Sitting of 24 August 1887

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES; CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE, Votes 17 to 20
Resolutions [August 23] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS— Committee — Report — Lunacy Districts (Scotland)* [318]; Secretary for Scotland Act (1883) Amendment [360–385].
Committee—Report — Third Reading — Sheriff of Lanarkshire* [349], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ARRANGEMENT OF SCOTCH BUSINESS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question with regard to the course of Scotch Business that day. The right hon. Gentleman gave a very specific pledge that the Scotch Members should be consulted as to the order in which the Scotch Bills should be placed on the Paper; but, so far as he knew, not one of the Scotch Members had been consulted on the matter. Unfortunately, the Lord Advocate was absent at the time, and the promise must have been forgotten, for on looking at the Paper that day——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is only entitled to ask a Question.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the Question was, whether the right hon. Gentleman had borne in mind that pledge, and had he ascertained the views of the Scotch Members?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, that to the best of his belief the order in which the Scotch Bills were on the Paper was in accordance with the views of the Scotch Members. ["No, no!"] Well, he was sorry that it was not so.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, a specific pledge had been given, but not kept.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    (1.) £43,465, to complete the sum for Courts of Law and Justice, Scotland.
    DR. CLARK: I wish to put a question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) in reference to the item of £800 included in this Vote for the Auditor of the Court of Session. I understand that the gentleman who holds that office receives fees for doing work which he is not compelled to do, and I want to know how much he receives in the shape of salary for work he is compelled to do under Act of Parliament, and how much in the shape of fees for other work? One of the duties imposed upon the Auditor of the Court of Session is to determine the Election Law of Scotland so far as expenses are concerned. I may remind the Committee that in Scotland we have no Schedule such as exists in regard to England and Ireland, and we have been put not only to inconvenience but expense in consequence. Last year I myself was compelled to bring before the Auditor a scale of charges in my own case which, was entirely contrary to the Schedule, and the bill was reduced in consequence from about £240 to£150. Nevertheless, I was required to pay the costs; but, of course, as I got nearly £100 off the bill, I was able to do so. I am strongly of opinion that these charges should be more definitely determined, and the Auditor ought to be properly paid for the work of that kind which he performs. Under the circumstances of the case, I wish to know how much of this Vote is

    1687
    for work done in that way? The only information I have been able to get in reference to the Vote is that the Auditor last year, according to the Appropriation Account, received in addition to his salary of £800 a sum of £150 11 s. 6d, in the shape of fees. I think it would be better to give him a salary of £1,000 or any definite sum, so that the whole of this sort of work should be done gratuitously. By far the best way would be to provide a Schedule of Charges for Scotland similar to those which exist in regard to England and Ireland.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Auditor of the Court of Session receives a salary as Auditor; but he is not bound to take up any new duties put upon him by Statute outside the Court of Session without receiving remuneration.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I have been anxious to move the reduction of the Vote in order to raise a very important question; but on consideration I think I had better not do so. I wish to say, however, that Scotch Members are subject to a species of coercion and compulsion. Practically, they are told that they must first pass these Votes in Supply, or else they will not have any other Scottish Business taken. It reminds me of the story of the schoolmaster who was in the habit of providing his boys with a plentiful serving of pudding in order that they might not eat much beef. The Government are coercing the Scotch Members, who are very quiet and good, not to say sheeplike, and they submit to it. I should like to have moved the reduction of the Vote in order to bring about what is necessary to the taxpayers of Scotland—namely, a reduction in the number of Judges of the Court of Session. The Criminal Procedure (Scotland)Bill, among other things, contains a provision for increasing the salaries of the Judges of the Court of Session. I quite approve of that; but I think the number of Judges should have been at the same time reduced. I feel bound to complain of the way in which Scotch Business is conducted in this House. Scotch Bills are put down night after night, and there is always a chance of their being taken at 2, 3, or 4 o'clock in the morning. That is the
    1688
    way in which the Criminal Procedure Bill has been treated. There has been some discussion upon that outside the walls of this House; but we have not had a proper opportunity of discussing it, because it was run through at an unearthly hour in the morning. That is the way in which Scottish Business is always treated.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot discuss that Bill on this Vote.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I was only anxious to show that we have had no opportunito of ascertaining what has been done in regard to the salaries of the Judges of the Court of Session.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The salaries of the Judges of the Court of Session are not in this Vote.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: No; but the salaries of the Establishment are.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would be quite in Order in criticizing the Establishment; but he cannot criticize the salaries of the Judges, nor this particular Bill.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I only wish to say, if I have the opportunity, that while I approve of an increase of the salaries of the Judges of the Court of Session, I think there should, at the same time, be a reduction in the number of the Judges. When taken at an early hour in the morning there is no account, either in the newspapers or in the records of the House, of the proceedings; and I hope that you, Sir, may be able to suggest some method to meet this objection. I have long been of opinion that the number of Judges in scotland is more than is required; and although, in comparison with the English and Irish Judges, it is right that their salaries should be raised, I think it is altogether an unjustifiable job that the payment should have been raised without the question of their number being considered, because the question of their number is the necessary complement of the plan for raising their pay. The English and the Scotch. Judges have never been on the same footing. I may remind the Committee that the Scotch system is something like the French system, where there are a multiplicity of Judges with a smaller amount of pay.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that he is pursuing the same line of argument.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg pardon; I was only leading to the point that the number of Judges ought to have been reduced, because hitherto they have been more in the position of the French than the English and Irish Judges. It seems to me that in reality Scotch lawyers have a great deal too many loaves and fishes. One-half of the members of the Scotch Bar get lucrative appointments. I make these observations with the view of showing that while I feel myself coerced into letting these Votes pass, at the same time I do not acquiesce in what has been done.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I think I should best consult the interests of Scotland at this time by not saying anything about the matter; but I will take an opportunity on some subsequent occasion of calling attention to this system of retaining upon the Vote charges which do not properly belong to it.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) £23,269, to complete the sum for the Register House Department, Edinburgh.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald)—or, perhaps, the question had better be addressed to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson)—how it is that the Sasine Office, which some years ago produced a surplus, now produces a deficit? There is a large reduction in the amount of fees received, and I want to know whether that is owing to a reduction in the scale of fees? Is that the reason why the fees themselves show this amount of reduction?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): There has been a reduction in the scale of fees. It took effect in October, 1885, when the amended table of fees was sanctioned. It was estimated that it would involve a reduction in the receipts of about £1,700 a-year, and I think the hon. Member will see that that has been realized.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: No; there is a discrepancy of several thousands,
    MR. JACKSON: The fees drawn in 1883–4 were £30,706; in 1884–5 they were £29,414; and in 1885–6 they were £28,081. Therefore, there was a reduction between 1884–5 and 1885–6 of about £1,400. In 1886–7 the receipts were £27,100, and the expenditure £34,570. There was formerly a surplus, but that was so long ago as 1877–8, when the fees drawn were £39,996, and the total payments were £36,895. In that year there was a surplus of about £3,000; but it has been a greatly diminishing surplus since.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: The hon. Gentleman has accounted for a reduction of £1,700 which is due to the reduction of fees; but the figures for the last 10 years show that there has been a reduction of upwards of £10,000 in the receipts of fees. I want to know whether that is a bonâ fide reduction in, the charges made in the Sasine Office in Edinburgh, or whether the Scotch people have become so much less litigious, and have had less occasion to refer to the documents in the Sasine Office?
    MR. M'EWAN: I rise for the purpose of drawing attention to the pay of clerks in the Sasine Office. Prior to 1881, it was entirely a patronage office, and the clerks were not under the Civil Service regulations. They were in the direct employment of the keeper of the office; but in 1881 the office was reconstituted under a Treasury Minute of the 27th of March. According to that Minute, the clerks were divided into three classes—the first receiving £250, rising by £15 a-year to £350; the second receiving £170, rising by £10 a-year to £240; and the third-class receiving £90, rising by £5 a-year to £160. The third-class memorialized the Treasury immediately after the passing of the Minute, and demanded an open, inquiry on the subject. They said the Minute was based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation. The Treasury says—
    "The members of the second-class will be subject to revision hereafter, when experience shall have shown to what proportion of the stuff it may be necessary to entrust work which, while subordinate to that performed by the assistant keepers and first-class clerks, is of a more responsible and difficult character than can be required from the junior class of the Department."
    Now, Sir, there is no subordinate rank.

    1691
    I wish to point out that the first, second, and third-class clerks are all engaged on the same class of work— they differ only in salary. The inquiry upon which this Treasury Minute is based was performed in a most perfunctory way. Only two or three second-class clerks were examined. I repeat, the third-class clerks are engaged in the same work as the first-class clerks. In one district a third-class clerk is second in command, although there are three second-class clerks in it. In 1881 there were considerable arrears not in the current work, but in making the abridgments which had been begun prior to 1830, 13 temporary clerks being employed to overtake the arrears. By the Treasury Minute they were incorporated into the staff of the third-class clerks, it being distinctly provided, however, that when the arrears were brought up to data no vacancies which might occur should be filled up. Now, the Sasine Office, which is intended to be self-supporting, as it ought to be, is used by a limited class only—namely, the owners of heritable property. Demands have frequently been made for a reduction of the fees of registration and of searches, and the Treasury Minute says—
    "In view of these considerations, and of the further circumstance that under the scheme of re-organization of the several branches of the Register House, sanctioned by this Minute, there will, for the future, be a material increase in the total cost of the salaries of the staff, while one entirely new item, that of pensions, estimated at one-fifth of the amount of the permanent salaries, will be created, My Lords are of opinion that for the next few years there will be a very narrow margin between the receipts for fees and the expenses which they are intended to cover. They feel, therefore, that it is impossible for the present to assent to any reductions in the existing scale of fees. But while expressing this conviction, my Lords desire that it may not be lost sight of that the establishment is now sanctioned or framed on a scale of numbers which will enable it rapidly to overtake the arrears now outstanding in the abridgments and indices. As soon as this work is concluded, it will be possible to effect a considerable reduction in the cost of the salaries by leaving unfilled such vacancies as may occur, since a smaller staff will be able to deal with the current work of the Register House."
    It then goes on to say—
    "My Lords rely on the active co-operation of the heads of the Office in effecting all reductions possible in this direction at the earliest moment practicable; and they will on their part be ready to consider to what extent the
    1692
    present scale of fees may be reduced as soon as the receipts shall show any substantial and continued margin of surplus over the total inclusive cost of maintaining the Register House Departments in a satisfactory and efficient condition."
    Now, these arrears were concluded at the beginning of 1883, yet there have been a dozen vacancies filled up since, in defiance of the Treasury Minute. It might be imagined that the increasing work of the Office must have entailed the necessity of filling up the vacancies; but what do we find from the Parliamentary Return, No. 225, presented only this year? The receipts, which represent the work done, have fallen from £31,190 in 1881–2—the date when the new scheme came into operation—to £27,104 in 1886–7, while is 1877–8 they were £39,998, when a much smaller staff sufficed for the work of the Office The fees of registration have not been reduced since 1873; but the fees for searches were reduced in October, 1885, notwithstanding gradual and extensive decline in receipts; and the result is that for the 10 years ending 1837 the deficiency in the Office was £43,511, while for the 10 years ending in 1877 there was a surplus of £40,579, so that the difference between the two decades was something over £80,000. This defiance of the Treasury Minute has thus been prejudicial to owners of property, because the increased expenditure of the Office has prevented the registration fees from being reduced. On the other hand, the owners have got a reduction, of the fees for searches to which they were not entitled, and which appears to have been in defiance of the Minute. The Treasury Minute says—
    "My Lords rely on the active co-operation of the heads of the Office in effecting all reductions possible in this direction at the earliest moment practicable; and they will, on their part, be ready to consider to what extent the present scale of fees may be reduced as soon as the receipts shall show any substantial and continued margin of surplus over the total inclusive cost of maintaining the Register House Departments in a satisfactory and efficient condition."
    It is manifest that the fees have fallen off, while the expenditure has not diminished. The position now is that a public Office is maintained only in the interests of a very small class of persons who are the owners of heritable property instead of being supported by that class, has, during the past 10 years, been

    1693
    a burden on the public to the extent of £13,511.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, I perceive, has been reading from a document.
    MR. M'EWAN: Yes; I have been reading from the Treasury Minute, which, I think, shows that instead of there being a profit there has been a loss to the public of something like £43,000 a-year; and, in my opinion, that is a scandalous waste of the public money. But there is another violation of the Treasury Minute which is still in active operation. The Minute of the 27th March, 1886, says—
    "My Lords are of opinion that for the next few years there will be a very narrow margin between the receipts for fees and the expenses which they are intended to cover. They feel, therefore, that it is impossible for the present to assent to any reduction in the existing scale of fees. But while expressing this conviction they desire that it may not be forgotten that the establishment now sanctioned is framed on a scale of numbers which will enable it rapidly to overtake the arrears now outstanding in the abridgments and indices. As soon as this work is concluded it will be possible to effect a considerable reduction in the cost of the salaries by leaving unfilled such vacancies as may occur, since a smaller staff will be able to deal with the current work of the Register House."
    And they go on to say—
    "That they will consider to what extent the present scale of fees may be reduced as soon as the fees shall show any substantial and continued margin of surplus over the total exclusive cost of maintaining the Register House Departments in a satisfactory manner. There were 13 temporary clerks employed to bring up arrears who in 1881 were incorporated into the regular staff of third-class clerks. The arrears were overtaken in 1883, and since then 12 vacancies have occurred, all of which have been filled up. The receipts (which represent the work done) have fallen from £31,190 in 1881–2 (the date when the new scheme came into operation) to £27,104 in 1886–7; while in 1877–8 the receipts were £39,996, when a much smaller staff sufficed for the work of the Office than is now employed when receipts have fallen to £27,104.'
    Instead of discontinuing the printed abridgments where the search sheets began they are being continued, so that the records are being duplicated, of course adding greatly to the labour of the Office. It looks as if the Head or Heads of the Department were attempting to make work of a useless kind in a vain effort to find employment for superfluous men. Whatever the object may be, the present management is entailing on the owners of property, as well as
    1694
    the public, a burden which, under a better system, could be entirely removed. I have hitherto only alluded to the evils inflicted upon the owners of heritable property and the public by the injudicious and wasteful management of this Office; but the third-class clerks have suffered more than anyone. The Treasury Minute states that the third-class clerks were offered a prospect, when they competed for the position, of being promoted to the status of first-class clerks with the maximum salary of £350 a-year; but in consequence of the crowding in of supernumeraries and violating the Minute by filling up vacancies since 1883 the promotion has been entirely stopped; and judging from the rate of progress which has been made during the last six years, and taking that as the basis of calculation, it would take a third-class clerk 48 years to attain the maximum salary which he would be entitled to upon promotion, and seeing that he may be retired at the age of 60 it is almost a matter of impossibility that he can ever get the maximum salary which was held out as an inducement to him when he joined the Service. The third-class clerks demand a public inquiry, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) will induce the Royal Commission upon the Civil Establishments of the country to visit Edinburgh and conduct the inquiry on the spot. Let it be borne in mind that this is not the only Office to which the same state of things applies. Officers in the position of second and third-class clerks suffered in a similar way in Dublin; but their position was redressed in consequence of an inquiry which took place in 1883. It was found that there was no difference whatever in the work performed by the second-class clerks and that performed by the first and third; the only difference was in the pay they received. The same state of things applies in Edinburgh to this day; but the result of the inquiry in Ireland was that the Treasury Minute was issued by which the distinction between the second and the third-class clerks in Dublin was abolished, and the position of the third-class clerks was materially improved. I think the same ought to be pursued in regard to the second and third-class clerks in Edinburgh, and I think there are many Members of this House who will

    1695
    agree with, me that there are other Offices in Edinburgh which require to be looked into. Also it is a matter of general knowledge that there are Public Offices in Edinburgh to which large salaries are attached which are altogether sinecures, and in regard to which scarcely any work is done; if any work whatever is done it is performed by a poorly paid clerk who never reaches the position which he ought to occupy in consideration of the character of the work which he does. I do not propose to move the reduction of the Vote; but I have called the attention of the Committee to what I consider to be a reasonable request on the part of the clerks, and I shall be guided by the reply of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury as to the course I may feel disposed to take.
    MR. JACKSON: I have listened with very great attention to what the hon. Gentleman has brought forward, and I have looked through the Treasury Minute which deals with the question. The main point, as far as I can gather, of the grievance which the third-class clerks think they labour under appears, from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh's statement, to be that when the staff was re-organized the vacancies in the first-class rank were not to be filled by second-class clerks, but by promotion of third-class clerks. There, I think, the hon. Gentleman is in error. I understand that it has not been found possible, hitherto, to reduce the number of second-class clerks.
    MR. M'EWAN: The portion of the Treasury Minute on which the hon. Gentleman relies is based on a misapprehension.
    MR. JACKSON: I am afraid that I cannot accept the view of the hon. Gentleman that this is based on a misapprehension. I have carefully gone through this question with one of the gentlemen who had to deal with the matter when the re-organization took place. I am not prepared to say—I should be very sorry to say—that no improvement could be made. The hon. Member asks that a public inquiry should be held on the spot. Well, Sir, we have a Royal Commission at present inquiring into such questions, and I should have thought the proper course would be for these clerks, if they have grievances, to
    1696
    bring them before the Chairman of the Commission; and I am sure if that wore done the Chairman would afford every opportunity for their being heard. I think the hon. Member will agree that, when an important Commission like that is sitting, it would be quite unnecessary to appoint another to inquire into a subject coming within the reference to the other. However, I will look into the matter carefully in conjunction with the hon. Member, and will endeavour, if possible, to make such inquiry as will place the matter on a satisfactory footing.
    MR. CHILDERS: I think the promise of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is quite satisfactory. This has been a subject of controversy for some time past, and if it is now understood that these Gentlemen will have the advantage of their case being fully heard before the Civil Service Commission I think their object will be gained. Ever since I have been in Parliament, certainly for some 15 or 16 years, the question of the establishment of the Sasine Office has been brought forward, but always from another point of view. It has been urged, in view of the fact that the receipts of the Sasine Office were very much in excess of the expenditure, that the fees should be reduced, and this was done. But all this is now altered, and for the worse. The present charge of the Sasine Office is about £44,000—namely, salaries, £37,000; non-effective charges, £4,000; and stationery £3,000; and the fees received amount to about £35,000; so that this Office, which ought not to cost the public a farthing, costs the country between £9,000 and £10,000 a-year. I do not say that the salaries ought to be reduced, and I do not think that the effect of an inquiry would be in that direction; but undoubtedly the fees have been too much reduced. I do not think it at all a satisfactory position that the Sasines Office should involve a charge on the public of about £10,000.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I have no doubt that the Sasine Office and the other offices in Scotland do a great deal of valuable work, and that the money expended in connection with the service rendered for them ought not to be grudged; but I confess that I am unable to say whether this is not altogether an

    1697
    unnecessary office, and that the expenditure upon it ought not to be continued. I do not propose to enter into that question. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury knows a great many things, but he cannot be expected to know everything. I see the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) and the Scotch Lord of the Treasury (Sir Herbert Maxwell) present; and I should like to ask either of them whether the reduction of fees which has occurred in this Office during the last nine years, and which amounts to about £13,000, is really a bonâ fide reduction in the fees, or whether it is duo to some change in the manner of keeping the accounts, or to any other cause?
    MR. WALLACE: I think the promise of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is of a satisfactory character. It does not follow that the desire expressed by hon. Members for inquiry involves a desire for the raising of salaries. My own prejudices have always been against the raising of salaries. Having gone very carefully into the matter, if, seems to me that the clerks are entitled to have this inquiry; and I am not without expectation that the result may be in the direction of an adjustment of salaries where it is found that some persons are overpaid and others underpaid. I think it would be well if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would give the Committee some explanation of the circumstances under which the reduction in the fees from which the income of the Sasine Office is derived is made. I think teere is some dissatisfaction with respect to the nature of the reduction, and particularly, I believe, as to the haste with which it is made. There are two classes of fees, one of which is kept at its original figure, while the other has been inexplicably reduced. I think it would do a great deal of good if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate would clear up the reason why the reduction was made. It is not understood that this reduction has been a boon to the general public, but simply an advantage to the owners of heritable property. Many hon. Members think that the owners of landed property have sufficient advantages given to them by law already, and that it is a very great hard-
    1698
    ship that several thousands of pounds should have to be paid out of the general taxation of the country in order to ease the pockets of these people. For these reasons, I think some reason ought to be given to explain why the fees have been reduced, and why the reduction was made at the time it was made.
    MR. JACKSON: I am afraid I cannot give hon. Members the details they ask for as to the reduction of particular items of fees. They were reduced, apparently, partly in consequence of a Memorial received from the Society of Writers in Scotland, and the tables were accordingly prepared in an altered form, and it was then determined that the fees ought to be reduced to a point which would cover simply the cost of transacting the business, but not to be held to cover the non-effective charges or compensations. The present deficiency exceeds £4,000. The fees were £27,897, and the approximate charges came to £28,568, showing a deficiency, exclusive of non-effective charges, of £671. The non-effective charges, including Superannuation Allowances and Compensations, came to £4,083, leaving an actual deficiency of £4,754. It must be borne in mind with reference to the searches, that there has been a great improvement in consequence of the greater efficiency of the staff, and the greater attention paid to the business. I fear that with reference to the official and non-official searches, the position has been practically reversed. In 1878, there were 1,419 non-official searches and 2,863 official searches. That went on a certain period, and the fees were reduced, as has been stated; because in 1883, the official searches had fallen to 1,485. whilst the non-official searches had risen to 2,465. But in 1886, the official searches had risen to 1,775, and the non-official searches had fallen to 1,634. I believe it was held that these fees ought to be reduced to the lowest amount which for that portion of the work could be considered really chargeable—which could be considered really chargeable for that particular work. I understand that the fees now, as far as searches are concerned, are in a much more efficient condition. It is true that searches are still done by another Department; but that I understand will be

    1699
    altered as quickly as possible, and it is hoped that in a short time the abridgments will be complete.
    MR. CHILDERS: The hon. Member has not answered my question. The total charge for salaries, not including the non-effective charge for pensions— that is to say, the charge for salaries and stationery—is still £0,000 more than the fees. If you include the non-effective charge, the difference is still greater.
    MR. JACKSON: I will again look into this question.
    MR. HUNTER: The answer of the hon. Gentleman is satisfactory, so far as the private grievances are concerned; but I would ask the hon. Member if he would direct the attention of the Royal Commission to a public grievance, which is that this Office is overmanned and under worked? I wish, before sitting down, to give a hint to the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to all these Offices in Edinburgh. If you will apply the pruning-knife to all the Public Offices in an unsparing manner, and go in for rigid economy, you may be sure of being supported by all the hon. Members who represent Scotland, with the exception, perhaps, of the four Members for Edinburgh, for whom I cannot speak. You may be sure that the expenditure in these Offices is not viewed with satisfaction in Scotland generally.
    MR. JACKSON: I will undertake to consider the hon. Member's suggestion.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: How is the falling off in the receipts to be accounted for?
    MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member speaks of a certain period. I have shown that the decrease has been a continuous one. I am afraid I cannot say precisely to what the decrease is due; but I suppose it proceeds from two causes—one, the reduction of the fees; and the other, a less amount of business being transacted in the Office than formerly. But having had my attention called to this matter, I will promise hon. Members that I will make inquiry, and do what I can to improve the existing state of things.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: It seems to me that the answer of the Secretary to the Treasury shows the extreme inconvenience of not having the Secretary for Scotland in the House of Commons.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) £4,000, to complete the sum for the Crofters Commission.
    DR. CLARK: I feel in rather a peculiar position with regard to this Vote. I should have liked to move a reduction of it; but if I did I should place myself in a false position. The point I wish to raise here to-day is with regard to the position of the Commission at the present moment, and the method in which Section 17 of the Crofters Act has been carried out. If I had been able to raise this point on the Secretary for Scotland's salary, I certainly should have moved a reduction, because the 4th sub-section of the 17th section states that it shall be the duty of the Crofters Commission to hold sittings in places to which the Act applies in such order as the Secretary for Scotland may prescribe. Now, I cannot very well reduce the Vote, because the Commissioners must act wherever the Secretary for Scotland sends them, and all I have now got to point out is that the Secretary for Scotland has not acted very wisely lately in his method of sending down the Commission. At the present time, the Commission is in the island of Uist. The Commissioners have gone there not at the request of the crofters, but at the request of the landowner, who is a lady, and the cases are heard after this landowner has only given 24 hours' notice. The landlord only gives 24 hours' notice and the Commissioners are hearing the cases. But what has happened in my county? Why there have been several hundreds of applications pending for the last 14 months, and these in reference to estates where the Royal Commission on the Highlands and Islands reported rack-renting to exist. There are hundreds of applications from the crofters to be heard, and they are not being heard. A month before the Commission went to Uist my hon. Friend the Member for Invernessshire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) pointed out to Lord Lothian that this was an inappropriate place to send the Commission to. The crofters, through this Gentleman, their Representative in Parliament, and through their legal advisers, pointed out that this was a time at which the great bulk of their body would be away; and so they would have been, as the Commission would have found, if these people had been able to find their usual employment

    1701
    at the East Coast fishing; but, unfortunately, they were not able to find it, and they returned to the Western Highlands. For Lord Lothian to send the Commission there at this time—when it might have been expected that the great bulk of the crofters would be away—a large number of them to Caithness-shire—was a great absurdity. His Lordship was therefore asked to send the Commission there at this time, and the Commission has gone there. I have heard that out of some 70 or 90 cases taken before the Court, only 12 appeared. I can easily understand that. Only 24 hours' notice is officially given before the cases are heard, and the solicitor who attends to the interests of the crofters has had to protest against that short notice. He declares that in consequence of only having 24 hours notice, knowing nothing about the cases, he is unable to learn anything about them, and is unable to attend to them as diligently as he ought to. He has demanded that at least 48 hours' notice should be given to him in order to enable him properly to defend the cases of his clients. I wish to enter a protest against the Crofters Commission going anywhere at the request of the landlords who are in a position to appoint ordinary valuers to revalue the land, whose decisions can be revised by the Commissioners, if the crofters are dissatisfied with the re-valuation. But seeing that the Commissioners have power to fix the rent, and to modify the rent, it is absurd to send the Commissioners to places like this where they are not wanted—instead of to estates like some of those in Caithness, and to estates like that of General Burrows in the Orkneys and elsewhere, where rack-renting exists, and from which places there have been applications for 14 months to have the Commission sent down. I hope the Lord Advocate will give us some good reason why the Commissioners are now going out to the Hebrides at the request of the landlords, notwithstanding the protest of the crofters, through their agent representing them, and through the Member for Inverness-shire, several weeks before the Commissioners went. I should like now to point out how very unfortunate it is to have the Commissioners sent there at this season of the year. Of course, it is very nice for the Commissioners to go to the island of
    1702
    Uist in the summer time, during the warm weather. It is very much more pleasant for them to be there in the summer than in the winter; but it would be much more convenient for the crofters to have the Commissioners there in the winter time when they themselves are at home. I can, of course, appreciate the fact that during the wild stormy weather of winter it will not be very pleasant for the Commissioners to be in this district. As I have said, the Commissioners going now to Uist will find the fishermen away at the smaller islands and elsewhere, fishing. Well, the Crofters Act, passed this year, was passed for the purpose of stopping the sale of crofters' stock and effects for arrears of rent; but the Commission might just as well have been in the South of France as in Uist. They might just as well have been 1,000 or 1,500 miles from Scotland as in Uist, because of the wretched postal system we have in the Western Highlands. It will take at least four days for any communication from my county to get to Uist, and it will require at least another four days to receive a reply. It would probably take at least nine days for an answer to be received from the Commissioners in reply to a letter sent from the county that I ropresent—to have letters from those at South Uist and back again—nine days going a distance of a couple of hundred miles, simply because the Postmaster General allows a mail train to remain 24 hours at one station, for the reason that the mails come in ten minutes or a quarter of an hour late for the train which precedes. If we were in the wilds of Africa, or in the backwoods of Canada, the postal arrangements would be much better than they are in this district to which I refer. That, however, is the existing state of things. We wired down to the different solicitors who have charge of the cases in my county. There were about 20 cases not long ago where goods were poinded, and it was a neck-and-neck race to get the necessary orders from the Commissioners to save the stock and goods, owing to the out-of-the-way place to which the Commission had been sent. Now, I have got to complain of one or two other little matters. We really cannot discuss this Vote as we ought to be able to discuss it; but I would call the attention of the Lord

    1703
    Advocate to the next section—the 18th section of the Act. The 18th section determines that the Crofters Commission shall, once in every year after the year 1886, make a Report to the Secretary for Scotland as to the proceedings under the Act, and that every such Report shall he presented to Parliament. Now, we have not got the Report for this year, and could not get the Report for last year; and the Act provides that the Report should be sent for last year. If we had had a Report of any kind, we should have been able to consider this question, and to fairly discuss it; but in the absence of all information as to the action of the Commissioners—in the absence of all record as to what they have done—it would be rather absurd for us to discuss the matter. So far as the Irish Land Commissioners are concerned, we have quarterly Reports from them; but the Crofter Commissioners have now been for twelve months at their work, and we do not know yet what they have done. Parliament has a right to know, under this Act, the number of actions which have been brought. It has a right to revise the question of crofting parishes. The Act will only apply to certain parishes and counties. We do not know yet—though we may know in reply to a Question which I have given Notice of, and which is to be put to-morrow—how many crofting parishes have been determined since January or February. We do not know how many applications have been made, or the number of parishes which are not made crofting parishes. Then, again, a number of decisions have been given of very great importance, and we do not know anything about them—we have no official knowledge of them; and when we put Questions with regard to the matter in this House, the replies we receive are at variance with the facts of the case, and so different from all the reports that appear in all the newspapers that we are practically unable to know what has been done, and to discuss it. Hence the desirability of giving us some information. We do not know yet officially whether there has been a reduction of rent and a reduction of arrears. I asked a Question of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in regard to one month— the month of May. I put the Question very carefully, from information with
    1704
    I regard to the action of the Commissioners. I suppose that all that is done by the Commissioners hangs outside the Sheriff's Court, and that the newspapers take a copy of it. Well, the reply given to me showed a difference of £3,000 or £1,000 between the old rents and the new ones. I tried to get a reason for that; but the right hon. Gentleman, instead of giving me the figures for one month, gave me the figures for one month and part of another. We, therefore, have not yet got the information which is necessary to enable us properly to consider this Vote. We are going to pass this Vote, and do nothing at all under the powers given us by this Act, because we cannot act for want of information. I will say nothing at all as to the basis upon which the Commissioners have acted. From the information we have got already, it is plain that there has been a great reduction in rent, and, in some cases, of arrears; but we ought to have some information to let us know upon what principle the rents have been reduced. We ought to know on what principle they have acted in reducing rent in one case by 50 per cent and wiping out the arrears, and in another case reducing rent 25 per cent and wiping off the arrears; while, in others, the rent has been reduced 50 or 60 per cent, but the tenant has been compelled to pay half the arrears. We cannot discuss this matter if we have not got the necessary information before us. Then, as to the working of the Commission, our great objection has been that it will take five or six years to get through all the cases if the old system of working is carried out. But I am glad to see that last week there was a change made, and that the Commissioners are beginning now to do double work—that two of them are meeting to hear the cases, and one of them alone is going over the crofts with the valuer for the purpose of examining the land. Until now these three Gentlemen have been hearing cases together, and the whole three of them have been going over the crofts, and the expense has been very great; indeed, in some cases more than the value of the fee-simple of the crofts under consideration. The only way in which the work can be done efficiently under the Act is to have a couple of Commissioners sitting to hear the cases, andathirdCommissioner—say,

    1705
    the junior Commissioner—alone valuing the crofts. I see there is an indication that the Commissioners are adopting this plan. By this means—by getting valuers and assessors who are acquainted with the localities to go round with one of the Commissioners—the word sub-Commissioner is used, but I do not think it is in the Act—satisfactory progress no doubt may be made. And you will save a considerable amount of money. At present you pay £4,200 a-year for salaries. I do not think that that amount is too large at all. Then you pay £1,500 a-year for the expenses of the Commissioners. If you had these local valuers, you would save a great deal of this money, and get rid of the work in a very few years—in three years instead of six or seven. By the plan I reccommend you would not only be able to save money; but you would enable the Commissioners to get over the work in much, less time, and give the crofters much greater confidence in the decisions of the Court. It would be a much more efficacious way of doing the work to send these local valuers round, instead of having the same set of Commissioners to go all over the different portions of the Highlands from the Mull of Galloway to the Shetland Islands. In various parts of such a wide district there must be great difference of value; and there would not be the same dissatisfaction with the decisions of the Commissioners if local valuers were associated with them in this work. I do not wish to pursue this subject any further; but if you wish the matter to be fairly carried out, you will require to change the procedure very considerably. Instead of getting over 1,000 cases a-year, you will require to get over 3,000 cases a-year. Now, I hope to hear some reply from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to this criticism I have been compelled to make, and I hope to hear, especially why we have no information given as to the principles which have guided the Commissioners, because upon that point we have a great deal to say; and until we have an idea of the principles upon which these Gentlemen act we may be criticizing unfairly. We do not know whether we are getting the value for the money we pay. If we are left without information we may form an opinion opposed to that which, if the circumstances were different, we should form.
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND: I think it is rather unusual, so far as I know, that Estimates relating to any Commission or any public body, should be placed before Parliament without a Report of that body being submitted, especially when they are under compulsion by the Statute to issue a Report. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Dr. Clark) has read the clause which necessitates the preparation of a Report after the year 1886 by the Crofter Commissioners. Seeing the nature of the business the Commission have to carry out, and that their action for some time past must, of necessity have been of a tentative character, it might be said that the Gentlemen who filled the post of Commissioners have not had much time at their disposal, and had found it impossible to draw up a Report; but seeing that many complaints have been made of the paucity of work that there is for the Secretary for Scotland, I think that some of the clerks in his office who, presumably, are not overburdened with duties—["No, no ! "]— Well, in my opinion, some of the money which has been expended by the country on the Office of the Scottish Secretary might be very profitably employed in relieving the Crofters Commission. I do not lay very great stress on the absence of a Report; but still as it is required by Statute, I think we should have had it —and it would have been convenient for us to have had it—by this time. The hon. Member for Caithness has gone into some criticism on various points arising on this Vote; but I do not intend to occupy the time of the Committee in that way. I should like, however, to call attention to some of the decisions which have been given by the Commissioners, although I have no intention of impugning their conduct generally, as far as the reductions which they have granted are concerned. For the Gentleman who presides over the Commission I have the greatest possible respect. I think he is eminently qualified to discharge the duties he has to discharge; but for the lay Commissioners I must say I do not entertain the same respect. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that at the time of their appointment protests were made—it will be remembered that these appointments were made against the recommendations of many who understood the matter in a special way. I would just bring be-

    1707
    fore the notice of the Committee one typical case of the decisions which have been given. The facts are these—I could give the name of the croft to which it refers, and the name of the crofter to whom it refers if necessary. Here is a case in which the forefathers of the crofter had been in possession of the croft for 100 years up to the time when he acquired it. It had been in his family for many generations. It was stated in open Court as follows:—That in the year 1832 his father paid £8 10 s. to an outgoing tenant, whose holding was added to his father's holding. In 1834 his father built the present dwelling place upon it at his own expense, all except a slight assistance which was given by the landlord. All the outhouses were built by the tenant at his own expense. The land was cleared, trenched, and works of the value of £500 were carried out, as I say, at his own expense. In 1878 the father of the present tenant died, the present tenant succeeded, and the rent was raised from £6 5s. to £11 5s., an increase of almost 100 per cent on the tenant's own improvements. Then the Commission came, and the tenant applied to them, complaining that he was over-rented, and asking to have a fair rent fixed. The decision of the Commissioners was that his rent should be increased to £14. So that since 1878, or during the lapse of nine years, the tenant's rent was increased 124 per cent altogether on his own improvements. Now, under a sub-section of Section 6 the landlord or the crofter may apply for the fixing of a fair rent, and obtain a visit from the Crofter Commission, and the Crofter Commission, after considering all the circumstances of the ease, and particularly after taking into consideration any permanent improvements on the holding which may have been constructed or paid for by the crofter or his predecessors in the same family, may determine such fair rent, and fix the rent accordingly. "What I say is, that this section of the Act has not been given effect to in the case I mention, because this man who has made these improvements would, if he had been fairly treated, have had his rent reduced. I am speaking from personal knowledge on this point when I say that effect was not given to the Act in fixing the rent. I think that, in a case of that kind,
    1708
    there should be some way of appealing against the judgment of the Commissioners. The holding, so far as I know, was visited only by the lay Commissioners. The Chairman of the Commission, who, I suppose, is a legal Gentleman, does not presume to have any knowledge of the value of land. I think that in a case of this kind—this is only a typical case of a number decided at the same time—an appeal should be given, as the Commissioners have not carried out the intention of the Act.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I think that no one can complain of the manner in which hon. Members who have addressed the Committee have spoken on this subject. I think that must arise, to a great extent, from this—that in their inward consciousness hon. Members feel that, although there are some things of which they have a right to complain, the Commission, on the whole, has been doing extremely satisfactory work, and extremely hard work. Hon. Members complain that the Commissioners have not reported yet. Well, if the Commissioners had spent two or three weeks of their time in drawing up an elaborate report, the first people to complain would have been the crofters themselves—the crofters would have complained that the Commissioners were spending their time in writing to inform the Government what they were doing, instead of getting on with that class of case which the hon. Member for Caithness has said will take five or six years to complete. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman opposite, points out that the Commissioners are at present in the island of Uist. I can only say, as regards their being there, that they are there in this state of things—namely, that Lord Lothian, the Secretary for Scotland, in determining where they should hear cases, gave distinct instructions to them to inform him, whether they were satisfied that in all cases the crofters at any particular place could attend if the Commissioners went there, and he was assured that if they went to the island of Uist just now they would be able to get the crofters to attend before the Court. And events have subsequently shown that those who so assured him were perfectly right that if

    1709
    the Commissioners went to the island of Uist just now they would be able to get the crofters to attend in all cases. I find, in a statement which appears in the newspapers this morning, that the Commissioners, having gone to Uist, the Chairman of the Commissioners has stated that, out of 70 cases which had been settled, in only 12 had the crofters failed to appear. He stated that there had been only 12 absentees out of 114 cases, and that of these 12 cases only six of the men were away fishing, three were unwell, two were absent without any reason being assigned, and one happened to be away. Therefore, I think that no reasonable complaint can be made against the Commission being there at the present time.
    MR. HUNTER: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean that in every case, except these 12, the crofters were present, or that they were represented by their families?
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: They were either present themselves, or represented. The hon. Member says that the Secretary for Scotland, in making a general arrangement as regards the places the Commissioners are to go to from time to time, ought to pay no regard whatever to the landlords. Well, I do not quite agree with him in that. I think that the landlords and tenants should both be considered in this matter; and when we find that the landlady of this estate referred to has, through pure good-nature, allowed her arrears to run up to a tremendous amount—extending, in some cases, I believe, to 12 years—I think that she surely has reasonable ground for asking that the Commission which has been established should say what rent she is to get. She will certainly get no rent until this question is decided; she will certainly get none of them until the Commissioners have given a decision. I think, in her case, it is most reason able that she should apply for the Commission to visit her estate, and that the Commission should comply with as little delay as possible. And I would point out, further, what my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) so candidly admitted, that it would be very uncomfortable indeed for the Crofter Commission to go to the island of Uist in midwinter. They would be infinitely more
    1710
    shut out from communication than they are now, because if they went to the island of Uist in winter they might be compelled to remain there for a month or six weeks at a time, the island during that period being frequently totally inaccessible. The Commissioners would, under the circumstances, be out of the reach of the other crofters in the other islands and on the mainland. I would point out further that very often, as regards visiting these islands, it is not only a question of comfort, but of possibility. Supposing the Commissioners determined to go to Uist on the 1st December, and made their arrangements accordingly, they might find it impossible to carry out their intention, and. at the time the crofters wished them to be there, and expected them, they might be unable to attend. Is it suggested that in the very depth of midwinter the crofters themselves would be willing to go long distances over the hills to the places where the Courts were to be held—to places in, which there might be no accommodation for them, and where they would not be able to get any comfort at such a period of the year? I think that undoubtedly good cause has been shown for the visit to Uist being taken at a time of the year when the conditions are favourable for all parties. I perfectly understand that the crofters may grumble about it. They have a right to grumble; but I hope hon. Members will agree with me that while people have their right to grumble, it is impossible to make these arrangements without making some cause for grumbling, reasonable or unreasonable. With regard to the smaller matters to which the hon. Member has referred, he has said that the answers he has received in this House on more than one occasion have been, to some extent, at variance with the published reports in the newspapers. No doubt, there was a difference of that kind on one or two occasions. It has been owing partly probably to inadvertence; but I can assure the hon. Member when he tells us of what has been done by the Commission—when he tells us of the enormous reductions, and that the principles upon which these reductions have been made are not known—when he tells us this, and complains that no official Report has been presented—he is hardly fair to the Commissioners,

    1711
    because I would point out this, as I; said before, that the Commissioners would have been going outside the lines of what was advisable or right if they had spent their time in drawing up a Report, not for a whole year, but for part of a year, before their first year's work was completed. Their duty was to give themselves a general knowledge of the work with which they were intrusted by going to different places throughout the country. It was necessary for them, to obtain a general knowledge of the state of the country and of the state of agriculture; and I say further, I do not think they could have done what the hon. Member quite properly suggests—namely, in the early days of their labours—have split up their work, and have sent one of their number to examine some district and take evidence. I think it was the bounden duty of the members of the Commission to work together. It was necessary for them to confer together, and to get a general idea of how their work could be best conducted, and what was the best mode of forming opinions. Having done that—having come to a general understanding and agreement as to the nature of their work—they could then send one of their number away, knowing that he was carrying out not only his own views, but those of his colleagues, and that he was acting not only upon his own experience, but upon the experience of the whole body of Commissioners. Under these circumstances, a Commissioner thus sent away would give a decision in which all the Commissioners could agree. I submit that it would have been a most unwise thing for them to have sent away one of their number of whose capacity for work and whose mode of operations they had no experience, or the soundness of whose views generally they knew nothing of, and then to have endeavoured themselves to form a judgment with regard to any report he made. Now, when the Commissioners, have been together for some time, and understand each other's way of working and of considering matters, they can with confidence allow one of their number to go and make valuations. I certainly think that the Commissioners have taken the proper course up to this time. They are, I believe, now endeavouring to get through their work quickly, and I believe the decisions they
    1712
    are now giving will be satisfactory both to crofters and landlords. There is only one other matter which I will refer to. The hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. A. Sutherland) has spoken of a certain case. "Well, Sir, I think we must all of us be aware of this fact—that when appeals are made in these cases, there is an able lawyer sitting on the Commission. The hon. Member stated his belief in the fairness of the Commission. I have had occasion to know that gentleman for a good many years, and I must say I never knew a man who had a more earnest desire to act fairly and conscientiously, and to do his duty with care; and I am sure from all I have heard and know in my communications with Mr. Brand—and I have seen him on several occasions since he took the Chairmanship of this Commission—that he carries out my estimate of him. I am sure we could not have had a better man, a more earnest and energetic man, than Mr. Brand. As to the other Commissioners, I am not personally acquainted with them; but I cannot help thinking that, on the whole, their work has given considerable satisfaction. I do not know what further reduction of rent hon. Gentlemen opposite would have got from other persons; but I hold that there is nothing before the Committee or the public to indicate that these Commissioners have not acted to the best of their lights, or that they are not men of skill, and eminently suited for the position they hold. The hon. Member complains that there is no appeal; but I can hardly concur with him in that. An appeal means more expense. An appeal means loss of time—
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND: As I understand it there is an appeal provided for in the Act from the Sub-Commissioner to the Commissioners, or from one Commissioner to two Commissioners; but what I complain of is that that arrangement has not been carried out, and that in cases decided by a Sub-Commissioner in Sutherlandshire, there have been no appeals allowed.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: The hon. Member is mistaken in this matter, for there has been no Sub-Commission sent out. There is no Sub-Commission now. As I understand it every decision given up to the present time is a decision of the Commissioners as a body,

    1713
    and I do not know of any appeal of the I kind referred to by the hon. Member. I understood the hon. Member to complain that there was no appeal given from the decision of the Crofter Commission to another Court. He used the word "appeal," and seemingly used it in a different sense to what is ordinarily implied; but now I understand what he meant. There cannot be any ground for the complaint he made; because I understand that every decision given has been given by the whole body of the Commissioners. If there has been any action on the part of an individual Commissioner previous to the decision being given, the discussion and consideration given by the Commissioners themselves to what the individual Commissioner might have reported is something in the nature of an appeal. I do not know of any other appeal except one of that nature. I think I have answered, or, at any rate, have attempted to answer, all the points raised. All I can say further is this. The noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian) is most anxious that the work of the Commissioners should be pushed on, and I can assure hon. Members that the suggestions they have made will receive full consideration, and will be carried out if possible.
    DR. R. MACDONALD: I may say at the outset that the work of this Commission will have to be done all over again. It is the Irish Land Question all round again, and I can easily explain it to the House. These crofters, or their ancestors before them, were put down on the hillsides to do the best they could with the land. They lived upon it and improved it, and now the Act tells them that the Commissioners are to take into account all the improvements which have been made. I say that with 20,000 acres of land lying waste within 50 miles of this House for which, you cannot get a tenant at a penny an acre, it is ridiculous to think of charging men in the Highlands 5s. an acre for their crofts. I have looked over the decisions of the Commissioners, and have made calculations, and I find that the average rent that they have fixed is 10 s. an acre for every inch of it. I ask, is that right, or just, or fair? I declare, under the circumstances, that this Crofter Question will be just as much a thorn in the side of this Go-
    1714
    vernment, and of every other Government, until justice is done by the Commissioners, taking into account the improvements which have been made on the land by the crofters. the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate speaks of the internal consciousness of hon. Members on this side, but his assumption in that matter I deny entirely; and there is one other remark which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the attendance of crofters personally at the Commissioners Court in Uist, about which I wish to say a word. I would tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he looks at the newspaper to-day he will find that scores of people appeared before the Commissioners by deputy, either in the person of their wives, their nephews, their sons, and so on. And if he has received information to the effect that the crofters appeared themselves in the large number of cases in which he says that an appearance was put in, he has evidently been misinformed. I shall take care myself to get the exact number of the personal appearances that have been made, from the gentleman who is at present acting in the crofters' interests.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: Might I explain? I understood the hon. Member—I did not say—
    DR. R. MACDONALD: My hon. Friend asked the question—the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) asked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant to say that in every case except 12 the crofters were present or that they were represented by their families, and I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that they were represented.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I must have misunderstood the hon. Member. What I thought he meant was, did the crofters appear by agent or council. I did not mean to say that the individual crofters themselves appeared, but that they did appear by members of their families or by agent.
    DR. R. MACDONALD: They could not appear themselves because most of them were away from home, and consequently were not in a position to attend or give evidence. The hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. A. Sutherland) has made allusion to one case where he thought the decision was unjust.
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND: It was a typical case.
    DR. R. MACDONALD: Yes; my hon. Friend mentioned it as a typical case, but I have here a list of cases. I will not trouble the Committee with all of them, but I will give a few to show the way in which the Crofter3 Commission is doing its work. Hero is the case of a man whose old rent was £11. His fair rent was fixed at £6 3s. His arrears were £35, and of those arrears he has been ordered to pay £28. This man's rent has been reduced to nearly a-half, and yet he is ordered to pay four-fifths of his arrears. Is there any justice in that amount? He ought to obtain a much larger reduction than that. Then in another case the old rent was £11, and the new rent was fixed at £6 3s. The arrears were £34 4s., and the man was ordered to pay only £8 of them. In another case the old rent was £11 15 s. The new rent was fixed at £4 13 s., almost a third. The arrears were £35 5s., and of that the tenant was ordered to pay £5. His rent is reduced a-third of what it had been before, and he has only to pay a small portion of his arrears. In another case, however, where the old rent was £7 5s., and the now rent £2 4s., the arrears were £5 and the tenant was ordered to pay every penny of them. Here is another case that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be anxious to hear—the case of William McKenzie, of Mickdale—I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the name so that he may verify it himself. It is taken from a newspaper report of the return as signed by the Commission. The old rent was £3 10 s., and it was reduced to £1 10 s. The arrears were £2 10s., and the man has been ordered to pay every half-penny of them. Can any Member of this House say that that is just? I have here innumerable cases of this kind, Here is another case—old rent £13 10 s., new rent £6 10 s.; arrears£8 6s., and the tenant ordered to pay £4 of them. It is not enough that the landlords have been taking double the rent from these poor people which they ought to have received for all these years, but they are to be allowed to collect their arrears. The Commissioners ordered for the most part the old rent should be paid by these people again. Surely, it must be obvious to everyone that people
    1716
    who cannot pay even their present rents will never be able to pay their old back rack-rents for which they are in arrears. As I have already told the Committee, Parliament will have the same trouble to deal with which it has had to face in the case of Ireland. It is impossible for people to pay their rents, and if a decision is given, I do not care by what Commission, I put it to any hon. Member of this House to say if a man has taken up land which is worth at the most Is. an acre, that all the rent he ought to be called upon to pay should be 1s. I find that the reduction of rent all round, taking it on the average, is about 33 per per cent—that is to say, looking at all the decisions which have already been given. It may be said that that is a very great deal, and that the crofters ought to be thankful; but I have some cases here of reduction of rent on the large farms into which all the good lands are thrown. I have taken some of these cases from the papers, and they refer to large farms in the Highlands—the crofters we know only get the scraps which are left on the hillside, or by the sea-shore, which they have to do with as best they can. I find here that on the large farm of Westerdale in Caithness, the rent was reduced 50 per cent, although there have been no improvements effected by the tenant. On two large farms on the Kilmuir Estate reductions of 33·3 per cent and 27·5 per cent have been made. On the Rosehaugh Estate of the National Provident Institution, when they found that the Commissioners were reducing the rents of the crofters on their property from 40 to 50 per cent, they sent down a valuer to value their farms. They found that the rents on those farms were considerably higher than they should be, and the valuer sent in an average on that estate, excluding leaseholders and taking improvements into account, in consequence of which the rents were reduced from 50 to 70 per cent. Take a case which occurred the other day and which is mentioned in The Invergordon Times of last week. It is a farm at Huntingtower, two miles west of Perth, it was let originally at a rental of £639, but it has now just been let for £350, and no improvements are to be considered there, although the previous tenant did spent £1,000 upon them. Then there is the case of a farm—the Montagu farm—which was

    1717
    formerly let at £500, but has just now been let at £300. I ask how can the crofters be grateful to the Commission for doing less than the landlords all round are doing on the large farms? How can anyone assert that justice is being done to the crofters? The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks us what percentage we want in the reduction of rents. Well, I have indicated that already. If a rent is now 10 s. or £1 an acre, it should be reduced to 1s. an acre; and then we shall be satisfied and not till then. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate may shake his head and say that that is impossible, but we find a good many things which have been declared to be impossible come to be possible in the long run. Now, I want to point out to the Committee what has been done in connection with the Crofter Commission. This Commission has reduced rents £2,114 and abated arrears £6,000— that is to say, that it has dealt with £8,000. We find the expenses of the Crofter Commission is £6,000 this year, and £3,930 last year—that is to say, that they have already cost the country a great deal more than the total amount of reductions they have effected. Would it not be better," then for the House to make a gift to these crofters or to the landlords? Would it not be cheaper for Parliament to say to the landlords— "There are your rents" and be done with it? In the calculation which has been made of the cost of the Commission, no account has been taken of the loss of one of Her Majesty's ships, which would probably amount to about £14,000. It would have been three times better for this House to have paid the reductions which have been effected in the rents of the crofters than to have gone to all this trouble and expense. When we find that such decisions as I have referred to are given, how can we expect these crofters to be satisfied? What good is it for a man to have a rent of £4 reduced to £3, when he is unable to pay half that amount? It does him no good at all, and I therefore say, give him justice—give us the benefit of the Act passed by this House. We say, take account of the improvements which have been effected by the crofters, even if it is 1,000 years back. The Act says that, after all the improvements made by these people and their forbears, the landlord is to get
    1718
    value for the land as it was originally. Then we shall be satisfied; but there is no other possible way of satisfying us. We shall continue to suffer injustice if we do not get this. We are agitating in the Highlands and islands, and we shall continue to agitate within the law. We are asking this House and the country to put into proper operation the Act which has been passed by this House. I do not know that I have anything further to say—["Hear, hear!"]—and I do not think it would be proper for me to say anything more, because there is a great deal of Scotch work before the House to-day, and I do not desire to lose a moment of time. I must appeal to my hon. Friend who says "Hear, hear!" when I say I am going to sit down, to consider this subject carefully, and to say whether, after all, the case we have made out is not one worth the House listening to. I do not make statements without figures. I can prove every figure which I have used, and I appeal to this House whether justice, or anything like justice, is to be given to the crofters.
    MR. CHILDERS: There is one question I would like to ask the Lord Advocate, and that is with reference to the first Report of the Crofter Commission. It is true that under the Act it is provided that the Commission "shall, once every year after 1886, make a Report to the Secretary for Scotland." Now, I cannot but think, or help thinking, that the intention was, considering that the Crofter Commission was appointed in the middle of 1886, that after their operations during 1886, they should by the middle of 1887 make a Report. But we have now got through nearly two-thirds of 1887, and no Report has appeared. But, apparently, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate appears to think that there has been no delay. He gives as a reason for no Report having appeared, that in the early part of the year the Commission was too busy to draw up a Report. If the interpretation I have given is the true interpretation to be put upon the clause, in respect of what year will the first Report be made? Will it be in respect of the year 1886, or in respect of the year 1887, or in respect of some imaginary financial year taking in part of 1886 and part of 1887? There is nothing of that kind in the

    1719
    Statute, and I must say that it should rest on the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look to the Crofter Commission to make a Report at once with regard to 1886. All these rules were laid down in 1886, and surely we should have received some statement from the Commissioners bearing upon their work for that year. I do not think we should be obliged to wait until the end of the present year before the Crofter Commission make a Report. The words are "that they shall once in every year." Therefore it would be in this year, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will observe, that the Report should be made. It is not "for" every year, but "in" every year. Would it not be well that they should at once make a Report for the six months in 1886, and then, early on next year, make a Report for the whole of 1887?
    MR. PROVAND: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) that these Reports should be furnished without delay. There is a great difficulty in obtaining any information with regard to the work done by the Commission. The only information we do get is that contained in newspaper paragraphs, and to ask a question in this House upon the information contained in those paragraphs would be to lay ourselves open to correction, because they are not official and many of them no doubt contain misstatements. As a matter of fact, we have no official information at all except that we have spent £10,000 upon the Commission. Now, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) stated that the Commissioners would be blamed by the crofters themselves if they had spent six months in preparing an elaborate Report; but I point out that an elaborate Report is not what we want. We will take such a Report as the duties of the Commissioners give them time to prepare. Now, there have been several months during the present year in which the Commissioners have not been sitting, and that interval might have been used for the preparation of the Report that we want. The Report of the proceedings of the Irish Land Court is not an elaborate document; and I am sure that the particulars which are in the possession of the Crofter Commission could have been
    1720
    copied out and presented by this time, and such as they are they would be valuable. But, as I have said, we have no official information whatever, except that we have spent £ 10,000 upon the Commission; and I therefore hope that we shall be supplied with whatever Report can be got, and that soon, say, within two or three weeks.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I should read the section of the Statute, as meaning that if the Crofters Commission at any time in 1887 make a report of their proceedings, that would satisfy its requirements. As far as I can understand hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is that they are anxious to have a Report as early as possible. I think the most sensible view is that the Crofters Commission should issue their Report as they finish each year's work. If hon. Members will communicate with me on this matter, I should be glad to lay the representation before the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian), who, as well as the Commissioners themselves, will, I have no doubt, be happy to give effect to it.
    DR. CLARK: I am not altogether satisfied with the statement of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate; because I may say that the information we asked for is posted outside the door of every Sheriff's Court House; and if the reports which are so placed were laid upon the Table of this House, nearly all the information which we require would be found in them. There is one very important point on which we require some information. Time after time, during the discussion of the Bill, we pointed out that the clauses in reference to the increasing of holdings were practically useless, and therefore it is that the information we require is not only as to the reduction of rents, but also with regard to the increase of holdings. Of what use is it to the crofter that his rent is, perhaps, reduced from £3 10 s. to £1 12 s., or from £1 10 s. to 5s.? The only thing that will be of any value to him is the increase of his holding, and I doubt whether, out of 1,000 cases that have been dealt with, there is 1 per cent in which an addition has been made to the holding. I may say, after the efforts I have made to get at the facts, that there has not been an increase of 1 per cent. The only way of solving the diffi-

    1721
    culty is by giving an increase of land; and the facts being as I have stated, the clauses of the Act introduced for the purpose of increasing holdings have become a dead letter. I admit that the landlord ought to be considered; but I hold that they should be considered only after the crofter. At Uist the solicitor for the landlord only served the applications on those crofters whom it would best serve the landlord's purpose to have before the Commission, and the solicitors for the crofters only got the notices on the day on which the cases were to be heard. I say that the Commissioners should go first to those places where the Royal Commission has reported that rack-renting exists; and that when the claims of the crofters in those places have been done justice to, the landlords should be considered. What the Commissioners should do is to reduce the rents on those farms en which the farmers can live—farms of £15 or £20 valuation; farms of the middle size— but they have not attended to that class, they have only dealt with the large holdings and the very small ones. I know the case which the hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. A. Sutherland) has referred to—where the tenant's rent has been raised on his own improvements— and I have information that the Duke of Sutherland himself was about to reduce the rent. If the Crofter Commission had not gone down to the district, it is probable that the rent would have been reduced; hut the result of their going there was that it was increased; and there are one or two other cases in which hundreds of pounds have been spent by the tenants whose rents have been increased. All I ask for is information, not for the purpose of going into the cases now—because they will be dealt with by us when the proper time comes—but in order that we may see the work actually being done by the Commission; and unless we get that information, I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that next Session will show a very different state of things from the present.
    Vote agreed, to.
    (4.) £146,537, to complete the sum for Police—Counties and Burghs, Scotland.
    MR. MARK STEWART: This Vote raises a question of
    1722
    great importance, which concerns every county and every burgh in Scotland. I observe that there has been an annual increase of this Vote, and considering that crime is not on the increase, and that, generally speaking, there has been a large diminution of crime throughout the country, it is difficult to see how this large annual increase arises. It may strike some hon. Members that £1,500 a-year is not a very large increase; but when we consider that there are only 56 men added to the Force—35 in counties, and 21 in burghs—whose wages are at the rate of about 18 s. a-week, which will amount to the sum of £50 8s., it is difficult to know how the remainder of the £1,500 is expended. What I find fault with is this—that although it may be said that as half the grant is paid by the counties and burghs, and half by the Government, the former are as much to blame as the Government, and we have continually put upon us extra expense, which we have to discharge. We have the expense of clothing, boots, great coats, and other matters. It may be further urged that these expenses are practically compulsory, and that the Commissioners of Supply have no other course open to thorn than to comply with the regulations of the Home Office. I hope, however, that the authorities at Dover House will exercise their control in order that we may not have a continuance of these increased charges and expenses thrust upon us, because when we consider that the local rates are annually increasing, and that the means of meeting them are largely diminishing, it does not behave us to increase unnecessarily, as it seems to us, the expenditure in connection with the Police Force. We think we are paying quite sufficient, and we believe we have ample security afforded by the law for the protection of our property; but we do object to the Government, or any authority, thrusting upon us expenses which we think unnecessary, and therefore ought not to be borne.
    MR. HUNTER: I hope we shall have some information, from, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) with regard to the dispute about the number of police in the County of Inverness. It will be in the recollection of the House that attention, was called to a scandalous waste of

    1723
    public money in sending police and soldiers to Skye in order to collect rents which nobody had refused to pay. Since then the Commissioners of Supply for the County of Inverness, who are landowners, and represent the landowners exclusively, have come to the conclusion that the Force in Skye should be largely reduced; and that is a subject on which the Commissioners are to be considered the best authority. It appears, however, that a very wild and irresponsible gentleman—Sheriff Ivory—has interposed his veto, and the question is now under consideration by the Secretary for Scotland, and I wish to know what is being done in the matter?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J.H.A. MACDONALD): I understand that the Police Force in Skye will soon be reduced.
    Vote agreed, to.
    (5.) £63,494, to complete the sum for Prisons, Scotland.
    DR. CLARK: When the Vote for English Prisons was before the Committee a few nights ago, I had occasion to call the attention of hon. Members to the great disparity of pay as between the surgeons in English and Scotch prisons. I pointed out that whereas the former received salaries between £400 and £600, the surgeons in the Scottish prisons only received salaries of £200, rising to a maximum of £300. I was about to refer to the case of a surgeon in the Glasgow prison; but as the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Lord Advocate gives me to understand that it has been settled, I need not go into it, and will simply add as one reason for removing the disparity which exists, that while the surgeons in prisons in Scotland get only half the pay of the English prison surgeons, they have to do more work.
    MR. MARK STEWART: I would point out that there has been considerable expenditure that might have been prevented under the new system of prison building in Scotland as compared with the old system. It appears that in building the new prisons the architects and others were at fault, and that a much greater expenditure than was expected has been incurred in connection with them in order to put them in an efficient state. Perhaps the
    1724
    right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate can give us some information on the subject.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I must admit that in years past there was something not quite satisfactory with regard to the plans for sanitary work, and so on; but the matter has been occupying attention.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I am confirmed by this in the opinion I have always held—namely, that the system of centralization with regard to prisons would not lead to economy.
    Vote agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Mason.)
    DR. CLARK: As the remaining Scottish Votes contain little contentious matter, I think we may finish them before Progress is reported.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): Of course, the Government will be very glad if these Votes are finished, but I can assure the Committee that it is only with the desire to meet the wishes of Scotch Members as far as possible that the present arrangement has been made.
    MR. PROVAND: My reason for wishing to go on with the Bills on the Paper rather than the Estimates is that the majority of Scottish Members are in favour of that course.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow..
    Committee to sit again upon Friday.

  LUNACY DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [Lords.]
  (The Lord Advocate.)
  LUNACY DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [Lords.]

    [BILL 318.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, that he had a Motion on the Paper that the House go into Committee on the Bill that day three months, but he proposed to withdraw it. He would, however,

    1725
    make an appeal to the Lord Advocate. He hoped the Government might see their way to accept one of the two Amendments he had on the Paper in order to carry out the views of the East of Scotland on this matter, and he would ask the Lord Advocate if he could now state how far he would be disposed to agree to these Amendments?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, he had already stated that the Bill was introduced for a special purpose only, and that the Government were not prepared to accept any Amendment as to any special district or place. Having given that pledge, in consequence of which, doubtless, Scottish Members had refrained from putting down Amendments, he was afraid he must adhere to it. He was, therefore, unable to accept the Amendments of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he desired, if he was in Order, to move that the Bill should be postponed until after the Secretary for Scotland Bill as a protest against the order in which the Bills had been placed for discussion. The First Lord of the Treasury gave a pledge that the wish of the majority of the Scottish Members would be consulted as to the order in which the Scottish Bills should be taken; but that pledge, unintentionally, no doubt, had not been fulfilled, and the wishes of the majority of the Scottish Members had not been ascertained. If they had been, he believed it would hare been found that they were in favour of taking general in preference to purely local Bills, like the one before the House. Only two places, Glasgow and Dundee, were interested in the measure; but their position was neutralized, for while Glasgow very much wanted the Bill, Dundee was strongly against it. It was not right that the Bill should be put before a Bill like the Secretary for Scotland Bill, referring to the whole of Scotland, and proposing to give a small measure of Home Rule to that country. If it had been a question of the second reading, he would not have troubled the House on the matter; but, as the Committee on this Bill would be a continuance of the great fight between Glasgow and Dundee, he would, if he was in Order, like to move the Bill be
    1726
    not considered until after the other Orders of the Day were disposed of.
    MR. SPEAKER: That Motion would not be in Order, and, in any case, the hon. Member is too late, as the Motion is, that I now leave the Chair on this Bill.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he could assure the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, that he was not aware of the pledge referred to by him; but two days ago, he saw the Order of Business to which objection was now taken in the handwriting of the First Lord of the Treasury, and it was then shown to a Scottish Member, who raised no objections. Had he known in time that there was any objection, he would have taken steps to have ascertained the wishes of the majority of the Scottish Members.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, on Tuesday the Order Book showed the Secretary for Scotland Bill to be the first Order for to-day.
    DR. CLARKsaid, he thought the Government should be complimented for having placed the Bill first. They ought not at that stage of the Session to enter into contentious matter, and all they ought to do was to pass such measures as this, whereby, in consequence of draftsmen's mistakes, powers given had worked unjustly. After what the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) had said, they would run through the measure in a few minutes The hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell) surely did not expect that they were going to pass the Secretary for Scotland Bill, unless the Session were prolonged till October. He (Dr. Clark) did not expect it.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I do.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (General board may alter or vary districts subject to the sanction of the Secretary for Scotland).
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, before the word "application" insert the word "combined."—(Mr. E. Robertson.)
    Question proposed, "That that word be there inserted."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A MACDONALD): I am afraid that

    1727
    I cannot accept this Amendment. The clause as it stands, in our opinion, provides for all that is necessary in the matter of application.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: The object of this Amendment is simply to restore the law under which the Commissioners of Supply in counties were in all cases necessary parties to the application. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate means that he wishes to restore the law to its old position, I think he is bound to accept my Amendment.
    MR. CALDWELL: I must oppose this Amendment; because the object of the clause is that, in order to determine the question of altering or varying districts, the General Board should hear any party making the application. If the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee were put in it would practically leave it in the hands of the Commissioners of Supply, who might do the very reverse of that which the Act is intended to do.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, after "and," insert "electors, the appointment."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, after the word "only," insert the words "or combination."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 2 and 3 severally agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Power in certain cases to contract with existing asylum before erecting new asylum).
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I rise to move the first Amendment standing in my name, the object of which, taken in connection with the words which I propose to insert by my second Amendment—namely, "Shall no longer be obligatory on, but optional to district boards," is to remove what I consider to be one great blot on the existing system. I will not repeat the arguments which have been already used by myself and others against the existing system, further than to say that it comes to this— whereever there is a chartered asylum, the district boards are compelled to con-
    1728
    tract with that asylum, so that they are at the mercy of a non-representative body. It is for the purpose of making it optional to contract with the chartered asylum or not that I move this Amendment. I have also, as an alternative to it, placed on the Paper an Amendment to strike out the whole clause, and the effect of this being to leave things in statu quo, it is therefore the milder Amendment of the two.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 1, leave out from the beginning of clause to "provisions," in line 2, and insert "The."—(Mr. E. Robertson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. SHIRESS WILL: If by this Amendment my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) had given representation to the ratepayers on the Chartered Asylum Boards, I would have heartily supported it. But what my hon. and learned Friend desires is to have an option left to the parochial boards to go to the Chartered Asylums or not. Now that is to alter the whole of the policy which has been in existence since 1857, and which has worked so well. Now, what is the cause of this action on the part of my hon. and learned Friend? There are in Forfarshire two Chartered Asylums—one at Dundee and the other at Montrose. The charge in each for pauper lunatics is the same— namely, £28 per annum. The Dundee people, having to pay this sum, appealed to the arbitrators in Edinburgh to adjust the charge. The Commissioners ordered the Dundee people to state their case in writing, and ordered the Montrose Board, also in writing, to answer the complaint. The Commissioners reported their decision as appears in the Blue Book. They took into consideration the rates charged by the other asylums in the district and other matters, and decided that there was no cause of complaint as regards the charge. That being so, the proposal of my hon. and I learned Friend is an attempt to get I behind the decision of the arbitrators, and in some fashion to re-open the question between Dundee and Montrose.
    MR. CALDWELL: The meaning of this clause is, that if a certain district is divided, then

    1729
    the existing law which applies to the district as a whole shall apply to the district when divided. It is desired to leave no doubt on that point.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: This is not a quarrel between Dundee and Montrose at all. It is a quarrel between the representative authorities in Forfarshire, in Edinburgh, and in the East of Scotland generally, and the non-representative bodies for which my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Shiress Will) appears. It is not for me to propose representation for those bodies; that is n question which may conic up at another time; but, in the meanwhile, all we want is that we should no longer be compelled to contract with the chartered asylums. We want to contract where we can in conformity with the duties imposed upon us, and we want to build asylums for ourselves. That being the position, I think we should go to a Division at once.
    MR. WALLACE: This is not a question affecting Forfarshire alone. I am here to say that it excites as much interest in Edinburgh as in Dundee, and that the feeling is general that there is a great hardship in the parochial boards being bound to one particular asylum, and not being at liberty to select among the different institutions one which may answer their purpose. In short, there are particular asylums which are protected, and the parochial boards simply want the principle of free trade to be guaranteed to them, as it is to others who wish to procure any article of service. I may say that, looking at this as a general question, I sympathize very much with the direction in which the parochial boards of Edinburgh and Forfarshire desire to move. I would have been better pleased simply to have omitted Clause 4 from the Bill. At the same time, as I am challenged to go to a Division, I shall, on general principles, feel compelled to vote for the Amendment before the Committee. I cannot understand how it is that when no one is to be injured, objection should be raised to the parochial boards having the opportuniny of choosing the asylums to which they shall send their patients. There are no vested interests connected with these privileged asylums, and no one would lose a penny by withdrawing the existing monopoly. Economy, I believe, was the object origi-
    1730
    nally contemplated in the Act of 1857; but I think experience has shown that the danger which was then anticipated does not now exist. The only fault which I think can be found with the parochial boards is that they are too extravagant in their expenditure. I have always heard that parsimony, even to the extent of positive niggardliness, was the charge to which they were most exposed. The original object of the clause having disappeared, it seems to me that the clause intended to remedy that should also disappear.
    MR. CALDWELL: I think the effect of dispensing with this clause will be to injure the public most seriously; if you give the parochial boards the power to choose the asylums to which they should send their cases the result would be that certain asylums might have rooms for accommodation standing empty, whilst other asylums might be over-filled to meet the demand. Now, the object was to prevent over-filling. We are only asking that if sufficient accommodation is provided, then the Local Authorities should be bound to send their patients to the chartered asylums. That is the object which the Act had in view, and we are seeking to continue the powers of that Act, so that the authorities shall not have power to make increased accommodation unnecessarily. By all means get the most efficient board, and get the work conducted in the most efficient manner; but these are matters for future settlement, and as regards the present Bill they are out of place.
    MR. CHILDERS: I do not think the question is quite so simple as my hon. Friend the Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell) appears to suppose. The fact is that there is at the present time, under the Act which it is proposed to alter, an absolute monopoly in certain cases. Formerly, the payment to lunatic asylums from the parochial authorities in Edinburgh was at the rate of £15 a head. That rate was after some years raised to £22; but within the last few years, under the system of monopoly of protected asylums, it was raised to £33 10 s. per head—an absolutely extravagant and unknown rate. Now, the clause as it is proposed to be altered would give to the Edinburgh people, who feel the charge very much, the power of going to other asylums and

    1731
    getting rates approaching to that which appears to them to be more reasonable, These are the plain facts. The payment now made by Edinburgh is something like£11,000 a-year for lunatics; whereas £8,000 a-year is considered to be ample.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when a dispute arose as to the amount, a smaller sum was offered to be accepted for the patients in the asylums? That was refused on the part of those who are now complaining, and the Appeal Court raised the sum to £33 10 s., as against those who would not accept the arrangement for a smaller sum.
    MR. CHILDERS: I know all that, and that the judgment was a highly technical one.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: It is a remarkable fact that the smaller sum was refused. I would point out that the proposal to leave out this clause, or set it aside, really comes to this—that the large asylums which have been built, and which are working efficiently, are to be placed at a disadvantage, although they are not working for profit, but entirely for the benefit of the community.
    MR. M'EWAN: The hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) has stated that while the parochial boards are compelled to offer all their pauper lunatics to the chartered asylums in the neighbourhood, these institutions are under no obligation to take them. But that is not the case with regard to the parochial boards in Edinburgh. In 1844 the parochial boards entered into an agreement with the Morningside Asylum to take all pauper lunatics; at that time the number of lunatics was 105, and it is now 500, or nearly three-fourths of all the occupants of the asylum. The parochial board pays £4,400 for the privilege of sending all their paupers to that asylum. The asylum was built at a cost of £158,000, of which £30,000 has been got from Scotsmen and others in different parts of the country, and £83,000 are the profits derived from rich patients kept in the asylum. There is still a debt of £45,000. Now, what will be the effect of the Amendment, if it wore agreed to? It would be that the parochial boards would have the power of building an asylum, which would
    1732
    entail on the ratepayers of Edinburgh an enormous burden, while they have an asylum which has cost £158,000, and is quite sufficient for the requirements of the parochial boards. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) has complained of the excessive charge for the pauper lunatics in Morningside Asylum; but on the second reading of the Bill I proved most conclusively that the charge of £33 10 s. was far from unparalleled in Scotland, and in reality, as compared with the neighbouring Mid Lothian district, it is a very low rate. In the Mid Lothian Asylum the charge is nominally £28, but when the rent is added it comes up to £41; and in the Glasgow Asylum, when the rent is added, the charge comes up to £31; so that the charge in the Morningside Asylum, so far from being exceptionally high, is moderate. For these reasons, in the interest of the general community of Edinburgh, I must oppose the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee.
    MR. LACAITA: I wish to call attention to the fact that the parochial board of Dundee has made a calculation of the cost of working their asylum; and the estimate is that they can maintain paupers at a lower rate than they are paying to the asylum at Montrose. The estimate has been fully worked out by the parochial board, and laid before the general board of lunacy.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I think it necessary to inform the Committee that the general object which, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) has in view is to enable competition to be carried on between Montrose and Dundee. I do not believe that any good can result from such a system. The asylum at Montrose is, in my opinion, carried on with great economy, and I believe the lunatics would suffer if there were any competition between the two asylums.
    MR. PROVAND: I wish also to express my opinion that it would not be wise to have competitions between pauper lunatic asylums.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: I rise to Order. I ask you, Mr. Courtney, whether the Amendment is relevant to the Bill?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is relevant to the clause.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: The object of the Amendment is to repeal a clause in the Act. I submit that it does not come within the Title or Preamble of the Bill.
    THE CHAIRMAN: If it were a question of introducing the clause I should have had to consider it; but I have no authority to exclude what is in the Bill as read by the House a second time.
    MR. PROVAND: I was saying that I did not think it would be wise to have competition between the lunatic asylums. Although there may be some ground of complaint, the proper way to remedy the grievance is to obtain representatives on the boards of these chartered asylums. The money for these asylums was raised on the ground that the pauper lunatics of the districts would be sent to these asylums. It may be that calculation has shown that lunatics can be maintained at a lower rate than that which is now paid; but, if so, I do not think that ought to be treated as a reason for introducing this Amendment. I find, with reference to Morningside Asylum, from a statement I have, that the directors formerly consisted, amongst others, of representatives from all the parishes in the district; but since they obtained the monopoly of pauper lunatics, those representatives, with the exception of two who came from Edinburgh, have been excluded; and, with these exceptions, the directors themselves fill up all the vacancies, so that they are really self-elected. This is what I think Parliament ought to set aside; and we should try to obtain some alterations in the directorate in the sense suggested by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Shiress Will)—that is to say, that there should be some proper representation of the parochial boards on the directorate of these asylums. When their representatives are on the board, they will be able to see whether the amount charged is in excess of the proper charge. I would point out that in the ease which came before the Court of Session in Edinburgh, the Court did not decide that £33 10 s. was the proper sum; they decided that the parishes were bound to pay whatever sum the asylum directors expended, together with the sinking fund to pay off the
    1734
    debt, and that without reference to the question whether the money was well or ill spent. I admit that this is a ground of grievance; but the true way of remedying it is to go back to the former status, and have representatives of the parochial boards on the boards of those asylums, who will see whether the money is properly spent.
    MR. FINLAY: I cannot help thinking it a great pity that the Committee should drift into a general discussion on the question of the monopoly enjoyed by chartered asylums. This is a Bill for one specific purpose— namely, to alter and vary lunacy districts in Scotland. To my mind, it would be rather absurd to suppose that when the new districts are created under this Act the law which has prevailed so long, and which does prevail elsewhere, should not apply in them also. I take it that this is the effect of the 4th clause, and therefore I hope that my hon. and learned Friend who has brought forward this Amendment will feel that he has done his duty, and not press it to a Division.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Some time ago I prophesied that the Committee on this Bill would be a battle between Glasgow and Dundee; but this Amendment has raised a question between the sister burghs of Dundee and Montrose. I think it quite impossible that we should thresh out the multitude of details involved if we are to do any ordinary business this afternoon. I do not take any part in the discusssion of them in the hope that we may go at once to a Division.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: In answer to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I would point out that I am not responsible for the general discussion that has taken place; and I want to set an example of moderation to the Government, which I trust they will reciprocate. I am going to abandon these two Amendments, and ask the Government to leave out the clause altogether, which, as I have said, is the milder course to pursue. If this proposal is agreed to, the law will be left exactly as it is now, and I claim that on this point I have set the Government an example of moderation which they are bound to reciprocate. I claim also to tie them down to the pledge given over and over again—namely, that they do not want to make any

    1735
    change whatever in the law. Finally, by the course I am about to take hon. Members will not be committed to any expression of opinion upon the general question, to the discussion of which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) has objected.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 35: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 417.) [3.10 P. M.]
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Statutory provisions relating to district boards (if consistent with Act) applicable to boards elected under this Act).
    Amendments made.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 6 agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: Before the Bill is reported I should like to make a concluding appeal to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, and it is that so far as Forfarshire is concerned there should no new district formed, because the effect of that would be to subject the county to a still greater burden than is now laid upon it. If the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will give me such an assurance, or anything which implies that the Government will not look favourably on any proposal to establish any new district in Forfarshire I shall not object to the Bill passing in its present shape.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A MACDONALD): It is quite impossible for me to give any pledge upon the matter; but I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Lunacy Commissioners, in the event of any application being made, will look carefully into the matter.
    DR. CLARK: There is one thing the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate might well do, and that is to suggest to the Lunacy Commissioners not to make any change unless they voluntarily allow delegates from the parochial boards to
    1736
    be on the board of management, in order that these boards may have some representation here.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday.

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

    [BILL 349.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper which practically meant the rejection of the Bill; but, under all the circumstances, he would not move it, and would content himself with one more protest, unless the Lord Advocate would consent to an adjournment of the Bill. It seemed to him that placing this Bill before the general Bill was a species of coercion, by which they were practically told that unless they passed the Bill they would not get any other. He entirely acquitted the Lord Advocate of any intention of knowingly infringing the Statute—he accepted what he said, that he was not aware at the time what the law was—but it appeared to him, upon general grounds, that the putting down of this personal Bill before the general Bill was a species of coercion and that they were practically told that they must swallow that Bill, or they should not get to their more important measures. It was not a right contention that a gross irregularity should be cured by a Bill of this kind. He could understand that the hon. Member for Caithnsss (Dr. Clark), who did not want the Secretary for Scotland Bill, was very pleased that this small Bill should be placed before it; but he (Sir George Campbell) personally very much wished to get to the Secretary for Scotland Bill. He therefore appealed to the Lord Advocate to allow the Bill to be postponed until the other Scotch Business had been disposed of. As to the merits of the Bill, he quite admitted that Mr. Berry was a very competent man, and since the last debate he had ascertained that he was a Fife man, and, he believed, a

    1737
    friend of his youth, and a very able man. Mr. Berry was a very clever boy, and no doubt had turned out a very clover man, and on personal grounds there was not the least objection to be made to him; but his appointment was a gross illegality, and a gross injustice to the Sheriffs-Substitute of Scotland. He was very glad to find that in answer to a Question the Lord Advocate utterly disclaimed the policy that had been imputed to him of putting a stop to the chronic promotion of Sheriffs-Substitute, because there could be no doubt that the Sheriffs-Substitute had a kind of claim which ought not to be overlooked. He thought the Lord Advocate was perfectly right in resisting the idea that these promotions must be purely local, and if there was a difficulty about appointing one of these local Sheriffs-Substitute, there were plenty of other competent Sheriffs-Substitute to be found in Scotland. He gathered that Mr. Berry's appointment was agreeable not only to the lawyers in Parliament House, but also to Glasgow. Now, Glasgow was a proud place, and looked upon the rest of Scotland as a sort of Nazareth, out of which no good could come. Therefore, it would have been very disagreeable to the Glasgow people if a Sheriff-Substitute had been brought from any other part of Scotland, and this, he believed, was the chief reason for the appointment of Mr. Berry. He did not, however, recognize that that was an argument which ought to prevail. He thought the Sheriffs-Substitute of Scotland, who constituted a most important and dignified body of public servants, ought to have a full share of promotion—a larger share than had yet been given to them; and if there was any objection to the promotion of a Glasgow Sheriff-Substitute, then the Lord Advocate had the whole of Scotland to choose from, but he appointed a gentleman who had not been a Sheriff-Substitute. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had admitted his mistake; and if he had been content to bring in the Bill after the other and more important Business had been disposed of, he (Sir George Campbell) would have been perfectly willing to listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's peccavi. Having now made his protest, as he wished to do,
    1738
    against that course, he would say nothing more on the subject.
    MR. HUNTERsaid, he had also to complain that that Bill was put down before the Secretary for Scotland Bill and the Technical Schools (Scotland) Bill, from which he inferred that, in the opinion of the Government, it was more important that the Lord Advocate should be whitewashed than important Scotch legislation should be proceeded with. He objected to the Bill on the ground that the Preamble was untrue and the clause inexpedient. What he submitted was this—that the Lord Advocate had very ingeniously raised a species of false issue of a personal character, affecting the merits and qualification of Mr. Berry. He disclaimed any attempt to enter into the personal question, in regard to which there was no evidence before the House; and even if there were evidence on which they could form a judgment, they were not the proper persons to form the judgment as to the appointment of an individual to the office of Sheriff. That was a responsibility belonging to the Officers of the Crown, and could not be assumed by the House, and to attempt to bring that before the House was only to obscure and evade the real issue. What did the Preamble of the Bill say? That "doubts had arisen" as to the appointment being in conformity with the Act 1 & 2 vict. What did the Act say? It said in the plainest manner, in terms which any man, though not a lawyer, could not possibly misunderstand, that a person appointed to the office of Sheriff should be an advocate of three years' standing in habitual attendance on the Court of Session, or acting as a Sheriff-Substitute. It was admitted that Sheriff Berry had not acted as a Sheriff-Substitute, and that he had not habitually attended the Court of Session; therefore his appointment was fully and absolutely illegal, and was an appointment in contravention of a distinct statutory qualification. When the question was first opened he (Mr. Hunter) asked the Lord Advocate what he proposed to do. Did he propose to repeal a statutory qualification and to make the Bill retrospective as regards the appointment of Mr. Berry? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had proposed a Bill of that sort, and had satisfied the House

    1739
    that the statutory qualification was insignificant, illusory, and unimportant, and ought to be repealed, then he would not have resisted the making of the Bill retrospective with regard to Mr. Berry. But the course which the Lord Advocate took was entirely different. He proposed to leave the statutory qualification as it was, and, notwithstanding Mr. Berry's lack of qualification, he asked the House to appoint Mr. Berry in consideration of his strong personal merits. That seemed to him (Mr. Hunter) to be a wrong proceeding altogether. The Preamble said that doubt had arisen. The fact was that no doubt existed, and nobody alleged it. The Lord Advocate did not allege that there was any doubt —on the contrary, he admitted fully and frankly that it was an entire mistake; that he made this appointment in ignorance of the statutory provision, and that if his attention had been drawn to the Statute he would never have made the appointment. He (Mr. Hunter) did not impute to the Lord Advocate that he would have violated the Act intentionally and deliberately, and quite accepted the explanation that it was done in ignorance; but, under these circumstances, how could he be asked to state that doubts had arisen as to the legality of the appointment? It was asking Parliament to make a statement which, on the face of it, was untrue, in support of a proposition which, he ventured to say, was inexpedient. Coming now to the merits of the case, he would ask was it right that the House should be asked to appoint a man who had not a statutory qualification, because the Lord Advocate did not know? One of the first maxims enforced upon youthful students of the law was that "ignorance of the law was no excuse for any man." So far was that principle carried, that even a foreigner who came into the country ignorant of the law, and who did something which was not criminal in his own country, but which was criminal in this, was held to be not only criminal, but actually punishable. He had not heard it suggested that any person was above that principle of law, and this was the first time that the Legislature had been asked to say that ignorance of the law by a Lord Advocate was sufficient reason for passing a special Act for the benefit of a particular individual. He should like to know what were the overwhelm-
    1740
    ing reasons presented to justify extraordinary legislative proceedings of that kind? It was said that Mr. Berry was a very fit and proper man. Very probably so; and, as he had said, so far as he know anything about him, he should be unwilling to say a single word to throw the slightest doubt upon that gentleman's qualifications. Ono part of the Lord Advocate's case was that Sheriff Berry, while Professor of Law in Glasgow, had been allowed also a very considerable practice as an arbitrator in commercial cases. That practice would remain to him, and He could resume his profession in the Court of Session, and would be qualified for promotion in due course; but it seemed to him an extraordinary and unprecedented course for the Government to come and ask that the law of the land should be set aside simply because the Lord Advocate was ignorant of the Statute dealing with the subject. That was the more remarkable as the Statute was not an ancient one—one of James I. or James IV.—but was a Statute of Queen victoria; and not only so, but it was a Statute many of the provisions of which were still in daily use and force in the Sheriff Courts of Scotland; and it was to him incomprehensible that those who conducted the business of the Lord Advocate's Office should be in ignorance of that law. If ever ignorance was inexcusable it was in this case, and he failed to see how such a blunder in such circumstances was sufficient reason for a Bill of this exceptional and abnormal character. Consequently, he would move that the House resolve itself into Committee that day three months.
    MR. WALLACE, in seconding the Amendment, said, that his reason for opposing the Bill was entirely of a public character. He thought that a certain strictness should be observed in a matter of this kind. He was not aware that there was any precedent for the Bill, and, at all events, none had been adduced by those who upheld it. He thought they would be establishing a very bad precedent if they passed over in a light manner an appointment of this description. A lesson would be drawn that would encourage carelessness in making such appointments if it became known that where an appointment had been made, legally or illegally, all that

    1741
    had to be done was to legalize it afterwards. He did not see much would, after all, be lost by refusing the Bill. It was said to be very hard on Sheriff Berry; but was it really so hard on him as was represented? Either he knew, or did not know, the law on this matter. If he did, and accepted the office with that risk, he (Mr. Wallace) did not think it lay with Sheriff Berry, or with his friends, to say that it had turned out differently from what he anticipated. On the other hand, if he was not acquainted with the law governing the very nature of his office, he (Mr. Wallace) must say that, not himself knowing anything about him, he viewed with more suspicion the high testimonials of competency and fitness which had been brought forward in his behalf by his friends. If it had been a recondite matter there might have been some reason for looking leniently upon it. The office to which he was appointed was not the office of Judge in the Supreme Court; it was only a subordinate Judgeship, and therefore they might consider it excusable and reasonable that he was not acquainted with high matters of the law; but this was one of the most familiar points, judging from the easy accessibility of information on the matter. They had only to open so common a book as Bell's Dictionary, and they would find the whole conditions as to a Sheriffship staring them in the face. It was said on the occasion of the previous debate that it was an old law. It was not so very old at the beginning, and those who said so seemed to have forgotten that it was revived so late as 1870; because in an Act of Parliament then passed in connection, in some respects, with the conditions of the appointments of Sheriffs, it was also laid down expressly that Sheriffs when appointed need not attend the Court of Session, thus abolishing the necessity existing up to that time of Sheriffs on their appointment attending the Court of Session. But it went on to state that "nothing herein contained shall affect the qualification for appointment to the office of Sheriff, as prescribed by the said Act," that being the Act which enacted the requirements which had been quoted by his hon. Friend. The fact that Sheriff Berry was not himself acquainted with those conditions, then, was a consideration that rather took away from the
    1742
    strong expressions used with respect to the hardship that would be entailed upon him if the Bill was not passed. If the Lord Advocate had proposed by the Bill to abolish the qualification altogether, and had given the House to understand that he regarded it as unnecessary, or as a bad qualification, then he (Mr. Wallace) might have been inclined to vary his action; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had done nothing of the sort, and he understood, from the silence of the Bill, that the Lord Advocate acknowledged the importance and value of the qualification, which he was now going to set them an example of dispensing with, or of treating with lightness. Under those circumstances he thought that, on the whole, while unwilling to appear to be doing anything of an ungracious nature, either to the Lord Advocate or to the friends whom he described as "deserving and well learned in the law," he was bound by considerations of public policy to refuse to give his consent to the passing of the measure, in the hope that in the end no personal hardship would eventuate. The Government would find ways of recompensing anyone whom they led into a position of danger to himself; and in the trust that that might be so, but feeling that the House must be extremely careful in setting no precedent in the way of legislation that might tend subsequently to encourage laxity and carelessness on the part of those chosen to exercise important judicial law or patronage, he thought it would be well for the House to refrain from passing the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," — (Mr. Hunter,) —instead thereof.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 38: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 418.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

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

    [BILL 360.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Transference of powers and duties of Secretary of State).
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 19, leave out "passing," and insert "commencement."
    MR. WALLACE: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name—namely, to insert after "Scotland," in line 26—
    "Provided always that no person shall he capable of holding the said office of Secretary for Scotland who is not a Member of the House of Commons, and that the appointment of any Member of the said House to such office should not have the effect of vacating his seat."
    Now, I have a variety of reasons for proposing this Amendment. The first one is one of a general character. I think that the possibility of the Secretary for Scotland being a Member of the Peerage should be excluded. I hold that view upon the grounds of general political principles, because I am one of those who are of opinion that the aristocratic principle should be discouraged and diminished in the government of the country. If possible a Commoner should be preferred in all the functions of government. In saying this I believe I am giving expression to the opinion of the great mass of the people of Scotland. I do not deny that there is a small proportion of the people there who believe in the aristocratic principle; that is shown in normal years of political feeling by the small number of Conservatives sent up to Parliament from that country. The number of Conservatives returned is a tolerably correct arithmetical measure of the amount of aristocratic faith in Scotland. The vast majority of the Scottish people are purely and strongly democratic. Scotland has for a long period been subjected to influences the tendency of which has been to produce an extension and development of democratic ideas. The people are more and more feeling a difficulty in understanding why they should give reverence and honour and obedience to
    1744
    any man simply because he is his father's son. There is a growing discontent with the fact that a handful of persons, possessing, no doubt, that qualification, should be empowered by law to raise themselves to claims for honour and obedience above the rest of their fellows. But I do not desire to dwell upon this general consideration; I thought it only honest and frank to avow this as one of my reasons for proposing this Amendment. Now, I desire this Amendment to be adopted for another, and, for the time being, more practical consideration. I desire the Scottish Secretary to be in the House of Commons, because he ought to be easily accessible to the Scottish nation as personified in its Representatives, in order that he may be amenable to their questionings, and that the largest possible legislative advantage may be taken by them of his position, and it is in the House of Commons really that we have the Scottish nation represented. Practically speaking, the Scottish nation is in the House of Commons, and nowhere else. No doubt there are some 87 persons connected with the Scottish Peerage who are necessarily not represented in this House. But even of these there are 51 who are Peers of Great Britain by special creation, or Peers of the United Kingdom; and these noble Lords I look upon rather as Englishmen who have a Scottish connection than properly Scotchmen in any practical sense. They are exotic to Scotland; their positions and their education and their feeling render them, to a large extent, foreigners in Scotland. They are not so much Scottish as shareholders in Scotland; so that really there are only 36 persons, properly speaking, who are identifiable as Scotsmen who are not in the House of Commons. I say, therefore, that the whole nation is here, and that in a largo reckoning of this kind we cannot count these three dozen of gentlemen. In large countings we always leave out the odd half-pence and deal with round numbers; and therefore, following this safe accountant's rule, we may say that this is the place where the Scottish nation is to be found. This, then, is the place where the Scottish Secretary ought to be found, that he may be in touch with the people whose fortunes he is to a large extent expected to influence. Then, I desire the Secretary for Scotland to be in this House in

    1745
    order that He may, if possible, aid us in getting a full—at all events a better— attention paid to Scottish Business. I venture to say that Scottish Business, and the satisfaction of the claims of Scottish Business in this House, is in an outrageous and intolerable condition at present. Scottish Business is pushed away into a corner; and all that is given to it are a few scraps time at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, and two miserable Wednesday afternoons. That is the whole amount of time that has been devoted this Session to the legislative wants of a nation that numbers close on 4,000,000 of people, and that is possessed of a special and very highly organized civilization, embracing complicated, delicate, diversified, and minutely ramified interests—legal, educational, commercial, agricultural, and industrial. Now, I think I am not indulging in exaggeration when I say this is a wrong state of matters. This House gives, I need not say, far more time to Ireland than to Scotland; it gives far more time to Egypt, and even to the pay, clothing, and vagaries of the London police, than it gives to the wants of a nation that is one of your partners in the great Legislative Union. There does not seem to me much chance of improving under the present system so far as Scotland is concerned. It has been practically the same, I understand, since the Union; and I fear that, unless the system is changed, there is very little hope of amendment. Whatever the reason may be I am not prepared to say. This neglect and contempt of the interests of Scotland may be owing to the overshadowing influence of the mere physical bulk of England—500 Representatives can, of course, whenever they choose, outweigh 72. It may, perhaps, be the fault of the Scottish Members themselves. What is everybody's business is nobody's business, and nobody attends to it. It may be that we are too independent of one another—I will not say jealous of one another—or it may be that our appetite for humble pie is more keen than is consistent with our public prosperity. Whatever may be the reason, the fact is undeniable that in British legislation Scotland is, at the present time, practically nowhere. I have some hope and expectation that if the Secretary for Scotland is always vigilantly present in this House, and if powerfully
    1746
    present in the Cabinet, he will have the influence and the power, to some extent, to mend this state of matters. At all events, he cannot make them worse; and the experiment is worth trying whether he cannot make them better. Ireland has her Secretary in this House, and in the Cabinet; and we see what an immense amount of time and attention Ireland has gained for the consideration of her affairs by that arrangement. Perhaps, if we had a Secretary for Scotland with some force of character, we might possibly get something like our own share of attention. What, let me ask, is our fair share? I venture to say, making a calculation on the basis of population, that in a Session like the present Scotland ought to have had very nearly a clear month all to herself. That is a very moderate calculation. Instead of this we have only got the two wretched Wednesday afternoons, and the morsels of legislative offal which have been flung to us at 3 o'clock in the morning. If we make a calculation on the basis of comparative wealth, it will be found we are entitled to a much larger share of the time of the House than we get. Now, let me remind the Committee that the arrangement which I propose would be in accordance with the old Parliamentary traditions of Scotland, which do not merely live in history books, but in the minds of the people. In the days of the Scotch Parliament the Secretary for Scotland was of necessity continually in touch with the Commons, for the simple reason that the old Scotch Parliament was a single Chamber Parliament. They did not know anything about "another place," because for them there was no other place; and the signs and proofs are pretty clear that they did not merely vote by order. Practically, the Scottish Parliament was an Assembly in-which public officials and Secretaries of State amongst the rest were continually present and amenable to the questionings and criticisms of Members. I now come to the second part of my Amendment, which I admit is, perhaps, the most disputable part of my proposal. At all events, I am led to believe it is open to dispute; and that is that on the appointment of any Member of the House of Commons as Secretary for Scotland he shall not ipso facto vacate his seat. I would gladly have omitted that part of the Amendment if I had

    1747
    seen it possible to do so, consistently with maintaining the main proposition. I have tried it in all ways and I am utterly unable to see how I can reconcile the two propositions—namely, to make the Scottish Secretary exclusively a Member of this House, and at the same time provide that when appointed he shall vacate his seat. I invite hon. Gentlemen to work the problem out in their own minds to see whether they can succeed. I have an open mind on this question, and I am willing that my Amendment should be amended. I have no desire to raise unnecessary antagonism with the main proposal. Suppose that a Member of the House is appointed Secretary for Scotland and that upon the plea that the Office is one of profit under the Crown he vacates his seat. Suppose that he is re-elected and he is again appointed Secretary for Scotland he vacates his seat. The same thing will go on again and again in the attempt to appoint a Secretary for Scotland. I have been unable to devise any way of providing that the Secretary for Scotland shall of necessity be a Member of the House of Commons except that contained in my Amendment. In order to secure my main object I am ready to sacrifice the principle that when the Secretary for Scotland is appointed to his Office he shall not be held to have vacated his seat in the House. I do not see any reason for the proposition as a general proposition, and I see still less reason for it as applied to the case of Scotland. The original cause of the rule that when a man was appointed to an Office of profit under the Crown he should vacate his seat was the un-Constitutional attempt on the part of the Crown, or, at all events, on the part of the party who advised the Crown, to secure an improper ascendancy in this House. That cause has now vanished. How can it exist when the Minister of the day is practically a creature of the popular vote, and when all Crown appointments are really indirect popular appointments, and there are many appointments connected with Membership of this House not directly under the Crown which are still indirectly under the Crown, and all these are excepted by law from the operation of the rule that applies to direct appointments. For my part, I have never been able to see any practical ground for distin-
    1748
    guishing between the direct and indirect patronage of the Crown in the matter of appointments. At all events, whatever may be the value of the general argument as applied to the Kingdom at large, there can be no doubt that as far as regards Scotland and Scottish Parliamentary traditions there really is no defence whatever for perpetuating the rule with respect to Offices of profit under the Crown, because the causes which led to the rule in England never existed in Scotland. There was never any danger in the Scottish Parliament of the Crown obtaining too much influence. The danger was all the other way. The danger which the Kings in Scotland felt most keenly was what they considered the undue depreciation of the influence of the Crown; and, consequently, there was never in Scotland any such rule as I have referred to. The rule is really and entirely an English rule, springing out of English circumstances and out of English history. It was enacted a few months after the Scottish Members first took their seat in this House under the Act of Union; but Scottish history, traditions, and ideas had no connection whatever with the enactment of this law. I do not know whether there is much more that I can or ought to say upon this question. Before sitting down, however, I must notice one objection of a practical character that may be brought against my proposal. It may be said that to exclude Peers would be to run the risk of a very substantial loss of administrative capacity, and consequent loss to the country. I have considered the point as carefully as I can, and I must say that the risk is infinitesimal—more particularly is it so in connection with the purely Scottish Peerage. I do not speak of the English nobility, but of the purely Scottish Peerage, and I venture to say with respect to them that scarcely without any exception I do not know that a more insignificant aggregate of humanity is at the present moment existing on the face of the earth; and, therefore, I do not see that as far as they are concerned there will be much practical loss to the country if they are debarred from holding the Office of Secretary for Scotland. In any case it is simply a question of the balance of advantage, and I am one of those who are of opinion, taking all material calculations into account, there

    1749
    will be an amount of advantage derived from observing a rule such as that which I propose should regulate this matter. The advantage will far more than compensate for any loss that can possibly accrue. For this reason, and for the other reasons I have endeavoured to explain to the Committee, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 26, after the word "Scotland," to insert the words—"Provided always that no person shall be capable of holding the said Office of Secretary for Scotland who is not a Member of the House of Commons, and that the appointment of any Member of the said House to such Office shall not have the effect of vacating his seat."—(Mr. Wallace.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT: I do not know that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace) ought to be taken seriously and in good faith. A good deal of his arguments were entirely at war with the principles he professes to hold, and it must have occurred to the supporters of my hon. Friend that he was doing violence to some of his own best feelings when he contended that it is not desirable to get the best man we can to put into the Office of Secretary for Scotland. Surely hon. Members must see that if this Office is to be made of use to Scotland, we must, in some degree, exalt the Office, and get the very best man we can find; and if we are to put any limitation as to the class of men from which we are to choose a Scottish Secretary, we shall be inevitably diminishing the weight and the credit which that official will have in this House and in the country. My hon. Friend made most strange remarks in referring to Scottish Peers. He said that a large number of the Scottish Peers were not Scotsmen, and he seemed to contrast their position and character, as Scotsmen, with the position occupied by Scottish Members in this House. I do not complain of that. I am a strong advocate of the Union; but I confess I have seen, as years have gone on, that it has become more and more the practice at every General Election, and even at bye-elections, for the Scottish constituencies to return Englishmen to represent them. I see several hon. Gentlemen sitting here as the Representa-
    1750
    tives of Scotch constituencies; they are very valuable Representatives, but still they have no connection whatever with, Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh is very often closely associated with the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson), who is often associated with the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith); and to talk of these Gentlemen as being in some degree Scotsmen, and, on the other hand, to talk of the Duke of Argyll and Lord Rosebery as not being Scotch at all, is really an insult to the Committee, because it is the putting forward of what is nothing but actual nonsense. The hon. Member has given us some information about the old Scottish Parliament. No doubt, it was a very interesting specimen of the single House system; but it was not the case that there existed anything in the nature of exclusion of particular persons from particular positions or offices. This Amendment is not an Amendment to put Peers and Commoners upon the same footing; but it is an Amendment to prevent Peers — though otherwise well qualified—from taking a position which they may usefully fill. I wonder if the hon. Member has considered what may take place. I suppose that from time to time a Conservative Government will be in Office; and if ever again Parties in Scotland are divided as they used to be, not between Unionists and Separatists, but between Liberals and Conservatives, it is very probable that Liberal Members of this House will, as before, be largely in excess of Conservative Members. There might be some difficulty in selecting, from the limited number of Conservatives returned from Scotland, a Gentleman of influence and ability to fill the Office of Secretary for Scotland. I believe that all Scottish Members wish that the Secretary for Scotland shall be a Cabinet Minister. After the Election of 1880, it used to be a common joke in Scotland that all the Conservative Members from Scotland could travel to Loudon in one first-class carriage. By this Amendment one of those six or seven Gentlemen would necessarily be a Cabinet Minister. The hon. Member said that Scotch Peers are not Scotsmen in a sense in which he is a Scotsman, whatever that may mean. He concluded that they are unfit to take part

    1751
    in the representation of Scotland in this House, because they have not that intimate connection with Scotland which it is necessary Scotch Representatives should have. All I can say is, that if there happen to be only six Conservative Members from Scotland, one of whom must be a Cabinet Minister, we open the door much more easily than ever before for entry into that highly respectable body. But, seriously, the people of Scotland are looking to Parliament to make something of this Bill, and they really do want the best man who can be found, whether he is the Duke of Argyll, the Earl of Rosebery, or anybody else, for the Office. We must remember that the holder of the Office will not be merely a Departmental Chief; but, as a Cabinet Minister, he will be much more than that, and will have to take his fair share and have his duo weight in the general administration of Imperial affairs. When once we get a man in the Cabinet, we must not regard his position merely with reference to the Department of which he is the head; because he is one of the Government, the Body who have to decide the great Imperial questions of the day. To limit the number of persons from whom that individual is to be drawn would be a fatal mistake. I do not wish to maintain that it will not generally be very desirable to have the Scottish Minister in the House of Commons; but that is a matter which should be left in the hands of the Ministry of the day to decide. The Home Secretary, who is at present Home Secretary for Scotland as well as England, is almost always in this House; but there is no Act of Parliament which makes it compulsory that he should be a Member of this House. I think the Office of Secretary for Scotland should be left in the same position as that of Home Secretary. I have made a longer speech than I intended; I have been tempted to do so because of the exclusive and narrowing character of the Amendment.
    MR. HUNTER: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) has entirely omitted to call the attention of the Committee to the merits of the case. Formerly, when we had only the Lord Advocate representing Scottish interests in the House of Commons there
    1752
    was one great guarantee for attention to Scottish affairs, and that was that the Lord Advocate was necessarily a Member of the House of Commons. The drawbacks to the position of the Lord Advocate were twofold. In the first place, he being a lawyer, there were a great many administrative functions with which he was not particularly well qualified to deal. We certainly had the advantage of always being able to communicate with the Gentleman who was responsible for the conduct of the affairs of Scotland. A Secretary for Scotland was appointed. Now, I maintain that by appointing as Secretary for Scotland a Member of the other House the Government have destroyed the whole advantage which we expected to derive from the appointment. The hon. and learned Member for Roxburgh says we ought to get the best man. I agree with him in that; but whatever qualifications a Peer may have, he has this vital disqualification—that he is not in this House; and is totally inaccessible, absolutely unknown to many, and perfectly useless for the purposes of his Office. I have desired on many occasions to gain access to the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian), but have not been able to find him. I cannot afford the time to kick my heels in the purlieus of the other House. There may be gentlemen with great leisure who can succeed in disinterring the Secretary for Scotland; but I have never seen him. I submit it is impossible that the Business of Scotland can be attended to with any degree of justice and fulness unless Members of this House have constant access, and daily access if necessary, to the Secretary for Scotland. Whatever qualifications a Peer may have he is subjected to a fatal disqualification, and that is that he cannot transact the Business of the Office properly. I dare say the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) will reply; but I cannot recognize him as an impartial critic. He occupies a somewhat invidious position. He has his own proper duties to attend to, and, in addition, he is the conduit pipe by which are communicated to this House the opinions of the Scottish Secretary. From my experience while Lord Dalhousie was Secretary for Scotland, I

    1753
    have determined—in season and out of season, whether under Liberal or Conservative Governments—to oppose the appointment as Secretary for Scotland of a Gentleman sitting in the other House. It is said that we cave in to the Government; but that is exactly what we do not do, as there are many motives which influence Governments, such as the desire to find a suitable place for Members of their own Party. We cannot go far wrong if we appoint a Member of this House. In my opinion, unless this Amendment is accepted, all the other provisions are illusory; and, in fact, Scottish Members are now in a worse position than they were before a Secretary for Scotland was appointed.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: We have had a very important but nevertheless rather academic discussion, because there is no Officer of State who is compelled by law to be a Member of this House. I am afraid that if we continue the discussion very long we may crowd out other and more practical Amendments, [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, I do not think the Amendment can be carried, and I hope my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace) will not press it to a Division. While saying this, I entirely disclaim the sentiments of the hon. and learned Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. P. D. Elliot), because upon the principle of the matter I entirely agree with the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter). The real question is—What is best for the convenience of the Public Service? The Secretary for Scotland is the Home Secretary, and I put it to the Committee whether it is not now an established practice that the Home Secretary must be in this House? I, therefore, press upon the Government the propriety of the Secretary for Scotland being also a Member of this House.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: In the very clever speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) there was one great defect, and that was that he seemed to totally misconceive the nature and object aimed at by the Amendment, because the main objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman was that this was a limiting Amendment, and it prevented us getting the very best man for the Office, inasmuch as when the Conservative Government
    1754
    may be in power we should be limited in choice to half-a-dozen Member, which is, on the average, the number of the Scotch Conservative contingent in this House. I do not suppose for a moment my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace) means anything of that sort. He does not mean that the appointment to the Office of Scotch Secretary should be confined to Scotch Members of Parliament. All the limitation that we desire to see is that the Office should be confined to persons who are either Members of this House or eligible to become Members of this House. The present holder of the Office, for instance, is not eligible to be a Member of this House, and it is against that state of things we desire to guard. I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Wallace) might have done better if he had omitted the controversial matter which is contained in the latter part of the Amendment—namely, that if a Member of this House is appointed Secretary for Scotland he shall not be compelled to seek re-election. If he had omitted that, and confined himself to proposing that the person who is selected by the Government to be the Secretary for Scotland shall be a man who can have a seat in this House, his Amendment would have excluded the Peerage, and would have had the indirect effect of requiring the Scotch Secretary to be a Member of this House. I was rather surprised to notice the attitude assumed upon this question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). My hon. Friend said that in no other case is the holder of a great Office of State limited by law to Members of the House of Commons. I admit the fact, but I deny the argument.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I did not deny the expediency of the Secretary for Scotland being a Member of this House.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I understood my hon. Friend made a point of the fact. Now, I think that the principle embodied in the Amendment ought to be applied to all other Members of the Ministry—that is to say, that in all cases where there is only one Representative of an Office he should be seated in this House. If there are two Representatives of any great State Office, then the principal of the two should be

    1755
    seated in this House, relegating the inferior Representative to the House of Lords. If anybody proposes to carry out that principle, either directly, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace) does by his Amendment, or indirectly, by refusing Supplies in all cases in which the rule is transgressed, I shall be ready to vote with him. I have consulted already with my hon. Friend as to the form of his Amendment, and I think it would be in some respects less objectionable to many if he will leave out that portion which raises the question of re-election on appointment, and will simply confine himself to the assertion that the Secretary for Scotland shall always be a person having a seat in this House, or who is eligible for a seat in this House.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: I think it important that the vote which many hon. Members on this side of the House will be compelled to give, in the event of the Division, should not be misunderstood. I am as strongly of opinion as my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace) that the Secretary for Scotland should have a seat in this House. I was not always so strongly of that opinion; but, notwithstanding the admirable manner in which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate performs his duties in this House, his position is a peculiar one. He is not, and does not profess to be, the Representative or alter ego of the Secretary for Scotland; and I must say that great inconvenience arises, and must arise, so long as the Secretary for Scotland himself has not a seat in the House of Commons. Four-fifths, perhaps nine-tenths, of the duties of the Secretary for Scotland correspond with the duties of the Home Secretary, who always has a seat in this House; and that, I think, is an argument in favour of our contention which it is very difficult to get over. I wish to point out, however, that in order to attain the desirable and practical object which ought to be brought about in every case by the force of public opinion in Scotland and in this House my hon. Friend proposes to make two most extreme Constitutional changes in this Bill. One is to disqualify Members of the House of Lords from holding the particular high Office of State such as this is. It is a very serious question whether for
    1756
    the practical convenience of Scotland, by a side wind, in an Amending Bill such as this, we are entitled to make such a change. I think not. We may all have our ideas about the functions of the House of Lords, and we may have many reforms in our heads; but I do not think this is the way to carry them out. The second Constitutional change is that for the practical convenience of Scotland it is proposed that a Constitutional rule should be departed from, and that a man who receives an Office of profit under the Crown is no longer to go hack to his constituents for re-election. This rule may require modification; but I maintain that it would be highly improper for us, in this casual, incidental, way to alter it. I do not think it is a claim that Scottish Members are entitled to make on the House of Commons. Therefore, while I think it is desirable—and I hope the Government will take note that that is the opinion of the Scottish Members—that the Secretary for Scotland should sit in this House, I am unable to vote for the Amendment.
    DR. CLARK: I support the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace), and I hope that on practical grounds He will press it to a Division. I support it also because, if it is carried, other Constitutional changes will be required. Possibly the first result will be to enfranchise the Scottish Peers, and place them in the same position as Irish Peers, who are eligible to sit in either House. The present disqualification of Scottish Peers ought not to exist. At present the Liberal Scottish Peer has no chance of being elected to the other House, and he could not be elected to the House of Commons. Then we will require to bring about some reforms in the other House, which are so much desired. If we cannot have the Scottish Secretary in this House, we ought to have an arrangement by which Secretaries of State shall have a right to take part in the Business in both Houses. I trust we shall have a Division on this question, and that the principle will be established that the Secretary for Scotland shall be a Member of the House of Commons.
    MR. FINLAY: I quite agree with hon. Members as to the desirableness of having the Secretary

    1757
    for Scotland in this House. I think the very same reasons that render it desirable that the Home Secretary should be in this House render it desirable that the Scotch Secretary should be in this House; but I am unable to vote for the Amendment. I am not prevented from voting for the Amendment merely by the fact that, so far as I believe, there is no precedent for an enactment fettering the discretion of the Crown in this way, as to the class of persons upon whom a particular appointment shall be conferred. But that reason does weigh with me very much. Although it is, no doubt, most desirable that the Secretary for Scotland should be a Member of this House, accessible to Members of this House—as only a Member of this House can be—yet there may be Peers with qualifications so exceptional as to render it desirable that in their case that which should be a general rule should be departed from; and that consideration has all the more weight if, as we all hope, the Secretary for Scotland is to be in the future a Member of the Cabinet. I think it would be very undesirable, if the Secretary for Scotland is to be a Member of the Cabinet, that we should fetter the discretion of the Crown as to the class of person from whom the Secretary for Scotland is to be selected. While maintaining these views, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace) will not press his Amendment to a Division, and for this very practical reason—that he will get a Division which will convey an altogether erroneous impression as to the feeling amongst Scottish Members. A great many Members who, like myself, think it desirable that the Scottish Secretary should be in this House, will feel constrained to vote against the Amendment; and if my hon. Friend presses it to a Division he will be weakening the cause he has at heart.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Lord JOHN MANNERS): It is not correct to say that there is no precedent for statutory limitation as to the House in which a particular high Officer of State shall sit. There is a certain precedent, and I think it is well the Committee should have its attention called to the fact. When I first came into Parliament the Postmaster General was, by Statute, obliged to be a Peer of the Realm, and, of course,
    1758
    could not sit in this House. That was felt to be an unwise and inexpedient regulation, and some years ago that statutory disqualification of a Member of the House of Commons was repealed, with considerable advantage to the Public Service. Are we now, in the year 1887, to adopt that bad precedent of a former generation, and enact a statutory disqualification of all persons who do not happen to belong to one Estate of the Realm? I cannot imagine so undemocratic a proceeding as that suggested by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace). Surely the democratic principle on all these subjects is to give the widest possible choice in the selection of the fittest person to fill an office. The hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) suggested that the Amendment ought to be supported, because there are various disqualifications now affecting the Scottish Peerage, which he wishes to see abolished. But that is the oddest reason I ever heard for imposing a fresh disqualification on Peers of the Realm. There is one other suggestion which the Committee should take into consideration, and that is that if the Amendment is carried Scottish Peers will be prevented from filling the most important Scottish Office, while it will be open to any Irish Peer, who is not an elected Peer, to fill that particular Office. This seems to me a very extraordinary proposal to be suggested to us from what is called the democratic aspect of the question. I sincerely hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment.
    MR. WALLACE: I only wish to say a word in reply to the observations which have been made upon my Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) has suggested another way of putting the Amendment I have proposed. His suggestion is to the effect that the Amendment shall be confined to persons who are eligible as Members for the House of Commons. That is one of the forms I myself discarded, as being irreconcilable with the main proposition which I desire should be adopted. I do not merely want that the Secretary for Scotland should not be in the House of Lords, but I want him to be positively in the House of Commons. Supposing he gets re-elected by some constituency and comes to the House of Commons, my Amendment will operate. At pre-

    1759
    sent he has to vacate his seat, because he holds an appointment of profit. I want to prevent the whole thing running round, as it were, in a circle. I want to prevent the Secretary for Scotland being obliged to be continually vacating his seat, as I am afraid he will have to do unless some such Amendment as I propose is adopted. I gather from the fact that my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. E. Robertson) has not proposed a formal Amendment to my Amendment that he does not mean to desert me in the event of my pressing this Amendment to a Division. I am not insensible of the importance of some of the criticisms which have been passed upon the Amendment; but, taking all the criticisms together, I am perfectly prepared to go before the general public, particularly of Scotland, with an Amendment of this kind, because I know that it will be viewed in a very different light from that in which it is seen from many points of the compass in this House.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I certainly do not intend to desert my hon. Friend (Mr. Wallace) if he goes to a Division; indeed, I may remind him of the fact that the form in which he has submitted his Amendment to the House is the form suggested by me to him. I think the other form I have sketched is preferable; but I shall certainly support him if he goes to a Division.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 46; Noes 105: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No. 419.) [4.35 P.M.]
    MR. CALDWELL: I beg to propose to insert, at the end of line 26—
    "Who shall henceforth have the state and position of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State with the title of Secretary of State for Scotland."
    As I am very anxious to see this Bill passed through Committee, I shall detain the House but a very few moments. I think we are all agreed upon this—that whilst there is not to be any limitation to the effect that the Secretary for Scotland should necessarily be a Member of the House of Commons, the Secretary for Scotland ought to be of Cabinet rank. The subjects with which he will have to deal and the importance of the Office are such that necessarily require that he shall be of Cabinet rank. Now, if we
    1760
    confer upon him the position of Secretary of State for Scotland, we necessarily, according to usage, confer upon him the state of Cabinet rank. It seems rather strange that the Secretary for Scotland should be called simply the Secretary for Scotland, and there is no reason why he should not be given the title of Secretary of State for Scotland, to prevent anything in the nature of confusion. It has been objected in some quarters that the giving of that title would necessitate the raising of the salary; but I do not think that is at all involved. The Scotch Members, as a rule, do not go in for extravagance in salaries; and whatever the office may be—even when it is only a medical officer in a prison—you will find that the salaries paid in Scotland are greatly inferior to those paid in England. That is admitted without question by us, and I cannot suppose for a moment that, supposing it were the case that the Secretary for Scotland should occupy the position of a Secretary of State for Scotland, the Scotch Members would necessarily think that he should have a salary equivalent to that given to the other principal Secretaries of State. Without detaining the House further, I beg to move my Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 26, at end, to insert the words, "who shall henceforth have the status and position of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State with the title of Secretary of State for Scotland."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I fully appreciate the motive and desire of the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the Committee, and who has moved this Amendment to the Bill. But, Sir, I would just point out to him that it is not a usual course to take to introduce into a Bill of this kind an Amendment to create a principal Secretary of State to Her Majesty. It would, be exceedingly undesirable that this Amendment should be made. I do not wish in the slightest degree to undervalue the very great importance of the duties to be discharged by the Secretary for Scotland. It may be—and I have no doubt it will be—the case, almost uniformly, that the Secretary for Scotland will be a Member of the Cabinet;

    1761
    but to lay down by Act of Parliament that he must be a Secretary of State is to lay down a proposition which is at least unusual, and, I venture to think, undesirable. I desire, Sir, again to say that we regard this Office as an Office of great importance and of great value; but it is more desirable that the Office should grow by its own usefulness and by its own influence and power, than that it should be at once created, as the hon. Gentleman wishes to create it, one of the six principal Offices of State. There are, I think, constitutional objections to the course proposed, and therefore I trust the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to persevere with this Motion, and that the Committee will not accept it. The Government are quite convinced of the importance of the Office, and we do look forward to the prospect that in all probability, as a rule, the Secretary for Scotland will have a high position in the Councils of Her Majesty.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I am exceedingly glad to hear the declaration which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, that, as a rule—almost invariably, I suppose—the Secretary for Scotland will be a Member of the Cabinet. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that generally, at all events, that will be the case. Now, that is a very satisfactory declaration, and certainly gets rid of a great deal of the difficulty. At the same time, I do not think it is a complete answer to the suggestion that the Secretary for Scotland should be a Secretary of State, When there was a Secretary for Scotland in the last century he was a Secretary of State. But I am not going to press this matter; because I am afraid that, by asking too much, we might end by not getting anything at all. If I thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell) would carry out the object we have in view, and that there was any chance of its being passed, I should certainly vote for it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), who is a great authority on such matters, has expressed himself on a previous occasion very strongly in favour of making the Secretary for Scotland a Secretary of State, and I know he was very anxious
    1762
    to put an Amendment into shape which would have that object. As I see him present in the House now, and, as he is a Scotch Member, I hope He will let us know whether he thinks this Amendment possible or practicable, or whether he can suggest anything better himself.
    DR. CLARK: If the Government are not going to give way on this question, I do not think the Bill is worth having at all. You may be able by your majority to overwhelm Scotch opinion, for all the Scotch Members— Liberal Unionists and all others—are at one on this question—you may be able, I say, by a small majority, to reject this Amendment; but it means practically the rejection of the Bill altogether; for, in that case, the Bill would not be worth having, and we had better go back at once to the old conditions under which we had a Scotch Lord of the Treasury and a Lord Advocate to carry out Scotch Business. At the present time we hardly know where we are, or what we are doing. The noble Marquess the present Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian), through the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, asked the Scotch Members, not long ago, to meet in order to consider a certain question. We accordingly met for that purpose, and after our meeting was over, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, in reply to a Question put to him in the House, gave a decision on the very point which the Secretary for Scotland had asked the Scotch Members to consider at the meeting. As a matter of fact, we had only met to discuss a question, which, without our knowing it, had been previously decided by the Cabinet. It is evident, therefore, that the Secretary for Scotland does not know what is taking place inside the Cabinet. We were called together to show what was Scotch opinion on a particular point, and the Cabinet, at another meeting, had decided that very question before we met that day. I do not know whether the Government meant on that question to disregard Scotch opinion. Some hon. Gentlemen have urged us not to press this Amendment; but if we are not to have any Amendments at all in this direction, the sooner we make an end to the Bill the better.
    MR. CHILDERS: I spoke at great length on this subject on the second reading of the Bill, and endeavoured to explain what were the difficulties of the arrangements as proposed by the Government, and especially what were the difficulties with respect to the particular powers of a Secretary of State which it was intended to retain, and with respect to those which it was intended to dispense with. I pointed out how absolutely impossible it was, with any prospect of completeness, to follow the exact provisions of the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) followed me on that occasion, and he practically assisted my case, but he said it would be a matter for the future consideration of the Government; and I am bound to say, after well considering what he said, that it would be much better if no such Motion as this were brought forward now. It would be much better if the Home Secretary, and the Lord Advocate, and the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the House were to well consider the extreme difficulties of the devolution of Business under this Bill, and that we should not adopt an Amendment to the measure which would require a certain number of consequential Amendments, many of which I pointed out the other day. On this ground, I would ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell) not to press this Amendment, but to leave the matter to the Government, relying on the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, the other day, to consider what the difficulties are, and leave it to be dealt with in another Session. We do not wish to add to the difficulties of the Government upon that question.
    MR. CALDWELL: I think, after what has been stated, that this matter can be re-considered on Report, and, therefore, I will withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made: —In page 2, at end, add—
    "All the powers and duties vested in or imposed on the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury under 'The Valuation of Laud (Scotland) Act, 1854,' shall he transferred to, vested in, and imposed on the Secretary for Scotland.
    1764
    "All the powers and duties vested in or imposed upon the Board of Trade relating to Provisional Orders dealing with any of the subjects transferred to the Fishery Board, Scotland, by section eleven of ' The Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1885,' shall be transferred to, vested in, 'and imposed upon the Secretary for Scotland."
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR, in moving the insertion of the following Amendment:—In page 2, at end, to add these words—
    "All duties appertaining to the preparation of Bills, as well as those of the Crown Agent and of the Legal Secretary, together with all expenses connected with the said duties, as well as other financial arrangements and establishments, shall be carried on under the Secretary for Scotland,"
    was understood to say that some of the duties provided for by the Amendment were at present performed by the Lord Advocate; but the Lord Advocate had far more important duties to perform; and it would be far more dignified if he were relieved from those of which the Amendment would relieve him.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, at end, add —" All duties appertaining to the preparation of Bills, as well as those of the Crown Agent and of the Legal Secretary, together with all expenses connected with the said duties as well as other financial arrangements and establishments, shall be carried on under the Secretary for Scotland."—(General Sir George Balfour.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I am afraid I cannot assent to this Amendment. My hon. and gallant Friend says he moves this Amendment in order to add to the dignity of my Office, and he thereby reminds me of the old and well known lines—
    "It is all very well to dissemble your love,
    But why did you kick me downstairs?"
    It is proposed to turn the Lord Advocate out of this House and send him down to Scotland a mere legal officer. I cannot assent to that; I prefer to remain here a little longer. Although the Lord Advocate sometimes does make mistakes in regard to Bills, I think he is a very suitable officer to attend to the drafting of Bills for Scotland. If this Amendment were passed it would be necessary to have a new official for the purpose of drafting Scotch Bills,

    1765
    and I do not see how the change would make the Lord Advocate's Office more efficient. It would be highly inconvenient to make the change proposed by the Amendment, and therefore I hope it will not be pressed.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwas understood to say that He had only brought forward the Amendment from a conviction that it would be useful. As to the drafting of Bills, it was not clone in Ireland under the Attorney General for Ireland, but was entirely under the Treasury; and he did not see why in Scotland it should be done by the Lord Advocate. The Crown Agent, too, had nothing whatever to do with the Lord Advocate, and ought not to be under him. As to drafting, no less than £800 had been paid by the country for the purpose; but he did not believe that two-thirds of it was expended in that way—it was applied to a different purpose from that for which Parliament voted it. If he were Lord Advocate he would certainly not desire to be made into a mere mouthpiece for other people. As to the honour of sitting here in Parliament, he thought the Lord Advocate might be better occupied in attending to his important duties elsewhere. However, he (Sir George Balfour) begged to be allowed to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. CHILDERS: Before the 2nd clause is disposed of I wish to ask a question as to its effect. My point is this—that under the present state of things a register is kept at the Home Office of all commissions and appointments made in Scotland, which the Queen, in point of form, is advised to make by the Home Secretary. Now, that is a very important part of the Secretary of State's business. In the same way, all appointments and commissions in connection with the Army are recorded and registered in the War Office, and the Queen's pleasure is taken on them by the Secretary for War. The same thing is done in regard to Colonial commissions and appointments by the Colonial Secretary. This recording of all these appointments, and taking the Queen's pleasure about them, is a very
    1766
    important branch of the Secretary of State's duties. What I want to understand is whether the Queen's pleasure will be taken in future as to Scotch appointments, and the record kept, not at the Home Office, but at the Scotch Office. It is a question on which, in past times, I am aware, there has been some friction, and therefore it is very important that there should be no mistake about it now. I want to know whether, by this 2nd clause, this business will be turned over from the Home Secretary to the Secretary for Scotland? It is not one of the exceptional businesses in the 3rd clause, and therefore it looks as though it wore intended to be transferred to the Secretary for Scotland. I should be glad to know whether that is the intention of the Government? If not, some words should be introduced in the next clause.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The subject I wish to refer to relates particularly to the 2nd paragraph of the clause. We are now imposing very much larger duties on the Secretary for Scotland, especially in regard to the preparation of Reports and Returns. Under the original Act, a sufficient clerical staff has not been provided for the performance of these extra duties. In the Bill creating the Local Government Board there was a clause providing for the employment of an adequate staff; but nothing of the kind was introduced into the Scotch Act, and I trust the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate and the Government will see to it, that as these large extra duties are to be transferred, an adequate staff shall also be transferred to the Scotch Office for the preparation of these Reports from time to time.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), I may say that I should myself conceive that, inasmuch as the functions he speaks of are not excepted, the whole of that system of registration would be transferred. Whether all these commissions and appointments would be registered in the Scotch Office is more than I am able to say off-hand. But the Secretary for Scotland will, I conceive, make the appointments and they will be registered, and he will

    1767
    notify them to Her Majesty, or, rather, submit them to Her Majesty for approval. But I feel unable to answer the question completely off-hand, and I can only say that I will make inquiries and find out how the matter stands. But these are matters which hardly require mentioning in the Statute. The business is transferred by the Statute; but I should have thought the form was a matter of arrangement between the two Departments. There is another point which I am not quite able to solve— namely, whether the exception of the Prerogative of mercy will leave it still with the Home Secretary to grant all licences or tickets-of-leave to prisoners undergoing sentences of penal servitude. The ordinary licences are given under certain rules which depend upon the number of good marks obtained and so forth, for convicts are invariably let out before the actual lapse of the whole number of years to which they have been sentenced.
    MR. CHILDERS: That was one of the points to which I called attention on the second reading of the Bill. I was quite satisfied that the whole question would be carefully considered before the Report is taken. The keeping of these registers to which I have referred has always hitherto been considered a function of the Secretary of State.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: It makes all the difference whether the Secretary for Scotland is a great Officer of State, or subordinate to the Home Secretary.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Exceptions).
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORD MR. DONALD CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.) moved the omission of Sub-section (1)—"In advising Her Majesty as to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy."
    Amendment proposed, "To leave out Sub-section (1)."—(Mr. Donald Crawford.)
    Question, "That the words proposed be there left out," put, and agreed to.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: I wish now to move the omission of the second sub-section of the clause, which gives the Home Secretary power to administer in Scotland the Factory and Workshops Act, the Coal Mines Regulation Act,
    1768
    the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, the Explosives Act, the Cruelty to Animals Act, and the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Acts. This is au Amendment which I hope the Government will agree to. I am sure that the Government and hon. Members on this side of the House are at one in the spirit in which they approach this measure. They desire, in the first place, to avoid the friction which, by the admission of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), is going on in the transaction of the business between the Scotch Office and the Home Office, and I believe that the Government also desire—together with the Scotch Members on this side of the House—that the importance of the Office of the Secretary for Scotland shall be enhanced. I believe their desire is that this Minister shall have some considerable weight in Council with the Queen, and some satisfaction given to him. Now, Sir, in order to attain that object it is really very desirable that as few subjects as possible shall be excepted from those general powers of the Home Office which are handed over to the Secretary for Scotland, and I think, without making a speech, that I shall be able to show very briefly that there is really no substantial justification for not handing over to the Secretary for Scotland the Factory Acts, the Coal Mines and Explosives Acts, and the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Acts. I would remind the Committee that the principal Act of 1885 transferred to the Secretary for Scotland the administration of a large number of Acts of Parliament by Schedule. Among them were such subjects as prisons and lunacy. I could enumerate a great many more; but I confine myself for the moment to those two. Now, Sir, I think a very plausible argument might have been urged to show that the administration of prisons in a country should be uniform, and should be centralized under one head and one Minister. But the contrary principle has been followed—namely, that it was desirable, as far as possible, to leave the Minister for Scotland to manage the prisons of Scotland. That was the principle which prevailed when the Act of 1885 was passed, and, accordingly, we Scotch do manage our own prisons, and administer our own Lunacy Acts. There is much that might be said for

    1769
    the administration of lunatics under one head; yet the principle was not applied in 1885. There are many other Acts to which the same remark would apply. Take, for example, the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Acts. That is partly a criminal matter and a matter of prison discipline, and partly a matter of education; yet the two Departments have been, to a certain extent, separately treated, especially in Scotland. Now, we have a different Criminal Law —an entirely different system, differently administered; and we also, at this moment, have our prisons and education under separate management. Can any reason be assigned—I doubt whether any statable reason can be assigned—why the reformatory and industrial schools of Scotland should be placed under the Home Secretary? I would say just as much for the Factory and Workshops Act of 1878, and for the Mines Acts. It is, no doubt, very desirable that mines and factories should be conducted upon settled principles; but I ask again, if we are able, without any inconvenience, to manage our prisons upon our own principles, and our lunatics upon our own principles, and our elementary schools, upon which so much money is spent, all upon our own principles, can we not manage our factories and our mines? I submit to the Committee that there has been no substantial reason shown why these subjects should be transferred. We should not lose sight of the important fact that if you do away with the exceptions contained in this clause, you, by one stroke, make the Minister for Scotland a different person altogether. You remove the stigma, so to speak, of subordination, which makes him only a delegate, as it were, of the Home Secretary on certain subjects, the root of those subjects still remaining with the Home Secretary. If you make a clean sweep, and transfer all the duties of the Home Secretary in Scotland to the Secretary for Scotland, you will attain, to a very large extent, the object we have all at heart. I do submit earnestly that there is no reason why these exceptions should be made. If there were, I would gladly give way; but I defy anyone to point out why these subjects should be treated in a different manner. I hope my Amendment will be accepted by the Committee.
    1770
    Amendment proposed, "That Subsection (2) be omitted from the Clause." —(Mr. Donald Crawford.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H.A. MACDONALD): I must confess I am a little surprised at the view which is taken by my hon. and learned Friend. If I thought that the exceptions we have made amounted only to what he has stated, I should certainly agree with him that they ought to be struck out. But I do not hold that view. As to prisons and lunatics in Scotland and education, we have already established Departments for dealing with those individual matters in Scotland. There is a Lunacy Board in Edinburgh and a Prison Board in Edinburgh, and the prisons are administered by one Commission, and the lunatics by another. As to Scotch education, there is a separate Scotch Education Department, with a separate staff. But there are two reasons why these particular subjects mentioned in the clause are not analogous. In the first place, they relate to the preservation of life and limb, and it is absolutely indispensable that the administration and control of such matters should be in one hand, in order that all the work for saving life and limb may be effectually carried out, and that there may be no conflict in the matter between different authorities. If you had a separate Department in Scotland for dealing with mines, and another for dealing with factories, with no Central Board, you would have most dangerous results. All the rules and regulations of one country might be contrary to the rules and regulations of the other, and the most disastrous results might follow. Miners passing from the one country to the other might carry with them habits perfectly safe according to the pit arrangements in their own country, but most dangerous in the other. Another strong objection is the financial one. There is a particular Department in the Home Office, and a very important Department, for the working of the law in connection with these particular subjects. That Department would have to be broken up to some extent, for it would be quite impossible for the Secretary

    1771
    for Scotland to carry out the work of mines and explosives; and so on, in Scotland without having his own staff under him. That would lead to friction and difficulty, and would cause a considerable amount of additional expense. It would be impossible to work it under present circumstances. At all events, it would not be advisable that these matters should be placed under two separate individuals and separate management. I must therefore oppose this Amendment.
    MR. BRYCE: I feel that there is some force in what the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has said about the first of these Acts; but he has not said anything about the others. The case of the Factories and Mines Acts is one thing; but the case of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Acts is quite another. I should have thought it would have been a great advantage to have these latter under the Scotch Education Department, and that it would be more likely to facilitate the beneficial working of the Acts if they were transferred to the Scotch Office. With regard to the Vivisection Act, I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Donald Crawford) whether he does not feel that there is an objection to removing that from the Home Secretary? I should have thought there would be a great advantage in having the Vivisection Act administered by the same Office throughout the United Kingdom, for in an eminent degree it requires uniformity of operation in all three countries. But as to the Industrial Schools Acts, I believe my hon. and learned Friend to be entirely in the right, and I do not understand the Government to make any reply to him.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): The Committee must remember that the local administration of the Industrial Schools Acts may become a race for public money. It is desirable that the conditions under which children are thrown in part on the Public Treasury for support, maintenance, and education, should be based on uniform principles throughout Great Britain. It is true that the reformatory and industrial schools of Ireland are under separate management; but in Scotland where, speaking from experience, I can say that considerable
    1772
    difference of view as to the working of the Acts prevails among the magisterial authorities, I should be very unwilling myself to surrender the power.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The argument adduced by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department against transferring the Industrial Schools Acts is really an argument in favour of transferring them. He first contends that the working of the Acts had better come from one authority than from two, and that is exactly the old argument which was used when we urged the transference of Scotch education under the previous Bill. But the second argument of the hon. Member is that, as a matter of fact, the magisterial discretion is different in Scotland from what it is in England, so that you have a different administration there from what you have here. For that very reason I am in favour of a transference of administration. The subject has to do with prisons and with education, and both those subjects have already been transferred to Scotland. The noble Marquess the present Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian) has himself stated in the Lords that he himself was in favour of the transference of these Industrial Schools Acts, and only gave way because of the prospect of further legislation in regard to reformatory and industrial schools.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEY: The hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) has recommended that the working of the Industrial Schools Acts should be placed under the Secretary for Scotland in connection with the Education Department. But may I remind him that the Commissioners were careful to recommend that they should be kept as far as possible out of the jurisdiction of that Department?
    MR. CHILDERS: I am anxious to assist the House in coming to a conclusion before it is too late, and I would venture to recommend a compromise on these points. I would propose to the Committee that those powers which are exercised by the Home Office in Ireland as well as in England should also be exercised by the Home Office in Scotland, so as to preserve uniformity; but those powers which are administered by the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland should be administered in Scot-

    1773
    land by the Secretary for Scotland, Under that arrangement, coal mines and factories would continue to be adminis-by the Home Office. I am not sure about the Explosives Act; but, probably, by the Report we should be able to ascertain how that would be. But the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Acts undoubtedly ought to be administered by the Secretary for Scotland. As to the reason which has been advanced by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) —namely, the absence of financial control which must follow, and that there would be an increase of expense, I should be the last man of this House to recommend a diminution of financial control; but I do not think that would occur. Therefore, I am of opinion that, considering that the prisons and education are so intimately connected with the reformatory and industrial schools, those schools should be transferred. I think if that view is accepted by the Committee, it will be a reasonable compromise.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I am not in a position at this moment to accept the suggestion; but I may say that further consideration shall be given to it so as to meet one of the most crucial and important matters that has arisen in connection with the Bill. Perhaps it may come on again upon Report.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: Looking to the period of the day which has now been reached (5.40), I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment, and raise the question again on Report, although I am rather unwilling that we should not come to a decision upon it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Clause amended by the insertion of the following additional sub-section:— "(g.) The Naturalization Act3, 1870 and 1872."
    Clause, as amended, agreed, to.
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following New Clause was inserted after Clause 3:—
    "This Act shall take effect on and after the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight."
    MR, E. ROBERTSONmoved the insertion of the following Clause: —
    1774
    "That section eight of 'The Secretary for Scotland Act, 1885,' shall be amended so as to read as follows: the Secretary shall have the place, trust, and office of Keeper of Her Majesty's Seal, appointed by the Treaty of Union to be kept and made use of in Scotland in place of the Great Seal of Scotland, with all such powers, privileges, and liberties as do by Law and custom belong to the same: and it shall be lawful for the Secretary to affix the said Seal to certificates issued by him, relating to matters within his official cognizance, in any case in which he shall deem it expedient to do so."
    New Clause (Secretary for Scotland may affix seal in certain cases,)—(Mr. E. Robertson,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I cannot accept this clause.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I am astonished that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate refuses to accept this clause. He must know that there is considerable difficulty in determining how far the power of the Secretary for Scotland can be used; and the object of my clause is to remove a great deal of inconvenience and trouble under which Scotch companies and Scotch citizens doing business in the United States of America and elsewhere labour. All I want is that the Secretary for Scotland shall be allowed to fix the seal in all cases in which he has power to do so. There are many cases in which he has such power; and it would save a great deal of money and trouble to Scotch citizens and companies if he would exercise it.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: It may have been my fault; but my attention was not drawn to the clause until today. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw it now.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: Certainly, on the understanding that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate and the Government will approach it with an open mind.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: Certainly.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 385.]

  NOTICE OF MOTION.

    IRISH NATIONAL LEAGUE (SPECIAL PROCLAMATION).
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It may be convenient to the House, Sir, if I read out the words of the Address which I propose to move to-morrow. I shall move—
    "That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, humbly to represent to Her Majesty that there has been laid before this House a Special Proclamation of the Viceroy of Ireland, declaring the Association known as the Irish National League to be a dangerous Association under ' The Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887;'
    "That no information has been furnished to Parliament to justify the issue of the said Special Proclamation, by virtue of which Her Majesty's subjects are liable to be punished as criminals without judicial inquiry into the nature of their acts;
    "And, that this House, in the absence of such information, prays that the said Proclamation shall not continue in force as to the Association named and described therein."

  QUESTION.

    DOMINION OF CANADA—EMPLOYMENT OF BRITISH IMPERIAL TROOPS.
    SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which he had given him private Notice, Whether he had noticed the announcement in the evening papers of yesterday and in The Times and other papers of that morning, to the effect that Sir John Macdonald, the Premier of Canada, had stated that "the Canadian Government would apply for the services of British Regulars;" whether he had received any communication or information on that subject; and, whether the Premier of Canada was justified in threatening the use of British Imperial troops?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): I have seen in the newspapers the report of the statement alleged to have been made by Sir John Macdonald as to applying for the services of British Imperial troops; but I have received no information on the subject. I think it highly probable, indeed, I believe, that the report must convey a very erroneous impression of what was really said; but I have telegraphed to the Governor General for information on this point, and on the
    1776
    situation generally. I am not prepared to state that under no circumstances whatever would Her Majesty's troops be permitted to support the local forces of the Dominion; but I need hardly say that each case must be judged on its own merits.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—BURNING OF "THE CITY OF MONTREAL"—RECOVERY OF THE MISSING BOAT.

    OBSERVATION.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): In view of the anxiety displayed for the safety of the passengers in the missing boat of the city of Montreal, I am sure the House will be glad to hear that the Board of Trade have just received a telegram that the missing boat and the people on board at Falmouth to-day.
    House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.