Sitting of 22 July 1889

EAST INDIA (ASSAM COOLIES).
Address for—
"Copies of Government of India Despatch, dated the 22nd day of June 1889, with its incisures, including Reports by Mr. Tucker; and of Memorial of the Indian Association of Calcutta, dated the 12th day of April 1888 (in continuation of House of Lords' Return, No. 14, 5th March 1889)."—(Mr. Bradlaugh).

PRIVATE BILLS (ALTERATION OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION.)
Lords Message [16th July] considered.
Ordered, That a Select Committee of Five Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the House of Lords, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of the 16th day of this instant July, 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.
Ordered, That Mr. Courtney, Mr. Bristowe, Mr. Haldane, MR. Raikes, and Sir Horace Davey be Members of the Committee.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint their Lordships that this House, having considered their Lordships' Message, has appointed a Select Committee of Five Members to join with the Committee appointed by the House of Lords, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of Tuesday the 16th day of this instant July 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.—(Sir Horace Davey).

QUESTIONS.

  COMMUTATION OF PENSIONS.
  MR. BEADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
  976
  War whether he can now inform the House of his decision as to the future rates of the commutation of pensions to non-commissioned officers and privates?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information for which he asks. There has been some delay in the matter owing to our having to wait for a Treasury decision, which is, I believe, kept back for a Report from the Pensions Commutation Board. I regret the delay, and I will do my best to give an early answer to the question.

  THE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME CONFERENCE.
  MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the programme agreed upon by the American delegates to the International Maritime Conference, and submitted by them on 3rd April to Mr. Blaine, was communicated by the United States Government to Her Majesty's Government in the same form or with any modifications; and, if the latter, what were the modifications; whether the programme, as drawn up by the American delegates, included the following subjects: signals by lights or by sound to indicate the courses of vessels at night and during fogs and thick weather, and steering and sailing rules; regulations to determine the seaworthiness of vessels; uniform maximum load-line; regulations as to the designation and marking of vessels; saving of life and property from shipwreck at sea and by operations from shore; tests for sight and colour blindness; lanes for steamers on frequented routes, to prevent collision and to protect fishermen; night signals for communicating information at sea; warnings of approaching storms; reporting and removing dangerous wrecks; uniform method of exchanging information as to dangers to navigation, changes in lights, buoys, &c.; uniform system of colouring and numbering buoys; the establishment of a permanent International Maritime Commission; and, whether the final programme, as agreed upon between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government, comprises the whole of

  977
  these subjects or only some of them; and, in the latter case, which subjects constitute the final programme?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): The programme was communicated to Her Majesty's Government in the form submitted on April 3 and without modifications. The thirteen general divisions under which the programme is arranged comprise the subjects mentioned in the question. No final programme has as yet been agreed upon between the two Governments.
  MR. CHANNING: Ts an agreement likely to be arrived at at a reasonable time, so as to enable the Conference to be held this year?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government have stated their views to the Government of the United States, but they have not received a reply. Therefore, it is impossible for me to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but there is no reason to believe that the Conference will not be held this year.

  PEOPLE'S BANKS.
  MR. JAMES MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fact that it has been contemplated by Mr. A. Egmont Hake, Chairman of the Free Trade in Capital League, to introduce into Great Britain and Ireland a system of people's banks, based on that Shulze Delitzseh principle which has proved so beneficial to the working classes in Germany and Italy; the intention being to make use of a new medium of exchange to be called Cash Credit Certificates; and that the Bank of England, which has been approached on the subject, has intimated its intention to raise no objection to the new medium of exchange; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the great advantages these new people's banks are expected to confer on the working classes of this country, will raise any objection to the use of the proposed Cash Credit Certificates if their tenor be simply "The People's Bank of grant you a Cash Credit of £," and if their circulation be strictly limited to the locality of the bank from, which: they are issued?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St.: My attention had not been called to this subject until the hon. Member's question was put down, and it is much too vast to be dealt with offhand. The hon. Member's question is not quite correct in its reference to the Bank of England. The Bank has not "intimated its intention to raise no objection" to the issue of Cash Credit Certificates, but has simply said that, "while declining to commit itself" on the question, "it would not willingly place considerations of its own interest in the way of any proposal which was clearly shown to be for the public advantage." But, plainly, this is not merely a question between the promoters of the present scheme and the Bank. It vitally affects our whole system of paper currency, and cannot be decided without the most careful examination of its bearing on the security of that system.

  CYPRUS.
  Colonel BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of the sum derived from the revenues of Cyprus which is applied to the payment of interest on the Turkish Loan of 1855, guaranteed by England and France, and for which Turkey is in default; and, if he can inform the House how the surplus of the so-called Turkish Tribute has been applied, year by year, up to the present time?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Out of the Turkish Tribute annually payable by Cyprus, about £82,000 is stopped on its way to the Porte in order to make good the interest on the Turkish Guaranteed Loan of 1855, which is charged on the whole revenues of the Ottoman Empire. The difference between that sum and the total amount payable by Cyprus has been partly applied in payment of the Synge and Sutar ransoms, and the balance due to Turkey, amounting up to date to about £55,000, has been retained by Her Majesty's Government for the purpose of building up a sinking fund in respect of which the Turkish Government is in default. The Turkish Government are in default as to the sinking fund of the loan of 1855 A3 well as to the interest.
  MR. LEIGHTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Tribute was first applied to the payment of interest on the loan.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I think it was in the year 1882.

  NAVAL DEFENCES.
  SIR EDWARD EEED: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, before the present Session closes, he will inform the House, by means of a printed Return, or otherwise, what progress has been made with the work authorized by the Naval Defence Act, and, more particularly, to what extent orders for new ships and machinery have been given; where they have been placed; and what have been the financial liabilities incurred?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Under a clause in the Naval Defence Act a Return has to be given within a fixed period of the completion of each contract made under the Act for hulls or machinery or guns. It is, however, not advisable to publish any such Return until all the vessels of a particular type for which tenders have been invited have been allocated to the different parties tendering. It may, however, interest the House to know what progress has already been made in the contemplated programme for the year 1889–90 under the Naval Defence Act. Fifty-two ships bad to be commenced—20 in the dockyards, 32 in private yards. Arrangements for the 20 in the dockyards have been so far advanced that 18 have already been commenced. Of the 32 for private yards 16 second-class cruisers out of 17 have been actually placed, and the tenders for five first-class cruisers have been invited. We hope by the month of September to have placed the whole of the remainder.

  THE MUZZLING ORDER.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any Local Authority in the Metropolis to act under the Muzzling Order issued by the Privy Council; and, if not, whether the Commissioner of Police will carry it out on his own responsibility?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: Under Section 41 of the Animals Diseases Act 1878, and Section 40 of the Local Government Act, 1888, the London County Council are the Local Authority in the Metropolis by whom and at whose expense the Muzzling Order issued by the Privy Council has to be executed and enforced.
  MR. LAWSON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second part of the question.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The second part of the question is asked only in the event of there being no Local Authority.
  MR. NORRIS: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is able to state the area comprised under the Privy Council Order as to the muzzling of dogs, and if within that area the police have authority to capture or destroy stray dogs; and, whether it is contemplated to issue a General Order for the whole country?
  MR. LAWSON: Under whose authority are the police acting?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The Order of the Privy Council applies to the City of London and to the district of the Metropolitan Police. The police have power under the Order to seize and detain stray dogs; but the power to destroy (which is under the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867, and not under the Order in Council) extends only to the County of London. It is not contemplated at present to issue a General Order for the whole country.

  IRELAND—FAIR RENTS IN THE MOHILL UNION.
  MR. HAYDEN (Leitrim, S.): I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether he is aware that, although two tenants of Aughamore, County Leitrim, on the estate of Colonel Forbes, served notice to have a fair rent fixed, in October 1887, only one of these cases has been listed for hearing at the forthcoming Commission Court at Mohill; and, what is the reason for further postponing the hearing of the other tenant's case, in which the rent is believed to be very excessive?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The Land Commissioners report that there are 141 cases listed for

  981
  hearing from the Union of Mohill. These include all originating notices received at their office between September 29 and October 26, 1887. The two originating notices in the case of the tenant Robert Notley, to which the Commissioners presume the hon Member refers, were not received until after the latter date, and could not, therefore, be listed.

  THE BELFAST NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland if he would state how many new teachers have been appointed in the National Schools of Belfast within the past five years; how many of these have been pupil teachers in the Belfast Model School; what was the cost to the State per child in average attendance in the Belfast Model School for the year ending 31st March, 1889, exclusive of result fees; what was the corresponding average amount in the other National Schools of Belfast; and, in which Parliamentary Division of Belfast is the Model School?
  MR. MADDEN: The National Education Commissioners report that the particulars required by the hon. Member could not be given until the schools, most of which are at present closed for vacation, re-open; and until the Inspectors have completed the pressing business on which they are now engaged in regard to the annual examination of teachers and monitors. The Commissioners further point out that it would take some considerable time to collect the information, and that, under any circumstances, its proposed form in respect to the exclusion of results' fees from the calculation should be amended. The Model School is situated in the Parliamentary Division of West Belfast.

  DERRY GAOL.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the case of a man Darned Corr, who, while exercising in the exercise yard in Derry Gaol on 9th July, was struck down and subsequently died from the effects of sunstroke; whether this yard and the exercising yards in other prisons are wholly exposed and without protection either from heat or rain; whether the want of a sheltered exer-
  982
  cise yard disorganises all the arrangements as to the hours of exercise by compelling prisoners in inclement weather to exercise not continuously or at stated periods but in the intervals between showers; and, whether he will direct the Prisons Board to take steps for erecting sheds in prison exercise yards by which the prisoners may be protected from the effects of heat and rain, and the arrangements of the prison carried out with greater efficiency and regularity?
  MR. MADDEN: The General Prisons Board report that the facts are substantially as stated in the first two paragraphs. No material disorganization, such as that suggested in the third paragraph of this question, arising from the want of a sheltered exercise yard, has ever been brought to the notice of the Board, and they believe that the Governors of Prisons experience no practical difficulty in making such arrangements in this respect as circumstances from time to time call for. The Board are of opinion that serious objections exist against the erection of sheds adjoining the prison walls.

  THE GOVERNOR OF JPSWICH GAOL.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what amount (if any) it is intended to pay out of public money in respect of the costs of defending an action brought against the Governor of Ipswich Gaol for indignities inflicted upon an untried prisoner, in which action, at Suffolk Assizes on the 12th instant, the jury awarded the plaintiff £75 damages?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: No application has yet been received by the Treasury for the payment of any money in respect of the costs referred to in the hon. Member's question.

  THE BURIAL BY MISTAKE.
  MR. PICKEESGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has inquired into the circumstances under which, on the 11th instant, a coffin bearing on its face the name of Emma Toop was buried by the authorities of the Ilford Cemetery under an order for the interment of the body of Emily Preston;

  983
  and, in particular, whether it is correct, as alleged, that the name on the coffin was altered at the cemetery to correspond with the name in the interment order; and, if so, by whom was such alteration made; and what action does he propose to take in the matter?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The circumstances under which this unfortunate mistake occurred have been already explained by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. I have made inquiry into the allegation that the name on the coffin was altered at the cemetery, and I am informed that this is not correct. I have issued a license for the removal of the body.

  THE NAVAL MANŒUVRES.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is correct, as reported in the public journals, that great difficulty is experienced in manning the ships detailed for the Naval Manœuvreqs, and that, in consequence of the scarcity of Officers, Commanders will have to serve as Lieutenants, and Warrant Officers take command of torpedo boats; and, whether any, and what number of, men belonging to the First and Second Class Naval Reserves, apart from the Coastguard Reserves, are to be employed in the Manœuvres?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: It is not the case that great difficulty has been experienced in manning the ships detailed for the Naval Manœuvres. The complement of every ship is complete without the Reserves being called upon. A certain number of pensioners, principally stokers and domestics, about 150 in all, have been entered to take the place of men belonging to harbour ships. In the larger cruisers Commanders have been appointed instead of Lieutenants as senior executive officers, and some of the torpedo boats have been advisedly placed in the charge of Warrant Officers. Such arrangements have always been contemplated in the event of war. 21 officers of the Royal Naval Reserve will be employed during the Manœuvres; but none of the men will be called up. This can only be done by Royal Proclamation, which the present circumstances do not render it necessary or
  984
  desirable to issue, as it entails much inconvenience upon the shipping interests of the country.

  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION AT CARDIFF.
  SIR EDWARD REED: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received any information from the telegraph authorities at Cardiff with reference to a serious block of traffic and consequent delay in telegraphic communications, which occurred in that town a few weeks ago; whether he is aware that an application for a considerable number of extra appointments, to cope with the severe strain upon the telegraphic system of Cardiff, was entirely ignored by the surveyor of the district, resulting in considerable inconvenience to the staff, and compelling the superintendents, supervisors, and test clerks to undertake instrument duties, to the neglect of their own duties and the proper supervision of the office; and, whether payment for the extra time performed by members of the staff during pressure has been allowed?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I received information that on a recent occasion, when the newspapers in Cardiff received telegraphic reports of an exceptional number of speeches and events of public interest in various parts of the country, there was delay because the wires and instruments were not sufficient to cope with the extraordinary amount of work which was thrown upon them at a particular period of the day; and I am having inquiry made with a view to devise means of obviating such delay on any future similar occasion. It is not the case that an application for additional force was ignored by the surveyor. On the contrary, additional force was on his recommendation authorized several weeks ago. I am assured that it is not the case that the supervising officers have had to neglect their proper duties in order to work the instruments. They sometimes give a few minutes a day to instrument work, but this must be the case in many Telegraph Offices. The Regulations provide that telegraphists shall be paid for extra duty, and I have no reason to suppose that they have been neglected at Cardiff.

  SCHOOL FEES.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the resolution of the Managers of the Church of England school at Cynwyd, raising the school fees for children of parents who refused to pay voluntary rates, was passed on 4th April, 1887, and put into operation by the exclusion of 60 children on 30th May, 1887; whether the first intimation received by the parents that the resolution had been rescinded was in a letter from the Education Department dated 7th February, 1888; whether, deducting from the 193 children of school age in the parish 24 children who now attend a suitable school outside the parish, and the usual percentage of 12½ per cent. there still remain 148 children in the parish to be provided for; whether the accommodation in the Church of England school is 135; and, whether the Education Department has always acted on the principle that a Church of England school is a suitable school for a parish?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The resolution put into operation on the 30th May, 1887, was rescinded on the 30th June following; no information as to either was received by the Education Department till months afterwards, but there is no reason to believe that the later resolution was not as well known in the district as the earlier one. The parents received no intimation on the subject from the Department. The School Board have admitted in writing that there is no deficiency of accommodation, and the hon. Member's figures do not allow for all the space available outside the parish. According to the Statute every public elementary school is ipso facto suitable, and this principle has always been acted upon by the Department.

  BALLOON AND PARACHUTE EXHIBITIONS.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at the inquest held at Manchester on 18th July, on the body of the man Lennox, the Coroner expressed his opinion that there ought to be some legislative re-
  986
  striction on balloon and parachute ascents made, not in the interests of science, but in order to make money; whether the jury recommended an application to him "in order that such displays of ballooning by persons of insufficient knowledge should be prevented;" and, whether any memorial has been forwarded to him?
  MR. MATTHEWS: According to the newspaper report of the inquest which has been sent to me by the Coroner, the Coroner did not express an opinion on the subject, but left it to the jury to say whether there should be some legislative restriction. I have received a recommendation of the jury that "something should be done to prevent such displays of ballooning on the part of persons without sufficient knowledge." In this case the Coroner was of opinion that the parachutist was justified in believing that the deceased had sufficient knowledge to act as assistant.

  THE SCOTCH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate when the Minute of the Scotch Education Department, referred to in Clause 19, Sub-section (4), of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, will be submitted to Parliament, or its provisions explained to this House?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The Minute referred to will, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, be submitted to Parliament as soon as may be after the Bill becomes law. The intention of the Government with regard to its provisions has been explained by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary; but we shall be glad to give the hon. Member further information in regard to any points on which he desires it.

  THE MILITIA.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Warrant and Non-Commissioned Officers, serving on Line engagements with the permanent staff of the Militia, lose their seniority by so doing?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir.

  FOYNES HARBOUR.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  987
  Lieutenant of Ireland if, having regard to the statement contained in the Forty-seventh Report of the Commissioners for Public Works, Ireland, just issued, page 28—
  "That in Foynes Harbour there is a great accumulation of mud, and that the origina depth cannot be maintained without constant dredging,"
  he will direct that the necessary work be done to restore this harbour to a proper state of efficiency?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not aware that the dredging of Foynes Harbour is a matter of urgency; but the Treasury is perfectly willing to hand over the harbour to a responsible Local Harbour Board, if such can be formed, who will then be able to deal with the question. Some communications have passed with this object.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION BILL.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed in this Session with the Western Australia Constitution Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Bill is one of great importance to the Colony, inasmuch as it involves a change from Representative to Responsible Government. Her Majesty's Government were very anxious that the Bill should have become law this Session, and they regret that it was not possible to bring the Bill forward at an earlier date. If the state of business later on permits, the Government would be very glad if the House would allow at least the second reading of the Bill, so as to affirm the principle of the Constitutional change, although at this period of the Session it would not be possible to take any further stage of the Bill.

  THE CHANNEL TUNNEL BILL.
  MR. MACLURE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can consent to give an evening for the consideration of the Second Reading of the Channel Tunnel Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that the time of the House is so much taken up by Government measures that I am afraid it will not
  988
  be in my power to give facilities for the Second Reading of the Channel Tunnel Bill.

  THE TECHNICAL EDUCATION BILL.
  MR. ARTHUR ACLAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether a memorial has been received by the Government from the School Boards of Manchester and Sal ford, the Manchester School of Art, the Manchester Technical School, the Stockport Technical School, the Harris Institute at Preston, the Whitworth Committee, and the Union of Lancashire and Cheshire Institutes specially urging the Government to pass the Technical Education Bill, pointing out that the opportunities for technical education promised in successive Bills to the children of the working classes are passing away each year for thousands of boys, while increased facilities seem to be afforded for such instruction in other countries; and, whether the Government propose to comply with the request contained in the Memorial?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The facts stated by the hon. Member are correct, and the Government are quite aware of the great interest taken by the country in technical education and the pressing importance of dealing with it. The Government have been engaged in the past few days in endeavouring to find some solution of the difficulty which surrounds the question in regard to elementary schools, but, I regret to say, without success. We therefore propose to at once introduce a measure dealing with the higher branch of the subject.
  MR. A. ACLAND: I beg to give notice that in consequence of the complete breakdown of the efforts of the Government to deal with this question in connection with the elementary schools, which the Government declared to be urgent three years ago, I will at the earliest opportunity next Session move that, in the opinion of this House, it is only by the universal establishment of School Boards in England and Wales that we can hope to obtain in a thoroughly satisfactory form a system of technical education for the working classes of this country.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Will the measure which we have been told is to be introduced by the

  989
  Government be deferred until next Session?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope to introduce a short Bill this Session.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Then are we to understand that the Measure which the Government are to introduce will deal only with the higher branch of the question of technical education, and not at all with the lower branches?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If the right hon. Gentleman will wait until he sees the Bill, it will probably be more satisfactory than he appears to anticipate.

  MAGAZINE RIFLES.
  SIR SAMUEL WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many of the new magazine rifles have been finished, and where they are being manufactured; has it been decided to convert any of those now in use to the magazine principle; what number per month of the magazine rifle are being turned out, and will he expedite their construction by calling for tenders; will a supply be forwarded to our troops on the Nile as soon as they are ready; and is the manufacture of the new ammunition in progress?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: About 500 of the magazine rifles have been issued from the Ordnance factories for experimental purposes. A very large number of parts, not yet put together into complete rifles, have also been made. They are being manufactured by the Government at Enfield and at Birmingham, and by two private firms in London and Birmingham. It is not proposed to convert rifles now in use to the magazine principle; but if from wear they require new barrels they will be supplied with barrels carrying the small bore ammunition. The troops now on the Nile will receive their rifles in their turn. The manufacture of the new ammunition is proceeding.

  IRELAND—EVICTIONS ON 'THE OLPHERT ESTATE.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland if he can state how many evictions have taken place on the Olphert estate since the adoption of the Plan of Campaign by the tenants; how many of the evictions were on holdings occupied by sub or under tenants; on how many
  990
  of the holdings had judicial rents been fixed; and, how many of those evicted had served originating notices to have a fair rent fixed?
  MR. MADDEN: It appears that 57 evictions have taken place on the Olphert estate since the adoption of the Plan of Campaign by the tenants. Nine of these evictions were from holdings in occupation of sub-tenants. Judicial rents had been fixed on 42 of these holdings. Five of those evicted, and whose rents had not been fixed judicially, had served originating notices, and in another case an application to fix a judicial rent which had been made was dismissed by the Sub-Commissioners.

  COLDBATH FIELDS PRISON.
  EARL COMPTON (York, W.R., Barnsley): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was at the time of the passing of "The Prisons Act, 1877, "the number of prisoners in Coldbath Fields Prison for whom the Justices of Middlesex were responsible, and for whom cell accommodation was provided; and, whether any and what sum became payable or was secured to the Secretary of State by the Justices of Middlesex, under the provisions of Section 34 of that Act, as a debt to the Crown, in consequence of the Justices declining to accept the offer of the Secretary of State of the re-conveyance of Coldbath Fields and Clerkenwell Prisons?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The number of prisoners belonging to the Middlesex Justices for whom cell accommodation was provided at Coldbath Fields was 1,558. The statutory price for the re-conveyance of this prison to the Justices was therefore £186,960. As the Justices declined to accept the re-conveyance of the prison, no sum became payable by them or was secured by the Secretary of State.

  THE ENGLISH UNIVERSITY COLLEGES.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask when the scheme for the allocation of annual grants to the University Colleges of England will be in the hands of Members?
  MR. JACKSON: The Papers bearing on the allocation of the grant to University Colleges were presented on

  991
  Friday, and I hope they will be in the hands of Members immediately.

  ARMY ACCOUTREMENTS.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is correctly reported as having stated on Friday last, in reply to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), that a set of accoutrements has been supplied to the War Office by Messrs. Ross and Co. on Colonel Slade's contract after Colonel Slade had promised not to employ that firm, because I have had a letter from Colonel Slade denying that he had given any such promise?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Report is correct. Colonel Slade, who was abroad at the time, having previously notified at the War Office that any communications respecting this contract should be addressed to Colonel Wallace, the latter was informed, on receipt of the sample set of accoutrements marked with Messrs. Ross's name, that Messrs. Ross could not be allowed to make the accoutrements, and was requested to carry out the Secretary of State's wishes on behalf of Colonel Slade. Colonel Wallace replied that a mistake had happened, a recurrence of which he would take steps to prevent. Although the steps taken proved ineffectual, it is clear that they were recognized as coming from Colonel Slade, as will be seen by reference to Mr. Tomlin's evidence before the Lords' Committee in March of the present year.

  THE SOUDAN.
  SIR W. BARTTELOT: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received any news from Egypt beyond that stated in the newspapers; what number of English troops have been sent to the front; and whether any more reinforcements will be sent to Egypt?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not give me even two minutes' notice of this question. I do not think I have received any information during the past two days that would be of any particular interest to the House. Matters continue at the front very much as they were. There is no present intention to send out any more troops either from Malta or this country.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. CHILDERS: Will the First Lord of the Treasury tell the House when Supply will be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope that it will be possible to proceed with the Civil Service Estimates on Thursday and Friday; but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am obliged to exercise some reserve with regard to particular dates. It would not be fair to proceed with the Irish Estimates without notice; but I hope that they will be reached on Monday next.
  DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.): Is it intended to proceeds to-day with the Lunacy Acts Amendment Bill?
  MR. SEXTON: What course do the Government propose to take in regard to the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I believe that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend to refer the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill, to the Grand Committee on Trade. As to the Lunacy Acts Amendment Bill if there is no opposition to it after 12 o'clock I shall be glad to take it to-night. As it has already been carefully considered I presume that, there will be little opposition to it.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: There are a considerable number of Amendments down upon the Paper.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: And two of the Amendments, although not in the nature of opposition to the Bill, will involve some discussion.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Then, under those circumstances, the Bill will not be taken to night.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: When is it intended to proceed with the Sunday Closing Bill for Ireland?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am unable to-say at the present moment; but I will give the earliest possible intimation of the day.
  In reply to Mr. H. Gardner (Essex, Saffron Walden),
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid: The Tithes Bill will be proceeded with to-morrow; but I am unable to fix it as the first Order.

  COMMISSARY "WORK IN LANARKSHIRE.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that, on the death of Mr. Donald, the late Commissary Clerk of Lanarkshire, in 1887, the commissary work devolved on the district deputes, but no increase of salary was given to the district deputes until 1st April, 1839, and that increase of salary was then given by the Sheriff Clerk not out of the £850 added to his emoluments for commissary work, but out of money rendered available for distribution, as at March, 1889, in consequence of the removal of Mr. Wilson, one of the deputes at Glasgow, to the office of Procurator Fiscal at Hamilton; whether the additional clerk sent to Hamilton at a salary of £60 was sent in direct response to the request, of a deputation of the Hamilton Court Procurators, who complained of the undermanned condition of the Hamilton Office; and, if he can explain the reasons for which Mr. Wood, chief of the Process Room in Glasgow, was promoted to the deputeship rendered vacant by the removal of Mr. Wilson, and the Sheriff Clerk promoted his own son to Mr. Wood's place as chief of the Process Room over the heads of other clerks of longer service?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: As I previously informed the hon. Member, the great bulk of the commissary work is done in Glasgow. The £850 addition to the allowance the Sheriff Clerk got for deputes and clerks was made in respect of the increase in the Sheriff Clerk's ordinary work, and also in respect of the new commissary work. Prom a statement made by the previous commissary officials, it was believed that the commissary business in the districts would be small, but after it was tested additions were made to the salaries of the deputes. The additional clerk was sent to Hamilton at the request of a deputation of Hamilton Procurators. Neither the district depute nor any of the officials had made any complaint. Mr. Wood was appointed as the best qualified and having the best claim. He has been connected with the office for 19 years. The Sheriff Clerk's son was removed to the Process Room
  994
  without any addition being made to his salary, which is £60 less than that of his predecessor, the money thus saved being distributed amongst the staff. This post at the reduced salary would have been the reverie of promotion to the clerks of longer service.

  HERRING FISHERY (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No.224.)
  Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

  NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
  John Lloyd Morgan, esquire, for County Carmarthen (Western Division).
  Elmund Boulnois, esquire, for Borough of Marylebone (Eastern Division).

  GRANTS TO MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY.
  Power given to the Select Committee to report observations.
  Report, with Minutes of Proceedings and an Appendix, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to-be printed.[No. 271.]
  Minutes of Proceedings, with an Appendix, to be printed.[No. 271.]

MOTION.

  PRINCE ALBERT VICTOR OF WALES AND PRINCESS LOUISE VICTORIA OF WALES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That this House will, upon Wednesday next, resolve itself into a Committee to take into consideration Her Majesty's Most Gracious Messages of 2nd July."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Of course I have no wish to go into the merits of the question at present, but I propose, when the right hon. Gentleman does move that you, Sir, leave the Chair, to oppose that Motion. At the same time I do think that Wednesday is a little too early. We have only reported today, and, perhaps, with great pushing it may be possible to get the Report and Appendices in the hands of Members on Wednesday morning, but not before, I apprehend. [Mr. W. H. SMITH dissented.]Well, if in the hands of

  995
  Members, they will not be in the newspapers and before the country before Wednesday. [Cries of "Oh!"] What am I to understand by the attitude of hon. Members opposite? Do they wish to push this matter on before the country has had an opportunity of understanding it? I was in hopes that the right hon. Gentleman was going to make this Resolution on a later day than Wednesday. But, as he does not appear to intend doing so, I beg to move that Monday next be substituted for Wednesday.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Wednesday," and insert the words "Monday next,"—(Mr. Labou-chere,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Wednesday' stand part of the Question."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In naming Wednesday I thought I had endeavoured to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman and his friends. It must be understood that this is but the initial stage of a measure which will have to pass through, first of all, a Committee of this House, a Report of this House, Second Reading, Committee stage, and Third Reading in this House. Therefore, opportunities will be afforded to hon. Gentlemen on several days for the consideration of this proposal. I therefore hope that hon. Gentlemen will see that the general convenience of the House is advanced by considering the matter as soon as reasonably can be arranged. The Papers will be circulated to-morrow, and every exertion will be made to furnish them to Members at the earliest possible moment. I hope hon. Gentlemen will be as well able to discuss the principles involved in the report on Wednesday as on a later day. I certainly could not accept postponement of the discussion until Monday.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he has a confident expectation that the Papers, including the Report of the Committee, and the Papers handed in as Appendices, will be in the hands of hon. Members tomorrow. It would be hardly well to invite the House to consider on Wednesday at 12 o'clock Papers only received at 10 o'clock. But, assuming that they are circulated to-morrow, I hope the House will be disposed to take
  996
  the Motion on Wednesday. Partly from the nature of the subject, partly from the character of the reference which has been made to the House, and which has now been before the public for ten days or more, and partly from the date at which we have arrived in the Session, it is very desirable that we should proceed with this matter at the earliest possible moment, even if it were only that hon. Members might be sure that they would have every reasonable and fair opportunity of discussing the question. It is not like a matter where the information is very occult. It is easily brought into view; and I do not think that it has ever been a practice of the House to require in questions of this kind the intervention of any long interval before proceeding. On the assumption that we have the Papers tomorrow, I hope that the House may be disposed to agree to the Motion.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Of course, I do not know what the contents of the Report may be, but, assuming that the Reportcontains some reference to matters which have been already raised in debate as, for example, the savings on the Civil List clauses, it will require some few hours for Members who have not had the advantage of the discussion in Committee to inquire into the various precedents. And, of course, if we get the Papers even the first thing to-morrow morning that will not be easy. Hon. Members opposite have evidently not followed the precedents in these matters as closely as I have. To carelessly go through the Papers will only prolong the Debate, and, perhaps, raise questions which might be avoided. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly sure that the Report and Appendices will be in the hands of Hon. Members tomorrow, I hope he will postpone the date.
  MR. STOREY: The right hon. Gentleman has been far from trying to meet the views of the hon. Member for Northampton, who suggested Thursday. [Cries of "Monday."] I am quite accurate; I am quite aware that my hon. Friend named Monday, but I am referring to what passed in the Committee, when the hon. Gentleman proposed Thursday.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish to explain. I cannot refer to what passed in the Committee because it is not official.

  997
  My hon. Friend asked me when I should like to take this discussion, and I then stated that I was in hopes, from what had fallen unofficially from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, that he would assent to take the discussion on Thursday. If he will agree to Thursday then I think that in this part of the House we are perfectly ready to accept the motion.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If that is the case I readily agree to Thursday.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question amended, by leaving out the word "Wednesday," and inserting the word "Thursday."
  Resolved, That this House will, upon Thursday next, resolve itself into a Committee to take into consideration Her Majesty's Most Gracious Messages of 2nd July.

  BANN DRAINAGE BILL. (No. 257.)
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.[No. 272.]
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday, and to be printed.[Bill 344.]

  CLERICAL DISABILITIES ACT, 1870.
  Address for—
  "Return of all persons admitted to the office of Priest or Deacon in the Church of England, who, having under the provisions of The Clerical Disabilities Act, 1870,' executed Deeds of Relinquishment of the office of Priest or Deacon (as the case may be) have, in the years 1884 to 1888, inclusive, caused the same to be enrolled in the High Court;" "And, of the number of Deeds which have been recorded in the same period in the Diocesan Registries in the Dioceses of England and Wales under the provisions of 'The Clerical Disabilities Act, 1870' (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 260, of Session 1884)."—(Mr. John Talbot.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to declare the boundaries of the Province of Ontario, in the Dominion of Canada." [Canada (Ontario Boundary) Bill—Lords.]

  YORKSHIRE PROVIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY.
  Order for the consideration of the Report of the Select Committee read.
  MR. SPEAKER: This Report being on a question of privilege, it is properly put as the first Order of the Day. But I find that the House ordered the proceedings of the Committee to be printed, and clearly that Order ought to have been complied with. The Report of the proceedings not being now before the House, it should be considered tomorrow.
  Consideration of Report deferred until Tuesday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 334).
  Order for consideration of Bill, as amended, read.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to move that the Bill be recommitted, and—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision to enable County Councils to pay the Returning Officer's expenses at any Parliamentary election which may have taken place in the county within the financial year out of the Probate Duty Fund."
  It will be recollected that, during the past four years, attempts have been made to legislate upon this subject. A Bill was passed in 1886, but rejected by the House of Lords. Last year a memorial was submitted to the First Lord of the Treasury, signed by a majority of the Scotch Members, urging upon the Government the propriety of dealing with the matter. Although the Session was protracted, the right hon. Gentleman was unable to afford an opportunity for discussing the question. I think it is essential, if we are to have popular representation, that the proposal contained in this instruction to the Committee should be passed into law. It has nothing to do with the payment of Members of Parliament or the payment of their election expenses. The expenses referred to in the Instruction are simply those over which the candidate has no control whatever. At present, before a candidate can be nominated, he has to give security for his share of expenses varying from £500 to £700. I am aware that an objection may be taken to the provision we propose to insert in this Bill because the measure itself only applies to county constituen-

  999
  cies, and leaves the boroughs untouched. I submit that the borough constituencies are on a different platform, having a municipal organization within a limited area with expenses considerably lighter than those which are incurred in county elections. But we are now establishing County Councils, and we must provide the machinery necessary for conducting the elections; and all I ask is that the machinery provided shall be permanent and shall be applicable to Parliamentary as well as County Council elections. No doubt the existing system in regard to the payment of the statutory expenses of elections was introduced in the interests of the monied classes. My contention is, that such expenses ought not to be thrown upon the candidate. If we are to return to this House working class representatives, it is absolutely essential that this bar should be removed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of a new clause,—(Returning Officers' expenses at Parliamentary elections.")—(Mr. Esslemont.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): No doubt the question raised by the hon. Member is very important, and of general interest; but, having regard to the interests which the hon. Member has in view, I doubt whether this is the appropriate occasion for the discussion. The House is now dealing with the Local Government of counties and their rating, and the hon. Member proposes that a provision for the payment of expenses, not for County elections, but for Parliamentary elections, shall be inserted in the Bill. Almost any desirable public or Imperial object could be brought with as much reason within the four corners of the Bill. I hope the hon. Member, especially at this period in the progress of the Bill, and the stage of the Session at which we have now arrived, will re-consider the expediency of moving this Instruction, and whether it may not be better to reserve the consideration of the subject for an opportunity when it can be considered on its own merits.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I think there is a great deal of force in what the right hon.
  1000
  Gentleman has just said. It would be difficult to introduce a complicated and important clause in the Bill at this stage under which alone the system in Scotland is to be changed. None the less, however, my hon. Friend is right in using this opportunity to bring the question under the notice of the House. I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw the Instruction, and that the Government will consider themselves under a renewed obligation to meet what is undoubtedly the wish of the great majority of the Scottish Members. Next Session the Government will be without excuse in not introducing a Bill, which would pass through the House very easily, considering that the feeling in Scotland would be entirely in its favour.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I "will not press the Amendment, but I thought it desirable to bring it forward, seeing that the question has now been removed from the possibility of being discussed for three years in succession.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  A clause (Annual Budgets of District Committee,)—(Mr. Rathbone,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. RATHBONE: I trust that the Government will find themselves able to accept this Amendment, which simply deals with the local expenditure. I believe that the people of Scotland will not long remain satisfied with the multiplication of spending bodies, but will seek to concentrate all of them in one central authority. I do not see why our Scotch friends, who are 50 years in advance of England in almost everything else, should be one year behind us in this matter. I hope, therefore, the Government may see their way to the acceptance of this proposal.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Any suggestion coming from the hon. Gentleman opposite deserves the utmost respect; but although I entirely sympathize with the object the hon. Member has in view, I think he can hardly have borne in mind the fact that we are not setting up a fully organized and complete District Council, but merely a District Council for limited purposes

  1001
  only, and one which does not call for such an elaborate system as is provided by the clause he has proposed. I may remind the hon. Gentleman that we have had some experience under the English Act, and the result has been to show that there is no necessity for so elaborate an organization as is demanded by this clause. Moreover, I think it is not desirable, unless for very cogent reasons, to cramp the action of the District Committees by dictating to them the exact methods they should adopt. Looking at the somewhat narrow scope given to these Councils in matters of finance this provision does not strike me as being needed, and on this ground, without in any way desiring to diminish the importance of the matter, I am unable to accept the clause.
  MR. CALDWELL: I think there is a good deal in this clause; because it will be seen that the District Committees have large powers, and will have to discharge separate functions with regard to three important matters—namely, the general council rate, parochial roads, and the public health, all of which will necessitate a large amount of taxation. The Road Trustees have had to make up a budget of their own, and that is sent in to the General County Board. I think that in view of all these matters it would be found desirable to admit this clause.
  Question put, and negatived.
  New Clause (Highways, counties of Aberdeen and Banff,)—(Mr. Duff,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I have no objection to the clause.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added.
  DR. CAMERON: I have now to move the clause I have put on the Paper in reference to the payment of fees in certain cases by the School Boards. This provision was struck out in Committee; but its only effect would be to leave matters as they are under the existing Education Act. By an Amendment inserted at the very last stage in Committee on this Bill, two sections were
  1002
  inserted, the first of which deals with the obligation of the School Boards to charge school fees, subject to certain exceptions. Section 69 of the Scotch Education Act imposes on parents the duty of providing elementary education for their children, and goes on to say that where the parent is, in consequence of poverty, unable to pay the fees for reading, writing, and arithmetic, it shall be his duty to go to the Parochial Board and ask that Board to pay, this provision being made applicable to the case of blind children, and it is also provided that the Board shall pay the fees in any State-aided school the parent may choose. Now, the Amendment which was-inserted in the Bill repealing this provision was, I believe, inserted without a full appreciation of its effect, which was to relieve the parent of the duty of providing education for his children where unable to do so by reason of his poverty. Take the case of a widow, with a large family. She is at present enabled to go to the Parochial Board and get them to-pay the children's fees in any Board School or Denominational School she may select in her own district, and under the clause inserted in the Bill as amended in Committee, that widow would be entirely cut off from this assistance. The principle of my Amendment is to leave the existing arrangement undisturbed, an arrangement by which payment from the rates is only to be given in those cases where the stipulations set forth in the Scotch Education Act are complied with. I maintain that it would be entirely overturning that principle if we were, by Section 86 inserted in this Bill, and under the circumstances I have stated, to repeal this provision of the Scotch Education Act. It is quite impossible to say that the voluntary schools shall provide these fees; and by the general admission of all parties the Parochial Board is not the body that, should be called upon to fulfil the obligations required in these matters. The duty will devolve upon the School Board instead of the Parochial Board to pay the fees of poor persons. The result will be that, where fees are charged by School Boards, they will simply have to pay them with one hand and collect them with the other, or, in other words, remit the fees. If a parent sends his children to a voluntary school, as at

  1003
  present he has the right to do under the existing arrangement, the duty will be taken from the Parochial Board. The amount will be vastly less than in the past. The proposal to substitute the School Board for the Parochial Board will meet with general approbation; and I think the right hon. Gentleman himself will admit that the wholesale repeal of that section of the Education Act of 1872 involves more than he intended, without treating the poor persons and the blind children specially provided for in that section. It will be necessary to insert some clause restoring the right to meat the case of those persons.
  New Clause (School Boards in certain instances to pay fees,)—[Dr. Cameron,)—brought up, and read the first time—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I cannot accept the clause of the hon. Gentleman, which is open to the very gravest objections. In the first place the principle on which we have proceeded has been to provide funds obtainable from local moneys to relieve school fees. That is to be done away with. What is now proposed is that the School Board shall be bound to offer payment to any parent willing to send his child to a Board School of all fees which fall within the prescribed standards. In the first place it is to be observed that to a large extent this is an entirely superfluous provision; but when it does come to the cases in which it would be operative, it puts a premium on Board Schools. It tells parents that anyone who does not benefit from the grant shall, if they send their children to Board Schools, get payment out of the rates, and the necessary means by which this relief, if ever the power were acquired, is to be obtained, is out of the moneys at the disposal of the Board. I very strongly deprecate the provisions being inserted in the Bill, and the clauses contain the common places of the controversy of fifteen years ago. They were all raised in the English measure, and gave rise to disputes which have fortunately passed away. The hon. Gentleman proposes to revive this obnoxious system which caused so much irritation. It would not be in order to discuss the
  1004
  second clause proposed by the hon. Member, but I would point out to the Committee that this proposal, which he has stated in two branches, involves another very objectionable proposal, inextricably coupled with it, and that is an attack upon the graded schools.
  MR. CALDWELL: The law as it at present stands is this, that the Act of 1872 gives the Parochial Board choice of any State-aided school to which to send the child of poor parents. The Government are going to allow the School Boards to charge school fees for the elementary standards in certain schools. The effect of that is that only those children who choose to pay the fees would be admitted to the school. The Act of 1872 made it clear that poverty should be no bar to a child entering the State-aided schools. It is the principle that the man who is unable to pay shall be put on exactly the earns footing as the man who is able to pay, and that there shall be no disqualification whatever. But now you are going to have two classes of schools—schools without any fees whatever and schools where fees may be charged. The effect will be that only those parents who can pay will be able to have children at fee-paying schools, and you deprive the parents who are unable to pay of their choice of a school. The Lord Advocate seemed to think that this clause was aimed at denominational schools. It is not. There is nothing at all in this clause which in any way interferes with the right of a parent to select a school, whether State-aided, denominational, or Board School. All that is proposed is to preserve the existing rights of poor parents under the Act of 1872, which lays down distinctly that any child whose parent is unable to pay may be sent to a State aided school. That is the meaning of this clause which I support, and I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
  The House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 209.—(Div. List, No. 235.)
  DR. CAMERON: My next Amendment is intended to insure that the grant to be made for the purpose of providing free education in Scotland, shall be so applied. As the House is aware, there is a sum of money to be distributed in Scotland, and of that £246,000 is to be applied towards the

  1005
  relief of the payment of school fees. This money is to be distributed in accordance with a Minute of the Scotch Education Department. I have asked about that Minute, and I put a question on the Paper to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, who told me in reply that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had already explained the arrangement, but that he would be willing to give me any more information I required. Now, I want a considerable amount of information. We are asked to apply this sum of £246,000 to what we, on this side of the House, call free education, but what hon. Gentlemen opposite call the payment of fees. But we have no guarantee in this Bill as to how the money is to be applied. It is to be applied in accordance with the provisions of some Minute of the Scotch Education Department, which we have not before us, of which we have no knowledge, and which also may be changed another year by means of the Education Code, which the House will have no opportunity of objecting to and no effective means of discussing. Now, I submit that if we do not take precautions to secure the distribution of the money in the way we desire, we shall not attain our end. When we last discussed this point, we were told that this was a financial scheme which was to be amended, and that when it was amended, we should then be able to examine it. Well, we have now got the amended scheme before us, and I venture to think it is worse than the original one. We have got, I admit, £35,000 more than was first offered, but we do not know anything regarding the conditions under which it is to be applied. The Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, the President of the English Local Government Board, and the Lord Advocate have all told us that they do not mean to give us free education. We want free education, and if we do not get it, I venture to assert that in a great number of cases the position of Scotch families will be worse than it is at present. Where three children belonging to one family attend a school, it is the custom of certain School Boards to allow the eldest of the three his education at half rates, and where there are four children or more, the fourth and fifth get their education free. You thus have free education provided in the upper
  1006
  standard for a number of children, and in the case of other children it is given at half prices. In the City of Glasgow alone, I believe 6,000 odd children come under this arrangement, but under the provisions of the Lord Advocate, so far as we can see, all these children will be deprived of free education. Now the question is, as to the sufficiency of the grant to pay all the school fees. It is proposed to give an amount of £246,000 for the relief of fees. What is the amount of fees charged in Scotland? In regard to this matter, an error has crept into the discussion on this point, and if you refer to the Report of the auditor of the School Board accounts, you will find he states the total amount of fees paid as £260,000 or £275,000 a year. But he only audits the accounts of the Board Schools, and if you go through the Report of the Committee on Education which deals not merely with the Board Schools, but also with the State-aided schools in Scotland, you will find that in the year 1887 the amount of school fees paid in Scotland was £316,000, and that it is increasing at the rate of £7,000 a year. That would bring it up to £330,000 now; therefore, you have a deficit of some £90,000 between the grant to be made and the actual school fees paid every year. I admit that this total includes the fees paid in the Sixth Standard, which is not compulsory, and on that account I am willing to make a deduction of say £30,000 or £40,000; but even then there is a deficit of over £50,000 which will have to be made up if you are going to remit all the fees in the compulsory standards. Now I understand the only way in which the Government propose to allocate the grant is in the shape of the payment of bonuses on average attendance. That seems to be the only fair way in which the grant can be distributed, but that puts us in this dilemma. The average amount of fees paid by scholars in Scotland is about 12s. 10d., but if you were to give the full 12s. 10d. instead of the £246,000 you would require £330,000, and some School Boards on that principle would get more than they require, while others would be left a long way behind. One cause of this is that the fees vary in different districts. In many Highland districts they are about one penny per week——
  An hon. MEMBER: A quarter.
  DR. CAMERON: My hon. Friend says a penny per quarter. I was not aware that the Scotch Education Department had ever sanctioned that low payment, but I do know that in many instances the total fees in certain districts have been under £2 or £3 a year, and in one case they were as low as 13s.; so that it is evident that in a large number of parishes the fees are less than 12s. per year per child. If the average all over Scotland is 12s., it is clear that in many cases the fees must be considerably above that sum. If you then distribute on the basis of the average attendance, the result will be that in those parishes where at the present moment very little expense is incurred in the shape of fees, and a great deal in the shape of rates, you will be allotting more than is required, and the rates will be relieved; while in districts where the education charges are defrayed to a large extent by fees and to a smaller extent by rates, the result would be even if you were to give the full amount of 12s. per scholar, you would not make up the deficiency in the fees, and you would inflict considerable hardship by compelling the School Board to put on an additional rate. Now, I wish to propose that where you apply this grant to the payment of fees, it shall be coupled with a condition that the schools in receipt of the grant shall give free education. In the district of Govan, where the fees are exceptionally high, it will be necessary, under the proposal of the Government, still to charge the fees, unless you couple with the giving of this grant the condition that free education in the compulsory standards shall be given. When I brought up this matter before, it was not discussed, and the Lord Advocate replied to me that it raised the question of graded schools. It does not. I do not wish to raise that matter at all. I do not propose to prevent any School Boards charging fees in any school it likes. All I suggest is that in those schools to which the grant is made, the education in the compulsory standards shall be free. I do not care for graded schools. I think they are snobbish; but if electors choose to empower their School Boards to have graded schools, I do not see why we should interfere with them, and if
  1008
  the Boards prefer to establish schools in which a charge of ninepence a week can be made, there is no reason why we should prevent it. We can very well allow the ratepayers to manage their own business in this respect. But if the School Boards choose to keep up their fees, I do not see why they should participate in this grant of £246,000. We want this money to be given in Scotland in order to secure free education, and if you attach to the grant the condition I suggest, the result will be that the School Boards and the School Managers will have to consider whether or not it is worth their while in order to get the grant to make education free in the compulsory standards.
  Clause (Provision as to probate duty grant for relief from payment of school fees,)—(Dr. Cameron,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I object to the Amendment and cannot accept it. There are schools conducted by the managers in which the parents are able and willing to pay fees, and in which it would be absurd if fees were not paid by the parents, and if this clause were inserted the managers would have to close such schools, in which most useful work is being done, and the receipts of which are often of great service in carrying on the ordinary public elementary schools, or they would have to forego their right to a grant in aid under the provisions of this Act. I protest against depriving them of that source of revenue. I think that would be very undesirable. The money will, I can assure the House, be administered by the Scotch Education Department with perfect bona fides and with the object of securing as many free places as possible. More than that it is manifest we cannot do. The House, indeed, has not imposed any further duty on us. I do not think the House will desire that more shall be said at this time. A great deal of interesting detail will require consideration, and the varying circumstances of the School Boards throughout the country will require an immense amount of application in dealing with them. At present it must be remembered certain fees are already paid to the schools by the Parochial

  1009
  Boards. I think I consult the wishes of the House when I do not prosecute this subject further, but from no reticence on the part of the Government, but really because it is rather a matter which should be maturely considered in detail and after the scheme is set in motion.
  MR. HUNTER: I trust my hon. Friend will not press this clause to a Division, because although I entirely sympathize with the object he has in view, I do not think there is any answer at all to the concluding remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate. It is provided by the Bill that this money shall be dealt with by a Minute of the Scotch Education Department, and when that Minute is presented would undoubtedly be the proper occasion on which to raise such a question as that which my hon. Friend raises. My hon. Friend has said that if we part with the Bill we lose all power to influence the decision of the Scotch Education Department; but in considering what the Scotch Education Department will do with this money, we cannot entirely ignore the manner and spirit in which the Government have acted with reference to the opinions of the great majority of Scotch Members on this subject. I am bound to say the Government have made a concession to the overwhelming opinion, no doubt, of Scotland. They might have made that concession in a niggardly and grudging spirit, but they have acted very handsomely in the arrangements made with reference to the funds at their disposal; and I think, having regard to the manner in which the Government have hitherto met Scotch Members, we may well leave this subject for discussion until the Minute of the Education Department is before the House. I almost think that, under the circumstances, it savours of ungraciousness to anticipate at the present moment the opinion which the Scotch Education Department will ultimately have to put before the House. Therefore, while I quite agree with the spirit and scope of the clause of my hon. Friend, I think the introduction of the clause is premature, and I trust the hon. Gentleman will not compel us to divide, because agreeing with him, as I do, I shall feel bound on this occasion to support the Government.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: I am thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow for having introduced this subject, because a statement has in consequence been drawn from the Government which we very much wanted by way of explanation. But there my thankfulness ends. If the clause were adopted I believe the results would be most disastrous. It is absolutely necessary for the financial success of this scheme that the Government proposal should stand as at present, and that the schools in which fees may be charged should remain in the position the Government leave them. I think the hon. Gentleman would do well to withdraw his clause.
  MR. CALDWELL: I hope my hon. Friend will not be deterred by the probable result of a Division from going to a Division. This is a subject which concerns the City of Glasgow more than any other part of Scotland, and it is a subject the discussion of which will not rest here, but will be carried on by the citizens of Glasgow. The proposal of the Government is that there are to be two classes of schools in Glasgow, schools in which no fees are to be paid in the compulsory standards, and alongside them fee-paying schools, in which no children are to be educated except those whose parents are able to pay school fees. To have two classes of schools in a community like Glasgow would be to introduce the question of social distinction, which has never yet been raised in the case of public aided schools in Scotland. If there be one thing more than another upon which this country is intent it is that if Government assistance is given it should be given in an open way, and so that all classes of the community may participate in it. Hyde Park is open to every child of the community. Would you think of proposing that a portion of Hyde Park should be enclosed, and that only a certain class of the community should be allowed to enter it? It would not be tolerated. The principle on which the old Parochial Schools of Scotland was conducted was that every child in the parish was upon an equal footing at school. The sons of landlords, tenants, peasants, and the poorest of the people sat on the same

  1011
  form in the class. Of social distinction there was none, and the result was that the poorest child had the same opportunity, educationally, as the richest. What was the advantage of that system? It was that the interest of the higher classes was concentrated in the success of these public schools, and that the Scotch Parochial Schools were the best managed schools in the world. You are now about to divide the people of Glasgow into two classes, each of which is to receive State aid. That is very objectionable. We object to the better classes of society enjoying State aid in schools where they can pay a certain amount of school fees, and from which the general public are to be excluded. There is more than a question of sentiment involved in this matter. There are no less than one million pounds worth of educational endowments in Glasgow. These endowments are open to the children attending every State - aided school in Glasgow. If you have the schools on an equal footing every child is on an equal footing. If you have certain free schools which the poorer children attend, and if, on the other hand, you have better class schools which the better class children attend, what will be the result of the competition in the bursaries in the City of Glasgow? As a matter of course, the free school children will not have the same chance as the children of the wealthy people. Parents will find that the poor schools are attended by the riff-raff of the City, and that the attendance is very irregular. They will very probably find that in the fee-paying schools the attendance is more regular, that the education is more perfect, and that the teachers receive better remuneration. There is no doubt that parents would say—"By all means we would rather send our children to the select schools than to the free schools. "We maintain that no grant should be paid in respect of schools in which fees are charged. It is said the money at the disposal of the Government is not sufficient to free all schools. The very object the Government have in view is to curtail the money that would otherwise ultimately go to the schools. If you exclude from this grant, or any portion of it, all those schools where school fees are charged, necessarily you leave a large sum to those
  1012
  schools which do not charge any fees. The Government may commit themselves to the establishment of free education, and at the same time establish fee-paying schools; but they will find that their proceeding will not commend itself to the people of Scotland. Free education must be free all round; all classes of the community must stand on an equal footing in all schools. In the case of the parish churches in Scotland the principle adopted was that everyone, rich and poor alike, might attend the same church and obtain the same ministrations, and the schools in Scotland, at the time of the Reformation, were established on the principle of perfect social equality, which was continued down to 1872, when the Act was passed. You are now attempting to introduce a policy which is opposed to the feeling of Scotland. In matters of public policy, whether in relation to the Church, the School, or the State, the opinions of the Scottish people have always been in favour of perfect equality before the law. I do not agree that this is a question to be dealt with in a Minute by the Scotch Department. It ought to be settled in the Bill itself. We should have it clearly laid down in the Bill that the money is granted only to those schools where free education is actually given, and where all classes of the community are in a position of perfect equality. I hope my hon. Friend will press the matter to a Division.
  MR. PROVAND: No doubt the opinion in Scotland is very much against the proposal in the Bill. It is looked upon as an attempt to create classes within the masses. It is certain there has always been a strong democratic feeling among the people of Scotland with reference to educational matters. My hon. Friend the Member for the College Division (Dr. Cameron) has shown that Scotland is to receive something like £50,000 less than is necessary to give free education. My hon. Friend has shown that fees in schools in Scotland amount to about £330,000 per annum. Even allowing from this a deduction of, say, £30,000 from the fees derived from the 6th Standard which is not compulsory, we have £300,000 to provide, against which the Government only give £246,000. There are, therefore, fully £50,000 short to meet the fees in all

  1013
  the schools in Scotland, and unless this £50,000 can in some way be provided, graded schools will be established, although against the opinion of the majority of the Liberal Scottish Members in this House, and against an enormous preponderance of opinion throughout Scotland. The Lord Advocate has stated that my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division has over-estimated the amount that will be deficient, and said that there would be the usual payment towards fees by the Parochial Boards to make up this amount, but the right hon. Gentleman bas forgotten that the 86th clause in the Bill abolishes the payment of school fees by the Parochial Boards. There will, therefore, be nothing received to make up the deficiency which has been pointed out, and the financial position described by my hon. Friend appears to me to be unassailable. The figures show a deficit of something like £50,000, and unless the Lord Advocate can inform us how this is to be provided, the School Boards, or some of them, will be compelled to establish graded schools, which will certainly be very much against public sentiment throughout Scotland.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: It rather surprises me that the three hon. Members for Glasgow who have spoken should found their opinions on the case of Glasgow. In my opinion, the case of Glasgow is fatal to this Amendment. The hon. Member for the College Division (Dr. Cameron) said a good deal about this money having been given to establish free education. I do not think that is an accurate way of stating the matter. A certain sum has been given to establish free education as far as the money will go—which is a different thing. The amount of money has been very considerably increased since this Bill was introduced, and from the very beginning it was stated that when once the principle of contributing towards the payment of fees was introduced it would be a great thing if the money could be so increased as to cover the compulsory standards as nearly as possible. This can be accomplished now in most cases, but in some it cannot; and one of the most notable cases, showing the insufficiency of the money to free the compul-
  1014
  sory standards, is in Glasgow itself The School Board for Glasgow expect that their portion of this money will be about £23,000, but the amount of fees they now receive for the Fifth Standard and all under is nearly £33,000; so that, with the money they are to receive from the Probate Duty Grant, they cannot free the compulsory standards; but, with such liberty as they will have if this Amendment is not carried, they will be able to meet the case. Graded schools are in existence. In Glasgow itself, and under the School Board, there is a system of graded schools, not arising from any á priori theory of the School Board, but from the fact that different kinds of schools are wanted in different parts of the city. They have something like five different rates of school fees in the schools under their care. If the schools are all to be of the same grade it will be necessary either to raise the grade of many of them, giving a more expensive class of schools, and increasing the burden on the rates, or to bring down the quality of certain schools. If we do the latter, we shall do a great injustice to a large number of ratepayers who wish to have schools to which they can send their children with comfort and satisfaction, and for which they are quite willing to pay fees. I hope the House will reject the Amendment of my hon. Friend, the result of which if carried would simply be to reduce the quality of the education in Scotland.
  MR. C. S. PARKER: I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter), that the hon. Mover of the Amendment would do well to withdraw it, and present it again when the House is in possession of the Minute of the Education Department. I am strongly in favour of leaving the Bill in its present state. I wish to know whether the hon. Mover of the Amendment has placed himself in communication with the School Board for Glasgow, which sent a deputation here on this very question, and whether he has heard the arguments of the School Board on the subject. The Glasgow School Board is as much in favour as anybody of promoting free education; and I understand that their present feeling is in favour of doing so as far as the grant proposed will go. What we want is to have as much money as possible available in that direction, but if a

  1015
  clause be placed in the Bill absolutely prohibiting fees, or fining those schools which charge fees, money is withdrawn which would be valuable in establishing free education. As has been stated by the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. J. A. Campbell), the Glasgow School Board have five grades of schools, and this policy has arisen historically from the fact that in dealing with schools in different districts in the city they found traditional fees suited to the habits and resources of each district, and these were continued. You have schools with no fees, schools with penny fees, and schools with higher fees in Glasgow, and if you permit the School Board of Glasgow—and Glasgow may be taken as representing a large part of Scotland—to have 10 or possibly 12 schools charging fees, what they wish is to have their share of the Probate Grant to throw into a common fund which the Board administers. The fallacy lies in supposing you are dealing with individual schools. You say that individual schools receiving fees should not receive this money from the Probate Grant. But you do not make the payment to individual schools, but to the School Board in respect of certain schools, and having made the payment to the School Board the money goes into the general fund, and is available for the financial arrangements of the Board wherever the needs are greatest. In Glasgow, as has been pointed out, the Board cannot make ends meet unless you allow them to have fees paid in some schools and also allow them to draw a share of the Probate Grant in respect of children in those schools, but applicable towards free education in other schools. The hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division (Mr. Caldwell) says if you allow the two kinds of schools in Glasgow, some with fees and some without, then those children who come from better families will go to the schools where fees are charged, will there get better teaching, will be better qualified for competition, and so they will get hold of the best endowments. He admits, however, that these children of the better class do this at present, so that at any rate things will be no worse. But surely there is a simple mode of preventing any injustice that might so arise. The educational endowments in Glasgow are under four different bodies who have
  1016
  the administration of them, at any rate there are four funds to administer; well, then, in order that the very poorest shall not be deprived of advantages from the endowments, it is quite open to those who have the management of the endowments to say that they will confine certain endowments to a certain class of schools, to say for instance, that no children shall compete whose school fees are above a certain amount. Or you might even say that in some cases there shall be no competition by children from schools where any fees are charged. The difference between schools where fees are paid and those where there are no fees may be taken roughly as representing-a difference in the means of the parents, and it will be open to those who have the administration of the endowment funds to exclude from competition the children attending the higher schools. But this case of Glasgow is only one illustration of the broad principle which I have begged hon. Members to consider in reference to the question of free education. There are three great sources of support for education, the rates, the taxes, and the large sum which hitherto has been contributed by parents in the shape of fees, and I cannot see why in deference to the abstract principle of free education we should unwisely and unnecessarily throw away the whole of the income we are getting from fees. Believe those who cannot pay fees, have schools that may be attended without payment of fees, but where parents are anxious and willing to pay keep that source of income open for the present. If you do not, you will find when you come to meet the great needs of the future, technical schools, evening schools, higher schools, the strengthening of the teaching staff, and so on, that you are short of funds. You must come again to ratepayers and taxpayers for assistance, and ratepayers and taxpayers may refuse that assistance, and desirable reforms will be postponed because the State has intervened between parents, who surely are the natural persons to have the liberty of paying fees for their children's education if they like, and the managers of schools, and says if you have anything to do with public schools you must pay no fees for your children's education.

  1017
  As to the traditional custom in Scotland, it is quite true that in old times the children of the rich and poor often sat in the same school, but it is not true that they were on the same footing as regards fees. Those who could afford it paid fees, sometimes high fees; and those who could not were admitted free. In the country schools and in small towns this may still continue, but in large towns it will be found that those who can afford to pay very liberal fees will send their children to one school, and others who cannot afford fees will send their children where there are no fees at all.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Perhaps I may be allowed a word of explanation in regard to my vote. I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division on his last Amendment and voted against him, but according to the statement he has made now and the Amendment before us, I understand what he means is this—that we shall not have in the same schools the gradation of fee paying and non-paying pupils. If my hon. Friend wishes to confine his Amendment to the same school, I would agree with him. If that is the meaning of his Amendment, then I can support it; I wish now to say that I am able to vote with him. I am sorry that he did not support a principle more important, whereby the sum would have been made sufficient not to give to State-aided-schools but only public schools any grant whatever. On that principle my hon. Friend parted from me and left me standing alone. I hope, however, my hon. Friend will return to that some day, and in the meantime if my hon. Friend means there shall not be a gradation in the same school whereby a division shall be made between paying and non paying pupils I shall support the Amendment.
  The House divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 218.—(Div. List, No. 236.)
  MR. MCDONALD CAMERON: I believe this clause, notice of which stands in my name, the payment of the travelling expenses of Councillors, would make a pecuniary charge, and that it is therefore not competent for me to move it. I only rise to ask the Lord Advocate if he is disposed to accept, and has prevailed with his colleagues to in-
  1018
  duce them to accept, something in the nature of this clause.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am not in favour of the clause as it stands.
  MR. McDONALD CAMERON: But will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what modification of the clause he would be disposed to favour?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am sorry to say the suggestion I made did not meet with acceptance. My suggestion was that in exceptional cases payment might be made towards travelling expenses of County Councillors, but the information I gathered satisfied me that I was not likely to receive support to my proposal.
  MR. CALDWELL: I rise to move the Amendment, of which I have given notice, the insertion of a new clause having reference to the application of the Act to the County of Stirling. The Government have accepted and added to the Bill an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Sir Archibald Orr Ewing), which has for its object the taking out of the County of Stirling certain parishes and bringing them into the County of Dumbarton, and the effect will be the unsettling of the boundary of Stirling as fixed by the Roads and Bridges Act. The object of my new clause is, considering that you are going to take out of the county of Stirling certain parishes which originally belonged to Dumbarton, and to restore to them to Dumbarton, my object is to restore to Stirling parishes from Dumbarton and Perth that originally formed part of Stirling. It is a simple question. If the Lord Advocate is going to disturb the existing boundaries of counties in the interest of Dumbarton, then he should equally have regard to Stirling, and set the boundaries of that county right. This new clause would not be needed if the Lord Advocate would agree to strike out Clause 40, which disturbs the present arrangement for the County of Stirling, but if that arrangement is to be destroyed then it is necessary that the county should be restored to the position it occupied before the passing of the Roads and Bridges Act, and this I propose by the clause I now move.
  New Clause (Application of Act to county of Stirling.)—(Mr. Caldwell,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In the absence of my hon. Colleague the Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. J. C. Bolton), I should like to say a word or two upon this clause. I have joined my hon. Friend in putting on the Paper a Motion for the rejection of Clause 40, because Clause 40 proposes to take away from Stirling some important parishes for the purposes of this Act. What we should very much prefer is that Stirlingshire should be left as it now naturally exists, and has existed for a long time, not deprived, as it will be by clause 40, of the parishes of Cumbernauld and Kirkintolloch. That would be desirable on many accounts, and perhaps the Lord Advocate will say at once whether he can agree to this. If he does not, and still insists upon Clause 40, Stirling will be shorn on both sides in a way the county has done nothing to deserve—and I should support the clause now proposed, which merely restores to that county parishes which originally belonged to it. In the case of the parish of Logie the claim is especially strong, because it contains the flourishing watering-place of Bridge of Allan, which is almost a suburb of the town of Stirling.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment has mentioned it in connection with Clause 40, which relates to Cumbernauld and Kirkintolloch, two parishes in another part of Stirlingshire, and perhaps I ought to say at once that the general intention—the general scope of the Bill—is that these detached and isolated portions of a county should be merged into the county in which they are locally situated, though with which they are not for administrative purposes connected. When we come to the parishes mentioned in the Amendment, I am struck with the fact that they are very peculiarly situated, and the parish of Logie is split up and locally distributed in as eccentric a way as any parish in Scotland, and affords a very strong case for consolidation, and I cannot say that any case is made out for exempting Logie from the general plan of the Bill, with
  1020
  which I think the House will agree as a proper plan, that we should consolidate the detachedportions of a county in that county by which it is in the greater part surrounded. These parishes afford strong instances for carrying out the principle; they are embedded, as it were, in the neighbouring county. I regret the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour). I do not gather that he is favourable to this proposal. I do not think the dignity of Stirling shire ought to rise at all at so very small a matter relatively as this we are now discussing. Considering the case of Logie as "past praying for," so completely is it cut up by its position, I turn to Alva, which has a population of 5,000. Stirlingshire, including this parish, has a population of 85,000, so that this parish is only 4 per cent of the whole. Surely it is not a very strong case for exceptional treatment, more especially when we find that Alva is contiguous to and abuts upon Perth, and is to a large extent surrounded by Clackmannan. Then the right hon. Gentleman has said he will be content if we give an assurance that we will part with Clause 40. But the two parishes mentioned there have been recognized in previous Acts of Parliament in the manner we have treated them, and they fall with in the principle I have referred to, that of merging detached portions of a county into the surrounding county. Here we have the case of two detached parishes with only a population of 15,000 out of a county population of 61,000. What is required is to consolidate the parishes in the county; and when we come to consider all the circumstances of the case it will, I think, appear to the House impossible to carry theory so far as to deal specially with the parishes referred to in the proposed clause.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to move in Clause 4, page 1, line 26, to move to add after the word "every, "to add "burgh and." This is rendered necessary through the adoption of the principle that in each burgh instead of the ratepayers being the electors of the county, the Member for the burgh is to I be elected by the Town Council. The

  1021
  Lord Advocate will see that this principle having been adopted, it becomes urgently necessary that the burgh should form an electoral division. It follows as a matter of course.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 4, page 1, line 26, after "every" to insert "burgh and."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman has misapprehended a provision of the Bill which I thought had been made sufficiently clear. The whole scheme of the Bill is that all places, except those burghs which stand outside the county, are to be included, consequently they cannot be regarded as electoral divisions. Police burghs are distinguished from burghs forming part of a county, and sending representatives to the County Council.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to move the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name, with the addition of the words "provided that," and of the word "only" after "office" in the second line. It will come in in line 5 after "elections." The Lord Advocate has accepted the Amendment.
  Amendment moved, Clause 4, page 2, line 6, after "election," insert—
  "Provided that the County Councillors first elected under the provisions of this Act shall continue in office only until the first Tuesday in December in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two, when the whole number of Councillors shall go out of office, and their places shall be filled by election as hereinafter provided."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. BAIRD: I have an Amendment in the shape of a proviso to come in at the end of the clause. It will apply to the case of only part of an electoral division which may be included within the boundary of the burgh. The Amendment is not on the Paper.
  Amendment proposed, to add at the end of the clause—
  "Provided also that if a part only of any electoral division shall be so annexed or included, the Councillor or Councillors of such
  1022
  electoral division shall continue to hold office until the Secretary for Scotland shall otherwise determine."—(Mr. Baird.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Another Amendment agreed to:—Clause 5. page 2, line 15, alter "and," insert "each of."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to move an Amendment of Clause 7 to provide that a Councillor who ceases to be a county elector shall nevertheless serve out his term of office. In ordinary circumstances this Amendment would not have been necessary, but I think it is very desirable to have it in the Bill, looking at the general words of the clause as to disqualification.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 7, page 2, line 27, after "county," add—
  "But a Councillor duly qualified at the time of his election shall not be disqualified from serving out his term of office as a County Councillor by reason of his ceasing to be a county elector for such county."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I must own that I have thought that the view of the Committee in adopting the words "Councillor shall be at the time of his election, "was that if he ceased to bean elector he should also cease to be a Councillor. I am at a loss to know why that should not be so. It is desirable that Councillors should be persons who are ratepayers, and, therefore, interested in the affairs of the county. If they are electors they will be ratepayers, and if they cease to be ratepayers they ought to cease to be Councillors.
  Mr. CALDWELL: I withdraw the Amendment, although I put on it a different interpretation to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 8, page 2, line 28, after "burgh," leave out to "eighty-one," inclusive, in line 29, and insert "which contains."—(Mr. J. P.B. Robertson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'eighty-one' stand part of the Clause."
  DR. CLARK: If you leave out "eighty-one," how will you determine the population?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: We put in the clause words which carry the 7,000, then we have the interpretation clause providing that the words shall be held to mean what appears under the Census of 1881, or a number, if greater than that, which shall be established to the satisfaction of the Secretary for Scotland within 10 days of the passing of the Act.
  Question, "That the words 'eighty-one' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'which contains' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 8, page 2, line 32, to leave out the words "or with which it has the largest common boundary," and insert the words "which contains the largest number of the electors of such burgh,"—(Mr. Caldwell,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I do not know which should be selected as the better criterion for determining this question, but it seems to me that to take the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would lead to great confusion as we are accustomed to the other method under the Scotch Roads and Bridges Act, and some other Scotch Statutes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved, Clause 8, page 2, line 39, after "year, "insert" in which the election of a County Council is appointed to take place."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
  MR. CALDWELL: The next Amendment is to make the clause clear, as it is very confused as it stands. The clause says the term of office for a County Councillor for a burgh shall be three years, but in the case of the first election it can only be something over two years. The first election is to take place in February, and it will end two years the November following. But the Bill says it shall be for three years,
  1024
  which will make the period of the appointment of a County Councillor run different to the period of the appointment of a Councillor for a burgh. The object of the Amendment is to provide that the term of office of a County Councillor for a burgh shall be the same as the term of office of a Councillor for an electoral division of a county, and the appointment of a County Councillor for a burgh shall run from the day of the triennial County Council election next ensuing his election. Without this Amendment there would be two periods of election. Its meaning is that though you appoint your burgh members for the County Council in November, yet the appointment is to run from the triennial election of the rest of the County Councillors. It is a drafting Amendment to make the Clause clear and intelligible. Complaints are frequently made that Acts of Parliament are passed in an unintelligible form, and that is a thing I wish to correct here. Of course if the Lord Advocate does not accept the Amendment it is no affair of mine.
  Amendment moved, Clause 8, page 2, line 41, after "be," insert—
  "The same as the term of office of a Councillor for an electoral division of a county, and the appointment of a County Councillor for a burgh run date from the day of the triennial County Council election next ensuing his election."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am ready to accept Amendments to improve the drafting of the Bill, but I cannot accept this, which would add to the labours of the House and only lead to obscurity. All this is cleared up by Section 30, which deals with the dates of the election for the first three years.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. CALDWELL: As the sub-section stands, the only vacancy dealt with is that caused by a man in the ordinary course ceasing to be a Town Councillor. No doubt the intention is that, however the vacancy occurs, it should be filled up. According to my Amendment, the vacancy would be filled up not merely in the event of a vacancy arising under the sub-section, but in the event of a vacancy arising by death or otherwise.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 1, to leave out from the word "Councillor, "to the word "but, "in line 3, and to insert the words:—
  "And in the event of a casual vacancy occurring caused by death, resignation, or disqualification, such casual vacancy shall as soon as practicable be filled up by the Town Council."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I propose to accept an Amendment which has been put down in the right place by the Member for Forfarshire, but which will be moved by the hon. Member for Roxburghshire. The proper place for this Amendment is the special section which relates to casual vacancies.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment agreed to, Clause 8, page 3, line 4, leave out after "election," to end of Clause.—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 6, after the word election," to insert the following sub-sections:—
  "(3) The provisions of this section shall apply to a Royal burgh which contains a population of more than seven thousand, but does not return or contribute to return a Member to Parliament;
  (4) The expression 'The Representation of the People Acts,' in section three of 'The Representation of the People Act, 1884,' is hereby declared to include the Acts regulating the registration of municipal electors."—(The Lord Advocate).
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: It may be, of course, that I am stupid, but I must confess I do not understand the proposed definition of burghs. The Bill in one part deals with Royal and Parliamentary burghs, and I do not know why it is necessary to bring in this section—
  "The provisions of this section shall apply to a Royal burgh which contains a population of more than 7,000, but does not return or contribute to return a Member of Parliament."
  A Royal burgh comes within the definition of the law, and I cannot understand why this should be necessary.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I cannot say that I share the objection of the hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Campbell), but I have another of a different kind. It maybe called an objection to the
  1026
  drafting of the Amendment, but in this case the drafting is of great importance. The clause proposed alters the principle of the Representation of the People Act, and I would, therefore, ask your ruling, Sir, whether it is competent to move it here. It interferes with the service franchise, and anyone reading the Representation of the People Act of 1884, and who afterwards looked through the titles of subsequent Statutes would have no notice that the Representation of the People Act was altered by this Act. I do not dwell on the fact that in terms this is an alteration of the law of England as well as of Scotland, seeing that the Representation of the People Act applies to both countries. No doubt that will be controlled by the title of the Bill when it becomes an Act; but it seems very inexpedient that you should attempt to alter the Representation of the People Act in this way.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: On the question of order. Sir, I would explain that the Representation of the People Act, dealing naturally with Parliamentary elections, makes a certain use of the municipal roll. One result has been that a question arose as to whether service franchise holders have votes both for Parliamentary purposes and also, by incidental enactment, for municipal purposes. What we now propose is to declare that a certain enactment in a Parliamentary Election Act has the effect, which is generally ascribed to it, of conferring the franchise for municipal purposes.
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no objection to the words of the Amendment as a matter of order.
  MR. A. ELLIOT: Is the object of this sub-section to qualify for municipal purposes those who are disqualified in the burghs? The service franchise gives a qualification for Parliamentary but not for municipal purposes. Is the object now to qualify for all municipal rights in burghs?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: That is the object. There has been a diversity of practice in Scotch burghs. One eminent lawyer who is not on the Front Bench just now is of opinion that the service franchise people are not entitled to vote at municipal elections; but other eminent lawyers are of a contrary opinion. This comes into the Bill because we are giving the service fran-

  1027
  chise in counties, and it would seem by parity of reasoning that it ought at the same time to be given in the burghs.
  MR. CALDWELL: I would move to add to the proposed Amendment, the words "for the purposes of the Act."
  Amendment proposed, in line 4 of proposed Amendment, before the word "The, "to insert the words "For the purpose of this Act."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Once for all I would point out that we propose that the service franchise people should have votes within the burghs both for municipal and Parliamentary purposes—for general purposes as well as the purposes of this Act. How would you work out the provision if you said that persons are to be elected for the purposes of this Act on one franchise, and for the purposes of other Acts on other franchises? The thing is impossible.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I agree that these words are not desirable. I desire that the Service Franchise-holders should in burghs have the Municipal Franchise, the only point raised by the hon. Member for North-East Lanark being whether this is the right way of doing it. That point having been decided by the Chair, I presume that there is no more to be said.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I think that the object of the Lord Advocate's Amendment is a good one; but it might have been attained in a better way. If, however, the Lord Advocate takes the responsibility as to the method, I shall say nothing more.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would aubmit to the Lord Advocate whether he is not interfering with the Municipal Franchise in England as well as Scotland by the terms of his proposal?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman
  1028
  that the second clause is, "This Act shall extend to Scotland only."
  Question put, and agreed to; words inserted.
  MR. FIRTH: The alteration which the Amendment standing in my name proposes would leave women otherwise qualified eligible for election as County Councillors. I raised the question in Committee, and if the decision of the Committee had been such as to fairly reflect opinions in different quarters of the House, I would not have troubled the House with the matter at this stage. The issue is a very important one, and what occurred in Committee seems to me to afford a justification for making another appeal to the House. Under this Act women will be electors; and if this clause were expunged it is doubtful whether they might not also be elected. Above all things the Act is intended to be a utilitarian measure, and the question is what would be the advantage of allowing women to be elected. If there was no good to be gained by electing women, they would scarcely have been elected in England, and certainly they would not be elected in Scotland, and in that case an enabling clause would be inoperative. But I do not believe it would be inoperative. In all probability a few women would be elected, because there is a certain number of things which they could attend to much better than men can attend to them. No better illustration could be afforded of the necessity for electing some women than is furnished by the fact that the County Councils have charge of lunatic asylums, in which there are so many thousand female inmates, about whom women can obtain information much better than men. The people of Scotland would not elect any women as County Councillors unless they were convinced that their election would be for the public good.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 7, to leave out the words" No woman," and insert the words" Any woman otherwise qualified."—(Mr. Firth.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'no woman' stand part of the Bill."
  DR. CAMERON: There is nothing in the Bill to prevent women serving on District Councils, whose duties

  1029
  are to look after the administration of the Public Health Act, and to deal with the rates. Surely if that be so there are equal reasons why they should have left open to them the career of County Councillors. In many places in England ladies have been elected on the Councils, and I do not see why the electors should not have the greatest latitude in determining whom they should elect as their representatives.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I do not think this Amendment is moved in the interest of Scotland. Scotch women do not want to become County Councillors, they have too much sense. This Amendment is put forward with the object of capturing an outpost from which to bombard a stronghold of men in England. I hope the House will adhere to the decision it arrived at in Committee.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I think we may safely leave to women themselves the right of deciding whether women shall or shall not be elected. I think it is tyrannical in the extreme to limit their choice; I took the chair at one of Miss Cobden's election meetings in London, and I could not help seeing that there was a very strong feeling not only among women but among men that it was very important, in view of the class of work to be carripd out in the County Councils, that women should have the opportunity of representing the electors on those bodies. It is perfectly well known that we get our physical properties from our fathers and our mental qualities from our mothers, and it seems to me very important indeed that the mental faculties of women should be sharpened up as much as possible in order to breed good women. I am also a believer in heredity, and I think that if our mothers could have the opportunity of being brought up in public life we might have been better Members of Parliament than we are now. From these points of view I have great pleasure in sup porting the Amendment.
  MR. A. GATHORNE-HARDY: I would point out that we are not going to vote on this occasion on the question whether women should or should not be elected to the County Councils. There is an express provision in the Bill stating that women shall not be elected, but if that provision
  1030
  is struck out the result will not be that women can be elected, but merely that they may be exposed to law-suits. To save a lady from that contingency, I shall support the Bill as it stands.
  MR. CHANNING: I would point out to the hon. Member who has just sat down that the Bill did not in its original form contain the words excluding women from election on County Councils. The words were afterwards inserted by the Lord Advocate. As to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell), he must be unfortunate in his acquaintance with Scottish women if he does not know that in Edinburgh there are women who are quite as well qualified as men—better qualified than many men—to discharge the duties of County Councillors. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), when I recently asked for a day for the discussion of the question, treated the matter with some contempt. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman were to qualify as a Scotch candidate and stand against some of the ladies in Edinburgh, there is not the slightest doubt as to where the victory would lie. I hope the House will not consent to this unnecessary exclusion of women from a duty for which they are eminently fitted.
  MR. COSSHAM: I am very doubtful whether it would be well either for women or for the State to bring them into public life, but I think it is almost too late to raise that question now. As you have admitted women to the franchise, I think you must also-allow them to be elected. I should have voted against their being admitted to the franchise, but as they have been admitted, I shall vote for their being allowed to be elected.
  SIR AECHIBALD CAMPBELL: It has clearly taxed the ingenuity of hon. Gentlemen opposite to find out a reason why women should be elected to serve on County Councils, and the feeble arguments used by hon. Gentlemen opposite in favour of the' Amendment seem to me quite sufficient to enable the House to decide in favour of the Bill as it stands.
  DR. CLARK: I may point out that the burgh which the hon. Member who has just spoken represents had a lady as Chairwoman of the School Board. It has been pointed out that the

  1031
  Local Government Board has refused to appoint female inspectors, and that if women are elected on the County Councils we shall be able to have visitation and inspection by ladies, and female patients will be able to bring before them facts which they could not bring before any male visitor. It surely cannot be right for this House to prevent any constituency in a county from electing a female if that constituency desires to be represented by a female.
  MR. M'LAREN: In asking the House to agree to the Amendment I do not base my argument at all on the ground that it necessarily follows that because women are entitled to vote in these elections they are, therefore, entitled to be elected. We maintain that it is distinctly to the advantage of the County Councils that women should be elected to them. I know myself numbers of persons in Scotland who would be desirous of nominating women as candidates for the County Council. A lady has sat in Scotland as Chairman of a School Board, and everybody conversant with Edinburgh knows that Miss Stevenson, the lady member of the School Board there, is the most influential member of the Board, and is often deputed to visit London to interview the Scotch Office on matters of importance. She is also the only member of the School Board who has been elected at every election since the Act was passed. Numbers of women have been elected members of Boards of Guardians, and have done good work on such Boards. I am convinced from my knowledge of Scotland that there is a very strong desire that women should be elected to these Boards, and I hope the House will assent to the Amendment.
  The House divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 88.—(Div. List, No. 237.)
  Motion made and Question put, Clause 10, page 3, line 32, after "(1)," insert "The Chairman of the County Council, who shall be called."—(The Lord Advocate.)—Agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, Clause 10, page 3, line 34, after "county," insert—
  "But before acting as such justice he shall, if he has not already done so, take the oath required by law to be taken by a Justice of the Peace."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have now to move the Amendment I have upon the Paper—namely, to insert "three years" in the place of "one year" in clause 10, page 3, line 36. This matter of the duration of the Chairman's office was a good deal discussed in the English Bill, and I have a strong opinion in favour of making the period three years. The Provosts of all Scotch burghs are appointed for three years, which is a reasonable period and enables a man to make a position for himself, and I do not see why on the County Councils we should not follow the analogy afforded by the burghs. Again, in many cases, where the appointment was only for a year there would be a feeling against getting rid of the person holding the office after so short a term, and the result might be that the same person might retain the position year after year because the electors might not wish to cast a slur on him by refusing him reelection. If, however, the period were three years a man would know that he was not likely to be re-elected at the end of the term unless he had fulfilled his position so well that the electors desired to offer him an unusual mark of approval by re-appointing him.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 36, to leave out the words "one year," and insert the words "three years."—(Sir George Campbell).
  Question proposed, "That the words 'one year' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: As the hon. Gentleman has stated, this matter was fully discussed on a former occasion, and my recollection is that the general feeling was in favour of one year. That is the existing system in regard to the counties, and I think it would be better to have the proposal as it stands in the Bill.
  MR. CALDWELL: There is no doubt that the convener of a county is appointed for a year, but the election of the Board is only for a year, and we have always acted on the principle that the chairman should hold office during the currency of the particular body over which he

  1033
  presides. In the School Boards, where the elections are for three years, the chairman holds office for that period, and in all similar cases the chairman's term of office follows the duration of the body he is chairman of. There would be this advantage in making the term of office three years in the present case, that it would help to ensure a continuous policy, and I am also aware of the feeling mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) that by making the chairmanship a matter of annual election the appointment, for the reason he stated, might be unnecessarily prolonged. It would, I think, be contrary to all precedent in Scotland if the chairman should be appointed for a period less than the duration of the body over which he is to preside.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put, Clause 10, page 3, line 39, leave out from "office," to "and," in line 40, and insert "at the pleasure of the council."—(Mr. Caldwell.)—Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 8, to leave out all the words after the word "occurred" to end of Clause.—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and rejected.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: In the Amendment I have to propose, I desire to raise the question as to the powers of the Commissioners of Supply. My Amendment is absolutely to take away those powers which are only the charge of the police and capital expenditure. We had supposed that the Bill was founded upon the model of Town Councils in Scotland; and the Lord Advocate knows that those bodies in boroughs would not for one moment submit to a limitation which deprived them of the control of their police and of capital expenditure. And if there is anything to be said of the control of Town Councils over police and capital expenditure, it would equally apply to County Councils. But by the Bill you are creating a machinery which will practically have no responsible work whatever. The work of the County Council is limited to such an extent that there will be an agitation from year to
  1034
  year until the powers which are possessed by the boroughs are also possessed by County Councils.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 18, to leave out the words, "save as hereinafter mentioned."—(Mr. Esslemont.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It is no want of respect to the hon. Gentleman if I say that I doubt whether the House desires to again discuss this subject, which has been debated with great clearness and fulness on the First and Second Readings and in Committee—I do not at all say at too great length. I cannot say that I feel myself that I could add anything to the reasons which prevailed with the majority. I assume that the object of the hon. Gentleman is either to enter a protest or take a Division, and I will not further stand between him and either object.
  DR. CLARK: The Government are wrong in the course they have taken. The Commissioners have practically ceased to perform any functions, and they die, if not universally lamented, at all events in the full odour of sanctity. What I meant to point out is simply this, that you will be bringing the landlords and the people in Scotland constantly into conflict on two points; and it would be very much better in the future for Scotch landlords if you now allowed them to cease their functions and allow those matters of the control of the police and capital expenditure to remain in the hands of the people. The Commissioners have now a clean and honourable record, but if they continue to work under this clause, the result will be such as the Government will deplore.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not at all surprised that my hon. Friend behind me has moved this Amendment, because it raised again at this stage a point of cardinal importance, and it would have been odd, after attaching so much importance to it, had we passed it over without notice. I agree, however, with the Lord Advocate that the question has been fully argued on both sides; and while I regret that the Government have remained obdurate not only to our arguments, but to the

  1035
  demonstration of feeling on the part of the representatives of Scotland, which took place on an earlier stage of this Bill, I consider it better to content ourselves with a Division in order to express our feeling.
  The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 75.—(Div. List, No. 238.)
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Amendment I am about to move is in substance the same as that which I moved in Committee, though in words it is somewhat different. The words I have put on the Paper now were suggested to me during the course of the Debate in Committee by the hon. Member for Inverness, who supported me. The object is to throw upon inhabitant householders the responsibility for the maintenance of rights of public way. I felt justified in bringing up this matter again on the Report stage, although it has already been discussed in Committee, on the ground that although we were defeated in Committee by a majority of 27, the Division List showed that the Scottish vote was 5 to 1 in favour of my proposition.
  Attention called to the fact that 40 Members not present. The House was counted; and, 40 Members being found present,
  MR. BUCHANANproceeded: Another reason why I bring forward the Motion again is that I think the Government may possibly think fit to give us at least part of what we want, inasmuch as I was supported in the Division Lobby by all the Liberal Unionist Members from Scotland, and even by one Conservative Member, and, generally speaking, the support I obtained may fairly be said to have been drawn from all quarters of the House. The arguments brought against my proposal were practically twofold. There was, first the argument of the Solicitor General for Scotland that no grievance existed, and then there was the argument of the Lord Advocate that I was trying to induce the County Councils to levy war against individuals. I must say I thought the expression the Lord Advocate used was very unfortunate and regrettable. But, putting aside the words he used, I do not think the argument was a fair one, inasmuch as my proposal would have placed no obligation what-
  1036
  ever on the County Councils. My present Amendment makes it perfectly clear that only a discretionary power is to be imposed on the County Council. As to the argument of the Solicitor General for Scotland that there is no grievance in Scotland, or if there is it is open to anyone to remedy it by what is known as a popular action which anyone can bring, I hardly think that contention will be brought forward again. During the Debate in Committee it was shown that last year a single society in Edinburgh was applied to no less than 40 times to defend rights of way. During the past few years there has been a tendency in the Highlands to shut up paths and roads over which rights of way are claimed. There is the well-known Glendall case. There the claim of the proprietor to shut up a road was no doubt openly contested by very few inhabitants either of Glendall or the surrounding districts, and no one had the hardihood to bring an action. An action was brought by a public society. The legal proceedings lasted over two-and-a-half years, and entailed no less than three trials, one before the Lord Ordinary of the Quarter Sessions, one before the Inner House of Quarter Sessions, and the other before the House of Lords. In each of these trials the society won the case. But the expenses of the litigation have amounted to between £4,000 and £5,000, and though the Bights of Way Society will have their costs paid, there is no less a sum than £650 incurred by the society, which will not be allowed under the award of costs. Now is it for a moment to be considered a just reply to the grievance alleged that there is no adequate protection for rights of way in Scotland, for the Solicitor General for Scotland or any other defender of this Bill to say that the protection of rights of way is a duty that can be performed by any single individual? It is almost impossible even for the richer and more popular parts of the country, and absolutely impossible for the poorer and more sparsely-populated parts of Scotland to make any practical use whatever of the protection that is at present afforded by the law I most earn estly urge the Government to reconsider the position they took up on this subject during the Committee stage. I say there is a grievance

  1037
  felt throughout the length and breadth of the land, and chiefly in the Highlands and sparsely-populated districts, and I ask whether the duty of remedying this grievance could be more properly and adequately entrusted to any body other than the County Council?
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 11, page 4, line 19, after the word "trustees," to insert the words—
  "And the duty of maintaining, and the right, if they think fit, of taking or defending, proceedings for the protection of any public right of way over roads, drove roads, bridlepaths, and ferries."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  DR. FAEQUHAESON: This is a question of such great and pressing importance in the North that I think my hon. Friend has every justification for bringing it once more under the attention of the House. This is simply a demand made upon a popularly-elected tribunal to defend the existing rights of the people of Scotland. It is all very well to say that individuals can defend themselves, but, as any one who has had any experience of the law is aware, the assertion of a legal right is sometimes a very formidable affair. It is said that this power is not wanted. Anyone, however, who knows anything of the North will agree with my hon. Friend that cases of stopping up rights of way are too frequent, and individuals naturally hesitate before they plunge into the possibilities of legal processes. If this provision is not wanted, it will be a dead letter, and no harm will be done. But I say it is wanted, and it is not too much to ask that a tribunal like the County Council should have this little addition made to its respon-bilities and duties. We are told that the question of right of way will be made an electioneering cry. Well, if such a question has anything in it, it is quite right that it should be brought forward at election time, and if it has not anything in it, I think the people of Scotland are too shrewd to be taken in by bogus electioneering cries. The County Councils will take care not to enter into bogus suits, and will take care that any claim put forward by those outside shall only be carried out by them
  1038
  if there is some reasonable possibility of success, or if a strong claim is shown for popular redress.
  SIR D. CUEEIE: I have only to say in a word that I must support the Amendment of my hon. Friend as I did in the Committee. It appears to me it would be only a wise and a proper thing to throw on the County Councils the responsibility of defending the public rights.
  MR. HALDANE: I cannot help hoping that the Government will see their way to meet what is obviously the opinion of the large majority of the Scottish Members. In Committee the Scotch Members supported the Amendment by, I believe, 51 to 10. While the Government have not departed from the main outlines of the Bill, I think they have shown a laudable wish to accede to our wishes in any reasonable matter where we have expressed these wishes by a large majority. On this point they have an opportunity of meeting us in a way that will give universal satisfaction. I can bear testimony to the extent to which these rights of way are gradually falling out of existence, not so much from the fault of landowners as from the absence of a public authority to see to their preservation. It is only of late years that people have become alive to the value of these rights. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, at a meeting of the Society for the Preservation of Eights of Way, in 1886, expressed himself strongly in favour of imposing this duty on a properly-constituted Local Authority. In the face of this expression of opinion it does seem to me to be difficult for the Lord Advocate to resist the appeal now made to him by the large majority of the Scottish Members.
  THE SOLICITOE GENEEAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. MOIR T. STORMONTH DARLING,): The speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down shows perhaps some tendency to repetition of the arguments formerly used. I think it is the desire of the House that there should be no repetition of the arguments used in Committee, and I will make that my excuse for being very brief. The Government are still of opinion that it would be undesirable, in the interests of

  1039
  the County Councils and their harmonious working, to intrust them with what can only be described as a licence to raise litigation. It is not at all necessary that I should throw any doubt upon the discre-tion and moderation with which this duty would be exercised if imposed on the County Councils. At the same time, to accept the Amendment would be practically to impose upon the County Councils the duty of raising lawsuits of a particularly delicate and contentious nature. There is nowadays no great tendency on the part of landowners to resist well-founded rights of this character, and therefore there is less need of an Amendment like the present. The hon. Mover of the Amendment said that 40 applications were received last year by the Edinburgh Rights of Way Society. Does the hon. Gentleman think that these 40 applications were all well founded? He knows as well as I do that among them must have been many which, upon examination, turned out to be not justified by the facts, whilst a number of the proprietors in other cases, when application was made to them, at once recognized the right of way. As to the Glendoll case, I will only say that I happen to know the district personally; and it is a fact that this is the only right of way out of a great many in that mountainous tract of country which has ever been resisted by the proprietor. On the whole matter the Government remain of the opinion that it would be unfortunate to entrust this power to the County Council. They are not insensible to the argument that to entrust this power to the County Council would rather tend to make proprietors more jealous of the formation of these rights. It must never be forgotten that these rights grow up by degrees, and if you put proprietors too much upon their guard, you will prevent any such rights being created.
  DR. CLARK: We have had from the Solicitor General a repetition of the arguments that were used in Committee, and he scarcely seems to appreciate the difference between the Amendment now before us and the Amendment moved in Committee. The original Amendment in Committee was compulsory in character, but this is not. ["No, no."] However, the hon. and learned Gentle-
  1040
  man's answer is the same, that there is no evidence to justify the Amendment. I might bring forward two cases that occurred quite lately, one in West Perthshire; the old "Sheriff Muir" road has been shut up by the neighbouring proprietor. Of course, the tenants endeavoured to maintain their right to use this old Scotch road, two centuries old; but it has been closed because it passes through the landlord's game preserves. Then there was a case lately in Caithness something similar, in which the Duke of Portland, a Member of the present Government, drawing £2,500 a year for doing nothing, and having great estates in the county, shut up the old road across Marven because it interfered with his deer forest and game preserves. He owns all the land round about, and the people cannot afford to fight for their rights against a powerful English duke who draws a large revenue from London and from the taxpayers, and so the right of way is lost. Now if this power were given to the County Councils these landed proprietors would think twice before they do these things, because they would know they would have to encounter the resistance of a powerful representative body instead of having only to use the landlord's privilege to intimidate and boycott against individual tenants. We seek to create no new rights of way, but only to preserve old rights that are being lost. In Committee I urged what I thought a strong reason in favour of this proposal, and this the hon. and learned Gentleman has not seen fit to reply to. I pointed out that there are many old parish roads and statute labour roads that were not transferred under the Roads and Bridges Act to the present road authorities; the old bodies that had charge of them have ceased to exist, and now these roads are the property of no one; they were constructed by public money centuries ago, but they were not scheduled in the Roads and Bridges Act, and so they have come under nobody's control, the old bodies who could rate for their maintenance having been abolished. These roads not being scheduled under the authority of the Road Trustees will not be transferred to the new County Councils. We have heard no reply at all to the strong reasons urged for this pro-

  1041
  posal, the Solicitor General simply repeats the old story. I hope my hon. Friend will take a Division on his Amendment, and that again we shall have again Scotch opinion represented by five to one in its favour.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: I think my hon. Friend has done right to renew his protest, but at the same time I should be sorry to add much to the prolongation of the Debate. I will only say a word or two in reply to the Solicitor General. The hon. and learned Gentleman has used an argument I have only heard used once before, and I scarcely think it is apposite. He said that the fact that proprietors in a great many instances had yielded to the claims made upon them by the Society for the Protection of Rights of Way was a proof that where those claims were well founded proprietors were ready to acknowledge them. Now, I once heard a similar argument used on Circuit in a Criminal Court in Scotland. A man was accused of theft, and six previous convictions were proved against him, and his counsel very ingeniously argued that as in each of these previous cases the prisoner had pleaded guilty, it must be accepted as proof of innocence that in the seventh case he had not pleaded guilty. It seems to me the argument of the Solicitor General is parallel to that, but I do not think it will carry more weight in this than the argument did in the other instance.
  MR. PHILIPPS: There need be no surprise that my hon. Friend has repeated arguments he may have used on a previous occasion, for if we repeat our protest we must more or less repeat arguments, especially if they have not been answered. The Solicitor General has not quite followed that course. On the last occasion we were answered by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he told us that it was a very great cause of regret to him that Scotch landlords were so very bad in this matter of seizing footpaths; but now the Solicitor General says that these landlords have not been so bad, but that in the preservation of footpaths Scotland has been rather fortunate. I cannot help thinking that some of these rights which the Secretary for Ireland admitted landlords have absorbed in past times would not have been lost beyond
  1042
  hope of recovery if the County Council had power to spend money for the purpose of recovery. I do not for a moment accept the Solicitor General's suggestion that County Councils would be litigious in this matter. I believe, on the contrary, that they will be much more careful in regard to the public money than any body in existence. Nobody who reads the reports of what County Councils are doing in England will think they are reckless and extravagant—they rather seem instead to carry economy to a cheese-paring extent, and I never yet heard that extravagance is more a Scotch than an English characteristic. The Solicitor General referred to the success of the Scotch Society for looking after footpaths; but I think it is rather hard that the duty of maintaining and recovering public rights of way should be thrown upon a private body. The action of the Society represents a large sacrifice on the part of persons not particularly interested, and it is hard that people should be appealed to for pecuniary assistance for the purpose of guarding public rights—a duty which should devolve on public authorities with the assistance of the public purse. I hope that even at the last moment the Government may agree to this reasonable proposal.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I do not think this matter has been pressed or can be pressed too often. The Government are incurring great responsibility by their resistance to this Amendment. I am quite sure the Scotch people are in sympathy with the Amendment, and that the Government will suffer at the next election for their resistance to it. We do not wish to saddle upon the new authority a duty altogether alien to their other duties. One of the principal duties of the County Council will be to look after the roads, and we would attach to this the analogous duty of looking after footpaths and rights of way. I do not think the Solicitor General has said anything to strengthen the arguments of the Government used on a former occasion. I am glad he did not repeat the argument that the Courts are open to every poor man to vindicate a right he believes he has. I do not think if a poor man went to the Solicitor General for his assistance to vindicate his right he would make much of him.

  1043
  It is notorious that a case of this kind requires a very long purse, and a most pertinacious spirit to support it. We nave a Society which, by begging and dunning people for money, has been enabled to do much good; but the Society has undertaken a duty that ought to be discharged by a public authority—it is not a matter for private subscription. The Solicitor General says rights of way are gradually created, but I think it is just the other way. I think they are gradually being extinguished. A river floods a pathway, and it falls into desuetude; a sporting tenant during his temporary occupation puts up an obstruction, because a right of way interferes with his pursuits, and so the right of way is gradually lost. As to the fear that County Councils would promote law suits, I think this power would have an influence in the other direction. The County Council would, under this clause, be in possession of these existing rights, and it would be for other parties to bring law suits, and attack these rights if they dared. It would be a very different thing with a competent authority to defend public rights. I am sorry the Solicitor General takes such a very narrow view of this proposal. I am sure the Government will suffer for their attitude at the next election. We shall again go into the Lobby with the courage of our opinions.
  The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 107.—(Div. List, No. 239.)
  DR. CLARK: I move the Amendment that stands in my name, and I do so in order that some of the smaller harbours and piers may come under the cognizance of the County Council. Some of these harbours are called Board of Trade harbours, others are Fishery Board harbours, and others are old Trustee harbours. But the Board of Trade and the Fishery Board give no money for their maintenance, and the old Trustees have died out, and so piers are falling into decay, breakwaters are falling down, and the harbours are being lost. I have put my Amendment in a form I think the least objectionable, putting these under the category of capital works, requiring the sanction of the Commissioners of Supply, and in Clause 18 I propose to insert the construction or extension of piers and har-
  1044
  bours among capital works, so that nothing of this kind can be done without the sanction of the Commissioners of Supply. I could mention five or six harbours in Caithness; there are some in Sutherlandshire, and all down the East Coast there are small harbours, neglected and falling out of use, and the fishing population that would avail themselves of these harbours are moving away. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment in the moderate form in which I move it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 36, after the word "thirty-six," to insert the words "The right to construct and maintain the capital works defined in Section 18."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The whole significance of the Amendment is derived, not from the words the hon. Member now proposes to insert, but from those that follow in a subsequent section. The hon. Member avows that the works he has in contemplation are not works in the charge of the counties in Scotland. Now, our object in this Bill has been to transfer what are properly county works, according to existing administration, to the new County Body—the County Council. We go further, and under the provisions of Section 15 provide that with the consent of certain public Departments, there may be a transference made of certain statutory duties of those Departments to the County Councils. Now, suppose the Board of Trade (which is a case put by the hon. Member) is tired of the administration of certain harbour works, or considers it desirable that there should be a transfer, then, with the consent of that Department and of the County Council, the County Council may be invested with the powers and duties relating to such harbour works. That is the scheme and system of the present measure, and beyond that I cannot say it would be safe to go. Then I would point out to the hon. Member that his method would be unsuccessful in achieving the result he desires. He proposes to insert afterwards that the right to deal with piers and harbours shall be vested in County Councils; but he must go a

  1045
  great deal further; he must provide, in the first place, for the new burden this would impose upon the ratepayers not existing at present, and this, I apprehend, would bring him within the scope of the Rules of the House, which require that this should be considered, in Committee. The dilemma is this: Either the power he desires to give to the County Council of rating is at present vested in another body, and in that case it is a question of transfer, or, on the other hand, it is a new power, and, if so, it is a just burden. In the one case, it is part of Clause 15 which contains the accepted method of transfer; and, in the other case, as giving a new power to levy a rate, it is a question of larger scope, and though it may be for a useful purpose, it is not one it is competent for the hon. Member now to undertake.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. CALDWELL: I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in his place, because the next Amendment I have to move has reference to the financial part of the scheme. In the meantime, under Clause 19, I propose to leave out Sub-section 1; but the point to which I wish to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this—the distribution of the money under this Bill as compared with the English Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I think the hon. Member is in error. The next Amendment is on Clause 13.
  Amendments agreed to:—Clause 13, page 5, line 39, after the second "burgh," leave out to "eighty-one," inclusive, in line 40, and insert "contains"; page 6, line 7, before "liabilities," insert "same"; line 8, after "county," add—
  "For the purposes of Section 74 of 'The Police Act, 1857,' the expression 'this Act,' shall include 'The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889.'"—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
  SIR A. CAMPBELL: I press the next Amendment strongly upon the attention of the Lord Advocate with the view of saving the police force in one of the most ancient burghs, if not the most ancient burgh in Scotland. I need not detain the House by going into the question, as I made use of strong argu-
  1046
  ments in favour of the proposal on a former occasion. The case, I then argued, was a hard one, because, we believe, looking at the important works which are growing up there, that by this time next year the burgh to which I refer will have increased so as to bring it under the 7,000 condition. Living as close as I do to the burgh I can testify to the excellent manner in which they have worked their police. I urge the Amendment on public grounds, and I hope the Lord Advocate will see his way to accept it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 8, after the word "county," to insert the words—
  "Provided that this section shall not apply to any burgh which has maintained a separate police force during the ten yean immediately preceding the passing of this Act."—(Sir A.. Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words-be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This-certainly is one of the most puzzling of the numerous cases to which our attention has been called. The burgh of Renfrew is about the only one, I should think, falling under the restriction to-which the hon. Member refers. It is almost the only, if not the only, burgh which is so close on the population of 7,000, and which, to quote the words of my hon. Friend,
  "has maintained a separate police force during the ten years immediately preceding the passing of this Act."
  Most of the Royal burghs are in the position that they have accepted the arrangement opened to them under the Police Act, and have used the police force of the county. I believe the police force in the burgh in question efficient, and after full consideration of the matter I am bound to say I agree with the proposal. The next Amendment refers to the burgh of Lerwick, which is different to Renfrew, but I think it deserves consideration from its completely insular position. Perhaps the two might be coupled together, and I think it would be well to name them in the Amendment. I would suggest to the hon. Member for Renfrew that he should withdraw his Amendment, and also to the hop. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr.

  1047
  Lyell) that he should not proceed with his.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LYELL: I am satisfied with the statement of the hon. Member.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 13 at the end to add the words—
  "Provided that this section shall not apply to the burgh of Renfrew or the police burgh of Lerwick."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question, "That those words be "there added," put, and agreed to.
  The following Amendments were agreed to:—Clause 14, page 6, line 9, after "burgh," leave out to "eighty-one," inclusive, in line 10, and insert "contains;" line 13, leave out "in relation to the administration of, "and insert" as the local authority under; "line 18, before" liabilities, "insert "same;" line 31, after "county," insert—
  "The provisions of this section in respect of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act shall apply to any royal burgh which does not return or contribute to return a Member to Parliament."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 15, page 7, line 16, after the word "department," to insert the word "respectively."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'respectively' be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I cannot quite understand what the effect of this is supposed to be.
  MR. CALDWELL: It is to put matters right—to keep the language uniform.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am afraid this cannot be accepted. "Respectively" is only introduced where you have several alternatives.
  Question put, and negatived.
  The following Amendments were agreed to:—Clause 16, leave out Subsection (d); Clause 17, page 8, line 39, before "local," insert "certain;" page 9, line 2, leave out "public health;" line 4, leave out "public health;" line 7, after "duties," "insert" and be subject to all the liabilities;" line 12, leave out "public health;" line 15, leave out "public health."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
  MR. CALDWELL: Sub section (c) introduces a new element altogether, which would be very inconvenient. It is well-known that at present the public health area is a limited one, and that you are going to extend by this sub-section the effect of which will be *to cause great delay in dealing with nuisances. If a District Council resolves to make an order, the Sheriff determines whether it is right or not, and it seems to me inexpedient to go to the County Council. The question of public health is a matter which it seems to me should fall under the cognizance of the District Council, as a body acquainted with local circumstances, and I do not think there should be an appeal from that local tribunal to a body brought from all parts of the county, who can obviously know nothing about the local circumstances of the cases. Moreover, delay would be caused by this arrangement, as the County Council will only meet some three or four times a year.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 17, to leave out Sub-section (c) of Clause 17.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That Subsection (c) stand part of the Clause."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This is a very important point, and there is great force in what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is necessary, however, that we should preserve the subordination of the District Councils to the County Councils, because we are all agreed, I hope, that the County Council should have control over the District Committees, and bring into the proceedings of those Committees those examinations which can only be got by a considerable momentum of civicforce. There are, no doubt, a great many duties which require promptitude on the part of the County Councils. We have looked at that question, and I think that the Amendment which stands in my name will effect a solution of the difficulty. We propose that—
  "The power of appeal hereby given shall not apply to any order for the removal of a nuisance; and nothing in this Act contained shall affect or prejudice any proceedings to enforce the provisions of the Public Health Acts, save only that when necessary such proceedings shall be taken by or against the District Committee in-

  1049
  atead of against the Parochial Board as Local Authority under the said Acts."
  That, I think, would meet the most urgent case where expedition was required, and would leave within the region of the County Council the duty of supervising the action of the District Committee in matters where less urgency was desirable. I trust, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will see well to accept this, which I think harmonizes the two points of view which ought to influence the mind of the House.
  DR. CAMERON: The removal of a "nuisance" is a technical expression. It means not only removing a dung-heap under the Public Health Act, but it may mean the destruction of an unhealthy house, which is, or may be, a nuisance under the Act. The wording of the Amendment does not meet the case at all. The case of an unhealthy house is preeminently a matter for the judicial decision of the Sheriff. The definition of a nuisance under the Public Health Act is so elastic as to include a large number of nuisances that are not of the trifling and immediate nature contemplated by the hon. Member.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment agreed to, Clause 17, page 9, line 18, leave out "public health."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 22, after the word "appeal," to insert the words—
  "but the power of appeal hereby given shall not apply to any order for the removal of a nuisance; and nothing in this Act contained shall affect or prejudice any proceedings to enforce the provisions of the Public Health Acts, save only that when necessary such proceedings shall be taken by or against the district committee instead of against the parochial board as local authority under the said Acts."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  DR. CAMERON: In connection with this Amendment I would mention the case of a fisherman who built a tent on the foreshore. The Sanitary Authorities condemned it as a nuisance on account of its unsanitary condition. The case gave rise to a great deal of popular feeling in the district. Well, nuisances are not confined to such temporary things as tents and huts, but I know cases
  1050
  where they have been hell to apply to houses, and where unhealthy houses have been ordered to be demolished.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBEETSON: I am aware of the class of cases referred to, and of the instance the hon. Gentleman has cited, as he was good enough to direct my attention to it in the House. With regard to that class of case, the answer is simple. Th9 matter is debate-able, and one which, with absolute certainty, must be removed from the Sheriff to a higher Court for decision. A legal point is raised as to the right to force a man to take away his house instead of remedying the defects in it. That is an open question, and nothing that we do there can affect it.
  DR. CLARK: The tent of the fisherman referred to was an eyesore, not a nuisance. At first an attempt was made to get the tent removed on the ground that it was a nuisance. The Medical Officer of Health was applied to to certify that it was a nuisance, and for 12 months he refused, but at length pressure was brought to bear on him. He gave the desired certificate, and the tent was pulled down. Of course, the man immediately re-erected the tent with the old materials. It seems that the soot had darkened the canvas, and that was said to be a nuisance; but, as a matter of fact, the structure was an eyesore to the Dunoon merchants, and this section of the Public Health Act was put into operation in order to interfere with this man. Considerable cost was incurred to remove a thing which was said to be a nuisance, but which was no nuisance at all, and which was built on the shore below high-water mark. I think the words of this Amendment should be qualified in some way or other, perhaps by adding the words "dangerous to public health," which would show that the nuisance was a real one. I move to add after the word "nuisance," the words "dangerous to the public health."
  Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the word "nuisance" to insert the words "dangerous to the public health."—(Dr. Clark).
  Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I strongly deprecate anything at all which would detract from the stringency of the law of public health. This Amendment would introduce a new category of nuisances, and suggest to the Public Health Authorities that there is to be one method of procedure for that and another for other kinds.
  DR. CAMERON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Amendment put and agreed to; words added.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to move to insert the following Amendment in line 22:—
  "The Medical Officer or the Sanitary Inspector of the county or district may appeal to the County Council, and the County Council may make an order under the Public Health Acts."
  It has been brought out during the discussions on the Bill that it is most important that there should be a Medical Officer of Health or a Sanitary Inspector for the whole county. He is to act as a Medical Officer of Health. Well, suppose the District Authority should not make an order he thinks ought to be made. It should be in his power to appeal against that decision to the County Council. You have given ratepayers under Sub-section (c) power to appeal to the County Council, and I think we should look at the opposite side of the question.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 22, after the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words—
  "The medical officer or the sanitary inspector of the county or district, or any member of the district committee, may appeal to the county council from any determination of, or order made or refusal to make any order by, a district committee, and the county council shall have the jurisdiction of a court of appeal, and may review, confirm, vary, alter, or rescind such determination or order, or may make an order under the Public Health Acts."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think the hon. Member has something to say for giving the Medical Officer or Sani-
  1052
  tary Inspector of the county a right of appeal.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrrwn.
  MR. CALDWELL: Under the law as at present existing, where a township consists of 20,000 inhabitants the Sanitary Inspector holds office at the pleasure of the Parochial Board. It is only in the case of the smaller parishes that the consent of the Board of Supervision is necessary for his removal. Now, these District Councils will be of such a size as to be practically in accordance with the parishes of 20,000 inhabitants, and the result will be that we will confer a larger power upon the one than the other. It is quite right that the County Council should have the duty of appointing the proper officers. If they are dissatisfied, they should not require the consent of the Board of Supervision to the dismissal of an officer. There is no reason why the District Councils should not be on the same basis as the burghs, which have the power of appointing and dismissing their own Sanitary Officers. The County Council will have perfect power to dismiss their Medical Officers of Health; that is not affected; and if they have that power, surely they ought to have the power of dismissing subordinates. Therefore, I propose an Amendment to the effect that these officers should hold office at the pleasure of the County Council. It will secure that the Medical Officer shall not be dismissed by the District Council without the consent of the County Council. That is the object of the Amendment, and I think that, in the circumstances, it is most reasonable.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 27, after the word "shall," to insert the words "hold office at the pleasure of the County Council, and shall."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am sorry to say that I cannot accept this Amendment, which seems to me to raise

  1053
  a question of serious importance. We are dealing with the existing machinery of the public health system, and I put it to the House whether it would be to strengthen or weaken that machinery, which we propose to transfer, if we removed the check upon the dismissal of officers. It is of vital importance that those officers should be men of independence, for they have invidious duties to perform which may make them unpopular, and it is important that they should not be subject to any unpopularity they may incur by interfering with people's domestic and sanitary arrangements. Popularly elected bodies must be more or less accessible to a strongly expressed grievance against a Medical or Sanitary Officer, and I strongly deprecate a proposal which would add to the risk of laxity or would remove the precaution requisite to insure, I will not say the integrity but the activity of the Sanitary Officers.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I am extremely glad to hear that the Lord Advocate will stand firm. I believe most emphatically every word he has said. It is a paramount necessity that the Medical and Sanitary Officers should be entirely free of local self-interests and prejudices. It is of the highest importance that they should be able to act without fear of dismissal, because they tread on local corns. I think their ultimate dismissal or retention in office should rest with an independent body, free from all prejudices.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Other Amendments made.
  MR. CALDWELL: My next Amendment raises a question of considerable importance, and it involves the £30,000 to go to the Highlands. By the financial arrangements of this Bill it so happens that Scotland will be deprived of £58,000. This Bill follows the English Bill; and under the English Bill, England has got the whole of the Probate
  1054
  Duty and the whole of the Licences Duty. Scotland is getting the whole of the Probate Duty, and in place of our Licence Duty, which amounts to £323,000, we are only getting £256,000. The only explanation is that this Bill follows the English Bill, and that the first year is made a transitional year, forgetting that the transitional period applied only to last year, and that as regards England, the whole financial scheme is in operation this year. The President of the Local Government Board will see the point, and that Scotland is getting £57,000 less than her proper share as compared with England. There is no reason why we should be treated differently from England in regard to this matter, but seeing that we are this year to receive £57,000 less than our proper share, there seems to me to be every reason on the other side. The result is that, while England this year gets all her Licences and the Probate Duty, in the case of Scotland we are only getting the Probate Duty for the current financial year. We are not getting our licences, but in lieu of thetm £250,000 of grants to be voted. We thus would receive £57,000 less this year than our proper share. This is all the more reason why other items should be scrutinized. As to the £30,000 which is to be given to the Highlands being taken from Scotland no explanation has been offered.
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 17, to leave out Sub section 1 of Clause 19.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  DR. CLARK: I think we have a right to know why Scotland is to get less for Scotch purposes than England gets for English purposes. According to this Bill we are not to get the Licence Duty till next year, and that being so, we should in common fairness get something equal to it. The Government ought to give us some reason for depriving Scotland of £57,000.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE, : I have been somewhat confused by the financial conundrum the hon. Member for St. Rollox has put before the House. I understand the reason for the hon. Gentleman's Amendment to be, that he finds fault with the distribution of the £30,000; but I would point out that that matter was very fully gone into in Committee, and that the feeling of the House was, that though it was not prepared to approve the proposal altogether as a permanent settlement, it was prepared to assent to it as a provisional arrangement. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope of the Chancellor of the Exchequer being induced to do more than he has at present arranged to do.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: I quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the £30,000, and that it was generally admitted in Committee that we must accept the proposal for this year. But my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Caldwell), with that extraordinary ingenuity which commands the admiration of all of us, has discovered this blot—namely, that Scotland is actually to receive £57,000 less than the normal sum she ought to receive; that whereas last year England was dealt with in a certain manner, Scotland is now to be put in so much worse a condition in comparison with England. The right hon. Gentleman in answering my Friend has only dealt with the £30,000; but that is merely the peg on which hangs this important question of the £57,000.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed in page 13, line 3, to leave out sub-section 2, of Claues 22.—Mr. Caldwell.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  MR. CALDWELL: The next Amendment which stands in my name deals with an important point as to banking
  1056
  accounts. The Act provides that separate banking accounts shall be kept, and the result may be that while on one account there may be a large sum in hand, for which the authority will only be receiving a small amount of interest, on another account there may be a deficit on which a heavy rate of interest may have to be paid. I do not think that should be the case. Now, in the city of Glasgow there is an arrangement between the authority and its bankers that so long as there is a sufficient surplus on one account to cover a deficiency on another there shall be no claim for interest on the account which shows a deficit. It is the object of my Amendment to secure that.
  Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 17, to leave out all the words after the word "applicable" to end of subsection.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBEETSON: I think it is quite possible to make such an arrangement with the banks, but I do not think it is possible to accept this-Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  DR. CLARK: The sub-section of which I have now to move the omission is one of those by which the Government propose to transfer a rate, hitherto-paid by the landlord to the tenant. The Government have whittled this Bill down bit by bit. Originally we were to have the consolidated rate based on a five years' average, but that was whittled down to ten years, and since then another Amendment has been accepted, which will make the tenants responsible for a share in the consolidated rate. I hope that this is the last occasion on which we shall see a proposal made by the Government, to take away burdens from the landlords, and put them on the tenants. It is in opposition to an old Scotch principle,

  1057
  which says that all rates ought to fall on the landlord. There is no doubt that landlords are very anxious to be relieved of their rites, and thus it is we see the Government making concessions to demands made from their own side of the House, with the object of relieving the landlords of these burdens. I, therefore, beg to move the omission of Sub section 2 in order to secure that these rates in the future, as in the past, shall fall upon the landlord.
  Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 6, to leave out Sub-section 2 of Clause 27.—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question put, that the words "subject to the provisions hereafter contained," stand part of the Bill.
  The House divided:—Ayes 201; Noes79.—(Div. List, No. 240.)
  Further Amendment agreed to, Clause 27, page 17, line 9, leave out "shall."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. FIRTH: I have an Amendment to propose to the latter part of Sub-section 3, which involves a point on which a great deal of doubt has been raised amongst skilled persons. I understand that an addition which has been made to this clause will have the effect of keeping the law as it is on this point. That law is laid down in Sections 91 and 95 of the Public Health Act (Scotland), 1867, under the provisions of which underground water and gas pipes are in towns and boroughs of over 10,000 inhabitants assessed to the rate at only one-fourth of their value. But in rural districts the works are assessed at their full value, and ray Amendment seeks to provide that the rule as to one-fourth value shall prevail in purely rural as well as in urban districts.
  Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 16, after the word "Act," to insert the words—
  "Save and except that the provisions in the said Act whereby the annual value of underground water pipes and the underground works of any water company shall be held to be the nearest aggregate Bum of pounds sterling to one-fourth of the annual value thereof entered on the valuation roll in certain burghs and
  1058
  places, shall be held to extend to all places where such underground water pipes and works exist."—(Mr. Firth.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I cannot acccept this Amendment, and I decline to do so, because throughout the discussions we have taken up the ground that we ought not to interfere with the incidence of rates to be levied by the County Councils. I cannot enter upon the question what should be or ought to have been the incidence of rates levied under the Public Health Act, and we certainly cannot undertake to deal with the complicated question of the assessment of underground works, such as gas and water pipes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, page 17, line 27, after the word "county," to insert the words—
  "(ii.) When ascertaining and determining the average rate in respect of any such branch of expenditure, the sheriff shall exclude any portion of a rate applicable to the payment of interest and repayment of principal of money borrowed in respect thereof: Provided that, until any money so borrowed shall be wholly repaid, a rate sufficient to provide for the payment of interest and repayment of principal thereof shall be payable by owners only, and shall be included in the owner's consolidated rate."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  DR. CLARK: This is another instance in which the Lord Advocate has given way to the demands made upon him from his own side of the House, in order to whittle down the value of the consolidated rate. The first concession was to make its basis a 10 years' average instead of five years; then he gave way on the question of the uniformity of the rate, and now he proposes to give way in order that the burden of the permanent works required to be carried on shall fall equally on landlord and tenant. This is simply giving way bit by bit, and the consolidated rate will as a result soon become a farce like the land tax. I do not think we ought to allow the Bill to be whittled

  1059
  down in this wav, and if the Lord Advocate presses his Motion I shall vote against it.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: We have had for the last two or three years contributions towards reformatories and industrial schools amounting, I believe, to something like £3,000. The question I wish to ask is whether this rate will be stereotyped in the 10 years' average, and become a burden on the county rate accordingly. I know the rate is exceptional, but will it come within the province of the Sheriff in settling this grant?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I have not heard of the case before, and as it seems rather exceptional I cannot pronounce an opinion offhand. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me I will confer with him on the subject. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), I do not think he expects me to take entirely seriously the attack made upon our motives, because if he had been in the House much during these discussions he would have observed that I have been subjected to attacks by some hon. Gentlemen behind me. The proposal that is embodied in this Amendment is not a concession of mine, but it is a proposal of mediation I ventured to introduce in Committee. I thought it fair then, and I am confirmed in my opinion by reflection. And my opinion of its fairness induces me to stand by it in reference to the subsequent Amendment to be made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Renfrewshire (Sir A. Campbell). This is a case in which there is a terminable loan, the money being paid for a number of years for one specific object. We propose that as long as the rate is imposed it shall fall on owners only as before. We propose that it shall not be treated as if it were one of the ordinary incidents of rating from year to year.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  SIR A. CAMPBELL: I beg to move the insertion at the end of Clause 27 of these words—
  "Provided always that in ascertaining and determining the average rate, the sheriff of the
  1060
  county shall not take into account any rate or portion thereof levied in respect of any capital expenditure in connection with the erection of county buildings, sheriff court buildings, county police station houses, prisons, lunatic asylums, or any other similar special expenditure of capital and interest thereon."
  In moving this Amendment I beg to draw the Lord Advocate's attention to the fact that several counties have provided all the necessary buildings for the business of the counties, and at the same time paid their way. I ask him to take into consideration the money absolutely spent, although it is not borrowed money. In the County of Renfrew we have for many years imposed something like a rate of ½d. in the £1 for the provision of public buildings because we wished to furnish the county with all that was necessary for it. The buildings which we have erected as Sheriff Court-houses, police stations, and the like, will be used for other purposes entirely. In common fairness we ask that the Sheriff shall consider these works of capital expenditure in the same way as he is able to consider the amount of money borrowed.
  Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 43, after the word "removal," to insert the words—
  "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, lunatic asylums, or any other similar special expenditure of capital and interest thereon."—(Sir Archibald Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It is very difficult to draw precise lines which shall mark the expenditure which has been falling upon owners from year to year, and the class of expenditure dealt with under the last Amendment, but I cannot help feeling that if you analyze the classes of expenditure which are here set out you will find that one year you have one kind of building, another year another kind of building,

  1061
  and so on, so that if you take as long a period as you choose in order to fix a fair average you probably will have some expenditure of that kind going on every year. If that be the case I say that is the kind of expenditure we want to stereotype. If it is the case that there has been something of the kind going on every year we must treat it as one of the ordinary burdens falling upon owners and stereotype it. On the whole I think it would be safest not to accept this Amendment.
  MR. SHAW STEWART: I feel bound to support the hon. Baronet in this Amendment. I hope the House understands that the money which has been spent on new buildings for the county is money spent on works which will be handed over to the County Council, and which will not require renewal for a very long time to come. It does seem hard that in the County of Renfrew, where we had paid our way, and had not borrowed money, but had imposed a rate in order to pay the debt off as quickly as possible—it does seem hard that this money should be stereotyped and used for other purposes than those for which it was originally intended. The hon. Member for Caithness seemed to think the Government ought only to make concessions to the Gentlemen opposite. He seemed to think the new clause just proposed by the Lord Advocate covered the case of those hon. Members who sat behind him (the Lord Advocate). That was not so; the Lord Advocate did not satisfy his supporters. We think we have very strong reason for proposing this Amendment, and we hope that even now the Lord Advocate will be able to discover some way of doing justice to the County of Renfrew.
  DR. CLARK: This Amendment would whittle the thing down, and, indeed, make it nothing but a farce.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. SHIRESS WILL: I beg to move, in Clause 28, page 18, line 4, after "every" to leave out "third." I would not trouble the House with this
  1062
  matter, considering it has been before the Committee, were I not convinced that the Bill as it stands will give rise to a great deal of inconvenience and difficulty hereafter. The object the Lord Advocate has in view in proposing that the register be made up in every third year is to prevent there being elections to fill casual vacancies. Here you are electing a body to exist for three years, and if any casual vacancy occurs, by death, resignation, or what not, the proposal of the Government is that the seat of the Member going out is to be filled by the remaining Members of the Council, and not by election. Let me call the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the last pronouncement of this House upon the subject. In the case of the English County Councils, the provision I suggest should be inserted in this Bill was agreed to, and is now the law of England. Every casual vacancy in England, therefore, is filled up in the ordinary way by election. The Lord Advocate may point to precedents in Scotland, but I would remind him that no precedent can be found in Scotland for the proposal he now makes. In the case of municipal burghs casual vacancies are filled up, but only in order that at the end of the year, in November, when a third of the Council is to be elected, the vacancies can be filled up by election. The same is the case with the police burghs; and the only bodies to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman can point are the School Boards, who are dependent upon an Act which is admittedly full of anomalies and various objectionable principles contrary to the feelings and wishes of the people of Scotland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's only pretence for this clause was that it would save expense; but the question of expense is no more of importance in Scotland in this matter than it is in England, and such an argument was not allowed to prevail last year when the English Bill was under discussion. Besides, my

  1063
  Amendment will only lead to an election in the particular ward in the representation of which the vacancy occurs; and, moreover, elections are not always contested. Then upon the question of expense, I also desire to point out to the Lord Advocate that the register which it is provided here shall only be made up every third year, will practically be made up every year, for the simple reason that the register is to be made up of two things—the person making it is to take the Parliamentary register as the beginning or inception of the register, and then he is to add the supplementary register, in which will be found Peers and women. The Parliamentary register, which will form 99 parts of the register under this Act, will be made up every year, will be printed every year, and will be ready at hand. The only expense, therefore, will be the expense of making up the list of the Peers, which will probably consist of half-a-dozen names, and the list of the ladies who will be enfranchised under the Act. The Lord Advocate thought he was importing into the Bill the principle of the School Board elections, and he defended the Bill upon that ground. In the case of a School Board in one of the burghs I have the honour to represent there is a division of opinion. The majority of the Board have been pursuing a particular policy, which they believe to be in keeping with the interests of the ratepayers, and the minority have been resisting it, equally believing they are acting in accordance with the wishes of the ratepayers. The minority have resigned, and I put it to the Lord Advocate, if he thinks he is following the principle of the School Board elections, what would happen in such a case. The majority, instead of having the opportunity of appealing to the ratepayers, would have the invidious task thrown upon them of selecting men to fill the vacant places. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman used that argument he evidently forgot that in the School Board Act of 1878 rectifying the Act of 1872 this matter is dealt with. Though the burden is cast upon the remaining members of the School Board where there remains a quorum, yet if they fail to discharge their duty within a certain time it is left to the Scotch Education Board either
  1064
  themselves to nominate persons to fill the vacancies or to order fresh elections. I maintain that, even under the School Board Act, the Lord Advocate will find no precedent for what he is doing here, and that, therefore, my Amendment is deserving of consideration.
  Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 4, after the word "every," to leave out the word "third."—(Mr. Shiress Will.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'third' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBEBTSON: My hon. and learned Friend has shown it is possible to make a very able speech upon what is really a very small point; but after all I do not think the House will be disposed to depart from the decision it arrived at in Committee. No doubt if you desire an incessant return to the opinion of the electorate upon the occurrence of every vacancy, then it would be well to adopt the Amendment; but I imagine the general sense of the Committee was repelled from the strict application of such a principle by two practical considerations. In the first place, here is an opportunity, if we take advantage of it, of cutting away one of the too frequent elections in the case of municipal politics in Scotland. The general desire is to have elections which will best test the opinions of the people and then have done with elections for a while. The second consideration is that if the hon. and learned Gentleman's view in this Amendment prevails, it will add to the expenses of registration. You would have to keep the roll of electors active on the chance of a vacancy occurring. We were pressed most strongly to alter the registration clauses we first submitted to the House in order to avoid the expense of a fresh register every year. We yielded, and I strongly deprecate departing from the convenient arrangement which has generally been adopted in municipal affairs in Scotland.
  The House divided:—Ayes 175; Noes 104.—(Div. List, No. 241.)
  MR. LYELL: I desire to draw the attention of the

  1065
  House to the serious inconvenience that may result from the insufficient publicity provided in the Bill for the list of electors. It is a serious grievance in the Highlands and in the North West that the registration law provides only for the exhibition of the lists on church doors. Now, for the most part, the population in these districts are Dissenters, and, not attending the parish church, the great bulk of them never see these lists in order to satisfy themselves that their names are properly entered on the lists the Assessor now makes out each year. I bring this question forward again all the more readily because the Government in Committee made but a very poor defence of their position—they met the grievance they did not deny with a simple non possumus. As a matter of fact, notices are sent out by the Assessor to the principal landowners to fill up the names of their smaller tenants who may be entitled to come on the register; and although the landlord may intend to fill the notices up quite fairly, the fact is they are most incorrectly filled up. Tenants who have died are represented by the names of their widows, although it may be notorious that the persons really in occupation, and to whom the landlord looks for his rent, is the son; and the names of numbers of deceased tenants are entered on the register, owing to the Assessor taking the evidence of the proprietor only. In Committee I was met by the analogy of the Parliamentary roll, but I do not think the reply met the case. I do not think it is a business that can fairly be thrown upon the County Council candidate to see that the list is properly made up; but I do think that it is the business of this House to provide all facilities to secure that the Assessor makes it a true and faithful list of all qualified electors. I will not say that the proprietors would wilfully make up false lists; but I do not think that an opportunity should be afforded to landlords to leave out from the register those
  1066
  who may not be in political sympathy with them. An objection was urged to putting up notices at Post Offices, where I propose they should be exhibited among other places supported by public money, but I do not know on what grounds. I do not know a more suitable place to secure publicity. The Post Office is a place of general resort—everybody goes there, either for postal purposes or for buying; for the Post Office is the general supply stores usually in sparsely-populated districts. Certainly these lists would be more interesting than many of the notices exhibited at the Post Office, such as the rates of Post Office orders to Roumania or the parcel post to Brazil, and other matters which concern nobody who reads them. It is a matter of great importance in Scotland. My Amendment meets part of the serious defect in this matter, and I hope the Government will on this occasion meet it fairly.
  Amendment proposed, in page 21, at the end of Clause 28, 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 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 inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBEETSON: It is very probable that the existing arrangements for the posting of electoral lists might be considerably improved, but the proposal of the hon. Gentleman is open to very serious objection. In the first place, it is not in itself a part of the electoral law to be taken into account in connection with these County Council lists, and not in connection with the Parliamentary register. We should have the County Council lists, which certainly are not of greater importance than the Parliamentary lists, given this, vigorous and prominent advertisement,

  1067
  while the Parliamentary list would be relegated to this obscurity the hon. Member thinks attends the posting on church doors. The better plan would be at the proper time to make an amendment of the law on the subject of registration, and provide for both lists simultaneously. The hon. Member suggests post offices as a place for displaying the list, but I would remind him that the departmental notices are numerous, and it is indispensable that they should be made public, and the post offices do not in many cases afford the advertising space now required. It would, moreover, greatly add to the expense. I venture to suggest that the subject the hon. Member has raised is one to be considered maturely and dealt with comprehensively, and not one that properly rises here.
  DR. CLARK: It is simply a question whether we shall continue the farce of posting a couple of notices on the church doors where the people never see them. For every eight or 10 people who attend the parish church, 800 or 1,000 attend the Free Church. We want to get rid of this farce of so posting Parliamentary Notices. Why not post them where the people will see them, and no better place could be found than the Post Office? You need not have them inside, have them somewhere outside, as you do on the church doors. In England you exhibit such notices outside chapel doors. Why not avail yourselves of the same means of publicity in Scotland?
  The House divided.—Ayes 99; Noes 165.—(Div. List, No. 242.)
  It being midnight, further proceeding stood adjourned.
  Further proceeding to be resumed tomorrow.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 190.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  PARTNERSHIP [RE-COMMITTED] BILL. (No. 336.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time this day.

  AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES BILL. (No. 231.)
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on the Second Reading [3rd June] read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  REVENUE BILL. (No. 315.)
  Order for Committee read.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Why not put the Order down for a day when there is some likelihood of its being taken?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): There are very few contested points. I trust the House will agree to make progress with the Bill now. There is only one clause which is seriously contested, namely, Clause 15, and when we reach that I would consent to report Progress. There are many small grievances which it is very desirable should be redressed without delay.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is most desirable that the concessions should be embodied in the law as soon as possible, and I would suggest it would be well if it could be arrang ed to take the Bill some night about 11 o'clock.
  Order postponed till to-morrow.

  SETTLED LAND ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 275.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
  TRUST COMPANIES BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 315.]

CANADA (ONTARIO BOUNDARY) BILL.
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 346.]
House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILLS (ALTERATION OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION.)
Message from the Commons that they have appointed a Select Committee of five Members to join with the Committee appointed by this House
"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."

MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord Balfour). (No. 174.)
HERRING FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. H9.)
Returned from the Commons with the amendment agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL. (No. 154.)
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee (on Re-commitment) read.
EARL BROWNLOW: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have considered their position in regard to this measure, and in view of the state of business in another place, I think I should only be putting your Lordships to useless and unnecessary trouble if I asked the House to further consider this Bill. I beg, therefore, to withdraw the Bill from the consideration of the House, and I propose as early as possible next Session to bring in a Bill dealing with the sub-
950
ject. As originally introduced, the Bill had in it a clause dealing with juvenile offenders, and the Standing Committee are of opinion that that subject hardly comes within the scope of this Bill. I have, therefore, promised to take it out of the Bill, and to introduce a separate Bill dealing with the subject-matter of the clause. That promise I have carried out in the Juvenile Offenders Bill, which now stands on the Paper for Second Reading.
LORD NORTON: I hope that the Amendments which have been made by the Standing Committee, and which are embodied in the reprint of the Bill, will be adopted in the Bill which the noble Lord has now suggested is likely to be brought forward at the commencement of next Session; and that all the Amendments still standing on the Paper which are considered to be of very great importance by those who take an interest in the subject will be considered by the Government in framing the new measure.
Order discharged; and Bill (by leav of the House) withdrawn.

CRUELTY TO CHILDREN (PREVENTION BILL (No. 160).
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I am quite sure the object of this measure will enlist the sympathies of your Lordships, even if there should be some differences of opinion on points of detail. It aims at securing to young and helpless children protection from cruelty, and extending to them more effectually than hitherto the guardian arm of the law. The Bill proposes, in the first place, to make it a punishable offence to ill-treat a child, either actively or by neglect; to extend, in short, to children

951
that protection which has long been afforded to animals. Although hitherto it has been an offence to work a horse when its condition makes that work torture to the animal, it has been no offence to treat a child in that way. My Lords, I think that there will not be much difference of opinion upon that provision, but that your Lordships will consider it is very unsatisfactory that the law should be in that condition. I confess the more I have looked into this matter the more I have been astonished and alarmed at the amount of cruelty practised in this country. If any noble Lords should have doubts upon the subject, I would ask them to read the Report of a few years' work only of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and they will find enough there to show, even if they discard everything which has not stood the test of a Court of Justice, that there is an evil existing which urgently calls for a remedy. My Lords, the first section of the Bill deals with offences of this description by rendering offenders liable to fine or imprisonment for a short term. It deals also specially with that class of cases—unhappily, too frequent—where those who ill-treat the children have a pecuniary interest in their death. There are many cases where those who have charge of children are only too glad if anything happens to them likely to injure their health and endanger or put an end to their lives. Of course, it is very often extremely difficult and even impossible to prove that such has been the object, and yet one may entertain the conviction beyond a doubt that, if it had not been for the pecuniary interest which persons had in a child's death, the care bestowed upon it would have been greater and its treatment more humane. My Lords, the Bill proposes to deal with that class of cases in this way—that where it is proved that the person ill-treating a child had a pecuniary interest in its death a more severe sentence may be passed and the fine increased to £200. I cannot doubt that your Lordships will think that is a just and right provision. There is no doubt that cruelty prevails to a very considerable extent in cases where the child is entitled to property which will come to the parent or guardian on its death, and that there are many cases where the motive for want of care is to be found in the fact
952
that the child's life has been insured. That, my Lords, has been done to a very great extent in this country. I think the distinction which this Bill draws between the punishment inflicted upon those who have such a motive and those who have not is one which I need not justify to the House. The next provision of the Bill deals with the case of children begging in the streets. Hitherto a child who begs has been treated as having committed an offence; but the person who sent the child into the streets to beg, and who would punish it for not begging, has entirely escaped liability, although generally such person was more to blame than the child. The Bill proposes to inflict a penalty upon those who send children, out to beg. The next provision to which I will call attention relates to-children who are selling, singing, playing, or performing for profit. It prohibits such employment between the hours of 8 p.m. and 5 a.m. in the winter, and between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. in the summer. This is not an enactment which is without precedent. It is already to be found in some local Acts, and some of the most important towns in the country have made bye-laws under Street Traffic Acts containing similar provisions, which have been found to be effectual and free from any injustice. This Bill proposes to make the provision general and to enable it to be enforced. My Lords, so far I think I have covered the ground which in the other House was left substantially free from controversy. I now come to a provision which in some measure has been made the subject of hostile attack, and that is the provision that children under 10 years of age shall not be caused or procured to be employed in any street or in any premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor or places licensed for public entertainments. One part of that provision has not met, even from those who are opposed to it, with anything like general opposition, because I think that even those who desire its modification agree that the provision ought to stand as far as it relates to selling or performing in public houses and in the streets. The objection taken has been to extending the enactment to places licensed for public entertainments. Obviously, therefore, considering the limited area of opposition, that is a matter

953
which would be most properly dealt with in Committee. Under these circumstances, I shall not detain your Lordships upon the matter now at length; but it is only fair to those who have strongly opposed the provision in the respect which I have mentioned that I should state the views which I entertain, and which I ask the House to adopt upon the subject. I think it right, therefore, that I should make allusion to the objections which have been raised. It must be remembered that in thus prohibiting the employment of children under 10 years of age in theatres and other places of public entertainment, no invidious distinction has been made between theatres and other places licensed for public entertainments. The law has long prohibited the employment of children of tender years in factories, and there exist similar restrictions with regard to agricultural employments. Therefore the clause only extends to theatres, a form of legislation which Parliament has thought proper to apply already in many cases. The question which your Lordships will have to consider is whether, looking at it broadly and as a whole, the employment of children of tender years in places of public entertainment is calculated to secure or to injure their physical and mental well-being. I say this, because it must be remembered that this is a general enactment. It does not deal with one particular kind of place of entertainment. It deals with all, and the question must be looked at as it will affect children of tender years who may be found there. It is no answer to the arguments used in support of such a prohibition to say that there may be a class of public entertainments, even if that could be established, in which children can be suitably employed, for your Lordships must look at the matter as a whole, and consider what is the result of children of tender age being employed in places of public entertainment throughout the country. My Lords, it has been said that there are many theatres where children are well cared for, and guarded from anything that is likely to hurt them; but even if that be so, in considering this clause you must consider not what might be established as regards a particular theatre, but you must consider the case with regard to all places of
954
public entertainment (which are of much wider extent throughout the country than theatres) as a whole; and I cannot help thinking that if the matter be thus regarded it will be found there is not that security for the well-being of children of tender years when so employed which we should all desire should be extended to them, though no doubt there are places of public entertainment throughout different parts of the country, and the Metropolis, too, where I imagine they would be carefully guarded and shielded from harm. Of course, the line as to age must be drawn somewhere; we are not dealing simply with children on the verge of 10, the provision is equally applicable to all children of tender years. In the case of acrobatic performances and performances of that description, children of tender age ought not to be allowed so to perform. But, my Lords, is that the only case in which we can feel justified in saying that in places of public entertainment in this country children of tender years require the protection which this provision seeks to extend to them? I am told that in many cases they are detained in the theatres to a very late hour at night; that sometimes for weeks during the time of rehearsals they will find their way home at 2 o'clock in the morning; and when we consider that this may be applicable to children, five, six, and seven years of age, I cannot help thinking that we have no sufficient security to justify us in saying that at all times, and in all cases, the well-being of the children is cared for. I, therefore, make answer to those who allege that in particular instances the children would not be injured that we must deal with the matter as a whole, and that it is incumbent upon those who seek to make objection to show, dealing with these places of public entertainment as a whole, that children of tender years should be allowed to be employed there. My Lords, it may be urged against this provision by some that, so far from the children suffering from such employment, they rather enjoy taking part in dramatic performances. I will only observe that many children would be delighted to stay up night after night entertaining themselves in a way which would be injurious to their health, and which we should not think of permitting for a moment. I think what the chil-

955
dren themselves would like or enjoy cannot be made a test for a moment. Then it is said that the provision will prevent children from earning money and that it is hard to prevent them earning money which adds to their material comfort and to the well being of themselves and of the households in which they lived. That, my Lords, is an objection which strikes at the root of all this legislation. It is as true with regard to factory and agricultural employment, and in other cases where there is prohibition, as it is to this particular case, and I cannot think that is an argument which ought to be yielded to. Then, my Lords, it is argued that actors themselves will suffer as regards success in their profession from such a prohibition. I fail to see the evidence that it is essential to success in the theatrical profession that a child should begin to learn it before attaining 10 years of age. I have never heard or read of any evidence in support of that argument, or showing that that is likely to be the case. I believe that in France, where the dramatic art is supposed to stand at least on a level with its position in this country, the employment of children in it does not exist to any such extent as with us, and I do not know that it is at all essential for children under 10. Cases have been cited where actors and actresses began at a very early age; but instances to the contrary have also been cited where they did not commence at a tender age. Therefore, it is no more proof that some actors and actresses who have been successful have succeeded because they began their work on the stage before they were 10 years of age than that others have been successful because they began their work there at a later period. My Lords, I do not myself lay any great stress upon the moral effect upon the children. I cannot regard the danger to morals as at all greater between the ages of 8 and 10 than it is between 10 and 12. I think the danger to morals would be just as great at the one period as at the other, and that it would be rather a weak argument to make a distinction in that respect. But I do lay stress upon this—that the delicate organization and nervous sensibility of children of tender years cannot safely be subjected to the unnatural conditions which a theatrical training imposes on them, the effects of which may not
956
develop themselves at the time, but which may do great harm in after years. These effects may not be immediately visible, but they will not fail to show themselves in later life. My Lords, these are the reasons why, as far as I am concerned, I should propose to adhere to the conclusion at which the House of Commons has arrived, which has been twice affirmed by the same majority of 49. My Lords. I have now dealt with the main provisions of the Bill, and I need only detain you with a word or two on the Amendments adopted in the other House, with which I also hope that your Lordships will agree, one of which is of great importance. It gives power to the Court to deprive of the guardianship of his children any parent who has been accessory to their ill-treatment under the earlier provisions of the Bill. I think, my Lords, that is likely to prove an extremely useful provision, and it seems to me an eminently just one. A parent who thus treats a child shows himself or herself to be unfit for guardianship, and it is in the public interest that the child should be removed from such a parent. I do not think your Lordships will consider that is an improper interference with the parental right. Your Lordships will see that the Bill carefully reserves intact the power which rests in a parent or guardian to administer punishment to a child. In that respect the law is not interfered with by this Bill. There is one other important provision, and that is for power to take the evidence of children of tender years, although not given on oath, if it is corroborated by other testimony. Their evidence would not be sufficient alone to secure a conviction. This provision had been found to work extremely well in an Act of a different character relating to offences against children, passed three or four years ago. Your Lordships will understand that in many cases, unless the evidence of the children themselves is to be received, although they may not know the nature of an oath, the offender, often a very grievous offender, would escape punishment. My Lords, I earnestly hope the House will give its favourable consideration to this Bill, because I believe it will diminish the area of child-suffering, bring within the reach of justice many a cruel torturer of defenceless children, and

957
confer happiness on many a life beyond what would otherwise be attainable. I therefore move the Second Heading of the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Herschell.)
THE EARL OF DUNEAVEN: I entirely agree with every word the noble and learned Lord has said. No one can feel more strongly than myself the baseness of parents, or other persons, who would be guilty of offences of this character, such as we constantly meet with, for the sake of pecuniary advantage to themselves; and nobody can reprobate more strongly than I do those parents, unfortunately too numerous, who prefer living in idleness on their children's earnings to exerting themselves for the maintenance of their children. But the Bill confers large powers on the police and on magistrates, which, before it becomes law, ought to be carefully scrutinized by noble Lords who possess higher authority on legal matters than I can pretend to. A great deal may turn, for instance, on the legal meaning of the word "neglect." I do not know what its exact legal meaning may be, but if it is the same as its ordinary meaning, there can be no doubt that the powers conferred on the Executive by this Bill might be very grossly abused. However, my Lords, what I wish principally to speak about is Subsection 3 of the second clause, which prohibits children under 10 years of age from being allowed to do various things. I do not propose to enter now at any length upon the question of the application of that sub-section generally to theatres and similar places of entertainment. That, as the noble and learned Lord has said, is a matter for Committee. I am not in a position to go into the matter at all to-night, because I did not anticipate having an opportunity to say anything at all on the subject until the Bill came before Committee. But I object to the prohibition against the employment of children at theatres on two grounds—first, because it is not a question which should be dealt with in a Bill for the prevention of cruelty to children. There is not a particle of evidence that there has ever been any cruelty inflicted on children employed in theatres. It is another question altogether whether children should be al-
958
lowed to be employed in that way; but if there is to be any legislative interference, it ought to be in the form of an amendment to the Factory Acts, or some legislation of that character. I wish to impress very strongly upon your Lordships that to deal with that matter by a side issue in a Bill for preventing cruelty to children, would be doing gross injustice, and that a prohibition of this kind involves gross calumny on those who employ these children. It should not be introduced into a Bill of this kind; and whatever may be the opinion entertained as to the desirability or not of so employing children, I trust the matter will not be dealt with in this Bill. Next, my Lords, I object to the noble and learned Lord's statement that although in some theatres the children are well cared for it is not so in others. The noble and learned Lord has not produced a shred of fact in support of this allegation; and in the absence of evidence we are entitled to assume that no such theatres exist. I am strongly of opinion that if children are prevented from playing in theatres hardship and injustice will be inflicted, alike upon the children who play and upon then-parents and friends. If I had known that I should have the opportunity of dealing with this subject to-night, I should have been prepared to place before the House overwhelming proof that these children were enormously benefited, both morally and physically, by the training which they receive. It is very easy to see why they must be greatly benefited by such employment; because, putting it on the lowest ground of all, it must be admitted that where a child is worth a considerable sum at a theatre the parents will take more pains to keep the child in health and strength. And the parents are, of course, better enabled to do that, so that the children are clearly in every way benefited by being employed at theatres. Now, my Lords, it has been stated that their morals are affected by such employment. I will not discuss the question whether the theatrical profession is more or less moral than others. Probably they are ail much about the same. But I am sure that the danger of demoralization is less in the case of a person entering the profession at an early age than in the case of those who begin their theatrical career later in life. If there is immorality, I believe it will

959
be found rather among those who adopt the stage more on account of their physical attractions than from any theatrical instincts. When the Bill is considered in Committee I will move an Amendment on that sub-section, which will have the effect of excepting places licensed for public entertainments.
THE EARL OF MAR: My Lords, I think this Bill is, on the whole, an excellent measure. I think we are indebted for its introduction to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children—one of the most admirable institutions of the day. But if your Lordships retain the clause preventing children under 10 from being employed in pantomimes and other children's plays, such as Alice in Wonderland, instead of being a prevention of cruelty to children it will promote a certain amount of misery, if not actual cruelty, to the little ones. I think that the limit of age might well be not under seven; and I should recommend that the children should in all cases be subject to regular supervision and medical inspection, to see if they were physically fit for the duties and were not overstrained in any way. Children so employed are generally the children of very poor but respectable parents; and supposing the parents are respectable, it seems to me oppressive that you should step in and say they shall not allow their children to be so employed. But even supposing the children belong to vicious and degraded parents, that is all the more reason for their being allowed to be so employed always under proper supervision. These children are employed in the pantomimes, which generally take place in the winter months, when the times are hard, work scarce, and the days short and dark. If the children are then engaged in the theatres they at least have the advantage of being well cared for, in a well-warmed and well-lighted place, where I understand they get excellent schooling and a good meal; they would have healthy exercise, and would be made more fit for their books, besides acquiring habits of discipline, obedience, and regularity, which would all tend to make them grow up more decent and respectable members of society. Besides that, what they earned, though small in amount, would in many cases be a considerable addition to the means of a poor family. If not playing in the pantomimes many
960
of the children would be spending their lives in squalid garrets and gutters, if not even leading vicious lives as street beggars or juvenile thieves. I certainly give my support to this Bill, providing your Lordships cut out or amend substantially this prohibitory clause.
LORD NORTON: My Lords, I think the noble and learned Lord hardly went far enough in saying that children require as much protection as animals; I think they require a great deal more protection than animals. A man cannot be cruel to his horse without loss to himself, whereas he might gain by cruelty towards his children, particularly if ending in death. Therefore, the prohibitive penalty in such cases should be greater. As regards persons interested pecuniarily on a child's death, such cases are of a totally different kind and of much greater importance, and should not be treated with merely higher penalties of the same kind. My Lords, there is one very good point in this Bill, and that is that it inflicts a penalty in cases of children begging upon those who send out the children. At this moment there is an Act which makes it penal for children to be found begging in the streets, and they are sent to what is absurdly called a penal school. Children begging in the streets are not the guilty parties and the way to put a stop to the practice is to punish those who are guilty. With regard to employing children under 10 in theatres, the noble and learned Lord rather weakened the first clause by specifying only injury to health, and excluding all reference to moral injury He said he did not see greater moral danger to children between the ages of 10 and 12 than to those between 8 and 10. I think, my Lords, the moral foundation of a child's character is laid at an early age. I think the noble and learned Lord would do well to introduce the word "moral" into the clause There may be no physical cruelty, though great moral injury is done, according to the testimony of persons most competent to give an opinion upon the subject. But, after all, in regard to physical cruelty, it may not be cruelty in the sense of torture, but injury by premature employment. Premature employment is cruelty, and therefore the question is whether the employment of children under 10 in theatres is not

961
premature employment, and therefore cruelty. It has been on that ground that the law has interfered in other employments, such as agriculture and factories, and therefore there is nothing new in its application to theatres. I would also beg to call the noble and learned Lord's attention to the last clause he referred to, in which it is proposed that children of vicious parents should be charged on any relation by order of the Court. By this, relations are made responsible for the maintenance of any neglected children; and it would become dangerous to be related to a vicious parent. It would be difficult to squeeze money out of them. I consider the Bill, with such amendment, a most valuable one, and therefore I support its Second Reading.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, there is one observation which fell from the noble Earl opposite which I cannot allow to pass without protest. In referring to the prohibition against the employment of young children in theatres, he remarked that such a provision would be a calumny or a slur upon theatrical managers.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I think the noble Earl misunderstood me. What I said was that such a matter could hardly be made the subject of a clause in a Bill for the prevention of cruelty to children—that it would be a calumny to charge with cruelty those who so employed them.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: At all events, the word "calumny" was used. I do not know that it is any reason why there should be no legislation on this subject, that it may be said a question of calumny is introduced. The noble Earl also indicated that in Committee he would explain why, in his opinion, the employment of young children in theatres was beneficial to them, not only physically but morally. I am sorry the noble Earl has not given some information on that point in his speech, because what I have heard hitherto has been rather in the opposite direction. Without bringing any charge of immorality against the stage, many people hold, to use a common figure of speech, that the surface of the stage is a slippery surface. In their view, therefore—apart from other reasons—some limit ought to be placed upon the employment of young children. It is, however, in no
962
way intended to cast a reflection upon the theatrical profession. I heartily support the Second Reading of the Bill.
THE ARCHBISHOP, OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am grateful that this clause as to the employment of children is in the Bill. There is cruelty and cruelty. A system that permits the premature and exhausting employment of children of tender years might well be a system in which there was cruelty, although do case of personal cruelty could be substantiated or is even alleged in connection with it, we should rejoice that no such case can be discovered by most careful inquiries. I am glad that the question of morality has not been introduced. It was not necessary to introduce it in order to achieve the ends of the promoters of the Bill. The ground which they take up, and which suffices in itself, is that children should not be put prematurely to exhausting work. There is no reason why the question of morality should be forced into this; and I earnestly hope that nothing which passes now will have the effect of introducing a question which may bring out a great deal that is painful without doing any good. The clause relating to children is a most necessary one, and when I have seen the Amendment which is to be proposed to it, I shall give further reasons for supporting it.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I think it is very satisfactory that a measure such as this should have passed so rapidly through the other House, and apparently in this House, at all events as far as the principle of it is concerned Forty years ago it would have been impossible to pass such a Bill in one Session. I think if we owe this change in public opinion to any man, your Lordships will agree that we owe it to the efforts of the late Lord Shaftesbury, who, by his influence, his energy, and the activity with which he threw himself into the cause of the poor and the helpless, enabled us to do that which we should never otherwise have been able to do. To his efforts we must ascribe the change of spirit which has made the rapid passage of this Bill possible. I am thankful that all those who have spoken in support of the Bill have abstained from referring to the moral side of the question. It would be most unfortunate if any expression should be used which could, in the smallest

963
degree, offend the dramatic profession. There is no doubt that the theatre at this date is very different from what it used to be, and I should be very sorry to hear any aspersion east upon the morality of those connected with it. I think it as well to state here, as some appear to be under the impression that those who started this Bill have in some way aspersed the theatrical profession, that the evidence of Board School teachers shows that the education of children employed in theatres practically ceases concurrently with their being engaged. I will read a letter from a lady whose name I need not mention, who has taken a leading part in this matter. She says—
"I do not charge the managers of theatres with treating the children with what is ordinarily called cruelty; it is simply a misrepresentation to pretend that I do so; but that such early employment is highly injurious to the children I think is beyond all doubt."
The noble Earl opposite, who stated that he was going to move an Amendment when this Bill comes into Committee, found fault with the noble and learned Lord who brought forward the Bill because he did not produce evidence. I would, in reply, point out that the noble Earl himself did not bring forward any evidence upon his side of the question. Board School teachers, I think your Lordships will allow, are perhaps the most competent persons to give an opinion whether these children are being properly educated or not. I am aware that the managers of many theatres have done their best to establish excellent schools for the children, but the question remains, "Can the children profit by them?" It resolves itself into a matter of physical strength. Can children who are kept up till 2, 3, or perhaps 4 in the morning, possibly be capable of doing their lessons afterwards? I am perfectly certain my own children would not be able to do it, and if so I may, I think, argue that these children of poor people, allowed to keep these late hours at night and early hours of the morning, would not be able to work next day as they ought to do in the advance of their education. Evidence has also been taken in the matter by another class of persons who are also very competent to give an opinion, I mean the School Board officers, whose duty it is to bring the children into the
964
schools, and who are well acquainted with the circumstances of the parents who place their children in the theatres; and they state that, as a matter of fact, in nine cases out of ten one or other of the parents is in the habit of drinking. They assert that these children are not simply sent to the theatres because their parents are poor or unable to earn a livelihood themselves, but because the parents desire to live upon the wages earned by their children, doing nothing themselves. Another fact which cannot be controverted is that some of the children after they leave the theatres have to go long distances. Some of the children live far from the theatres, and returning home, by train at 2 or 3 in the morning they often can hardly hold their heads up from exhaustion. Some of them have been known to say that they were, dreadfully frightened at having to go through the streets so late at night; and that they could not run home quickly, they were too tired. My Lords, if our own children are tired after being up late at night, and unable to do their work next day, or enjoy themselves, is it not likely that children who are badly fed, and have not the vitality of the upper and middle classes, should suffer to a much greater extent? The two grounds on which I base my support of the clause, under discussion are those of education and health, and I think I have shown your Lordships that, at all events as regards health, there can be no question that the children suffer. Then how is it as regards education? We have-heard what the evidence is that is given, in this matter by the School Board officers. We also know that in 1887 the Chairman of the School Board stated there were 25,000 children who had escaped through the meshes of the educational net, and evaded the schools; and I think we may fairly say that the children who are employed at places of public entertainment in some, measure go to make up that number of 25,000. We all know that as education, increases so crime diminishes. We know that in 1869 there were 11,000, children committed; in 1886 there, were only 5,000 committed. We may, therefore, feel confident that the more we can educate the children in our Board Schools, especially if we get, as I hope we shall get, a system of physi-

965
cal education thoroughly established, the more the children will improve both morally and physically.
LORD FITZGERALD: My Lords, I have only a few remarks to make with regard to the seventy of some of the punishments which it would be possible to impose according to the Bill in its present form. I entirely approve of the principle of the Bill, but I think certain safeguards should be introduced in Committee. With regard to the first part of the Bill as to so neglecting a child as to injure its health, the party convicted will be guilty of a misdemeanour, and will be subject to imprisonment not exceeding two years and a fine of £100. Imprisonment for two years is a very serious thing indeed. I have heard from an experienced person that he had never known a man to emerge from that imprisonment (if carried out on the separate system) otherwise than shattered both in body and mind. If the offence is that of conspiracy for the purpose of obtaining some pecuniary benefit, it is a defect in this Bill that the only additional punishment is an additional fine to the extent of £100. Your Lordships will find that a power is given to Courts of Summary Jurisdiction to sentence summarily to three months' imprisonment with hard labour and a fine of £50—this is contrary to the spirit of English law. Again, you will find that any constable may arrest, or take into custody without a warrant, any person who, in his view, has committed an offence under this Act. That might be applied to managers of theatres, where children apparently within the limit were employed. A constable would be authorized to take the manager into custody, and he would be taken before a Magistrate. Section 4, again, is very important, and though I do not object to its principle, I think it would require to be amended and greatly safeguarded. Suppose a person is committed for an alleged offence, under this Act any person is authorized to immediately bring the case before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and though there has been no conviction, yet it the Court is satisfied it is qualified to act in the matter, and may order the child to be taken out of the custody of the father and committed to the charge of a stranger. That section may be very good in principle, but
966
it does require to be very much revised Another point is that, upon information, a search warrant may be issued and any house broken into at night in order to see whether any offence against the Act is being committed there. I entirely support the broad principle of this Bill, but I think objection might properly be raised upon various points in Committee.
LORD CLIFFOBD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I only wish to say one or two words in support of what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down with regard to Clause 4 as to taking away, in the first place, from a parent the custody of a child. In the second place, that child may be handed over to the guardianship of a perfect stranger, and not only to a relation of the child. There is no provision made for any control whatever over what happens to that child when once it is taken from its parents and handed over to a perfect stranger. There should, I think, also be provision made for giving a greater locus standi to the relations of a child in bringing the matter into Court under that portion of the clause which says that the Court may vary or revoke an order. The proper person to have the custody of the child may be absent or away at the time the matter is brought before the Court in the first instance, and it might be very difficult then to get the proper person appointed. I hope, therefore, in going through Committee such safeguards as may be necessary will be added to the measure.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I have only to thank noble Lords who have suggested Amendments. I quite agree with the criticism of the noble Lord opposite on the clause which refers to the handing over of a child to the guardianship of another person. I will endeavour to make the matter plain in Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I only desire to say a few words. I cannot help thinking that some sort of arrangement might be made whereby the generality of the provisions which have been so much debated might be limited in some way by enabling a competent authority to give a license to parents for the employment of their children, and, to entrust the persons employing them, with their care, in exceptional circumstances. Some arrangement of this kind,

967
I think, might reconcile opposite views upon the subject. With regard to the clause which makes it a higher offence, punishable with a heavier penalty, if the person committing the offence was supposed to be influenced by any pecuniary interest in a child's death, I am of opinion that the section either goes too far or not far enough. In the one case the offence might be murder, and ought to be treated as such; but, on the other hand, it might be an accidental circumstance unconnected with cruelty, and in that case the clause goes too far. It comes to this—that if you have a suspicion of foul play not sufficient to justify you in treating it as an offence, you shall treat it as though that offence had been committed although you have no proof. It seems to me that you would be administering the law on false principles, and that the clause ought to receive careful attention.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I think we are all agreed that the Bill ought to be read a second time. I should like to say that I should rather regret the compromise suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I am not an admirer of too much interference between employers and employed, or between parents and children. On the other hand, I have always been a great admirer of theatres, particularly in later days. I believe that theatrical representations may be made of very great use in elevating the taste and improving the morals of those who visit them. But, my Lords, I think too much is done towards making a tabula rasa by the Bill before us. The truth is that every single argument used by the noble Earl against the provisions which prohibit the employment of children in theatres is applicable, though in a much stronger degree, to principles which, rightly or wrongly, Parliament has adopted in the past. The same objections were raised when the employment of children in factories, agriculture, mines, and other industries was prohibited. It was then plausibly argued that the prohibition would injure the employer and the employed. I do not believe that a young person becomes a better actor because he was employed before the age of 10 years. The evidence is all the other way. What I feel is that, having committed ourselves to the principle of restricting juvenile
968
labour, and after that principle has been universally adopted by public opinion as a proper restriction, it is too late to say we will make a concession and legalize the employment of those very young children in theatres. With regard to the question of cruelty, I will go so far as to say that if any of your Lordships sent your children out night after night in all weathers into the heated atmosphere of a theatre to take part in a performance which must be exciting to them, after which they would have to find their way home, or even if they were kept up night after night in their own comfortable drawing rooms till 11 or 12 o'clock, that would be very great cruelty to them, and still greater must be the cruelty in the case of these poor children.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a and referred to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

RESERVE OF HORSES FOR THE ARMY.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can give a clear definition of the term "emergency," under which registered horses may be requisitioned for Government service? Considerable doubt exists as to the circumstances under which these horses could be called out—whether only in time of anticipated invasion, or whenever the Reserves were called out, or on the occasion of any small war in a remote part of the Empire; and it would, I think, give general satisfaction if the Government could say whether the scheme had been generally successful.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord Harris): My Lords, I can hardly undertake to give a general definition of the term "emergency," but I hope to be able to give such a definition as will satisfy those gentlemen who, I have no doubt, have interested the noble Lord in this subject. Before doing so, I will give the noble Lord the information he asks for. Your Lordships may remember that in the autumn of 1887 I intimated that the Government proposed to invite owners of horses to register them for military purposes, and I had the temerity to prophesy that as volunteering had proved so successful

  969
  forsoldiers I saw no reason why it should not be as successful for horses. The event has justified my prophesy. Last year we obtained Treasury sanction for 7,000 horses, and this year we have obtained Treasury sanction for a further 7,000. That first number of 7,000 had been examined and passed by the Deputy Inspectors of Remounts, and had been registered, and of the second 7,000 we have now examined and passed 2,500, so that we have now 9,500 horses completely registered. Of the first 7,000, 6,000 were draught and 1,000 riding horses. It is, I suppose, with special reference to the riding horses that the noble Lord puts the question to me. The large majority of the owners of these horses came forward again this year to register. It is obvious that the amount of the fee can be no object to them, and that they come forward purely from patriotic motives to assist Her Majesty's Government. In addition to the horses already mentioned, 500 hunters, belonging to masters of hounds, have been registered. Although out of those previously mentioned nearly the necessary proportion of riding horses could be obtained, the Government are exceedingly anxious to obtain the further co-operation of masters of hounds, so that they may, if possible, be able to rely on horses of the class of hunt-servants' horses. Out of 300 masters of hounds who have been applied to 100 answers have been obtained, of which over 60 are favourable. Obviously as I have said the fees are too snail to be of any importance to those gentlemen, who have registered from purely patriotic motives. Many who have not registered have very reasonably pointed out that the term "emergency" is very indefinite, and have asked the Government to state how they propose to construe it. With a view to meet that most reasonable request I have consulted with the Quartermaster General, and we propose to construe the term in the following way:—"Emergency" will be interpreted as an occasion when.—.
  "The Reserves are called out for permanent service by proclamation of Her Majesty in Council, the occasion being first communicated to Parliament, if Parliament be then sitting, or declared in Council and notified by proclamation if Parliament be not then sitting."
  This the Government hope will meet
  970
  the objections which have been raised. That there may be no misunderstanding in the future owing to changes of Government or high officials, I propose to put a footnote on the form of agreement for registering horses, setting out the definition of the term "emergency" which I have just read. Your Lordships will, however, clearly understand that it is confined and applicable only to the registration of horses and obtains its binding effect from the voluntary acceptance of the definition by the parties to the agreement. It does not profess to nor could it define the term "emergency" as employed in the Militia, Reserve, Yeomanry, and Volunteer Acts. The definition of the term there must remain with Her Majesty in Council, but as far as the registration of horses is concerned we are prepared to put that on the forms of agreement. The Government hope that will meet the views of owners of horses and masters of hounds, and that we shall obtain an increased number of horses from them.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Probably the noble Lord remembers that the last time the Reserves were called out was in 1833, when there was a fear of war, and it was for the purpose of service in India. I do not know whether the noble Lord's definition applies to India. At that time 25,000 of the Reserves were called out.
  LORD HARRIS: We are at present in the position that we were successful in obtaining horses last year, without any condition of emergency. We have also, as I have explained, obtained this year a second 7,000 horses, and we hope that this definition will satisfy the owners.

TRANSPORT FOR AUXILIARY FORCES.
LORD TRURO: My Lords, I had given notice to call attention to recent War Office Circulars relating to transport for the Auxiliary Forces, and to ask a question. I came prepared tonight to put that question, but I believe I am right in saying that there will be no objection to their being given, and I will therefore simply move if I am not out of order that those Circulars be laid upon the Table.
LORD HARRIS: I am afraid I must ask the noble Lord to point out what the circumstances are to which he alludes. I suggest that the noble Lord

971
should give notice of Motion for tomorrow for these particular Papers. I shall then know what are the Papers he wishes to refer to. At present I do not know.
LORD TRURO: One Paper is dated last year 1888, and there is a subsequent one dated the 22nd March, 1889.
LORD HARRIS: I must ask the noble Lord to give notice that he will move for those Papers to-morrow.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE BILL (No. 125.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: My Lords, on the Second Reading of this Bill, your Lordships may remember that the Duke of Richmond pointed out that this Bill for establishing a Board of Agriculture, a Bill from which we all hope that so much will be done for agriculture does not extend to that portion of the United Kingdom which is almost wholly devoted lo agriculture—I mean Ireland. I therefore put an Amendment on the Paper, with a view to seeing what was the reason why the Bill does not extend to Ireland. There is nothing in the Bill itself to show that it does not extend to Ireland except its title. The term "Great Britain" is frequently and most improperly used to express the whole of the United Kingdom. I am not quite sure whether the framers of this Bill did so intend it or not; but, except for the title, there is absolutely nothing in the Bill to show that it does not extend to Ireland. If it does not extend to Ireland, there certainly should be a clause to that effect; for I beg to say that all measures passed by the Imperial Parliament, where the context does not exclude any portion of the United Kingdom, and where there is no clause so excluding, it does extend to the whole Kingdom. It has been pointed out that the pith of this Bill is in the first sub-section of the second clause—that there shall be transferred to the Board of Agriculture the powers and duties of the Privy Council under certain Acts. Now, my Lords, every one of those Acts does extend to Ireland. Those powers conferred on the Privy Council are vested in Ireland on the Lord Lieutenant, acting by the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland.
972
If it is desired to tranfer the powers exercised by the Privy Council to a Ministry of Agriculture, and if any benefit is to be derived from this change, let Ireland have her share of it. The powers of the Board of Trade, which was cited by the Prime Minister as a similar case, extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. Then the third subsection transfers the powers vested in the Commissioners of Works under the Survey Act, an Imperial Act, to the new Ministry of Agriculture. Those powers were formerly transferred from the Secretary of State. It strikes me there is an anomaly there, and one which would be got rid of if this Bill were made to extend to Ireland. Again, the Department of Forestry was to form part of the duties of the new Minister. This Department was of enormous importance to Ireland, where thousands of acres of land new lying waste might be utilised to the great benefit of the country by planting. In no part of Europe did trees grow better than in Ireland, which not very long ago was covered with magnificent forests, now ruthle sly destroyed. I therefore move, as an Amendment, to insert the words "The Chief Secretary to Lord Lieutenant of Ireland," in order to extend to Ireland the operation of the Bill.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I confess I should have thought it was impossible to entertain any doubt as to this Act applying only to Great Britain and not to Ireland. In the first place, it refers to Her Majesty's Privy Council, not the Privy Council of Ireland, which would be described as the "Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council." As it stands, therefore, the Act is clearly not intended to apply to Ireland. The difficulty of extending it to Ireland would be very considerable, and far more legislation would be needed than my noble Friend supposes. See what the position would become by putting in Ireland, for then the Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary for Ireland, instead of being the Governing power, would become servants of the Board of Agriculture. I may mention also that there are very serious differences between the Local Authorities in England and Ireland. In the latter the Boards of Guardians act. The fact is that in Ireland they have the privilege of possessing model farms, supported to a great extent by

973
Government, which we are entirely without in this country. So that they are already agriculturally better provided than England. I would suggest to my noble Friend that he would be well-advised to wait before desiring to have this Bill extended to Ireland, to see whether it works well in this country. When he has seen the great efficacy of its performances here, will come the time for extending its operation as he desires.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I shall be very glad that Great Britain and not Ireland should be the place where the experiment is to be made for the first time, as it appears that it is only an experiment. We have had quite enough of experiments in land legislation in the Sister Isle.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: Then you withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: Yes, I withdraw it.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Bill reported without further amendment; and to be read 3a to-morrow.

ADVERTISEMENT RATING BILL. (No. 163.)
Amendments reported (according to Order); further Amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a tomorrow.
MARRIAGES (BASUTOLAND, &c.) BILL. (No. 155.)
  WINDWARD ISLAND APPEAL COURTS BILL. (No. 156.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  TRUST FUNDS INVESTMENT BILL. (No. 153.)
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3a on Friday next.

  COUNTY COURT APPEALS (IRELAND) BILL (No. 104.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order).
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid the object of this Bill was to change the procedure in the County Courts in Ireland. It sought to alter the method of appealing is equity cases. An appeal
  974
  from a County Court was not really an appeal, it was a rehearing when new facts and new documents might be brought before the Court. The right of appeal in equity cases was proposed to be given to the Justices of Assize, and there might be two appeals going on at the same time—namely, the rehearing on the whole merits before the Justices of Assize, and at the same time the appeal to the superior Courts on a question of law reserved. The Amendment proposed was simply that the County Court Judges should have a discretion which they were to exercise like English County Court Judges. As the Bill stood, the County Court Judge should grant an appeal on a case stated to the Judges of the Superior Courts on any question of law, unless he should think such appeal frivolous and vexatious, the Amendment being to add the words "or unreasonable." Those words had been taken from the English County Court Act, 30 and 31 Vict.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 6, page 2, line 29, to leave out "or."—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think I have some right to complain of the way in which this Bill has been treated. It came up from the other House on June 2, but was not read a second time till July 10. It was then referred to the Standing Committee, yet it is not till now that this Amendment is proposed. I do not blame my noble and learned Friend, but the Solicitor General for Ireland, or the Judges themselves, might have made their views known if they desired such an Amendment. As to the Amendment itself, I am afraid my experience has been that there are Judges who think that any appeal from them is unreasonable. The words "frivolous or vexatious" in the Bill as it stands are surely comprehensive enough.
  On Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents 10; Not-Contents 14.
  It appearing that 30 Lords were not present, the Chairman declared the question not decided.
  House resumed, and to be again in Committee To-morrow.

  MASTER AND SERVANT BILL (No. 111.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock' till to-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.