Sitting of 8 August 1896

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND AND IRELAND).
Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 31st March; Mr. Lough]; to lie upon the Table, and to he printed.—[No. 336.]
IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE) (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 11th May; Mr. Joseph A. Pease]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 337.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY GUARANTEE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  [Progress, 6th August.]
  Clause 1,—

  POWER FOR TREASURY TO GUARANTEE INTEREST ON CERTAIN CAPITAL OF WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY COMPANY, ETC.
  The Treasury may, on such terms as they think fit, guarantee for a period of thirty years from the date of the opening for passenger traffic of the railway, the payment of interest or dividend at the rate of three pounds per centum per annum on two hundred and sixty thousand pounds of the share and loan capital to he raised under the West Highland Act, 1894, and may on the completion of the said pier, breakwater, and other works, pay to the company the said sum of thirty thousand pounds, and the sums required for the purposes of this
  206
  section shall he paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, and if those moneys are insufficient shall he charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,)moved to omit the words "on such terms as they think fit," and to insert instead thereof the words:—
  "subject to the terms and conditions contained in the agreement dated the 10th day of March, 1896, between William Hayes Fisher, Esq., and Edward George Villiers Stanley (commonly called Lord Stanley), two of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, and the West Highland Railway Company."
  *MR. T. P. WHITTAKERsaid that if money were to be guaranteed Parliament ought to be very careful as to the conditions, and he was glad that this Amendment had been put down, as it gave the Committee an opportunity of discussing those conditions. His first objection to the agreement was that it made no provision for special aid to the railway from the locality itself. One of the points laid down by the Royal Commission appointed in 1889 was that the great object in giving State assistance to the construction of railways should be to stimulate the locality to do something for itself. The original Instruction to the Commissioners, referring to the development of a remunerative fishing industry, desired them to ascertain how far that object required to be carried out or assisted by grants from the public funds, and what co-operation might be looked for from local sources? Further, it added:—
  "It is proper to state that Her Majesty's Government do not contemplate any expenditure of a purely charitable character. It is their desire to consider only such proposals as are directed towards the initiation or development of any industry which affords some prospect within some reasonable period of being self-supporting."
  He further objected to the agreement that the guarantee was for too long a period, and the rate of interest too high. When the Commissioners recommended a guarantee being given for this railway they did so on the strength of representations made to them by the promoters that, if they would guarantee 2½

  207
  per cent. for four years, the capital would be raised, but the agreement proposed to give a guarantee of 3 per cent. for 30 years. The Commission, he was confident, would not have recommended the construction but for the statement that, if the Treasury guaranteed 2½ per cent. for 4 years, then the money could be raised. The Commission also recommended that £15,000, or one-third the cost of the harbour, should be provided by the Treasury, whereas the agreement provided for double that amount, or £30,000. He questioned whether the Commission would have made this recommendation on the conditions embodied in this agreement. If the line was not going to be remunerative, he doubted the wisdom of the Government lending its name to a proposal which would go before the country asking people to subscribe on the strength of their guarantee, if they thought that at the end of 30 years the line would not be remunerative, and that the money would be lost. Then he submitted that the interest on the guaranteed capital should be a first charge on 50 per cent. of the gross earnings, and further, that the Treasury ought not to pay the rates for the district at all. They knew that one effect of constructing railways in this country had been that in some parishes the railway paid three-fourths, or 80 or 90 per cent. of the local rates. In this agreement there was no guarantee whatever but that this railway might be made to pay a very substantial portion of the rates of the parishes. The directors would not care, because the Imperial Exchequer had to make up any deficiency. He felt the more strongly on this because, in the Light Railways Bill, it was provided that there should be no additional assessment for rates beyond the value the land had before the railway was constructed. Again, there was no arrangement made for any portion of the receipts from the harbour being devoted to the payment of interest. They ought to be entitled to a portion of the receipts from the harbour as they provided two-thirds of the cost of making the harbour, and further, they ought to make it clear that the whole line should be constructed before the guarantee commenced. He opposed the Chancellor's Amendment.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the hon. Member's speech was simply a résumé of the speech he made on the Second Reading. The hon. Member objected to the terms of the agreement, and thought the Treasury could have made better terms, and therefore he was opposed to the Bill. This whole matter was debated fully on the Second Reading, and the House decided, by a majority of four to one, or nearly so, that the Bill should be read a Second time. He would submit to hon. Members that that was practically a confirmation of the agreement which had been made between the Treasury and the parties concerned. The Amendment which he had proposed was simply with the view of limiting the scope of the Bill in the sense which he imagined was desired by the hon. Member and those acting with him. He understood they took objection to the clauses of the Bill as giving greater powers to the Treasury, in fact, enabling the Treasury at some later date to modify the agreement to the advantage of the company. He did not want to do that at all. He was anxious that the agreement as made should be confirmed by Parliament, and if any modification should be required, that modification should not be made without the consent of Parliament.
  *MR. EDWARD STRACHEYsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had remarked truly enough that a good deal had been said in the discussion which applied more to the Second Reading stage than to the present. At the same time he thought the Committee should remember that this Amendment on the Paper, which it was discussing as a whole, was only placed there by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Thursday. It seemed to him that this Amendment raised a new issue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that no agreement had been made by a previous Conservative Government as to the conditions on which the line should be made. He should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a Paper issued on the 23rd May 1895, which dealt with this particular question. In it there was a letter dated the 16th June from the Treasury before the Election of 1892. In that letter the Lords Commissioners

  209
  said that they would be prepared in the next Session to introduce a Measure giving a public guarantee for 30 years of 3 per cent. on the capital sum of £250,000. That letter added that it must be understood that this assistance was subject to the conditions that the promoters should obtain the necessary Parliamentary powers, that they should enter into an agreement with the North British Railway Company to work and maintain the line on 50 per cent. of the gross receipts, the remaining 50 per cent. going towards the payment of the 3 per cent. dividend. The terms of that letter laid it down distinctly that the Bill had only been introduced subject to the company accepting these conditions. The Committee would see that there was a considerable difference between the conditions now suggested and to be accepted by Parliament, and the conditions suggested in the letter of 16th June 1892. According to the present agreement set out by the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to accept a larger liability, and, instead of there being four short conditions in the last Parliamentary Paper which had been issued with reference to this agreement at the beginning of the year, there were no fewer than nine articles of agreement covering a whole page of the Paper. He thought that the Committee would see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not making nearly so good a bargain with the North British Railway Company as he might have made in the interests of the taxpayer. He could not see why the right hon. Gentleman should wish to throw over the earlier agreement. The only reason given was that the railway company refused to accent it. But it had also to be remembered that in this matter it was obvious that the Treasury were giving the North British Railway Company a substantial subsidy. At the meeting of the company held in 1894 the Chairman, speaking of this Bill, said that it was of the utmost importance that the company should be connected with the coast, and the directors believed it to be of paramount importance to their interests that this extension should be made. It was clear, therefore, that the Chairman of the Company thought that they were going to get a substantial gift
  210
  from the Treasury in order to develop the line; but there had been other lines promoted in the interests of other railway companies before the House, and there was a good deal of competition going on in that part of Scotland. It was generally believed that one of the objects in making the line was, not so much to develop the fishing industry and to benefit the crofters, but to develop the line in the interests of the tourist traffic. It was clear, from the Papers which had been issued, that this proposal had first of all been made by the Conservative Government in 1891, just before the General Election of 1892. When the late Liberal Government came into power, Sir John Hibbert, in the Parliament of 1893, refused to alter the conditions which had been made in June 1892. But later on the conditions were altered for this reason, because on the 6th August 1894 the present First Lord of the Admiralty put a question to the then Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer asking him whether the Government were going on with this Bill and whether they intended to fulfil the pledges given by the previous Government. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) said that his Government would carry out the undertaking which had been given by their predecessors, and in consequence of this undertaking a Bill was introduced in 1895. Until pressure was put upon his right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, this question was not proceeded with, and in his judgment it was clear that Sir John Hibbert did not like the Bill, and thought it was a bad principle to take the money of the general taxpayer in order to promote a small line in this part of Scotland.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I do not see the relevancy of the hon. Member's remarks. The only question now before the Committee is whether the Treasury shall have a free hand in dealing with the West Highland Railway Company, or whether it shall be bound by the terms of the agreement already entered into.
  *MR. STRACHEYsaid he was led into this digression by the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but as to the Amendment before the Committee,

  211
  he thought it had been made clear that this proposal did not originate with the Liberal Government, who simply took up the pledges made by their predecessors.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Would it not be more convenient to get rid of these words, and then the whole Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be discussed? The only question at present before the Committee is the omission of the words "on such terms as they may think fit." When these words are disposed of, it will be competent to hon. Members to move Amendments to the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But until those words are left out no Amendments can be moved to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that the words "on such terms as the Treasury think fit," were the words which afforded a guarantee that attention would be paid to this matter up to the last, and that the Treasury could exercise their discretion up to the last. As it was, the Committee were asked to fix the details of the agreement that day, and he did not think that they were competent to do that. He was suspicious about this agreement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the agreement had been entered into, but surely it could not be sanctioned without the consent of Parliament. It was for the House to say whether it approved or disapproved of the agreement, and, if it disapproved, the Treasury could say," We wanted to get this agreement through, but Parliament refused to sanction it." He did not like the agreement, and, if they omitted the words that gave the Treasury discretion, it would be impossible later on to do anything but adopt that agreement. He did not think that the Treasury ought to have entered into any agreement with the railway company. Why did not the Board of Trade do it? There was something very suspicious in the fact that this particular railway company had gone to the Lords of the Treasury instead of to the Board of Trade, the Department concerned with railways. A great deal had happened since the original agreement was made, but the new agreement practically embodied the conditions asked for three or four years
  212
  ago. The first appeal to the Treasury was made in May 1892, towards the end of the period of office of the Liberal Government. The first promise of the Treasury was given in a letter dated June 16th 1892, and there was no substantial difference between this agreement and the promise made by the Treasury in June 1892. There were, however, slight differences. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown that it was necessary to modify the first agreement made and to keep an eye upon the company. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was a better agreement than any previous one, but his hon. Friends did not think so. The fact that new agreements were constantly being made showed that the matter was a very difficult one to settle, and probably this new agreement would be found, after a little time, to be as faulty as the previous ones. It was very difficult for the Committee to undertake the responsibility of leaving out the words included in the Amendment, the words which would give the Treasury some control over the matter. If they were to proceed with this business the Board of Trade, or some other Department interested, ought to have control over the company and its arrangements. He therefore held that these words ought not to be left out.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELsaid that he did not quite understand the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few minutes ago. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to convey that he was really reserving power to alter the agreement by his proposal.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, just the contrary.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that had it been the other way he and his hon. Friends would have been better pleased. They were anxious, as far as possible, to limit the Bill in its operations and to restrain the right of Parliamentary control. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that he would view the Amendment which he (Mr. Dalziel) had placed upon the Paper in a favourable manner, met some of his objections to the Bill. But if the present Amendment were passed, the right hon. Gentleman would part with the power of controlling certain matters. There was,

  213
  for example, the question of local rates. Under this agreement they were improving the land for the local landlords, who were doing nothing for the railway. They were giving the landlords a large interest in a railway made by public money, and they were going to relieve the landlords in respect of the local rates because they were putting up an assessable, subject, which meant that substantial relief would be afforded to the landlords. As the landlords would not give the land, they ought not to be greedy enough to ask the House to relieve them from local rates.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that this was legislation by reference—not by reference to an Act of Parliament, but to an agreement which very few people would ever read. Probably, very few people in the country through which this railway was going would know anything about tin's agreement, yet they were going to give the agreement the force of an Act of Parliament by embodying it in this Bill. In the circumstances there was no reason why they should omit the usual words giving the Government Department concerned a free hand.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 25; Noes, 100.—(Division List, No. 394.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. STRACHEYmoved to insert, after the word "contained," the words "under Articles 1 to 4 inclusive." As it now stood the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment would embody nine articles, covering a very large scope indeed. As regarded the question contained in Article 5, be thought the Committee ought to have some explanation from the Government why they proposed this very long term of years. The Royal Commission on the Western Highlands and Islands, which was appointed by a Conservative Government, recommended not a term of 30 years, but that the Government should guarantee 2½ per cent. interest on the sum of £285,000 for four years. Apparently, in the opinion of the
  214
  Members of this Commission, who were appointed for the special purpose of investigating the distress in the congested districts in the Highlands, was that it was only necessary to guarantee interest for four years at the rate of 2½ per cent. But the Government proposed to guarantee interest at the rate of 3 per cent. for 30 years. The Government had gone out of their way in this matter to increase this subsidy. Of course, it might be said that the amount to be guaranteed had been diminished to £250,000, that was, by £35,000, but that was a very small matter indeed when the increase in the term of years from four to 30 and the increased rate of interest was considered. The Committee ought to have a full and clear explanation on this point. Why had the Government come to the conclusion that the Commissioners were wrong, and that their recommendations ought to be disregarded? He could not see what right the Treasury had to ignore those recommendations. So far as the Committee knew, the Government had made no investigation at all into the matter. They simply took the statements of the North British Railway Company and the landowners in the district, and the other people who were anxious to have this line. Then, again, on the question of making the pier, the Government had gone entirely against the recommendations of the Commissioners. The Commissioners proposed a free grant of only £15,000 should be given in aid of the making of this pier, and instead of that the Government proposed to give £30,000. Of course they could not expect hon. Members from Scotland to protest strongly against these proceedings, though there were some of them on his side of the House who were not ready to rob the English taxpayer for the benefit of a small section of people in Scotland; but English Members would not be doing their duty if they did not call attention to the reckless way in which the Government were proceeding, in actually giving twice the amount towards this pier which the Royal Commission recommended. He begged to move his Amendment.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas quite unable to accept the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman made the extraordinary proposal to take only four articles of an agreement already

  215
  made and make them binding on the Government, leaving the remaining articles out altogether. The agreement must be binding as a whole or not at all. One of the articles which the hon. Gentleman omitted absolutely limited the liability of the Treasury. The reason for the change in the agreement from the amount suggested by the Commission to which reference had been made was that it had been found absolutely impossible to induce any responsible railway company to take up the proposed line on better terms than those contained in the agreement. It was for the Committee to say whether those terms should be accepted or not, but it was impossible to adopt only four articles of the agreement and leave out the others. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that he thought the objection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly reasonable. But that left the main question untouched. The objection he felt to this system of legislation by reference was very great indeed.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he thought it would be well to schedule the agreement.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was about to propose that very thing.
  MR. DALZIELsaid the difficulty they laboured under was in having this agreement at all. It was a matter for complaint that the Treasury, without the authority of Parliament, should enter into such an agreement and then ask the House to adopt it.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The agreement was laid before Parliament three or four months ago.
  MR. DALZIELadmitted that, but he hoped in future, on matters of public policy, the Government would take the opinion of Parliament before the Treasury entered into such agreements.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought the offer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to schedule the agreement met the real difficulties of the case, and he suggested that the hon. Member should withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. WHITTAKERthought the difficulty of the case was this, that the Commission might not have recommended the making of this line on the conditions
  216
  now proposed. The Commission proposed a guarantee of 2½ per cent. for four years. Had they known that it could only be made on a guarantee of 3 per cent. for 30 years they might never have recommended the line. The agreement ought to be brought into harmony with the recommendations of the Commission, and then leave it to the railway company to accept or reject it. The agreement would involve the Treasury in considerable loss. On the Second Reading the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that the traffic on the line might yield £7 per mile per week, but since then the General Manager of the North British Railway Company had informed a Select Committee of the House upon another Bill that the traffic receipts on the West Highland Railway had been very disappointing. The receipts were only five guineas a mile, one-half of what they had been estimated to yield. If the receipts of the supposed line turned out to be only half the estimate, then the loss to the Treasury would be considerable.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSdid not see how this arose on the question before the House, which was whether four articles of the agreement should be inserted in the Bill or the whole agreement.
  MR. WHITTAKERsaid he was trying to give reasons why Parliament should not enter into a guarantee which would involve the Treasury in greater loss than the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to imagine. Instead of a loss of £500 a year, he believed it would be £4,000 a year, and although that was a small sum to the British Exchequer, still this line was only one of a series to be proposed, and no doubt they would all be based upon the princples embodied in the present Bill. He was satisfied in his own mind that the best judgment of the Treasury must be against this proposal.
  MR. LOUGHsaid if they accepted the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer they would fix the rate of interest and all the details in the agreement. Why should they give a higher guarantee in this case than was done under the Light Railways Bill? Money was cheaper now than when the Commission recommended the guarantee for this railway. Instead of 3 per cent. for

  217
  30 years, he thought a guarantee of 2 per cent. for 15 or 20 years would be sufficient. He hoped that they would not have many Bills of this kind brought into that House in the future.
  In reply to Mr. WHITTAKER,
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that no Amendment which involved any alteration of the terms of the agreement would be in order, but it was possible for the Committee to impose certain terms upon the Treasury. He had pointed out that one of the Amendments of the hon. Member for South Somersetshire would probably be in order if the Committee accepted the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. J. M. WHITEasked if they could discuss the agreement on the Schedule? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, he thought, showed inconsistency in that he was quite willing to have the agreement embodied as a Schedule, and yet, although those Schedules were always discussed by Parliament, he said they must either accept or reject the agreement.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid it did not rest with him, the question had been decided by the Chairman. The agreement could not be modified, it must be accepted or rejected.
  MR. WHITEthought the Chairman had said that the agreement could be modified.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that what he said was that the agreement could not be modified. The House could reject it or accept it. If the House accepted it if was obvious that the Agreement could not be modified. If they embodied the agreement in the Schedule they could not discuss the agreement on the Schedule.
  MR. WARNERsaid he had an Amendment down which would, he thought, rather meet the difficulty.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid it seemed to him that the Amendment of the hon. Member was absolutely contradictory. If the House accepted the terms and conditions of the agreement, it was unnecessary to say that those terms and conditions should be consistent with the provisions of the Act.
  MR. J. McLEODsaid, as he understood it the whole controversy on this agreement was as to its terms. Personally, he was strongly in favour of this line, but he thought the Treasury bad made an exceedingly bad bargain. There had been huckstering on the part of the promoters of the line. No sooner had they got into favour with the Treasury than they immediately began to harden their terms.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,on the point of order, said the Amendment before them was simply that of the hon. Member for Somersetshire. He submitted that the general discussion ought to take place on the general Amendment.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid he bad already pointed that out once or twice, and he must really ask hon. Members to confine their remarks to the definite point before the Committee, which was in regard to Articles 1 to 4 only.
  MR. LOUGHasked if he should be in order in objecting to Article 1 being included in the agreement in its present form?
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that would not be in order. The hon. Member should have moved to omit Article 1.
  MR. WARNERsaid they objected to Clause 5 of the agreement on account of the rate of interest which was to be given. The price of the stock would be very much above par if they guaranteed 3 per cent. for 30 years, and, instead of £260,000 at 3 per cent., they had much better fix the amount at £300,000 at 2½ per cent. The Commission had recommended as the rate of interest something between 2 and 2¼ per cent., and to give 3 per cent. was an enormous concession to the railway company. Moreover, not one word was said about there being enough trains, or as to the rates being fair. Although it was proposed to give away twice as much money as the Committee recommended, there was no guarantee given as to the proper carrying out of the duties of the railway company.
  MR. WHITEsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that what the Treasury would be liable to under the guarantee was £2,000 a year. He believed the Treasury were committing

  219
  themselves by the guarantee to £4,000 or £5,000 a year. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that the line would not have been made were it not for this guarantee. That he was also inclined to dispute. The conditions which prevailed to-day were very different from the conditions which prevailed when the line was first mooted. He was perfectly-satisfied that the line would be made by the North British Railway Company, even if the guarantee were withdrawn.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman forgets that the principle of the Bill, which is that this guarantee should be given, has been adopted. The arguments of the hon. Gentleman would have been more properly addressed on the Second Reading of the Bill. All we have to do now is to discuss the details.
  MR. WHITEsaid he was speaking against the generosity of the guarantee, and was putting forward the argument that the railway would in any case be made, in order to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cut down the terms of the guarantee. He thought the North British Railway Company ought to take a much larger share of responsibility in regard to the capital, because of the advantages they would derive from the line.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I really cannot see the relevancy of all this.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERappealed to the Committee to come to a decision on the point, which was really unimportant.
  MR. DALZIELsaid there were two points he wished to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought the accounts ought to be audited by the Auditor General, as was done in the case of the Caledonian Canal. The other point was in regard to the date when the amount was to be paid. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it would not be paid until the whole line was open for traffic. He regarded that announcement as satisfactory.
  MR. WHITTAKERthought there should be some security that the traffic service of the line would be satisfactory. That was an important point to keep in view, in case the line should prove
  220
  unremunerative. He also wished to know whether, in case the line should prove to be remunerative, compensation would be made to the Government for any payments they might have made under the guarantee? He noticed that the North British Railway Company might acquire the line after 1900. The company would probably take it over if it proved successful; but in that event accumulated interest on the amount advanced by Government should be charged. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that £40,000 would be produced in the locality towards the construction of the line. All he could find in regard to that in the circular issued was the statement" local subscriptions towards the undertaking are estimated at £40,000."
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he had made inquiries, and understood that the £40,000 would be produced in the locality, including the value of land proposed to be given or taken in shares.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WARNERmoved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting at the end the words—
  "so far as such terms and conditions of the said agreement are consistent with the provisions of this Act."
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSruled the Amendment out of order.
  MR. DALZIELthought it would be better for them to raise their objections to the clause now, as it would materially facilitate the progress of the Bill. He complained that any Member of the Government should pledge the House of Commons to this agreement without first having asked the consent of the House. The agreement should be laid on the Table of the House while Parliament was sitting, and the House should be asked to accept it. The whole proceeding in connection with this matter was open to objection. When they were pledging public money by guaranteeing the payment of a dividend to a private railway company, they were entitled to have some kind of check on the expenditure of the company during the continuance of the guarantee. What he desired was that the accounts of the

  221
  company should be, year after year, submitted to the Auditor General's Department, and that there should be a representative of the Treasury on the directorate of the West Highland Railway Company for the purpose of protecting the public interest. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to grant these concessions.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid with regard to the first point raised by the hon. Member, it was the invariable practice for the Treasury to make an agreement before presenting it to Parliament. He could hardly see how business could be conducted in any other way. He believed there was no cause of complaint with regard to the agreement made last spring, because it modified the previous agreement in the interests of the Treasury. ["Hear, hear!"] With reference to the audit of the accounts of the railway company, the agreement contained ample provisions for securing that the Treasury, through the Board of Trade, should have power to examine from time to time the accounts of the company and the returns of the traffic. As to the particular method by which that should be accomplished, he would consult his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on the point. If he thought it would be better done by the Auditor General than in any other way, he would be quite willing that it should be so done. ["Hear, hear!"] All that was required in the public interest was that there should be an efficient examination of the accounts, so as to secure that they were correct. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member that there should be a representative of the Treasury on the directorate of the West Highland Bail-way Company, he did not think the object the hon. Member had in view would be effected by the appointment of such a representative, because the West Highland Railway Company had agreed to hand over the working of the line in perpetuity to the North British Railway Company, and the mere presence of one director on the Board of the West Highland Railway Company would practically exercise no real control over the working of the line. What he thought would be a better plan would be this—that every year the Board of
  222
  Trade, through one of its inspectors, should make a careful examination of the workng of the railway, and should present a Report to Parliament, so that if there were any complaints as to inefficient or improper working the Board of Trade should bring the matter before the Railway Commissioners, with a view of securing that justice should be done. That, he believed, would really be a more efficient way of carrying out what the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy desired.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he was extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the statements he had made. He accepted the right hon. Gentleman's proposal on the latter point at once, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would keep in view that one of the most important considerations was to see that the line was economically worked. ["Hear, hear!" from the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.]
  MR. WHITEwas understood to express the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the desirability of reducing the rate of interest on the guarantee from 3 to 2½ or 2¼ per cent. The hon. Member was proceeding to discuss figures in connection with the working of the line, when
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved that the Committee had heard all this before. It had been already said by several hon. Members, and he hoped, therefore, that a decision would be come to upon the matter. He had endeavoured to do his best to meet the wishes that had been expressed by hon. Members.
  MR. WHITEasked why should there be a 3 per cent. interest charged on this guarantee when the total amount of the expenditure on the line would be met by the money obtained in respect of the traffic over the West Highland Railway?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The reason, as I said on the Second Reading of the Bill, is that this is not a guarantee of capital but is solely a guarantee of interest. If we were guaranteeing capital, 3 per cent., I admit, would be too high. But what we do is to guarantee the interest of 3 per cent. for 30 years, and, therefore, anybody investing in such security must

  223
  either run the risk of losing his capital at the end of 30 years, or establish a sinking fund.
  *MR. LOUGHrecognised the concessions which the right hon. Gentleman had made, but remarked there was a matter he wished to raise with regard to the deductions from the 50 per cent. which was to be devoted towards the payment of interest on the guarantee. There was to be a deduction, in the first place, of Government duty, and in the second place of local rates and taxes. But in the Memorandum on which the agreement was based it said the remaining 50 per cent. should be devoted, in the first instance, towards paying a dividend of 3 per cent., and then, at the end, it said that these conditions having been satisfied the Treasury should promote a Bill in Parliament, which was the Bill they were discussing. But the agreement did not satisfy those conditions, because, instead of the 50 per cent. being devoted to the payment of the interest they had, first, the deduction of the Government duty, and secondly, of local rates and taxes. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether these deductions should be made.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid what he would propose would be that as far as the local rates and taxes were concerned he would take the words that appeared in the Light Railways Act with regard to the assessment of land taken for a light railway which was aided by a Government grant, and he would move to insert in the Bill a provision to the effect that during the period of 30 years the railway-should not be assessed to the local rates at a higher value than that at which the land would have been assessed had it remained in the condition it was in immediately before the construction of the railway. The hon. Member would see that that would prevent the rates coming to any large amount.
  MR. McLEODadmitted that the right hon. Gentleman had made substantial concessions, and had succeeded in removing some objections to the Bill. With regard to the inspection, control, and working of the line, he would point out that one advantage of giving the auditing of the accounts to the Auditor General would be that that House would
  224
  have figures before it on which there might be discussion on anything requiring notice or criticism.
  *MR. STRACHEYasked that a reply should be given stating why the Committee should be asked to vote an expenditure of £30,000 to make this pier and harbour when the Royal Commission on the Highlands and Islands only recommended the expenditure of £15,000 for this purpose? That was a substantial point which the right hon. Gentleman had not met. He had given them no reason why this heavy additional tax should be put on their constituencies to enable a railway company to pay larger dividends to its Scotch shareholders. He would like to call attention to Article 8 of the Agreement. That article provided that if at any time during the continuance of the agreement the undertaking authorised by this Act was, with the consent of Parliament, acquired by, transferred to, or amalgamated with the undertaking of any other company or companies, then such company or companies should be deemed to be substituted for the present company. The meaning of that article was to enable the West Highland Railway, practically, at any time by a private Act of Parliament, which that House would very likely know nothing about, to sell to some other railway company the benefits they would get under this special State guarantee. The Government were increasing the value of this line by giving; them an asset which might be sold by the Company. This provision was not a satisfactory one in the interests of the taxpayers. He did not object to a provision under which the company might amalgamate or sell, but he did object to there being no provision in the agreement that, if the railway company sold at a profit above the amount it cost to make the railway, then that amount of profit must be held in suspense to indemnify the British taxpayer against any loss there might be. Otherwise there would be an absolute certainty of no profit, and very likely loss, though the shareholders might be able to largely increase the value of their shares by the sale, having this valuable guarantee of the Government to sell. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to agree to insert

  225
  such a provision in the Bill. He thought, also, it was a considerable matter of complaint that there was no provision in these articles as regarded railway rates. They were making this railway at the expense of the general taxpayer, and he thought the least that might have been done was to see that those agriculturists and others living in the district were protected as regarded the railway rates they would be called upon to pay.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas understood to say that he would undertake to do that.
  *MR. STRACHEYsaid that, of course, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook to do that, that was all he wanted as regarded the rates and tolls to be charged.
  MR. WARNER,who was received with cries of "Oh!" and "Divide!" expressed a wish to say a few words upon the whole question.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the question be now put."
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly—
  "That the words 'subject to the terms and conditions contained in the agreement dated the tenth day of March, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, between William Hayes Fisher, esquire, and Edward George Villiers Stanley (commonly called Lord Stanley), two of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, and the West Highland Railway Company, being the agreement in the Schedule to this Act,' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 108; Noes, 25.—(Division List, No. 395.)
  MR. DALZIELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider between now and Report whether words ought not to be inserted providing that the guarantee should not commence until the line had been completed.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERundertook to look into the point.
  *MR. STRACHEYmoved to leave out the words "and loan."
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved to add at the end of the clause the words—
  "Daring the said period of thirty years the Board of Trade shall make an annual report to Parliament as to the condition and working of the railway and the receipts and expenditure of the Company with regard to the railway."
  Amendment agreed to.
  *MR. STRACHEYmoved to add at the end of the clause:—
  "Provided that the Treasury shall not give any such guarantee or make any such grant (a) unless it shall be certified to them by the Secretary for Scotland that the making of the railway would benefit agriculture in the district traversed by the railway, and that such railway is necessary for the development of the fishing industry; (b) unless they are satisfied after local inquiry that the said railway, pier, breakwater, and other works would not be constructed without special assistance front the State, and that the same if constructed would not unduly compete with any existing railway undertaking; (c) unless they are satisfied that landowners, local authorities, and other persons locally interested have by the free grant of land given all reasonable assistance and facilities in their power for the construction of the said railway, pier, breakwater, and other works."
  He would now only formally move the Amendment, as perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have no objection to accepting it.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the Amendment could not be inserted in the Rill, because the guarantee had been already given.
  *MR. STRACHEYsaid that surely it was only a guarantee given contingent upon the sanction being given by the House. Did not the words "subject to the Treasury be authorised" occur? He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman would find that the Treasury ever gave an absolute pledge that they would give a guarantee. It would be a most dangerous thing that the Treasury should be allowed to enter into a guarantee with a company or with individuals which was not to be subject to the approval of the House, and he could not think that the Treasury had given such a guarantee. It would constitute an enormous constitutional change if the Treasury could tie the hands of the House of Commons in such a way. A careful perusal of the correspondence convinced him that the

  227
  Treasury made such proposals subject to approval being afterwards given by Parliament.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not want to interfere with the speech of the hon. Member, but he thought it was well he should point out at once that the guarantee had been given by the Treasury, but that of course it could not be carried out without the consent of Parliament.
  MR. STRACHEYsaid that it did not appear to him that the right hon. Gentleman had answered his point. The Treasury had given the guarantee, and the House of Commons were not to interfere with it. [Cries of "No, no!] "J He did not see why the railway company should object to having these provisions put in. Would the right hon. Gentleman object to insert the words—
  "unless they are satisfied that landowners, local authorities, and other persons locally interested have by the free grant of land given all reasonable assistance and facilities in their power for the construction of the said railway, pier, breakwater, and other works."
  It was not unreasonable, when they were being asked to vote a very large sum of money to develop a particular district and different estates of certain Scotch landlords in whom the Government seemed much interested, they should insist that the landlords should give their land free or give facilities as English landlords had to give under the English Light Railway Bill.
  *THE CHANCEELOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 106; Noes, 24.—(Division List, No. 396.)
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSaccordingly put the Question," That those words be there added," and ordered the House to be cleared for a Division, whereupon several hon. Members exclaimed, "Tell them to stand up."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 20; Noes, 108.—(Division List, No. 397.)
  Question, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 3,—

  POWER FOR TREASURY TO GUARANTEE INTEREST ON CERTAIN CAPITAL OF WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY COMPANY, ETC.

    SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may he cited as the West Highland Railway Guarantee Act, 1896.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved to insert the following new clause:—

    LIMIT OF RATES.
    During the period, not exceeding the said period of thirty years, for which the whole or any part of the interest or dividend guaranteed by this Act shall he payable by the Treasury, the railway shall not be assessed to any local rate at a higher value than that at which the land occupied by the railway would have been assessed if it had remained in the condition in which it was immediately before it was acquired for the purpose of the railway.
    Clause read 1o and 2o, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 338.]

TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
Read the Third time, and passed.

LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND) ESTATE DUTY BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)moved, "That the Bill be read the Third time."
MR. LOUGHsaid that he thought the Bill exceedingly unfair to Ireland. No immediate relief of the rates was to be given to Ireland, as had been given to England and Scotland, the assumption being that Ireland could wait any length of time. The Chief Secretary was greatly to blame for not having insisted on some application of the money in the present year.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Irish Member's desired the present arrangement.
MR. LOUGHsaid he did not agree with the Irish Members. [Laughter.] He noticed that there was a very imperfect knowledge of finance among the Irish Members. [Laughter.] The rates in Ireland were twice as high as those in England or Scotland. How was it that the Irish landlords had nothing to say on this question? The money was to be put into a taxation account and disposed of "as Parliament may direct." The meaning of that was that the Irish Secretary would listen to every appeal—and God knows there would be plenty appeals made to him—for relief here and there and for jobs of all kinds—[ironical cheers]—yes, Ireland was governed by jobs, especially financial jobs. [Laughter.] He protested against the spirit in which the Government had dealt with Ireland in this matter.
MR. T. M. HEALYwas rather opposed to this entire system of dealing with public money. It would be far better to allow local authorities to raise the money required for their own needs out of local rates, for it would tend to far more economy of administration. Having looked over the Bill, he thought the view of the Irish Secretary was absolutely correct; but in dealing with the question next Session he hoped he would overhaul the whole scheme of the Act of 1888.
MR. GERALD BALFOURthought the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman was one well worthy of consideration, but he apprehended it would be almost impossible for the Government to reopen the existing settlement except by the general consent of Members representing Ireland. If he had such consent he should give serious consideration to the suggestion.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1891–5.
Resolutions [7th August] agreed to.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  STANNARIES BILL [H.L.]
  As amended, considered.
  Clause 1,—

  STANNARIES BILL [H.L.]

    ABOLITION OF VICE-WARDEN'S COURT
    (1.) On the commencement of this Act the Court of the Vice-Warden of the Stannaries shall cease to exist, except for the purpose of continuing and concluding proceedings pending in that court at that date, and as from that date all jurisdiction and powers of the said court and its officers shall, except as aforesaid, be transferred to and vested in such of the county courts as the Lord Chancellor may by order direct, and be exercised subject to and in accordance with rules of court for regulating the procedure in county courts.
    (2.) Provision may he made by order of the Lord Chancellor—

    (a) for determining by, to, or before what officer, or in what office, may be done anything required to be done by, to, or before any officer or in any office of the said court of the Vice-Warden;

    (b) for transferring to a county court any proceedings pending in the said court at the commencement of this Act;

    (c) for determining the place of sitting for the exorcise of any jurisdiction transferred by this Act;

    (d) with respect to the use and disposal of any property which at the commencement of this Act is held for the use of the said court or of any officer of the said court, and of any room or building which at that date is appropriated for the use of the said court or of the Vice-Warden, officers, and suitors thereof; and

    (e) with respect to the custody of any records which at that date are under the custody of the said court.

    MR. ARTHUR STRAUSSmoved to leave out the words "as the Lord Chancellor may by order direct," and to insert instead thereof the words "as would be entitled to jurisdiction if the same had been included in the County Courts Act, 1888," the object of the Amendment being to provide that in future actions and petitions should be brought in the district where the mine is situated, where the defendant resided, and where the business had been transacted. The Stannaries Court was very unpopular on account of the great delay in encashing debts and liquidating accounts. The Court of Chancery was expedition itself

    231
    as compared with it. But the greatest cause of unpopularity was the long distance which people had to traverse to bring their suits. Last year a similar Bill was brought in by Lord Herschell, and a deputation came up to see his Lordship on a memorial signed by managers and officials of mines and others interested in the mining industry of the Stannaries. This memorial submitted that it was desirable that the jurisdiction and powers of the Court of the Vice-Warden of the Stannaries should be transferred to and vested in the County Court at Redruth. The memorial further showed that at this moment, out of 13 important tin mines in the district eight were within the Redruth District, while there were only five situated in Truro District and one each in the districts of St. Austell and St. Ives. Further than this, the Mining Institute, the Mining School and the share market were in the district of Camborne and Redruth.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)said he had made inquiries as to this subject, and found, in connection with some of the transfer business of the Stannaries Court, that it would not be convenient to have a hard-and-fast line drawn. He was satisfied that there was a large body of public opinion in Cornwall which did not altogether go in support of the view of the hon. Member. The question of the Court, and the place of the Court, would be carefully considered in the light of proceedings which might be instituted into the claims of Redruth and Camborne; and no assignment of business would be made without consulting the interests of those in the locality.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Prince of Wales' consent, as Duke of Cornwall, signified; Bill read the Third time, and passed.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
As amended, considered.
Clause 2,—

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

  ADDITION TO PURPOSES FOR WHICH PUBLIC WORKS LOAN COMMISSIONERS MAY LEND.
  There shall he added to the works for the purpose of which the Public Works Loan
  232
  Commissioners may lend in Great Britain under the Public Works Loans Act, 1875, the following works, namely:—
  Any work for which the council of a county, borough, district or parish are authorised to borrow;
  The construction or improvement of any canal;
  Provided that where the repayment of a loan for the construction or improvement of a canal is collaterally secured to the satisfaction of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, the rate of interest on the loan may be three-and-a-quarter per cent. per annum instead of the rate of four per cent. per annum authorised by the Public Works Loans Act, 1892.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon)moved to leave out the words "three-and-a-quarter " and to insert instead thereof the words "two-and-three-quarters. "
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,)said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a promise to look into the rate of interest in connection with the various loans; but the rate of 3¼ per cent. now charged was the same rate as was paid in connection with harbours on the security of the rates.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIShoped that the appeal of his hon. Friend would receive the careful attention of the Treasury, because the rate of interest in connection with those public works had gone down.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked whether an opportunity would be given next year in a similar departmental Bill to raise the question?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that the Bills were annual and there would be an opportunity to consider it. The question was one of great difficulty, but until the rates of interest paid to depositors in the Savings Banks were lowered it was impossible to lend more cheaply. The matter, however, was under consideration, and he hoped to call the attention of Parliament to it next year. They could not lend at a loss to the Government.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'three-and-a-quarter' stand part of the Bill. "
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

SUPPLY, 7TH AUGUST.
Resolutions reported:—
SUPPLY, 7TH AUGUST.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1896–7.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Ordnance Factories (the cost of the Productions of which will he charged to the Army, Navy, and Indian and Colonial Governments), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £858,600, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Clothing Establishments and Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,517,200, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Retired Pay, Half-pay, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers and others, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £172,800, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1896–7.

    CLASS III.
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £65,811, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department and other Law Charges, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice in Scotland."
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,795, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Expenses of the Establishment of the Crofters' Commission."

    CLASS II.
    7. "That a sum, not exceeding £42, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage."
    8. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment under the Public Works Loan Commissioners,"
    9. "That a sum, not exceeding £27,266, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar General of Births, etc., in England."
    10. "That a sum, not exceeding £36,850, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st clay of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
    11. "That a sum, not exceeding £14,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."

    CLASS III.
    12. "That a sum, not exceeding £21,943, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum."
    Resolutions agreed to.

    CLASS IV.
    13. "That a sum, not exceeding £109,784 (including a Supplementary sum of £6,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and expenses of the British Museum, including the amount required for the Natural History Museum."
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEcalled attention to the position of the officials in the Museum. He said that the gentlemen holding offices there had memorialised the trustees asking that their position might be improved, and that the right hon. Member for the University of London, who was unavoidably absent, heartily sympathised with these officials in the demands which they made. They complained that, although they belonged to an office which was brought into line by an Order in Council of 1890, following upon the Parliamentary Commission of 1888, with other first-class public offices, the first-class officials of the Museum were only paid about two-thirds of the salaries paid in other great Departments. It should be borne in mind that these gentlemen entered the service somewhat later in

    235
    age than did those who went into Government offices. They were seldom under 25 years of age; nearly all of them were University men; they possessed high qualifications, and had to pass examinations in out-of-the-way subjects like Oriental languages. Therefore, having special knowledge, they ought to be treated rather better, certainly not worse, than gentlemen in other Departments of the State. But what were the facts? At the age of 25, a clerk in the second class began on a salary of £120, rising by annual increments of £10 until it reached £240. He was, therefore, 37 years old before he received £240. In the next class, on promotion, a clerk got £250, increasing annually by £15 up to £150. The average official was 52 years of age when he obtained that sum. A very lucky man might be promoted to a junior keepership, in which case he would get £500, rising by sums of £20. Let them contrast the position of these men with the position of clerks in the Local Government Board, or in the Exchequer and Audit Department. In the Local Government Board a gentleman began his career at £200, rising by annual increments of £15 to £350. When he was promoted to the next class he received £400, rising by sums of £20 to £600. In the Exchequer and Audit Office a clerk began at £200 a year, rising by increments of £15 to £400. On promotion to the second class he received £420, rising by increments of £20 to £600; and in the class above he received £620, rising by increments of £20 to £750. So a gentleman of 37, instead of getting only £240, as at the British Museum, would get £440 in the Local Government Board and £420 in the Exchequer and Audit Office. In the second (1888) Report of the Commission, the recommendation was that the scale of pay at the Museum should be, for second-class assistants £200, rising by instalments of £20 to £500; in the first class £600, rising by increments of £25 to £800; and for the class above, £850, rising by increments of £50 to £1,000. That Report was signed by the present Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Sir M. W. Ridley, and Lords Lingen and Basing. It had, however, remained a dead letter. It was sometimes said that the Museum was a
    236
    patronage office, and that the salaries ought, therefore, not to be high; but it was no more a patronage office than the Foreign Office. At least three men were nominated for every vacancy, and they were probationers for two years. No first-class man who applied for a nomination ever failed to get one, and in the Museum there were no plums or pickings, such as private secretaryships. In consequence of the insignificant pay, it not infrequently happened that nominees withdrew when they became acquainted with the facts, and a considerable number of the best men left the Museum because they were not adequately remunerated. There was general discontent in the office, the officials' very moderate amount of bread being sweetened—or, rather, unsweetened—by a sense of injustice.
    *MR. HANBURYcontended that the grievance mentioned by his hon. Friend did not exist, because, if there was one department in the public service where posts were eagerly competed for it was the British Museum. There were always a number of candidates for the vacancies that occurred. The work in the British Museum was agreeable work, which led to promotion in other directions. The head of the National Portrait Gallery, for example, had recently been appointed from the Museum. His hon. Friend assumed that all the officials of the British Museum were doing the same kind of work as the principal division clerks in other departments, and that they had entered the service under the same rules and regulations as those clerks. The hon. Member was in error. He had been comparing the salaries of officials who only worked six hours a day with the salaries of clerks in other departments where the hours of work were seven. Then he was comparing the case of the Museum clerks with the case of officials in other departments, who had all entered the service after competition under Civil Service rules. The appointments in the British Museum were in the hands of the trustees, and the candidates were not bound to pass the examinations arranged by the Civil Service Commissioners. They were, in fact, in a separate department. In all the other departments the principal division was small in proportion to the lower divisions. In the British Museum

    237
    the opposite was the case. Some of these gentlemen, who were receiving comparatively high salaries, were doing work very little more important than that done in the lower divisions. No doubt they had offered to work for seven hours, but if the present number of hours could be increased, the staff being kept at its present strength, it followed that it ought to be reduced under the six hours arrangement. Applications of this kind had come from the British Museum at intervals since 1892, and the reply of the Treasury had invariably been that, if the Museum authorities would assimilate the arrangements affecting their staff to the ordinary arrangements in Government departments, and would sanction a reduction in their governing staff, the Treasury would consider the question of increasing the salaries. At present a great deal of clerical work was being done by highly paid officials. When the Museum should attempt to bring its arrangements into unison with the general rules of the Service, the Treasury would be ready to meet them. He wished to take this opportunity to explain that there had been no reduction this year in the Museum Vote, as some hon. Members had alleged. The unfortunate Treasury had been charged with cutting down the Votes for Science and Art and the British Museum. But what were the real facts? Hon. Members had compared the original Estimate of £22,000 for this year with the sum of £50,000 granted in 1895. The true comparison was with the original Estimate for 1895–96, which was £22,000 as now. The sum of £50,000, representing the total grants of 1895 for purchases, contained a supplementary sum of £28,000 granted in August last. Therefore the present Government had already granted an extra £28,000 for the Museum, and, as there was yet another supplementary Estimate of £6,000 for this year's purchases by that institution, they were in fact proposing to spend upon it £34,000 more than what he might call the normal £22,000 a year.
    MR. LOUGHsaid the complaint was that as much money had not been spent in objects of art this year as last year.
    *MR. HANBURYsaid that the amount allowed was above the average of past years.
    MR. LEWISsaid that while there were experts attached to the Museum in every branch of scientific and antiquarian research, there was no one who knew the value of the extremely important documents in the Welsh language in the British Museum. It was most extraordinary, in his opinion, that, in an institution of that kind, such an important section of the United Kingdom should not be represented at all. He hoped that some improvement would be effected in that respect.
    Resolution agreed to.
    14. "That a sum not exceeding £7,286, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary, to defray the Charge, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses and Grant in Aid of the National Gallery."
    15. "That a sum not exceeding £3,066, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Portrait Gallery."
    Resolutions agreed to.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1896–7.

    CLASS IV.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £595,922 (including a Supplementary sum of £4,125), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for Public Education in Scotland."
    MR. WHITEsaid he was very glad to see that generally politics had not much to do with Education in Scotland. They had Voluntary Schools, but they had no trouble with them He congratulated the Scotch Education Department on the Minute they had issued and the spirit and intention shown in it. It might

    239
    interest the House to know that a Committee was appointed by the Secondary and Technical Education Association of Scot land to consider the whole Question, and he had the honour of drafting the Report of that Committee, which was indorsed by the Association. The Report anticipated by six or eight months the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Secondary Education. The idea in the Minute of the Department appeared to be, to have two different bodies, the Borough and the County Committee, to administer Secondary Education, and he would like to know to what extent there had been any response to the spirit and intention of the Minute. He would like to ask how the Government were carrying out the Minute in the case of counties in which there were a great many police burghs. Then he would like to ask, because it was not stated in the Minute, whether the funds for secondary and technical education were to be kept apart, as they were now, al though they were distributed by the body. He specially put this matter of the distribution of the grant before the Lord Advocate for this reason, that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that in some of the towns in Scotland too much money was given, while on the other hand, in some of the rural districts too little was given. He hoped the Department might see their way so to distribute their money as to give it where it was most wanted. There was another matter he would like to mention which he did not think had been raised in the House before. It was with reference to the establishment of libraries in schools. He thought it should be made a condition in the Code that no school would be considered efficient which had not a library. He had started libraries of the kind in rural districts, in a number of small boroughs and in a large city, and the universal experience was that they had been a great success. The objections taken to establish these libraries were several. In the first place, objection was taken on the ground of cost. His experience was that in schools with an average attendance of from about 120 up to 1,200, a shilling per child was sufficient to adequately and effectively start a library; and its maintenance did not amount to more than 2d. per child per annum. When it was con-
    240
    sidered that £2 or £3 per child per annum was spent in education, this was an absolutely trivial matter. Another objection taken was that there were already free libraries, and plenty of cheap literature; but the value of a school library was in having it in the school. When the books were close at hand the children were induced to take them out. A further great advantage in school libraries was that the books were all most carefully selected. He would just give a few extracts from communications received from the head masters of schools to which he had given libraries, and he could endorse their views from his own general observation. Of the Longforgan School Library, which he started ten years ago, the schoolmaster wrote:—
    "For the year ending 31st December, 1895, we had 81 readers, and 640 volumes were taken out. The books most in demand were on travel and history. Such books as Kingsley's, where science and interesting narrative were combined, were very popular, and also Scott's novels.'
    The head master further added:—
    "I have much pleasure in again expressing my strong conviction of the beneficial effects of such school libraries. The regular readers are by far the most intelligent pupils, and I hope the time is not far distant when a small school library will become a universally recognised requisite, like the other conventional apparatus, such as maps, diagrams, etc."
    Another head master, in a small burgh school with an average attendance of about 200, wrote that the library
    "has been largely taken advantage of, the average issue per week being twenty volumes. Sometimes the parents apply for books. From an educational point of view the library is of the greatest importance. There is more reading, and it is a pleasure and a recreation, giving greater fluency and increased vocabulary. Increased intelligence is evidenced in the ordinary work of the classes. Through the volumes in the library the pupils get new interest in their school work. As we take elementary science as a class subject, my oldest pupils take books from which they read for this and gather information on the subject. I think the library has created a taste for reading."
    Another head master in a small burgh school, after a short trial, said:—
    "I note with the greatest satisfaction an appreciable improvement in the composition exercises, both in regard to range of thought and quality of diction. The library has created

    241
    a love for reading which did not formerly exist. It is helpful in preparing for unseen tests in reading. Many children who formerly attended school request, through their brothers and sisters who are present, the loan of particular books."
    In Dundee he started five school libraries of about 200 volumes each, the cost being about £20 per library. These libraries had been so much appreciated that the teachers and scholars, on their own initiative, had got up school concerts and other entertainments in order to get funds to buy more books. The head masters of these five Dundee Board schools were exceptionally high-class men, and their conjoint report was most valuable. He should give a few extracts from their first report, dated two or three years ago, which had lately been endorsed by individual letters from them, showing that the interest was more than kept up.
    "In thirty weeks 6,278 books were issued, of which 3,804 were works of fiction and adventure, 1,365 history and biography, and 1,009 physical science and natural history. Amongst the apparent benefits derived from the libraries are increased vocabulary, with a corresponding facility in the use of words and phrases; a widened interest, arising from increase of information, leading to habits of reading and thinking; greater opportunity of directing the tendencies of the pupils, due to the presence of suitable books in the schools, and a power which is concentrated in a collection of desirable literary material fit for supplementing the efforts of the teachers. The composition exercises of the older pupils have been much improved. The most omnivorous readers are the smartest at answering in school. The libraries have raised the general intelligence of the school, aided reading as an art, and been of service in the more mechanical drudgery of 'getting up' spelling. The libraries are of immense advantage to the various members of the staff. They have never been found of the slightest hindrance to the preparation of home lessons. Many parents take more active interest in their children's work, and participate in the luxury of a fascinating story or a popular scientific treatise. We are much pleased to have aided in this truly educational movement."
    In the recent confirmatory letters it was stated that—
    "There is still considerable difficulty, notwithstanding the addition of 50 volumes, in satisfying the children's demands. There are at least 210 pupils in attendance in our fifth and sixth standards, and of these 200 are regular readers. The parents of 67 of these pupils assist their children in selecting the books from the catalogues and frequently read the books themselves; 31 pupils have cards as members of the Dundee Free Library, 18 of whom have joined in the
    242
    present year; the reason chiefly given is that they wish to read hooks which are not to be found in the school library.' Another of the head masters writes:—'The intelligence of the classes is very much improved since the institution of our school library." Another says:—' The books of travel and adventure have greatly helped the geography lessons. The library has been a great boon.' Another says:—'Before the introduction of the school library we were much troubled with many of the pupils reading 'penny dreadfuls.' We could not put down the practice; the school library, however, has killed the 'penny dreadful,' and the pupils now store their minds with literature which will at least he wholesome and stimulating to the intellect."
    In this particular school they had more than doubled the number of books originally given. From some of the large School Boards in England he had received similar encouraging reports, many of them having libraries in each school. In Scotland there were only 341 school libraries. In France the Government had established 20,000 libraries within ten years. One of H.M. Inspectors wrote:—
    "I can testify to the great usefulness of school libraries in country districts. I helped in starting a number of them, and the invariable testimony has been that they have done much to improve the intelligence of the pupils and to foster in them a desire for reading. The tendency of this is to improve both the composition and the spelling of the schools. The cultivation of a habit of reading in the pupils before they leave school will also, I think, induce them to continue reading and improving themselves after they leave it, which will be a matter of great consequence to most of them."
    Another Inspector said:—
    "Wherever a school library exists and is properly used, improved intelligence, greater wealth of ideas, greater readiness and power of imagination, greater clearness and precision in reasoning, greater frankness and better manners are the result.' He added:—'The whole good of the institution is due to the fact of its being a school library. That the Free Library can be substituted is nonsense. On this point there are so many and so obvious objections that it would only weary you to point them out. … What is the use of teaching a child to read and then giving him nothing to read, or of teaching him composition without giving him ideas to compose? It is a case of asking bricks without giving straw.'"
    Dr. Kerr stated that the
    "Leith School Board have set an admirable example in supplying all their schools with the nucleus of a library and museum cases. Teachers and scholars have taken a keen interest in them, and they give musical entertainments for their

    243
    more complete equipment. Libraries are connected with several of the Edinburgh Board Schools. It is to be hoped that before long all will have them.' "
    Dr. Harris, the head of the Education Department in the United States said:—
    "When the time shall have come to pass that every child in the public schools shall have the privilege and encouragement of a school library, popular education will have taken a long step forward.' He further says:—'In my opinion, no better use can be made of the school money furnished by each of the States than in expending a small portion in the purchase of suitable reference and library books."
    Dr. Kerr stated that
    "The female candidates for the training colleges had confined their reading within too narrow a limit."
    He strongly urged the necessity, especially in the rural districts, of making provision for keeping the children at school during the most impressionable age.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he was inspired by the condition of the House to ask the Lord Advocate whether he would not give some undertaking that next year Scottish educational matters, at any rate, might be taken at a time when they might be discussed. At that moment his right hon. and learned Friend had only one supporter from Scotland on his side of the House; they on their side of the House were in the majority, as usual, on these questions, but it was a somewhat narrow one on this occasion. [Laughter.] No statement had been made on Scottish matters in that House, whereas on the English Education Estimates the programme was laid down for the year, and in Ireland there was a regular Board which had the supervision of education. Scottish educational matters were controlled very slightly by that House, and, by the very nature of its constitution, the Scottish Education Department had very much the character of a bureau, although no doubt it was controlled by a very able official. There was no direct representative of the Scottish Education Department in the House, and it must be admitted, therefore, that they were under a great disadvantage. The discussion of these Estimates was a farce under the circumstances in which they found themselves that afternoon,
    244
    although it might very well be that that was unavoidable on account of the state of public business and the management of business.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that if the House re-enacted the new Rules with regard to Supply, as he hoped they would, next Session, it would be the desire of the Government then, as it had been during the present Session, to meet as far as possible the wishes of all sections of the House. He thought that one advantange of the Rules would be that if there were Votes of importance which were not discussed this year they could be given special attention to next year, and certainly the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman would be carefully considered by the Government next year.
    MR. McLEODsaid there had been no attempt to so regulate the number of days given to the Estimates that Scotland would get its share of the time available. Scotland, up to the present, had not had two days devoted to its Estimates, while Ireland had had five days and England had had the balance. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Leith that they were under a great disadvantage in not having a direct representative of their Education Department in that House. Another disadvantage was that that Department was in London. The statement which had been made by the Lord Advocate on the previous night was short but pregnant, and he thought that Scotchmen could look with pride at the extraordinary advance which had been made in educational matters in Scotland, where the standard of education was already high. They had been progressing in many directions, there had been a very considerable increase in the average attendance, and they had also shown some progress in the direction of keeping the children at school for a longer period than in the past. With regard to the increase in the evening schools, he would venture to sound a note of warning. It was hardly credible how quickly the children forgot what had been taught them in the elementary schools, and it had been known that children who had passed the sixth standard had, when attending evening schools, to be instructed in the rudiments of the threee "R's." Therefore the increase in regard to the evening schools

    245
    was not altogether evidence of progress. The Lord Advocate had informed the Committee that only the small percentage of 2·91 of the scholars in Scotland were paying any fees. He thought that was a satisfactory statement; but there was a very serious objection to the system by which some of the children paid fees and others did not. They should at the earliest possible moment abolish fees in their schools in order that they might be able to say that their public schools were absolutely free. In the matter of agricultural education he recognised that the Education Department had it transferred to them only recently; but it would seem that nothing like sufficient attention was given to the subject. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Forfar, that practical teaching in agriculture was likely not only to be more popular, but more advantageous than theoretical teaching. He knew there were some difficulties in the way of practical teaching, such as the want of teachers, and the cost; but considering the enormous strides that were being made by other countries in the matter of agriculture, they in Scotland ought to be spending much more on agricultural training than was provided in the Estimates. The question of the teachers' pensions was very important. He was glad to observe that there was a small increase in the amount given by the Department for that purpose. If the Department only knew the enormous amount of assistance given, and the amount of gratitude evoked even by that paltry sum, he was sure they would be the first to deal drastically with the matter. The teachers had been far too long suffering. The present position of a teacher in Scotland was that under the present system of things he had all the disabilities of the Civil Service, and not a single one of its advantages. Those who carried on the important work of education ought to have some provision made for them in their old age. In Scotland they had the School Board in every parish; then the county and borough committees; and the County Councils, which administered certain amounts for technical education—besides the Society for the promotion of Christian Knowledge, and he was afraid this multiplication of education authorities would lead to a considerable amount
    246
    of friction. It would therefore be well for the Education Department not to congratulate themselves too soon on the results of the system. He would end where he began, and say that they had every reason to feel proud of their education system in Scotland; and if the Education Department was only brought more clearly into touch with the people, it would be convenient to all concerned. In regard to the Highands and Islands of Scotland, there was a general feeling in Scotland that the Department had recognised, more than they were prepared to do some years ago, that it was necessary to take into account the peculiar idio-syncracies of those districts. He was glad to see that, though the amount of Gaelic taught was not so large owing to the pressure of other subjects, the Department, by the appointment of assistant inspectors and teachers, recognised the fact that if a child were born of Gaelic speaking people, it was the greatest absurdity to put it to school with a teacher that know nothing of its mother tongue.
    MR. J. CALDWELLcomplained of want of statistics as regarded all schools—State-aided and non-State-aided. There should be no difficulty, because every School Board was bound to see that every child of school age was attending. That presupposed knowledge whether and where it was at school. The information would be most valuable. There had always been a difficulty in getting the Department to consent to a return of the kind. As regarded the Report of the Department and the Lord Advocate's statement, undoubtedly an improvement in results was shown this year. The Government grant had increased by 3½d., and stood now at £1 1s. 4¼d. This, no doubt, was largely due to increased expenditure. "Maintenance per child" had increased by 1s. 3¾d., and stood in Board Schools at £2 9s. 2¾d. The increased expenditure was not all borne by the rates, because the fee grant to the schools had increased from 11s. 4½d. to 12s., an increase of 7½d. It was gratifying that they had an increase of educational value in the increased Government grant which was a justification for the increased expenditure. It was also satisfactory to find that the average attendance had increased by 1·39 per cent. as against ·8 in the increase of population. The

    247
    inspectors' reports as to organisation and discipline also showed an improvement. He fully recognised educational progress in Scotland, but there was another side to the matter. There was an increase in the numbers of children between 13 and 15 years of age and upwards attending school, and yet the educational results were not commensurate. There was an extraordinary increase in the number of children in the infant department—74,841, against 70,016 in the previous year. There were too many children in this department who were retained instead of being pushed forward. Pecuniarily it was to the advantage of a school to retain children as long as possible in the infant departments as they got more money for them. As it was not compulsory that a standard a year should be passed they found that the school age was being prolonged. Dr. Kerr, in his general report for the southern division, said:
    "If something is not done to cheek the present backward drift as regards relation between age and standard of attainment, we shall, within a year or two, have a very considerable number of children legally leaving school before they pass the fifth standard, because they have, prior to that age, reached 14, the age of exemption."
    So that while the age of attendance at school was increasing the children were not making educational progress. Comparing 1889 with 1894, he found the children were of an older age in every one of the standards, and comparing 1894 with 1895, he found the same results. Close on 40,000 children in the second standard were upwards of 11 years of age. Formerly their system of grants was "payment by results," and no child could be presented a second time in the same standard. But now there was an "average" system, and there was no guarantee that the child was pushed on to the next standard. It was expected to pass a standard a year, but there was no compulsion in the matter, and the result was it was to the interest of the School Board, pecuniarily, to retain children as long as possible in an inferior standard, because they made more money by retarding the progress of education than if they got the child through the standard of exemption. Mr. Lobban, the inspector for the Inverness district, said:
    "For the last year or two I have had to keep a watchful eye on the undoubted tendency to
    248
    retain children in classes disproportioned not only to their age, but also to their general attainments. It is no uncommon thing to find that from 20 to 30 per cent. of the so-called infants are over nine years of age. At the recent inspection of a large school, which was not visited last year, I found that close upon 40 per cent. of the children in the second standard were upwards of 11 years."
    It was no good shutting one's eyes to the fact. The old system of examination, payment by individual results, allowing children to be not twice presented in the same standard, kept the children on the move forward. The new system of examination offered a premium to keep children back. More money was obtained, as payment was largely on the average attendance, and the longer children were kept at school the more money made. Keeping children in the lower standard would make the classes show increased intelligence and earn "excellent" grant more easily. Teachers followed the direction of the money. Hence an increased "excellent" grant was counterbalanced by the increasing age of the children, and the undoubted drift to prolong children in the lower standard. A word or two as to the training colleges. These were supplied from the pupil teachers, but there had been a decrease of male students and an increase of female students. The inspectors complained of a great want of sufficient trained teachers and a large surplus of untrained teachers. Dr. Ogilvie in his Report for 1895 for the western district, which represented one of the best educational centres, said:—
    "It is to be regretted that the inadequacy of the supply through these channels (the training colleges), loaves an open door for the increasing contingent of so-called acting teachers. The growing preponderance of the untrained element is getting to be a matter of serious moment."
    When they considered the enormou sums of money that were paid for education between the local and Imperial taxpayers in Scotland—amounting to about £2,000,000 a year—it must be obvious that the efficiency of the schools largely depended upon the training and efficiency of the teachers. They ought, therefore, to have great regard as to how the teachers were trained. The cost of the Scotch Training Colleges amounted to

    249
    £46,000 a year, a very small sum compared with the £2,000,000 spent upon education, and everyone must admit that education could not possibly give the best results unless they got it through properly trained and efficient teachers. The training colleges were supported almost entirely by a grant of the Treasury of £34,675, which was borne upon the Estimates and by the fees of the students. There were denominational training colleges at the present moment. Three belonged to the Church of Scotland, three to the Free Church, one to the Episcopalian and one to the Roman Catholic denominations, and they were paid Government money for training and supplying teachers, the churches not contributing a single penny to the support of the colleges. He contended that, seeing they had in Scotland practically a national system of education paid for heavily out of Imperial and local money, they should have efficient national training colleges under the State, and should not be at the mercy of denominations either as regarded the carrying on of the work or the school buildings. The training college buildings were very small, and the result was that they were not able to teach the requisite number of students who passed their examinations and who were qualified to enter the colleges. He did not expect that the present Government would do anything in the way of providing national training colleges—they would prefer to preserve the present denominational system, and he would not, therefore, argue which was the better. He recognised that the change in the date of the examination for certificates from December to July had proved advantageous, the students getting the full benefit of a session's attendance at the University. Since permission had been given to female students to attend the University the number had increased from 32 in 1894 to 97 in 1895. Complaints, however, were made of the date fixed for admission into the training colleges. The examination took place in December, but the students were not admitted until the following September or October, an interval of nine months. If they continued in this interval as pupil teachers, they were overburdened with work at the school, and they did not take any further interest in their studies as they had passed their examination It would be
    250
    much better if the examination was fixed at a later period, so that the students might take advantage of the Easter Recess when the training colleges could have an examination. The pupil teacher might continue in the school until the July holiday before he entered the training college, and there would not then be the long period of nine months interval, which was a great temptation to the pupil teacher to idle away his time or engage in other work. He advocated a change in the date of the entrance examination with a view to securing continuity in education. With regard to the evening schools, the Lord Advocate had given them some very gratifying statistics. Whilst not at ail desiring to cry down the benefit of such schools—to which he wished every success—he believed the results were over-stated. Dr. Stewart, in his general Report for 1895, dealing with the evening schools in the northern division, said:—
    "The schools are as far as ever from realising the original intention, and in many cases the laxity of the managers in allowing them to he farmed, and in neglecting the proper supervision of registration, has placed temptations in the way of the unscrupulous, not merely to falsify registers, but to teach the easiest and least useful subjects for the purpose of earning as much money as possible."
    Of course he did not say that that was a general description of the evening schools throughout Scotland. The inspectors in other divisions reported more favourably. Still Dr. Stewart's Report was a correct description of a great deal that was going on with regard to evening schools, so that the large numbers read out by the Lord Advocate as attending evening teachers were subject to a considerable discount. Turning to the question of the fee grant, he observed that the right hon. Member for Sutherlandshire had said the Educational Department were to be congratulated on the fact of having converted the Treasury to the view of giving a fee grant of 10s. per head. In 1889, he himself argued in favour of this view with the Government of the day, but the First Lord of the Admiralty, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said the rate must be based on the basis of an equivalent grant of eleven-eightieths for Scotland, and he refused to give effect to the principle the Scotch Members

    251
    contended for. At that time such a principle would have given more money to Scotland, and the Treasury had only assented to it this year because the system of 10s. per head would give something like £6,000 less to Scotland than would the former method of calculation. He inquired of the Lord Advocate what steps had been taken to get back the arrears of the fee grant amounting to £30,000, and suggested that the Secretary to the Treasury should utilise the time between then and Monday to prepare a supplemental Estimate for this amount. There was another matter which had been going on for many years in Scotland in regard to certain schools. According to the Education Act of 1872, in Scotland no school could get a Government grant unless such school was required in the locality, "regard being had to the religious belief of the parents." In the case of the Dunehatton School, the Education Department had sanctioned a grant to an Episcopalian school, which at the time had only the children of two Episcopalian families in attendance. The Department regarded that as a proper interpretation of the Act, that the school was required in the locality, regard being had to the religious belief of the parents. In Scotland they had always recognised a difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants, but they did not make any distinction as to Episcopalians. In the case to which he referred, however, the Education Department had set up this distinction so that a grant might be given to a school attended by the children of two families. Tins school had been put down there for proselytising purposes. It had been a source of universal agitation and annoyance in the locality, and for the sake of one family—for the other family were the teachers—it also went in and competed with a school which was deprived of the benefit of the money which might go to the education of the children attending the Board school. For years
    252
    the School Board had been fighting the Education Department. They had resigned time after time, and they had been re-elected time after time, and the whole district had been going on agitating, and yet the Department insisted on keeping that school up there and maintaining a source of annoyance to the neighbourhood. They were disturbing the whole educational machinery for a paltry thing of that kind. The School Board was re-elected again only the other day. They put up some of the landed people in the district, but the old School Board was elected by a large majority. That should put an end to this.
    MR. VESEY KNOXsaid there was no doubt that a sum of £30,000 was wrongfully kept back from Scotland in past years. Whatever case the Treasury might be able to make out against the Irish National Board for not having applied for more money, and for having been guilty of some laches, he believed there could be no such case made against the Scotch Education Department. The Scotch Education Department in every year asked for the largest sum which they could ask for—namely, eleventh-eightieths of the sum which England got the previous year. But they were unable to know what England was going to get for the current year, and consequently they were always a year behind, and in the result they received £30,000 less than they ought to have received. He could not see on what principle the Treasury could defend that. In the case of Ireland, though they had not given them the money, they had admitted the principle, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he regarded this sum as a debt due from the Treasury to Irish Education. He imagined it would, at this period of the Session, satisfy his Scotch friends if they were told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer also regarded this £30,000 as a debt due from the Treasury to Scotch Education. There was another point,

    253
    and that was the £6,000 a year of which Scotland had been deprived by the adoption of the new system. He thought that, to prevent misunderstanding in the future, it would be desirable if they had a statement as to who really did originate this notion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated to the House that the Scotch Education Department had revived this proposal, but the information which had reached him was not quite the same. That information was to the effect that the Scotch Education Department made this suggestion years ago, when it would have given some benefit to Scotland, that they did not accept the suggestion, and that the Treasury now took up the idea of reverting back to the old suggestion when it was to the disadvantage of Scotland. If that was so, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had cast an unmerited slur on the Education Department. It seemed to be just and clear, that if England initiated a principle on which these grants were to be divided because it was to the advantage of England, she ought to stick to the bargain now, even although it had not been in the long run to her advantage. His hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland had stated that in his opinion there was no religious difficulty in the education of Scotland. In his opinion the grievance under the Catholics which Scotland suffered was a very grave one. The Catholics formed 10 per cent. of the population. They contributed to schools in which the Presbyterian religion was taught, and in which there was no pretence that it was undenominational teaching as in the Board Schools. That was a much more grievous injustice than was the injustice of the Establishment, and until that grievance was remedied it could not be said that there was no religious difficulty in dealing with Scotch education. Many poor people from the part of Ireland he represented had gone to Scotland, and he knew their intellectual and social growth had been stunted by
    254
    the fact that the education which they got in the Catholic schools was not as efficient as the education which was supplied out of the rates—paid for by them as well as others—in the Board Schools.
    MR. J. H. DALZIELasked the Lord Advocate if the Department had done anything to carry out the promise made last year with regard to the charge for books in schools. This was a serious question for working people in Scotland who might move from one parish to another. He hoped the Lord Advocate would be able to tell him that all charges for books had been abolished. He also hoped the Department was doing all it could to employ Scotch inspectors. He had had a representation from the teachers in which they complained that when there were vacancies in the inspectorate the appointments were given to Englishmen from Oxford and Cambridge instead of to Scotchmen.
    *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire)said the hon. Member for Forfarshire had asked what had been the response to the new minute regarding secondary schools and what advantage had been taken of the proposals therein contained. The response had been this—that 21 Committees out of a total of 33 had taken advantage of the offer, and the contributions amounted to something between £4,000 and £5,000. They were made by nine County Councils, 14 burghs, and 21 police burghs. The hon. Member also asked whether the money for technical education was to be kept separate from that devoted to secondary education. That was so. Under the regulations, money which was offered by County Councils and burghs out of their technical education funds was bound to be spent by the Committees on the purposes of technical education and not diverted to any other branch of secondary education. The next question was as to the method of distribution.

    255
    The Education Department had not altogether had a free hand there, because that House had very largely taken charge of that matter. By the original minute of the 11th of August 1892, the money available was to be distributed on the principle that the amount earned by each school should be determined mainly by the work done in that school, and the schools which were entitled to share in that money were to be selected by the Burgh Committee. There was a special Committee appointed to report upon that minute, and they practically reported in entire accordance with the minute. A new minute was issued on the 31st of January 1893, resting on the same principles and differing only in details. That minute, however, after Parliamentary discussion, was abandoned for one under which a proportionate amount was allotted to each burgh or county Committee, to be distributed according to a scheme drawn up for the approval of the Department by each burgh or county Committee. Accordingly the Education Department, having regard to the importance of continuity of administration, had not proposed any reversal of that system and had endeavoured to preserve it. The answer, therefore, was that it was distributed according to population. The hon. Member also asked whether there was any probability of legislation upon this subject. The whole subject would be very carefully considered by the Education Department during this autumn, and the question of whether legislation was necessary was one upon which they would make up their minds when they reviewed the whole situation. On the question of libraries the Council were in general sympathy with many of the remarks of the hon. Member. As a matter of fact, already there had been a good many schools in which payment had been sanctioned for libraries. Out of 3,000 schools there were libraries in 400. It was a long step between encouraging the giving of books and going the full length of making it compulsory that every school should have a library. The matter was a large one, but the hon. Member must not think that the attitude of the Department was at all hostile to the view the hon. Gentleman had expressed. In regard to the secondary schools, the Department
    256
    recognised that they could not take credit altogether for the numbers attending the secondary schools, because probably they were to a certain extent at the expense of the day schools. Still, there had been a considerable improvement even after discounting anything in that way, but there was no desire to overrate the progress which had been made. As regarded the remarks upon the necessity of stimulating utilisation of educational advantages, he would remind the hon. Gentleman of a paragraph in the Report which dealt with a kindred matter. It said:—
    "In connection with this they desire to call attention to the good done by the National Home Reading Union, which has done much to perpetuate the work of the schools by the lending library."
    The hon. Member for Sutherland spoke about fee-paying schools. There were not a great number of them in the country, but the Department still thought they were a great help in the long run to the poorer children. Fees were charged in the lower standards, so that free education was enabled to be provided to those who needed it in subjects which they otherwise could not get. No doubt attention would be paid to the remarks of the hon. Member in regard to agricultural education, but it was too soon to say anything about that as the transference had only been made to the Department, who had scarcely got the matter properly in hand. As to teachers' pensions, they were making endeavours in that direction, endeavours which, so far as they had gone, had been successful. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark asked whether additional statistics could not be obtained about non-aided schools. In places like Glasgow that might be easy enough, but there was great difficulty in dealing with the whole country. There was, however, a Return being made up dealing with the whole question of school supply, and that Return would represent the sum total of the information which the Department could get without superhuman efforts. Then the hon. Member called attention to the increasing number of children being kept in the infant department, and he said the schools had a pecuniary interest in doing so, because they got 1s. extra grant. The hon. Gentleman instanced

    257
    the inordinate numbers in Glasgow, but he was confounding infants and infant departments. There was no infant department in Glasgow. Besides that, the hon. Member forgot that a child never paid a School Board, as it had to be paid for over and above the grant. In regard to examinations, it was one of the instructions of the Department to inspectors that in giving a school a certificate of fair or excellent they were to keep in view whether, according to their experience, there was an abnormal number of children kept in the lower standards. No doubt there had been a falling off in the number of male students in the training colleges, and the Education Department was very sorry for it, but they were not altogether responsible. The profession, for the nonce, did not seem to be so popular as it used to be. Lately there had been an attempt, which had not been yet fully developed in its results, to associate the universities in this matter, and allowing students to enter through the universities as well as through the training colleges. In regard to the fee-grant, the Education Department on this matter were with the hon. Member. The Education Department had always held that they ought to get eleven-eightieths. In years to come he hoped they might revert to their old position, and that they would get more under the 10s. grant than if calculated under the eleven-eightieths. In regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Londonderry, he could not say more than what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day, which was that Scotland would be treated upon the same principle as Ireland, and that the money would be made good. The precise way in which it might be made good he did not know.
    Original question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

LARCENY BILL [H.L.]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. GRANT LAWSON in the Chair].
Clause 1,—

LARCENY BILL [H.L.]

  PUNISHMENT FOR RECEIPT OR POSSESSION OF PROPERTY STOLEN ABROAD.
  (1.) If any person receives, or has in his possession, any property knowing it to have been stolen outside the United Kingdom, he shall be liable to penal servitude for any term not less than three years and not more than seven years, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour, and may be indicted in any county or place in which he has or has had the property.
  (2.) For the purposes of this section property shall be deemed to have been stolen where it has been taken, extorted, obtained, embezzled, converted, or disposed of, under such circumstances that, if the Act had been committed in the United Kingdom, the person committing it would have been guilty of an offence according to the law for the time being of the United Kingdom.
  (3.) An offence under this section shall be a felony or misdemeanour according as the act committed outside the United Kingdom would have been a felony or misdemeanor if committed within the United Kingdom.
  (4.) This section shall be construed and have effect as part of the Larceny Act, 1861.
  MR. PICKERSGILLmoved in Sub-section (1), after the words "If any person," to insert the words "without lawful excuse,"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALassured the hon. Member that the words were unnecessary.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. PICKERSGILLmoved in Subsection (1) after the word "kingdom," to insert the words "knowing such property to have been stolen."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. PICKERSGILLmoved in Subsection (2) to leave out the word "offence," and to insert instead thereof the words "extradition crime."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. PICKERSGILLmoved in Subsection (3) to leave out the words "within the United Kingdom," and to insert instead thereof the words "in England or Ireland."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2,—

  SHORT TITLE.
  "This Act may be cited as the Larceny Act, 1896, and the Larceny Act, 1861, and this Act may be cited together as the Larceny Act, 1861 and" 1896.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

VEXATIONS ACTIONS BILL [H.L.]
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it was to put an end to an abuse which had been going on for some years. Certain persons went from Court to Court issuing vexatious process against the Lord Chancellor, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and other public men. The Bill provided that if a person did this habitually the Court might, on the authority of the Attorney General, make an order to restrain the proceedings.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that no doubt a great abuse existed, but it was connected with one person, who would not live for ever. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL, "No, not only one person."] It was a strong order to restrict the right of the subject to bring actions, and he suggested that the operation of the Bill should be restricted to five years, and that after that, if it were desirable, the Act should be renewed in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
MR. LEWISsupported the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERALsaid that he could not promise to accept the suggestion, but he would consider it before Report.
Bill read a Second time, and committed for Monday.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. GRANT LAWSON in the Chair.]
Clause 1,—

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

  CONTINUANCE OF ACTS IN SCHEDULE.
  (1.) The Acts mentioned in Part I. of the Schedule to this Act shall, to the extent specified
  260
  in column three of that Schedule, be continued until the thirty-first day of December One thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven, and shall then expire, unless further continued.
  (2.) The Act mentioned in Part II. of the Schedule to this Act shall, to the extent specified in column three of that Schedule, be continued until the thirty-first day of March One thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, and shall then expire, unless further continued.
  (3.) Any unrepealed enactments amending or affecting the enactments continued by this Act shall, in so far as they are contemporary in their duration, be continued in like manner, whether they are mentioned in the Schedule to this Act or not.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Government to state their intentions with regard to the Arms Act. Ireland was absolutely quiet now, and there could not be a better opportunity of dropping the Act. If the Government would not do that, let them say that if Ireland was as peaceful next year as it was now they would then drop the Act.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that he could not undertake to give that pledge. Ireland was, no doubt, extremely peaceful now, but the Act was useful as a measure of police regulation, and might be more useful in the future. The late Government retained the Act for that purpose; it caused no inconvenience to anybody; and the circumstances of Ireland were in many respects peculiar. At certain periods of the year there was a liability to disturbances and to conflicts between crowds, and it was desirable to place a restriction on the possession of arms. Although moonlighting was not now so common in Ireland as it had been, it still continued to some extent, and, although agrarian crimes had greatly diminished in number, the cases of firing into dwellings were still more frequent that they ought to be.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON)thought that this question had better be raised on the Schedule.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2,—

  SHORT TITLE.
  This Act may be cited as the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1896.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill

  SCHEDULE.

  PART I.

  1. Session and Chapter.

  2. Short Title

  3. How far continued.

  4. Amending Acts.

  (1.) 5 & 6 Will. 4 c. 27.

  The Linen Manufactures (Ireland) Act 1835.

  The whole Act

  3 & 4 Vict. c. 91

  5 & 6 Vict. c. 68

  7 & 8 Vict. c. 47.

  30 & 31 Vict. c. 60

  (2.) 3 & 4 Vict. c. 89

  The Poor Rate Exemption Act 1840.

  The whole Act.

  —

  (3.) 4 & 5 Vict. c. 30

  The Ordnance Survey Act 1841.

  The whole Act

  33 Vict. c. 13.

  47 & 48 Vict. c. 43

  52 & 53 Vict. c. 30

  (4.) 10 & 11 Vict. c. 98.

  The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act 1847.

  As to the provisions continued by 21 & 22 Vict. c. 50.

  —

  (5.) 11 & 12 Vict. c. 32.

  The County Cess (Ireland) Act, 1848.

  The whole Act

  20 & 21 Vict. c 7.

  (6.) 14 & 15 Vict. c. 104.

  The Episcopal and Capitular Estates Act 1851.

  The whole Act

  17 & 18 Vict. c. 16

  21 & 22 Vict. c. 94.

  22 & 23 Vict. c. 46.

  23 & 24 Vict. c. 124.

  31 & 32 Vict. c. 114. s. 10.

  (7.) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102.

  The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act 1854.

  So much as is continued by the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883.

  26 & 27 Vict. c. 29. s. 6.

  31 & 32 Vict. c. 125.

  46 & 47 Vict. c. 51.

  (8.) 23 & 24 Vict. c. 19.

  The Labourers (Ireland) Act 1860.

  The whole Act

  —

  (9.) 24 & 25 Vict. c. 109.

  The Salmon Fishery Act 1861

  As to the appointment of inspectors, s. 31.

  49 & 50 Vict. c. 39. s. 3.

  55 & 56 Vict. c. 50.

  (10.) 26 & 27 Vict. c. 105.

  The Promissory Notes Act 1863.

  The whole Act

  45 & 46 Vict. c. 61.

  (11.) 27 & 28 Vict. c. 20.

  The Promissory Notes (Ireland) Act 1864.

  The whole Act.

  —

  (12.) 28 & 29 Vict. c. 46.

  The Militia (Ballot Suspension) Act 1865.

  The whole Act

  45 & 46 Vict. c. 49.

  MR. T. M. HEALYmoved to leave out from "(26) 44 and 45 Vic., c. 5," to "50 and 51 Vic., c 20." It was impossible properly to discuss the question on a Saturday at that period of the Session, but in another year the question would be raised as a whole. The Orange party were never prevented from possessing arms by this Act; it was never enforced against them. And if firing into dwellings still continued it was obvious that the Act was useless for its purpose. It was impossible to prevent people from possessing arms. He would say to the Government as a whole that, even if they maintained the necessity for the Act, the question required more stringent investigation than the right hon. Gentleman had given to it.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONdenied the statement that the Orange party in Ireland carried firearms.
  MR. JOHN DILLONsaid that what the hon. Member for North Louth had stated was perfectly true. It was perfectly notorious that the Orange party were allowed to keep their arms to a considerable extent, and it was too bad that the proceedings of the Orange party, which were a disgrace to the country, should be made the ground
  268
  for depriving the peaceable inhabitants of the right to carry arms. The Act did not prevent riotous Orangemen, moonlighters, and emergency men from carrying arms to their hearts' content.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes, 16.—(Division List, No. 398.)
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(First Lord of the Treasury)—put and agreed to.
The House adjourned accordingly, at Seven o'clock till Monday next.