Sitting of 12 July 1889

NEW WRIT.
For Marylebone (Eastern Division), v. Lord Charles Beresford, Chiltern Hundreds.
QUESTIONS.

  THE FALKLAND ISLANDS-CHARGES AGAINST THE GOVERNOR.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has received from Mr. James Smith, of Stanley, Falkland Islands, two Memorials dated respectively the lit May and 7th May, 1889, making grave and specific charges against Mr. Ker, the Governor, amounting to wilful contravention of quarantine regulations and the consequent importation of infectious disease, attended with much loss of life, into the Falkland Islands, and also accusing the Governor of malversation of public funds and falsification of public accounts, and praying an investigation into these allegations; and, whether, in view of the gravity of the charges and the serious discontent of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands, the Government will take any steps to inquire into these accusations?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The Secretary of State has received two Memorials from Mr. James Smith, of Stanley, accusing the Governor of the Falkland Islands of having contravened quarantine regulations. Mr. Smith states that measles have been introduced into the colony with fatal results, not in consequence of the alleged contravention of quarantine regulations, but in consequence of their inefficiency; he does not accuse the Governor of malversation of public moneys, but states his belief that there has been a falsification of an account and asks for an inquiry. After reading the Governor's statement in answer to the Memorial, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the statements in the Memorials imputing mis-
  260
  conduct to the Governor are unfounded, and he does not propose to make any further inquiry into them.
  MR. MACNEILL: Will Mr. Smith have any opportunity of seeing the Governor's statement? Is ii not an ex parte statement?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The documents have been referred to the Secretary of State, who will exercise his own discretion in the matter.
  MR. MACNEILL: Is the period of five years the usual term fixed for the sojourn of a Colonial Governor in a colony; for what reason, having regard to the discontent of the colonists, and the repeated complaints forwarded to the Colonial Office respecting his conduct, has the term of office of the Governor of the Falkland Islands been extended beyond the usual period; why has he held his present office for eight and a-half years; and, how long is he to continue to hold it?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The usual term of a Colonial Governor's tenure of office is six years. The term of office of the present Governor of the Falkland Islands was extended beyond that period because he had, in the opinion of successive Secretaries of State, administered the Government with great care and success, and there was no opportunity of promoting him to another government. Occasional complaints have been made against him, but those have not proved to be well-founded, and the Secretary of State has no reason to believe that the colonists generally have been discontented with him. He has held his present office for eight and a half years, and I am not prepared to say how long he will continue to hold it.
  MR. MACNEILL: Has it not been always understood that the re-appointment of a Colonial Governor cannot take place if he is over 60 years of age, and in this case is not the Governor over 60?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I do not think there is any rule to that effect.
  MR. MACNEILL: May I ask whether the Governor of the Falkland Islands introduced, early in May, in his Executive Council, a Bill for the abolition of the office of Coroner in those Islands; whether the office of Coroner was held by the Colonial Secretary, who is also the Police Magistrate and Postmaster, and has had no legal training; whether

  261
  the effect of the Bill is to enable the Colonial Secretary to act in cases, which under the former system would have come before him with a jury, without the intervention of a jury; whether, on Mr. Brandon, one of the Members of the Executive Council, recording his vote against the Bill, the Governor stated his Council should support him in all things and dare not vote against him; whether, on a meeting of the Legislative Council to consider this Bill, at which some of the public were present, the Governor, in his opening speech, stated that the Falkland Islands were a Crown Colony, and that the people had no rights or privileges; and, whether the Colonial Secretary will, on receipt of a Petition from the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands, about to be forwarded to him by the honourable Mr. Cobb, a non-official Member of the Legislative Council, consider the propriety of vetoing this measure?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The Governor of the Falkland Islands recently introduced in the Legislative Council an Ordinance to abolish the office of Coroner, which was no doubt previously considered by the Executive Council. The office of Coroner is held by the Colonial Secretary, who is also Police Magistrate and Postmaster, and has had no legal training. The effect of the Ordinance would be as stated in the third paragraph of the question as regards inquests in the town and Port of Stanley—in other parts of the Colony the inquisitions would be held by two Justices of the Peace. The Secretary of State has no information as to what took place, either in the Executive or Legislative Council, with respect to the Ordinance, except that Mr. Cobb, an unofficial Member of the Legislative Council, voted against the Second Reading. In view of the strong objection to the Ordinance, which appears to be entertained by many of the inhabitants, the Governor has withheld his assent to it pending instructions from the Secretary of State, who has decided to direct him not to assent to it, although a measure of this kind has worked well in other colonies.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to give notice that on account of the unsatisfactory answers of the hon. Gentleman, I will take an early opportunity of
  262
  bringing before the House the state of the Falkland Islands.

BENARES—THE MAHARAJA AMRIT RAO.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether he is aware that, in 1837, Maharaja Amrit Rao, of Kirwi, placed two lakhs of rupees in the hands of the Government of India, that the interest might be paid in perpetuity to certain temples he had built in Benares; and that his successor, Venayak Rao, deposited with the Government the further sum of three lakhs of rupees for a like object, stating in his will—
"My desire is that even the English Government should not make use of a single farthing (cowrie) of the five lakhs of rupees which I have devoted solely to the Temple and Chatra of Benares;"
(2) whether his attention has bean called to the fact that, in 1855, without any reason assigned, the Government, having undertaken the administration of the estate and will of Venayak Rao, the payment on the three lakhs was stopped; that, in 1857, Notes, Nos. 74 and 75, for the three lakhs of rupees were forcibly taken from the temple by an order of the Judge of Benares; and, in January and February, 1858, the sacred vessels, jewels, and furniture of the temples, to the value of Rs. 40,765, were seized, and other property, amounting to Rs. 100,000, taken, on account of the alleged treason of Madhava Rao, a child nine years of age; (3) whether the Government is aware that the property in question was never part of the Madhava Rao's estate; (4) whether Mr. F. O. Mayne, Special Commissioner, in his Report, dated 8th September, 1858, absolved Madhava Rao from all blame of participation in the mutinous proceedings of 1857; and,(5)whether the Government will make inquiries into the facts, as alleged, giving the Trustees of the Temple the opportunity of being heard in support of their claim?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST, Chatham): As to (1), (2), and (3), the Secretary of State has no information upon the facts alleged, nor can he discover, after very careful search into the archives of the India Office, that any

263
representations have ever been made to any of his predecessors on the subject. (4.) Mr. Mayne did not absolve Madhava Rao (who was 13, not nine years of age) from, all blame. He found him guilty of treason, but acquitted him of any fixed criminal purpose. (5.) The Secretary of State wishes me to remind the hon. Member that there are Civil Courts in India to which the Trustees of the Temple might, at any time during the last 30 years, have appealed against any wrong done by the Executive Government. The Government do not propose to make any further inquiry into the matter.

IRELAND-COMPENSATION FOR BURNING
Mr. BLANE: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland if a Mr. Brooks, of Forkhill, County Armagh, received compensation three or four times during recent years for the burning of a scutch mill; if it be true that at the present Assizes he has been awarded £600, by a majority of one, in the Grand Jury; and, if the County Inspector has taken a view of all the circumstances of these repeated burnings, followed by compensation in each case; and, if not, will the Government draw his attention to a matter that has already attracted a large amount of public comment in County Armagh?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Madden, University of Dublin): I am informed that it is not the fact that Mr. Brooks received compensation three or four times during recent years for the burning of a scutch mill. He received compensation on two occasions—in 1880 and 1885. It does not appear to be the fact that he has been awarded compensation recently.
MR. BLANE: Is not this a case in which compensation has been claimed by a person who is accused of introducing petroleum in order to secure the burning of his own building, so that he might get compensation?
MR. MADDEN: If the cess-payers object they have power to traverse any claim of the kind.

LEVEL CROSSINGS.
MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what further action he has taken, or can take, concerning the pro-
264
posed level crossing on the New Mill Road, near Hamilton; whether it has been brought to his notice that the proposed crossing, being on an incline, is specially dangerous; and, whether the Road Trustees are prepared to reconsider their action in the matter?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I have again communicated with the Road Trustees, but they have shown no inclination to reconsider their decision. The railway, not being authorized by Parliament or opened for passenger traffic, the Board of Trade have no power to interfere. The responsibility must rest entirely with the Road Trustees.
MR. PHILIPPS: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to introduce legislation to render it impossible for the Road Trustees to cross a railway by a level crossing?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir; I do not think it is desirable for the Board of Trade to introduce legislation in such a matter.

THE SCOTCH HERRING FISHERY.
MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND (Sutherlandshire): I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Scotland whether the attention of the Secretary for Scotland has been called to the injurious effect on the herring fishing industry in Scotland of the recent action of the Fishery Board in confiscating herring barrels with their contents, on the ground that they were under the regulation size; whether he is aware that a great number of barrels are now in stock, representing a considerable proportion of the fishcurers' capital, all of which were manufactured and bought prior to the issue of the recent Circular of the Fishery Board on the subject; what has been the result of the inquiry by the Secretary for Scotland into the complaints of the fishcurers with regard to the policy of the Fishery Board on this matter; and, whether instructions have been issued to the Fishery Board to withdraw the Circulars recently issued to their officers regarding confiscation of herring barrels; and, if not, what action does the Government intend to take to guarantee to the fishcuring trade in Scotland that security against confiscation of their property whish is so essential to the prosperity of the im-

265
portant national industry in which they are engaged?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. S. DARLING,): The attention of the Secretary for Scotland has been called to the confiscation of barrels by the Fishery Board. The size of the barrels is fixed by Statute, and the Fishery Board had, therefore, no alternative but to confiscate barrels which were not of regulation size. The Secretary for Scotland is aware that a certain number of barrels are now in stock, and is informed that these barrels are being altered so as to conform to the law. The Fishery Board were bound to take proceedings on its coming to their knowledge that herrings were being packed in barrels the size of which was not in accordance with the requirements of the Statute. This being a statutory requirement, the hon. Member must be aware the Secretary for Scotland cannot issue any such instruction as is suggested. The Secretary for Scotland is informed that every care is now being exercised to insure that the barrels are of the statutory dimensions, and he therefore hopes that no necessity will arise in future for any such seizure of barrels as has recently taken place.
MR. SUTHERLAND: Why did not the Fishery Board take action in the matter before?
MR. M.T.STORMONTH DARLING: I must ask the hon. Member to give notice of the question.

BOMBARDMENT OF PANGANI.
DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a telegram in the New York Herald, dated Zanzibar, 9th July, to the effect that the effect at Mombassa of the bombardment of Pangani by the German gunboat Pfeil, was such that the British ship, Turquoise, stationed there had her crew under arms day and night; and whether the bombardment of Pangani formed any portion of the combined naval operations in which the British and German fleets are engaged on the East Coast of Africa; and, if so, whether he can explain the reason for the bombardment?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The German bombardment of Pangani was in no way connected with the combined naval operations. Its object was the re-establishment of German authority, and the English Forces have had nothing to do with it. We have no ground whatever for believing that there has been any disturbance at Mombassa in the British region.

IRELAND—PRISON TREATMENT EXERCISE OF PRISONERS.
MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether it is the fact that in Derry Gaol there is no covered exercise yard for the prisoners; whether, in consequence, the prisoners are deprived of their exercise and confined to their cells in wet weather; whether, as this defect could easily be remedied and the health of the prisoners preserved by erecting a slight shed or penthouse roof projecting from the walls surrounding the various exercise yards, he will take the matter into his early consideration; and, whether in the other gaols in Ireland there is a similar want of covered exercising ground for use in wet weather?
MR. MADDEN: The General Prisons Board report that there is no covered exercise yard. The Board have never had any complaint brought to their knowledge indicating the necessity of erecting a shed. I believe that in other prisons in Ireland there is no covered exercise yard.

THE CHARGES AGAINST MR. GILL AND MR. COX.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether on Tuesday last, at Drogheda, Mr. Hamilton, R.M., the senior member of the Court constituted for the trial of Mr. Gill, M.P., and Mr. Cox, M.P., on charges under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, in dismissing the charges, is correctly reported to have declared the chief evidence for the prosecution, that of the police reporter, Constable Robinson, to be untrustworthy; and what course the Irish Government propose to adopt with regard to Constable Robinson; and whether, the prosecution having failed in consequence of the rejection by the Magistrates of the

267
evidence of the Constable as being unworthy of credit, the Irish Government will defray the expenses incurred by Mr. Gill, M.P., and Mr. Cox, M.P., in proceeding from the House of Commons to the place of trial, and in returning to Parliamentary duty?
MR. MADDEN: It appears that the evidence in question was described by Mr. Hamilton, P.M., as unreliable, but when counsel for the defence imputed perjury to Constable Robinson, Mr. Hamilton stated that he saw nothing in the constable's evidence to justify the statement. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the latter part of his question, which appeared on the Paper for the first time yesterday. Inquiries will be made as to whether any precedents exist in relation to the matter.
MR. SEXTON: In regard to the first paragraph of the question is it true that the constable produced for the purpose of his evidence an elaborate longhand note of the speeches forming the subject of the charge, but that when tested in Court by a speech being read to him at an unusually slow rate he was unable to complete one single sentence?
MR. MADDEN: The facts are substantially as stated by the hon. Gentleman. That was the reason why the Resident Magistrate said the evidence could not be acted upon.
MR. COX (Clare, E.): Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a week before the trial came on the solicitors for the defence were informed that the prosecution was based on perjury, that they instructed their counsel accordingly, and that that was the reason why I and my hon. Friend are not now undergoing six months' imprisonment?
No answer was given to this question.

POSTAL ORDERS.
MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether complaints have reached him that at many branch post offices a very insufficient stock of ten shilling postal orders is kept on hand, and that the public frequently have to purchase two and even three orders to make up the amount of ten shillings; and, if so, whether he will issue instructions that, when this is necessary, the several component orders shall be supplied at the same rate as would be charged for an order of the desired amount?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKERS,): I have received two complaints on the subject referred to in the hon. Member's question, and it appears that there had been an unusual demand for postal orders at the offices from which the complaints emanated. It is impossible to make absolute provision to guard against such occurrences, but every effort is made to do so. The rate of commission for each order is fixed by Act of Parliament.

THE COAL MINES' REGULATION ACT.
MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on the 20th May, 1889, application was made to Mr. Ronaldson, Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines (Scotland), for permission to examine the fireman's report book at No. 9, Blair Pit Daly, Kilmarnock, belonging to the Eglinton Iron Company; whether such permission was limited to the 16th February, 1889; and, whether there is any provision in "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, "which justifies such limitation?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Matthews,): Yes, Sir; I am informed that an application was granted, subject to one examination of the report book. As litigation is pending it was considered desirable such further inspection should be obtained by order of the Court rather than by the authority of the Inspector.
MR. FENWICK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that General Rule 37 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act provides that on application to this authority permission may be given by the Inspector of Mines?
MR. MATTHEWS: I am aware that there is such a Rule, and in this case the application appears to have been complied with so far as the Inspector considered it desirable.
MR. FENWICK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the application was made prior to any notice of litigation having been given, and that being so, can he state why it was refused?
MR. MATTHEWS: It was refused on the ground I have already stated.

DELAGOA BAY RAILWAY COMPANY.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, looking to the relations between the Delagoa Bay Railway Company and the Portuguese Government, and the delicate nature of the position at Delagoa Bay now that the British warships have been sent there, the Government mean any longer to continue the Railway Agent as acting British Vice Consul, and, consequently, British Diplomatic Agent?
SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Vice Consul at Delagoa Bay is in no sense a Diplomatic Agent. The Consul in the Colony of Mozambique, to whom the Vice Consul is subordinate, has now reached his post, and would be the medium of communication with the Governor General. We have learnt that the manager of the railway leaves tomorrow invalided. Arrangements for finding a suitable acting Vice Consul are under consideration.

IRELAND—FAIR RENT APPLICATIONS.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether arrangements have yet been made by the Land Commission for the supply of Ordnance Maps in the case of fair rent applications in the County Courts?
MR. MADDEN: I understand that a Council of the County Court Judges will, within the next few days, further consider the question of the supply of these maps with a view of new Rules on the subject being adopted.

THE CIVIL SERVICE.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he will be able to lay upon the Table the Treasury Minute as to the Civil Service; and, whether he is aware that the delay and uncertainty is prejudicially affecting the efficiency of the Service?
MR. H. LAWSON: Is the First Lord of the Treasury aware of the great anxiety on the part of the Civil Servants that the Treasury Minute should be laid on the Table of the House early enough to allow of an adequate discussion being taken upon the matter?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY(Mr. W. H. SMITH, ): I am aware of the desire that this Treasury Minute should be produced as soon as possible; it is the desire of the Government that it should be; but the hon. Gentleman must be aware that very great responsibility rests upon the Government in dealing with such an important question, which requires very careful examination and consideration before the terms of the Minute are decided upon and laid on the Table of the House. There has been much conference between various Departments of the State on the question, and our hope is that an arrangement will be arrived at which will be satisfactory to the House and the country, and which will do justice to the Civil Service. I trust hon. Gentlemen will allow us a sufficient interval to enable us to produce a Minute which will be, in our judgment, sufficient and adequate. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Northampton, I am not aware that the delay is prejudicially affecting the interests of the Service. I believe that the Civil servants as a whole are loyal and devoted to the interests of the country; and that although they are anxious to see the decision of the Government, and will be glad when the matter is finally disposed of, there is no symptom whatever of any prejudicial effect on the service of the country.
MR. H. H. FOWLER: How is it proposed to carry out these changes? Will an Order in Council be required?
MR. W. H. SMITH: No doubt an Order in Council will be necessary to carry them out. The Order will be based on the Treasury Minute, which will state the arguments and conclusions of the Commissioners. The Order in Council will be issued in order to give effect to the Minute.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I put the question upon the Paper because the right hon. Gentleman in answer to the Chairman of the Commission stated just before Whitsuntide that he hoped to be able to lay the Minute on the Table soon after the holidays.
MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member can hardly be aware of the extreme pressure which the Treasury and responsible Members of the Government have to encounter in dealing with questions of this kind.

THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
MR. WALLACE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the maximum of the increase which he is prepared to recommend the Government to make to the annual sum of £42,000 proposed to be voted to the Scottish Universities in the Universities (Scotland) Bill, so as to enable the proposed Commissioners to deal with the question of compensation to professors and others?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): It is from combined motives of benevolence and prudence that I would prefer not to name any maximum. If I named a maximum it would be highly probable that there would be a temptation on the part of the Commissioners to work up to it. On the other hand, if I named a maximum it might be found that it was not enough to deal with the particular emergency with which I am anxious to deal. Under these circumstances, I think it best not to name any particular sum until the Commissioners have had an opportunity of examining the whole case. I can assure hon. Members that the Government have a bonâ fide intention of being able to give some substantial assistance to the Commissioners in dealing with this matter.
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: May I ask whether the intention of the Government would be embodied in any instrument or recorded in any way; because there may be a change of opinion or a change of Chancellor of the Exchequer?
MR. GOSCHEN: I will endeavour to provide for that emergency to the best of my ability by putting on record, in some form or other, the intentions of the Government with regard to this matter.
MR. WALLACE: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I shall move the rejection of the Universities Bill, on the ground of the inadequacy of the pecuniary arrangements.

GRANT TO UNIVERSITY COLLEGES IN GREAT BRITAIN.
Copy ordered,
"Of (1) Treasury Minute, dated the 11th day o March, 1889, appointing a Committee to repor
272
on the appropriation of a grant of £15,000 for University Colleges in Great Britain; (2) Memorandum of the Lord President of the Council and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, dated the 1st day of March, 1889, on the same subject; (3) Report of the Committee thereon; and (4) Treasury Minute, dated the 1st day of July, 1889, on the same subject."— (Mr. Jackson.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 250.]

TOWN HOLDINGS.
Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 251.]
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.[No. 251.]

PASSENGERS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS.]
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed.[Bill 327.]
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to the Registration of County Electors (Extension of Time) Bill, without Amendment; Weights and Measures Bill, with Amendments.
MOTION.

  SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) REGULATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Marjoribanks, Bill to make provision for the better Regulation of the Sea Fisheries of Scotland, and for the establishment, improvement, and maintenance of mussel scalps or beds on the coasts of Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Marjoribanks, Mr. Duff, and Mr. Shiress Will.
  Bill presented, and read first time [Bill 330.]

BANN DRAINAGE [GRANTS, &c]
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient to make a free Grant, not exceeding the sum of £20,000, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, for defraying a part of the costs of any works to be executed under any Act of the present Session for the improvement of the Drainage of Lands and for the prevention of Inundations within the catchment area of Lough Neagh and the Lower Bann, and also to authorise the Board of Works in Ireland to make advances, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, for the purposes of the said Act."
MR. STOREY: I object to this Resolution, which proposes to make a grant of £20,000 out of moneys to be provided by the Imperial Parliament to defray part of the works to be executed in virtue of the passing of the Bann Drainage Bill. The objection which I had at first to this grant is intensified by the fact that it is no longer part of a general scheme. Further, it is proposed to give the grant to a part of Ireland which admittedly does not stand in need of it. I, therefore, feel it my duty to object.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: My hon. Friend after having done his best to prevent a general grant being made now objects to a local grant.
MR. COSSHAM: I shall oppose the Resolution, because I have the greatest possible objection to the application of Imperial money to local purposes. I think it is opening the door very wide.
The Committee divided:—Aves 79; Noes 72.—(Div. List, No. 199).
Resolved, That it is expedient to make a free Grant, not exceeding the sum of £20,000, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, for defraying a part of the costs of any works to be executed under any Act of the present Session for the improvement of the Drainage of Lands, and for the prevention of Inundations within the catchment area of Lough Neagh and the Lower Bann, and also to authorise the Board of Works in Ireland to make advances, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, for the purposes of the said Act.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

CRUELTY TO CHILDREN PREVENTION [EXPENSES.]
Resolution reported.
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the expenses of the prosecution in Scotland or Ireland of a misdemeanour under any Act of the present Session for the better Prevention of Cruelty to Children."
Resolution agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 187) AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS BILL (No. 188).
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee).
Clause 19.
DR. CAMERON: I beg to move, in line 34, after "Parliament, "to insert—
"Provided always, that no portion of such balance shall be paid to any school board, or to the managers of any state-aided school, in respect of any school in which any fees are charged for the teaching of any standard of the Education Code for Scotland the passing of which may be compulsory under the provisions of the Education Acts operative from time to time."
The object of the Amendment is to secure that we shall have free education in Scotland. It is necessary that this should be done after the declaration of the Chief Secretary for Ireland last night. The right hon. Gentleman told us that it is proposed to give£220,000 by means of an arrangement which is to go in the direction of relieving the poorer classes in Scotland, and he added that this concession is not giving free education. The declaration made by the right hon. Gentleman only emphasizes declarations to a similar effect which have been made by the President of the Local Government Board and the Secretary for Scotland. As the matter stands, it is pretty clear that when we get the money we shall not have free education, or anything like it. The amount of the school pence a year ago was £316,000, and it is increasing at the rate of£7,700 a year. Last year it would therefore be somethinglike£323,000,andin the present year £330,000, while the whole amount to be granted is £220,000,leaving a deficit of £110,000.We are told that£50,000 is to be given by the Parochial Boards; but there is no provision in the Bill for transferring that sum to the general purposes of the schools, so as to meet a portion of the deficit in the school fees. As a matter of fact, we have to face a deficit of more than £100,000. It is therefore necessary that some such proviso as that which is proposed in this Amendment should be inserted. We have not jet been told what mode of distribution is to be adopted; but I presume that the only fair mode will be a grant for average attendance. But the result, if that plan is followed, will be very different in different districts. In some districts the average amount of fees paid for attendance is only 4s. or 5s. a year. That is

275
the case in a considerable number of the Highland School Board districts; and if the grant amounts to 8s. or 93. for average attendance, such schools will have a considerable surplus. But, on the other hand, in a number of the School Board districts the fees are very much higher. For example, in Glasgow the average fee amounts to 10s. 9d. per child, and in Govan to 14s. 1¾d., so that in those districts the highest sum received from the grant will be insufficient to secure free education; or anything like it. We are told that the grant is to be employed in freeing the lower standards; but the result will be, I fear, to takeaway the free education, which now exists to a large extent in some of the districts. From a Return issued by the Glasgow School Board, I find that when two children from the same family are at school they pay the school fees; if there are three, the third is only charged half fees; and where there are four or more, all except three receive their education free. The result will be that 6,000 children in the upper standards will be deprived of the free education which they at present get. The proposal has been made to free the upper standards first; but I do not think it met with any acceptance. If we are going to free only a certain number of standards, they should, from a practical point of view, be the lower standards. But it is quite different from an educational point of view. From that point of view you should free the higher standards first. If you allocate the grant to the different parties concerned on the basis of average attendance, the result will be that in those districts where the School Board have done their duty, where they have levied a considerable rate and only obtained a small amount by fees, the Board will be in a position to reduce their rates; but where they have neglected to do their duty, and have got as much as they possibly could from fees, and as little as they could from rates, the result will be that the population will be debarred from the benefit of free education altogether. Why do we ask for the allocation of this money to the purposes of free education? Because the people of Scotland want free education. If they find that in place of free education they are only getting half of it, they will be dissatisfied with the
276
conduct of their friends in assenting to such an arrangement. I do not ask the Government to give us any more money—they cannot give us more; but I protest against what is being done with the grants under this Bill. If a grant is given from the Imperial or National Exchequer it should be given for the purpose of promoting some object, and there is no object or consideration attached to the grants given under the Bill. In the case of the roads we might have made a bargain with the Road Trustees that they should improve their roads—that, in fact, they should give a quid pro quo. Now it is proposed to give £220,000 for education without making any bargain or stipulation as to the conditions on which it is to be granted. We propose to leave the whole matter in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland for this year, and then in the hands of the Education Department. I do not at all like that. The Government have said they do not consider this giving free education: they give us the money in such a way that we shall not have free education. I propose we shall have it, and therefore move—
"That no portion of such balance shall he paid to any School Board, or to the managers of any State-aided school, in respect of any school in which any fees are charged for the teaching of any standard of the Education Code for Scotland the passing of which may be compulsory under the provisions of the Education Acts operative from time to time."
What will be the effect of that Amendment if carried? It would be in exact accordance with the principle which has hitherto governed grants in aid of education from the Imperial Exchequer. We now pay to Scotland from the Imperial Exchequer the sum of £450,000. That amount is distributed amongst various School Boards and managers on condition that they give efficient education which is tested. I ask that this grant, which we have wrung from the Government for the purpose of free education, shall be given on the condition of free education being provided. It-has been objected that my Amendment does not go far enough; that it would allow Board Schools, if they chose, to keep up fee-paying schools, provided they were content to forego the grant. I do not think that is a matter with which this House has anything to do. That

277
is a matter for the ratepayers who elect the School Board. I cannot see why if the electors choose to allow their School Boards to have special selected schools they should not do so.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend; but if I am in order I should like to move an Amendment in line 31.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would be precluded from moving an Amendment to line 31 after the Amendment of the hon. Member for the College Division is disposed of. The hon. Member for the College Division is addressing the Committee, and it is within his discretion to allow the hon. Gentleman to move the Amendment he desires.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I desire to move that the words "State aided," in line 31, be omitted, in order to insert the word "public." By the Amendment I propose to raise the question of denominational schools. While wishing to do everything possible to promote free education, but still recognizing that there may not be sufficient money at our disposal to free the five standards in all schools which are "State aided," I think it is only the duty of Parliament to make arrangements for freeing those schools which are public schools, and which are under the control of the School Boards, and have the enforcement of the compulsory clauses in our Educational Code. I quite admit that there are difficulties in moving an Amendment such as this. I recognize the fact that in Scotland the question of denominational schools is a much smaller question than in England. Yet in Scotland we have obtained public sanction for "use and wont," and the principle has worked fairly well. It is right the sense of the Committee should be taken on this point, and therefore I move this Amendment.
Clause 14, page 10, line 31, leave out "State aided," and insert "public."— (Mr. Esdemont.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'State aided' stand part of the Clause."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson,): This is an important Amendment, and one which deserves serious consideration. The Committee will remember that the proposal drawn as the labours of the
278
Committee have advanced, to confer a certain sum in relief of school fees, is a proposal more or less limiting to a certain class of ratepayers the benefit which was originally designed for the whole. I do not complain of that limitation, but this is a proposal which will limit to a class the benefit which, in our judgment, ought to be universal and catholic. The hon. Member for the College Division has stated very truly that in Scotland there is a larger proportion of children attending Board Schools than in England, and in that sense it is quite true that the strength of the voluntary or denominational schools is proportionately less. But the sentiment which leads parents to keep away their children from the Board Schools and to send them to denominational schools is a very strong one, especially among the Roman Catholics, a body which has not proved itself inattentive to the educational wants of its own people, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen would practically deprive of a share of the Probate Duty grant the whole of the Roman Catholic poor in Scotland. There are other bodies also in Scotland, among whom are the Episcopalians, who withhold their children from the Board Schools. On what pretence, I ask, can they deprive those bodies of any participation in that grant? I stand on the broad ground of equality and fair play, and I say that no one can justify a vote for this Amendment unless he has made up his mind that the poorest class in Scotland—namely, the Roman Catholics—are to receive not a farthing from this grant. I protest against such a proposal. The Government can be no party to imposing a penalty on the very class who ought to receive the largest payments.
MR. THORBURN: I am surprised at the quarter of the House from which this Amendment has emanated. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire is one of the apostles of what is called "Religious Equality," and at the same time he moves an amendment against educationale quality. I hope the Government will firmly resist this Amendment, which, I think, strikes at the very root of the benefits conferred by this part of the Bill.
MR. HOZIER: There is no one more strongly in favour

279
of the scheme of free education than I am, but I must insist upon the position of the denominational schools being in no way whatever prejudicially interfered with. I earnestly hope the Government will stand firmly by the decision they have announced in this respect.
MR. HUNTER: The Amendment is not an Amendment directed against denominational schools, but one which merely proposes to substitute for the words "State aided" the word "public." The result of its adoption would be that all schools which are under the management of Local Authorities and popularly-elected bodies will continue to receive their share of that grant, but schools which are under the management of private individuals or ecclesiastical organizations not elected by the people will not share in it.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to say that I argued the case upon the footing, of which I challenge him to dispute the accuracy, that "Public Schools" mean "Board Schools." That is defined by Act of Parliament.
MR. HUNTER: That is what I was saying. School Boards are elected Boards. If my hon. Friend persisted in his Amendment I could not hesitate to go into the Lobby with him, on the ground that those schools which are not managed by popularly-elected representatives have not the claim which the Board Schools have to share in these funds. Still, I hope he will not press the Amendment to a Division, and for this reason. The Episcopalian schools, the Roman Catholic schools, and the Free Church and the Established Church Schools have for years been in competition with the Board Schools on certain terms. They share in the Government grant along with the Government schools. They are at liberty to charge fees as the Board Schools charge fees, and the balance they require for carrying on their education is supplied by the subscriptions of benevolent individuals instead of coming from the rates. By the measure the Government propose, fees will certainly be abolished in certain Standards in the Board Schools, and it is obvious, therefore, that the denominational schools cannot compete with the Board schools if they are obliged to charge fees. While I think it most
280
desirable that all schools in Scotland should be brought under popular management, and while I entertain the hope that at some future time they will be, I do not think it would be right suddenly to attack these schools by what must be described as an unfair mode of competition. Therefore, while I agree with my hon. Friend in the broad principle of his Amendment, I think it would be, perhaps, unjust on the present occasion to apply that principle to the voluntary schools in Scotland.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My hon. Friend (Mr. Hunter) has, I think, stated with great exactness the precise position of this question. It is, in fact, the cropping up of a very old controversy which, I suppose, will be continued long after this Bill has passed into law. In principle I entirely agree with the Amendment. I am one of those who, having been a Member of the House through the whole of this educational controversy as regards both England and Scotland, have never swerved from the opinion that education, if compulsory, should be free and should be secular, and therefore it is a very easy matter for me, on the ground of principle, to support the Amendment. At the same time, I cannot forget the fact that the Board Schools themselves in Scotland are by no means free from denominational bias. The words inserted in the Act of 1872 respecting religious instruction has had the effect of placing the advocates of undenominational education in Scotland at a great disadvantage in this matter. With a clear conscience I could support this Amendment, but, as my hon. Friend points out, if introduced in its naked form into the Bill it would have the effect, practically, of killing the denominational schools in Scotland. I should not be at all sorry to see that result achieved if a little time had been given to them, in order that they may come fully under the School Boards, but I think it would be hard upon them to subject them suddenly to so great a disadvantage. I think my hon. Friend has been right in raising the point, because it is one which we should always keep before the mind of the public; but I think he would exercise a wise discretion not to attempt to force his Amendment into the Bill.
MR. D. CRAWFOED: I join with my right hon. Friend who has just spoken in urging my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment. I also do so with a clear conscience, because I am entirely with him in principle. More than 10 years ago I stood as a candidate for a School Board upon the principle of confining State aid to schools under State management. But I think that until our system receives some further reform, some voluntary schools would be placed at a very great disadvantage by the adoption of this Amendment. The Roman Catholic schools, for instance, in my own constituency are numerous, and they do the work well; but I suppose the effect of such an Amendment as this, if it were carried now without any alteration of circumstances, would be to kill those schools. I think that would be hardly fair. That being so, I hope the Amendment will not now be pressed.
MR. S. BUXTON: I am afraid that the proposal of the Government of a grant in aid from the rates to voluntary schools—for the Probate Duty is exactly the same as a rate—may form a precedent, and may lead to certain evil consequences in England. I quite agree that if you are going to free the schools you ought not to use the proposal in order in any way to injure the voluntary system. I am one of those who think that when the State frees the schools it ought to do it all round, and to do it on fair terms. But I do not think that we ought to allow this proposal to pass without entering a protest against it as a principle to be applied to England. I am sure that if the principle of rate aid to voluntary schools were attempted to be extended to this country it would arouse all the old denominational feuds, and greatly retard the progress of education.
MR. CALDWELL: When it was discussed in 1872 whether religious education should be given in the Board Schools, or whether certain children should be withdrawn while religious education was being given, the voice of the people of Scotland was strongly in opposition to that of the great majority of their Representatives in this House. When the first School Boards were elected, a cry was got up in favour of secular educa-
282
tion, but those who supported it were considerably in the minority. It is notorious that the whole feeling of the people of Scotland is against the doing away with religious education in the Board Schools, and in favour of its retention. But as the Scotch people insist on having Protestant worship in their Board Schools, it is only fair that the Roman Catholics should have their religion taught. It is not a matter which will touch the pockets of the ratepayers, because 20,000 Roman Catholic children in Scotland are being at present educated in schools built and maintained at the expense of Roman Catholic benevolence. If these schools were abolished, accommodation in the public schools would have to be found for the children, and the public would be saddled with an enormous charge. At the present moment the Roman Catholics are paying for the education of their own children without any help whatever from the ratepayers. The Government ought not to ask more than that the children should be educated in properly-inspected schools, undergoing regular examinations.
MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: I can corroborate what the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Caldwell) has said with regard to the opinion and feeling of the people of Scotland on this subject, but the question before the House is, whether the proposal of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. Esslemont) is or is not an unfair one. I think the Amendment is most unfair, in attempting to exclude any schools which conform to the State regulations from their fair share of the grant in aid.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I would remind hon. Members that the 25th clause was originally introduced, not as a matter of principle, but of policy, and the same question of policy will, I believe, come up again and again, until we place our system of education on clear grounds, basing it upon religion, or excluding the religious element altogether. Notwithstanding the lecture we have received from our superior Friend the Member for St. Rollox, I do not think we shall have the slightest difficulty in maintaining the principles we hold. So far as I am concerned, I have always contended that we have no right to extract money from persons of a different faith or of no

283
faith at all, for the purpose of maintaining our religious principles.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw the Amendment?
MR. ESSLEMONT: Yes; I ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
DR. CAMERON: I propose now to move my Amendment to provide that no grant shall be made to any State-aided school which charges fees for any of the compulsory standards. In order to supply free education, it will be necessary to provide £330,000, and as the grant will only amount to £220,000, there will be a deficit of £110,000 to meet. The average fee for public school education in Scotland is 12s. 10d. per head in Board Schools and somewhat less in voluntary schools. The £220,000 proposed to be given in aid of education will only afford about 8s. 4d. per head, so that there will be a large deficiency. It would be great waste to give a grant out of the public funds unless some distinct return is to be obtained from it. As the Scottish people desire to have free education, I ask the Committee to lay down as an essential principle that the grant shall not be given to schools which are not prepared to make education free in all the compulsory standards. If the Bill passes as it stands, the result must be that if you only give a grant of 8s. 4d. per head, the pupils in the higher standards must continue to pay fees. At present they receive their education free, but in future they will be deprived of free education. Even then the State will only pay two-thirds of the cost of the education supplied, the people of Scotland providing the rest. I am quite prepared to take the principle at present adopted, which is, that the public schools shall be subsidized out of the rates, but where we have to deal with Imperial Grants, the grants should be allocated to all schools which comply with certain conditions and are subjected to a certain amount of inspection. I am perfectly content to accept this regulation in conjunction with the new windfall which is proposed to be given, and in that way the Government, if they choose, will be able to secure free education. If that principle is not adopted, the result will, I fear, be to destroy the free education which the
284
people of Scotland at present possess. I certainly consider this Amendment essential, and shall go to a Division upon it if the Government are so blind as to oppose it.
Amendment moved, Clause 19, page 10, line 34, after "Parliament," insert—
"Provided always, that no portion of such balance shall be paid to any School Board, or to the managers of any State-aided school, in respect of any school in which any fees are charged for the teaching of any standard of the Education Code for Scotland the passing of which may be compulsory under the provisions of the Education Acts operative from time to time."—(Dr. Cameron.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I have been in some doubt as to what blot in the Bill this Amendment is intended to strike. I had thought, and so had some of my friends, that it was intended to raise the question of what are called graded schools, but the hon. Gentleman has discussed the general question whether or not we shall give what is called free education in all the compulsory standards. The question of what we shall do is at present under the consideration of the Government, and it is impossible to determine at once what shall be done in regard to it.
DR. CAMERON: I only ask that whatever may be the amount of the grant, care will be taken that it will Le made effective for the purpose of securing free education.
MR. J. P.B. ROBERTSON: According to the Amendment, no portion of the balance is to be paid to any School Board, or to the managers of any State-aided school in respect of any school in which fees are charged for teaching any of the compulsory standards. The effect, therefore, of the Amendment is to secure that no school shall receive anything unless all the standards are free. But that is the very question which is at present under consideration, and it is impossible for the Committee at this stage to come to a determination in the absence of the Government calculations. I would take it for granted that under the existing circumstances the hon. Member for the College Division does not desire to raise that question, and I feel it my duty to oppose the Amendment on general grounds.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot help thinking that the Amend-

285
ment is open to the objection which has been raised by the Lord Advocate, and that that objection is reasonable. If the object of my hon. Friend is to see that before any school receives the grant all the standards taught are free, then his proposal does have the appearance at this stage of the proceeding of being an attempt to force the hands of the Government, ungraciously, and at the very moment when they are considering the best means of applying the money. I do not think that my hon. Friend quite understands the important difference between free education and the proposal of the Government—between education that is free and education with regard to which no fees are charged. That is the distinction drawn by the Government. As the Government are engaged in bridging the chasm which divides those two principles, I would ask my hon. Friend not to interfere with them at this dizzy moment.
DR. CAMERON: Then all I would ask is when the Minute of the Secretary for Scotland will be laid on the Table?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: After the passing of the Secretary for Scotland Act; but the House is already in full possession of the proposals of the Government on the subject.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us any idea how it is proposed to apply the money now at the disposal of the Government? Will it be done at this stage of the Bill or will it be deferred?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I do not think it can be done at this stage of the Bill. There are a number of Amendments on Clause 23, which raise various questions of importance, but I do not think they can be usefully discussed in the absence of information as to the intentions of the Government. I propose to proceed on the assumption that everything will be left open for Report.
DR. CAMERON: I have no wish to appear to slight the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell Bannerman), who has so ably watched the progress of this measure on the part of the Opposition. At the same time I must confess that I do not see the force of his present position. Supposing the Government give 12s. 10d., which is the
286
average rate, it would not secure free education. All I want is a statutory enactment that the money to be given should be given for the purpose of providing free education. If my right hon. Friend adheres to his advice I will not divide, but I think he is mistaken, because I think that the more we can din into the people of Scotland that on every point where there is a difference of opinion between us and the Government the Government always carry their point against the overwhelming majority of the Scotch Members, the better.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, Clause 20, page 11, line 14, after "Zetland," add—
"Provided that, if any question shall arise-as to the application of the expression 'larger burgh,' the same may be determined by the Secretary for Scotland."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21.
MR. J. C. BOLTON: I beg to move, in lines 23 and 24, of page 11, after "in," to leave out "each country and larger burgh in." The-object of this and a subsequent Amendment is to provide for an equitable adjustment of the local licenses account as between burghs and counties being inserted in the Bill itself instead of being delegated to the Boundary Commissioners or an arbitrator to be appointed by the Secretary of State or the Secretary for Scotland. If my proposal be accepted the whole of the duties allocated in Scotland will be paid into one fund and be divided amongst the counties and burghs in proportion to the value appearing on the valuation roll. If it be rejected a permanent arrangement will have to be made by the Boundary Commissioners, or the arbitrator failing an agreement being arrived at between the two authorities. The Bill provides that the arbitrator shall pay due regard to the value appearing on the valuation roll of the counties and burghs. I think I am right in stating that this may be taken as a direction to him respecting the course he must follow in the event of the burghs not coming to an arrangement voluntarily. I am satisfied that the voluntary arrangement will not be

287
arrived at. I should like to refer for a moment to a Return made to this House in the month of May last, showing the amount of business done by each county and larger burgh in Scotland under the grants from Parliament, and the amount they will receive from the License Duties. Taking my own county of Stirling, I find that the whole amount received by that county was £8,368 from the old grants, and that its share of the new License Duties will be £9,748, an increase of over £1,300. When I come to the distribution of this sum, I find that whilst the county obtained £7,001, it will only receive £6,084, a loss of £917; whereas, Stirling burgh which received £1,002 from the grant will receive £2,066. I find that if the money be divided according to the value appearing on the valuation roll, the county will receive £7,809 instead of £7,001, a gain of 12½ per cent, and Stirling burgh will receive £1,153 in place of £1,002, an increase of 14 per cent. I find that the County of Ayr, as a whole, received £16,550 from the grant, and that from the licenses it will receive £17,718. The county received £13,363, and it will receive £11,770, a deficiency of £1,600; the town of Ayr which received £1,681 will receive £2,905, and Kilmarnock which received £1,370 will receive £2,069. The same irregularity runs through all the counties. I am not quite sure upon what principle the Returns are made. The temporary adjustment provided by the Bill states that for the purposes of the distribution of the duties on local taxation licenses, the amount of such duties paid by the council of each county on the Town Council of each larger burgh shall be the amount of the duties certified to have been collected therein. Now, I cannot understand on what principle this Return is made up. Certainly it cannot be made up on the principle laid down in the Bill. If my information is accurate the great bulk of the licenses paid by the county are actually collected in one or other of the larger burghs. If that be so, I am quite confident that the amount stated to have been collected in the County of Stirling is much overstated. It must be evident, therefore, to the House that if this Bill passes as it is drafted, and the licenses be distributed according to this return,
288
a great injustice will be done to the counties themselves. It may not be generally known to English Members that we have in Scotland a system of valuation which we find to be an admirable one. It is uniform throughout Scotland. It shows the actual value of all the subjects valued, if they are let. If they are not let, means are taken to ascertain what would be paid for the subject as a going concern, and that amount is entered in the valuation roll. Consequently we may expect that if the proposal I have ventured to make is accepted by the Government, the amount collected throughout the Kingdom will be fairly distributed. There is another, and to my mind a good reason why this proposal should be adopted. Hon. Members from Scotland are all aware that there is great uneasiness amongst those who support the temperance movement, as to the inclusion in the funds to be disbursed by the counties the amount of the licenses for the sale of alcoholic liquors. I confess I share that uneasiness. I cannot conceal from myself that the fact that the more licenses sold in a county, the less will be the call upon the rates, may influence some of those bodies which are now entrusted with the duty of granting licenses. I also think that if these licenses, or the amounts collected from them are paid into one general fund, the incentive or stimulus to grant more licenses than are actually necessary will be altogether wanting. For these reasons I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, Clause 21, page 11, lines 23 and 24, after "in" leave out "each county and larger burgh in."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I can well suppose that the hon. Gentleman is well founded in his statement that a minute examination of the Returns may disclose anomalies, and require rectification. At present the Returns which are before Parliament are founded upon the Returns of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for their own purposes. They are made up necessarily without a very complete ascertainment 'of the source from which the money

289
actually comes, because it is really for the purposes of the revenue not of primary importance to know whether a licence taken out in a town is or is not taken out by a dweller in the country. At the same time I am informed that the Commissioners, for their own purposes, have a certain amount of information as to the source from which the money comes to pay for the licence as well as the mere fact of where the licence is taken out. I quite admit, how ever, that the Returns are not framed with regard, in the first instance, to the question on which he is very properly so much interested. But we propose to take primâ facie these Returns of the Inland Revenue Commissioners. Questions may of course arise upon them, and we propose in the first place, that any two communities which are concerned in the question may by agreement adjust the account and settle any difference between them. We propose, secondly, that, failing an agreement between the parties, the Boundary Commission shall be the tribunal for settling any differences. This is one of the questions which the Boundary Commission will be a very appropriate authority to settle. The Committee, on referring to the provisions of the Bill, will see that we have had steadily in view all through the various stages of the history of this system, the raising and recurrence of the question which the hon. Member suggests. I put it to the Committee whether the mere ascertainment of how much valuation there is in a county and how much in a burgh forms a proper criterion for settling the question how many of the licences which are as a matter of fact taken out in a burgh, are likely to belong to the rural parts of the county. I should have thought that the geographical situation of the town was something to be considered. We say in the Bill that due regard shall be had to the annual values which appear on the valuation roll. The effect of the Amendment would be that no regard should be had to anything else. That seems to me to be completely unreasonable. The hon. Gentleman's plan would in some cases work adversely to the interests of the community which really paid the licences, and I think our plan is much the best adapted for obtaining justice in the very varying circumstances that are likely to arise.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate say whether, in the Return, there has been a rigid description of the geographical domicile, as it were, of the licenses that are taken out. As I understand it in certain instances, such as in the case of the town of Stirling, which is a most happily situated town, because it sucks the blood of several counties all round it, in making up the Return I believe an honest attempt was made to ear-mark each particular license so as to show the locality with which it is connected, and they are not all credited to the town of Stirling. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether that was the principle acted upon in making up this Return?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I would rather speak of the practice than the principle, because the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have only incidentally to deal with the question of whence comes the license; but there are materials at the disposal of the Inland Revenue by which, in some cases, they can ear-mark the licenses in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: My only objection to the plan of the Government is that it seems to be a great deal too flexible. Regard is to be had to valuation, to the real locality of the licenses, and other things according to the opinion of the Commissioners. The rule proposed by my hon. Friend would be intelligible; but I must say I think that some stringent rule should be adopted.
MR. J. WILSON: I am sure I speak the sentiments of the Scotch Members when I say the temperance party in Scotland are feeling very much aggrieved by the idea, that they are to have any hand whatever in dealing with the question of public-house licenses. I hope the Lord Advocate will see his way to keep the licenses in the hands of the Imperial Government. I am sure, if he could see his way to give the Scotch people an equivalent—
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is travelling away from the Amendment before the Committee.
MR. J. WILSON: I was just desirous, Sir, of pointing out that, if the Lord Advocate could see his way to give us the Inhabited House Duty instead of

291
THE License Duty, it would be agreeable to the Scotch people.
MR. HUNTER: This Amendment raises a very important question, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will, before the Report stage, seriously consider what arrangement they are able to make upon the subject. The scheme provided by the Bill is one by which the licenses will be collected by the Imperial authority and handed over to a certain fund for distribution by the County Council; and I trust the Government will endeavour to ascertain whether the entire plan will not be needlessly complex and embarrassing. Would it not be much better to pay over the whole amount derived from these licenses to the Scotch Department, and allow it to hand to the various county and burgh authorities the requisite sums governed by the principles that have here to fore prevailed? The result of splitting up the fund and paying the County Councils in the way proposed will be the raising of exceedingly difficult questions as between counties and burghs. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Bolton) has pointed outcome of the difficulties that may be anticipated, and the Lord Advocate is well aware that the principle on which this clause proceeds must give rise to questions of extreme complexity—questiona as to which it is impossible to arrive at anything but a rough and approximate conclusion. Another result I desire to point out is that not only will difficulties arise as between county and burgh, but also as between the northern counties, which have but sparse populations, and counties in which the populations are more dense; and the result will be to create a doubt in the highland counties as to the £8,000 which the Government propose to take from the Probate Duties. It would simplify the collection with respect to the Probate Duty and the School Board rules, and the general finances of the counties if the status quo were reserved, at least for a time. If the Government would only hand over the whole of the License Duties to the Scotch Department that would greatly simplify the question; and if the School Boards were allowed to charge fees in graded schools that would put the finances of the School Boards on a satisfactory footing, and would give a balance instead of a deficiency. It
292
may be said that the English Act has introduced the principle of taking the county as the unit; but it should be remembered that one of the counties of England is the County of London, which is practically as populous as the whole of Scotland. This being so, I ask why should you not treat Scotland as you treat London? No doubt you will find immense objections raised to giving the licenses to the County Councils; but, on the other hand, if the licenses are dealt with as a separate fund the temperance party will have no objection. Taking all these things into account, I think the Government would be well advised if they were to take the matter into serious consideration, with a view to some modification of their present proposal.
MR. ESSLEMONT: For my own part, I am disposed to accept with all possible gratitude the concessions made by the Government; first, in the matter of simplicity, and then in deference to the claims of justice. I think the Amendment would effect a great improvement in point of simplicity, while nothing would be sacrificed on the score of justice. The question as to which the largest amount of difficulty exists is, undoubtedly, that of the licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors. There is no doubt that the local interest in these licenses would form a temptation on account of the revenue they yield; but I think that this proposal would remove that temptation and prove satisfactory to all parties concerned. I hope, therefore, the Government will consider this proposal in a serious manner, because if there is no disadvantage, while it evidently tends to promote simplicity and justice without raising difficult questions as between counties and burghs or one county and another, much good may be gained by the adoption of such a course.
MR. M'LAGAN: There seems to be no doubt that some rough justice may be secured under the plan proposed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Bolton); but at the same time, it may also involve a considerable amount of error and some degree of injustice. For my own part, I shall support it, because it will enlarge the area over which the money for licenses in Scotland will be obtainable; and I hold that it would be

293
a good plan to put all the License Duties into the hands of the Scotch Department for distribution among the County Authorities, The Scotch farmers would, I think, prefer that the Excise Duties for the sale of intoxicating liquors should be taken out of the schedule altogether, and that something else should be substituted; and in this view I have placed an Amendment of my own upon the Paper. With regard to the Amendment now under consideration I give it my support, on account of its simplicity and justice.
MR. D. CRAWFORD: It appears that the Lord Advocate attaches weight to the principle that the money derived from a particular area or place should go back to the source whence it comes. That might be a fair and advantageous plan under certain circumstances; but the reason why I think it would not be advantageous under such a Bill as this is that you do not give to the different localities any power or interest in the management and economy of these licenses. If you did that I should be entirely with the Lord Advocate. If you were able to hand over a source of public revenue to the counties, and say, "You may reduce or increase these licenses as you please," there would be a stimulus to providence and economy; but there is no such stimulus when the amount is fixed by the Imperial Parliament, and consequently the return of the money to the derivative source is an object of no moment whatever. When we are discussing how these arrangements are to be made, Her Majesty's Government ought to consider what, in previous portions of the Bill, they have, I think, so little recognized, and that is, what we want to arrive at is au arrangement that will be acceptable to the people of Scotland. I say that if the money is put into a common fund, and is divided as my hon. Friend has proposed, not a voice in Scotland would be raised against such a system. It would be found perfectly satisfactory; whereas a settlement as between county and burgh would in many cases be most difficult, while it is hard to say that on such a plan justice would in the end be arrived at. No doubt this is to be done by the Boundary Commissioners, who, I hope, will be put out of the Bill; but, in the
294
meantime, with all their labours, we shall get no security for arriving at a satisfactory result such as may be effected if this Amendment be accepted.
COLONEL MALCOLM: Sir, the clause would be perfectly certain to lead to conflicts between the boroughs and counties, as regards the distribution of licences—I do not mean simply licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors; there are a great many other licences which are to be handed over to the County Council. The mere fact that the distributor of stamps lived in the burgh where these licences are mainly taken out might lead to dispute. There will be considerable difficulty in tracing the exact spot where these licences originated—whether they properly belonged to the county or to the burgh. I am afraid that the clause as it stands would lead to considerable friction between the counties and the burghs.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: No doubt a number of questions may be raised; but, as I have already pointed out, we have anticipated their occurrence and provided for their settlement in a way which would avoid any undue friction. The alternative proposal to that of the Government has undoubtedly the merit of simplicity. And why have we not chosen the easy and the lazy path of massing the whole and distributing one-fourth? The plan of the Government has the merit of assigning to each locality what has been taken out of it There might be incidental questions as to one particular licence or different licences, but we have provided the means of settling those questions. In the earlier stages of the Bill we considered all those objections, and the Government thought the balance was in favour of the plan embodied here. But as our financial proposals are under consideration, we will give attention to this proposal. Frankly speaking, however, I do not think the evidence preponderates in favour of the Amendment.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman has a somewhat open mind on the question, because I think there is a great feeling in Scotland against the proposal that the localities should receive the results of their own public house licenses, and thus have a direct interest in the increase of the

295
revenue derived from that source. That is really the root of the matter, as the Bill at present stands. If the Government could find their way to a reconsideration of this matter, and to avoiding the difficulty, I am sure that it would give very great satisfaction throughout Scotland.
MR. HUNTER: I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman, in reference to the principle of not giving the revenue to the place where it arises, that the £10,000 out of Probate Duty should go to the Highland towns.
MR. J. C.BOLTON: I desire to thank the Lord Advocate for the course he has intimated he will pursue. But I should like to point out that the very reasons which he gives—namely, having provided for the settlement of disputes, to me are strong reasons in favour of my Amendment. It is exactly because I anticipate a recurrence of difficulties that I do not wish this clause to stand. I think the Lord Advocate has exactly hit the mark in the last paragraph of the sub-section, wherein he says—"making such final adjustment with due regard to the annual value." What is the meaning of "due regard?" Is it not to be a guide to those gentlemen in arriving at their awards? I am not wedded to my own proposal if a better one can be suggested; but I urge upon the Lord Advocate that whatever plan be taken, let that plan form a portion of the Bill, and do not let us have to apply to an arbitrator for the settlement of difficulties. These arbitrations are very expensive and extravagant things, and I do not think they suit the Local Authorities or the taxpayers. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following Amendments were agreed to:—
Page 11, line 25, leave out "First." —(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson).
Page 12, lines 5 and 6, leave out "the Acts of 1889," and insert "this Act."— (Mr. J. P. D. Robertson.)
Page 12, line 27, after "punishments," insert "forfeitures."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 22, page 13, line 29, after "duties," add—
296
"In the construction of sub-section 5 of section 5 of 'The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1889,' the reference therein to section 5 of 'The Probate Duties (Scotland and Ireland) Act, 1888,' shall be read as if it were a reference to this section."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23.
Amendment proposed, page 13, line 34, leave out all the words after the word "applied," to the word "towards," page 14, line 22.—(Mr. Hunter.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left cut stand part of the Question."
DR. CAMERON: Before that Question is put, Sir, I suggest that this clause be postponed, and that, in the meantime, the Government should reconsider their financial proposals. They are bound to give us some indication of their proposals, and if the clause were postponed, we would have time to consider thorn, and would not be required to give them a bank cheque in regard to their plans. We are now totally in the dark as to their financial proposals, with the exception of the £10,000 to the Highlands. It appears to me very much to be desired that we should know something about them before this Bill leaves Committee. It is not satisfactory to yield these matters in Committee, and take them on Report— I which will come on at a late period of the Session, when our proceedings are marked by lassitude, and when many hon. Members are absent. I withdrew my Amendment on the temporary clause in deference to the right hon. Gentleman; but I am perfectly certain that a straightforward Division upon it would have afforded the Government an indication of our opinion, when they came to reconsider their financial proposals. I can see no necessity for pushing on this particular clause at this particular moment. We have two Bills before the Committee, this and the Supplementary Provisions Bill. The Committee has power to consolidate those Bills, and doubtless will do so if the Government withdraw this clause, and bring forward their proposals in the form of a new clause, and insert it in the Consolidated Bill. We would then have ample

297
means of knowing what they are going to do before this Bill passed from Committee. I cannot see the use of putting in the clause as it stands. It does not, we are told, embody the ultimate view of the Government, and the clause will require to be remodelled. Let us have an opportunity of considering the proposals of the Government in a tangible form. If we were to introduce Amendments on Report, the public would not understand their meaning, as they would in Committee, when they would be able to gather their continuous meaning. I move that the clause be postponed.
Question proposed, "That the Clause be postponed."
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not altogether surprised at my hon. Friend taking this course, because, at all events, it offers us an opportunity of asking the Government when they will be able to give us the information he desires. It was at one time suggested that the details of the new scheme should be explained on the Report stage; but I agree with my hon. Friend that if we are not to have them till then, and if we are not to know how the money is to be applied, we shall be placed in considerable difficulty. The Government will also be placed at a disadvantage, because they will not have a fair chance of knowing what the opinion of Scotchmen is. I would appeal to the Government whether or not, before the Bill leaves Committee, they cannot give us information on this subject? If they cannot give details they might make a general statement of the outline of their proposals in order to enable us to judge of their nature. I think it would be better to reserve the discussion on this clause until we know what is intended.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY, (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I think the House is entitled to have, at the earliest possible moment, an outline of the new proposals of the Government, and I will undertake it shall be given before the Committee stage is closed. But I think it would be inconvenient to postpone the consideration of the clause; and I hope the Committee will accept my assurance that, if before the Debate is closed, we are unable to give the minute details of the scheme, the general scope of the new
298
proposals shall be indicated to the Committee.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: If we pass this clause now, and the information is communicated to us afterwards, are we to have an opportunity of discussing it in Committee? If not we shall be placed at a great disadvantage. In regard to the transfer of certain licence and other duties, I have drawn out a few figures which show the position of Scotland. I find that in England the total of Parliamentary grants hitherto received has been £2,615,412. The licences transferred amount to £2,986,134, so that England gains £370,722, or about 13 per cent. In Scotland, however, the Parliamentary grants amounted to £329,709, and the total of the licences transferred to £323,341, or a loss of £6,368, about 2 or 3 per cent.
MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government will consent to postpone this clause.
Question, "That this Clause be postponed," put, and agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25.
Amendment proposed, page 15, line 39, to leave out after "authority," to "Act," inclusive in line 42, and insert—
"A sum equal to one-tenth of the cost of the materials and labour employed in the maintenance of roads (excepting, in the case of a burgh, streets or roads which were not turnpike roads or roads maintained by statute labour or by rates levied under a County Road Act) by such authority during the preceding year."—(The Lord Advocate.)
MR. CALDWELL: The effect of this Amendment is to leave the county ratepayers paying six times as much as the burgh ratepayers. I recognize that in this matter the Government have taken away one-half of the grievance; and as I do not wish to put any obstacle in the way of the progress of the Bill I will content myself with a mere protest.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
THE following Amendments were agreed to: —
Page 16, line 1, after "Act," insert "and of Section 76 of 'The Police Act, 1857.' "—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
Page 16, line 23,leave out "assessor," and insert "county clerk and town elerk."—(Mr. Hosier.)
Page 16, line 27, leave out "assessor," and insert "clerk."—(Mr.Hozier.)
Question proposed, "That Clause 25, as amended, stand part of the Bill."— (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
MR. CALDWELL: I wish to point out that while according to the Bill the sum payable to the Local Authority was to be a fixed sum, now it is a variable sum. I quite admit the Lord Advocate's contention on this point; but there is the danger that the expenditure on the roads will go on increasing, and the amounts payable to the Local Authorities will rise in a corresponding degree. I fear the Government are not carrying out the arrangement made last night that the sum paid should be £35,000.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This is a matter which will have to be adjusted when the new scheme is decided upon.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, added to the Bill.
Clause 26.
Amendments made.
Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I beg at this stage to enter my protest against the police being under the Secretary for Scotland. I think the County Councils in the counties and the Town Councils in the boroughs are the best authorities for dealing with them. I suppose the excuse for this arrangement is that the police, under this Bill, are paid entirely out of the proceeds of the Probate Duty. I think it, however, my duty to enter a protest against the continuance of a system which aims at centralization and no other object.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clauses 26 and 27 added to the Bill.
Clause 28.
Amendments made.
MR. HOZIER: I beg to propose the substitution of the words "Commissioners of Supply" for "Justices of any county." I may mention that the only
300
property possessed by Justices of any Scottish county, in their corporate capacity, is an official copy of the Acts of Parliament.
Question proposed, Clause 28, page 18, line 30, leave out, "Justices of any county," and insert "Commissioners of Supply."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I cannot accept the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28, as amended, added to the Bill.
Clause 29.
Amendments made.
Question proposed, "That Clause 29, as amended, be added to the Bill."
MR. CALDWELL: May I point out that as the clause stands it may happen that while one account at the bank is overdrawn and a heavy charge being made for interest on the overdraft, another account would have a large balance. Could not an arrangement be made to prevent a county in such cases being saddled with a charge for interest?
MR. J. P. B.ROBERTSON: I will consider that point before the Report stage.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause added.
Clause 30.
Amendment proposed, Clause 30, page 19, line 41, after "control," insert "or for which it is responsible in whole or in part."
Question put, and agreed to.
DR. CAMERON: I have to move a further Amendment to this. At present the clause reads "the rate shall be uniform on all rents within the county." I shall move the addition after "shall" of the words "subject to the provisions of this Act." What I wish to call attention to is the effect which this clause will have on the underground works of water companies and gas companies. The people of Glasgow are greatly interested in this subject. If the Bill passes as at present framed, the result will be to introduce a new mode of rating for these gas and waterworks under ground. I believe now they are only rated at a fourth of their

301
value for every other purpose. Under this clause they will be rated at their full value. The learned Lord Advocate knows perfectly well that this is a subject upon which a great deal of feeling exists in Scotland. Last year a Committee was appointed to consider this subject, and I believe they took a great deal of evidence, protracting their labours so far into the Session that there was not time enough left for a Report. The Committee has been appointed again, I understand, but no action has been taken in the way of having the Members called together, so I do not see how it is possible to have a Report on the subject considered this year. However this may be, gas and water companies will with cause consider themselves very harshly treated if they have the case decided against them as in the Bill, and find themselves placed on a less favourable footing than they have had hitherto in connection with other rates. For the purpose of giving the Lord Advocate the opportunity of making some explanation as to the Government intention on this matter of rating gas and waterworks, which, as he knows are, in Scotland, chiefly in the hands of municipalities and towns, I move the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, liner 41, to insert after "shall" the words "subject to the provisions of this Act."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am not quite sure whether the raising of the point involved is not inconsistent with the decision we arrived at two or three nights ago, on the invitation of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, who made a proposal affecting certain words in regard to rating, and that Amendment was not adopted by the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: It was withdrawn.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The statement I was about to make will, I think, meet the case. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman is this, that in regard to the Public Health Act we should introduce a change in the incidence of rating. As the hon. Gentleman says, the underground property of these undertakings is at present rated for Public Health purposes at a quarter of its value on the valuation roll, and the effect of the Bill would be to do away
302
with that abatement, and this property would accordingly be rated at its full value. Representations have been made to us on this question. I am bound to say—and here I may be considered, I am afraid, a backslider from the principle I have laid down on other occasions, not to introduce charges not strictly for the purposes of this measure—I thought this clause did afford a desirable opportunity for the simplification of the collection of the rates, and on that ground our proposal was made. It is difficult to justify the difference in the system of rating in one part of the country to another. But the substantial objection is that the theory of this Bill is that we are not going to alter the incidence of rating except so far as that it is indispensable for the machinery we are establishing by the Bill. Now I cannot say that this change is indispensable, and it would create or continue an anomaly. At the same time it is quite fair to those interested to say that we did not give notice in the Bill that we were going to revise the incidence of rating. Therefore, I think, it would be better to leave the Public Health Act rates to fall as they have fallen previously to this change. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Committee made a copious examination into the incidence of rating, and the evidence suggested to our minds that there might be reforms perfectly easy of adjustment. But I think we ought to do the whole thing at once, to undertake it as a substantial question, not in incidental pieces.
MR. J.B. BALFOUR: I am glad to hear this statement from the Lord Advocate, for, on more careful consideration of this clause and the subsequent clause, it certainly does appear to me that a good deal of practical difficulty would arise. I rather gather from the earlier part of Clause 30, that it was not the intention of the Government to affect the incidence of the consolidated rate, because there are some words that provide that the separate rates which go to make up the rate shall be dealt with under the particular Acts which authorize their being levied. But line 20 does not agree with that, and I am afraid it would be held to have completely altered the incidence of taxation. Now, that

303
would certainly be a large subject to introduce into the Bill, and I am glad the Government do not propose to do this. I do not know that any of us are prepared with Amendments to prevent that being done, but perhaps the Lord Advocate will consider the matter between this and Report, and will suggest some saving clause, to be introduced into the Supplementary Bill, with reference to a number of Acts that apply to different purposes. I have a list of Acts here that deal with the incidence of rating, which is to be left untouched by the Bill. This, I think, will be a simple and satisfactory course. As the result of the evidence taken by the Committee on Bating and Valuation in Scotland, I hope we may before long consider this matter in a separate measure.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think the clause as it stands would give rise to questions we desire to avoid. It would be better to put an explicit declaration into the clause that the incidence of rating under the Public Health Act should not be altered. That will be the simplest course, and if hon. Members will confer with me, we will on Report insert an Amendment, making the intention clear that the rates shall fall exactly as before except where they are expressly altered.
MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I shall be glad to communicate with my right hon. Friend, and give him the list of the other Acts to which I refer.
SIR ARCHIBALD ORR EWING: What the right hon. Gentleman has said refers also to the "Roads and Bridges Act."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes.
MR. CALDWELL: In the Police burghs under 7,000 inhabitants the police rate is assessed on the property of gas and water companies at a fourth of the value, but according to the words of the Bill it would be assessed on the full value.
MR. FIRTH: I would ask whether it is intended that the alteration shall extend to the provisions of the 5th sub-section?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The deductions are under the 37th section of the Poor Law Act. The only rate we touch or transfer from the Parochial Board is the Public Health Act, therefore these abatements apply only to the
304
poor rate, but what I have said applies, and that we must leave them as they stand.
DR. CAMERON: I think the statement of the Lord Advocate is most satisfactory. I am sure it will give great satisfaction in Glasgow,where this is a matter of considerable importance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Other Amendments made.
MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: The Amendment I have to propose is a small step in a direction, in which, I think, the Government might have gone further than they have. I shall move it, but shall judge by the reception it meets with whether I ought to persist in the Amendment. I propose that the consolidated rates shall be collected with the poor rates, and that Section 44 of the Education Act shall, with the necessary alterations, apply to the collection of the consolidated rates. It is important to the ratepayers that they should know from the one sheet presented to them what it is they have to pay, and it is also important that the staff of collecting officials should be reduced to a minimum. It is true the areas of the consolidated rates are not identical, as is nearly the case in the school rates and parochial rates, though the school districts are not unfrequently in different parishes, but I think the plan I propose will be attended with considerable convenience and economy. Without enlarging upon it I beg to move.
Amendment proposed, page 20, line 23, insert—
"(4.) The consolidated rates shall be collected along with the poor rates, and section forty-four of 'The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872,' providing for the collection of school rates by parochial boards, shall apply, with the necessary alterations, to the collection of the consolidated rates."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This Amendment certainly raises a subject of considerable interest, and I am aware that there has been much discussion in Scotland as to the best means of arriving at that desirable result—the collection of rates, as far as possible, by the same officers. I have seen many suggestions in this direction. The most ambitious reformers would desire to see all rates collected by one officer, and as far as possible the demand for payment made upon one street, and there is no question

305
this would have the advantage of simplicity. Something of the kind has, I believe, in America, been reduced to a working system. No doubt if such a system could be applied it would save the ratepayers from all uncertainty as to the total amount of their liability for rates and from the constant worry of several officials calling at different times for different rates, all of the same class. I am altogether at one with the hon. Member in his aspiration towards simplicity. But we find ourselves faced by practical difficulties. We shall have to obtain more or less the assent and co-operation of different Boards and different officials with real or supposed privileges, we should have so many different opinions to reconcile, so many and diverse interests to harmonize that we judged it more prudent to abstain from conjuring up a host of enemies and difficulties. But to return to this particular Amendment, I do not think this specific reform is a good one. My attention has been called to the comprehensive statistics of collection, which show the amount of arrears left under a system of parochial collection and of county collection in different localities, and these seem to point to the advantage of the collections being made upon a wider area than the parochial. One would suppose that the balance of convenience would be with the smaller area, but I suspect that the fact of the arrears being incomparably larger in the smaller area is due to the fact that the collector in the smaller area is the personal acquaintance of his debtors, and shows an amount of difference to their reluctance to make prompt payment that does not contribute to the efficient financial administration of the locality.
MR. CHILDEES: I was on a Committee some years ago which inquired into this subject; but, unfortunately, except in the Metropolis, Parliament has not done much towards the consolidation of the collection of rates. The information I gathered leads me to make the suggestion that the collectors who represent the larger areas, not the smaller areas, should undertake the whole collection, and that power should be taken by the Secretary for Scotland, or some Department of Government, to prepare, after consultation with the different officials, a
306
schedule of regulations for the collection of all rates. This is too complicated a piece of work for Parliament to undertake in a Bill, but it is not too intricate for the Government to arrange in accordance with some general rules, which might be expressed in the Bill. I would suggest the Government might draft some such clause, to provide for the collection of all rates, and I should say taxes also, through one channel, under regulations to be framed by Government. It is difficult to express in the Act the minute regulations necessary for the purpose; but it would not be difficult for the Government, after consultation with the officers, to prepare a scheme.
MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: Before asking leave to withdraw my Amendment, I should like to make two observations. With regard to the interesting remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I may say that naturally in approaching this subject I was anxious to make the collection of the rates apply to the larger rather than the smaller area, but in consequence of the way in which the Bill is framed, unfortunately as I think, and as I said on the Second Reading, I believe I should not have been in order in proposing that the parochial and educational rates should be collected by the County Authorities, or I would have taken that course. As to what the Lord Advocate has said as to the larger amount of arrears in the smaller areas, I attribute the difference to the fact that in the counties the rates are levied upon the owners exclusively, whereas the parochial rates are levied upon owners and occupiers, some of the latter being very poor men.
MR. CALDWELL: Something also is due to the mode of collection. It is also to be considered that for the poorer classes it might be very inconvenient to have the rates collected all at the same time. It is the rule to combine the rates in London, but then the collections are made half-yearly, or even quarterly. If you combine the rates in one total, you should have the collections at half-yearly intervals at least.
MR. BUCHANAN: With the suggestion of my right hon. Colleague, perhaps the Lord Advocate will also take into consideration another part of the subject which I have before brought

307
under his notice. There is not only the inconvenience of the rates being collected by the authorities at different times, but there is also this grievance, that the collection is made at the most inconvenient time of the year for the exigencies of the poorer classes. Their work is often not continuous, and they are much better able to pay in the summer than in the winter.
MR. CHILDERS: I quite concur in the remarks of my hon. Colleague. The point is not so much collection of the whole rates at one time, as that one notice should contain all the demands. The actual collection could take place at such times as may be most convenient. I hope the Lord Advocate will take my suggestion into consideration.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Certainly; I am very much obliged for the useful suggestion the right hon. Gentleman has made. But I do not know whether it is possible to confer such a general power without going somewhat into detail to enable the Secretary of State to oust the various interests now existing. However, I will consider whether such a provision can be introduced into the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, page 20, line 23, after "any," insert "ordinary normal."—(Mr. Frawer Mackintosh.)
MR. J. P. B. ROBEETSON: I have given this Amendment the consideration it undoubtedly deserves, but I am bound to say it is not one I am prepared to adopt. The scheme we propose is that a purely ministerial duty shall be performed by the Sheriff, that he shall ascertain, as a matter of fact, what has been the amount of each of the several rates during a period of five years, that he shall not do more than find out the facts. Now, this Amendment proposes that the Sheriff shall consider not only the facts but the circumstances that gave rise to the amount being assessed. The hon. Member desires to arrive at the normal rate, and that is a very legitimate object to have in view. "We desire to stereotype what has been the normal expenditure, but when we come to put into a clause of the kind such words as these, we impose on the Sheriff an amount of examination and
308
consideration that must surely lead to endless questions upon the circumstances that would be laid before him, questions that I think it would be undesirable to raise unless we provide some process by which they may be determined. Reluctantly I must refuse assent to the Amendment, but I think that the five years average will be the best means by which the normal expenditure can be ascertained. If it can be shown, however, that ten years or any other number of years will more correctly represent the truth of the matter, I am willing to adopt an Amendment in that direction. My objection to this Amendment is that it introduces an element of doubt and discretion, which should not be left to the determination of the official in question, while an appeal would make the provision useless.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. M'LAGAN: The object of the Amendment of which I have given notice is to render more simple and uniform the incidence of rating in counties and towns. Whatever the division of the rates in the first instance, it is immaterial. The rates must ultimately fall upon the landlords. The objections I have to this is that it will stereotype the rates, and I would suggest that you should assess both landlord and tenant, and allow the tenant to demand back from the landlord every year during the currency of the lease what he pays. There is no saving for the tenants in the present proposal. One reason I have for favouring this Amendment is that it will enable us to dispense more readily with the Commissioners of Supply. If the Committee wish to come to a decision upon it, I am prepared to move it, otherwise I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee, but I consider it of great importance that the incidence of the rating should be as uniform and simple as possible. I will move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment proposed, Clause 30, page 20, after line 25, leave out to end of Clause, and insert—
"The occupiers shall have a right of relief during the currency of their leases against the owners for the proportion of the rate paid by them each year."—(Mr. M'Lagan)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If that had been done, which I wish had been done in the Bill—that is to say, if the Commissioners of Supply had been put an end to, and the County Councils had been entirely in charge of the whole affairs of the county, I should have supported willingly the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I am quite aware that an attempt has been made in certain quarters to treat this as a matter in which a little party damage might be done to one side rather than to the other. I do not think much would be made in reality of any such attempt. I do not think the Scotch tenants are so confused in their minds as not to see that in reality they would not be injured one bit by the proposal of my hon. Friend. But while I would have supported it willingly if we had abolished the Commissioners of Supply, I can see no reason for disturbing the proposal of the Bill if the Commissioners of Supply are retained.
DR. CLARK: Generally speaking, if any privilege is given to the farming class, the existing leases are always exempted from the privilege; but when any burden is to be placed on them, the landlords do not generally exempt existing leases. I think that, until existing leases expire, the tenants should be exempt from the rates and the burden should remain on the landlords. My hon. Friend knows very well that, when the School Board rate was imposed by a Liberal Government, they did not carry out this principle of exempting existing leases, and that the new burden was imposed upon leaseholders. In the Highlands a Liberal Government ex empted leaseholders from all the benefits they were giving to everybody else, and the result has been much agitation and violence. I think that the present Opposition Leaders, when they were on the Treasury Bench, were generally wrong on this subject, and that they are again wrong. I trust my hon. Friend will insist on a Division on this point, upon the principle that men who have entered into bargains should be exempted from new burdens.
MR. DUFF: I do not think my hon. Friend who has just sat down precisely understands the nature of the Amendment. My hon. Friend (Mr. M'Lagan) wishes merely to simplify the Bill and to get rid of the Commis-
310
sioners of Supply. I must take notice of one remark that fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland the other evening. The right hon. Gentleman said he was not prepared for the violent proposal I advocated—namely, the division of the rates. I would like to ask to whom it does violence. It is perfectly obvious that it will do no injustice to tenants under existing leases, and I do not see how it can do injustice to tenants who enter into leases in the future. The whole amount of this rate amounts to £158,000, but in that is included the amount attributable to the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, which is leviable on both landlords and tenants. If you deduct that amount the sum payable by landlord and tenant is £151,000. The whole rateable value for agricultural purposes is £13,000,000. The £75,000 put upon tenants as an additional rate would, I think, very much simplify this Bill, and would really relieve the Government from the very embarrassing position in which you will place county government by this dual control of Commissioners of Supply and County Council. I must repudiate any charge that in doing this we are imposing any injustice on the tenants of Scotland.
MR. M'LAGAN: My reason for putting down this Amendment was to enable us to dispense with the Commissioners of Supply. The hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) spoke of the burdens on the tenants; but he forgot to say that if the landlords, who used to pay all the school rates, were relieved of those rates, they were also deprived of the power of managing the schools, and that power was given to that ratepayers. The tenants formerly paid the road rates, which were afterwards laid on the landlords. It must not be supposed, therefore, that Parliament makes any distinction in this matter between landlords and tenants. We try to do justice to both. After what has passed, I think it scarcely necessary to divide the Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, Clause 30, page 20, line 28, leave out "of the county," and insert "excluding his substitutes."— (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
DR. CLARK: I think the meaning of this Amendment is to prevent the Sheriff Substitute acting. I think it

311
would be very much better to leave the matter in the hands of the Sheriff or his substitute. I know that in some of the Northern counties there is every confidence in the Sheriff Substitutes, but very little confidence in some of the Sheriffs. The appeals from the Sheriff Substitutes are not generally overturned at the Quarter Sessions, whilst the decisions of the County Sheriffs are very frequently upset, and the Judges frequently express their contempt for those gentlemen. I think it would be far better to have the clause as it was. I shall oppose the Amendment.
MR. CALDWELL: I do not see any necessity whatever for excluding the Sheriff Substitutes. It is quite usual that in cases where the Sheriff is authorized to act his substitute may act, and it is well-known that in Scotland the substitute is the more important judicial functionary. There are great complaints in Scotland about the Sheriffs, who probably hold office for the sake of drawing a salary. The Sheriff Substitute is the local man who does the whole practice in the county, and who is resident in the county. The whole judicial administration is under his charge, and he does the whole of the work with the exception of an occasional appeal to the Sheriff. We all know perfectly well in Scotland that the object of keeping up the position of Sheriff is to give salaries to a certain number of Advocates in Edinburgh. I think it is casting in aspersion on the Sheriff Substitutes to preclude them from exercising this jurisdiction, which they are equally well able to carry out as the Sheriffs.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: On the ground of English grammar will not the clause read better as it is? In the definition clause the word "Sheriff" is said to include Sheriff Substitutes. The one word may include or exclude the other word; but surely we cannot speak of the Sheriff himself as "excluding" his substitutes.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I shall be quite prepared to alter it to "but not his substitute."
MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I do not think it is a matter of very much importance. I can quite understand what has prompted the introduction of the Amendment, as this is not a judicial but a ministerial office, to be exercised
312
once and no more. I should imagine that in general the Sheriff would himself undertake this duty, but in case of illness or absence some latitude might be allowed.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This is a more or less responsible duty, and has to be done once for all. The Sheriff Substitute is resident on the spot, and as there might be some local differences it would be more suitable to have a nonresident Sheriff, a man of independent position, and one altogether free from local bias. It is not, however, a matter of very great importance. It is to be observed that the Sheriff will have it in his power to determine whether he or his substitute should do the work, and I think the Amendment may be left as it stands. It will probably be the case that the Sheriff will regard it as a matter of such importance that he will do the work himself.
Question, "That 'of the county' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
Question, "That 'excluding his substitutes' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
MR. CALDWELL: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Invernessshire (Mr. Eraser Mackintosh).
Amendment proposed, Clause 30, line 29, to leave out "five" and insert "ten."
Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Question."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: There may be anomalies arise which ought to be corrected by a longer experience than five years, and I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
Question put, and negatived.
Question, "That 'ten' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Another Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed, Clause 30, page 20, line 29, after "years," insert—
"Previous to the term of Whitsunday immediately preceding the passing of this Act."— (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
Agreed to.
MR. J. C. BOLTON: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name

313
of my hon. Friend the Member for In-vernessshire for the purpose of ascertaining from the Lord Advocate what really is the meaning of the clause.
Amendment proposed, Clause 30, page 20, line 31, after "rate," insert—
"Excluding therefrom loans for building asylums and other county buildings, also registration expenses."—(Mr. J. C. Bolton.)
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The criterion according to which a rate is to be stereotyped—that is to say, according to which it is or is not to fall solely upon owners, is whether, as a matter of law or fact, that particular rate is de facto leviable from owners as owners. The only question the hon. Member has to put to himself to ascertain whether a rate is to be stereotyped or not is, does it fall at present on the owners? If so, it is to be stereotyped; if not, it is not to be stereotyped. I would suggest to the hon. Member that he should withdraw the Amendment, as it is really covered by subsequent Amendments raising the more general question.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I have put an Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of inviting the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to a case which does not, I think, very frequently occur. In the county I represent (Clackmannan) there has been no lunacy assessment for some years, and there may be other cases of the same kind. I do not know whether it is thought that 10 years would be a sufficient time for averaging the assessment.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I should hope that the adoption of 10 years would remove the difficulty; but if not, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will raise the question again.
MR. HOZIER: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, with the addition, after the word "roads," of the words "or bridges."
Amendment proposed, in Clause 30, page 20, line 48, after "demanded," insert—
"Provided always, that in ascertaining and determining the average rate the sheriff of the county shall not take into account any rate or portion thereof levied in respect of (1) any capital expenditure in connection with the erection of county buildings, sheriff court buildings, county police station houses, prisons,
314
lunatic asylums, or with roads, or bridges, or any other similar special expenditure of capital, and interest thereon; and (2) the annual cost of making up the roll of parliamentary voters."—(Mr. Hozier.)
Question proposed, "That those words I be there inserted,"
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I have carefully considered the several questions raised in the Amendment, and to deal first with the least important, though certainly the clearest—namely, the making up of the roll of Parliamentary voters—I am bound to say I can see nothing to justify the Committee in taking it out of the stereotyping clause. I am bound to carry out impartially the principle embodied in the clause. As to the other cases, no doubt a large amount of money has been spent on capital expenditure from the rates, and there is much to be said for not taking it into account in determining what shall be the perpetual burden. On the other hand, I cannot help seeing that such abstention from taking it into account might be carried too far, and, on the whole, I cannot recommend the Committee to assent to the Amendment. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire stands in a different position when you come to the case of rates. Where rates are levied for this purpose, I am bound to say there is room for distinction. There you have the rate carried on for a course of years, and I think it is much open to question whether it is fair that that should be a burden included in capital expenditure. I think on the whole it should be excepted, and I have framed words which will give effect to that view which I will move later on. I have anxiously considered this matter, and feeling it incumbent on me to act with the strictest impartiality, I think the clause I propose affords the proper mode of solving the problem. If the Committee desire it I will move this clause in preference to the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hozier).
MR. J. B. BALFOUR: This is a very important question, and I think it would be better to defer it to the Report.
SIR A. CAMPBELL: I have an Amendment following this, and in precisely the same terms; therefore, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say a few words on the ques-

315
tion. I must say I am somewhat disappointed at the statement of the Lord Advocate, because in my own county if the stereotyping clauses remain as they are in the Bill, some injustice will be done. In the first instance we have provided, by a rate on owners only, for a new Sheriff Court House, and new county buildings, that are nearly finished. We have completed during the last five or six years a large police station that we thought necessary for the county, and that expenditure will not have to be incurred again. In this way a large burden has been placed on the rates. I contend that these things should have been done in the county for the good of the county, and, at all events, the expenditure should not be called normal, but should be taken into consideration, and not stereotyped. If you stereotyped the rate at this moment in the County of Renfrew you would be stereotyping a rate of £1,500 more than any normal rate it has even been necessary to raise for the county. Would that be fair? I do not think so. We have paid for these things year by year as we found it necessary, and have not borrowed money. I must press this Amendment, as I think the principle involved a most serious one. You propose now to stereotype for those counties, which have done their duty, a larger rate than those counties which have not carried out the works that were necessary.
MR. DUFF: I think, to a certain extent, the Lord Advocate in the Amendment to which he has referred has met the objections to this clause; still I am not clear as to the effect of the Amendment. In my county we have spent £18,000 on a lunatic asylum, and the whole of that amount has been paid off except £3,000. If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, by the proposed new clause the remaining year's assessment will be included in the stereotyped average rate.
MR. MARK STEWART: I could give a somewhat similar illustration to that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, where three counties jointly incurred considerable expenditure for Militia, and also, in two cases, for county buildings. That debt is practically extinguished, but if you go back 10 years to ascertain that expenditure
316
you will find the sum you will have to take as "the average rate" will be a very large one, and very unfair in its incidence.
MR. SHAW-STEWART: I beg to support the Amendment, and I hope the Committee will understand that the case, at any rate in the county I have the honour to represent, is a particularly hard one if the clause is carried through as it stands. To defray the cost of new county buildings, police stations, and other necessary buildings, we have imposed a rate which comes altogether to 2d. in the £1, and that it is proposed to stereotype. I trust the Lord Advocate will give us some hope that this expenditure which has not been made out of borrowed money will be exempted from the stereotyping clause.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I think it would be only fair to have the words proposed by the Lord Advocate put upon the Paper before assenting to them. A little while ago we agreed to an extension of time from five years to ten years, and it now appears more than it did before that this is a clause in favour of the landlord ratepayer. Personally, an the Committee knows, I have no liking for this stereotyping clause. I have already stated that I much prefer, in the interest of economy, that the rate should be divided, and that existing leases should obtain; but having extended the period to 10 years I deprecate that we should be asked offhand to agree to an Amendment which would raise the whole question again. I would, therefore, submit to the Lord Advocate that if he desires to meet the views of my hon. Friend behind me by a new proposal it should be done on Report. In the meantime I would oppose the acceptation of the Amendment, though I admit the fairness that the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir A. Campbell) has shown in all these discussions.
MR. J. C. BOLTON: I trust the Lord Advocate will give further consideration to this subject, which has had hardly as much as it deserves. Take the case of roads. A dozen years ago the state of the roads in Scotland was such as to lead to the passing of the Roads and Bridges Act. The consequence of that Act was that the proprietors of the roads found themselves

317
deprived of those bonds for the making of the roads granted to them previously. Where there was any value in the bonds they were purchased up. Debts on the bonds are now being paid, but the source from which the counties, or the owners of the roads, derived the necessary money, was taken away in the toll. If you include the value of the road debt in the amount of stereotype, you are including the sum which has become payable by the county individually, and you are stereotyping that for ever and ever, while you take away from the county the revenue which was derived from the roads previously in the shape of toll. Surely that is not quite fair. Then lunatic asylums, prisons, and all the rest of it have in the past been paid for by the proprietors. That was, I think, in consequence of the counties being entirely and exclusively in the hands of the owners. But now that is changed. The government is too nominally elective, not so elective as I should like, but still that is to be the character of the government, and that government will be enabled to tax to a very large extent some interests which are not represented at all, such as incorporated bodies. Railways and waterworks in some counties pay a very large proportion of the rates, but they will have no vote or representation. So that not only do you charge on the owner all that has been charged in the past, but you carry forward an average amount of what has been done in the past, and you make them liable for half the excess which may in the future be required as capital expenditure. I should like the Lord Advocate to reconsider the matter.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: There is no doubt much to be said for the view of the hon. Gentleman, but I would remind him of the history of the road debts. They were found in existence in 1878, and at that time were valued, and made a debt of the county. It seems to me a strong step to say of that debt that it is to be considered in the manner proposed by the hon. Gentleman. I go further than the hon. Gentleman. I think that the laying of a great many of the burdens on the landlords which we are now going to continue was not fair. I think that they should have been laid on the tenants too. But we take things as we find
318
them. I am bound to say, I think the case of the road debts is not a strong one, but when we come to the counties that have economically managed their affairs there is much more to be said for them. One county which has built a county hall or a police station may borrow the money on a terminable loan whilst another may pay for it out of the annual rates. I have great difficulty in resisting an appeal on behalf of the former. Take the case of Banffshire. The burden there is of a temporary character, and is running out. It should not be stereotyped, and consequently would fall under the words of the clause I suggest. What we should do would be to make the owner pay the actual amount of the charge until it ran out. My difficulty is with my hon. Friend behind me. What we are aiming at is to find a sum which, one year with another, will represent the normal expenditure which may be stereotyped. In a case where, say, a Sheriff Court-house has been built, and an extraordinary expenditure incurred, such as will not occur again, probably, for a century, there will be no difficulty in the matter; but when we go closely into the facts I do not find that the abnormal expenditure has been of such a formidable character as to render it necessary to go into very fine distinctions. I think the proposal I made forms a fair compromise. If it is open to objection it cannot be on the ground of undue liberality to the landlords. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Do we understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he will move his Amendment on Report?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes; this is a matter we cannot deal with offhand.
MR. DUFF: I think the explanation the Lord Advocate has given, so far as the case I brought forward is concerned, is quite satisfactory.
SIR A. CAMPBELL: When the road debts are paid off—as they are being paid off—the amount charged to the landlord will not be stereotyped, I take it.
MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Yes.
SIR A. CAMPBELL: But the amount is a large one, and when the landlords have paid these debts they will have left the roads over to the County Coun-

319
cils free of debt—completed and paid for. It will, therefore, not be fair to stereotype the rates at the time when the last instalments are being paid.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. Baronet's last observation illustrates the inconvenience of discussing what is only partially understood.
MR. HOZIER: I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 43, after the word "demanded," to insert the words:—
"Provided always that occupiers under lease shall have the right of relief during the currency of their leases against the owners in the proportion of the rate paid by them for each year."—(Dr. Clark.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I cannot accept the Amendment. There can be no doubt whatever that affairs in the Scottish counties have been very economically managed. I hope and believe that they will continue to be economically managed, and if that is so, there will be no excess to which this Amendment could apply. The occupiers will have a greatly preponderating voice in the administration.
Dr. CLARK: That is a matter of principle, and I must take a Division on it.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 30, Noes 76.—(Div. List, No. 200.)
Question proposed, "That Clause 30, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
DR. CLARK: I will not now oppose the clause, but I will try on the Report stage to get a Division on the principle by which the burden of a landlord, or a portion of it, is placed on the tenant. It is time to put a stop to this process of transferring the burdens on land to industry, and time we should endeavour to roll them back to the shoulders on which they should lie.
Question put, and agreed to.
The remaining Clauses of the Bill (from 31 to 34), dealing principally with registration, were negatived; and the postponed Clause, 23, was again postponed until the new clauses have been considered.
New Clause (Disqualifications for being Councillor,)—(The Lord Advocate,)—brought up, and read the first time.
MR. FIRTH: I, Sir, have the following Amendment on the Paper dealing with this matter:—Clause 31, page 21, line 8, at beginning of Clause, insert—
"The Parliamentary register shall be the register for the election of county councillors, with the addition of women ratepayers and peers."
Perhaps, however, it will be the more convenient course to deal with the matter by the negative proposal of the Lord Advocate than by the affirmative one I have proposed.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can move to amend the clause by striking out the first part, but it must first be read a second time.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. FIRTH: I move to leave out the first part of the clause, "(1.) No woman shall be eligible for election as a county councillor; and." The Government must have made up their minds on the question of women Councillors, or they would not have taken up so strong a negative position. For my own part, I regard the question as by no means settled. The Government have struck an entirely new note, there being no other Act of Parliament in which a disqualification by reason of sex is distinctly stated as it is here. They have raised the standard of disqualification; but I hope the question will not be decided by this Committee on bare sentimental considerations, but on the main ground on which the Bill itself is based—that is, of general utility and advantage. The question of the rights of one sex as against another, or of the occupation of public places of profit, is a wider question than it is desirable to raise in a Bill which is going through with such speed as this, and with such concession whenever an obstacle is presented. The question I would address myself to is the advantage which would accrue to the County Councils from having the services of women upon them. This is a matter upon which I can speak with a certain amount of knowledge and experience, having watched for some weeks the way in which three ladies of peculiar competence and ability have discharged functions on the London

321
County Council of a kind which the County Councils under this Bill are to have to discharge. I am not alluding to the whole of the functions of the London County Council. So far as I see, the County Councils in Scotland will not have the control of baby farms; but under Section 11 they will have to appoint visitors to lunatic asylums, and it is just in respect of that jurisdiction that I would illustrate what seems to me to be the true position in this matter, and why women should be admitted to the County Councils. It must be recollected that unless a large number of the electors come to the conclusion that a woman can usefully discharge functions on the County Council, she will not be elected; but if, in the opinion of a Scotch electorate, there are functions on the Scotch County Councils which might be usefully discharged by women, then in conscience is this House to take on itself the strong negative position which the Lord Advocate would adopt of saying that under no circumstances, so long as time shall last, shall women render those services which they have shown themselves so fitted to render? In the matter of lunatic asylums there are certain difficulties met with, in regard to which it is in the highest degree desirable that an opportunity for investigation should be given to perfectly independent persons. On the London County Council we have under the control of a single committee 10,200 lunatics, half of which number are women, and the advantage which accrued to the Council from a knowledge of the existing state of things at the asylums amongst the female part of the patients from having them visited by competent ladies, was so great that it could only be appreciated by those who had experience of it. In regard to lunatic asylums, even more than in regard to industrial schools, it is desirable that there should be in positions of authority ladies able to investigate these institutions. Everybody knows that there are many things that female patients will not confide to their ordinary officers, or to other persons, except members of their own sex visiting them with the power and position of authority which ought to be confided to them. It is impossible without the assistance of ladies to know positively that all the regulations laid down
322
are properly carried out, or that difficult and complex systems are properly worked. On the London County Council we have arrived at the conclusion that the assistance of women in these matters is most essential; and I think it is to be regretted, from a public point of view, that the Government should have taken up a negative line of this kind. I hope the Lord Advocate will, with that skill which characterises him, indicate to the House how these difficulties can be better or equally well met by the absence of ladies from County Councils, so far as lunatic asylums are concerned. I hope, also, he will tell us whether or not it is on the ground of the simple disqualification of sex, or on some sentimental ground, that he has put this Motion on the Paper; and whether he is able to defend his Motion on the only ground upon which such a proposition can be rightly defended—namely, the practical ground of utility, I move to omit the first part of the clause.
Amendment proposed at beginning of Clause to leave out the words "(1) No woman shall be eligible for election as a County Councillor, &c."—(Mr. Firth.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I wish to support in the strongest manner what has been said by the hon. Member for Dundee, and it seems to me that the description he has been able to give of the work done by women who had seats on the London County Council should induce the Lord Advocate to withdraw his proposal. What argument can there be in favour of women sitting upon School Boards which does not equally apply to their sitting upon County Councils? This is a matter which touches the interests of the working classes very keenly, as there are 50,000 questions which may come before County Councils on which women, and women alone, are able to give proper opinions. I would put it straight across this House to the Lord Advocate, whether he thinks that the functions of women in Scotland are to be confined to their ball of thin cotton and No. 8 needle, and the pro-

323
duction of little sinners, or whether he does not think that women are capable of expressing opinions as well as men on such small matters as the Government have left to the Councils? The proposal of the Government is the most reactionary and retrograde proposal in this, which is the most reactionary and retrograde Bill of the kind we have been favoured with from the other side of the House. If the question were not ripening both in England and Scotland, I could understand that the Lord Advocate might have had some grounds for his proposal, but on every side we see women asserting their right to interfere in public matters. As I have said, they have seats on the School Boards, and I would ask the eminent Member of the London School Board whom I see opposite (Sir E. Temple) whether he sees anything in the way. His colleagues, Mrs. Ashton Dilke and Mrs. Besant, have done their duty, which should induce him to vote for this extraordinary proposition of the Government. I really think we have a right to expect some explanation from the Lord Advocate as to why he proposes this insult to the intellect of the women of Scotland.
MR. CALDWELL: I think a question of this nature should be determined by the feeling of the people of Scotland themselves. I am bound to say I have found no desire on the part of the ladies of Scotland to sit on the County Boards, any more than I have found any desire on their part to sit on Parochial Board, for which I believe they are qualified. There is the greatest difference between School Boards and County Councils, as the first relate to education, where the services of ladies may be of the greatest value; but the work of the Councils is of a highly administrative nature, which will be best performed by people who have had business experience. Then, again, what ladies would be got to stand as candidates in Scotland? You would require ladies of leisure and ability; but I venture to say that in Scotland you would not get such ladies to devote their time to these matters. Altogether, in the absence of any expression of a desire on the part of the ladies of Scotland to have seats on the County Councils, I think it would be premature to admit a principle merely because it is said that it has been tested
324
and found to work well in another country.
Notice taken, that 40 Members not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
DR. CLARK: I am very much afraid that the Lord Advocate, in attempting to solve this question, overlooked some of the arguments which would otherwise have had some weight in his mind, and I trust he will reconsider the matter, and allow the people a little more liberty in regard to it. I was under the impression that the hon. Member for St. Rollox would be a strong supporter of the clause as it stands on the ground of liberty; but, curiously enough, he says he is going to support the Amendment so as to prevent the people from expressing their views on the question. For my own part I am, on every ground, opposed to the Amendment, because I think the question is one for the people themselves to determine; and we ought not to prevent the electors, if they think fit, from electing any lady who may be eligible, who has plenty of time on her hands, and who would like to perform the work to which the people of the county chose to call her. By passing the Lord Advocate's Amendment the Committee will be arbitrarily tying the hands of the electors in this matter; and it is not as if the proposal to allow women to be elected were without precedent, for in Scotland we have had both Poor Law Guardians and lady members of the School Boards who have performed very useful functions with reference to Poor Law administration and educational matters. In point of fact, so beneficial have these services been that in one of the largest towns in Scotland—the fifth in point of population—the School Board actually elected a lady as chairwoman. Apart from my objections to this attempt at restricting the liberty of the electors, I regard it as a very important point that we should have the advantage of obtaining the valuable services which many women of talent and education are able to render. I like to trust the people and let them exercise their own free choice in these questions. Moreover, looking at the growing interest manifested in matters of this kind, I say that you have no right to tie the hands of future generations by

325
this sort of legislation. In these democratic times I should have thought hon. Members on both sides of the House would have agreed to trust the people on such a point. I might here refer to the important consideration which was raised by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth), who spoke of his experience with regard to certain lunatic asylums over which the County Councils will in future have the control. In those asylums no female inspectors or visitors are allowed, for although, on different occasions, attempts have been made to get lady inspectors appointed, the Local Government Board has always opposed the proposition. If the electors were allowed to have female County Councillors they could then be appointed as asylum inspectors, and would thus be enabled to have matters brought before them by the female patients that are not, and cannot, be brought before inspectors of the other sex. This would be an improvement of the present condition of things that would be of great value to the unfortunate female inmates of the asylums. Upon à priori grounds—on the grounds of liberty and desirability—I oppose this unjust limitation of the freedom of the electors.
MR. M. STEWART: Having had upon the Paper an Amendment very similar in point of principle to that now under discussion, it gives me great satisfaction to witness the course the Government are taking on this matter, and I trust they will adhere to their proposal. My hon. Friend who has just sat down seems to think we are limiting the privileges of future generations as well as of the present by denying them the right to elect lady County Councillors. For my part, I consider that we who sit this side, and I may say on both sides, of this House represent the people generally, and have trust in the people, and that in regard to these questions we indicate what is the opinion of the people. This being so, we are satisfied that it is not the desire of the people that ladies should sit on the County Councils. With regard to one statement made by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Dr. Clark), I think I have had as much experience of public business in Scotland as the hon. Member, and that I may have attended as many Parochial and School Boards as he has, and, probably, have visited as
326
many asylums; and I must say that I never even heard it suggested that ladies ought to be placed on either of the Boards he has alluded to. I can imagine that ladies would be very competent to act as visitors to the female patients in the asylums; but as regards their being made members of the County Boards, I cm see no real use that would be served by dragging them from the privacy of their homes and obliging them to travel long distances to and from the places of meeting, which in the country districts frequently involve very lengthy journeys. Very often I have had to travel as much as 100 miles to attend a Board meeting. With all respect for their powers of endurance, I should not like to subject ladies to such an experience; and I think it would be unfair to ask them to undergo it. Beyond all this, I cannot see the use of putting ladies on Parochial Boards; and the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that ladies are well fitted for the discharge of such duties is altogether foreign to my own experience, and I have never even heard of their attending country School Boards, as to which matter I very much question whether the hon Gentleman can give me an illustration. Ladies are much better at home, discharging the numerous domestic duties they have to perform in their peculiar sphere. For these reasons, I think Her Majesty's Government ought to hold fast by the Amendment they have placed upon the Paper.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think that some of the arguments employed by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken can hardly be regarded as very strong. To my mind his argument, based on the distances lady Councillors would have to travel and their relative powers of endurance as compared with those of the other sex, falls to the ground when we remember that no one proposes to compel women to become members of County Councils, and that they ought to be the best judges of their own powers of endurance. If I were to give utterance to the first criticism that occurs to me with regard to the proposal of the Government, I should say it is somewhat peremptory, if not brutal, in its tone. It says that "no woman shall be eligible for election as a County Coun-

327
cillor." But, on the merits of the question, there are good reasons why ladies should sit on the School Boards and Parochial Boards which do not apply to County Councils, and I may add that I am not aware that within the limits of Scotland any desire has been expressed by the Scotch people that women should be elected on the County Councils. Much has been said with regard to the usefulness of their services on the School Boards and Parochial Boards, and there are obvious reasons why it is desirable that they should discharge those functions; but these Boards do not afford the true analogy to the County Council. The real analogue to the County Council is the Town Council, and what I wish to ask—and I merely ask the question for the purpose of obtaining information—is this: has any public desire been expressed that ladies should be made members of Town Councils? Let us settle this question before we determine whether they should be made County Councillors. Let us do all things decently and in order. We are now conferring on the counties the municipal authority we have hitherto given to the towns. That system has so far worked well without the presence of ladies. Why, then, should we be so anxious all of a sudden to have ladies on the County Councils? That is really the point at issue; and unless I learn that there is something in the County Councils which altogether alters the aspect of the case and makes it more desirable that we should have women among those bodies than that they should be on the Town Councils, I shall be prepared to say that the County Councils shall be placed in the same category as the Town Councils, and that the work of the County Councils shall be done exclusively by men.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am very glad that the Government have submitted this issue in a clear manner, that it may be decided one way or the other. My hon. Friend (Mr. C. Graham) has given the very reasons which induce me to take the other course. He says that all-round women are seeking and praying to interfere with political matters. That is just why I oppose the Amendment. We want a defence against these aggressive women. The
328
mass of women cannot and do not want anything of the kind. It is only a certain number of aggressive women who are advancing upon us in a most dangerous way. I admit it may be difficult to draw the line at whether they are to set upon School Boards or upon County Councils. But you must draw the line somewhere. And if we have them in the County Councils, the next thing will be that we will have them here; and if we have them here, then I prophecy that our independence would be gone. I admit I have the pleasure of the acquaintance of some of the most charming women who are now of the London County Council; but what I am afraid of is this, that if they come among us we would either succumb to the charm of their influence or we would be forced to treat them as "the women" to be hated. Let women behave as women, and let men perform the functions of men. I want to draw the line at the County Council. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) mentioned Town Councils. These women who enter public life are very aggressive and very persuasive, but, of the various women's rights they have claimed, I have never yet heard that they suggested they should be on Town Councils. Town Councils may petition in favour of women's rights, but they do not admit women amongst themselves. I would exclude women from the County Council in order that they may hot get any further, and that we may not have them here.
MR. S. BUXTON: The speech of my hon. Friend behind me might have been a Second Beading speech on the Women's Franchise Bill; it did not really affect the question before us. He argues that if women obtained seats on the County Council, the next thing would be that we would see them in this House, and I suppose we would have a Chairwoman of Ways and Means. I am afraid the speech of the hon. Member is too late. Women are already on Boards of Guardians and on School Boards, and it seems to me that the question of the County Council is placed in the same category. It is a question for the ratepayers, whereas the question of entrance to this House is one for the general taxpayers and electors of the country. I

329
am very glad the Government have raised the question in a specific way. I think it much better that the question should be argued on its merits than that it should be left so indefinite as in the case of the English Act. In England a case has been brought before the Courts of Law, and it has been decided in the most unsatisfactory manner. I believe the decision in the case of the London County Council was that the lady could not resign her seat nor vote—a position like that of Mahomet's coffin, suspended between Heaven and earth. That is a reason for the Debate this night. I do not believe that any Member of this House would say for a moment that the presence of a female on the London County Council was not an advantage to the working of the institution. There are many questions put to us on the School Board on which women are able to give valuable advice, and I for one think we ought not to exclude them in these specific terms, but that we should allow the ratepayers an opportunity of electing women to serve them in ^natters affecting them. The argument used by the hon. Member for St. Rollox, and by the hon. Member opposite, was that we would tear women from their homes and make them travel at night many miles in order to serve on these County Councils. They seemed to have argued throughout as if it would be compulsory on women to serve. The whole matter is this—if the ratepayers of a district deem that their interests would be better served by electing women, then they should have the opportunity of so making their choice. We have heard something of the excellent work of women on the London County Council and on the London School Board, and I very cordially support the omission of these words.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING,): I shall state the point with very great brevity, because the arguments have been fully gone into. I do not entirely share the view of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, who regards the advance of women with horror and aversion; nor, on the other hand, are we in entire agreement with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell Bannerman). He spoke of
330
the proposal of the Government as rude, peremptory, and brutal, and then in the same breath he said that the true analogue of the County Council was the Town Council. It so happens that these two observations of the right hon. Gentleman will hardly stand together, because under the régime—to which he at least will be the last to take exception—of the year 1881, Parliament passed an Act relating to municipal elections in Scotland by which women were for the first time admitted to the municipal franchise; and in that Act I find the very same "rude, peremptory, and brutal" words. The second clause of that Act concluded thus—"Females shall not be eligible for election as Town Councillors." He calls them "females." He is, therefore, even more rude, more peremptory, and more brutal than we are on the present occasion. After all there is nothing in the work of the County Council, which specially calls for the services of women. They have rendered satisfactory service on the School Boards, but it is impossible to draw any analogy between that and the work of the County Council, the business of which will be essentially of an administrative character and will resemble the work of Town Councils much more than the work of School Boards. There is no demand, as has been pointed out, for the presence of women on Town Councils. Let me add that, in my opinion, they are the very worst friends of the Parliamentary enfranchisement of women who advocate their intrusion into spheres for which they are not fitted, and into which I believe they do not themselves desire to enter. That is the kind of thing which would drive people from allowing them the Parliamentary suffrage, and I believe that we are acting in the best interests of women when we resist such proposals.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: Sir, I support this proposal on the ground that it is a matter for the ratepayers, who should have the utmost freedom of choice. It seems to me that the question is one to be settled by the electors. If women are not likely to be useful on the County Council or in Parliament the electors will not return them. No woman would have a chance of occupying a seat in either sphere if she could not occupy it usefully. On the simple

331
ground of absolute freedom of choice on I the part of electors I cordially support the Amendment.
DR. CLARK: Sir, I congratulate the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy on being with regard to this question more Tory than the Tories. His speech was a good old-fashioned Tory speech, with the Tory ring and the Tory prejudices about it. I am not prepared to go to the extreme of the Solicitor General's reductio ad absurdum. I want to see women perform every public duty a man performs. I have seen Amazon regiments—women who enter the war dance and who fight. I have seen women who till the field and do all the work, while the man is the lordly animal, doing nothing except a little fighting occasionally. And I have noted that in proportion as civilization develops the disabilities of women are removed. If you want to make a strong nation you must develop the powers and talents which its women possess, instead of trying to restrict them. To do the one is to develop, to do the other is to retard, the progress of humanity.
MR. DE LISLE: I would not have intervened in this debate but for the concluding remarks of the Solicitor General for Scotland. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imply that, by voting against this proposition we should be retarding the possibility of extending the principle of Parliamentary voting to women. That is precisely what I wish to do, as a determined opponent of woman suffrage. I am going to support the clause of the Lord Advocate, because there is nothing I have a greater objection to than the intrusion of women in the sphere of men. I do not know what is the kind of civilization the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Clark) has just been hinting at, but if the Amazons fight like men, surely that is not a sign of high civilization, but rather of the wildest barbarism. I cannot help thinking that if once you put women on contentious ground with men, you aim a great blow at the peace and comfort of society. At present politics are to women a work of supererogation. If they agree with their man friends and relations they assist them. If they differ, they remain silent. Once place political duties in their hands and they must go their own way independently like men. As an
332
opponent then of all unsexing of women I support the Lord Advocate's Amendment.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 70; noes 38.—(Div. List, No. 201).
Clause added.
A Clause (Registration of county electors for a county)—(The Lord Advocate)—brought up, and read the first and second time.
MR. FIRTH: I think it would save us from all the trouble attending this clause if it were at once proposed that the Parliamentary Register should be the register for the election of County Councillors, with the addition of women and Peers. I beg to move the Amendment to this effect, which I originally placed on the Paper.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman is not now on the Paper. It appears to me to be rather an alternative clause than an Amendment to this clause. The hon. Member's proper course would be to negative this clause, and then to substitute his own clause for it.
MR. SHIRESS WILL: The Lord Advocate's clause proposes to enact as follows—
"As affecting the right to be a county elector exemption from or failure to make payment of any consolidated rates, shall be a disqualification in the same manner as, and in addition to, disqualification arising from exemption from or failure to make payment of poor rate in the case of a Parliamentary elector."
I propose that this section should be left out, and the following one in-sorted:—
"As affecting the right to be a County elector, exemption from or failure to make payment of any consolidated rates or the poor rate shall not be a disqualification."
My point is that it is too late to re-enact, as the Government propose to do, this disqualification to the electorate. It is sometimes forgotten what was the original reason why Parliament made the payment of rates a condition of qualification. In 1832, when Parliament were proposing to give the qualification to occupiers of houses rated to the net or clear annual value of £10, it was necessary to find some standard by which to judge who were the persons so qualified. Parliament hit on this device, not for the purpose of encouraging the payment of rates, but in order to

333
find some standard to which we could go and save the trouble of individual investigation in every case—to have, in fact, a register made to hand. But it was argued that that by itself would not be sufficient; it was anticipated that a large number of people would be anxious to be rated at a higher amount than they would otherwise, and that they would afterwards appeal against the rating. It was therefore provided that to be qualified a person should also pay the rates. I find from Hansard that, speaking on the 3rd of February, 1832, Lord John Russell said:—
"The Amendment could not be admitted, because it would not effect the object of the Bill, which was not to encourage the payment of rates, but to enable a £10 householder to enjoy the right of voting for a Member of Parliament."
Since that time large inroads have been made by the Legislature itself upon this vexatious principle. In 1867, when "The Representation of the People Act" passed, Parliament provided that the occupier should pay rates, though he might deduct them from the rent in case the owner agreed to pay them. Two years later Parliament repented, and by "The Poor Law Assessment Act, 1869," expressly provided the contrary; that is to say it provided it should be sufficient if anybody paid the rates. By introducing the lodger and the Service franchise, Parliament has gone away from this stringent provision. This matter is one of great hardship to the electorate, because many a working man, sometimes because he happens to be out of work, through no fault of his own, sometimes by reason of sickness in his family, or from other temporary cause, is unable to pay his rates by a certain date. It is not a question whether he has paid his rates at all, because the law provides most ample remedies for the payment of rates; but what the Legislature has said is that a man in Scotland must pay his rates by the 30th of July. That is a very hard and fast line to draw. It operates most harshly for it has the effect of excluding from the register a very large number of those who would otherwise be entitled to vote. Why should this be so? Is it not like the temporary non-payment of any other debt? Let us look at the
334
rates to be levied under this Act. Powers are given to the County Council with regard to the water supply. If a man does not pay for his water the proposals of the Government will exclude him from the franchise. If, however, a man does not pay for his gas that will not exclude him from the franchise. It is idle at the present day to argue this provision is necessary because it is evidence of good citizenship, and that was not the ground upon which it was introduced. In Scotland we have a valuation roll. It is prepared according to statutory authority, by officers appointed for the purpose, and there is no difficulty whatever in going to that valuation and in finding out everyone who comes within the qualification. I submit it is now time that the old restriction shall at all events not be re-enacted.
Amendment proposed, in line 11, to leave out the word "rates," to the end of Sub-section (a), and insert the words "or the poor rate shall not be a disqualification."—(Mr. Shiress Will.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'shall be a disqualification 'stand part of the Clause."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman has very fairly discussed the question, but he has referred to nothing more novel than the action of Parliament in 1832. A great deal has occurred since 1832; and on successive occasions Parliament has attached the condition of the payment of rates as an essential and expressed condition of the possession of the Parliamentary franchise. That has been the case not merely in 1868, but, in the last enfranchising Act, that of 1884, the same condition was attached to the extension of household suffrage to counties. Let me point out that when our Registration Clauses were originally presented to the House, objection was taken to them which we appreciated so entirely that we have modified the clauses. It was said—"While you have ready to hand the Parliamentary register, you discard it and set up an entirely new register for County Council elections." We felt the force of that, and reconsidered our clause. We found the means of modifying our Parliamentary register so that it may meet the requirements of County Council

335
elections, and save the constituencies the expense of a separate roll. But then comes the hon. and learned Member for Montrose, and he says, "Oh, I dissent from the view that you ought to adopt the principle of the Parliamentary register." He invites us to set up a new register—the very thing we were denounced in the Second Reading for doing. This is an attempt on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman to impose on the constituencies for the County Councils a new register because he says, "You must go further than the Parliamentary register, and you must add to the Parliamentary register those persons who have been held to be disqualified by reason of non-payment of poor rates."
MR. SHIRESS WILL: Your own clause provides for a supplementary register.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: That is the merit of my clause; it adopts the Parliamentary register and provides for a supplementary register. This is a point which cannot be decided alone with reference to the County Council register. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is right, a change should be made not in the County Council registration, but in the Parliamentary registration; because every argument he had advanced on this subject is one against the exclusion of the defaulters in the payment of rates from the Parliamentary register. Is it not rather inopportune to take up incidentally, on a Bill relating to County Councils, a question which vitally affects the Parliamentary register? We have adopted in the Bill for the electoral purposes of the County Council the Parliamentary register, and we propose to add to it; but the hon. Member has suggested that we should upset the Parliamentary register on one of its most vital principles—viz., that the payment of rates should be the condition of the possession of the franchise. If we accept the Amendment we should certainly be taking a retrograde step.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If I were to be governed by the Lord Advocate's argument alone I do not think I should find much difficulty in supporting my hon. Friend. The Lord Advocate rather overstates his argument with regard to the Parliamentary register. We certainly said, "Why not
336
take the Parliamentary register as the simplest way of settling the difficulty?" but we do not mean necessarily that you should take over every particular defect of the Parliamentary register. I do not think the Lord Advocate has put the response to the Amendment of-my hon. and learned Friend as strongly as he might have done. The law as to Parliamentary elections is, that if a man, who otherwise would be qualified, has not paid his rates he cannot be put on the register. What are the rates he has to pay? They are the local rates over which Parliament has no control; rates levied by a local authority. But this is the case of a man seeking to be elected to the County Council. The County Council is to have the control of certain consolidated rates. Are we to allow a man to be elected to the Council who has himself failed to pay the very rates which he is called upon to administer? My hon. and learned Friend may object with some reason to the exclusion of a man because he has not paid his poor rate; but in this case the exclusion is made because the man has-not paid his consolidated county rate. It may fairly be argued that a man should be considered fully eligible to be elected to a County Council who has actually failed in the duty he is called upon as a Councillor to administer. I do not know whether I have explained myself clearly, but there does seem a stronger ground than the Lord Advocate has taken in his argument. It is not often I can find any stronger argument than that he uses. But this seems to me a stronger objection to my hon. Friend's proposal, ramely, that a man should be excluded as an elector in consequence of failure to pay the very rate in respect to which he is called upon to exercise his functions.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understands the effect of the clause. We require two qualifications, first, a man must be on the Parliamentary register, and that implies that he must have paid his poor rate, and we also require that he shall have paid the consolidated rate.
MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I regret that the Government have taken up this position. It is rather an aggravation of the evil, as the Lord Advocate

337
has admitted that his proposal entails a double disqualification, not only as regards the consolidated rate, but as regards the Parliamentary register. An elector is liable to disqualification because he has not paid his poor rate. It was understood that the County Council register should be wider than the Parliamentary register, but it becomes by this more restricted. The Lord Advocate has stated that since 1832 it has been an essential qualification for the Parliamentary franchise that a man should pay his rates, and he argues that a man must discharge certain statutory duties to qualify him for this civil right. But it has been brought to his notice that in the remote parts of the county, in the Highlands and elsewhere, Parliamentary electors have not had the opportunity of paying their rates within the statutory time, they having travelled long distances and found no person to receive payment, and consequently they became disqualified. The disqualification attaches though payment is made afterwards. My objection to the Government proposal is that it makes the County Council register more circumscribed than the Parliamentary register.
MR. FIRTH: There is an important principle involved in my hon. Friend's Amendment which I hope he will emphasize by a division. In this new clause the Government propose to add to the electoral disqualifications which it is the tendency of modern opinion to lessen. Only crime and mental disability should disqualify from the exercise of the franchise. By unforeseen calamity or poverty, for which he may in no way be responsible, a man is unable to pay his rates, and so loses his qualification and is unable to exercise the franchise in favour of a representative through whom he hopes for legislation that shall better his condition. This disqualification attaches to the Parliamentary register in regard to the poor rate and the Government would add the non-payment of the consolidated rate as a disqualification for the Council register.
MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: It strikes me that a fair compromise might be arrived at rather on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). When you are
338
establishing a new franchise, as you are in the present instance, for the County Councils, the only reasonable ground on which you can make failure to pay the rates a disqualification for that franchise is in regard to the rate levied by the Body, a member of which is to be elected. On that ground I can understand the disqualification, if limited to the consolidated rate; but I protest against payment of the poor rate being imported into the matter at all. It is wholly foreign to the principle that has been followed in the Bill in the relations between the county and the parish. It is of no consequence to the County Council whether the elector pays the poor rate or not.
MR. J. WILSON: I would emphasize what has been said by the last speaker by pointing out how seriously the Government proposal would affect the constituency I represent. In the parish of Govan there are 10,000 defaulters who cannot pay their rates, not including females, but all householders, and surely it is hard that these should be disqualified from voting for the County Council.
MR. SHIRESS WILL: The Lord Advocate objects that my Amendment would necessitate the making out of a new register, but I may point out that the acceptance of my Amendment will not entail the making out of a register beyond what is contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman's own clause. In a sub-section we have not yet reached, the clause provides there shall be a supplementary register into which women and Peers shall go, and into that the names of those contemplated by my Amendment would go. The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) in his remarks seemed to me to have forgotten the case of those men, and they are those with whom we have most frequently to deal in this connection, who are temporarily prevented from paying their rates not by reason of any unwillingness, but because of sickness in their family, heavy family expenses, being out of work, or various causes, and through no fault of their own. Why should these men be disqualified? They will have to pay the rates eventually; there is the machinery to compel payment.
MR. CALDWELL: I apprehend we desire to have the franchise as broad as possible. I am not aware that this disqualification attaches to Town Council elections. I may be wrong, but I do not think it is a disqualification for a Town Council elector. But the Lord Advocate is introducing two disqualifications. First of all, nonpayment of the poor rate, and I confess I could never see why that should disqualify the Parliamentary voter, for it is not nonpayment of an Imperial rate. The principle always has appeared to me to be an unsound one. I quite admit the force of what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) says, and you might be justified in inserting the provision in regard to the county rate, though even then you are introducing an element into county elections that you have not in burghs. It is all very well to say we are anxious to have simplicity in the register; but we must not, by aiming at simplicity, drive out the people from a franchise to which they would otherwise be entitled; it is not fair to introduce a disqualification for the sake of simplicity. I may mention that I have an Amendment to the next line, to substitute the words "place of" for "addition to," and this would have the effect of providing that nonpayment of the poor rate shall not be a disqualification, leaving the disqualification attaching to non-payment of the consolidated rate. This is not open to the objection that it would require a separate register. We would take the Parliamentary register as it stands, without alteration; but in addition to that the Lord Advocate puts down women and Peers, and we simply add those excluded from the Parliamentary register for non-payment of poor rates. So we accomplish our object without altering the Parliamentary register one iota. We adopt it as a whole, and make these additions. But I think we should put the county voter on the same footing as the burgh voter; and, in any case, if we do introduce a disqualification, it should be limited to non-payment of the county rate.
MR. MARK STEWART: I apprehend that the county voter would be in the same position as the burgh voter. The town voter is obliged to pay his poor rate; and, therefore, the county
340
voter, in having to pay the poor rate, would be in the same position in that respect. I know one case not very long ago, where the question was raised in reference to the police rate. The Dundee Police Commissioners were anxious to get a clause inserted in that Burgh Police Bill, upon which many of us were engaged for so many weeks last session, providing that not only payment of the poor rate, but payment of the police rate should be a qualification for enrolment on the municipal register. Now, if that was the opinion of the authorities in one of the largest towns in Scotland, I do not think the Government proposal can be considered unpopular or unreasonable, and I hope they will adhere to it.
DR. CLARK: I do not object to your first disqualification—exemption from payment of rates; there you have good reason; but I cannot understand why you revive the old story of non-payment of the poor rate. If I remember aright—I am trusting to memory—this disqualification was in 1867, inserted in the other House, and it only applies to one class of voters, it does not apply to owners; it is a disqualification attaching to one class of voters, and not to the other. I cannot see why this should be; there are the means of enforcing payment of the rates, in either case, the poor rate or the county rate. It happens in Scotland in the fishing districts that many poor people are away at the fishing grounds when the collector calls on the 20th June; and then also there are many instances where the collector does not call for the poor rate by that date. In some of the islands the collector does not call until after the date has passed, and so the people are disqualified. Sometimes, too, after a man has gone a considerable distance he finds the collector is not at hand to receive payment, and he has to return with the money. So far as the Parliamentary register is concerned, hundreds of people are thus kept off the roll. But if the collector called at the end of the season, say the 20th November, instead of June, the people would be in a position to pay. I shall certainly vote with the hon. Member for Montrose as a protest against a proposal for keeping a number of duly qualified persons off the

341
County Council register. I cannot see any reason for it, because the people are compelled to pay the rate for the year and yet they would still remain disqualified.
MR. LYELL: This disqualification for nonpayment of rates keeps off the register a class of people who are in every way qualified to exercise the franchise. The hon. Member for Montrose has indicated in the history of this disqualification how a prejudice has been created in this matter. It is only a few years ago since an Act was passed to remedy part of the grievance that arose from this prejudice. The receipt of poor relief is held now to be a disqualification, even though temporary and accidental, from the exercise of the ordinary right of a citizen, and it is not so long ago that the receipt of medical relief was specially exempted from this disqualification, and a man who receives medical relief is not thereby debarred from being a voter. On all grounds, I think it is important that the hon. Member for Montrose should take a division on the point he has raised.
MR. HUNTER: I find that under the General Police Act for Scotland, 1862, all ratepayers are entitled to vote. This is a very sound principle. Of course there are two questions arising which are entirely distinct. There is the case of those who are exempted on the ground of poverty, and the case of those who have failed in punctuality of payment. A man may pay his rates, but if he happens to do so after a particular day he forfeits his own rights; thus he pays his rates, but he suffers the same penalty with the man who does not pay at all. Now, that seems to me contrary to all sound principle to make a temporary debt a ground for forfeiture of civil rights. In point of fact, it is using the franchise as an engine to enforce the punctual payment of rates. Why mere poverty, unaccompanied by crime, should be made a ground for forfeiture of civil rights, I cannot see, but it seems to me the Government are taking a very bad precedent, and making it worse. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will go to a Division, and I shall certainly vote with him.
MR. MARK STEWART: I would like to point out that, as is very well known, the assessment takes place in October, and in rural parishes there is usually a meeting of representatives of ratepayers in reference to the subject. The Parliamentary register is made up on June 20th following, and if in the interval a man has not paid his rate of two or three shillings, there must be some reason other than an error in punctuality.
MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: If I am not misinformed, the attachment of the condition of payment of the poor rate to the Parliamentary franchise was not originally made for the purpose of enforcing payment of the rate, but to afford evidence that the person claiming a vote was entitled to it as a ratepayer. In the Municipal Franchise Act of William IV. 1833, it was laid down for convenience of registration that a person who was entitled to vote for a Member of Parliament was entitled to vote for a member of a Town Council in burghs, and no doubt to some extent this was the importation of payment of the poor rate as a condition of the municipal franchise, but it was merely in the interest of the Parliamentary voter, and not for the purpose of enforcing the payment of the rates. Now, in 1862 there was a very large extension of municipal government, as the Lord Advocate knows, when the Burgh Police Act afforded facilities for forming urban communities into municipalities, although they might not be Royal burghs, and in that you may look for the opinion of the Legislature as to whether the payment of the poor rate ought to be exacted as a necessary qualification for the municipal voter. You find no such qualification exacted but by the 27th clause of the Burgh Police Act of 1862, all householders—that is to say householders who paid a certain rental—were entitled to vote for the Commissioners of Police, and nothing is said about payment of the poor rate or any other rate. Now, if the matter rested there, I think it would be reasonable to say that historically payment of the poor rate ought not to be attached to the qualification for the new franchise, but if you choose to accept a new principle which I admit has crept into common opinion for a long time—namely, that

343
payment of rates connected with the I body you are going to set up, is to be regarded as a public duty to be fulfilled before the franchise is exercised, then I say, let us distinguish between the rates with which the County Council are concerned, and those with which they have nothing to do. Now the necessity for paying the poor rate in order to be on the Parliamentary register, whether right or wrong, has admittedly been the source of inconvenience and trouble in England and Scotland. We have heard enough about the compound householders in England, and we have great complaints now in Scotland, of which perhaps English Members are not aware, of the difficulty of ascertaining whether a man has paid the rates or not, and there is constant complaint that collectors do not make application in time, and I really cannot see why these difficulties should also attach to the exercise of the County Council franchise. The Government have declined to connect the administration of the parish with the county administration, and I must protest against them making this singular exception to the principle they have followed. For my own part I would be content if the consolidated rate were separated from the poor rate, and made a qualification for the County Council franchise, but as the Government have insisted on making the payment of both rates a qualification, I sincerely trust my hon. and learned Friend will carry his Amendment to a Division.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 93, Noes 65.—(Div. List, No. 202.)
MR. CALDWELL: I now beg to move my Amendment to line 12, which is to substitute the words "place of" for the words "addition to." The effect of the change will be that disqualification will only attach to non-payment of the consolidated rate. I think it is fair and reasonable that the county elector, having paid his county rates, should be considered as having fulfilled the obligations incumbent upon him, and be entitled to exercise the County Council franchise. It has been pointed out there would be no difficulty in giving effect to the Amendment. In the making up of the Parliamentary register the Poor Law Inspector furnishes to the assessor a list of those who have not paid the
344
poor rate on June 20, and thereupon the persons so named are disqualified. When then you come to make up the roll for the County Council elections you take the Parliamentary roll as it stands, you add the women and Peers as proposed by the Lord Advocate, and you also add the names on the list, which is handed to the assessor, and which the assessor strikes off the Parliamentary roll for non-payment of poor rate. There would be no possible difficulty in making up the roll, the names are set out on the list in the clearest way. There is no ground whatever that I can see for insisting on the double disqualification, and therefore I move my Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the effect of the proposal to insert the words "in place of" would be to take away the disqualification of the Parliamentary voter, and that would be totally outside the scope of the Bill. Will the hon. Member confine his Motion to the omission of the words "in addition to?"
MR. CALDWELLassented.
Amendment proposed, to leave out in line 12, of proposed new clause, the words "in addition to."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
MR. SHIRESS WILL: The Amendment I now have to move is of a totally different character to the last. The new clause proposes that after the present year, the County Council register shall be made up every third year. Now my Amendment to omit the word "third" raises a most important principle—namely, whether on casual vacancies occurring on the Council from any cause these vacancies should be filled by the appointment of a new member by the Councillors, or whether there should be a new election. The proposal of the Government is that there shall not be a new election, but that the vacancy shall be filled up by co-optation, and for this reason they propose that the register shall only be made up every three years. I propose to strike out the word "third," so as to cause the register to be made up every year, and thus rendering an election in each year possible. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will found the course he

345
proposes to adopt on a reference to existing institutions in Scotland, and I wish briefly to point out why in these existing institutions there is no precedent we ought to follow in 1889 in reference to this matter. In the first place, I am aware that the Royal Burghs Act, of 1833, does, in a sense, provide for co-optation, but with this very marked peculiarity, that the Act provides that a third of the Council shall go out of office each year. If during the year a vacancy occurs it is filled up temporarily by the remaining Councillors, but in the yearly election of a third of the Council this vacancy is included. So there is no precedent here for introducing into a Bill of this kind, where the county elects a representative body for three years, a provision by which a Councillor may be appointed by co-optation for nearly the whole period of three years. The next public body that may be appealed to as a precedent is the Parochial Board, which depends upon the Act of 1845. This Act provides for an election each year, and so far as I know does not provide for filling up a casual vacancy, but even if that were so, it offers no precedent, inasmuch as the office is only held for a year. Then reference may be made to the Police Burghs of which we have heard so much. These depend upon an Act of 27 years ago—1862—and I trust the Committee will not accept that as any guide at all in this matter, because it is restricted to the £4 franchise. The last remaining instance to which the right hon. Gentleman may refer, is the School Board, established in 1873. It is a fact that in this Act there is a provision for filling up casual vacancies by the remaining members of the Board. But before we accept this as a precedent, we must remember the objections that have been made that the School Board is elected on a restricted franchise. Service franchise men have no votes, and there is the commutation system of voting. That Act therefore cannot be appealed to as a precedent on the present occasion, and the Lord Advocate does not propose to follow it, because his Bill gives the franchise to women, but excludes women from election. These precedents do not support the Government proposal, which
346
I regard as a clumsy expedient, and which may destroy the representative element in a body elected for three years.
Amendment proposed in sub-Section 2, line 56, of proposed new Clause to omit the word "third."—(Mr. Shiress Will)
Question proposed, "That the word 'third' stand part of the Clause."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It is one of the remarkable currents of public opinion in Scotland, that with the desire that there should be full representation of public opinion in County matters, there ought not to be an undue frequency of elections, and accordingly when we provided that the Counties should be saved the expense of preparing a registration roll more than once in three years, we acted in consonance with the prevalence of public opinion on the matter. I need not remind the Committee of the fact that not only is it in accordance with Scotch municipal usage to have vacancies filled up by co-optation, but this has been rectified by quite recent legislation. I might mention the Roads Act of 1878, where it is provided that vacancies shall be filled by the governing body itself, and there has been a series of Municipal Acts dealing with the government of towns in Scotland in which there has been no proposal to change an arrangement that has been found most convenient. I am convinced there is no general desire in Scotland to add to the frequency of elections, and consequently there is no necessity to provide for the yearly preparation of the roll.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to move an Amendment to this proposed new clause in order to give married women the same right to the franchise as unmarried women. I do not know that there are any arguments required to support the Amendment. I think rather the burden of proof should rest with those who would exclude married women. There may be a good deal to be said for and against the proposal, whether women should vote at all; but if women are allowed to

347
vote, I cannot see any ground for restricting the privilege to unmarried women, and those who, being married, have separated from their husbands.
Amendment proposed, in line 75, to leave out the words "who is not married, or, who being married, is not living in family with her husband."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman).
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: There are, no doubt, many considerations of interest attending the point the right hon. Gentleman has raised, but I must say for the Government that we prefer to consider this question from a practical rather than an abstract point of view. We are not here incidentally to revise and reconsider all possible objections as to who ought or ought not to be qualified in this case. We have in this instance followed a precedent of quite a modern character. The law relating to the rights of women in municipal elections in Scotland is so recent as 1881, and constitutes the latest decision of Parliament on this matter. I think it would be unfortunate if we were incidentally to enter upon this question, and the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I decline to do so. We simply transfer to County Council elections what we find to be the existing state of the law in regard to municipal elections.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should have thought that of all female members of the community a woman living with her husband was most deserving of this trust. But I admit the Lord Advocate has slain me with my own weapon. I have always urged that we should follow the precedent of Municipal Government; the right hon. Gentleman says this section is taken from the Municipal Act, and I will not persist.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I should have been content to avoid all difficulty of discriminating between the classes of women who should vote, by providing that no woman should vote at all. But we have allowed the tide to advance so
348
far, and can only make a barrier to prevent further progress. I think it would be better to get over the difficulty in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, though possibly dissensions might arise in some families through the adoption of this course. I remember hearing of a case in America, however, in which a woman stood against her husband as a candidate for a municipal office. I was told that there was no jarring over family duties. I asked who won, and was informed that the man did. I was not surprised at the absence of dissensions, for if the contest had gone the other way, difficulties might have arisen. I am in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs; if he does not wish to press the matter, I am sure I have no desire to.
MR. HALDANE: I approach this question in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility than many hon. Members, and I deprecate this appeal to precedent made on the part of the Government. We cannot forget it is only a short time since that the Government, on the question of free education—notwithstanding the example set them by the Front Bench opposite—chose to throw that example overboard and announce that the precedent was not binding. We have advanced on many questions, and I believe that in this House we have advanced in our conception of the position of women, particularly in the question of Local Government, I well remember a speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1885, at a time when he was a candidate for the Eastern Division of Edinburgh. Somebody asked him if he were prepared to support the admission of women to the suffrage in a form proposed in a Bill then before Parliament. He announced that he was not, because the proposition was one which would exclude married women, and he certainly was not prepared to exclude from the franchise those who were the most distinguished and presumably capable of their sex. I would ask why, in a question of municipal government such as this—why in

349
the choice of the electorate for the County Councils—we should select single women and refuse the suffrage to married women. Of all subjects in which women are interested surely it is those which will come under the direction of the County Councils. I do not know what course my right hon. Friend intends to take, but I shall claim my right to press this matter to a Division.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 56.—(Div. List, No. 202.)
MR. SHIRESS WILL: I intend only briefly to propose the Amendment which stands in my name, and I shall not take a Division unless I find the general sense of the Committee is in favour of so doing. The object of the Amendment is not to alter the Parliamentary franchise, but merely to shorten the qualifying period for voters for County Councils. At present the qualifying period for occupiers is twelve months, and in many cases it really means two years, for unless a person has been in occupation a year prior to the date of making his claim he gains no qualification. Now, I hold that these long periods of residence are absolutely unnecessary as safeguards in order to put upon the register those who are interested in the welfare of the county and are fit persons to exercise the privilege of voting. It is necessary for men employed in many trades and industries to migrate from one part of a county to another, and I desire that, as far as possible, this unavoidable removal shall not disqualify men from voting. Some go the length of holding that a man shall be able to carry his citizenship and the right of voting on his back just as he carries his certificate of personal character. I for one see no reason why it should not be so; but I do not go the length of proposing that. I suggest, instead, a residence of three months anterior to the date of registration as a qualifying period. It may be urged that this will entail making some addition to the register, but it would be possible to have a supplementary register, and I do not think a trifling
350
expense should prevent this desirable reform being carried out.
Amendment proposed, Sub-section (2), at end of sub-division (i), add the following sub-division—
(j) Whenever in the Registration Acts there is provided a qualifying period of occupancy, or of residency, or of proprietorship in the case of an occupier, inhabitant occupier, lodger, or proprietor, as the case may be, a period of three months shall for the purposes of this section be read in each case in substitution for any period so provided; and any occupier, inhabitant occupier, lodger, or proprietor, who is otherwise qualified, and who shall have fulfilled such period, shall be entitled to be registered in the supplementary register as a county elector."
Sub-section (2), sub-division (j), line 90, after "a peer or a woman as aforesaid," insert—
"And every occupier, inhabitant occupier, lodger, or proprietor, who shall have fulfilled, the aforesaid period of three months, but who is disqualified for being' so registered by reason of not having fulfilled any longer period."
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It is desirable to use the Parliamentary franchise as the basis of the County Council register. That has already been decided by the Committee, and I must point out to the hon. and learned Member for Montrose that his Amendment would render the forming of the Parliamentary register a mere formality. The Parliamentary register contains no suggestion of persons who have only resided for three months in a district. How, in the case of three months' residents, could it be ascertained whether the rates have been paid? The proposal would lead to nothing but confusion, and I greatly deprecate its acceptance by the Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LYELL: In proposing the Amendment which stands in my name, I wish to point out that the publication of lists of voters in Scotland is much more restricted than it is in England. In Scotland, as far as my experience goes, the lists are only posted on the panel of the parish church doors, and any one who desires to see

351
if his name is on the list must go to the church for that purpose on one of a given number of days before the list is revised, and if he does not happen to see the list he runs the risk of losing his right to vote for another year. As a fact, I believe in Scotland it is only exhibited on the parish church doors, and only for a fortnight. I want to provide that it shall be exhibited at other places. In boroughs in England the list has to be exposed in some conspicuous place in or near the Post Office or Telegraph Office and other public places. I do not propose in my Amendment to interfere with private rights by making it compulsory to expose the list on the doors of the dissenting churches, but may I point out that in country districts—especially in the North and North-West of Scotland, a large portion of the population do not belong to the Established Church, and do not attend that church, which may indeed be many miles distant from their homes. This insufficient publication of the lists is a very great grievance. It is only right that every citizen should be able easily to find out whether or not he is in the proper enjoyment of his rights, and I therefore hope that the Lord Advocate will favourably receive my Amendment. He has undertaken a considerable revision of the Registration Law in connection with county electors, and my Amendment is confined to the lists of these electors.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words—
"In addition to any publication of the list of voters at present by Law required, the assessor of every county or division of a county shall, on or before the fifteenth day of September in each year of the making up of such list, publish copies of the said list by affixing the same in some public and conspicuous position in or near every post office and telegraph office, and in or near every public, municipal, and parochial office and public school within such district, and the same shall continue so affixed for a period including two consecutive Sundays at the least next after the day of publication, and if removed or defaced within such period shall be replaced by the assessor."—(Mr. Lyell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I dare say that the system of the publication of lists of voters admits of im-
352
provement; but I would suggest that this is a matter which could be more appropriately dealt with in considering the general Registration Law. The subject, I confess, is one well worthy attention; but, in passing, I may point out, in regard to the suggestion that the lists should be exhibited at the Post Office, that that Department would be considerably incommoded if it were made the medium of advertisements of this kind. The subject necessarily requires careful consideration, and though I am in sympathy with the object of the hon. Member, I do not think the Amendment before the Committee is one which can be accepted.
SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: The only conceivable objection I could imagine to this Amendment is the expense which would be thrown on the public by printing a few additional lists. The Amendment only proposes that the system which prevails in England shall be extended to Scotland. In England our experience is that the publicity given is the very minimum that should be allowed, and even with the publicity now given, I know from experience great inconvenience arises from the fact that voters often discover the omission of their names from the list only on the eve of an election. If I could imagine that the Government to which the Lord Advocate belongs was likely to bring in a Registration Bill in the course of the next two or three years, I should be only too glad to accept that as a reason for not adopting this Amendment. But, under the circumstances, I trust my hon. Friend will press it to a Division.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I appreciate highly the way in which the Lord Advocate has dealt with this subject. He at last admits that the custom which at present prevails in Scotland is entirely insufficient. I join with the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke in saying that if the Lord Advocate will give us anything like an intimation that he de-

353
sires to deal with this subject at an early stage, my hon. Friend would be well advised in withdrawing his Amendment. I am quite aware that objections may be taken to this particular proposal. Unless, however, we have an assurance from the Government that this matter will soon be taken up earnestly, I think we ought not to lose this opportunity of emphasizing the suggestions made that the present methods of publishing the list are disgracefully insufficient.
DR. CLARK: I understand that the Lord Advocate approves of the object of this Amendment. In this matter England is rather more advanced than Scotland, and the Amendment proposes to adopt a good English institution. In Scotland everybody does not go to the parish church, and I hold the list should be advertised much more extensively than merely affixing it to the parish church door. In country places—if there is an objection to using the Post Office—the list might be posted at or near the schools, which are usually in a central position. Sometimes the lists are torn down from the church doors by persons who are interested, and I therefore am strongly in favour of much more publicity being given to them.
MR. LYELL: I do not think that the arguments of the Lord Advocate are up to the mark. The words contained in my Amendment are taken from existing Acts passed, I believe, by a Conservative Government. I do not see why any objection should be raised to using the Post Office for exhibiting the list, seeing that those offices are expressly included in the Act referring to burghs. If it is done in burghs there is no earthly reason why the list should not be exhibited in country Post Offices. I am not at all wedded to the actual details of my Amendment. All I desire is that there shall be an effectual publication of the lists of the electors in the interests of the constituencies of the country. I do not think there is any prospect of a Registration Bill being
354
brought in to deal with this matter, and under the circumstances I shall insist on taking the sense of the House on this important question. If the Lord Advocate really has at heart the interest of the Scotch people he will at once deal with this matter and not postpone it until the dim future.
MR. A. L. BROWN: Seeing that the Lord Advocate has admitted the existence of the grievance, I am afraid that the public of Scotland will be ill-natured enough to construe his attitude into the expression of a desire on the part of the Conservative Party to prevent these lists being seen, because the names most like to be omitted from them are the names of those who vote Liberal and not Tory.
MR. CALDWELL: I think we might spare the Postmaster General a minute or two in order to express his opinions on this subject. I am not surprised at its being said nowadays that the parish church is not the most public place for the exhibition of these lists. I do not see any reason why the Post Offices should not be used, especially in the Highlands. I, therefore, hope the Government will yet accept the Amendment. When my hon. Friend first mentioned to me his proposal he suggested the publication of the lists on the doors of dissenting churches, but I pointed out to him that Parliament had no control which would enable it to insist on the publication at those places, and the hon. Member therefore withdrew that part of his proposal. I think that as we are establishing a new franchise it is a matter of positive importance that there should be a sufficient publication of the lists. I hope the Postmaster General will state that he has not objection to this proposal.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 109.—(Div. List, No. 204.)
Clause added.
A Clause (special provisions as to service franchise occupiers,)—(The Lord Advocate), brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause he read a second time."
MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I think that the proposal contained in this clause is entirely at variance with the principle of the representation of the People Act, 1884, in which the service franchise was first introduced, I think it will he most unfortunate if the gift of the franchise has attached to it a qualication of relieving the master of a share of the rates, and I venture to suggest that under this proposed clause there will he a great inducement for employers to exact the rates. I am not going to re-argue this point, for in the Second Beading Debate we fully discussed the point whether it was right to make the payment of rates a condition of the purchase. If a servant is to be rated, let him be rated, but do not say he shall not be rated; but if he votes then, he shall relieve his master of a share of the rates.
MR. MARJORIBANKS: I do not think we can allow the Amendment to pass in this way, for it is a most important one, and affects the rural population of Scotland in a most serious manner. I happen to represent an agricultural constituency, in which out of 6,000 voters there are some 2,000 service franchise holders. Now, Sir, if this proposal of the Lord Advocate is carried, it will interfere seriously with their power of exercising the franchise for these County Councils. I do entreat the Government to reconsider their position in regard to this matter, and on Monday to say the service franchise holder under the County Council shall be as free as those on the Parliamentary register. I, therefore, move to report Progress.
Question, "That the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again." put, and agreed to.

COUNCIL OF INDIA BILL. (No. 281.)
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST,): I hope the hon. Member
356
for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) will allow the Council of India Bill to be read a second time.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: No, Sir. This is a very important Bill, and I will not consent to have it read a second time without discussion.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

CRUELTY TO CHILDREN PREVENTION BILL. (No. 87.)
Order for Third Reading read, and discharged:—Bill re-committed, in respect of. a new Clause (Expenses of prosecution).
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Richard Webster,): I beg to move the new clause of which I have given notice.
New clause (Expenses of Prosecution) page 6, after Clause 9—
"Where a misdemeanour under this Act is tried on indictment, the expenses of the prosecution shall he defrayed in like manner as in the case of a felony."—(Sir S. Webster.)
Question, "That this Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
Question, "That this Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Bill reported.
Bill, as amended, considered.
MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Bright-side): I trust the House will allow this Bill to be read a third time.
Question, "That this Bill be read a third time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL. (No. 20.)
Order for Committee read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 193.)
Lords' Amendments to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 331.]
House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILLS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, the suspension of a Resolution like this was opposed by Lord Redesdale, Chairman of Committees, in 1855, because no opposition, so late in the Session, could be of any avail. Since then, especially in 1879, when limited liability for banks was carried by suspension of the Standing Orders on August 14, and the Bill carried the next day by Royal Assent, all has been hurry. The noble Chairman of Committees said it would be better to have no Resolutions than to annul them afterwards. I think it should be possible for this House to go through all the business before it with due deliberation. I can only say that I have constantly advised Members of the Government to adjourn Parliament instead of proroguing it. There are several precedents for it, and if that were done there would, I assure your Lordships, be sufficient opportunity afforded for the consideration of business. On the 17th December, 1831, Parliament was adjourned to the 17th January following, and by that means obstruction and a great waste of time was avoided. I think it would be for the good of the country if the Government would at once announce that they are prepared to adjourn the Session instead of proroguing Parliament.
  LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, a great number of Provisional Orders are on such minor matters as the alteration
  238
  of local boundaries, not being those of counties, and not sufficiently advanced to come before the House. I am not speaking from absolute information, but I think it most likely that this large number of Bills has relation to matters which are the subject of local inquiry. The House will agree that it is, under any circumstances, exceedingly difficult for those who have to pass Provisional Orders Confirmation Bills through the House to comply with the very stringent Sessional Orders, and it is only with very great difficulty that they can be complied with at all. They are exceedingly stringent. I quite agree with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees that it is undesirable to continue the Standing Orders. I venture to think it would be very desirable for next Session, before the next Sessional Orders are passed, to consider whether the time should not be extended.
  LORD DENMAN: The necessity for supplementing the Local Government Bill shows how hastily it was carried. I wish no such Resolution hid been passed at all.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: It was suggested that the Provisional Orders Bills, which your Lordships know are not discussed at any very great length by this House, should be considered by the Standing Committee, but since that time not a single Provisional Orders Bill has been sent to the Standing Committee. As no ono seems to know very much about them, I venture to suggest to the noble Viscount that he should send them to the Committee on General Purposes.

THE EDUCATION CODE.
LORD NORTON: My Lords, I to move a Resolution, of which I given Notice—

239
"That in the opinion of this House the Education Code should fix a certain general grant to all certified elementary schools, according to their circumstances, as the normal contribution of the State to the expenses incurred by managers, instead of the grants proposed in Article 100 (a) to be awarded on a graduated scale by the Department according to Reports of Inspectors on the efficiency, in various senses, of each school; and that any reported inefficiency should not be met by reducing the means of efficiency, but the grant should be continued until persistent refusal or neglect to amend the reported inefficiency should forfeit the certificate of the school."
I hope your Lordships will accept my statement of petitions, of which I have about 50 to present, from Teachers' Associations and other bodies connected with national education in favour of this Motion. The 30th edition of the Education Code to which they refer, as your Lordships will have seen by the Report of what took place in the other House yesterday, is withdrawn, but some new edition must follow the Report of the Royal Commission, and the present is a favourable opportunity to pass in preparation such a Resolution as I now propose. It is most essential that that new edition of the Code should be based on sound principle, and should be upon permanent basis embodying the experience of so many years. There is nothing more injurious than constant change in a Code upon such a subject. I want to show your Lordships that all the demands for change may be traced to one source. At the bottom of all the dissatisfaction and faults found and demands for alteration is the radically vicious basis of co-operation between the managers who undertake national education and the State which subsidises their work. The managers are either school boards with unlimited command of local taxation, or voluntary bodies who began, and are carrying on, the work from private resources. Soon after I first reduced a mass of Minutes of Council on this subject to a Code, as Vice President of the Council Mr. Lowe (now Lord Sherbrooke) in revising it, following me in that office, originated the idea of the State dealing with managers on terms of bargain and sale. So many samples of instruction were to be produced for inspection, and were to be paid for, if approved, by the State. All the specified samples together, approved and accepted, would fall very
240
far short of anything that deserved to be called education; and, so purchased, must actually hinder it. Thirty years of such a mercenary system of piecemeal education have so utterly degraded the whole idea of the work, and so accustomed and practised those engaged in the trick of the bargain, that each yearly new edition of the terms is simply canvassed and estimated by the sum to be won out of it. I heard a leading educationalist the other day condemning the just withdrawn Code, on the ground that it would cause an actual loss of 4 ½d. a head in the school in which he was interested. One cannot but think when one reflects for a moment on what the real scope of education is, the formation of character, the instilling of sound principles of action, and the training of the intelligence of the great bulk of the nation, that it is a matter of grave importance to ascertain what is the cause of so much mischief. The educational value of the Code is merged in the simple cash calculation. The system is condemned. If anyone supposes I exaggerate in saying that the mode of payment is the root of all its evil, they have only to consider for a moment the grievances put forward. The Notice Paper of the other House shows 12 Amendments to the Code just withdrawn. I think that has been the cause for its withdrawal. Every grievance would be met by recognizing the true principle of a public support of education. For instance, complaints are made that under the present system there is a neglect of religious instruction. That is because a money grant cannot be attached even to elementary instruction in religion. Another very prominent grievance is that a sort of evanescent cramming of the memory has been substituted for the training of the intellect of children. Why is that? Simply because the payments depend on performances, and not on the requirement for education. Another grievance is the anxiety and distraction of mind arising from precarious income. Why is that? Because there has been substituted for a general contract for the great work of education, special payments for details of instruction. My Lords, I maintain that this system is condemned by all who have thought impartially about it. Nowhere is it more pointedly

241
condemned than in the Code which has just been withdrawn. That Code followed the Report of the Royal Commission in a wide departure from this system. It largely increased the fixed rate of support given by way of subsidy from the State, but at the same time it unfortunately retained a number of those special payments which have been the cause of mischief, enough to still vitiate the whole system. The Code, as withdrawn, after laying down most properly general conditions on which any subsidy should be obtained, proceeded only partially to enlarge the fixed part of the subsidy given by the State, and that in a precarious manner and with liability to total forfeiture; but it made up its amount by a number of the old grants in detail, and these would still be the most interesting stakes to play for, in hopes to cover expenses incurred. There were—a shilling for needle-work, a shilling for singing by note or sixpence by ear, one or two shillings for class subjects. English, geography, and history, and four shillings apiece for specific sciences and foreign languages, which the richer classes would monopolize. That Code recognized what was advocated only partially, and spoilt it by retaining what was condemned. There should, no doubt, be what this Code had not—namely, different curricula for schools in different circumstances; but in each case the State subsidy should be dependable and should be adequate for the contemplated work. What is the use of asking for half remedies, such as an extension of the 17s. 6d. limit of subsidy, which, indiscriminately applied, might be too much or too little; or for freedom from rates, which would be dangerous and unjustifiable indefinitely granted? Such is the necessary failure of a remedy which did not touch the cause of the old disease. What is wanted is not casual prizes, but means for the work to be done and for its necessary cost. So inveterate has become the earning, and eleemosynary, habit that a more definite contract between the State and managers is neither desired nor thought possible. Yet it is the practice of all other countries, including our Colonies. In Canada a supply from the Central School Fund is distributed to every school district simply in proportion to the school population, that is children between the age of five
242
and 15, and the rateable value of the district. The Mother Country might take a limit in practical wisdom from her daughter, and fix a normal scale of capitation for State subsidy to local managers, who would soon come to terms in detail with boards and voluntary contributors as to its application to their own particular requirements. But the Code made a further blunder in proposing the enlarged fixed subsidy to be awarded on a graduated scale, according to the inspectors' judgment of the comparative merit of schools as good, fair, or excellent. Inspectors were unanimous in their evidence of the impossibility of such discrimination, and the invidiousness and falsehood of the attempt. The fact that the sample turned out is not so good in one place as in another is no test of the merit of the teaching. The object is not competitive exhibitions, which, from the circumstances of the school or accident of pupils' intelligence, may vary inversely with the teachers' labour. The object is to put good education within the reach of all. A normal fixed State subsidy to local managers is the true principle for public support of national education, and this is gradually breaking on the long bewildered public mind. But there lingers still enough of the old fallacy to make some suppose a guarantee of work, and a stimulant to exertion, necessary in the shape of praemia on superior show, and fines on failure. It is strange that the teachers' profession should be thought incapable of the pride or honesty of good work, and to require enticing or flogging up to their duties by threats of their income being withdrawn, and of the very means for carrying on their service being mulcted—that they alone of all people in the country should be thought incapable of doing their duty, except by a 'petty system of rewards and punishments. I am convinced that your Lordships will not take that view. A false parallel has been put forward to bear out that view in the dependence of all work for profit on its success. The open market certainly will not come for nor remunerate unsuccessful product. But there is no parallel in that fact to a Government subsidy for national education by instalments of payment on details of approved instruction. The Government should take no

243
measure of the work required in subsidizing national education by non-success in particular performances. The Government should, by constant inspection, instead of that useless inspection which now goes on on fixed days, ascertain a bonâ fide service, and so long as is continued give a fixed subsidy of adequate amount. In case of persistent neglect or of misapplication of the means given they should withdraw them until their proper use was restored. The only objection that I have heard of any weight whatever is the notion that too much will have to be trusted to the inspector's judgment, but in any system there must be trust to the inspectors. In common with the Code proposal, on persistent refusal to correct faults the total grant should be taken away after, say, two years' warning. That I believe is the proposal that has been made in the Code, and I have made precisely the same proposal. But I would go further even than that. I would suggest that where an inspector's judgment is challenged there should be an appeal, to a sort of Committee of Inspectors. Your Lordships know there are similar means of appeal in other Department. My Lords, all I ask is the affirmation of a better principle for the New Code which must follow next year. I ask that a final draft of the Education Code should be made on a sound basis; that we must have at least the State subsidy fixed; and that the managers of our schools should be placed, in relation with the State, on terms suitable, independent, and adequate for the work of national education.
Moved to resolve—
"That in the opinion of this House the new Education Code should fix a certain general grant to all certified elementary schools, according to their circumstances, as the normal contribution of the State to the expenses incurred by managers, instead of the grants proposed in Article 100 (a) to be awarded on a graduated scale by the Department according to reports of inspectors on the efficiency, in various senses, of each school; and that any reported inefficiency should not be met by reducing the means of efficiency, but that the normal grant be continued until persistent refusal or neglect to amend the reported inefficiency should forfeit the certificate of the school."—[The Lord Norton.)
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, I think it is a little hard of my noble Friend to repeat now to your
244
Lordships the same arguments as he urged on the last occasion when he brought the question before the House, and withdrew his Motion. My noble Friend who was a Member of the Royal Commission not only used all these arguments before, but he gave an opportunity to any Member of the Commission who might agree with him to sign the protest which he made upon this particular point, but he could not get any of his colleagues to join him in subscribing it, and it was made solely and entirely without their consent. The Report of the Royal Commission is most distinctly in contradiction to everything that my noble Friend has said in your Lordships' House. The New Code is no longer before the House, and we need no longer discuss it. But my noble Friend, after the explanation which he has given, finds at last that the principle embodied in the Report is the same as that which he himself adopted. I must ask your Lordships to see what it is that he proposes. It is that the House should lay down as the principle to be acted upon that any report of inefficiency in schools should not be met by reducing the means of efficiency, but that the "reported inefficiency" should be continued until persistent refusal or neglect to amend the reported inefficiency should forfeit the certificate of the school. The noble Lord does not mean this; but can he expect your Lordships to adopt a Resolution so drawn? Now, my Lords, just let me for one moment call your attention to the fact that the proposal of the Royal Commission, of which, as I have said, my noble Friend was a member, was that there should be a fixed grant of 10s. per child, and that the fluctuating grants beyond that should be so far modified as that their amount should depend upon and be regulated rather by the acquirements of the great majority of the scholars than the exact number of children who acquire the necessary standard. That is to say that they wanted it to depend no longer upon individual results, but upon the general condition of the school, the character of the teaching, and the order and discipline prevailing among the children. They expressed their conclusions in the most distinct terms, and they went on to say that the distribution of the

245
Parliamentary grant could not be made wholly free from the present system of examination, without greater evils resulting than those which it was sought to cure, nor could they believe that Parliament should make a larger grant without in some way satisfying itself that the quality of the education would justify the expenditure. But they also said that the present system of payment by results is carried too far, and is too rigidly applied, and that it ought to be applied for the interests of both the scholars and the teachers. That was the principle on which we proceeded. In that respect the Report of the minority was in practical agreement with that of the majority, and went distinctly in favour of that which had been voted by the majority. Therefore, I may say it is perfectly clear that what the Royal Commission recommended was a fixed grant, that each school should receive a certain amount in the course of the year, so that they would be enabled to make proper arrangements for teaching, and so forth, but that the teachers and managers should be able to earn more according to their qualifications and the manner in which they conducted the school. The inspectors were to report upon the moral training, accuracy, and general knowledge of each school, and upon the qualifications and instructions of the pupil teachers. They were to judge according to the best characteristics of the best schools, and according to the quality of each school they were to make the grant, and beyond that they were to give payment for certain subjects. I should have been very glad if an opportunity had been afforded of going into this question, and regret that the New Code has never yet undergone adequate discussion; but as my noble Friend is in opposition to all his colleagues on the Commission, as he has submitted to this House practically the same Motion once before, and it was withdrawn having received no support from your Lordships, I would ask you to negative the Resolution at present before you.
On Question, resolved in the negative.

THE LIQUOR LAWS IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government
  246
  if they will take steps to obtain and lay before Parliament reliable information regarding the present working of the "Liquor Laws "in Canada and in the United States? My Lords, in moving for the Return according to the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper, I would ask Her Majesty's Government what information is already in their possession, which would place your Lordships in a position to judge of the success or otherwise of the prohibition of the sale of liquor in the United States and Canada. This Notice of mine has been for some time on the Paper, and I am glad it has been delayed, because within the last month or so facts have come out which corroborate the statements I have to lay before your Lordships, and which considerably strengthen the position I take up on the subject. My object in bringing this forward is to show that prohibitory liquor legislation has failure written on its face, and that it has always failed even when tried under the most favourable circumstance. This we are now able to prove by statis. tics. In Canada and the United States they have had prohibitory laws of almost every kind and description. They have had total prohibition, local option, and Sunday dosing in all the phases and forms which compulsory regulation of the traffic can take; and if, as we are told by temperance advocates, drinking is the cause of crime, madness, and poverty, these countries ought to be free from all those evils. But is that so? The facts do not prove anything of the kind. On the contrary, crime, madness, pauperism, and all the other evils are just as rampant in the prohibition countries as here in proportion to the population. About two years ago I ventured to say in this House that in Canada and the United States these evils prevailed to an enormous extent. I was taken to task by the Member for Glasgow, who was then about to leave for America, and he promised to give me his reply when he returned. I am waiting still for the reply. Probably the hon. Member will find as a result of his inquiries that the facts I stated were true. Since then I have spoken to one of the American Ministers to this country upon the subject, and his reply was that what I had stated was perfectly true, and he told him that in Maine hot pickles were

  247
  taken, in substitution of liquors, as a stimulant. His Excellency mentioned the death of a well-known temperance lecturer from this kind of intemperance. He told me that he had known a temperance advocate who had lately died. He asked the doctor what was the cause of death, and the answer was "Intemperance." But it was not intemperance in alcohol, but in hot pickles, which for this gentleman were a substitute for alcohol. The failure of this legislation is shown by all the Parliamentary Papers and Foreign Office Reports on the subject of liquor traffic. Of the failure of prohibitory legislation in America and Canada, we have ample proof in the Parliamentary Papers, thanks to the action of Mr. M'Lagan, who is well known as a local optionist. No doubt, having heard from his friends of the success of the laws in Canada, the hon. Member called for a Return on the subject, which, much to his surprise, proved the total failure of the Acts. Professor Goldwin Smith, whose views always carry great weight upon this subject, said in an article of his which appeared in Macmillan's Magazine—
  "It is evident that English politics are beginning to be disturbed like those of the United States and Canada by the formation of a prohibitionist party. The party usually calls itself that of temperance. But though we may wish to be courteous, we cannot concede a name which not only begs the question at issue, but is a standing libel on those who take their glass of wine or beer without being in any rational sense of the term temperate. Temperance is one thing, total abstinence is another, and coercion, at which these reformers aim, is a third. As temperance implies self-restraint, there can be no temperance in the proper sense of the term where there is coercion. The 'temperance' people on this side of the water are not much inclined, so far as I have come in contact with them, to listen to anything so rationalistic as the lesson of experience. They tell you that with them it is a matter not of experience but of principle; but their cause is the cause of Heaven; yours, if you are an opponent, that of the darker power; and they intimate, with mere or less gentleness and courtesy, what, if you persist in getting in Heaven's way, will be your deserved and inevitable doom. To those, however, who in practical matters regard the dictates of experience as principles, and who wish, before committing themselves to a particular kind of legislation, to know whether it is likely to do good or harm, the result of Canadian or American experiments may not be uninstructive."
  Now, Professor Goldwin Smith is a well-known advocate of local option, and I am
  248
  sure that anything coming from him will have very great weight with your Lordships. Then he goes on to show the evils arising from passing such laws, which are regarded as unjust and unnecessary laws. Here are the facts brought out by Professor Goldwin Smith as regards those countries, and as taken from the official returns. He goes on to say that the Canadian Temperance Act, known as the Scott Act, was passed in 1878, and might be described as a county and city option measure, which, when adopted, remained in force three years. In Ontario, out of 42 counties and 11 cities, 28 counties and two cities adopted it. The other day ten counties repealed it, and in 18 counties and two cities petitions either had been presented or were understood to be in preparation for the same object; and the general result where the Act had been tried was the substitution of unlicensed and unregulated for a licensed and regulated trade. The demand for drink, he says, remains the same, but it is supplied in illicit ways, and drunkenness, instead of being diminished, has increased, as the illicit liquor seller is more active than the licensed publican in thrusting his temptation on those most likely to yield to it. In the north-west territories, where the law is qualified by a power of giving permits vested in the Lieutenant Governor, he states that the measure was a disastrous failure, that anybody could get liquor who wanted it, and that the only fruits of the system were smuggling, perjury, secret drinking, and deterioration of the liquor. Ardent spirits were everywhere substituted for lager beer and light drinks. At Milton there were before the Act five places where liquor was sold; after it was passed there were 16, and the trade had gone from respectable people into the lowest dens. Sometimes the spirits sold in these places are literally poisons, and such measures naturally provoke the desire to break the law. It is wrong, of course, to break the laws, but it is wrong also to make laws unsupported by any moral obligation, and which people are sure to break. There has been the same experience in the United States. In Maine, where it is supposed that the law is so strict that it is impossible to get liquors, the actual facts show that it is sold to all who wish to obtain it in nearly every

  249
  town in the State. The universal testimony is the same, that in cities and villages alike they can get liquors enough for bad purposes in bad places, but they cannot get it in good places for good purposes. Now, my Lords, comes the question of statistics. The Maine Prison Report states that intoxication is on the increase, and that some new legislation must be passed if it is to be lessened. The number of committals for drunkenness, it states, in the year was 1,316 for a population of 648,000, while in Canada, which was not then under these laws, the number was only 593 for 661,000 of the population. In ordinary crime there has been an increase, and the pauper rate is larger in Maine than in any other State. In Vermont, where for the last 30 years prohibition has been tried in its severest form, the law for all practical purposes is a dead letter. In Iowa prohibition means free liquor, and in Kansas, under the most strict prohibition, the drug stores are little better than rum-shops. Local option, which has been in force for three years in seven counties in Ontario, was submitted to the electors for a renewed term, but was rejected in all those counties by large majorities. In June last the repeal of the liquor prohibition Amendment by the Rhode Island Constitution was voted by a heavy majority, and in the same month the people of Pennsylvania rejected a prohibitory liquor Amendment to the Constitution by 175,000 votes. In Philadelphia the majority was 93,750, against it, and in nearly every county there was a large hostile majority. All this goes to prove the signal failure of the Acts; but such legislation is most disastrous in other respects, because it engenders an enormous amount of deceit, and every mode of breaking the law is resorted to. My Lords, I take it that those facts show that there has been a signal failure in producing the effects by those Acts which their promoters hoped they would produce. I have received numerous letters upon this part of the subject from a person in Maine who is thoroughly conversant with the subject, giving instances of the deceits resorted to for the purpose of evading the law. For example, in some transatlantic places, if you go into a place where liquor is sold, by turning the taps in one direction you get water, if turned in another you get spirits. In
  250
  many cases spirits are obtained under the pretence of illness; and as druggists are allowed to sell liquors medicinally the usual prescription when the patient required "bracing up" was "spirit fumenti, "and whiskey was produced. In smaller towns in America spirits are obtained from "the bootless saloons" where men go in with long jack-boots and they have only to give a wink and they get the boots filled, and a very common mode was upon what was known as the "loan system." A gentleman desiring a bottle of champagne with his dinner mentions the fact to the waiter, with the result that a bottle is "lent" and a document is signed by the gentleman promising to give back the bottle on a future occasion—whether it is full or empty does not appear. The law cannot possibly touch such a case, for it is all colourably legal enough. But, my Lords, you must not suppose that these evils are at all confined to the transatlantic countries, for we know that in our own country Sunday closing has had very similar effects. We have had ample illustrations in the United Kingdom. Sunday closing was in force in Wales, but in Neath the hotels were watched for two or three months, and an average to each house of 280 "bond fide travellers "were seen to eater. In Glasgow there are 4,000 she been and 2,000 clubs. Lord Aberdare, who was an earnest advocate of what is called "temperance legislation, "and who, when he was in the House of Commons, made a proposal by which in 10 years all the licences would have lapsed, and who strenuously supported the Welsh Sunday Closing Bill, has written admitting that it was a failure. Now, my Lords, in the face of all these facts what will the enthusiastic teetotal advocates, or "hydrocephalists" as one may call them, for they certainly suffer from "water on the brain, "say in defence of their position? Doubtless, as regards America and the United States, they will argue that the systems were different, and that what has happened there would not happen here. It is perfectly astonishing the fearful extremes to which some of these enthusiastic water drinkers will go. I read some time ago in a Scotch paper that the pastor and deacons of a kirk, who were all water drinkers, and who objected to the use of wine in the Communion Service, with-

  251
  out the knowledge of the congregation substituted water mixed with chalk. It is interesting also, my Lords, to see what professional prohibitionists say on these matters. I have in my hands the speech of a distinguished political gentleman, and as the passage in question expresses my own views much better than I could do I will read it. The speaker (Sir W. Harcourt, M.P.) in 1872 said—
  "I heard it affirmed that crime, poverty, and disease were the results of increased and increasing drunkenness. When I come to examine these assertions I find they cannot be supported. There seems to be, day by day, a growing disposition more and more to invoke the interference of Government in every relation of social life. I believe this to be a most dangerous tendency, and one to which it is necessary to offer an early and determined resistance. The question is, Can you, or ought you to put down drinking by legislation? You might, of course, make it impossible for any man to get anything to drink, and then, of course, no man could be drunk; just in the same way you might make an end of all crime by putting everybody in prison. But when you have put everybody in prison you will not have made your population virtuous. No more will you have made the nation moral when you have compelled them to be sober against their will. "What really makes sobriety valuable is the voluntary self-control, the deliberate self-denial which resists temptation and leads a man for the sake of himself and others to abstain from vicious indulgence, and this is the thing which you cannot create by Act of Parliament. I shall he told that this sort of restrictive legislation is promoted by well-intentioned people for excellent objects. I know it is. But I also know that the greatest crimes and the greatest mischiefs the world has ever known have been the work of well-intentioned people for excellent objects. They thought it was their right and their duty to compel men by any and all means to do what was good for their temporal and eternal welfare. The Bishop of Peterborough's sentence, that he 'would rather see England free than sober, 'has become famous. I know he has been loudly condemned for it, but it seems to me to convey sound sense and true policy, and if he had only added that he would rather see England free than orthodox, I should have been disposed to have called him a model Bishop. I am against the whole system of petty molestation and irritating dictation, whether by a class or by a majority. I am against forbidding a man to have a glass of beer if he wants a glass of beer. I am against public-house restrictions and park regulations."
  Now, my Lords, in 1888, addressing the assembled hydrocephalists, the same gentleman said—
  "It cannot he but a matter of supreme satisfaction to men who have worked far longer than myself (sic) in this great cause, to men like those whom I see around me upon this platform, and perhaps first and foremost of all my friend
  252
  Sir Wilfrid Lawson, men who worked so faithfully—at times it must have been so desperately—in the cause which they have lived to see advance to a point when we are within sight of final victory, to Bee this great cause moving like some of the great heavenly bodies with cumulative velocity and with ever-increasing momentum…. In spite of all your progress your gaols are still replenished with crime; your workhouses are filled with paupers; homes that might be happy become the abodes of wretchedness; men who might be an honour and a service to their country become either mischievous drunkards or useless sots; and women who should be the nursing mothers of future generations offer to their children the fatal example of intemperance and vice. Depend upon it, there is no place like the Home Office for impressing upon the mind the terrible significance of this cancer which eats into the vitals of society, Can we sit with folded hands and accept this shocking and far-reaching mischief? You do not act with helpless impotence in other things. If you have foul sewers, you cleanse them. If you have swamps which breed fever, and endanger the vital powers of the community, you cleanse them. But this fruitful source of moral pestilence is allowed to work its unnumbered evils. Is there no remedy for it?—[Cries of 'Yes, 'and' Shut them up.'] The remedy is at your hand. It is the very thing which the alliance exists to promote [i.e. prohibition). I propose to give the absolute control, including prohibition, to the Local Government."
  My Lords, it is difficult to understand that in these two instances the speaker was the same; but in 1872, at Oxford, Sir William Harcourt was not the professional politician he was at Manchester in 1888, when he made the second speech addressing the hydrocephalists. What a professional politician may sometimes feel himself impelled to do I do not know—I am sure it is not for me to say what a professional politician may or may not do. It is highly possible that those who err in one direction will fall into an extreme in the other. But, my Lords, it is of secondary importance what a professional politician out of office may say upon any question as compared with what will be done by the Government of the country. My Lords, I can hardly doubt that those who sit on the Treasury Bench will agree that it is no crime for a man to drink a glass of beer or spirits. I do not believe, my Lords, that at Cabinet dinners there is only water provided; and I hope Her Majesty's Government will courageously put their foot down when any question of legislation of this sort comes before them. I could refer your Lordships to some powerful passages in the Report of the Lords' Commission on the subject.

  253
  The evil of drunkenness is, no doubt, a question of great importance; but there are more serious matters even than drunkenness, and those questions are liberty and law. I hold that we shall cease to be a free people if it is not to be in the power of a sober and temperate man to get a glass of beer or spirits if he wants to do so. I appeal to the Government to consider well before assisting any legislation of a prohibitive character, and I urge that if legislation is undertaken it should be on the lines laid down in the Report of the Lords' Commission. The other aspect of the question, to which I would again refer, is obedience to the law, and I think there is nothing which would be more hurtful to the nation in the long run than such prohibition by law—in the long run it would tend to produce contempt for the law, and induce the evils of evasion and drunkenness which it has produced elsewhere. I trust, therefore, that those who desire that prohibition which has failed in other countries, and among all English-speaking races, Will be warned by those examples, and I hope your Lordships will resist the tyrannical views and action of the Temperance Alliance, and those who are in favour of prohibiting the liquor traffic. In the event of the licensing being transferred to the County Councils, I trust that whatever Government may be in office a minimum will be fixed both as to the number of licenses and as to the fees to be charged. In that way alone should the interests of the minority be protected. That protection for minorities is demanded, otherwise, upon taking the opinion of perhaps a few hundreds of the population of a district, all places where liquor is sold would be shut up and the licenses taken away. On the other hand, it is quite possible to impose such a fee upon licenses as to be sufficiently prohibitory. My Lords, I think the evil effect in every way, moral and otherwise, of this kind of legislation is so clearly shown in the cases where it has been adopted, and its failure so apparent, that I now ask the question which stands in my name, for the purpose of having laid before your Lordships any Papers on the subject.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS(The Marquess of SALISBURY):
  254
  My Lords, the only objection I know to the demand of my noble Friend that the Government should furnish him with more information is, that he has so much information already that I am not sure we could give him any material to his purpose. We have already a good deal of information on the Table, and we will do what we can to obtain from the American States any further light upon this debateable question. I am authorized by Lord Knutsford to say that he will take the same measures with regard to Canada. My noble Friend must remember, however, that at the beginning of the operation of a law when it has not been in operation for a great length of time, it is not easy to produce, in the form of statistical figures, evidence of its actual working. It is only when it has been in operation for a considerable number of years that the evidence takes that form, and any evidence which really depends on the estimate formed by the reporter is of less value, and in the case of a foreign State is rather difficult to furnish. It is quite a simple affair to ask the Secretaries of the Embassies in any foreign State to give any facts they know, but it is not so easy to ask them what they think of the working of the law, because they might say something to which the Government to which they are accredited may very fairly take exception. Therefore, I must ask my noble Friend not to imagine that there is a larger store of information at our disposal than actually exists; but I can assure him we will do our best to obtain all we can, and shall be very glad to lay it on the Table.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Much of the information which I have quoted is contained in Papers already presented to Parliament, and my desire is that we should have a continuance of that information down to the present date.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Quite so; that will be easily done. My noble Friend dealt a good deal with movements of opinion, and addressed many exhortations to the Government or those who might occupy our places; but he knows very well what the opinions of the Government are upon this subject. We embodied them in certain clauses of the Bill of last year, but we found there were difficulties, not

  255
  political, but of a material character, in I the way of carrying our opinions any I further. We find it bad enough to be obliged to devote a Session to Ireland and a Session to Scotland, and if in addition we are to devote two or three Sessions to public-houses, there really would be a very serious impediment to public business. The vigour of the controversy which rages on this subject makes it very difficult to introduce any legislation at all. The noble Earl spoke rather as if he imagines that handing over the power of licensing from the Magistrates to the Local Authorities would be a measure in derogation of the liberty of which he is very justly jealous. That is not my opinion. I think that the views to which he is particularly adverse only exist in particular strata of society; they do not spread very largely, but they are found in persons who announce them with great vigour and propagate them with great energy. Those views have in some counties invaded the Magisterial Bench, but I am not sure that the liberty of which he is the champion will not in the long run be exposed to this kind of risk if the present system of magisterial licensing continues without any modification. At all events, I feel we should, on the whole, be quite as safe with the County Councils as with the Magistrates in this matter, though I entirely concur that such measures should be taken in any legislation on this subject as should prevent any oppressive action of the kind which he dreads. But there is one point in my noble Friend's reasoning which struck me as he went on, and to which I will draw his attention. I quite admit there is this desire for what is called prohibition. It is nothing new. It has existed in civilized communities from time to time. One of the earliest heresies that afflicted the Christian Church was a heresy which forbade to drink wine or to eat flesh or to marry. In these days we separate the three, and there are three separate sects who preach these various doctrines. They are delusions which prevail from time to time; they grow, they flourish, they reach their height, and then they fall away. And I think from some of the statistics which my noble Friend has brought forward, there is ground for believing that we are not in great
  256
  danger of this feeling spreading very much further than it has already spread. But it is mixed up with another feeling, with which, I think, my noble Friend has wrongly confounded it, but which is defensible on other grounds, and that is the movement for shutting public-houses on Sunday. Now that is not, in my view of it, mainly a teetotal movement. It is much more analogous to what we may call, without offence, the Sabbatarian view, which turns much more on the sanctity which attaches to Sunday than on the movement for restraining the sale of spirituous liquors, and, therefore, it has at its back a much stronger force of opinion—a force of opinion drawn from the sentiments and the deep convictions of a large school of the Christian Church, and I do not deny that that movement has acquired considerable I strength, and may acquire greater strength yet. My noble Friend must not imagine I am at all in its favour; I deprecate it very much; but I was anxious to distinguish between two different currents of opinion which I think it is a mistake to confound. I think the movement for Sunday closing is one of considerable power, and I do not venture to prophesy how far it will succeed or how far it will fail. We know it has already succeeded in the Celtic portions of this country, and it may extend somewhat further, but the movement against the liberty to consume alcohol, which is separate from the question of Sunday closing altogether, is not in my belief a very powerful movement, and I think my noble Friend need be under no apprehension that it will ever acquire sufficient power to interfere with individual liberty. That is the only point on which I wish to express any opinion on the points raised in the observations of my noble Friend. I quite agree it is important that we should watch these movements and obtain as much information as we can, and we shall be glad to give our assistance to my noble Friend in doing so.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: May I suggest that information should also be obtained from Australia and New Zealand?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We will obtain information from those places.

PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION (ALTERATION OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION).
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I move that a Select Committee be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider and report under what circumstances, or upon what conditions, if any, Private Bills altering the terms of the Memorandum of Association of Companies ought to be allowed to pass. It will be apparent to your Lordships that this Motion arises out of the difficulty felt in regard to a Private Bill which came before your Lordships yesterday. The Chairman of Committees was in considerable difficulty in the matter, and he thought it ought to be submitted to the House to say whether the Bill was one which ought to be allowed a Second Reading or not. I am quite sure that what took place yesterday is not likely to determine his difficulties in this respect. And, my Lords, the difficulty is increased by the fact that a different view in the matter has been taken by the two Houses, as to the mode in which these Bills ought to be dealt with. A measure of that kind came before the other House, and was considered by them, and they thought it was a case in which an alteration might be allowed. There is no doubt that the mistake yesterday arose from a misapprehension. I think your Lordships will agree that two things are very desirable; first, that some rule should be made as to the mode in which such an application should be dealt with, and next that that rule should be as nearly as possible the same in both Houses, so that those interested in the matter should know exactly under what conditions such application would be likely to be successful, and under what conditions it would be useless to make them. I think this Motion is likely to have a very useful result in preventing any difficulty arising, and in removing any misconception as to the construction of the Act.
Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider and report under what circumstances, or upon what conditions, if any, Private Bills altering the terms of the Memorandum of association of companies ought to he allowed to pass."— (The Lord Herschell.)
THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble and learned Friend for raising this question. It is one of great importance, as the doubts he has alluded to might lead to considerable difficulties in dealing with Bills of this nature. I think it is desirable that what he suggests should be done now, so that promoters may know, before November, when their Bills must be deposited, on what principles Parliament will act in future. I can only say that I will give such assistance as I can with regard to the appointment of such a Committee.
Motion agreed to.

TRUST COMPANIES BILL.(No. 10.)
House in Committee (on re-commitment) (according to order).
Amendments made.
Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended (No. 158.)

SMALL DEBTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 136.)

  SECOND READING.
  LORD WATSON: My Lords, the Bill which I ask your Lordships to read a second time is not by any means an ambitious measure. The Sheriff in Scotland exercises a very cheap and summary jurisdiction in cases for the recovery of debts not exceeding £12. The first object of the Bill is to extend the jurisdiction to the case of an owner whose goods are unlawfully detained, and who shows that they are under the value of £12. The remaining clauses of the Bill relate to alterations in the procedure of the Court, which, it appears to me, will be of considerable value.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.