Lords Sitting of 4 December 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Yorkshire Registries Act (1884) Amendment* (14).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Consolidated Fund (No. 1)*.
Committee—Report—Representation of the People (5).
Third Reading—Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act Amendment* (8), and passed.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.—(No. 5.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.—(No. 5.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Kimberley.}
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Motion, but he rose to make a few remarks. Their Lordships were about to go into Committee on a Bill which was to add 2,000,000 of voters to the electorate of the Three Kingdoms. Taking this Enfranchising Bill in conjunction with the very drastic Redistribution Bill which had been introduced in "another place," then he thought they could only characterize the change to be thus effected as nothing short of a peaceful, but great, revolution. A very great change was being made, and he noticed, with anxiety and some apprehension, that the effect of those two measures, in the long run, would be practically to disfranchise the middle classes who were enfranchised by the Act of 1832; and he, for one, looked upon that change with all the greater anxiety—he would not say alarm—on account of the Socialistic tendencies of the times, evinced not only as regarded foreign countries, but more or less in the case of our own country. They had only to look on the legislation of the last 14 years or more to see how many Acts of Parliament had been passed, bearing a Socialistic stamp. It was a well-known fact that some, of the ablest writers looked with grave concern upon this new development of ideas; and he could well recollect a conversation which he had in 1881 with one of the most thoughtful and able statesmen, whose recent loss, without distinction of Party, every Englishman deplored—he meant the late Postmaster General. In 1881, before the introduction of the Irish Land Bill, he had a conversation with Mr. Fawoett on this subject, in the course of which he (the Earl of Wemyss) said that, from what he had seen, the measure was likely to be one of a very drastic and Socialistic character, and one that would seriously affect the rights of property, if not property itself. What was Mr. Fawcett's reply? He said—

  573
  "Do not suppose that I approve of this kind of legislation. I believe it to be wrong; I believe it can lead to no good."
  Then he went on to use these remarkable terms—
  "Depend upon it, the days of the old Party distinctions between Whig and Tory, Liberal and Conservative, have for ever gone by; and that the next great division of Parties in this country will be into Socialists and Anti-Socialists."
  As somewhat confirming that view, he (the Earl of Wemyss) had recently read, in The Pall Mall Gazette, an account of an interview with a rising statesman of the Conservative Party—he meant Lord Randolph Churchill—and what he gathered from the interview was, that, in the opinion of the noble Lord he had mentioned, the Conservatism of the future might possibly be, so far as the noble Lord was concerned, of a Socialistic and Communistic character. Conservative Communism was certainly a startling anomaly—he might even call it a hybrid monster—and, he hoped it would never receive the approval of the Conservative Party; but, at a time like the present, he might be allowed to point out that there was a regular Socialistic organ in this country. It called itself The Organ of the Social Democracy, and, in a heading of a paragraph, in a copy which he held in his hands, in large letters, he read—
  "Send your shillings and pence for the propaganda fund to Mr. Win. Morris."
  In the same journal, he saw a paragraph which he would commend to the notice of the noble Duke on the Liberal Benches (the Duke of Argyll). It referred to the crofters, and was headed "The Campbells," not "are coming," but "are going." He pointed to that, to show the Democratic-Socialistic tendency of the age. He should like the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) to take that paper and study it; and he could assure him that he would find it contained, if not very amusing, at least very instructive literature. He (the Earl of Wemyss) was bound to add that if the old Whigs could only realize what was going on in the ranks of Society in England, they would hesitate before supporting any more of this kind of legislation that had lately been passed, and would fall back upon the lines of Adams, Smith, Ricardo, M'Culloch, and other writers on politi-
  574
  cal economy, whose teachings ho hoped had only temporarily fallen into oblivion. They might be recalled from Jupiter or Saturn, to which he trusted they had been only temporarily relegated. If they did so, he thought the result would be that they would put their foot down against any further application of Socialistic doctrines. The question they had now to ask—and it was why he introduced these remarks on this occasion—was, How would the great body of new voters think and act? When this new division of Parties took place, would all the new voters place themselves on the side of the Socialists, or of the Anti-Socialists? He hoped not on either, but that there would be a division of opinion among them as there was among their Lordships. Indeed, he knew that amongst the working classes there was, already, a marked division of opinion, and that they met and argued as Socialists and as Individualists. Having said this, he had only to add that both existing Parties were agreed in regard to the Bill now before them. There were no difficulties as to the extension of the franchise—the only difficulty had been in regard to procedure; and as to procedure—as one of those who had last Session been very anxious for compromise—he could only express the great satisfaction which he, in common with many others, felt at the arrangement which had been come to, and that a great Constitutional crisis had been thereby avoided. The events of the last three weeks were certainly of a novel character. During that time they had seen trial by jury, to a great extent, abolished by the Judges, and Parliament superseded by a Caucus of ex and in Cabinet Ministers; they had seen Party Leaders setting Party interests aside in the interest of the common weal. He himself was not a strong Party man, and he was very glad to find that for the interest of the public good Party interests could, if necessary, be set aside. The arrangement was certainly as startling in its novelty as any transformation scene, and what its effect would be on the Constitution he did not know, and could not pretend to say; but he thought that there were occasions on which it would be most desirable that Party should be set aside in the interest of the country, and that a Cabinet Caucus might advantageously deal, for example,

  575
  with great questions of national defence, and other matters affecting the unity and strength of the Empire. The difficulty in which they found themselves placed upon questions connected with the national defence often arose because the Leaders of both Parties knew perfectly well what was required, but they were afraid to come down and propose it, because they dreaded that the other side would immediately say that they asked them to support a Vote for bloated armaments, and perhaps they would be told that they were advocating a Jingo policy. Where questions of Imperial importance were concerned, he thought they could not do better than enter into some such combination as had been entered into with regard to this question of the extension of the franchise and the redistribution of seats. It was not, however, for the purpose of obtruding himself upon their Lordships that ho gave utterance to those candid remarks. They were making history now, and he was anxious that he should not be misunderstood, as he had been last Session. What he had suggested then was very much what had been done since. He found that some of his Conservative Friends were under the mistaken impression that, last Session, he had wished their Lordships to pass the Franchise Bill right off before they actually had the Redistribution Bill before them. Ho hoped, however, that he had made it perfectly clear last Session that, although he was anxious to go on with the Franchise Bill, he would not consent to pass it into law without their Lordships having some hold or other upon the Redistribution Bill. He only wished them to proceed to Committee in order that the Redistribution Bill might be introduced at a later stage. After the Bill had once been rejected, he had seen that it was impossible that it could not be accepted in the Autumn Session without conditions; and, speaking in his own county on a public occasion, as early as August, he said it appeared to him impossible that English gentlemen having acted as their Lordships had done, should take the Franchise Bill as if it had been presented to them at the point of the sword; and he added that, if their Lordships were asked simply to accept the Bill without any condition as regards redistribution, their Lordships
  576
  could only give one answer, and that was—"Is thy servant a dog that he should do this thing?" But, fortunately, the difficulty had happily ended; they had got a spirit of compromise which, had led to this union between the two Parties and an arrangement of their difference. He rejoiced that a grave Constitutional crisis had been happily avoided; and as a humble occupant of the Cross Benches, he desired to express his heartfelt thanks to the Government and the Leaders on both sides, for the spirit of conciliation and compromise which they had shown. While saying that, however, he was bound to add that the fact that a crisis was imminent, and to a certain extent had arisen, was due to the way in which the Government had at first endeavoured imperiously to force through Parliament an incomplete measure of Reform, and was not duo to the Constitutional action of their Lordships' House.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he would leave his noble Friend (the Earl of Wemyss) to settle his differences with his Conservative Friends, and would ask leave to say two or three words before their Lordships went into Committee. By this measure 2,000,000 persons were about to be enfranchised; and so far as he was concerned, and, he was sure so far as the great majority of their Lordships were concerned, it was with the most hearty goodwill on their part that they saw this enfranchisement about to take place. He thought that when this was the case, it was a great pity to talk about Socialistic tendencies, and to speak of these new voters as if we were afraid of them. He had no doubt they would make quite as good electors as those who had already been admitted to the franchise; and he was of opinion that in admitting those persons to the franchise the less their Lordships prophesied of evil from that admission the better it would be for all parties. When this franchise measure was last before the House, he stated with pain that he was compelled to vote in favour of the Amendment to postpone the further progress of the Bill until the whole scheme of the Government had been produced. On that occasion he was subjected to a very severe attack from the noble Earl who hailed from Mid Lothian (the Earl of Rosebery). He regretted the absence of his noble Friend. On that last occa-

  577
  sion of this Bill being before their Lordships, that noble Earl referred in a sarcastic tone to his (Lord Brabourne's) position in that House, and made an allusion, the irreverence of which was probably excused by the House on account of its wit. Had his noble Friend been present that night, he (Lord Brabourne) would have offered him his sincere condolence; for he perceived, by the ordinary channels of information that morning, that his own coronet had, since making that speech, become so painful to him that he was willing to abolish the hereditary principle sooner than that so intolerable a burden should descend to his children. He (Lord Brabourne) understood that it had been stated that the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition would vote against the Amendment of a noble Lord on his own side (Lord Denman) dealing with the subject of woman suffrage. If that was so, he (Lord Brabourne) was inclined to believe that the noble Marquess would not be against the principle of that Amendment, but that he merely wished to express the opinion that it was not an opportune moment to bring the question forward. That, he thought, was an intelligible standpoint to take lip. The question, however, was one which had come into great prominence of late years; and he hoped it would not be long before the right of admission of duly qualified women to the suffrage would be recognized. If, therefore, he and others forebore to press their views upon this and other points at this moment, they must not be precluded from doing so at a more favourable opportunity.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, as a consistent Liberal, it did not seem to him to be a desirable thing that a measure of this great importance should be settled, not by Parliament, but by private arrangement between the Leaders of the two great Parties in the State. The compromise on this matter reminded him of what was said of the Peace of Amiens—"It is a Peace of which everyone is glad, but of which no one could be proud." He spoke as a consistent Liberal, for he defied anyone to cite any vote, speech, or publication of his inconsistent with his life-long attachment to the great principles of civil, religious, and commercial liberty. Indeed, as regarded the measure before
  578
  them, he had, as long ago as 1867, years before the conversion of the present Government to it, pressed upon their Lordships the justice and expediency of extending to the agricultural labourers, as, at least, equally deserving of it, the franchise, which they were then widely conferring upon the householders and lodgers in the boroughs. He had then shown from official statistics how little lower in education, and how much better as regards crime, immorality, and drunkenness, the agricultural labourers, on the average, were, mainly, no doubt, from their being so much more decently lodged than the inhabitants of towns, hundreds of thousands of whom had, with their families, only a single room to live in by day as well as sleep in by night. He congratulated the Government on their doubtless sincere, but somewhat tardy, recognition of the agricultural labourers' just claims to the franchise, and congratulated the noble Marquess and his Friends on their still tardier, but doubtless equally sincere, conversion. As a consistent Liberal, ho earnestly hoped that the Liberal Governments of the future would not convert this compromise into a precedent for superseding the deliberate action of Parliament, and preventing the discussion and amendment of the Bills brought before them. Measures might hereafter be rushed through the House, as he feared was likely to be the case in regard to this measure, with defects in the wording. It would, he thought, be a great misfortune if this Bill were passed without any verbal Amendments, because the want of clearness of expression in legislation would lead to difficulty and doubt, and to much costly litigation.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he had not intended to say anything on the Motion for going into Committee; but a few words had fallen from the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Brabourne), who, he believed, had correctly interpreted the views of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury), which made him feel that, personally, at all events, it was desirable that he should add a caveat to the remarks of the noble Lord. He was quite aware that it was desirable, on all accounts, to pass the Bill substantially in the same condition in which it had come before their Lordships; and for that reason he, for one, would be averse to suggest the introduc-

  579
  tion of any new matter which might endanger the Bill; but he agreed with those who thought that the time was rapidly approaching when the claims of a very important section indeed of the community—namely, duly-qualified women—must receive the attention of Parliament; and it was no use putting the question aside by a bad joke. He considered all the arguments that had been used, whether logical or practical, really pointed to the admission of duly-qualified women. There was very little, indeed, to be said on behalf of the large class they were now about to enfranchise that could not be said with equal effect on behalf of duly-qualified women. In making these remarks he did not wish to raise any discussion, but simply to express his own opinion in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Lord, and he should make no Motion on the subject.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Preliminary.
  Clause 1 (Short title of Act) agreed to.
  Extension of the Household and Lodger Franchise.
  Clause 2 (Uniform household and lodger franchise).
  LORD BRAMWELL,who had on the Paper a Notice to move, in page 1, line 13, the insertion of the words "not in a borough," said, that the object of the intended Amendment had been to dear up a doubt arising from its having been forgotten that all boroughs were in counties; and so a voter in a borough might claim to vote for a county, which could not have been intended. But there was no question of principle. After a certain amount of litigation, and an Act or two to amend, a meaning would be put on the clause. He meant his Amendment for the good of the Bill; but as the Government objected he would not move it. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) was quite mistaken in supposing that the learned Judge had done anything contrary to law. What he had done was quite in conformity with the practice.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would point out to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) that it was provided that the word "county" should
  580
  bear the same interpretation as it did in previous Acts dealing with the Re-resentation of the People; and these previous Acts expressly excepted the boroughs that had Parliamentary representation of their own.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that the explanation might be right, but that it would be better that the clause should be so worded as to need no explanation. With reference to a remark made by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) with reference to the action of a certain learned Judge, that that learned Judge had done what had been done not only hundreds, but thousands of times before. He (Lord Bramwell) also had some personal interest in this matter; because he had done the same at least 150 times himself.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that, as their Lordships no doubt anticipated, the Government were not disposed to agree to the insertion of this large Amendment on their scheme of enfranchisement. He should, however, follow the example of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon), who had just now alluded to the subject, by declining to go into the question. He had only one remark to make with reference to what had been said by that noble Earl. The noble Earl said he saw no reason why duly-qualified women should not be admitted to the franchise. By that he supposed the noble Earl meant that ho considered the question as to women who paid rates settled, and that a large and not unimportant section—the women who happened to be married—should have no consideration for their claims. As to the question itself, he did not wish to express any opinion personally, but only to point out the distinction that was drawn between single and married women; and he hoped their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, his noble Friend (Lord Brabourne) had correctly interpreted what he had said the other evening, as not implying any unwillingness to consider the principle of female franchise, but simply as an intimation that he would vote against the intended Motion. His own judgment leant certainly to some relaxation of the law in this respect, though he was not prepared to go all the lengths to which some of the advocates of the proposal

  581
  went. But he agreed with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) that this was not a suitable time—not suitable in the interests of women's franchise itself—to press the Amendment, because the House of Commons had clearly resolved not to agree to such an Amendment; and if it were inserted, when the Bill went back to the House of Commons, many would be compelled to vote against it, who otherwise might not be disposed to do so. Therefore, there was no advantage to be gained by pushing the Amendment; and the effect of so doing might rather tend to injure the chances of success of the movement for the extension of the franchise to women.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Tenure of house by office or service not to invalidate vote) agreed to.
  LORD DENMAN,who had given Notice of the insertion of new Clauses A, B, C, and D, on the first being read, said, he could only propose this clause as the House was pledged (by Speech from the Throne, June 1859) to pass a well-considered measure, and the late Lord Lyttelton proposed such a clause in l867. It was said that his Lordship did not write a legible hand himself; but he (Lord Denman) had great respect for some men who could neither read nor write—their memory was so good. A huntsman named John Shirley, quite illiterate, saved Sir Richard Sutton much money by keeping 30 horses and 90 couples of hounds at Burton for the same that 30 horses cost at Lincoln. Such men, for the sake of a vote, would soon learn to read and write; and he had seen, in a school on the borders of the county of Tipperary, in 1836, a man aged 60 learning to read and write. Since the last harvest he had had two letters from men who worked for him in County Galway, written in the best possible handwriting, and expressing the best possible sentiments. Voting papers might be used generally if this clause were carried; but to avoid delay he would withdraw it.
  Moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following clause:—
  (Disqualification for inability to write.)
  "Clause (A.) From and after the expiration of six months after the passing of this Act, no one shall be entitled to vote at the election of a Member of Parliament who cannot write a legible hand.
  "The Lords of Her Majesty's Privy Council are hereby authorised and required to frame and issue, within three months after the passing of this Act, regulations to carry the last preceding enactment into effect."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that it was impossible to agree to clauses of this kind. The noble Lord proposed, for instance, that no one should vote who could not write a legible hand. He (the Earl of Kimberley) had in his official capacity considerable experience of illegible handwriting, and he could wish that people could be made to write legibly. But he thought the application of the clause would be very much wider than was contemplated by the noble Lord.
  Clause negatived.
  "Clause (B.) No person who has been three times convicted of drunkenness shall be entitled to be registered as a voter in the next election after the last of such convictions."
  LORD DENMANsaid, he had tried to carry it in 1867, as some persons were many times convicted of drunkenness; but he would not press it.
  Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  "Clause (C.) During the continuance of the Contagious Diseases Acts no person receiving a registered woman or women as a lodger or lodgers shall be entitled to vote during the continuance of the harbouring of such registered woman or women."
  LORD DENMANsaid, the clause was framed to prevent the franchise from being in bad hands; but it was rather the subject of such a Bill as passed the House of Lords as to brothels last Session, so he would withdraw it.
  Clause negatived.
  "Clause (D.) All women not legally disqualified who have the same qualifications as the present (or future) electors for counties and boroughs shall be entitled to vote for knights of the shire and burgesses for boroughs at every election."
  LORD DENMANsaid, the clause was framed because, in the Bill in "another place," a marked exclusion of married women existed, and in cases where a woman was ill-used, as in the case of "Greenhill v. Russell," alluded to in the debate on the Custody of Infants Bill, 1859, July 10. Sufficient time might have been given to insert this clause, and if it had been rejected for it to have

  583
  been reinstated by this House, and to have been made the subject of a free conference between the two Houses of Parliament, Lord Fitzgerald's Infants Bill might, in the Select Committee, deal with the subject. In the 43rd year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth Parliament met on October 27, and sat, with short intervals, till December 19; but the noble Marquess, whose ancestor had, in 1605, been on a Committee of this House for public piety, had pledged himself to expedite this measure, on the principle of which all their Lordships were agreed, therefore he would not press it.
  Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Prohibition of Multiplication of Votes.
  Clause 4 (Restriction on fagot votes) agreed to.
  Assimilation of Occupation Qualification.
  Clause 5 (Assimilation of occupation qualification), agreed to.
  Supplemental Provisions.
  Clause 6 (Voter not to vote for county in respect of occupation of property in borough); Clause 7 (Definition of household and lodger qualification and other franchises, and application of enactments relating thereto); and Clause 8 (Definition of "Representation of the People Acts," and "Registration Acts,") severally agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Definition and application of Rating Acts).
  LORD BALFOUR,in moving an Amendment with the view of providing that in Scotland householders paying less than £4 of rent should not be put on the Valuation Roll, but should be enumerated in a separate list, said, he objected to the proposed inclusion in the County Valuation Rolls of Scotland of persons whose holdings were of less value than £4. They would run the risk of being rated, which they were not at the present time; besides, that would be adding the trouble and expense of keeping a Roll made for purely local purposes to the inconvenience of those who had to deal with it, and doing it not for local, but for Imperial purposes. If the clause were carried as it stood, the expense of preparing and printing Valuation Rolls would be largely increased. It would not be fair to throw on local funds
  584
  what ought to be an Imperial burden. The insertion of householders under £4 would lead to a great deal of inconvenience and expense, and would not serve any purpose that could not be equally well served by a separate list. In connection with the subject he had received a letter from one of the Assessors of Aberdeenshire, in which he pointed out that there were at present 25,000 names on his Roll, and that this Bill would require the addition of 12,000 more names, which would be of no use for rating purposes.
  Amendment moved, in page 6, line 11, after ("book") insert ("in Scotland a separate list, instead of a separate column, may be added for such entries.")—{The Lord Balfour.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was unable to follow the technical arguments of the noble Lord, because he was not personally acquainted with the mysteries of Scotch valuations. A similar Amendment, however, had been brought forward in the other House, where it had been fully considered and negatived without a division. He understood there was a difference of opinion among hon. Members from Scotland on the subject, some thinking it would be better to have a separate list and others not; but, after considering all the circumstances, the Lord Advocate had come to the conclusion that it was better that all the names should be given in the Valuation Roll. He might simply add, as reference had been made to the Assessor of Aberdeenshire, that the Assessor of North Lanark had written a letter in which he expressed the opposite opinion.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, his Amendment was only permissive; and therefore, even if it were accepted, the Assessor of North Lanark could still follow his own course.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Saving); Clause 11 (Construction of Act); Clause 12 (Repeal of certain superseded sections); and Clause 1.3 (Commencement of Act) severally agreed to.
  Schedules agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTION.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLwho had the following Resolutions on the Notice Paper:—

  "1. That in the event of two or more Lords rising to address the House at the same time, the Lord Chancellor or Chairman of Committees, whichever then presides, shall call on one of them to speak, and the Lord so called upon shall speak, unless the House do order otherwise:

  "2. That Private Bill Committees shall consist of three, and that all applications to Lords to serve upon them shall be in writing, and delivered at their residences:

  "3. That the House he lighted always at the commencement of Public Business and continue lighted until the adjournment, unless the Lord Chancellor or Chairman of Committees gives a different instruction:

  "4. That no Lord who has a Motion or Bill upon the Paper shall rise to bring it forward out of its precedence:

  "5. That where the House permits reply to any Lord upon his Motion or his Bill, the debate shall on no pretence be continued after the reply is over:

  "6. That a false roof be introduced, similar to that in the other House of Parliament, to correct the present difficulty as to hearing,"

  said: My Lords, I rose 10 days ago to explain these Resolutions, when I was stopped by the noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack, on the ground that the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale) was unable to attend. The noble and learned Earl did not inform me, at the same time, that, if my Notice stood first another day, the Government would put on important Business to precede it, or I might not so readily have yielded to him. The present hour may be thought inconvenient; but it will, perhaps, enable us to dispose of one Resolution without proceeding to the others. Let me meet at once the question which arises; whether the juncture is a proper one for considering the Standing Orders, or amending them. My Lords, on more than one ground it is specially a proper one. In the course of last Session a noble Earl now absent (the Earl of Rosebery) moved for a Committee on the modes of adding to the efficiency of the House. He did not carry a majority, in some degree because his Motion became entangled with the question of Life Peerages. But his remarks, which were most animated, elicited an obvious disposition to listen to, and even act upon, the views which he brought forward. Before the effect
  586
  of that speech has died away, since nothing in the way of Parliamentary exertion is immortal, the subject ought, if ever, to recur. In the next place, during the autumn there has been a vehement commotion, in order wholly to supersede this House, or radically alter it. Periodicals, before remarkable for talent, have abounded in schemes which rival one another in their crudeness and audacity, but which have still disturbed and exercised the public mind upon the subject. There is something further. Within a fortnight, a Motion highly adverse to the constitution of this House has been debated in "another place," and sustained by a minority of 70. No one who has watched the history of our age will deem that minority an unimportant one. The principle which I submit is that a threatened institution should correct itself, remove irregularities or blemishes, bring order into its arrangements, and thus destroy the pretexts for attacking it. Internal changes which are just may be the best security against external changes which are mischievous and violent. But even if, as some maintain—to-night I offer no opinion on that point—external changes are desirable, it is well to see what definite improvements are attainable without them, so that they may not be invoked for work which easier and safer as well as quicker operations can accomplish. Now, the gravest charge preferred against the House, by quarters whose criticism is of value, is the inadequate attendance, except on Party conflicts and remarkable occasions. It is observed that the Roll is about 500, the number generally present about 50. All these Resolutions are more or less directed to remove the causes by which such absence is produced, or by which it can, in some degree, be justified. These general expressions may suffice to explain and to uphold the general position I have taken. I will now confine myself to the 1st Resolution. In June, 1870, it was brought by me before your Lordships, in terms very similar to those I have adopted. It was supported powerfully by the noble Marquess who now leads the Opposition (the Marquess of Salisbury). It was supported by the late Lord Clanricarde, who had no little weight in this Assembly, not only as the son-in-law and representative of Mr. Canning, but as a statesman of rare

  587
  acuteness, eminent ability, considerable patriotism, and whose acquaintance with the Business of the House where he had sat from early youth was perfectly unrivalled. The Lord Chancellor of the day, who had not long been nominated, and rather underrated his capacity to preside over the House, was not inclined to favour it. It was withdrawn, to be renewed; but I was much blamed by some for not having divided. It would long ago have been renewed, had it not appeared desirable to connect it with other propositions kindred in their nature and identic in the object which they aim at. Now the evil is undoubted. The House will not require pictures which everyone can draw himself, or has already glowing on his memory. Not long ago the noble Earl the Leader of the House (Earl Granville) and the noble and learned Earl who occupied the Woolsack under the late Government both rose together. After much confusion the House had to divide. One vote determined the priority. We were all placed in the invidious necessity of publicly arraying ourselves against one of the competitors. It is to avoid necessity of this kind—as well as upon other grounds not now before us—that noble Lords are tempted to be absent. The only point which merits even slight discussion is the remedy. The noble and learned Earl who sits upon the Woolsack is well acquainted with the House and with its Members. He entered Parliament in 1847. He would inspire confidence in the decisions he arrived at. The new procedure would begin under the most favourable auspices. The fact is, no loss or injury could accrue to anyone. If he is called on he speaks; if he is not called on, he is nearly certain to speak later. In that case he has a better chance of guiding the division. In both Houses we look for the greatest efforts of persuasion about midnight. Should the Lord Chancellor be led into an erroneous choice, by the last words of the Resolution, to which the noble Marquess opposite attached great importance in 1870, the House might supersede his judgment. But that, of course, would rarely happen. If we have no confidence in the Lord Chancellor, he ought not to preside at all; if we have, he ought to be entrusted with at least a portion of the attributes essential to the function of
  588
  presiding. No doubt the Lord Chancellor may be considered as appointed by a Party. But the Speaker of the House of Commons is appointed by a Party, although the process is more hidden. Have we not heard of the great conflict in 1885 between Mr. Abercromby and Mr. Manners Sutton, when all the resources of the Government and Opposition were exerted to secure the victory of one over the other? The defence of the proposal is that there is no other remedy for a striking inconvenience. Freedom of debate does not exist, when noble Lords can only take a part in it under humiliating circumstances, at the risk of yielding when they ought not to yield, or of insisting on their claims when those claims ought not to be insisted on. The actual system may have been adapted to a former age, when the House was far more limited in number, and when there may have possibly been usages for settling precedence of this kind which have not been transmitted to us. It ought not now to be endured, and would not be endured in any other Chamber. I will now conclude by moving the 1st Resolution.
  Moved to resolve,
  "That in the event of two or more Lords rising to address the House at the same time, the Lord Chancellor or Chairman of Committees, whichever then presides, shall call on one of them to speak, and the Lord so called upon shall speak, unless the House do order otherwise."—[The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he wished, in a few words, to state his objections to the proposal of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had made a comparison between their Lordships' House and the House of Commons; and he endeavoured to show that the Speaker of the House of Commons was in the same position as the occupant of the Woolsack. To his (the Earl of Redesdale's) mind, there was a great difference between the position of the Speaker and that of the Lord Chancellor. The latter was nominated by the Queen; while the other was elected by the Assembly over which he presided. The Speaker was the Representative of the House, and was shut out from taking any part in the proceedings of the House of Commons; and as he could not take part in any debate, he was, therefore, in the Chair as an impartial judge to decide

  589
  between one side and the other, whereas the Lord Chancellor had as much right to discuss any question which came before the House as any other Peer. These were points which required great consideration. The noble Lord had also proposed that the same power should be conferred on the Chairman of Committees. He would admit that the same objection did not apply in that case, because the Chairman of Committees was appointed by the House, and, as Chairman, could not take part in a debate in Committee. He thought, however, that it would be very awkward to have different powers on the Woolsack and in the Chair. Then, again, by the Resolution proposed, other persons who might be in the Chair would have the same power, which would thus be given to a very wide body. The occasions on which the grievance mentioned by the noble Lord arose were extremely rare. It occurred once last Session; but for a very long time before there had been no case of the kind. He could not, therefore, support that proposal.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, it often happened, in important debates, that a number of noble Lords rose at the same time to address the House, and no one knew who was to speak, or who was to decide the point of precedence. There was, therefore, a real inconvenience attending the present practice; and it would be more consistent with the dignity of the House to amend it. The present proposal was about the mildest remedy that could be devised; and, on the whole, he thought the balance of argument was in favour of the change suggested by the Resolution. He thought their Lordships should be not only ready, but anxious, to accept changes which public opinion seemed to prompt.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he thought that, on the whole, things worked very well in respect to that matter at the present. They heard a great deal in the present day of the principle of natural selection and the survival of the fittest; and the Rules of their Lordships' House might, therefore, find considerable favour among modern philosophers. The position of the Lord Chancellor in that House was entirely different from the position of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Not only was the Lord Chancellor appointed by the Crown, but he might possibly be called upon to exer-
  590
  cise the power proposed to be vested in him by that Resolution before he bad acquired any experience of the House. It would, therefore, be unfortunate if their Lordships hastily adopted the Resolution.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he did not consider that the inconvenience which had been specially referred to was of so marked a nature as to require interference by the proposed Resolution. At the very moment when his noble Friend (Earl Beauchamp) rose, he (the Earl of Longford) himself rose with him; but he had no difficulty in yielding, that he might have the pleasure of listening to his noble Friend's remarks. But there were some real defects, such as the want of a proper writing-room; and if the noble Lord would include them in a future Motion it would have his support.
  Earl GRANVILLE and Earl FORTESCUEboth rising together, the former gave way.
  EARL FORTESCUE,in supporting the Resolution, said, he did not think that any noble and learned Lord who attained the dignity of the Woolsack was likely to have any difficulty in soon mastering the Rules and procedure of the House. Notwithstanding the personal courtesy of Peers to each other, inconvenience arose when a number of them got up at the same time, many of them quite unconscious of the fact that anyone else had risen, perhaps from a Bench behind them.
  EARL GEANVILLEsaid, that, upon the whole, he was opposed to the Resolution, and the more so in consequence of the arguments which had been made use of in the course of the evening. The noble Lord who moved the Resolution (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) had alluded to the considerable number of the minority who voted the other day on a Motion respecting the House of Lords. He (Earl Granville) did not, however, think that that minority, whatever was its number, was influenced in any degree by the consideration whether one Peer—as, for example, himself (Earl Granville)—should be heard first, or afterwards. No doubt the motive they had was that they thought the House of Lords, from its constitution, was very often found not to be in perfect harmony with what was generally the character of the House of Commons. That might

  591
  be a great evil, but it was one to be corrected by one of two ways—either by heroio and drastic measures; or, on the other hand, by good sense on the part of both sides of the House, of which they had had a remarkable instance in that short Session. He thought, therefore, they need not trouble themselves with, regard to this particular question, and with the proceedings which took place in the House of Commons the other day. He entirely agreed with what had been stated by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees in regard to the position of the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor being in every way different. The House of Commons elected the Speaker. He was their creature; and, being their creature, they invested him with powers more or less arbitrary, as they thought fit. The Lord Chancellor, on the other hand, was named by the Queen; and there was a natural jealousy on the part of the House—he thought a proper jealousy—to subject itself to the arbitrary ruling of a person in whose nomination they had had no share whatever. A noble Earl had objected to the difficulty which might arise of a Lord Chancellor being appointed who knew nothing of the orders of the House. He (Earl Granville) owned that this argument did not weigh in the slightest degree with him. He had the greatest possible respect for all the successive Speakers of the House of Commons, and some of them were very remarkable men; but he was perfectly certain that the Speakers in their Lordships' House would not have to give way to them either in ability or in character. They did not get any inexperienced Lord Chancellors in their Lordships' House. There had been no Lord Chancellor within his memory who had not had the greatest possible experience of the Forms in the House of Commons, which was naturally a good training for any position they might take in their Lordships' House. He had not the slightest doubt the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, or the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns), would be perfectly impartial in executing their duties; but they would be placed in a very difficult position, and in a very inconvenient one, if the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, having made a most eloquent Party speech in defence of the Government,
  592
  should be allowed to select the noble Lord who was to answer him. A noble Lord said that it would not cause much inconvenience; but he (Earl Granville) could not agree with him. They had seen two or three noble Lords get up to speak; the House generally called for one. Sometimes, however, there was a division of opinion; but there was almost a unanimity of opinion as to which noble Lord should be preferred. He owned that he sometimes had a suspicion that their Lordships had been lately influenced in preferring a short speaker to one who was exceedingly tiresome. But the general principle of their selection was to select a speaker quite irrespective of Party feeling, and sometimes they saw one Conservative Peer follow another Conservative Peer, all being actuated with the desire that the man whom, on the whole, the House desired to hear was he who would contribute in the most forcible manner to the elucidation of the argument. He, himself, had yielded just now with the greatest pleasure to the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue), who had risen to speak at the same time, and he thought he had not suffered from being obliged to follow him. In reference to the case which had been mentioned as having occurred between himself and the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns), he had to say that his experience in their Lordships' House had been considerable, and this was the only instance he remembered of a question of this kind going to a division. The noble Lord (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) said their Lordships were placed in a most invidious and disagreeable position in having to vote either for the noble and learned Earl or for himself (Earl Granville); but he doubted very much whether there was a Peer present who felt that he had been placed in an invidious position for having to vote for one or the other. The matter at issue being a peculiar one, affecting to some degree their personal honour, both he and the noble and learned Earl opposite had a justifiable anxiety to speak first in order to tell their own story, though, as it happened, it did not matter, for both were agreed as to the facts. When, however, the matter went to a division, to his great surprise, he got a majority of 1, and therefore spoke first. But supposing the matter had been settled by the noble and learned Earl on the

  593
  Woolsack, with the greatest respect for his impartiality, his suspicion was that, in his desire to be perfectly impartial, the noble and learned Earl would have decided for Earl Cairns instead of for him. He really did not see that they suffered any inconvenience of importance in this respect from the present system. He thought it was most Constitutional; in practice, it was not open to any grave or considerable objection; and therefore he thought it would be better not to agree to the Resolution.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that some 14 or 15 years ago, in consequence of some scandal that had taken place during one of their discussions, he voted in favour of a similar Resolution in company with the present Viceroy of India, then a Colleague of the noble Earl's. That was about the time of the Irish Church, or the first Irish Land Act; but since then he had been induced by several considerations to modify his former opinions. He agreed with the noble Earl who had just spoken (Earl Granville) that this was not a question of large dimensions. The number of cases in which practical inconvenience had arisen was very small. On the other hand, when they were told of the difficulty about the Lord Chancellor selecting a speaker, because he was new to their Lordships' House, he thought they had found that 11 years had passed away since they had had a Lord Chancellor appointed new to the House. That difficulty could not be regarded, therefore, as one of a practical, or of a serious, character. He confessed that, in listening to the debate, the difficulty which weighed on his mind had been in the consideration that they had altered the character of the tenure of their Speakership very considerably. A good deal had been said about the impartiality of the Lord Chancellor, and it had been said that it would be very difficult for him to select a Peer to answer him in debate. He had no doubt the noble and learned Lord would act impartially; but a still more serious difficulty arose. Suppose the Lord Chancellor desired to speak himself; what was he to say? The position reminded him of what was recorded of Pope Celestine V. Pope Celestine V. was convicted of heresy, and there was a great difficulty to know what to do with him. But he settled the difficulty in the most self-devoted and
  594
  heroic manner. He said, "Judico me cremari"—st crematus fuit. Such was the record that was found in books; and he did not know whether every Lord Chancellor would be as self-devoted. He had to remember, however, that, under our present rule, it was not only with Lord Chancellors they had to deal. He saw another noble Lord sitting on the Woolsack (Lord Monson) in conversation with the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor), whose aid in some cases might be sought as the arbiter in these instances. He did not think the side of the House which got the worst of it would submit to the decision of the Whip of the Party opposite. He thought considerations of this kind made the question one of serious difficulty; and, while not in the least degree believing that those persons who objected to the House of Lords as an institution would be pacified by this Resolution being passed, he thought, on the whole, the present system should be maintained.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: Before the House divides, I may be, perhaps, allowed to make a remark on what has fallen from the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale). The House has formed too high an estimate of the noble Earl to concur in his opinion—that although he merits confidence when he is acting as their nominee, he cannot be depended on a moment when he becomes the organ of the Sovereign. The noble Earl the Leader of the House (Earl Granville) thinks it a matter of deep risk that the Lord Chancellor should call upon the speaker who would follow him. The noble Earl has disposed of his objection by the additional remark that, if the Lord Chancellor had possessed the right in question when he and the noble and learned Earl on the other side (Earl Cairns) got up together, it would have been exercised against the Government with self-denying rigour. As to the noble Marquess who now leads the Opposition (the Marquess of Salisbury), having lately read his speech in favour of this Motion, and to my astonishment to-night heard his speech against it, I can only say that the first is as conclusive as the last is altogether unconvincing. The noble Marquess had really nothing to advance, except a question which was put in the original debate, when he sup-

  595
  ported me—what would happen if the Lord Chancellor and other Peers all rose together? It was answered then, as it may be answered now, that in such an event, without, a Rule or Standing Order, the constant usage of the House would give the Lord Chancellor priority. My Lords, those who lead on either side are so favourably privileged that they cannot judge, in its extent, the inconvenience it is now desired to put an end to. Every noble Lord can form his own opinion on the question. It is not to be determined by authority or Party. I would venture to impress upon the House, and more particularly on the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, a maxim Mr. Canning has bequeathed to us—
  "Those who resist improvement, because it is innovation, will afterwards submit to innovation when it has ceased to be improvement."
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 8; Not-Contents 46: Majority 38.
  Resolved in the negative.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)—SCHOOL BUILDINGS IN THE HIGHLANDS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,in rising to ask the Lord President as to the outlay on schools in the Highlands and Islands, said, he did so in consequence of a little incident which occurred the other night, when he directed the attention of their Lordships to the Report of the Crofters' Commission. In the course of that Report reference was made to the question of education; but he then said it was not his intention to analyze that portion of the Report. He had done so carefully since, and he found a great many material errors in it. He did not believe his noble Friend behind him (Lord Napier and Ettrick) was responsible for them, because he believed that that part of the Report was not written by him. For instance, he found that a very large sum, which the Report said was charged by the Department against these poor parishes, did not represent a debt due by them, but, on the contrary, a grant paid to them. There were various other errors of that sort, arising from the fact that the Commission did not examine any persons connected with the Department. What the Report said was perfectly true as regarded the heavy burden laid upon the
  596
  poor parishes of the Highlands for the administration of the Education Acts, and confirmed his (the Duke of Argyll's) impression that education in Scotland should be administered from there, and not by a Department in London. At the end of his speech his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council (Lord Carlingford) said that—
  "The fact is that these buildings, so far from being the work of the Central Education Department in London which has been assumed by the noble Lord—so far from being the outcome of an English authority, supposed to he ignorant of the state of the country and of its requirements, were from first to last in all respects the work and the outcome of a purely Scottish Board sitting in Edinburgh."
  Now, he (the Duke of Argyll) was very much astonished at this statement. He found, however, that that statement was an error, and he had it on the authority of the Scottish Education Board that his noble Friend was perfectly wrong. The facts were these. As he had said, on the occasion referred to, the Scottish Board were responsible for the number and sites and accommodation of the schools built; but the Department were entirely responsible for the style of the buildings; and it was not through them, but only through the Department in London, that these buildings could be sanctioned. It was true that the buildings and the estimates went through the hands of the Scottish Department; and the expenditure had been, to a considerable extent, due to the alleged extravagance of these buildings. Not only was this the fact, but he found that in two or three of the successive Reports of the Scottish Board, they directed the attention of the Department to the effect of the extravagant requirements of the Privy Council with regard to buildings that were to be erected in the poorer parishes in the North and West, where a great number of schools were required out of all proportion to the actual necessity, and he urged that it was alsolutely necessary that any intolerable burden should not be cast on these poor parishes, and that the requirements of the Department, which were quite suitable for other parts of the country, should be foregone in this case. That was what he had to say in contradiction to the statement made by his noble Friend; and he had to ask him whether it was not true that he made a mistake in the contradiction he then gave to his

  597
  (the Duke of Argyll's) statement upon the subject? Before sitting down, he must say that a subsequent inquiry had convinced him that the burden which rested on the poor parishes in the insular parts of Scotland, and in some parts of the West Highlands, was not entirely due to the Central Department in London, and especially that the burden would be much lighter at present if it had not been that the people in that part of the country showed, unfortunately, considerable indifference to the cause of education, which, in most parts of Scotland, the people did not generally show; and that if their attendance was more sufficient the burden would be less, because they would earn greater allowances. Still, the fact remained unquestionable, as regarded the building of the schools, that the extravagance of Local Bodies was not sufficiently checked by the Department in London as it would be by a Board in Edinburgh.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, that when he heard his noble Friend the President of the Council (Lord Carlingford) the other day say that the school buildings in the North of Scotland had been erected in accordance with the standard prescribed by the Scottish Board, and that they had been in every case sanctioned by the Board, he was greatly surprised; but he then found himself in a position in which he was unable to offer a contradiction. He, however, reserved the question for subsequent inquiry; but it was not long before he received a multitude of communications from Scotland, drawing his attention to the inaccuracy into which his noble Friend had in advertently fallen. Amongst these communications was one from the Chairman of the late Board of Education in Scotland, who requested him to offer a respectful, but very decided, contradiction to the statement of his noble Friend. He was informed by his correspondent that the Scottish Board of Education possessed no standard of school buildings; that it had no authority or option with regard to those buildings; that its functions were the selection of sites and the accommodation of members; but the estimates for the buildings were never submitted to them; and, if they had been, the Board possessed no power to modify or control them. Nevertheless, in the exercise of its discretion, the Board did, on various
  598
  occasions, remonstrate against the alleged extravagance in these buildings. These remonstrances, which were addressed to the Scottish Education Department, did not seem to have had any effect. They were not listened to; but the Chairman of the Board in Scotland remained to this day under the strongest impression that if local advice had been taken in Scotland, the aggregate expenditure in the Highlands might have been very much smaller. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had observed that there were statistical errors in that portion of the Crofters' Report which referred to education. His (Lord Napier and Ettrick's) attention had been drawn to an alleged error, and he had directed inquiry to be made, and, should it prove to be the case, nobody would regret it more sincerely than he did; but, whatever other statistical error there might be, it would not materially affect the circumstance that there had been a very unjustifiable and extravagant school expenditure in the North of Scotland, and that a fair claim might be based on that fact for assistance hereafter. He agreed that the burden was by no means solely due to extravagant expenditure on the school buildings, but was undoubtedly caused, to a certain extent, by the non-attendance of children; and he thought it right to mention that this circumstance, so justly noted by the noble Duke, was emphatically set forth in the Report.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he believed a Report had been sent to the Department by an eminent official, as to the state of education and expense in the Hebrides and the North-Western Highlands; and he desired to ask his noble Friend (Lord Carlingford) if he had any objection to produce that Report and lay it on the Table?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he was glad the present opportunity had occurred, that he might correct the observations he made in a previous discussion with respect to the degree of responsibility which justly lay on the late Board of Education in Edinburgh, in regard to the schools in the Highlands and Islands. He would at once say that, in one respect, those observations were inaccurate—he meant in respect to the responsibility of the Edinburgh Board of Education for the school buildings in the Highlands and Islands, and in

  599
  Scotland generally. He believed he said on that occasion that the Edinburgh Board was responsible for the standard of building laid down for these schools. That was inaccurate, beyond what concerned the Edinburgh Board, because there was no architectural standard laid down by any authority with respect to these schools. He was sorry he had made the mistake; but he did not think the inaccuracy was a very unnatural one, as this question, for him, was one of an entirely historical character. All these transactions took place before the accession of the present Government to Office, and the Edinburgh Board of Education was wound up five years before he entered on the Office he now had the honour to hold. He knew, of course, that the Board of Education in Scotland had to deal with the school supply in that country; that it had to decide the questions which governed, he believed, more than anything else, the expenditure that had taken place—namely, the number of schools to be built, and the size of these schools. He knew, also, that it was responsible for the loans which now formed a charge on the rates in these Scottish school districts; and that those loans were obtained on the fiat and sanction of the Edinburgh Board of Education. Judging from these facts, he had been under the impression that it had the control over the plans and specifications of the schools themselves. There he was mistaken, and he gladly corrected the inaccuracy. He found that he was supposed to have made that statement with some deliberate purpose on the part of the Education Department, in order to remove the burden of the responsibility from their shoulders to those of the Board of Education. He could assure his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) that there was no such dark design involved in his words. He had spoken on the spur of the moment, and without consultation with the Education Department. He did not, for a moment, venture to say that no errors were made in the course of the great and most difficult task of supplying these poor and most exceptional districts in the Highlands and Islands with the full apparatus of a good education, which they now possessed. That was a most difficult and arduous task, and it was quite possible that more might have been done by the two authorities concerned
  600
  to keep down the expenditure, and that all the Local Authorities were not as wise and prudent and economical as they might have been; but this strong impression had been made upon his mind after carefully looking into the subject since it was last mentioned—that whatever might have been done in the way of greater economy in these matters, the real and main cause of the expense and of the heavy burdens which now lay upon the school rates in these districts, in spite of the liberality of Parliament, had arisen from unavoidable circumstances—from the circumstances of the cases themselves, and from a number of facts which made it inevitable that this great supply of school accommodation could not be provided under the provisions of the Act of 1872 without imposing heavy burdens on very thinly peopled and poor districts such as these were. Those exceptional circumstances were largely recognized by Parliament; but whether sufficiently or not was a question upon which he could give no opinion, and which would have to be considered by the Government in dealing with the recommendations in the Report of the Crofters' Commission. He felt confident, from inquiry, that they were fully recognized by the Scottish Education Department. It would have been strange indeed if that Department had been ignorant of the requirements of the districts under consideration. It was virtually a Scotch Body, with a distinguished Scotchman as its Secretary, and the Duke of Richmond at its head; it had an accurate knowledge of the circumstances of the country, and was in constant contact with all those schools through its Inspectors. The special interests of the districts were obvious to both authorities in England and Scotland, and they were now obvious to the Crofters' Commission. It was generally supposed that the Report of that Commission was very condemnatory of the Scotch Education Department; but that was not the case. The Report said that the chief cause of the heavy taxation was the building and maintaining of a large number of schools necessary for the scattered population in most of the Highland and Island parishes. The fact was that the main causes of the expenditure in the first instance and the charge now arose out of the circumstances of the case; and as to those

  601
  main causes of expenditure the Board in Edinburgh was the responsible party, though he was not imputing any blame to it. It was true that its discretion in that respect was questioned by the Scottish Education Department, and also by its own officer—Professor Ramsay—who, in his very able Report on the Orkney and Shetland Islands, made a strong recommendation that the accommodation to be required should be reduced by the Edinburgh Board. That Board, however, he (Lord Carlingford) believed, came to a different conclusion, and that view was generally supported by the school boards themselves, who were not unnaturally anxious to make the most of the opportunity offered to them of obtaining large Government grants, which had to be applied for within a certain time; and, for the most part, both the school boards and the Board of Education were determined to build on a large scale, so as to provide accommodation for the whole number of children of school age between 5 and 13, and more or less to provide for the future. The Report of the Crofters' Commission went on to say that the Highland and Island school buildings were erected under stringent regulations of the Scotch Education Department in a style and on a scale beyond the requirements of the population. But the scale did not depend on the Scotch Education Department, neither did the style. As to the requirements of the Education Department in this matter of school buildings, the truth was that in these cases, as in others, they consisted of certain conditions of a very elementary kind which were considered necessary for the health of the children and for the solidity and duration of the buildings, and it was perfectly possible to comply with all the requirements of the Education Department, and to put up the plainest possible schools. There were many such schools, and it was quite absurd to talk about palaces that had been multiplied in these districts. Most of the schools, he believed, were simple and sensible buildings, though he did not say they were all so. There was no doubt that some of these school boards were ambitious, and desired better looking and more ornamental buildings. Nothing of the kind, however, was imposed upon them by the requirements of the Education Department.
  602
  That was entirely their own doing; and if the Department were open to any blame, it would be that they had not sufficiently resisted the ambition of certain school boards. The Department, he believed, never interfered to increase the expenditure, but always to reduce it. He would like that some details and examples of the alleged extravagance had been given; but the fact was the Crofters' Commission did not put themselves into communication with any school board or School Inspector, or with the Education Department, and that would account for their making those statements about the action of the Education Department, which appeared to him very misleading. The noble Duke and the noble Lord (Lord Napier and Ettrick) referred to some remonstrances addressed to the Scotch Education Department by the Edinburgh Board on the score of the stringency of their requirements; but he (Lord Carlingford) entirely failed to make out what they meant, they were couched in such vague and general terms. No particular instance was ever given by the Board of Education of these supposed extravagant requirements, and no definite proposal was ever made on the subject to the Education Department. No; there was an exception. Professor Ramsay did make a suggestion, in one of his two able Reports, in favour of relaxing some of the requirements of the Education Department. He recommended that teachers' houses should not be required to be on so large a scale; and that, in the case of small schools, the school itself might be used for the teacher's purposes. Professor Ramsay, in his Report, had also spoken of unnecessary outlay in the case of certain schools, and went on to say—
  "In other cases boards are "building substantial schools and houses at considerably smaller cost; and I have before me an excellent plan for a house and school, approved by the Education Department, capable of holding 60 or 60 children, and which an excellent local builder in Lerwick estimates he can build in the Island of Fetlar at some distance from the sea for £660. Now, this is the average size of schools which will be required in Shetland. It is remarkable that the boards have seldom, if ever, taken advantage of the relaxations made by the Department in the conditions as to teachers' houses for poorer districts, as also in the matter of boundary walls. The Department have expressly stated that in Shetland and other poor districts they will be satisfied with smaller houses containing fewer rooms than they require elsewhere; that they will permit one of the

  603
  rooms of the teacher's house to he used as a class-room; and, finally, that they do not require boundary walls to he built; and yet in drawing out their plans the hoards have not taken advantage of these provisions in their favour."
  He (Lord Carlingford) supposed that that had arisen from a kind of rivalry between these boards. He could give many instances of the way in which the applications of school boards had been treated. He would give one. The original cost of the school as proposed by the School Board of Fetlar had been £906, which, acting on the advice of Professor Ramsay, the Education Department had induced the school board to reduce to £605. Then came the question of the Parliamentary grant; and under the terms of the Act £400 had been paid down, leaving only £205, while of this balance, again, one-half was paid by the Department, making in all a grant of £502 10 s. As to those general remonstrances which were addressed to them, he thought under a misapprehension, by the Edinburgh Board, the Scottish Education Department, in reply, used these words—
  "With reference to the comments of the Board of Education on our administration of the building grants for the Highlands and Islands, we think it right to observe that the Board do not appear to have acquainted themselves with our practice in dealing with these districts. Grants have been awarded to them on a much more liberal scale than that recommended by the Board, and in aid of the erection of schools on plans which would not have been approved in other districts."
  He would repeat his conviction, after looking carefully into the history of the matter, that whatever might have been done to reduce the expenditure which had taken place either by the Scottish Education Department, or the Board in Edinburgh, or the school boards themselves, who could have done much more in this direction than either of the two authorities, still the real and main cause of the expense and of the pressing burden on the rates arose out of the circumstances of the districts themselves, the scattered population, and the great cost of materials and labour. Further, a large number of the schools had to be built at a time of general prosperity, when everything was dear; but beyond that, and above all, these districts were some of the most thinly populated and poorest to be found in the United Kingdom, a state of things which rendered
  604
  what would have been a light burden, in any ordinary parish in the Lowlands of Scotlands or in England, a very heavy one for them. The school rates were, certainly, in many of these parishes, very painfully heavy. It must not, however, be supposed that the repayment of the building loan formed any great proportion of these rates. Much the largest part of them was incurred for the purpose of maintenance, and that undoubtedly would be very largely relieved if the school boards would bring about that great improvement in the attendance of children which ought to take place. That was a very grave and crying evil in these districts. The inadequacy of school attendance produced a loss of school fees and Government grant; and, in addition, it deprived those schools of the special provisions made in their behalf by Parliament—the extra grant which followed on a certain average attendance. He had the matter worked out in a number of school districts where it was evident that, if the school attendance could be brought up to a reasonable standard, the increase both in the ordinary and extra grants would be so large that it would go very far to relieve those districts from the heavy burden of rate which lay upon them. Nevertheless, he fully recognized that heavy burden which lay upon these poor districts, which greatly deserved their sympathy; and while it was not his business to express any opinion, or make any announcement on this occasion with respect to the recommendations of the Crofters' Commission, those recommendations would, of course, receive the most careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government. In reply to the latter question of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) he would say that the Report to which it referred was made in the autumn for the Education Department for their own information; but, as he thought it could only do good, he should be very glad to lay it on the Table. In doing so, however, he must say that the Report did not bind the Department to any opinion—it was simply given for the purpose of information.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY,as speaking for the Education Department under the late Government, said, he had to thank his noble Friend opposite (Lord Carlingford) for the ample way

  605
  in which he had vindicated the action of the Scotch Education Board. It had been presided over by his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond), and had had the advantage of the assistance of Sir Francis Sandford, who had probably a greater knowledge of Scotch requirements than anybody else. They had taken the opinions of leading Scotch Members on various occasions; and, with regard to economy, they had frequently had occasion to entreat school boards in these poor districts to be moderate in their demands as regarded plans and buildings; and, in response, they had been remonstrated with for meddling with them, when they were dealing with their own rates. In fact, there had been a constant endeavour on the part of the Education Department to reduce the cost of the school buildings; and, unless his memory very much misled him, to reduce the rates; the school boards had constantly struggled to be allowed a greater expenditure, and the Department had had remonstrances against the Department's proposals to reduce the cost from Members representing the districts.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.