Sitting of 10 August 1887

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Sunday Postal Labour [No. 274].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [August 9] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Lunacy Districts (Scotland) * [318]; Sheriff of Lanarkshire * [349]; Secretary for Scotland Act (1885) Amendment [358]: Technical Schools (Scotland) * [360]; Lieutenancy Clerks Allowances * [274]; Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts Amendment * [180].
Withdrawn—Universities (Scotland) * [357]; Presumption of Life Limitation (Scotland) Act (1881) Amendment * [300].

QUESTIONS.

  RAILWAYS (ENGLAND AND WALES)— THE STRIKE OF ENGINE DRIVERS AND FIREMEN ON THE MIDLAND RAILWAY.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following extracts from a Circular, stated to have been issued to the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants by Mr. Edward Harford, Secretary of that Body, as reported in The Times of Monday last, in reference to the strike of drivers and firemen on the Midland Railway:—
  "The Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants will, so far as its members are concerned, give the fullest protection to any man who may be intimidated in declining to act as a 'black-leg.' And if there should be, although it is not expected that there is, one who will allow himself to be used for any such purpose, he will most assuredly expect the power and the censure, if

  1879
  not something worse, of the organization named. Therefore, every Society man is entreated to stand firm and resolute in his determination to refuse the Midland Company assistance in this dispute; "
  what steps be proposes to take to protect workmen who wish to dispose of their labour in their own way from these threats; and, how he proposes to deal with Mr. Edward Harford (who is not now a workman) in respect of this intimidation?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: The Circular alleged to have been issued by Mr. Harford may amount to an offence under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, if the surrounding facts show that it was used to intimidate any workman from disposing of his labour as may please him. In that case the Summary Jurisdiction Acts supply a sufficient remedy without the intervention of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State does not consider the facts suggested in the hon. Baronet's Question to be such as to call for any action on his part.

  BULGARIA—ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT OF POLITICAL PRISONERS.
  MR. P. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received official corroboration of the statement that Mr. Karaveloff, ex-Prime Minister of Bulgaria, and Mr. Slaveiokoff, ex-Prefet of Sofia, have been barbarously flogged during their detention in gaol; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will make strong representations to the Bulgarian Government on the subject of their alleged treatment of political opponents?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): A rumour to the effect stated in my hon. Friend's Question attracted attention last March, and on the 10th of that month I stated, in reply to the noble Lord the Member for Ipswich (Lord Elcho), that on the rumour of M. Karaveloff and others having been illtreated in prison, an official inquiry was ordered by the Regents, and that the officials who conducted it reported positively that none of the prisoners complained of had been
  1880
  beaten or otherwise illtreated, and that the prisoners were treated with the consideration due to their former position.

  THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND—EXPENSES.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, he desired to put a Question to the Secretary to the Treasury as to the sixth Order on the Paper for to-day—namely, the Report of Supply taken last night, when the Vote for the Secretary for Scotland was agreed to. The hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine (Sir George Balfour) asked, What had been the total extra expenditure imposed upon the country by the creation of the Office of Secretary for Scotland, including, of course, the Scotch Education Department and all other items scattered through other Votes which properly belonged to the expenditure of the Scotch Office? and nobody on the Treasury Bench could answer the Question. Would the hon. Member be prepared, on Report of Supply, to give that information?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): As I understand, the Question is whether on the Report I will state what has been the additional expense imposed by the creation of the separate Scotch Department in all its branches?
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: Including all items in other Votes. I may mention that I find, for instance, one item, small in amount, under the Lord Advocate's Votes, a sum of £ 150 for a clerk for preparing Parliamentary Returns, which I think should come under the Scotch Secretary's Vote now that the Secretary of State is responsible.

  PRESUMPTION OF LIFE LIMITATION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1881.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been directed to the fact that "The Presumption of Life Limitation (Scotland) Act, 1881," has been inoperative in many cases owing to the restrictions in Section 8, and to other defects in the same; whether the Government can offer any facilities to the passing of the Bill at present before the House to amend the Act; and, if not, whether next Session they will take steps to forward legislation to remove

  1881
  the grievances that undoubtedly have arisen?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I am afraid I cannot offer any facilities for the passing of this Bill this Session; but I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter certainly does require some legislation, and it shall have my attention.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SCOTCH BUSINESS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, after the discussion at the meeting of Scotch Members yesterday, and the opinions there expressed, the University Bill and the Technical Education Bill were to be proceeded with?
  MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, if the Government had come to a decision in reference to the Scotch Land Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): These Questions are very much Questions for the House. It is not in the power of the Government to manufacture time. We are anxious to proceed with all the measures for the advantage of Scotland, and the improvement of the law relating to Scotland; but I am really not able to say which of them we will proceed with. It depends on the length to which discussions extend, both in regard to Scotch measures and in Supply. As regards the Universities Bill, if we gather that, in the opinion of Scotch Members, further time is necessary for the consideration of that measure, we shall not press it this Session; but in that respect also we follow rather than lead, and desire to defer to the wishes of Members representing Scottish constituencies.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Government to consider whether, in view of the universal expression of opinion at the meeting yesterday, the Universities Bill should be proceeded with?
  MR. PRESTON BRUCE: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether some information has not reached him from the Secretary for Scotland as to the very general expression of opinion at a meeting which took place yesterday at Dover House?
  1882
  I do not think there was any point on which the large number of Scotch Members who were present were more unanimous than in declaring that they did not wish this Bill to be proceeded with this Session. I have to ask whether all we did and said yesterday has to be gone over again in the House to-day at the expense of the public time?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly not. Any expression of opinion of the kind described undoubtedly would decide the course of the Government. But the hon. Gentleman must be aware that, after sitting in this House till 3 o'clock in the morning, or nearly 3 o'clock, it is not possible for Members of the Government to have that communication with each other which he seems to consider must be so exceedingly easy. But I will undertake to say that any understanding arrived at between the Scotch Members and the Secretary for Scotland shall be observed.
  MR. PRESTON BRUCE: A Question will be asked to-morrow with reference to the Universities Bill.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I understand from the hon. Gentleman himself—and I take his word for it—that the general feeling of the Scotch Members yesterday was that the Universities Bill should not be proceeded with. I understand that to be the general feeling of the Scotch Members; and, under these circumstances, the Bill will not be taken.
  MR. ANDERSON: Is the Scotch Land Bill to he proceeded with?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have not had an opportunity of conferring upon the subject; but I certainly will endeavour to meet the wishes of Gentlemen from Scotland as far as it is possible to do so.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LUNACY DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 318.]
  (The Lord Advocate.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Sir, in moving that this Bill be now read a second time, I do not think it is necessary to detain the House long, because all the Members for Scotland who are interested in the Bill have the matter thoroughly in

  1883
  their knowledge already. I may say shortly that the object of the Bill is to restore the power which existed before the Act of 1877, by which lunacy districts in Scotland can be properly adjusted. Before the Act of 1877 the Prison Boards of Scotland, which existed at that time, had that power, but the Prison Boards were abolished in 1877; but neither in the Act of 1877 nor since has any provision been made with respect to the establishment of these lunacy districts. It is proposed under this Bill to confer on the General Board of Commissioners of Lunacy in Scotland this power which formerly existed in the Prison Boards, and I trust that the House will give the Bill a second reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I rise to move the rejection of this Bill. In doing so I may be permitted for a few moments to call attention to the very singular circumstances under which the House is called upon to consider this and the other measures which stand on the Order Paper for to-day. Towards the end of one of the longest and one of the most laborious Sessions in all our Parmentary annals the House of Commons is called upon on a Wednesday afternoon in the middle of August to discuss in a few hours the entire legislative programme of the Government as regards Scotland. So far as Scotland is concerned the Session is beginning to-day. Not merely is this the first time when we are called upon to pass judgment on the Government Bills for Scotland, but these Bills are almost absolutely new to us. Nearly every one of them has been sprung upon us in the course of the last few days. This is a state of things with which the people of Scotland cannot be expected to rest contented. We were told the other day by a distinguished supporter of the Government—the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright)—that Scotland was the best regulated portion of the United Kingdom. I think it would not be exaggerating much to say that the Scotch Members are among the best conducted and best regulated Members of the House. That is a modest claim, which I think all sections of the House will
  1884
  admit. But what is the good of all this superfluous virtue and respectability if it merely ends in this—that while those who are clamorous and while those who are guilty of what the Government call Obstruction are listened to and deferred to, Scotch measures are thrust into the background and are submitted to this House at a period of the Session when they cannot properly be discussed at all? I think the situation is such that the Members from Scotland who are here to-day would be amply justified in taking strong measures against the Government, and rejecting the entire legislative programme which they have submitted to us to-day. If my hon. Friends accept that suggestion favourably I hope they will begin by making an end of this Lunacy Bill, which stands first on the programme. Now what is the Government programme? I do not want to go by anticipation into the various measures proposed; but the fact is the only two Bills which the Government seem desirous to pass are two measures intended to remedy legal or legislative blunders—the blunders of the Executive itself or the blunders of the House of Commons or the House of Lords—perpetrated some years ago. They are measures of a legal or personal character rather than of a general character involving the interests of the whole country. It is, I think, a singular commentary on the action of the Government, and on their conduct of Business in this House, to say that at this time, in the middle of August, they arc asking us to discuss two such measures as this Lunacy Bill, and the Bill which immediately follows, the Lanarkshire Sheriff Bill. The First Lord of the Treasury stated the ether day as a reason for proceeding with the Bill now before us that the most serious consequences were to be apprehended in Scotland if this Bill was not passed. The right hon. Gentleman made an unintentional joke, or, if he did not, then he simply wanted—about this Lunacy Bill—
  '' To show by one satiric touch
  No nation ever wanted it so much."
  But the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that the serious consequences which he apprehended—the only serious consequences involved in the rejection of this Bill—are confined to one part of Scotland. The measure is mainly for relieving the Parochial

  1885
  Board of Lanarkshire of a difficulty in which they are placed; but it is a curious thing that while the relief required will be extended by this Bill to Lanarkshire, the Bill will in a corresponding degree injure Forfarshire, and this is mainly the ground on which I ask the House to reject this Bill. The Lord Advocate has said that the purpose of this Bill is to remedy the unintended consequences of the Prisons Act of 1877, and that it is simply intended to restore the powers of making application to the Board of Lunacy for the division of districts which were in existence before the passing of that Act. That is not exactly a true description of the contents of this Bill. If the main purpose of the Bill had been limited to that, I do not think I should have risen to move its rejection. But the Bill does not merely restore the provisions of the old law. I have myself an Amendment on the Bill, or at least I intend to put upon the Paper an Amendment, which will have the effect of restoring the powers of the Lunacy Board as they existed before the Bill of 1877 was passed. But there is a more serious objection to the Bill, and that is that it places the new districts which are to be created under this Act under a very objectionable clause of the old Lunacy Act of 1857. That is the gravamen of my case. The 59th clause of this Act of 1857 provides that in case there should be any asylum established in any district which shall have sufficient accommodation for the pauper lunatics of such district, or which can be rendered adequate for the reception of such pauper lunatics, or any portion of them, the Board of such district shall, before proceeding to assess for or erect in any district an asylum, contract with the parties interested in such asylum for the use of the whole or part of the asylum for the reception and maintenance of the pauper lunatics of such district on terms to be arranged, and, in case of differences arising, a form of arbitration is provided on an appeal to the General Board sitting in Edinburgh. I want the House to consider how this clause operates. It gives a monopoly in those districts where they exist to what are known as the chartered asylums in Scotland. The Local Authority—the representative authority—charged by the law with the j maintenance and care of pauper lunatics
  1886
  must offer their patients to these chartered asylums, and must offer them on conditions which the chartered asylums are at liberty to accept or refuse. Practically the patients must be accepted only upon the terms fixed by the asylum itself, because I believe that the arbitration of the General Board in Edinburgh is an arbitration only in name. In Forfarshire, at all events, it is true that the effect of this clause is to give a one-sided monopoly to those chartered asylums, and to compel the Constitutional authorities having the charge of the lunatics to accept any terms which may be imposed by these private and irresponsible authorities in charge of chartered asylums. I have in my hand a statement which was lately made to the Lunacy Board in Edinburgh by the Representatives of Forfarshire, showing how this works out in regard to the cost of lunatics. There is no use in denying the fact that this is mainly a question of cost, and we object to this Bill because it saddles us with an extravagant expenditure over which we have no control, and which, we believe, We could get rid of if this Bill were withdrawn in the meantime, and a more just and adequate measure brought in at a later date. The official statements made by the Montrose Asylum in the year 1886, tested, as I believe, by the results of other figures, show that a pauper lunatic patient costs them not more than £20 0s. 3d. per annum. The amount which they charge, or which the existing law enables them to charge, upon the Local Authorities of Forfarshire is £28 12s. per annum, or nearly one-third, or 30 per cent, per patient more than the Local Authorities would be bound to pay if they had the control over their business, which I think they ought to have. The case is all the harder because these chartered asylums in Forfarshire represent the contributions of Forfarshire itself. They were brought into existence by the voluntary contributions of the whole county. They were maintained for a long time by this means, and now they are chartered and managed by persons entirely irresponsible to the public opinion of the county or to the ratepayers of the county. We are asked under this Bill to give them powers of indirectly taxing the ratepayers, by forcing them to pay an excessive amount for the patients. We are bound to send to them.

  1887
  It seems to me that on these grounds we have a right to protest against this Bill passing in its present shape. Lanarkshire, which is clamouring for this Bill, and to which the serious consequences that may arise from its rejection are confined, is not affected by this state of things, because Lanarkshire, or at least the parishes of it which are affected by this Bill, have no chartered asylums to which they will be bound to send their patients. The Bill has this curious effect, that it will prevent Forfarshire from doing the very thing which it will enable Lanarkshire to do. It will be an enabling Bill for Lanarkshire; but it will be a disabling Bill for Forfarshire. It seems to me there is a grievance—I do not deny it—in the case of Lanarkshire and other counties in the West of Scotland. But whore the grievance is local, it is surely common sense that the remedy should be local also; or, if yon proceed by means of a general measure, you should take care that the measure is not so conceived as to injure other localities. If the Government would meet us, I will not say half way, but a quarter of the way, and remove some of those features of the Bill to which we object, I do not know that this opposition need be carried any further. Clause 4 of the Bill not merely repeats and confirms and perpetuates the injurious provisions of the Act of 1857 by applying it to now districts which may be created by this Bill, but it actually increases the evil. Forfarshire, as I hope I have satisfied the House, is in a position altogether different from Lanarkshire in this matter, because it not only has one chartered asylum but it has two. It has a chartered asylum at Montrose, and it has a chartered asylum at Dundee. If a new district is formed under this Bill in the neighbourhood of Dundee the effect would be that the now Dundee lunacy district, instead of being thirled as it is now to the two County Asylums, and having the benefit of some competition between them, would be limited to the single chartered asylum situated in its own lunacy district. I believe that would be one of the effects of the working out of Clause 4. If Clause 4 were withdrawn from the Bill it would still meet the grievances of the Local Authorities in Lanarkshire, and I think the Bill might in that form be allowed to pass; but otherwise the measure ought
  1888
  to be greatly deprecated. What is wanted in this matter is Free Trade and Home Rule. We want to be allowed to discharge at our own risk and on our own responsibility the serious duties which the Legislature has imposed upon us, and we object to Parliament saying that we must contract with a body which is not compelled to contract with us, and under conditions practically enabling these irresponsible Authorities to fix their own terms. I have only one word more to say, and that is to repeat my avowal that I do not for a moment wish to stand in the way of Lanarkshire obtaining the redress of any grievance it may have. I am perfectly willing that this Bill should pass under conditions which will not impose disabilities upon us. Therefore, if the Government will do one or the other of the following things, I shall not press my opposition any further. If they will leave out Clause 4,I shall willingly allow the second reading of the Bill to be taken. I should prefer—though I know the Lord Advocate will not accept it—the adoption of an Amendment declaring that the old Clause 59 of the Act of 1857 should be declared to be optional—that is to say, that instead of being hound to contract with the chartered asylums the Local Authorities should simply be empowered to do so; but if the Lord Advocate will not accept these suggestions, I have another offer to make, that he should confine the operation of the Bill to Lanarkshire—[Mr. ESSLEMONT: No, no !]—and to Aberdeen if my hon. Friend wishes it. If he will not do that, then, as a last alternative, I ask him to leave the county of Forfar out of the Bill altogether. If he accepts any of these three courses, then our opposition to the Bill will cease; but as he has hitherto given no indication of a friendly reception to any of these suggestions, I have no alternative but to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  MR. LACAITAseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. E. Robertson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. HOZIERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved the rejection of the Bill complained that it had been sprung upon Scottish Members, and later on he declared that the question dealt with in the Bill was a local and personal one.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I said Bills generally had been sprung upon us.
  MR. HOZIERsaid, he would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that for the last two months he had had a block against this very Bill, and it was owing to that circumstance that they only got to the Bill to-day. Therefore, the hon. and learned Member had no good ground for complaining that a Bill which had been blocked by himself for two months had been sprung upon Scottish Members. In view, however, of the inordinate length of the speech of the hon. and learned Member, he would strongly advise the Government always to spring Bills upon him, because there was no knowing to what length he would go if he had more time for consideration. With regard to the statement of the hon. and learned Member that the Bill was a purely local and personal one, he would remind him that Scottish Members were; as a matter of fact, almost unanimously in favour of the Bill; but that, even if the benefits of the Bill were confined to Lanarkshire, that county contained about 1,000,000 inhabitants. That was a considerable locality, to say the least of it; and a question that affected that vast county—the most important in Scotland—could hardly be treated as a mere local matter. He quite admitted, however, that there was a local and personal question about the Bill; but that was the miserable local and personal quarrel between the towns of Dundee and Montrose. ["No!"] Oh, hon. Members belonging to Scotland would recognize the truth of what he said. It was entirely due to that local and personal quarrel that they were now obliged to devote a considerable portion of a valuable day to the discussion of what was called a local and personal Bill. He could only say, on behalf of Lanarkshire, that they were very grateful indeed to the Government for having introduced this Bill as the first Order of the Day, because, owing to the action of the Representatives of Dundee, no other course was open if progress was to be made with this measure, which they
  1890
  were united in considering as absolutely necessary for them.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Dundee would not persevere in his Motion. Montrose Asylum was closely connected with the county that he represented. They had no less than 50 patients from that county in the asylum—all well taken care of. He had no objection to the Lord Advocate taking steps by which he could investigate the accounts of the Montrose Asylum. He thought the hon. and learned Member for Dundee had only done his duty to his constituents in bringing forward this matter.
  MR. M'EWANsaid, he should have preferred to have given a silent vote on this question; but, inasmuch as the Bill was objected to by the Parochial Boards of Edinburgh and St. Cuthbert's, he felt it necessary to state his reasons for supporting it. These Boards did not object to the principle of the Bill. They approved of it. Indeed, it was very difficult to see how they could do otherwise. The Bill did not pretend to change the law, and these Boards were in no way affected by it. They would remain exactly as they now were. But why did they object? They objected to it because they were bound at present to send pauper lunatics to the asylum at Morningside, which was governed by a self-elected body. They thought it ought to be governed by a representative body. He had as strong an objection to the government of self-elected bodies as those Parochial Boards had; and if a Bill was ever introduced for the purpose of placing this and all other asylums of a similar character under representative bodies it would have his cordial support. The objection of these Boards was that the expenditure in Morningside Asylum was lavish, and that they had to pay a larger sum for the maintenance of the pauper lunatics of Edinburgh than was exacted by any other asylum in Scotland. The Parochial Boards had issued a statement of the cost of paupers in the various asylums in Scotland, in which they professed to bring out this result; but no uniformity had been observed in the preparation of these Returns. In the great majority of cases no rent was charged. Where rent was charged it was not based upon actual facts. In

  1891
  order to show that this allegation of excessive cost in Morningside was not borne out by facts, he would compare it with the cost in the Mid Lothian District Asylum. The cost in the latter was said to be £28 1s. 3d., and that was exclusive of rent. But they had to pay an annual instalment of £3,050 in redemption of principal and interest; and as there were only 230 beds in that asylum, that brought out a sum of £13 4s. per annum for rent, which, added to the £28, made the cost of the maintenance of a pauper in this district asylum £41 6s. 3d. He would compare it with another important parochial asylum. The Barony Asylum in Glasgow professed that the cost of lunatics there was only £28 0s. 10d., including rent; but they put down the rent at £3 3s. 3d., which was a mere assumption based upon a principle unknown to anyone but themselves. There was a debt on this asylum of £160,000, redeemable in the usual way in 30 years; and, as there were 533 beds in the asylum, this involved a cost of over £15 for rent. Deducting the £3 3s. 3d. which they admitted, and adding the £15 which it actually cost for rent, that brought out the cost of paupers in this asylum at £38. The rate charged in the Royal Asylum at Edinburgh was £33 10s., including rent and everything. This being the case; he thought there was no call for excessive urgency in interfering with the existing state of affairs in Edinburgh; and as they understood from Lanarkshire that that county was almost in a state of chaos in regard to lunatics, and that great inconvenience would result if the Bill were postponed, and as no in-ury was to be done to Edinburgh or any other district, he should support the Bill.
  MR. SHIRESS WILL&c.)said that, as Montrose had been so often mentioned, he hoped the House would allow him to say a few words with respect to this matter. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee in regard to this Bill was to obtain once more for Parochial Boards the jurisdiction over and the care and management of the unfortunate class of pauper lunatics which they had up to the passing of the Act of 1857, but which was purposely denied by that Act after a careful investigation by a Royal Commission and a very long Report going fully into the subject. Up to that time no provi-
  1892
  sion had been made by the State for the housing of pauper lunatics. The matter had been largely one of private enter-prize and charity. The Montrose Asylum was founded originally by charity in 1782, and gradually it was extended from time to time, and was one of the existing institutions when the Act of 1857 was passed. That Act, following upon the Report of the Royal Commission, provided, in the interest of pauper lunatics as well as of the ratepayers, that no unnecessary building should be put up by any of the district authorities constituted so long as there was within the district a chartered asylum liable to the supervision and regulations of the head Board in Edinburgh, and so long as these asylums were willing to receive the patients upon terms which, if the parties did not agree, were to be determined upon by the Board in Edinburgh. What was the grievance put forward as the excuse for this opposition to the Bill? It was stated by his hon. and learned Friend that the Montrose Asylum charged £28 per patient per annum, when they could be kept at a charge of £20. The argument was untenable for this reason. Assuming—though he disputed it altogether—that the hon. and learned Member's figure of £20 as the actual cost per patient was correct, the Board in Edinburgh was constituted a Board of Arbitration; and if any of his hon. and learned Friend's constituents had any ease to go upon they had only to carry the matter before them on appeal. The figures must be adjudicated upon and would be adjudicated upon by the Board in Edinburgh, which had power to call for information bearing upon the point, not only from the Montrose Asylum authorities, but from the authorities of every asylum in Scotland, and to decide what was a proper charge. Therefore, that could not be the reason for the opposition to the Bill. But the true reason of the opposition to the Bill had leaked out. His hon. and learned Friend desired to make the application of the Clause 59 of the Act of 1857 optional. This Clause 59 was the one he (Mr. Shiress Will) had adverted to, which prevented in the interests of the ratepayers the unnecessary building of house-room for pauper lunatics. Now, what would happen if they accepted his hon. and learned Friend's suggestions? The asylum of Montrose was the second

  1893
  largest in Scotland. Its Governors had from time to time spent large sums of money in extending and improving it. There was no question of reward or profit; whatever surplus there might be was spent in the improvement of the building and of its internal accommodation, and in keeping it up to modern requirements. In that asylum there were 200 or 300 pauper lunatics from Forfarshire. What the hon. Member would like would be that the Parochial Board—not an absolutely representative institution, by the way—should be able to go to Montrose Asylum and say this—" You are doing your duty. You are under inspection. You are bound to conform to the regulations, and you cannot make any profit. You have from time to time spent large sums of money relying upon Section 59. You have provided accommodation for between two and three hundred pauper lunatics from Forfarshire. You have this accommodation on your hands; and now either you must take our paupers at our price or they shall go elsewhere." That was the sort of Free Trade the hon. and learned Member wished in regard to the treatment of this unfortunate class. Could anything be more reprehensible? Were those unfortunate people to be put up to public competition, as if they were so much washing to be given out? Was it in the interests of humanity that they should endeavour to cut down prices, by means of competition, so as to bring about such a state of things as that paupers would be stinted in this direction or that—in their food, in their clothing, in their medical attendance, and in their efforts to improve and benefit their condition, and restore them to a healthy state of mind? He said that was exactly the policy that in 1857 a Royal Commission and an Act of Parliament put a stop to. Parliament had provided a remedy in that there should be a head Board in Edinburgh, controlling the asylums and regulating the charges to be made for them. For those reasons, he trusted the House would not see fit to reject the measure.
  MR. ASHER&c.)said, he hoped that a decision would shortly be arrived at on this Bill, so that they might proceed to consider other important Business. It seemed to him, from what had been said, that both sides of the House were in favour of the
  1894
  principle of the Bill, which was the only question which properly ought to be discussed on the Motion for second reading. The principle, as he understood it, was that the Lunacy Board in Scotland should have the power of regulating the lunacy districts in Scotland. They had that power under the Act which constituted the Lunacy Board; but, by what had always been regarded as a mistake in legislation, it was taken away from the Board by the Prisons Act of 1877. Before that Act was passed the Prison Boards had the power to move the Lunacy Board to create lunacy districts, and when by the Act in question the Prison Boards were swept away there was no authority to take their place in this matter, and the Lunacy Board could not take action on its own initiative. The Bill now before the House sought to constitute an authority which should have the power to apply to the Lunacy Board to fix the districts. The objection taken to the Bill was strictly limited to the 4th clause, and the point which his hon. and learned Friend had raised in regard to it was very fairly open to discussion. There was a great deal to be said in favour of the existing system in reference to the protection of the interests of large asylums which had been established at very great cost. On the other hand, they could not help sympathizing with the desire that these institutions should be placed under the control of persons popularly elected. But what he would suggest to his hon. and learned Friend was that the proper time for raising those questions was in Committee. It would then be open to him to move that the clause should be omitted. Since they were all agreed that legislation was necessary on the main lines of the Bill, he would suggest that they should now come to a decision on the subject, and get on with the other important Bills before them.
  MR. LACAITAsaid, he should not detain the House; but he hoped his hon. and learned Friend and Colleague (Mr. E. Robertson) would not accept the advice which had been tendered to him, but that he would press his Amendment to a Division. They knew very well what the effect was of putting off their objections to measures till the Committee stage meant. It meant that I their Amendments were then proposed

  1895
  only to be withdrawn or to be defeated. The whole objection taken by Dundee was to the 4th clause, simply because it was quite unnecessary. It was a matter of serious importance to the ratepayers of Dundee, and did not at all arise out of any local jealousy or squabble. It was a matter of so serious importance that one-third of the whole of the poor rates payable by Dundee was due to the necessity of maintaining pauper lunatics. When the proportion was so great it was not in the least to be wondered at that the local Parochial Board, which, if not elected by popular suffrage, was most devoted to the real interest of the ratepayers as well as to economy, should offer strenuous resistance to the Bill. He appealed to the Lord Advocate to give them some assurance that he would leave out Clause 4. That clause was absolutely unnecessary for Lanarkshire, which was the county requiring the Bill, because in Lanarkshire there were no chartered asylums to which that section of the Bill might be applied. When they got into Committee they had been given to understand that there was no intention to divide Forfarshire into two districts. Therefore, as regarded that county, there could be no reason for the further extension of this system, which bore so heavily on every class of ratepayers.
  DR. CLARKsaid, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) would not take the advice of his hon. Colleague and divide the House. He very much, sympathized with his hon. and learned Friend's objection. It was not a question affecting Forfarshire alone. When he was a member of the Govan Parochial Board some years ago that body spent a large sum of money upon an asylum for the accommodation of their own pauper lunatics. As a portion of Govan was in Lanarkshire, the people of Renfrewshire would have not only to keep up their own very good asylum, but they would to pay for the asylum in Lanarkshire. he was in favour of the Bill, but he thought Clause 4 ought not to be in it, and he would support the hon. and learned Member for Dundee in endeavouring to got it struck out in Committee. As the same time, he considered it a wrong policy to oppose a measure which would do a great deal of good to the people of
  1896
  Scotland simply because they could not got a particular section modified.
  MR. WALLACEsaid, he was very much inclined to agree with the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Asher); but it seemed to him that the 4th clause had been elevated to the position of a second principle of the Bill. Although he desired to see the measure passed, yet if the retention of Clause 4 was insisted upon as of the essence of the measure, then he was compelled to regard that clause as the fly in the pot of ointment, and would have to vote against the second reading.
  MR. ESSLEMONTsaid, it would be a great mistake to suppose that the Bill was required merely in the interest of Lanarkshire. As representing Aberdeenshire he might say that it very much affected that district. The law on the subject was uncertain. The present District Asylum in Aberdeenshire was becoming overcrowded, and it was necessary that additional accommodation should be provided. It was of the utmost importance that there should be no doubt about the law on the subject, and the Bill ought to be passed in order to clear up the matter. He looked upon the 4th clause as a necessary clause. He was as much in favour as his hon. Friends of having representative Boards, and such a change might be brought in in time; but this clause was required until they should have such changes as would place the Lunacy Law upon a more popular basis. If hon. Members thought it necessary to salve their consciences by taking a Division, let it be done; but they ought not to lose more time in discussing the matter.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, the discussion that had taken place had been to a certain extent valuable; but he must express his deep disappointment at the tone of distrust of the Local Authorities which had been shown by hon. Members in the House. After the appeals which had been addressed to him to withdraw his opposition to the Bill at that stage, he would yield to the evident sense of the House and avoid an unnecessary Division; but he should renew in Committee his opposition to the more objectionable clauses of the Bill, and would rely with some confidence on the

  1897
  support of hon. Members who had expressed their sympathy with his objects, and to whose wish he then deferred. He would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURhoped the Bill would be allowed to pass through Committee at once. ["No, no!"]
  Bill committed for To-morrow.

  SHERIFF OF LANARKSHIRE BILL.
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)

  [BILL 349.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, they had had a meeting of Scottish Members, at which he stated the grounds for bringing forward the measure. But he did not feel he would be justified in doing otherwise than make a distinct statement to the House on the matter. About 18 months ago, the then Sheriff of Lanarkshire (Sheriff Clark) became so ill as not to be able to attend to the duties of his office, and it became necessary that an interim Sheriff should be appointed. It was his duty, as adviser of the Home Secretary on these matters, to pick out the best man he could find to till the office of Sheriff in the absence of Sheriff Clark. The Sheriffship of Lanarkshire was a very difficult office to till. The duties were so onerous and so extensive, and involved the necessity of getting a man of such experience, and also a man who could live on the spot, that the post of interim Sheriff was not an easy one to fill. After full consideration he was satisfied that, from his personal qualifications, and also from the fact that he was resident in Lanarkshire, and that his position as Professor of Scottish Law in Glasgow University afforded him the best opportunity of keeping himself well informed on legal subjects, and from the knowledge he (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) had that Professor Berry's skill in the law was such that he was very largely employed by the mercantile community of Glasgow
  1898
  in questions of mercantile law—on all these grounds he was satisfied that Professor Berry was the most suitable man whom he could have selected for the position of interim Sheriff. He had no reason to doubt that the appointment gave the most perfect satisfaction to the community. About the propriety of Mr. Berry's appointment as interim Sheriff there could be no question whatever, because he complied with all the requirements of the office, and was, therefore, perfectly well qualified. The Act of Parliament specified that in the case of a person to be appointed Sheriff of a county during the leave of absence of any Sheriff who was unable to perform his duties from illness, the qualification necessary was that he should be an advocate of not less than five years' standing. It unfortunately happened that while Professor Berry was fulfilling the duties of interim Sheriff of Lanarkshire Sheriff Clark died. It then became necessary to consider who was to be appointed to fill his place. He saw nothing to lead him to any other conclusion than that Sheriff Perry was the most suitable man for the post, and the manner in which he had fulfilled his duties as interim Sheriff had given the greatest satisfaction. [An hon. MEMBER: For how long?] He thought it was three months. He accordingly nominated Sheriff Berry for the appointment of Sheriff, and he was duly appointed. In doing so, he had to admit that he did not advert to an old Act of Parliament passed in the first year of Her Majesty's Reign; and he believed no one else had their attention called to it in any way until within the last month or so. That Act was the Act of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 19, which specified that the person to be appointed Sheriff of a county should not only be an advocate of a certain number of years' standing, but should also be in attendance and in practice at the Bar in Edinburgh. Now, that was a mistake for which he (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald), and he alone, was responsible; and he must, and would, take the full responsibility for it on himself. As regards Professor Berry, this mistake placed him in this position—that he had been required by the Lord Advocate's stipulation to give up the valuable appointment of Professor of Law previously held by him in Glasgow University before he could be appointed Sheriff. Now,

  1899
  the position of Professor of Scotch Law in Glasgow University was peculiar and unique in this respect—that while the Professors of Scotch Law in Edinburgh University—the only other Professor of Scotch Law in Scotland teaching the law regularly—were perfectly eligible, even under the Act 1 & 2 Vict., for the Sheriffship of a county, because they can be in attendance at the Court, their Professorship requiring them to be resident in Edinburgh, they were able at any time to put on wig and gown and go down to the Court; in point of fact, they had the case of gentlemen holding the appointments of Professors of Civil Law and Scotch Law in Edinburgh University, and also holding each of them a Sheriffship, for these two things were not held incompatible except in the case of the Sheriffships of Lanarkshire and Edinburgh, the Sheriffs of which places were required to devote their whole time to the discharge of the duties of their appointments. Therefore, Professor Berry's position was so far unique that he was under the Statute referred to shut out from that which other Professors of Law might aspire to, and his appointment as Sheriff of Lanarkshire now required confirmation. He (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) had looked very carefully into the matter, and he was of opinion that a great deal might be said on the point whether his appointment as interim Sheriff did not, in point of fact, constitute Professor Berry actually a Sheriff; but he would not play upon that point, as he was not sufficiently clear upon it, being sure that the inconvenient results following from the Statute had not been intended by its promoters, and that it was not intended to exclude men from positions which their training and their constant work at the law and their residence among a mercantile community, and their consequent experience in dealing with cases of mercantile law fitted them for. Convinced that it was not the intention of the framers of the barring Statute to exclude such men from the positions for which they would thus become peculiarly qualified, he would ask the House to agree with him that the objection to Professor Berry's appointment was merely a technical one; that in selecting Professor Berry for the appointment he had chosen a thoroughly fit and qualified man for the discharge of the important duties of the office; and
  1900
  he would, therefore, ask the House to give the Bill a second reading for the purpose of confirming the appointment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that, to his mind, what the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate chose to call a mere technical point raised a question of very great importance, because this Bill, which had only been delivered to them yesterday morning, sought to repeal the clear and distinct provisions of the Act of 1 & 2 Vict., as far as Mr. Berry was concerned. He was rather surprised to hear a Statute of the Queen called by a Law Officer of the Crown "an old Act." To his mind, it did not come under that category. It was not proposed to repeal the Act, or alter it generally; but it was proposed, by ex post facto legislation, virtually to repeal it so far as this gentleman was concerned. He had made considerable search into the subject, and was unable to find any precedent for the present proposal. He had listened with some attention to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, and was anxious to hear whether there was any precedent for such; and he was sure the House, before it acted on data of that kind, would expect to be furnished with precedents. The qualifications for the office of Sheriff had been inserted by the Legislature for the express purpose of preventing improper appointments. The Act of 1 Vict, provided that a gentleman must be in actual practice for three years in the Court of Session, or he must be a Sheriff-Substitute; and it did seem a strange thing that the Bill sought to set aside those provisions. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was anxious to take all the blame upon himself for the error which made the Bill necessary. He (Mr. Anderson) was bound to say that for the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, who had the disposition of those important legal posts, to confess that he was in ignorance of the qualifications required was a most astonishing thing. But the Lord Advocate was not the only person consulted in those matters. There was the Solicitor General for Scotland, and the Lord Advocate's Law Secretary, who received £600 a-year for the purpose, he sup-

  1901
  posed, of keeping the Lord Advocate posted up in law; and was it conceivable that everyone in the Lord Advocate's Office was so supremely ignorant of this modern Act of Parliament? He did not think the statement of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was altogether satisfactory. He could not accept the statement that the appointment was made in ignorance. It was surely strange that the gentleman himself did not know. There were suspicious circumstances about the case which ought to be further investigated. Everybody knew that in Scotland the persons who looked forward to such appointments were the Sheriff-Substitutes. In Lanarkshire there were three or four persons of great experience, eminently fitted to fill the office, and who, in the ordinary course, looked to getting the offer of such appointments. The Legislature, in passing the Act, distinctly considered that Sheriff-Substitutes should have the appointment, because the section went on to say the gentleman appointed as Sheriff should be a barrister of three years' practice or a Sheriff Substitute, showing that it was contemplated that the proper persons to have the appointments were the Sheriff-Substitutes. There were several gentlemen of great experience, who had not merely acted for three months as interim Sheriff, but who were looked up to with great confidence, and who were admirably fitted for the post. It did seem extraordinary that they should have been passed over and a gentleman of three months' judicial experience selected. Well, people would say uncharitable things even of a Conservative Government. He was not imputing any corrupt motives to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate; but people had the idea that when it turned out that the gentleman who got the appointment was a member of the Conservative Party, while those well fitted for the post were not of the same political creed, the political feeling might have something to do with the appointment. This was a matter which bore rather a serious aspect for the Government. It was not a local question, but a legal question, which had a much wider bearing than as affecting Lanarkshire alone. It was unfortunate as affecting the filling up of the whole of the judicial offices in the country. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr.
  1902
  W. E. Gladstone) made Sir Robert Collier a Member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, without breaking the terms of any Act of Parliament, by first appointing Sir Robert a Judge of the Queen's Bench Division for a week, the Conservative Party raised long debates on the appointment, and the right hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Party were denounced for a base attack against the administration of justice. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) and other hon. Gentlemen who took part in the denunciation would follow a similar course on the present occasion, for this was a very much stronger case. In Sir Robert Collier's appointment the Act of Parliament was complied with; but in the appointment of Mr. Berry it had been violated. In the absence of any precedent, the House ought not to countenance such a proceeding by passing the Bill. It was said not to pass the Bill would be a great injustice to Mr. Berry. Well, someone must suffer. But he had no doubt means could be found to give Mr. Berry an opportunity of following the profession for which he was so eminently qualified. But he did not think they should be led away by considerations of this kind into making such a precedent as was proposed by the Bill. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate said Mr. Berry was a gentleman well fitted for the post. So was Sir Robert Collier. But that ought not to be taken into consideration in dealing with a question of this kind. The question was—Would the House be justified in sanctioning an ex post facto repeal of an Act of Parliament? He (Mr. Anderson), for one, would give this Bill his most determined opposition, and he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.), in seconding the Amendment, said, he earnestly and strongly protested against the way in which this purely personal Bill had been placed before very important general Bills, so that they must either pass this Bill or run the risk of losing other important Scotch Bills which stood after it upon the Paper. That was a course altogether unjustifiable. As regarded the merits of the Bill, its Preamble was not justified, because it began with the phrase "doubts having arisen." There

  1903
  were not, nor could there be, any doubts about the illegality of the appointment. He did not doubt the good faith of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate; but he was exceedingly surprised that a man in his position should have been so ignorant of the law regulating the appointment of Sheriffs. As a mere lay Scotsman, he (Sir George Campbell) was cognizant of the fact that the appointment of Sheriff was restricted to members in actual practice at the Bar or to Sheriff-Substitutes. In fact, he knew that, as a lay boy, 50 years ago. He did not attach much importance, as a rule, to letters in the newspapers; but an important letter had appeared from a Sheriff-Substitute in Glasgow, who said he had no personal interest in the matter, as he was an old Sheriff-Substitute, and did not look for promotion; but in the interest of his class he protested against Mr. Berry's appointment, and against an ex post facto Bill brought in at the end of a Session to repeal an Act of Parliament. He (Sir George Campbell) thought there was very great justice in the complaint. He looked upon the Sheriff-Substitutes as an ill-treated class. They were the most important class of judicial officers in Scotland. They did nine-tenths of the judicial work in Scotland. They were not very highly paid; and it seemed to him the only reason why a man of talent and ability should occupy the position of Sheriff-Substitute was that there was promotion open to him in his own service. It had been too often the ease that the Sheriff-Substitutes were passed over, and the appointment as Principals given to gentlemen practising at the Bar. But if they were to go beyond the leading members at the Bar, they were, in his opinion, bound to do justice to the claims of the Sheriff-Substitutes, and hence he protested against the Bill. It might be said a mistake had been made, and the Bill was requisite to legalize the decisions of Sheriff Berry; but the Sheriff-Substitute, to whose letter he had referred, expressed the opinion, as a judicial officer, that acts done by Sheriff Berry were not illegal and did not require a Bill. All that that Bill would do was to justify and perpetuate this illegal appointment. If it were necessary to legalize the decisions come to by Sheriff Berry, he was quite willing to
  1904
  agree to the passing of the Bill; but to go beyond that, and legalize this illegal appointment, was a measure which he felt himself bound strenuously to oppose. As a matter of public justice and in the interest of the country he hoped that the House would refuse to pass the Bill. He repeated that he not only opposed the Bill on its merits, but also protested against its being put before the Secretary for Scotland Bill and the Technical Education Bill. He begged to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Anderson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. S. WILLIAMSON&c.)said, his first impulse had been to assist the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald), whose geniality and courtesy they all appreciated very much, out of this dilemma; but he was now compelled to support the Amendment, and that very much because of a letter which had appeared in the public prints, signed by Sheriff Guthrie—a man of great capacity and of much more experience in the administration of the law than Professor Berry. Sheriff Guthrie, in that letter, said—and he was sure Sheriff Guthrie would not say anything which he did not believe—that Mr. Berry had no special or peculiar fitness for the office. In the second place, he pointed out that the appointment had been made from political considerations; and, in the third place—and this was a very important branch of the statement—he said that Sheriffs-Substitute had been refused increase of salaries. For what reason? Because of the likelihood there was of their being made Sheriffs - Principal. Now, he (Mr. S. Williamson) thought that by such action as this they did these Substitutes, especially the very able men among them—as Sheriff Guthrie was—a very great injury, wrong, and injustice; and on these grounds he was bound, however anxious he might be to assist the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate out of this dilemma, to support the Amendment.
  MR. ASHER&c.)said, the circumstances under which the Bill was

  1905
  introduced furnished large material for pungent and severe criticism. But he thought there must be a general agreement that the statement of his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) was not wanting at least in frankness, because he had very candidly taken upon himself the entire responsibility for this occurrence, and had very distinctly stated that it was a pure oversight or mistake. He could not, therefore, agree with the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson), who had expressed a disinclination to accept that explanation. He (Mr. Asher) accepted it fully; but, at the same time, there were certain matters in connection with this appointment which he thought it was necessary to keep in view. In the first place, it should be clearly understood that there was a statutory qualification for the office, and it was that the person appointed should either be in practice before or in habitual attendance upon the Supreme Court in Scotland. His right hon. and learned Friend raised a question as to whether the appointment of Professor Berry as a temporary occupant of this office did not, to some extent, put upon him a qualification for it which he would not otherwise have had. He entirely dissented from that view. He did not in any way sympathize with the view that Professor Berry was to any extent qualified for the receipt of this appointment through the fact that he had for a short time been appointed to assist the late Sheriff Clark. He thought it would be a clear and direct evasion of the Statute to take a person who was not qualified to put him in temporarily for a short time, and then to promote him to the vacant office. It was perfectly clear that there was a distinct statutory qualification necessary; and he thought it was equally clear that Professor Berry had not that qualification. The result of that was a somewhat serious situation. The result of it was that with reference to an important public appointment in Scotland, with regard to which the Legislature had enacted that only persons qualified in a particular way could be appointed, the Executive had, in breach of the Statute, appointed a nonqualified person. He should be the very last person to any extent to minimize the serious character of such an act on the part of the Executive. He must also dissent from the view of his right hon.
  1906
  and learned Friend that this was a matter as to which there was not a general knowledge, and that it was embodied in an ancient Statute. He could not say that it was an ancient Statute that embodied this rule. It was the 2nd section of the leading Act regulating the constitution of the Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland, and it was contained in the section which proscribed the duties to be performed by the Sheriffs-Principal in Scotland; and, therefore, it was a section with which all judicial officers in Scotland must be held to be familiar. He would go further, and say that it was a matter of general knowledge. At the same time, he quite acknowledged that this matter had not occurred to anyone until quite recently; but, then, there was a difference between the non-occurrence of a point of this kind to a person who had not the duty of considering it, and the failure to take note of it on the part of those whoso minds were particularly directed to it. On all those points, therefore, he was bound to say it seemed to him the Bill raised a question of very considerable importance. But the practical question which remained was this—Was the House to take a step, or was it not, which would have the effect of compelling Professor Berry, who was at the present moment acting Sheriff of Lanarkshire, to vacate that office? Of course, now that the Bill had been presented to the House, and doubt had been cast upon Sheriff Berry's title to discharge his judicial functions in Lanarkshire, it was quite impossible that he could continue to hold office if the House should decline to pass the Bill. Therefore, with all the considerations in his mind to which he had adverted, he was bound to say, interested as he was in the administration of law and justice in Scotland, he preferred to put all considerations aside in connection with a Bill of this kind in favour of what he believed to be best for the interests of Lanarkshire. There was one part of the statement of his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to which he was glad to give his concurrence. He thought the rule as to the definition of the qualification of Sheriff was a sound rule, and he did not understand the Lord Advocate to suggest the contrary. The Lord Advocate did not propose any general alteration of the law, as the rule was a sound one, and ought to be maintained; but there were

  1907
  exceptions to all rules, and he was glad to state publicly his conviction that, apart from the question of want of statutory qualification, Professor Berry was a perfectly suitable person to appoint Sheriff of Lanarkshire. He had been a member of the Scottish Bar of some standing. He had practised for a considerable time. He had been appointed Professor of Law at Glasgow, and had ably discharged the duties of his Chair. And his legal qualifications were so appreciated by the commercial community in Glasgow that he had been repeatedly appointed to act as arbiter in important disputed cases. The particular qualification which he wanted was that he was not in habitual attendance upon the Supreme Court. Now, he (Mr. Asher) was bound to admit that the statutory qualification would be satisfied by a counsel being in attendance upon the Court, although he might not have a very large practice; because there was nothing in the Act which said that the person to be appointed should hold a certain number, or any, briefs. If he was in attendance on the Court waiting for briefs, he should be bound to hold that he had the statutory qualification. In the general case, it was extremely desirable that persons appointed to these important judicial offices should be persons who, up to the date of their appointment, had been constitutionally in touch with the administration of the law in the Supreme Court, or that they should themselves be discharging judicial functions as Sheriffs-Substitute in Scotland, He did not know that the appointment was justified in this sense that there was any scarcity of perfectly suitable men. He had no hesitation in saying that in the ranks of the Sheriffs-Substitute or of practising advocates perfectly eligible men could be found; but still Professor Berry, he was bound to admit, had, in his judgment, qualifications fitting him for the performance of the duties of the office. He had resigned his Chair under a misapprehension. He (Mr. Asher) was sure, for he was convinced, that had it occurred to the Professor that he was disqualified, he would have brought it to the notice of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. He (Mr. Asher) believed there had been a joint mistake between the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate and Professor Berry in that
  1908
  matter. Professor Berry had resigned his Chair. He was discharging the duties of Sheriff, and doing so, so far as lie could hear, to the satisfaction of the community amongst whom he was placed; and the practical question, therefore, was—Was the House to take advantage of a technical mistake—he admitted a very grave mistake—for the purpose of producing all the confusion which would result, and the hardship which, he thought, would result in the ease of Professor Berry—in compelling him to vacate this office, and without probably doing anything to improve the administration of law and justice in Lanarkshire? Looking at the matter as a practical man, and in the interest of the administration of law and justice in Lanarkshire, he thought it was most important that the House should, in the course of that debate, place on record its sense of the absolute importance of the Executive regulating their procedure strictly by the law in regard to all these appointments. But, directing his attention to this particular case, he confessed his opinion was that the most expedient thing, in all the circumstances, was to do what they could to rectify this mistake, and to allow Professor Berry to continue to discharge the duties of Sheriff of Lanarkshire.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, as one of the Members representing the constituency which was most concerned in this matter he would like to say a word or two. Professor Berry was a Conservative, and consequently a political opponent of his own, and therefore he had no reason to condone any political job in favour of Professor Berry if he believed that anything of the sort had been perpetrated; but he was perfectly certain that nothing of the sort had been perpetrated. His hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. S. Williamson) had spoken of suspicious circumstances, and had quoted a letter from Sheriff Guthrie. But surely, if a political job were to have been perpetrated in connection with this appointment, it would hardly have been attempted in a case that could afterwards be attacked on legal grounds. There were plenty of Tory briefless barristers in Parliament House, any one of whom might have been selected for political reasons, and set up as a Judge in Lanarkshire. There was no necessity to go to the Professor

  1909
  of Law in Glasgow University if a job were to be perpetrated. He was entirely in favour of appointing Sheriff-Substitutes to the Office of Sheriff-Principal; but he wished, in all fairness to the Government, to explain why in this particular case such an appointment could not well have been made. First, however, he would point out that the intention of Parliament that a Sheriff-Substitute should always be appointed Sheriff-Principal as a vacancy occurred was by no means so clear as some of his hon. Friends had assumed. Until very recently, if a Sheriff-Principal became ill, it was impossible to provide a temporary substitute for him, and he was obliged to get on with his duties as best he could or be turned adrift. The late Sheriff Bell, when he was Sheriff of Lanarkshire, became seriously ill, and he was obliged to go on with his work to the very last in a way that aggravated his illness and hastened his death. That created a considerable sensation in Scotland at the time. His death occurred shortly before an Election, and great complaints were made against the then Lord Advocate for the way in which Sheriff Bell had been treated. After the Election he (Dr. Cameron) called attention to the defect in the law, and the result was that an Act was passed entitling an interim Sheriff-Principal to be appointed in case the Sheriff-Principal should fall ill. The House was well aware, whenever a private Member introduced a Bill, he was always taunted with the drafting, even although he had gone to a professional draftsman to draft his Bill for him. But when a Government Bill was brought in the drafting, in practice, often proved to be of the worst possible description. It was perfectly evident that one course or other should be pursued with regard to the Act legalizing the appointment of interim Sheriff-Principals. It should either have required from the interim Sheriff-Principal the same qualifications as were required from the permanent Sheriff-Principal, or it should be laid down that a person who acted as interim Sheriff-Principal thereby acquired the same qualification as if he had been Sheriff-Substitute. But the Act did not do that, and had left the matter altogether undecided. The result was that in the present case the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate not unnaturally fell into
  1910
  the mistake which had been explained to the House. He would point out that it was not only the right, hon. and learned Lord Advocate who fell into the mistake of imagining that there was no legal impediment to Sheriff Berry's appointment. It was said he should have known. Of course he should, but the fact was that none of the Sheriff-Substitutes in Glasgow knew of the impediment, and he was perfectly certain that Sheriff Berry did not know, or he would have taken very good care to have the matter cleared up before he gave up his Professorship. Therefore, if the Lord Advocate was to be twitted with his ignorance on the subject, at all events he shared the ignorance in common with the whole of the Legal Profession, even in common with the learned "lay boy" (Sir George Campbell), who, if he had had anything but a very hazy and ex post facto knowedge of the subject, would surely not have failed to put a Question to the Government about it some months ago. As he had said, he was entirely in favour of Sheriffs-Substitute being promoted to be Sheriffs-Principal. It stimulated good men to take the minor appointments. But it was necessary to explain why such a promotion could not have been made in this case. It had been said that it was the course always pursued in the Courts of Glasgow; but that was not so. The first time it was done was in the case of Sheriff Bell, then in the case of Sheriff Dickson, then Sheriff Clark—these all being Sheriff-Substitutes of Lanarkshire, who were promoted to Principalships when vacancies occurred. But when Sheriff Clark was appointed he was not the senior Substitute, for there was at least one Sheriff-Substitute above him in seniority; but that gentleman gave way, conceding that Sheriff Clark was the fittest man for the appointment; and Sheriff Clark was also recommended to the Home Secretary by the other Sheriff-Substitutes. But on this occasion what occurred? Sheriff Clark's illness was a protracted one, and, with one exception, all the Sheriff-Substitutes in Lanarkshire were applicants, and that fact rendered it impossible that any one of them could be appointed. To his mind the fittest man was the senior Sheriff-Substitute, the gentleman who had previously waived his claim; but his appointment would have given mortal offence to all the

  1911
  others. Each of them had sent in his claim, backed up by all the influence he could muster, and it was rendered almost impossible to follow the excellent precedent which had been sot by previous appointments. It had boon said that political motives might have actuated the appointment of Sheriff Berry; but he would venture to say that if Sheriff Guthrie, who made that assertion, who was himself an applicant, and who, he believed, made Sheriff Murray's appointment an impossibility, owing to his sending in an application, had been appointed, he would have denounced the appointment as a political job, for the very reason, that Sheriff Guthrie, while Returning Officer at a recent Election in Glasgow, thought it compatible with his position as Sheriff and Returning Officer to allow his name to be used for electioneering purposes against himself and his colleague, Mr. Gilbert Beith. It was also fair to remember that when a vacancy in the Sheriff-Principalship had occurred in Glasgow, it had always been the outcry from the Legal Profession in Glasgow that a local man should be appointed, and they were jealous of the appointment of a man from Edinburgh or elsewhere.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: They are all Scotch.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he therefore thought they might pass by the appointment without attributing to the Lord Advocate anything worse than an inadvertence and an ignorance of the law which he appeared to have shared with all the Legal Profession in Scotland. As to the question whether Sheriff Berry's appointment should, be legalized, that was a matter with which he did not particularly concern himself. It appeared to him it would be a vindictive thing, when the matter had been allowed to go on for so long, and Sheriff Berry had severed his connection with the University, and dropped the advantage of service which would soon have entitled him to a pension, as well as given up his practice as arbitrator, which, in connection with his Chair, must have been very valuable, to turn him adrift now. If the House chose to do so, that was no matter to him, for Sheriff Berry was not a political supporter or personal friend of his own. Still, he thought it would be fairer and loss invidious to confirm the appointment. But what he was most
  1912
  concerned about was the passing of a Bill to validate the acts done by Sheriff Berry. That was the most important thing. Whoever was to blame for the appointment, certainly the litigants who had come before him since he was appointed ought not to be punished. It had been stated to the House that Sheriff Guthrie thought it was not necessary to pass an Act for the purpose; but on this point Sheriff Guthrie contradicted himself, because he went on to say—
  "It is quite certain that no judgment or act of Sheriff Berry can be set aside, or invalidated, until, at least, commission has been solemnly declared to be unlawful in an action, for which it is difficult to find a precedent in Scotland, directed for that purpose against the Lord Advocate himself."
  Sheriff Guthrie went on to point out that it was not likely that any suitor would raise an action against the Lord Advocate for that purpose; but according to his own showing it was quite on the cards that some disappointed suitor might do so, and the result would be that doubt would be cast upon all the important judgments that had been given during the last year at the Sheriff Court of Lanarkshire. There was no doubt as to the technical meaning of the Statute. He therefore thought that Sheriff Guthrie's own admission showed that there was a necessity for passing an Act validating the judgments of Sheriff Berry while he had held office, and that it was a duty which the Lord Advocate owed to the people of Lanarkshire, for having placed them in a position of any doubt on the subject, that he should take care that that doubt should be removed by legislation.
  MR. MASONsaid, he hoped the discussion would soon be closed, so that they might reach other Bills which were, in his view, of much greater importance, and for that reason he should give his vote in support of the second reading of the Bill. After the frank confession which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) had made of the mistake he had committed in the appointment of Professor Berry to the Sheriffship of Lanarkshire, he thought it would be most ungenerous on the part of the House not to pass the Bill, considering also that Sheriff Berry, who was a political opponent of his,

  1913
  was doing his work satisfactorily to the general public so far as he could learn. Looking to the fact that Professor Berry had resigned his Professorship, he thought the House would do a very hard thing if it deprived him of his present position by refusing to pass the Bill. He considered that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate ought to have given the appointment to one of the Sheriffs-Substitute. A Sheriff-Principalship was a prize to which the Sheriffs-Substitute were entitled to look forward. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had been subjected to some very sharp criticism for making the appointment. That criticism, he thought, was quite sufficient, and they ought now to go on to the other Business before them. Supposing the House did not pass this Bill, and the appointment were set aside, what would become of all the decisions given by Sheriff Berry during the past 12 months? He supposed another Bill would be required to validate his decisions, or the mind of everyone who had had a case before Sheriff Berry would be unsettled. He asked the House now to come to a vote on the Bill.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, that admittedly there had been a mistake in this matter, and others besides the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate must share the blame for not discovering the mistake. Sheriff Berry must take his share; the Sheriff Substitutes—several of whom were candidates for the appointment of Sheriffship—must take theirs; all of them had overlooked the clause in the Act of 1 & 2 Vict, which had been referred to.
  An hon. MEMBER: And the Home Secretary.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: Yes; and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, too, had overlooked it. But it was worth while for a moment to consider what the mistake really amounted to, and what kind of qualification it was in which Sheriff Berry was deficient. If it had been a qualification that had a necessary bearing on the discharge of his duties—upon his fitness for the office of Sheriff—it would have been more serious than it was; but the qualification wanting was merely attendance at the Court of Session. Such attendance did
  1914
  not necessarily imply any additional fitness for the office; and if Sheriff Berry wanted that qualification, he (Mr. J. A. Campbell) contended that he possessed a higher one, for, instead of being in attendance at the Court of Session, he was teaching law, and acting as an arbitrator in matters of law in Glasgow. What he was doing in Glasgow which necessitated his want of the other qualification was more useful in his preparation for the duties of Sheriff. Therefore, if the technical difficulty could be got over, he did not see that the public interest could suffer from what had been done. Reference had been made to the possibility of his right hon. and learned Friend having been actuated by political considerations in this appointment. He (Mr. J. A. Campbell) was sure that he was not; but, if he was, he had no occasion to appoint Sheriff Berry, because there were other candidates for the appointment who were quite as strong Conservatives. He (Mr. J. A. Campbell) was amused to find that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. S. Williamson) was so much influenced by a letter he had seen in the newspapers. Probably he was not aware that that letter was written by a disappointed candidate for the appointment. As the letter referred to himself, he might say that he could confirm its statement, of which he was proud, that he had the friendship of Professor Berry. That gentleman was universally respected in Glasgow, and he (Mr. J. A. Campbell) would be confirmed by all who knew the facts when he said that Mr. Berry's services in his new position gave universal satisfaction, not only to the general public, but to the Profession and the Bar in Glasgow. He hoped the House would have no hesitation in supporting the Bill.
  MR. SINCLAIR&c.)said, he hoped that whoever were responsible in the future, the merits of Sheriffs-Substitute would be taken very seriously into consideration in appointments of this kind. He knew from the public opinion in Lanarkshire that all the Sheriffs-Substitute who were candidates in this case were thoroughly qualified to take the post of Sheriff, and it would have given great satisfaction to the public if one of those gentlemen had been appointed. But, after all, the practical question was more important than the personal one, and the great point was

  1915
  to have the decisions which Sheriff Berry had already given in the cases that had come before him confirmed, so that no further doubt could be thrown upon them. The hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had referred to cases in which litigants might desire to retain their claims under the circumstances of the irregularity of the appointment of Sheriff Berry. One such case had come to his knowledge. It would be in the recollection of the House that some serious riots occurred in Lanarkshire in the beginning of February, in consequence of which troops were ordered by the Sheriff to preserve the peace.
  MR. SPEAKER: These remarks are not in Order. The Question before the House relates to the appointment of a gentleman to an office to which he has been appointed de facto, and the question now is whether he has the requisite qualification. The observations now being offered are apart from the question.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid, he would not pursue the line he was commencing, but would content himself with asking that the rights of those who were interested should be in no way damaged by this Bill.
  MR. MUNRO-FERGUSON&c.)said, he hoped that the advice given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lanark (Mr. Mason) would be followed, and that the House would be allowed to proceed with the more important Business that was to follow. All the facts were admitted, and there was nothing to keep them from coming to a Division. No one could dispute that the question had been discussed at as great a length as was justified by its importance. Almost half the Sitting was already gone, and if every lawyer and every Member for Lanarkshire and Glasgow thought it necessary to address the House there would be a very remote chance of the important work they had before them being carried through. He did not believe either that public opinion in Scotland would support them in prolonging the discussion.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he desired to support the appeal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Munro-Ferguson). There was other Business of great importance, interesting to the people of Scotland generally, and he
  1916
  therefore hoped his hon. Friend would he satisfied with the discussion that had taken place, and allow a Division—if there was to be one—to be taken now, in order that they might proceed with other measures.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he failed to see why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) should be in such a hurry to close the debate and to cover the neglect and deficiencies of Gentlemen who sat on the Ministerial Front Bench. It was all very well to say that this was a question which only affected Scotland; but he (Mr. Conybeare) believed that, when all the circumstances of the case were considered, it would be apparent that the matter did not only affect a particular district in which mischief had been done, but the whole country. That being so, he wished in a few words to express his opinions on the Bill before the House. He had nothing to say as to the personal qualifications of Mr. Berry, the Sheriff. He might be, and for aught he knew to the contrary was, the most qualified man in Scotland for the position of Sheriff; but what they had to consider was whether an appointment of the kind could be made, and ought to be made, in defiance of the law by Gentlemen who were supposed to be the Law Advisers of the Crown, without being met with strong reprobation from the House of Commons. The Bill said that doubts had arisen as to the appointment of Mr. Berry. No doubts whatever had arisen, and if he had no other objections to the Bill he had this one—that it misrepresented the circumstances under which its introduction became necessary. It was perfectly apparent to everybody that the appointment of Sheriff Berry was in defiance of the Statute Law; and, therefore, the correct title of the measure now before the House should have been "a Bill to relieve the Lord Advocate for the time being of the pains and penalties which his ignorance of the law and general neglect of all the circumstances have caused him to incur." It the Bill were put in that way and passed it would be a standing record of the actual facts. But to say that the Bill was necessary because doubts had arisen relative to Sheriff Berry's appointment was, to his mind, a perversion of the facts. If this

  1917
  was not a job, he (Mr. Conybeare) did not knew what was. He had a recollection of what had been said and done with reference to other appointments, notably that of the late Lord Monks-well, when he was Sir Robert Collier; and, in view of the course taken by the Opposition then, he insisted that those who objected to the appointment of Sheriff Berry had the best reason for taking a strong coarse in the matter now before the House. They were as much justified in reprobating the action of the Government in appointing Sheriff Berry as their political opponents were in denouncing the promotion, of Sir Robert Collier. But the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was not the only official to blame in the matter. Ought not the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to be included in any censure, seeing that the appointment of Sheriff Berry was confirmed by him? If the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary could not make appointments of the kind without displaying such ignorance of the Statute Law, he considered they were not fit for the positions they held.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERONsaid, he thought those hon. Members who wished to castigate the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate for this appointment had had full satisfaction. He hoped the Bill would not be passed; but he would suggest this compromise—that the appointment of Mr. Berry to the office of Sheriff should not be confirmed by the House, and that he should be indemnified for the loss he had suffered by having to resign his Professorship in the University. If the House would agree to some such compromise as that, he thought the matter could be amicably settled. It was evident that the country was against the appointment, and he could not understand why the Government should persist in putting forward this Bill in. the teeth of such opposition as had been offered to it.
  DR. R. MACDONALDsaid, that as a serious allegation had been made against the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have the opportunity of saying whether that part of the letter that appeared today contained in inverted commas was correct—namely, that he (the right hon.
  1918
  and learned Lord Advocate) would "put a stop to the promotion of Sheriffs-Substitute"—a system which he (Dr. R. Macdonald) considered had been of great advantage, especially to the remoter districts of the country, by insuring the supply of a more efficient class of men for the office.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he might say in perfect good faith that he had never made any such a statement.
  DR. R. MACDONALDsaid, he was glad to hoar it, because he considered that since Sheriff-Substitutes had been able to be promoted to the Shrievalty they had had a better class of men coming forward. He was pleased to know that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was able to disavow the statements in the letter.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 136; Noes 53: Majority 83.—(Div. List No. 370.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

  SECRETARY TOR SCOTLAND ACT (1885) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords.]
  (The Lord Advocate.)

  [BILL 360.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading road.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE(Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it would not be necessary to occupy much time in describing the Bill, as it was well known to all the Scottish Members. He might say generally that it was for the purpose of extending the powers of the Secretary for Scotland, and giving him charge of numerous matters not placed under his control under the Bill of 1885. Considerable inconvenience was found to exist in certain matters inconsequence of the jurisdiction of the Secretary for Scotland being so limited; and it was thought desirable, both for the purpose of raising the powers of the Office, increasing its dignity, and preventing complication and inconvenience to the public, that this Bill should be brought in. The Bill was quite short, and he did not require to go over its provisions. So far as it went, he believed it would be practically acceptable to all the Members from Scotland. He trusted that, after reasonable discussion, the second reading would be agreed to.
  Motion made, and question proposed, "That the Bill be now road a second time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that Bill had been discussed a good deal, and it was discussed in the House last night; but he did not think it would be decent to allow it to pass its second reading without some little discussion. The result of last night's discussion was to show that the Scottish Members were eminently dissatisfied with, the present state of things. But they were pretty well agreed that the remedy was not to go backwards, but forwards; and instead of abolishing the Office of Secretary for Scotland, which was so far a failure, they ought to add to the duties and make the Scottish Secretary a more important officer. In that way they might at last attain the object they had long aimed at, to have a more distinctive administration, so that the business of the country might be better attended to, and that they might have an opportunity in the House of obtaining information to questions from a responsible officer in regard to Scottish affairs. In consequence of the Secretary for Scotland being in the House of Lords the Scottish Members in reality found themselves, for all practical purposes, worse off than before; because formerly they had the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate in the House, from whom they could get any information they wanted. But the present Secretary for Scotland was in a superior sphere—up in the clouds, so to speak—and they could not get at him. The Lord Advocate was himself placed in a very humiliating position. He was a sort of inferior Under Secretary—a kind of mouthpiece in the House of Commons to the noble Lord who was Secretary for Scotland. The Lord Advocate had descended from the high position formerly held by his Predecessors. It would be very much better for the administration of Scottish affairs that the Secretary for Scotland should be in the House of Commons. He hoped the Bill, if passed, would transfer the administration of law and justice in Scotland from the Home Office to the Secretary for Scotland; for it was quite plain, as the result of the discussion yesterday, that at present the establishment of the Secretary for Scotland had not work enough. He thought the Bill
  1920
  was a step in the right direction, and that they might yet be able to go a good deal further. He did not wish to raise the question as to whether the Secretary for Scotland should not be an officer of much higher position—a Secretary of State, with, perhaps, a larger salary. But he was inclined to think, looking to the political difficulties with regard to making a sixth Secretary of State, and also in regard to the salary and other reasons, it would not be desirable to press this matter too much. He thought it would be enough to accept the Bill in its present form, as they would have made a considerable step in the direction of extending the duties of the Office. With regard to the Scottish Secretary being raised to a higher position, and if possible included in the Cabinet, he noticed that in the discussion on the previous night an effect was produced upon the minds of some hon. Members by the suggestion that they had only some 12 or 14 Members to choose from when a Conservative Ministry was in Office. He confessed that there was a good deal in that objection; but he got over the difficulty by dissenting from the doctrine that it was absolutely necessary that the Scottish Secretary should be a Member for a Scottish constituency. There were always a number of distinguished Scotchmen who sat for places outside of Scotland, especially among those who sat on the Conservative side; and, for his part, he would be quite willing that the choice should be extended among them. He might take for illustration the case of the Chief Secretary for Ireland at that moment. He was a Scotsman; but the Under Secretary (Colonel King-Harman), who, whatever his virtues and his faults, was a most typical Irishman, arid so properly held an Irish Office, sat for an English constituency because he could not get an Irish constituency to return him. That difficulty, therefore, he did not think need stand in the way. He did think that the Scottish Secretary should have more work, more rank, and more consideration, even although it might not be possible to make him by law a Cabinet Minister—such a rank in the Government as would insure that Scotch legislation, should not be shunted, as was now the case, to the month of August. There was one provision in the Bill to which he wished to allude.

  1921
  It was that which, while transferring to the Scottish Secretary the Department of Law and Justice, exempted from him the right of advising Her Majesty as to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. That, he thought, derogated from the dignity of the Office, and he hoped they would have an explanation of it from the Government. The Scottish Secretary, advised by the Scottish Law Officers, would he infinitely more able to advise on such matters than the Home Secretary; and therefore he hoped the exemption would be withdrawn. With these observations, he heartily supported the Bill, and hoped they would have Committee on it on a very early day.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would make a few remarks on this Bill, not as a Scottish Member, but as one who had held the Seals of the Home Office, and that recently; and what he was desirous of saying was that while he should certainly support the Bill, it appeared to him that it did not go far enough, and that it would be perfectly safe and much more convenient, as a matter of official and public arrangement, if the Secretary for Scotland were made a Secretary of State, or at least had all the functions in Scotland which the Home Secretary had in England. He said that distinctly from his experience. He became Secretary of State soon after the present system was established. He was bound to say that, having gone to the Home Office under the impression that it would not be desirable to create another Secretary of State, in lieu of the Secretary for Scotland, he left the Office quite convinced that that was the only practical arrangement, and that any compromise between the present system, and that could not-last, and while continued would be a great inconvenience. The Bill before them excepted from the function of the Secretary for Scotland, under the proposed reorganization of the business, the duty, in the first place, of advising Her Majesty as to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. Now, it would be almost absurd that if they took from the Home Office, as was proposed, all supervision with respect to law and justice in Scotland, it was almost absurd to leave in the hands of the Home Secretary, when he knew nothing whatever of Scottish legal arrangements—for he would, under this Bill, cease to have any connection with them—this right to
  1922
  advise Her Majesty. The Home Secretary would exercise that prerogative with, no knowledge whatever. His Office would know nothing about Scotch judicial affairs, so that he would be advised by persons in the Office who would have officially nothing to do with the subject whatever; and so even with the most able Home Secretary, one most anxious to do his duty, a greater risk of failure of justice he could not conceive. On that round—were it on that ground alone—he thought it extremely inconvenient to transfer all the business connected with law and justice, and yet to retain that one and peculiar business of advising the Crown with respect to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, not only in capital cases, but in far less important ones, with which the Home Secretary had daily to deal. It might be said that if they transferred to the Secretary for Scotland there were insurmountable difficulties in the way, because on technical grounds he could not have access to Her Majesty for the purpose of advising the exercise of the Royal Prerogative unless he were a Secretary of State. But he would point out that the Home Secretary had nothing to do with the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in Ireland, where there is no Secretary of State. At present all cases in which it was desirable to exercise the prerogative of mercy in Ireland were dealt with by the Viceroy and his Government at Dublin; therefore the technical difficulty which had been set up was no real difficulty at all. It was desirable that the Secretary for Scotland, having the whole of the departments connected with law and justice transferred to his charge, should also have as his right this right to advise on the prerogative of mercy, just as the Irish Department or every Governor of a Colony had. He hoped, therefore, that in this respect, even if the name "Secretary of State" was not given to the Secretary for Scotland, the Home Secretary would be relieved of this function. He admitted that if the Secretary for Scotland performed all the duties of a Secretary of State it would be better that he should have the title, and the only objection seemed to be that if they made his position that of a Secretary of State they would have to give him the salary of a Secretary of State.

  1923
  But it did not at all follow that persons holding offices in Scotland or in Ireland should have the same salary as those holding offices in England, and it was not the ease at present. There were a great many cases where the salary in Scotland or Ireland was not the same as the salary attached to a an office with the same title in England, for the very simple reason that the amount of business was far greater in English Departments than it was in Scotland or Ireland; and in settling the salaries of the great Officers of State, Parliament had always had regard to the amount of work which they were called upon to do, and the salaries were graduated accordingly. Therefore on that point he did not think there was any real objection to the Secretary for Scotland being or having the functions of a Secretary for State. He would have to discharge precisely the same duties, only of course in a smaller proportion, as the Secretary of State for England; and, having duties on a smaller scale, it would only be reasonable that his salary should be so much less. But there was another, and, he thought, very strong reason why the Secretary for Scotland should be a Secretary for State, and it was that from time immemorial every Secretary of State had been in the Cabinet, and it appeared to him most important that the Secretary for Scotland, considering the importance of his duties and responsibilities, should be a Member of the Cabinet. Now, there was no way he knew of in which that could be assured without his being made a Secretary of State. No promise made in debate by a Minister in this House would govern future Prime Ministers in selecting their Colleagues for the Cabinet. The Ministers in the Cabinet, excepting the Lord Chancellor, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord President, and the Secretaries of State, were selected by the Prime Minister, and it would be impossible to lay down any rule, except by Statute, which would guide future Prime Ministers. But so far as the Statute Book was concerned, the Cabinet was a body unknown to law. The Cabinet had never been mentioned in any Act of Parliament, nor in any formal Resolution of this or the other House. But it had always been the rule that Secretaries of State should be Members of the Cabinet, and if those sitting near
  1924
  him were of opinion that it was essential that the Secretary for Scotland should be in the Cabinet, the only practical way of carrying that wish out was to make him a Secretary of State. He had imported no politics into the discussion, and had said nothing about the question whether the Scottish Secretary should be a Member of this or of the other House. That would be altogether foreign to the purposes of the Bill, and could not be imported into it. But he thought it was important, now that they had an opportunity given them by the Bill, that they should take care that the functions of the Secretary for Scotland were the functions of a Secretary of State, including the duty of advising Her Majesty as to the exercise of Her prerogative of mercy. There were other exceptions, for instance, as to the control of reformatory and industrial schools in Scotland, which he thought should not be made. It would be very much bettor that these functions should be given to the Secretary for Scotland, instead of remaining with the Home Office. He strongly supported the Bill, and he only hoped that it would be carried further.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he was sorry that the Bill was not introduced at au earlier period of the Session, for at this late date it was utterly impossible to import into it Amendments of any consequence, and he was also sorry that the course pursued with regard to other Bills, as to which there was a strong desire existing among Scottish Members that they should be proceeded with, had not been followed in this case, and the Bill allowed to he before the country until the commencement of the next Session, when it could have been proceeded with and discussed at leisure. He desired to place on record his opinion that the Bill would be a most unsatisfactory enactment, and could not be regarded in any respect as a final measure. It proposed to consolidate in the Secretary for Scotland some of the duties tit present exercised in respect to Scotland by the Home Secretary. The principal duty which would be so transferred was that relating to law and justice. He presumed that the reason for this transfer was the duty which the Secretary for Scotland had to perform a year ago in connection with certain disturbances in the West of

  1925
  Scotland, when he was the Minister who directed the use of the military forces then employed; but if that was the reason, he could only say that under the existing arrangements the Secretary for Scotland was able to enforce law and order in the most summary fashion, and by military aid. There were a number of offices which shared jurisdiction in Scotland with that of the Scottish Secretary. They had the Woods and Forests interfering in some matters, the Local Government Board in others, the First Commissioner of Works in others, while the Secretary to the Treasury also interfered in Scottish, matters not relating purely to finance. If they wanted to have a permanent or satisfactory Act dealing with this matter they must consolidate all these details of administration in the Scottish Secretary. He would go further. There was one official intimately connected with the Scottish Office, and also with the Home Office—the Lord Advocate. When the Act appointing the Scottish Secretary was passed, it contained a provision that nothing in that Act should derogate from the duties and rights performed by the Lord Advocate, either by law or by custom. He knew that one motive which strongly actuated a number of Scottish Members with regard to the appointment of Secretary for Scotland was the belief that the affairs of Scotland would be better administered in the hands of a trained lay politician than in the hands of mere lawyers—gentlemen appointed direct from Parliament House to the Treasury Bench without any previous administrative experience. If the Secretary for Scotland was to practically control the entire administration of Scottish affairs, they must follow the precedent of England and Ireland, and have the Secretary for Scotland administering the Office with legal officers only assisting him. This would necessitate a rearrangement of the duties as between the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland. They were told that some arrangement had been come to, but it was a purely voluntary one. There was a great preponderance of opinion among the Scottish Members that the Secretary for Scotland should be a Secretary of State, thus securing for him a seat in the Cabinet. But that was a matter which it was evident they could not discuss in Committee, when the second
  1926
  reading was only carried on the 10th of August. They could only take the Bill as it stood, hoping that they might get more in the future. The Minister for Scotland would not be very often called upon to advise the Queen as to the exercise of Her prerogative of mercy, and while he agreed that he should have he power, he thought the infrequency of its use made it a matter of small importance. But the question of reformatory and industrial schools should surely be entrusted to the Scottish Secretary. Persons were constantly applying on account of a change in family circumstances for the removal of children, from, reformatories and industrial schools, and in all such cases applications had to be sent to the Home Office. These schools and reformatories were maintained to a great extent by local contributions: they were managed locally; and why, in the name of commonsense, they should not be handed over to the Scottish Secretary he could not conceive. Reference had been made as to the question of salary in the event of the Scottish Secretary being a Secretary of State, but there was one way of solving the matter, which, though it might not commend itself to the occupants of the Front Bench, might yet possibly not meet with any hostility in the country. He suggested that some re-arrangement of the work of the various offices might be made, whereby with the total amount of salaries kept at the present sum, a salary equally liberal with the rest might be found for the Secretary for Scotland. There was another anomaly in addition to the industrial school question. It was proposed that the important question of technical education should remain with the Science and Art Department, instead of being entrusted to the Scottish Department; and he would again urge that there could be no satisfactory or adequate settlement which did not amalgamate all these departments, so far as Scotland was concerned, and put them in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland, he thought the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) had conclusively proved that it would be for the public convenience, and certainly in conformity with the national sentiment of Scotland that that functionary should be made a Secretary of State. He was certain that if they took the Bill now

  1927
  they would have to take it as it stood; and, if they did so, instead of waiting till it could be more satisfactorily discussed, the result would be that for many years to come the status of the Scottish Secretary would be determined, during which time nothing could be done to enlarge his Office in the direction desired by the Representatives of the people of Scotland.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, that this was not to be a final Bill. It was called for by the difficulty which arose in preserving law and order in Scotland not long ago. Under the other Act, the Home Secretary was in theory responsible for law and order in Scotland. He was responsible for the employment of the military, for instance, if any occasion arose. On the other hand, the practical control of all these operations was almost of necessity—at any rate, as a matter of convenience—in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland. That created a position which he felt to be intolerable, that, as Home Secretary, he was responsible for movements that he did not control and direct; whereas the Secretary for Scotland, who was giving the orders requisitioning the troops, and directing the naval expeditions, as they were called, and taking all the steps for the preservation of law and order, was not legally responsible That was a position which was untenable, and though this Bill might not satisfy the aspirations of the hon. Members representing Scotland, it was mainly intended to cure the anomalous and untenable position on the very important subject of law and order, He thought it fulfilled that modest object effectually, and so far was a useful Bill, which he hoped hon. Gentlemen from Scotland would not decline to accept. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) criticized the reservations in the Bill, as he understood they were prompted by these reasons. The exercise of the prerogative of mercy was taken out for the reason of etiquette rather than anything else. It was because the Secretary for Scotland was not a Secretary of State, and it was only a Secretary of State who had direct access to Her Majesty at all times. In the case of Ireland there, was no necessity for communication with Her Majesty, because the Lord Lieutenant was her direct
  1928
  representative, and exercised the prerogative of mercy himself. He (Mr. Matthews) had not himself felt any difficulty in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, so far as Scotland was concerned, even though the Office of Secretary for Scotland had been in existence during the whole time he had been Home Secretary, for the reason that there was no difficulty in his communicating directly with the Scottish Judges. Therefore, if the Bill passed as it stood, and the powers of the Secretary for Scotland were extended as proposed, he did not anticipate any difficulty in the Home Office continuing to exercise the prerogative of mercy in the case of Scotland. It was said, why not make the Scottish Secretary a Secretary of State? Two reasons struck him. There was the question of expense. He did not believe in the possibility of keeping the Secretary of State of so important a country as Scotland permanently at a lower or different level than other Secretaries of State. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) suggested levelling down. He (Mr. Matthews) did not believe in inequality as to the emoluments and advantages of Secretaries of State, and he did not think it would last long. Then he saw an objection in adding to the necessary Members of the Cabinet. His experience was limited, but he thought Cabinets were already large enough; and to add another necessary and inevitable Member to every Cabinet seems to him an undesirable thing. With respect to the reservations as to the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Act, the Coal Mines Act, and the Factories and Workshops Acts, the idea was that it was desirable that the administration of these Acts and the rules and regulations concerning them should be uniform in all parts of the United Kingdom. It might be that the list of exceptions was not altogether well and wisely chosen, but still that was the idea which prompted their reservation. The functions transferred by the Bill to the Secretary for Scotland were certainly important enough. If he were driven to the wall, he should say they were so important that they would quite justify his being a Secretary of State, because he was now made responsible for law and order, which, after all, was as important a function as a Minister could discharge. This Bill was not a final one;

  1929
  but though, it did not give to Scotland all she wished and desired, he thought it was calculated to make what the circumstances of last year and the year before showed to be a necessary and pressing change. In that view, therefore, he trusted it would be accepted by the Scottish Members.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, one statement of the right hon. Gentleman was satisfactory—namely, that the Bill was not to be looked upon as a final one. That statement might give Scottish Members an inducement to press the Government with the view of getting a little more. The question which, to his mind bulked most largely in connection with the Bill was that raised by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn, with reference to the Scottish Secretary being a Member of the Cabinet. He would have risen earlier if he had not expected his hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson) to move his Amendment, and he thought it would have been the most convenient course to have taken the discussion upon that question, so as to have obtained a very definite expression of opinion upon that substantial point. He did not care very much whether the Secretary for Scotland was called a Secretary of State or not, nor did he want him to have a larger salary than he had at present. He thought £2,000 was quite enough for the duties he at present discharged, and probably it would be enough for the discharge of the duties which would hereafter be laid upon him. He thought the question of salaries paid to Secretaries of State was one for the nation; and he hoped it would be considered seriously in the future whether they were not too highly paid. But what they really did want was that the Secretary for Scotland should be a Member of the Cabinet. During the time that the Office had been in existence there had been a Secretary for Scotland, if he might say so, of every sort. They had had Members of both Houses of Parliament. They had had noble Lords and Gentlemen who had been in the Cabinet, and others who had not been in the Cabinet. Though he thought that except under very rare and exceptional circumstances the Secretary for Scotland should be a Member of the House of Commons, still he would not put that into an Act of Parliament, or so fetter the judgment of
  1930
  future Prime Ministers, But more important than that he should be a Member of the House of Commons was that he should be a Member of the Cabinet, so as to have some direct control over the conduct of Business, and over the forcing on the Government of proper consideration of Scottish measures. He would give just one instance—and, in doing so, he did not wish to say anything which would be painful to the Lord Advocate—which illustrate clearly the position in which the Secretary for Scotland was placed. On Friday, a week or a fortnight ago, the Scottish Members had an invitation from the Secretary for Scotland and from the Lord Advocate to meet them in one of the Committee Rooms on the Monday following, to discuss whether technical education in Scotland should be dealt with by a separate Bill or be dealt with as part of the English Bill. On the Monday, after Question Time, it was announced by the First Lord of the Treasury, in response to a question, that the Government determined to deal with Scottish Technical Education by a separate Bill; and it turned out that there was a meeting of the Cabinet on Saturday, and that the question was then determined upon. So that owing to the Secretary for Scotland not being in the Cabinet he was ignorant of its deliberations.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: If I remember rightly, the Cabinet on the Saturday appointed a Committee with power to deal with the matter, and it was dealt with just before the decision was given.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, he could only state what was known to the public. If the Secretary for Scoland had been in. the Cabinet they should not now have been in the position of discussing Bills which had only been in print before them for a few days. It was an open secret that if the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had remained Secretary for Scotland, being a Member of the Cabinet, this Bill, and, in all probability, other Scottish measures, would have been produced a long time ago. He did not think either the Lord Advocate or the Secretary for Scotland was to blame; but, undoubtedly, if Lord Lothian had a place in the Cabinet they should have had these measures sooner, and would

  1931
  have been able to give them much more adequate consideration and discussion. He did not know whether his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Anderson) intended to propose the Amendment of which he had given Notice; but what they ought to endeavour to impress upon the Government, and get some further distiuet—he did not say pledge, but statement from them to the effect that, so far as they could, for the future they would endeavour that the Secretary for Scotland should be in the Cabinet; and if they could not pledge themselves that he would be in the Cabinet, they ought to state that they saw the difficulty that arose through the Secretary for Scotland not being in the Cabinet, and as they had given him very high and important duties in appointing Judges and directing law and justice, they ought to recognize that, with such important duties to discharge, the Secretary for Scotland should be in a position to hold Cabinet rank. There were some minor points to be considered. He thought all the six Acts which were here excepted were in the original Local Government Bill of 1883. He quite saw that there were objections to dividing the duties of inspecting under the Factories and Workshops Act and the Mines Act; but, with regard to the practical working of these Acts, he must point out that there was a strong feeling in Scotland that the factories and workshops inspection was not adequately done in Scotland at present. He did not say it would be better done if it were under the Secretary for Scotland but, undoubtedly, the grievance that was at present felt could be more quickly brought home by an appeal to the Secretary for Scotland than by an appeal to the Home Secretary. He did not see any adequate reason why the Industrial Schools Act should be excepted. That was just one of the Acts that he thought ought to have been referred to the Secretary for Scotland. His hon. Friend the Member for North East Lanarkshire (Mr. D. Crawford) had had on the Paper a Bill dealing with the question of day industrial schools in Scotland. That Bill had been withdrawn and therefore he was in order in referring to it. He had not the least doubt that if the Industrial Schools Act had been under the control of the Scottish Office it would have made progress, for they
  1932
  knew the Scottish Office was in favour of the reform contemplated by that Bill—the establishment of day industrial schools in Scotland as in England. He was himself in favour of the transference of the Industrial Schools Act to the Scottish Office, but, at the same time, admitted that there were certain obstacles in the way. He also wished to call attention to the 2nd sub-section of Clause 2, which was identical, he thought, with the words in the original Bill. Complaints had been made by several of his hon. Friends with regard to the delay that had taken place in the presentation of certain Returns, particularly the local taxation Returns, by the Scottish Office. These were amongst the Returns which were transferred by the Act of 1885 from the Home Office to the Scottish Office; but no adequate staff had been provided, as in the case of the Education Department, to do this clerical work, and that was the cause of the inordinate delay that had occurred. It was not quite fair to blame the Secretary for Scotland or the Lord Advocate for that delay, because there was not actually a clerical staff to do the work. Therefore, he earnestly impressed upon the Government to make provision against the recurrence of such delays in the future. The extra work that would accrue under this Bill would be very much larger than under the Bill of 1885, for, of course, all Scottish Returns would now come through the Scottish Office, and not through the Home Office. It was very difficult to enforce Amendments to the Bill in Committee; and he hoped the Government would see, from the strong expression of opinion to-day, that the establishment of this Office would not be permanently satisfactory unless it meant that in nine eases out of ten the holder was to be a Member of the Cabinet.
  MR. CRAIG SELLARobserved, that this was a Departmental Bill, and he hoped the Secretary of State for the Home Department would agree with them that it was only an instalment of what they might hope for in future Sessions. While he said this was a departmental measure, it was also one of great importance, because it regulated the arrangements between the Home Office and the Scottish Secretary's Office. So far as he could judge, both from the meetings they had had in

  1933
  private, and from the discussion in the House to-day, Scottish Members were unanimous that this Bill, even as a Departmental Bill, should pass. If that were so, they had still before them a very important measure—the Technical Education Bill. They had nearly two hours remaining to discuss it. The principle of technical education had been largely discussed last night, so that even in the short time still at their disposal he thought they might have the decision of the House on the matter. He therefore hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) would not move his Amendment now. If he did move it, and it were carried, all the hon. Member would do would be to wreck the Departmental Bill that all the other Scottish Members desired to see carried. Why should not the hon. and learned Member move his Amendment as an instruction on going into Committee? But if the hon. and learned Member would take his view, he would not move his Amendment either now or on going into Committee, but would reserve it till next Session, when they might hope to have she matter fully discussed. He thought the remarks which had been made on the subject by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) were conclusive, and in time the Secretary for Scotland must be a Secretary of State. He therefore hoped the House would take the second reading now, and go on to the Technical Instruction Bill.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he did not wish to occupy the time of the House beyond a few minutes, because he had had an opportunity to express his views in connection with the Vote for the Scottish Office. He thought the Scottish Members had not been quite fairly treated by the Government, in view of the very strong expressions of opinion given yesterday at the Scottish Office, to the effect that a provision ought to be inserted in the Bill for the purpose of mailing the Secretary for Scotland a Secretary of State. That point was to be considered, and he thought they ought to have heard from the Government what conclusion they had come to on the subject. But they had had nothing of the kind. What he wanted to hear was the view of the Government on the subject. And although the advice tendered by the hon. Member who had
  1934
  just addressed the House was very valuable, he thought the best way to test the opinion of the Scottish Members on the question was to move his Amendment. He therefore begged to move—
  "That no Bill dealing with the powers and duties of the Secretary for Scotland will be satisfactory which does not provide that the office of Secretary for Scotland be held by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State."
  He was as anxious as the hon. Member who had just spoken that the Bill should be passed, and therefore, without any further remark he proposed to take a Division on his Amendment.
  MR. R. WALLACEseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That'' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no Bill dealing with the powers and duties of the Secretary for Scotland will he satisfactory which does not provide that the office of Secretary for Scotland he held by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State."—(Mr. Anderson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. ESSLEMONTsaid, he would have seconded the Amendment were it not that it was quite impossible to introduce such an Amendment in Committee, He had taken an opportunity at the private meeting of Scottish Members to say that he believed the provisions of this Bill were perfectly inadequate to satisfy the constituencies of Scotland, and to say that were the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) carried out, and the Secretary for Scotland given the status of a Secretary of State, there would not be much difficulty in arranging the reservations which were proposed in the Bill. It would be more satisfactory that they should have no Secretary for Scotland at all than that they should have a Secretary who was not a Member of that House, and who was not in the Cabinet. Even the Home Secretary had not dared to say that the duties laid upon the Secretary for Scotland were not such as to entitle him to be raised to the dignity of Secretary of State. He hoped that the Government would make a concession on this matter to Scottish Members, who had been long suffering this Session in regard to legislation. He believed that the Members for Scotland were unanimous with regard

  1935
  to this proposal. For a little country like Scotland the salary might be smaller, but there was nothing in the objection that the Cabinet would be unduly enlarged. Out of the large number of Members of the Cabinet, surely Scotland was not getting more than her fair share in having one single Member in the Cabinet. He believed if the Scottish Members were united they would be perfectly able to carry the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh in Committee. He was speaking from no Party point of view, for this was a matter which did not affect Party; but he would say that if the Bill was carried as it now stood, it would not be worth the paper that it was printed upon, because it would not settle the question in Scotland, and the agitation would have to be carried on constantly until the change took place But if the Government made this concession and raised the Secretary for Scotland to the position of a Secretary of State he believed it would give general satisfaction, and would settle the question for some time to come. Otherwise, he believed they should have to look to Home Rule in order that their affairs might be better attended to.
  MR. ASHERsaid, having been connected with the conduct of Scottish Business in the Scottish Office for some years, he desired to express his opinion that the arrangement under which Scottish Business was conducted by the Scottish Secretary would never be satisfactorily settled until the Scottish Secretary was a Cabinet Minister. He rose for the purpose of asking the Government whether they would not be disposed, even at the present stage of the Bill, to make an alteration in the provisions of the Bill to that effect—that was, to make the Scottish Secretary a Secretary of State. He hoped that the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn would not press his Amendment to a Division; because if it was carried it would be fatal to the Bill, and those hon. Members who were anxious to see the Bill passed would have to vote for the Amendment, in the terms of which they largely sympathized. It was impossible to doubt that the Bill proposed to give to the Secretary for Scotland certain duties which never could be satisfactorily discharged, except by a Cabinet Minister. Would any person approaching the
  1936
  consideration of the question of the arrangement of Scottish Business ever propose for a moment to transfer the whole responsibility for law and justice in Scotland to one Minister, and yet leave in the hands of another Minister the matter of the Royal prerogative? What was the reason assigned by the Home Secretary for such an arrangement? He said it was necessary, because the recommendation in the matter of the Royal prerogative must be in the hands of a Minister who had access to the Sovereign, and it was only a Secretary of State who had access to the Sovereign. But the right hon. Gentleman entirely forgot that this Bill was putting duties and powers on the Secretary for Scotland that would necessarily require that he should have access to the Sovereign; because, if the whole of the functions of the Home Secretary with regard to law and justice were transferred to the Scottish Secretary, all recommendations to the Crown as to the appointment of superior Judges would also have to be transferred to him. It had not been suggested that a Minister who had to recommend the appointment of Judges would have to go to another Minister and ask him, as a personal favour, to take his recommendation to the Sovereign, for the purpose of having it confirmed. There should be a provision in the Bill raising the status of the Secretary for Scotland to that of a Minister of State. It was quite evident that the financial aspect of the question was a very small obstacle; and with regard to the increase of the number of Secretaries of State, there was no hard and fast line about them. If it was proved that they were creating an Officer who had duties to perform which could not be satisfactorily performed except by a Cabinet Minister and a Secretary of State, then he should be made a Secretary of State; and no question as to the precise number of Secretaries of State should stand in the way of making this a complete and satisfactory measure.
  MR. FINLAYsaid, in common with many of his hon. Friends, he held strongly the belief that it was expedient that the Secretary for Scotland should be a Secretary of State, and have a seat in. the Cabinet. At the same time, he hoped the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend would not be pressed to a Division. He thought

  1937
  most of the Members for Scotland were agreed that this Bill was a good Bill as far as it went. He was not prepared to take a step which would have the effect of destroying the Bill because it was not so perfect as they thought it ought to be. And inasmuch as the effect of carrying the Amendment would be to destroy the chance of passing the Bill this Session, the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn would not got the support of those who held the view which he had embodied in his Amendment; because to vote for such an Amendment would be to destroy the chance of a useful measure becoming law this Session. He joined in the hope that the Amendment would not be pressed to a Division, and that Scotland would get the benefit of this Bill, though he did not think it went quite so far as it ought to go. He hoped the effect of this discussion would be to elicit from the Government some notification that they were prepared favourably to consider the possibility of taking such a step as that which commended itself to the very great majority of Scottish Representatives, if not to all of them.
  MR. PRESTON BRUCEsaid, he agreed with those who thought that the Secretary for Scotland should be a Minister of Cabinet rank. But he must protest against a measure of this importance being brought forward at a time of the Session when it was impossible that they could give it adequate consideration. The only way to look at this Bill now was as a temporary measure, strictly confined to the relations between the Home Office on the one side and the Secretary for Scotland on the other. He believed the change it proposed to effect between the relations of those two Departments was a beneficial change. Therefore, he was in favour of the measure going forward. There were in the Bill certain exceptions from the transfer made from the Home Office to the Scottish Secretary, and he had no doubt a good deal could be said against a transfer in these cases. With regard to Reformatory and Industrial Schools, they had transferred to the Secretary for Scotland both the prisons and the educational arrangements of the country; and yet they proposed to retain under the Home Secretary the Reformatory and Industrial Schools, which were connected with these two Departments.
  1938
  He did not think such an arrangement as that could be permanently satisfactory. A Royal Commission had reported on the subject of Reformatory and Industrial Schools; and legislation, he supposed, was imminent on the matter. The probability was that it would be better to have a separate Bill for Scotland with regard to Reformatory and Industrial Schools; and he suggested that this matter should be at once handed over to the Scottish Secretary so that the Department might prepare a suitable measure on the subject.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  TECHNICAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 358.]
  (The Lord Advocate, The Solicitor General for Scotland, Sir Herbert Maxwell.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD), in moving that the Bill be now read a, second time, said, it was unnecessary that he should explain the measure, as that had been laid before the Scottish Members, along with a Memorandum describing its provisions. He would, therefore, leave the remaining time of the Sitting to hon. Members who might desire to take part in the discussion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. PROVANDsaid, he sympathized with the remarks that had been made earlier in the Sitting against the system of crowding so many Scotch Bills into one day. But it would appear there was no hope of dealing with Scottish Business, except at 4 o'clock in the morning, unless they devoted to it a Wednesday Sitting. But in spite of that objection to this mode of legislation for Scotland, he thought it would be of great advantage if this Bill were read a second time, and, if possible, passed into law this year. It would be felt in Scotland to be a legislative neglect if the Bill were not passed

  1939
  in some form. Even if passed it would he over for some time before it could come into operation, so that the public would have ample time for discussing what ought to be done; and if it were found necessary, a further addition could be made to the measure nest Session. Unless the Bill were passed this year, it could not be passed for several years, as the School Board elections took place in the spring, and there would be no election after that of next year till 1891. It was of the utmost importance that this question should be before the public before the next School Board elections, so that the public could determine how far the Bill was to be taken advantage of. He would be very glad if the technical schools could be conducted without in any way coming under the control of the Science and Art Department. The Scottish Education Department would attend to this business very much better than the Science and Art Department. The object of the Bill was to enable us to improve our position commercially, mechanically, and as a manufacturing nation; but if the Bill was to do any good they ought to see that the boys to be taught understood decimals, and as lads who had passed the Fifth Standard were to be eligible for the technical schools, he thought some change would have to be made, or else they would have to raise the Standard for admission from the Fifth to the Sixth. Unless the scholars knew decimal fractions, they would be severely handicapped in the technical schools. He thought a knowledge of decimal fractions ought to be added to the Schedule.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he earnestly hoped the Bill would pass as it stood. The changes necessary to make it a very efficient Bill would be very few. It was a Bill which the people of Scotland desired. A very simple measure would got over any difficulty in connection with the Science and Art Department. They could lay it down that no Minute of the Science and Art Department regarding technical education would apply in. Scotland, unless it received the sanction of the Secretary for Scotland. The Bill could be applied in Scotland without reference to the Science and Art Department. The school boards of Scotland could enlarge the sphere of education. So long as
  1940
  money was not required from the Science and Art Department, they could easily carry on the technical schools without coming under the control of the Science and Art Department. He had great doubt about the power possessed by the Science and Art Department. They were a very ignorant body, especially in regard to commercial education. He entreated Scottish Members not to sacrifice the Bill, which was one of great importance, and ought to be before the country previous to the next triennial School Board elections.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he must congratulate the hon. and learned Lord Advocate on the title of the Bill, because without that title nobody could have imagined for a moment it was a Bill to promote technical education. If it had been put forward under a title which signified what it meant, he did not believe it would have had the ghost of a chance of passing. He was not opposed to technical education; everyone was in favour of it, and he was willing to spend any amount of money upon education in the belief that it would be money well spent; but this Bill had nothing whatever to say about technical education. It was a Science and Art Education Bill—nothing more or less. There were schemes for the promotion of technical education. The best was that pursued at Finsbury College, where they gave instruction in various mechanical and applied arts and trades, such as cabinet-making, art furniture, practical mathematics, practical geometry, practical designing, practical chemistry, bricklaying, carpentry, joinery, metal plate work, & c. Now, all these were matters of technical education. But what did the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke) say on the previous night in connection with the Technical Education Bill for England? "Why, that they were not, under their Bill, going to teach trades or any technical education at all. And the right hon. Gentleman put that forward as a reason for the passing of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had said there was a great deal of jealousy against the teaching of trades among the artizan classes. But the Government taught trade at the present moment; for in the schools under the Local Government Board, such as the divisional

  1941
  school at Norwood, where 800 or 900 pauper children were taught, excellent technical instruction was given. The children, after reaching a certain stage of instruction, were placed on half-time in trades shops, where they were taught tailoring, bootmaking, and other trades. In the same way in the industrial schools, which, were kept up by the public funds, a technical trade education was imparted, and no objection had ever been offered by the artizan classes. But under this Bill it would not be in the power of any School Board to set up a technical school in which these things could be taught, or which were taught in the other really technical schools in the country, such as the Finsbury School. The expression "technical education" in the schools to be set up under this Bill meant instruction in branches of Science and Art, with respect to which grants were, for the time being, made by the Department of Science and Art. Now, there was no grant made by that Department for any one of the branches of really technical education, for which he spoke; so that schools set up under this Bill would simply be Science and Art schools. His hon. Friend (Mr. Provand) had referred to weaving schools. But, under the wilful reservation made by the Vice President of the Council to do nothing in the way of technical instruction, it would be incompetent to give instruction in weaving, because that would be teaching a trade. He did not see why there should be any objection to teaching a trade. The trades themselves were doing so through technical instruction. The Plumbers' Incorporation gave an education in plumber work, and that was not held to be unfair competition. The leather workers were now establishing technical education in that department. They had dyeing taught as well as weaving in the existing technical schools. If workmen were damnified by trades being taught under the name of technical education, they would be equally damnified by their fellows being better instructed and better qualified to obtain higher positions than themselves. But he did not believe that there was this jealousy among the working classes. No class was so much alive to the need of good technical teaching as the working men of this country and of Scotland. At Finsbury the requirements of the Science and Art Department were wholly
  1942
  disregarded as tending to hamper rather than to encourage their work. It was said that the Science and Art Department would enlarge its programme; but it was unfortunate that, while technical instruction had been, given for some time by private effort, that Department had done nothing to meet the requirements of those schools. Indeed, the managers of those schools would rather not be brought under any control from the Department, because of the difference in their requirements. The difference between the requirements of the Science and Art Department and the objects of the best technical schools was this, that, in the latter, the object was to give a couple of hours' practical education for every hour of theory; whereas, in the Science and Art Department, it was a bushel of theory to a pint of practice. He had himself no objection to Science and Art instruction, he was a friend to education in every form; but let them not pass this Bill as it stood under the impression that they were passing a Technical Education Bill. As to making it a test question for the next School Board elections, he would remind them that it would be impossible to modify this Bill if it became law this Session in time for those elections. They must either take the Bill as it stood or leave it. On the other hand, if this Bill were brought forward at the beginning of next Session, there would be ample time to pass it before the School Board elections. He was afraid that if this Bill was adopted they would not get technical education. They would have the whole control of technical education placed in the hands of a Department which had shown itself utterly unsympathetic with technical education; and he much doubted whether more mischief would be done by accepting the Bill than by leaving over the matter until next Session, and then passing a Bill which would be in fact as well as in name a Technical Education Bill.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he could not agree with the conclusion arrived at by his hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron), who thought the Bill unsatisfactory, and that it would be better to leave it over till next year. He should have thought his hon. Friend, with so much experience of Parliament, would have known how very uncertain the chances were of Bills in this House, and.

  1943
  that even though a Bill was unsatisfactory, and might not fulfil all their expectations, still it was better to get what they could, and trust to the chance of improving it next year, than to abandon what they had in their hands now, with the possibility of getting nothing at all. At the same time he admitted that it was not only a hurried but an excessively sketchy measure. It told the House very little about the kind of technical education to be given, or the details of the manner in which it was to be given. Having visited a good many technical schools both in this country and in the United States, he knew that there was an immense variety of methods of giving technical education, and that the term covered a great many things from the highest instruction in the theory of mechanics and chemistry down to the simple use of tools which might be taught to a boy of 12 or 13. All of that was technical education, and was valuable; and he should have liked to have seen in this Bill some distinct indication that the Government recognized the largeness of the subject, and had understood the many things that could be brought under the idea of technical instruction. Instead of that, anything was to be technical which was approved for the time by the Department of Science and Art. Now, they had not such experiences of the conception of such instruction by that Department as to repose in it perfect confidence that it would do all that was required. He must express his disappointment at the way in which the Government had treated Scottish business, keeping up Scottish Bill still the 10th of August, and giving them to Scottish Members at a time when it was perfectly impossible to deal with them with Committees at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. As the Science and Art Department was mainly interested, he thought it very desirable to obtain from the Government a pledge that that Department would give as soon as possible a full statement of its policy in the matter, showing what it meant to include in the term "technical education," and giving something in the nature of a Memorandum which might be presented to the House and circulated among school boards and the public, so that the electors might be able to have some idea of what technical education meant, and what school boards would carry out. When such a
  1944
  Report was presented to the House, Members would have an opportunity of another discussion on the subject, and if it should turn out that the Science and Art Department took too narrow a view of this matter, and did not carry out the wishes of Parliament, they would be able to make the Department take a wider view and prepare a more adequate scheme.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid, that as representing one of the large cities in Scotland, and as the subject was one that seriously interested the working classes, he hoped the House would see its way to pass the Bill. The subject had long been before the community of Scotland, and there had been but one feeling, and that was in favour of it. It seemed to him that the Bill embraced every tiling essential to give a start to technical education. The 1st clause set forth that each school board might establish a technical school. He did not think that an Act of Parliament should proscribe all the different subjects to be taught in the schools, for these must be left to the various localities, and they were matters capable of expansion as time went on. As to the objections taken by Members from the country districts in Scotland, it should be remembered that the Bill was purely permissive, and that no school board in Scotland was compelled to establish such a school if there was any feeling against it. He did not think that those who went in for Home Rule in Scotland should object to a Bill which was of a purely permissive character, and which was fenced round so that not only no action could be taken until the next School Board elections, but the consent of the Education Department was also necessary. When it was considered that this was a subject in which a considerable amount of interest was felt in Scotland, that the Bill was a purely permissive one, that the interests of the ratepayers were protected, and that technical education was a matter of expansion, it seemd to him rather hard that the Representatives of the country districts should interfere by opposing the measure.
  MR. J. C. BOLTONsaid, that the speech of the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) would have been an excellent one if it had been concluded with a Motion for the rejection

  1945
  of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman showed the thorough spirit of a Scotsman in saying that it was Letter to take what they could get; but his own opinion was that in taking the Bill they took the shadow without the substance. There was most undoubtedly an earnest desire by the people of Scotland to have technical education; but they had had no opportunity of judging as to whether the Bill would afford it to them. It was argued that they should pass the Bill this Session in consequence of the School Board elections coining next year. Undoubtely that was an argument in favour of passing a Bill of some kind; but had it only occurred to the Government within the last few days that the School Board elections fall next year? Were the Government really in earnest in endeavouring to pass a Bill this Session for the promotion of technical education in Scotland? If so, he would ask the Lord Advocate whether he would give the House a pledge to admit Radical Amendments on the 5th clause? If the Bill was accepted as it now stood, one thing was certain, and that was that they would, under that clause, transfer to South Kensington the direction of technical education in Scotland, which ought to be in the hands of the school boards of the country. He desired to have a pledge from the Government that South Kensington should have nothing more to do with Scottish technical schools than to examine in those subjects which the school boards chose to take up, and for which South Kensington gave grants. [Mr. MASON: That is in the clause.] That was undoubtedly in the clause; but there was also a great deal more in it, for it would place the whole of the technical education in Scotland at the mercy of the Science and Art Department at South Kensington. If the Lord Advocate would say the Government accepted the Amendment he had indicated, he would be quite content to see the Bill passed; but he considered that if they accepted the Bill as it stood they would be accepting a merely permissive Bill to put themselves under the control of the Department at South Kensington, and, as an alternative, would have to go without technical instruction altogether.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) and
  1946
  other speakers had pointed out the real doubt about the Bill—namely, whether it would promote technical education. The 1st sub-section of the 5th clause was to the effect that no school board could get loans for building purposes connected with education under the Act, or get any advantage under the Act, unless the school was conducted in accordance with the conditions specified by the Science and Art Department. It had been stated that school boards could give technical instruction outside the subjects laid down by the Science and Art Department, but that could not be done because of the definition in the 11th clause, he therefore thought the Scottish Members should press upon the Government for a distinct pledge that they would agree to widen the Bill in that respect. If they did not, he agreed that the Bill would be hardly worth having, for if the definition was not widened they would prevent the school boards in Scotland establishing a technical school, which otherwise they would be willing to create. With regard to Sub-section 3 of Clause 5, dealing with the Minutes of the Science and Art Department, undoubtedly it was of great importance that these Minutes should be presented to Parliament in order that it might be known what their nature was. He confessed he joined in the jealousy shown of any extension of the power of the Science and Art Department in Scotland. If the Bill was not amended in the direction he had pointed out, he believed it could not be successful in its operation, for the control of the Science and Art Department in Scotland would militate against its effect. There was in Scotland no very great confidence in that Department. He did not see the reason why, unlike the English Bills, there should be any definition of the scholars to whom technical education could be given. The Bill limited the age of scholars to 21 years; but if there was to be any real technical education that restriction must be struck out, for many young men were only able to appreciate such education when they got to that age. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the previous night, had stated that girls would be excluded from the operation of the Bills.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)said, he thought the

  1947
  remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) had boon misunderstood. He had only estimated that very few girls would avail themselves of technical instruction.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, he would like the Lord Advocate to state whether or not girls were excluded from the benefits of the Bill. He thought the point could easily be made plain by the insertion of the feminine pronoun it; Clause 9. Unless they got a clear statement that girls were to be included, they ought not to support the Bill.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman last night said it was calculated that a great many girls would not come forward, and that some boys would not come forward, but that his calculation was a rough way of taking it, as a whole, to ascertain how many would take advantage of the technical training.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, his misapprehension was shared by a great many others. He thought his right hon. Friend was aware that in the Technical School in Edinburgh there were a great many girls fully enjoying its benefits, and it would be absurd, if they were to have a thoroughly good system of technical education, that girls should not have the full enjoyment of it.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, several points had been raised in the debate which were really points of detail, though he admitted their importance. It was obvious that he was not prepared, not being acquainted with the educational system of Scotland, to deal with these points. There was one important point as to the Definition Clause referred to by one hon. Member, who pointed out that there was a possibility that under that definition the Bill might have a retrograde character. He would consult the Lord Advocate with regard to that point, and if any such difficulty as was suggested could possibly occur, it was perfectly obvious it was not intended, by the Bill, and the definition must be modified to that extent. As to the reference made to the Science and Art Department and its administration in connection with the Bill, he regretted extremely that his remarks were misunderstood. In making these remarks, he was dealing especially with the question of manual training under this Bill—
  1948
  that was, the training of eye and hand, the teaching of lads how to handle tools easily and with facility, and to do work at the bench as regards wood and iron. "What he said was—and he said it again—that that class of teaching which was demanded as elementary teaching was one of the few subjects which could be dealt with under this Bill. Much misconception had arisen in the minds of hon. Members with regard to the scope of the Bill as affecting Scotland; and he only discovered a day or two ago that the Science and Art Directory containing the curriculum was not in the Library. He at once hastened to remedy the defect, and copies would be at once provided. The hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) said this Bill was not a Technical instruction Bill at all, and was more or loss a sham. This Bill, as he (Sir William Hart Dyke) understood it, would enable grants to be paid by the Science and Art Department for any class of school which was sanctioned by the Scottish Education "Department, for any subject in the curriculum now in their directory. The list of subjects which were now actually in the directory, and for which, as hon. Members knew, they were giving in science and art schools large grants, included the following—practical geometry, machine construction and drawing, building construction, naval architecture, applied mechanics, practical chemistry, mining, mineralogy, steam, electricity, the principles of agriculture, and hygiene. This Bill might be condemned as unequal, and might require amendment; but when he was told that us applied to Scotland it was not a Bill for technical instruction, he said that, at all events, was not an adequate description of it. Another question had been alluded to in regard to the Definition Clause—namely, that in any school coming under the operation of the Bill, grants would be received for these subjects. He thought the expression was "for other subjects which may from time to time be admitted by the Department." That expression, he believed, led to this, that there was a distinction which would be drawn in the English Bill and the Scottish Bill between subjects for which grants might be made, but which subjects were not at the time in the directory. With regard to the future of this directory, there was in the

  1949
  English Bill a distinct reference to Parliament with regard to any change. If there were any change of a restrictive or extensive nature in this directory, it must be laid for one month before both Houses of Parliament. The educational systems were distinct in the two countries; therefore, he would not waste the time of hon. Members by going into matters in detail. He would only assure them that what Her Majesty's Government desired most of this Bill, as they did of the English Bill, was that it should be a workable and successful measure, and that its result should be one of lasting, real benefit to the great commercial and agricultural interests of the country.
  MR. MASONsaid, he trusted this Bill would be read a second time. He looked upon it as by a long way the most important Bill which the House had had before it today, he knew the absolute necessity there was on the part of this country to face and enter upon the question of technical instruction, so as to meet the fierce competition of the Continent. We were at least 30 years behind Saxony, Belgium, and Prance, and, he might say, the Continent of Europe, in this matter, and he was thankful that the House had at last awakened to the position of this country, and that a Bill dealing with technical instruction had been introduced, not only for England, but one also for Scotland. He admitted it was a small Bill, but he was thankful a beginning had been made. The Bill gave powers to school boards which they had not hitherto had. It enabled them, to provide tools, trade apparatus, and other materials out of the school funds, and he had no doubt that, having got them, they would be able to exercise these powers. With regard to the question of grants from South Kensington, if in Scotland they were prepared to accept them, they ought to come under the regulations of South Kensington; but he maintained that if any money was to be raised in Scotland for these purposes, it should not come under the control of South Kensington, but of the Scottish Education Department, and that ought to be provided for in the Bill. So far as the school boards were concerned, he thought they might trust Scotland with regard to this question. This was a very good
  1950
  opportunity for bringing the question before the electors at the School Board elections next April. Let the school boards be elected on the distinct principle whether or not they were to erect technical schools. He was thankful that, in framing this Bill, the clause in connection with a plebiscite had been left out, because he was certain if such a provision had been inserted and were applied in cities like Glasgow they should never have technical education begun in these large centres, at any rate, in the present generation. This was a question in which they who were in a position of knowledge in connection with foreign competition required to instruct the electors. The great body of the people could not understand why we were having this fierce competition, and they must take the initiative of bringing about technical education from above rather than below. He had seen the necessity of improving technical training for the last 25 years, and, as an illustration of how much we had lost by the want of it, he would mention that, in his own business, 20 years ago, he used 80 per cent of home-spun yarns to 20 per cent of foreign yarns. Now the situation was more than reversed, as he used 85 per cent of foreign to only 15 per cent of home-spun yarns. What they required to do in this country was to take advantage of the splendid appliances they had in the manufacturing industry He had no fear of foreign competition if they only had free play for the powers which Providence had given them, and for the vast resources which the country possessed. He hoped the Bill would now be read a second time and passed into law before the end of the present Session.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he ought to apologize as an English Member for interfering in the discussion of this Bill. What he was afraid of was that if Scottish Members were prepared to accept a sham Bill, there was very little hope of a genuine Bill being brought forward soon. His hon. Friend who had just sat down was very zealous in the cause of technical education, but he feared his hon. Friend had missed his mark altogether. There was no worse authority on which they could rely for the promotion of industrial education than the Science and Art Department as at present constituted. He

  1951
  was afraid they would proceed in a diletantte fashion with this matter when the necessities of the case required that they should begin in a very humble way, and get hold of the mass of the industrial classes in order to teach them something that would fit them for the duties of their station in life. His hon. Friend below him (Mr. Mason) had expressed his satisfaction that there was no plebiscite in the Scottish Bill. But he might tell him that there was something more mischievous than a plebiscite, and that was the absolute control of the Science and Art Department. [''No, no."] Hon. Members said "No, no," but if they would read the second clause of the Bill they would see that there was absolute power in the hands of the Science and Art Department to control and overrule everything that was decided by the school boards in Scotland. In the interest of education he was anxious that the mark should not be missed as it had been in other measures. He objected to the limit of age being placed at 21, and contended that that was a matter that should be left to the school board in each locality to determine. No other body could have the same knowledge or experience with respect to the peculiarities of the trades and occupations of the district. The freest hand ought, therefore, to be left to the school boards. The Bradford School Board had made representations on the subject, and he had in his pocket a letter from the chairman, than whom there were few men more competent to deal with the question. His views were supported by every member of the Committee of the School Board, he insisted that it would be mischievous in the highest degree to set up arbitrary barriers such as the age of 21 or the Sixth Standard. Tie assured the Scotch Members that he would not have interfered in the debate except for the purpose of pleading for as much as could possibly be got, so that when they came to struggle with the English measure, they might not be referred by the Department to what had been done for Scotland as a reason for not making further progress.
  MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, he would appeal to hon. Members both from England and Scotland not to wreck the Bill. The hon. Member who had just spoken could not have been in
  1952
  the House when the Vice President of the Council stated that, in concert with the Lord Advocate, he was most willing to consider any Amendments to the measure. He thought hon. Members were unduly frightened, he was sure many of them had not studied the Bill. If they had an opportunity of consulting the Directory of the Science and Art Department, he was convinced they would have a better opinion of that Department. If they were going to have two sources of income—the one local and the other Imperial—they must have some Imperial authority to superintend. These schools were intended to be connected with the Imperial system, and were to be so managed that grants might be obtained from that quarter. The list of subjects taught could easily be from time to time enlarged. But if hon. Members would refer to this year's Report of the Department they would see that it was not true that subjects of practical value were not at present encouraged by grants. They would find that a large number of children had already received instruction in practical agriculture. Dyeing having been mentioned, he might observe that practical chemistry was one of the subjects taught, and, as representing the City of Perth, which was the centre of the dyeing trade, he could say that a knowledge of practical chemistry was one of the principal requirements in that industry. But this was no time for details. His object was to appeal especially to the Scottish Members, not at the last moment, after they had shown themselves so practical on the other Bills, to wreck this Bill by adjourning the second reading. If any of them wished to press important Amendments, they could do so on the Motion for going into Committee.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) had got up to make an appeal to his Scottish Colleagues not to wreck the Bill, and he had gone within four minutes of wrecking it himself. He (Mr. E. Robertson) did not rise for the purpose of wrecking the Bill by continuing the discussion, but he rose to renew the protest he had made earlier in the sitting against Parliamentary mismanagement and misconduct of Scottish Business so far as the Government were concerned. This Bill had been described by one of its leading

  1953
  supporters as a hasty Bill, hastily drawn and hastily pushed forward, he did not propose to stop the progress of the Bill now, hut he wished to pronounce this to be one of the most glaring examples of the results of the evil management which had been carried on during the whole of the present Session, so far as Scottish Business was concerned. He protested against it.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I claim to move "That the Question be now put."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to press that Motion because it is obvious that we could not carry it——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I decline to put the Question.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERONsaid, that he could tell the House that he had been five years associated with the Science and Art Department, and he could assure hon. Members from Scotland that they need not be afraid of the bogey, in the shape of control by the Department, which had been raised at the last moment.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday nest.

QUESTIONS.

  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND—COST OF THE DEPARTMENT.
  MR E. ROBERTSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he could now answer a Question which he put earlier in the day to him respecting the cost of the Office of the Secretary for Scotland?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): It is a little difficult to answer the question with any degree of accuracy. In the first place, the question divides itself into two—whether it be the comparative cost of doing Scottish Business now, as compared with the cost of doing it formerly, prior to the creation of the Secretary for Scotland's Establishment. It will be seen that inasmuch as before the Secre-
  1954
  tary for Scotland's separate Establishment there was no separate charge for the Scottish Business, we have no data on which we can form any opinion as to what the actual cost was before the separate Establishment. It is difficult also to state what is the actual increased charge upon the Votes, for this reason, that we can only got the figures from the Appropriation Accounts, and these accounts for 1885–6, which are the last that were published and in our possession, only give the figures for a portion of the year—about three months of that year—and we have not, therefore, in the Appropriation Accounts a complete year with which to compare. The only figures which it is possible to quote as accurate are as follows:—In the Estimates for 1885 provision was made in the Home Office Toto for the inspection of pollution of rivers, and in the Local Government Board Vote for alkali inspection—inspectors, £1,555; and messengers, £332; making a total of £1,887. In the Estimates for the current year, provision is made specifically for the Scottish Secretary's Department—in Class 2 £9,143, and in Class 1 (rent of Dover House) £2,800. It is also estimated that the separation of the Scottish Education Department has added £211, making a total of £12,154. Deducting the charge which appeared on the Votes in 1885–6, to which I have referred—namely, £1,887—we find that the additional charge on the Estimates is £10,267. In addition to this, there will be certain charges for building, maintenance, & c, fuel and light, furniture, and rates in Class 1, and stationery in Class 2. These charges cannot be specifically traced in the Estimates, because they are provided out of the round sums which meet the general average charge on all Departments, and which are not separately stated. The average cost of the Department in respect to all these services would be about £1,500. The total additional charge on the Estimates may therefore be put at £11,800. It must, however, be observed that the relief afforded to the Education Office, the Home Office, the Local Government Board, and the Board of Trade by the transfer of the Scotch work from them only provided for extra work in those Departments for which extra staff would have certainly been required had the transfer not taken place.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. BRYCE: Considering the very great and unanimous interest felt by Scotch Members in the Question, perhaps the First Lord of the Treasury will state what the Government propose in regard to the Conveyancing Acts Amendment Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he hoped the Government would be able to press on with the measure. With regard to the course of business he might say that they proposed, unless objection was raised, to consider the Lords' Amendments to the Irish Land Bill at a quarter past 4 on Friday. With respect to the Coal Mines Bill Her Majesty's Government adhered to the arrangement already made.
  In reply to Mr. MUNDELLA,
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that owing to the pressing importance of the Land Bill the arrangement with respect to the education debate could not stand. They would go on with the Estimates on Saturday, but it would be inconvenient to take the Education Estimate then. He should endeavour to make another arrangement.

  MR. STANHOPE AND SIR JOHN ADYE.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to ask a Question of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention had been called
  1956
  to a letter in The Times of that morning, written by Sir John Adye, giving an account of an interview with the Secretary of State, and whether the account of the interview was correctly stated. He might add that he put the Question in the interests both of Sir John Adye and of the Secretary of State.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I am glad, in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, to say a word with respect to the attack upon my personal honour which, smarting, no doubt, under certain attacks from which I endeavoured to defend him, Sir John Adye has made in The Times to-day. After receiving a letter from him containing his explanation on the subject of the cutlasses, I asked him to have a personal interview with me. What passed between us has been utterly and strangely misrepresented by him. All I have to say is, that the defence which I then told Sir John Adye I would make for him is precisely in all substantial points identical with that which I afterwards put forward in this House. It would have been utterly impossible for me to hold, or to have told Sir John Adye, that he, although Director of Artillery during a part of the time when these transactions took place, was altogether free from responsibility in the matter, though I explained carefully the other day the limits of his responsibility.
  House adjourned at one minute before Six o'clock.
  INDEX.
  LONDON: CORNELIUS BUCK AND SON, 22, PATERNOSTER ROW, E. C.