional. The Secretary for Scotland said that if any Scottish representative brought to his notice any case in any district in Scotland where the conditions required special notice, he would at once have inquiry made by the Local Government Board. It would be out of order for me to go into the question of Home Rule for Scotland. As a former chairman of the Scottish Liberal Members, I count them all my friends. We are all working for a common object and a common end, and I wish them to understand, so far as I am concerned, that, while I am absolutely in favour of what is called Home Rule for Scotland, I 984 do not think we shall ever attain our object if we endeavour to make ourselves an independent Nationalist party on the same lines as the Irish Nationalist party or the Labour party, and I will tell the Committee why. The conditions under which Scotland is governed at the present are absolutely and totally different from those which prevail in Ireland. If Irishmen had had the same influence in the government of their own country as the Scottish people have had with regard to education and religion, you would never have had a Nationalist question in Ireland at all. I do not think any man who has been at the head of the Scottish Office has done better than the present Secretary for Scotland, and I do not think that any Scottish Member has any reason to complain of the action of Lord Pentland since he has occupied that position.
§ Mr. WATT
I desire to join the small but select band who wish to bring before the Committee the shortcomings of the Secretary for Scotland. My first regret is that he is not in this House to face the seventy-two Members sent here by the electors of Scotland. It is a misfortune for Scotland that the Secretary for Scotland is in the other House. For many years it has been a part of Liberal policy to advocate that the Secretary for Scotland should be in the House of Commons. There is hardly a Member of the Front Bench who in past days has not participated in Votes of Censure on Conservative Governments for putting the Secretary for Scotland in the House of Peers.
§ The CHAIRMAN
That question cannot be discussed. We are not dealing now with the question of who holds the office of Secretary for Scotland. He is not responsible for his own appointment. We can only deal with matters for which he is responsible. The question as to whether or not he is entitled to sit in either House is not one that we can discuss at the present moment.
§ Mr. WATT
Very well, Sir, I will forsake that and get to the point. But I do say that if he is to be in the other House we ought to have an Under-Secretary in this House. The misdeeds of the right hon. Gentleman that I desire to call attention to are that representations have been made on five occasions that Scotland should be represented on Commissions by men and women whose names have been submitted. It was the right hon. Gentleman's duty to select from these names. 985 One Commission that was appointed, that of the Street Trading of Children——
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must know that he is out of order, because the Commission was not appointed by the Secretary for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman must be aware by now of the fact that he is not entitled to discuss this.
§ The CHAIRMAN
No. I have already ruled on that, and warn the hon. Member that his remarks are irrelevant.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL
The Debate on the whole has been exceedingly interesting, but so far as I have been able to ascertain, the only whole-hearted enthusiastic defender of the Secretary for Scotland is my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate. He has defended the Secretary's administration with a great amount of zeal. The net result of this Debate will be that, so far as the opinion of Scotland has been expressed, it has been an overwhelming censure on the administration. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] If we go by numbers it has been so. Let those hon. Members who think otherwise get up and answer the points which have been made. I claim I am perfectly right in all I say, that the majority of the Scottish Members who have taken part in this Debate have complained of the administration—of the want of sympathy, activity and enthusiasm, and of the failure to take advantage of opportunities on the part of the Scottish Office. I venture to say that we represent the views of our constituents, and I invite any of my colleagues to attend the meetings of the Liberal Scottish Association and make a defence of the present Administration, and they will receive a response that will surprise them. We do not complain personally of the Noble Lord. He means well, but he has absolutely shown lack of strength in his administration of the Scottish Office, and he has allowed the permanent officials, who, although men of 986 great ability, do not hold with our political sympathies, to rule and carry on the administration. No right hon. Gentleman on the Front Government Bench has attempted to reply to the criticisms made upon that administration. I do not complain of the Lord Advocate. No doubt he made a very good case out of very bad material, but he has not ventured to reply in this instance. I see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury in his place. I would like to know the real inner mind of the Parliamentary Secretary on some of the criticisms that have been made. I should like him to get up and tell us the points on which he thinks the Secretary for Scotland has acted with the greatest degree of satisfaction and enthusiasm. There is one request I would make to the Parliamentary Secretary, and that is that he will, so far as he is able, convey a true and faithful account of the Debate to the Secretary for Scotland.
§ Mr. URE
Lest the Committee might come to the conclusion that there was nothing to be said for the Secretary for Scotland, because I did not rise to reply in the Debate, let me say that while I am very thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) and the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Pirie) for what they have said of myself, I hope they will not think me ungrateful if I say I dissociate myself entirely from the complaints they have made of my Noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland. I have observed that only two concrete charges have been made gainst my Noble Friend. One was by my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen, who complained that the whole Education Department was not removed, bag and baggage, from Dover House to Edinburgh, or Aberdeen, or Glasgow, or some other popular centre in Scotland, at the request of hon. Members. Well, if any good reason was shown for the removal, it would have been removed, but no good reason has been shown. If there had been a Home Rule Parliament in Scotland, if the ideal of my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen had been realised, no doubt there would be a great deal to be said for transferring the whole of the Scottish Education Department to Edinburgh; but as long as the Members for Scotland sit in the Imperial Parliament in London, surely it is a more convenient arrangement that the Scottish Education Department should be in London.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I must remind the right hon. Gentleman I have already told the Committee that that question should be discussed on the Education Vote.
§ Mr. URE
I bow to your ruling at once. The only other concrete charge was that made by the hon. Member for Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) that nothing has been done in response to the complaints of a deputation that drew attention to the condition of the workers in the potato fields. Very careful attention was paid to the complaints of the deputation, and they were asked to bring under our notice any cases they knew of, yet not a single case was mentioned. We ourselves knew of no case, and in order to discover if there were any we ordered the Local Government Board to circularise the county councils to see if any complaints were made with a view to having them instantly attended to. My hon. Friend's complaint, therefore, is entirely without foundation. Many other general charges were made in the course of the Debate, but it is impossible to meet general charges when no particular cases are given.
§ Mr. MOLTENO
It must not be supposed that silence gives consent to the various charges which have been made against the Secretary for Scotland, as the Member for Kirkcaldy seems to think. I entirely disagree that any of those charges are justified by anything which the Secretary for Scotland has done. It is impossible to satisfy everybody, but I must say that the cases which have been brought forward are really very trivial. With regard to general policy Scotland is deeply moved on the land question, and the Secretary for Scotland is entirely in sympathy with what Scotland wants upon this question, and he has taken the proper line on the land question. Already the Secretary for Scotland has introduced two great Bills into this House—two of the greatest Land Bills ever introduced for any part of Great Britain, and it is not his fault that they have not become law. He has dealt with the education question and brought it to an issue, and he has successfully passed an Act which is now working admirably. While the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary for Scotland we saw Scotland, at the last election, return a larger number of Liberal Members than she has ever returned before.
§ Mr. MORTON
May I remind the hon. Member that more Liberal Members were 988 returned in 1885 than at the last election. I regret that I have received no answer from the Lord Advocate to the points I raised. I hope that the Government, on the advice of the Lord Advocate, will see that we have a better representation officially in this House in the future than we have got now. I do not care what happened at the last election. I think the local affairs of Scotland ought to receive more attention.
§ Sir JOHN JARDINE
I rise to express my concurrence with what has been said as to the action of the Secretary for Scotland in regard to the greatest measure we have had for Scotland for many years—I allude to the Land Bill——
§ The CHAIRMAN
The action of the Secretary for Scotland in regard to legislation has nothing to do with Supply, and the hon. Member must confine himself to administration.
§ Sir JOHN JARDINE
Would it be out of order if I referred to the provision made in Scotland for the growing of tobacco? We are looking forward to the people of Scotland being put in as good a position as regards the growing of tobacco as the people of Ireland. It would revive an old industry in the Lowlands, and is a matter which we should very much like to see the Secretary for Scotland carry out.
§ Mr. MACKINDER
I beg to move, "To reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for Scotland by £50."
In view of the general and very severe censure of the Secretary for Scotland expressed on the other side of the House, I think it would be most unsatisfactory if hon. Members opposite had not an opportunity of showing the reality, or the contrary, of the strength of their opinions. I therefore propose to test that by moving a reduction of the salary of the Secretary by £50.
§ Mr. MORTON
I am desirous of supporting this, because I want to support what my hon. Friend (Sir John Jardine) has said with regard to the growing of tobacco. Two years ago when a Bill was passed for Ireland the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us he was quite willing to do for Scotland what he was doing for Ireland. I want to know why the Secretary does not take the matter in hand and get at least as much for Scotland as was given to Ireland—£6,000 for five years. There is ample proof you can grow tobacco in 989 Scotland, and it would employ a great amount of labour.
§ Sir WALTER MENZIES
The tone of this Debate has not redounded very much to the credit of Scotland——
§ Sir WALTER MENZIES
I humbly hope that the Committee will now come to a satisfactory decision. Hon. Members who have said so much against the Secretary for Scotland can follow up their words by voting against his salary.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL
The hon. Member for the Camlachie Division (Mr. Mackinder) has promised us the opportunity of expressing our opinions in the Division Lobby. We are grateful to him, but let me point out that we should support his Motion for very different reasons to those with which he moved it. Our object is not to turn out the Government, which would be the result if we voted for this Amendment. A General Election in a time of truce and during pleasant weather would be most unpleasant. For my part I think the purpose of this Debate has been achieved. It has shown the Government that there exists among their most loyal supporters a feeling of discontent with the administration of Scotland, and we hope and believe that the expression of that discontent will have good effect and that in future more attention will be paid to the opinions of representatives of Scotland than in the past. If it is not after this warning, then on the next occasion we may be glad to avail ourselves of an opportunity afforded by the hon. Member.
§ Mr. G. YOUNGER
I am anxious lest the Secretary for Scotland should be terrorised and intimidated into departing from the very wise decision he came to against the request of hon. Mmebers. I do not propose to vote to reduce the Noble Lord's salary, as I believe he was perfectly right in refusing to transfer the Scottish Office to Edinburgh. This appears to me to have been simply a Scottish Home Rule demonstration. The Debate has not tended to increase my respect for those who desire to see Scottish Home Rule, and it does not in crease my desire to see a Parliament in Edinburgh, which I believe would be something like a glorified town council, and very different from the representation from Scotland which we have in this House, which I believe would be perfectly 990 and thoroughly effective if Scottish Members acted together more closely and thoroughly than they do now. I am bound to say that at the beginning of the Debate to-day I took part in a Vote for the reduction of the Scottish Secretary's salary on a very definite question of administration—a question on which we had every reason to make a formal protest, and that was the only manner in which we could register it—but a general complaint against the administration of the office is one I cannot agree with. We are precluded from discussing legislative changes, and but for this fact we might have something to say, but we are not entitled to do so. In regard to administration, however, I am bound to say that when I have gone to the Secretary for Scotland I have always found him treat me with the utmost courtesy and give consideration to what I have put forward. Under these circumstances, having no active objection to any administrative act, I cannot support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. I can understand that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to avoid a Vote on this question, and I think the Noble Lord was not far wrong in an interjection he made a few minutes ago. which was a Parliamentary opinion and thoroughly justified. For these reasons I cannot join in this Vote.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE
I regret that unfortunately I cannot vote with both sides of my party on this occasion, and I therefore intend to support the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Mackinder). The reason I do so is in order to be consistent. During this afternoon we had a great many criticisms of the Secretary for Scotland. I knew nothing personally against him in any way. He is an old friend of mine, a most excellent soldier, and an ornament to another place, but we on this side have been criticising his administration the whole afternoon, and I am only sorry that some of those Members other than the Members of the new National party for Scotland were not here to help us in getting some measure of justice for the crofters of Scotland.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE
I am sorry to say I did not vote. Apparently certain Members, quite rightly, have come here to defend the Secretary for 991 Scotland, and one (Sir W. Menzies) said nothing had been brought against him. The night is not done yet, and we shall, I suppose, hear something brought against him. It is, however, curious to find a Notice of Motion to reduce the salary of the Secretary for Scotland by £100 by the hon. Member who says there is nothing against him.
§ Sir W. MENZIES
When I put the Motion down I was under the impression that it would be possible to discuss education. I was told it would be impossible, and therefore without withdrawing the one proposal I put down another. I shall no doubt have an opportunity in the next hour and a half of moving it.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE
In fact the hon. Gentleman wants to have his cake and eat it. What it means is apparently that we have here a sort of reconnaissance in force, perhaps not in sufficient force, by the new Nationalist party to move a reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary, and, so far as I can gather, they are going to be satisfied with threats. The sort of idea is that everybody is of the same calibre as the Secretary for Scotland and the Vatersay crofters. I mean that threats are no use at all to Vatersay crofters, and I do not think, honestly, they are much use against the Government unless they are accompanied by something else. Why not have the pluck to go into the Lobbies against the Government? Let them follow the example of hon. Members for Ireland instead of always going into the Government Lobby when it is necessary. I hope we shall see hon. Members voting for this reduction.
§ Mr. MACKINDER
In view of what the hon. Member (Mr. Younger) has just said, I wish to add to what I said just now that our object in proposing and supporting this reduction is in no sense identical with the object of hon. Gentlemen opposite in complaining with regard to the Secretary for Scotland. Our attitude, of course, is one of criticism of the Government. None the less, we shall be disappointed, after all we have heard, if hon. Gentlemen opposite are not ready to support their words by action. I think, without in the least identifying either myself or, if I could, the hon. Member (Mr. G. Younger) with the reasons which have been urged from the other side, we are entitled, while urging 992 our own objections on general grounds of the administration of the Government, to see what amount of reality there is behind the threats.
§ Mr. WATT
The action of the Secretary for Scotland is made with the approval of two hon. Members opposite. No stronger argument could be adduced in condemnation of it. Concrete instances have been asked for as to the views of the Secretary for Scotland, and I desire to give one of what I think is an error in administration. A position has been vacant, namely, that of Commissioner of Lunacy in Scotland. If there is one post which the Secretary for Scotland could well fill it is that of Commissioner in Lunacy.
§ Mr. PIRIE
I do not desire to give a silent vote on this question. I feel obliged to vote in favour of the Amendment, and I wish to say why I shall do so. I shall do so as a protest against the present system, of which the Secretary for Scotland is the head. In common with other Members of the House, I take the opportunity of saying that no more popular or courteous Gentleman has ever been in this House, but it is not a question of popularity or courtesy. It is a question of principle. The Government seem to imagine that because Scotland is largely represented by Liberal Members there is, therefore, nothing to criticise in the administration of Scotland. The Liberal Members were elected not because of the admiration which the people have for the Scottish Office, but on account of the views they hold on the constitutional question with which the country is face to face. Very few of the Scottish Members who are Members of the Cabinet take the trouble to attend on the occasions when Scottish matters are discussed. I think they should spare a little time to look after Scottish business and interests. Scotland would fare very much better if she had fewer Members on the Front Bench. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) told us Scottish opinion might be considered as counting for nothing. As a protest against that remark I shall vote for the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That item A be reduced by £50 in respect of the salary of the Secretary for Scotland."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 146.939
|Division No. 103.]||AYES.||[8.1 p.m.|
|Adam, Major W. A.||Eyres-Monsell, B. M.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Attenborough, W. A.||Fell, Arthur||Pirle, Duncan V.|
|Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)||Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Fleming, Valentine||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Barnston, H.||Fletcher, J. S.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)||Gibbs, G. A.||Rice, Hon. Walter F.|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Gilmour, Captain J.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Royds, Edmund|
|Bird, A.||Hamersley, A. St. George||Rutherford, Watson|
|Boyton, J.||Hickman, Col. T.||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Brassey, Capt. R. (Banbury)||Hillier, Dr. A. P.||Tryon, Capt. George Clement|
|Butcher, J. G. (York)||Hope, Harry (Bute)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Campion, W. R.||Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)||Waring, Walter|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Cave, George||Kimber, Sir Henry||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Clyde, J. Avon||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Coates, Major E. F.||Knight, Capt. E. A.||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Colefax, H. A.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)|
|Collins, G. P. (Greenock)||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh|
|Dairymple, Viscount||Mackinder, H. J.|
|Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||Magnus, Sir Philip||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir J. Dewar and Mr. Whyte.|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||Menzies, Sir Walter|
|Duke, H. E.||Mitchell, William Foot|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Hancock, J. G.||Radford, G. H.|
|Allen, Charles P.||Harcourt, Robert V. (M[...]trose)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Anderson, A.||Harmsworth, R. L.||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.||Haworth, Arthur A||Reddy, M.|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury E.)||Hazleton, Richard||Richards, Thomas|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Heath, Col. A. H.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Hogan, Michael||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Bentham, G. J.||Holt, Richard Dunning||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Hooper, A. G.||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Bowles, T. Gibson||Hudson, Walter||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Seddon, J.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hunter, W. (Govan)||Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Illingworth, Percy H.||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)||Smith, H. B. (Northampton)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Johnson, W.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Byles, William Pollard||Jewett, F. W.||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Cameron, Robert||Joyce, Michael||Tennant, Harold John|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Thomas, J. H. (Derby)|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Leach, Charles||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Chapple, W. A.||Levy, Sir Maurice||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Clough, William||Lewis, John Herbert||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Wadsworth, J.|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)||Macdonald, J M (Falkirk Burghs)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Cowan, W. H.||M'Callum, John M.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Markham, Arthur Basil||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Crossley, Sir W. J.||Millar, J. D.||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Cullinan, J.||Molteno, Percy Alport||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Dawes, J. A.||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.||Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St Pancras, N.)||Muspratt, M.||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Doris, W.||Nussey, Sir Willans||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||O'Dowd, John||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)|
|Falconer, J.||Parker, James (Halifax)||Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N E.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Pearce, William||Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)|
|Gibson, James P.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)|
|Gill, A. H.||Pointer, Joseph||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Glanville, H. J.||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Glover, Thomas||Price, C. E (Edinburgh, Central)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.|
|Greig, Colonel J. W.||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Hackett, J.||Pringle, William M. R.|
Question "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
|Division No. 104.]||AYES.||[11.20 p.m.|
|Adam, Major W. A.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)||Gretton, John||Pirle, Duncan V.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Proby, Colonel Douglas James|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Hambro, Angus Valdemar||Quilter, William Eley C.|
|Barnston, H.||Hamersley, A. St. George||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)||Heath, Col. A. H.||Rawson, Colonel R. H.|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish||Hillier, Dr. A. P.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Bird, A.||Hills, J. W.||Rice, Hon. W.|
|Brackenbury, H. L.||Hope, Harry (Bute)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Brassey, Capt. R. B. (Banbury)||Horner, A. L.||Rutherford, Watson|
|Carllie, E. Hildred||Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Cave, George||Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Keswick, William||Strauss, Arthur|
|Clay, Captain H. Spender||Knight, Capt. E. A.||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Dairymple, Viscount||Law, Andrew Boner (Dulwich)||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-||Lewisham, Viscount||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude|
|Duke, H. E.||Llewelyn, Major Venables||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Eyres-Monsell, B. M.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Fell, Arthur||Mitchell, William Foot|
|Forster, Henry William||Morpeth, Viscount||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mackinder and Marquess of Tullibardine.|
|Gilmour, Captain J.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Goldman, C. S.||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Goldsmith, Frank||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Allen, Charles P.||Hancock, J. G.||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Anderson, A.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Harmsworth, R. L.||Radford, G. H.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)||Rainy, A. Rowland|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Reddy, M.|
|Bentham, G. J.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Richards, Thomas|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hayward, Evan||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Brigg, Sir John||Hazleton, Richard||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hogan, Michael||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Holt, Richard Durning||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hudson, Walter||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Hughes, S. L.||Seddon, J.|
|Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid.)||Hunter, W. (Govan)||Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Illingworth, Percy H.||Shortt, Edward|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Johnson, W.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Chapple, W. A.||Lambert, George||Thomas, D. A. (Cardiff)|
|Clough, William||Levy, Sir Maurice||Thomas, J. H. (Derby)|
|Collins, G. P. (Greenock)||Lewis, John Herbert||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Corbett, A. Cameron||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Wadsworth, J.|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||M'Callum, John M.||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Crawshay-Williams, Ellot||M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Crossley, Sir William J.||Masterman, C. F. G.||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Cullinan, J.||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Menzies, Sir Walter||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Millar, J. D.||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Dawes, J. A.||Molteno, Percy Alport||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)||Mooney, J. J.||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Whyte, Alexander F.|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Falconer, J.||Muspratt, M.||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Furness, Stephen||Nolan, Joseph||Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)|
|Geider, Sir W. A.||Nussey, Sir Willans||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Gibson, James P.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Gill, A. H.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)|
|Glanville, H. J.||O'Dowd, John||Wood, T. M'Kinnon (St. Rollox)|
|Glover, Thomas||Palmer, Godfrey||Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)|
|Greig, Colonel J. W.||Parker, James (Hallfax)||Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.|
|Guest, Major||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Pointer, Joseph|
|Hackett, J.||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. M.|
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.