Sitting of 15 June 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
Dundee, Broughty Ferry, and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill; Leith Burgh Order Confirmation Bill; Motherwell and Bellshill Railway (Abandonment) Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
Llanelly Harbour Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
Mr. TENNANTreported from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Friday, at half-past Eleven o'clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition for alteration; from Kilsyth; Kirriemuir; and Lintrathen; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Abbey Town; Aberdeen (four); Aikton; Alne; Aston; Auchinleck; Axminster; Ballast Hills; Balne: Barrow-in-Furness (two); Bed-minster (two); Belper; Berwick; Birmingham; Bourne; Bridgford; Burhos; Burmantofts; Butterknowle; Cannock Wood; Carlisle; Carmarthen West; Caw-thorne; Cheetham (two); Cheetham Hill; Chorlton-upon-Medlock; Cockermouth; Colyton; Cradley Heath; Crewe (four); Crookes (two); Cullompton; Cwmsyfiog; Dodsgreen; Dumfries and Maxwelltown: Durham; Easingwold; East Finchley (three); Ecclesall; Egborough; Elm-scott; Etherley; Even wood; Finchley; Fiskerton; Flimby; Folkestone (two); Forest Gate; Frodsham; Frome; Garlinge; Gowdall; Gravenhurst; Gweek; Hackney; Halesowen and Hasbury; Hanley; Harefield; Hartlepool; Haswell; Heck; Heddon and districts; Hednesford (two); Hensall; Heptonstall; Hindley Green; Hollyhurst; Husthwaite; Ipswich; Islington; Kilmarnock (two); Kingston-on-Thames; Kingston-upon-Hull; Lands; Leeds (four); Leicestershire; Leigh; Lightwood Green; Littleton Panel; Liverpool (two); Longsight; Low Moor (two); Ludworth; Luton (three); Lyminge; Malpas; Manchester (two); Manea; Marden; Maryport; Meddon; Middleton-in-Teesdale; Monton; Mosbro; Mutley; Newark; New-biggin; Newcastle-on-Tyne(six); New Mills and other places; Newsham; Norbury (Cheshire); Normansheath; North West Manchester; Oswaldwistle; Otterton; Oulston and Craike; Oxenhope; Paisley; Piccadilly (seven); Plymouth; Pollington; Preston Brook and Runcorn; Quarry Hill; Rawcliffe; Rochdale (two); Runcorn; Sandgate; Sanquhar; Serforth; Selly Oak; Sessacott; Sheffield (two); Shillington; Snaith; Southport (two); Stamford; Stretford; Sutton-on-Forest; Swansea (two); Swinton; Thornton Heath; Thornton-le-Clay; Thurlby; Tilston; Tiverton; Todmorden; Totterdown; Tunstall; United Free Church of Scotland; Wakefield; Walbottle; Walkden; Waterloo; West Auckland; Wigan(three); Winchmore Hill; Wing; Wisbech (two); and Wyke to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Aitken; Alcester; Kensington; Llanelly; Mutford and Lothingland; Swansea; and Wigton; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions for extension to Scotland; from Castle Douglas; Dalbeattie; and Kirkcudbright; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petition from Edgbaston, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS (EXTENSION) BILL.
  Petition from Westminster, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from West Ham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Bradford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1898.
  Copy presented, of Return showing the Total Payments into and out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account for the financial year 1903–4 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS(ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3185 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series,
  128
  No. 613 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Public Records (Office of His Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues), Copy of Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents in the Office of His Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Poor Law Children in the Metropolis.
  SIR ERNEST FLOWER (Bradford, W.): To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of children at present accommodated in metropolitan district and separate Poor Law schools, metropolitan workhouses, and metropolitan infirmaries, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The numbers on the 4th instant were as follows:—

  In district and separate schools (including 827 in scattered homes and 278 in separate receiving homes)

  10,902

  In workhouses

  1,342

  In infirmaries

  1,980

  Village Communities for Poor Law Children.
  SIR JOHN GORST: To ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the total outlay for the purchase of sites, the erection of buildings, and furnishing, respectively, incurred by boards of guardians in the establishment of village

  129
  communities for Poor Law children since the year 1897.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am not in a position to state the total outlay since the year 1897 incurred by boards of guardians in respect of the several matters referred to. The expenditure, however, authorised by the Local Government Board since that date for the purchase of sites for grouped cottage homes amounts to £129,004. In two cases the guardians have not proceeded further with their proposals, and in one case the amount sanctioned is inclusive of buildings, etc. The sums authorised during the same period in respect of buildings and furnishing are £912,464 and £32,013, respectively; but in two cases the sums sanctioned for buildings are inclusive of furnishing.

  Publication of List of Deaths by Registrars.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will communicate with the Registrar-General with a view to the issue of an order to the registrars of births and deaths to place every week in a convenient position in their offices, accessible to the public, a list of deaths registered by them with the date of death in each case, but not specifying the causes of death, so that the public may be informed of the names of persons whose deaths are registered in each registration district.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have communicated with the Registrar-General on this subject, and I find that it would not be practicable to give effect to the suggestion of the hon. Member apart from any question of the expediency of so doing.

  Young Children in Industrial Schools.
  SIR JOHN GORST: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of children under nine years old
  130
  now in industrial schools; the number of children under that age who have been committed during the last ten years to industrial schools; the average annual cost of maintaining a child in an industrial school; and the portion of such cost defrayed by public funds, private charity, and the profits of the child's labour, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I cannot give the number of children under nine years of age now in industrial schools without an elaborate scrutiny of books and forms which it will take a considerable time to carry out. Perhaps it will serve my right hon. friend's purpose if I give the figures of committals during the last ten years in respect of children under eight and between eight and ten years.
  Number of children committed to Industrial Schools.

  Year.

  Under 8 years of age.

  Over 8 and under 10 years of age.

  1893

  345

  695

  1894

  353

  658

  1895

  339

  656

  1896

  396

  729

  1897

  415

  708

  1898

  374

  648

  1899

  292

  609

  1900

  298

  568

  1901

  315

  592

  1902

  313

  576

  The gross average annual cost of a child committed to an industrial school (including the cost of disposing of the child on discharge) is £22 1s. 8d. Of this cost public funds defray £18 6s., private charity £1 11s. 6d., and profits of child's labour £1 4s. 6d.

  Import Duties on Unmanufactured Tobacco Abroad.
  MR. ROBSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the import duties levied on unmanufactured tobacco in France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Dominion of Canada, respectively; and what, in each case, is the difference

  County

  Tariff Classification

  Tariff rates of duty.

  English equivalents.

  France

  Tobacco, unmanufactured, in leaves or stalks—

  For the Regie

  Free

  Free

  For private account

  Importation prohibited

  Germany

  Tobacco, unmanufactured leaves and stalks

  Mks. Pfg.

  s.

  d.

  100 kilogs.

  85.00

  Pound

  0

  4½

  Belgium

  Unmanufactured tobacco—

  Frs. Cts.

  Stemmed

  100 kilogs.

  75.00

  Pound

  0

  3¼

  Other kinds, including stalks

  100 kilogs.

  55.00

  Pound

  0

  2½

  In addition to excise duty of

  100 kilogs.

  15.00

  Pound

  0

  0.65

  Holland

  In leaves and rolls—

  Fls. Cts.

  Unstemmed

  100 kilogs.

  0.70

  Pound

  0

  0.06

  stemmed

  100 kilogs.

  1.50

  Pound

  0

  0.14

  s.

  d.

  Australian

  Unmanufactured tobacco, stemmed and unstemmed

  Pound

  3

  3

  Pound

  3

  3

  Common-wealth

  Ditto entered to be locally manufactured into tobacco, cigars or cigarettes—to be paid at the time of removal to the factory

  Pound

  1

  6

  Pound

  1

  6

  Dominion of Canada

  Unmanufactured tobacco

  Free

  Free

  Unmanufactured tobecco imported is subject to the provisions of the Inland Revenue Act, and excise duty is charged thereon at the following rates when taken for use in licensed tobacco manufactories:—

  Not for use in making cigarettes:

  Dolls.

  Unstemmed leaf

  Pound

  0.30

  Pound

  1

  3

  Stemmed lead

  Pound

  0.42

  Pound

  1

  9

  For use in making cigarettes:

  Unstemmed leaf

  Pound

  0.47½

  Pound

  2

  0

  Stemmed leaf

  Pound

  0.67

  Pound

  2

  9½

  For use in a cigar factory:

  Unstemmed leaf

  Pound

  0.26

  Pound

  1

  1

  Stemmed leaf

  Pound

  0.37

  Pound

  1

  6½

  Accidents on Electric Railways Caused by Live Bails.
  MR. SOARES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the death of Patrick Flood, who was recently electrocuted on the Southport Railway through stepping on a live rail; whether he will grant a
  between the duty when the unmanufactured tobacco is imported in leaf, and the duty when it is imported in strips.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The following statement gives the tariff classification and rates of import duty on unmanufactured tobacco in the countries and Colonies mentioned:—
  Return of the number of accidents which have happened up to the present time of a similar nature; and what steps does he propose to take in order to prevent the happening of such accidents.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) A report of the accident has been rendered by the railway company. Two fatal and

  133
  two non-fatal accidents of this character have occurred on the railway mentioned. The sufferers in each case were trespassers on the line. I have ordered an inquiry into the causes of the accident.

  Nenagh Telephone Service.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General, with a view of having Nenagh connected with the telephone system of the United Kingdom, and in order to ascertain the information the Department requires, if he will state approximately the number of persons who would be required to rent exchange lines at Nenagh; and what is the ordinary tariff rate.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The ordinary rate of subscription for an unlimited local service on a Post Office provincial exchange is £7 10s. a year. On the message rate system the subscription is £3 a year, with a fee of 1d. for each local call originated by the subscriber. The minimum payment on account of the calls is £1 10s. a year. The number of subscribers required to justify an extension of the telephone trunk system to Nenagh must depend chiefly upon the cost of constructing and maintaining the line between Limerick and Nenagh. I am obtaining estimates for this work and will inform the hon. Member of the number required as soon as possible. An extension of the telephone trunk system to Nenagh could be carried oat at any time under a guarantee of about £145 a year for seven years.

  Strength of Militia and Volunteers—Percentage who volunteered for South Africa.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total enrolled strength of the Militia and Volunteer Forces, respectively, belonging to the United Kingdom on the 1st October, 1899; and what percentage of the enrolled strength of Militia and Volunteers, respectively, volunteered for service beyond the sea between that date and the 31st December following.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what number of Militia and Volunteer battalions, respectively, volunteered for service beyond the United
  134
  Kingdom between the outbreak and the close of the South African War.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The enrolled strength of the Militia on the 1st October, 1899, was 98,050; that of the Volunteers on the 1st November, 1899 (figures for the 1st October not being available), was 222,584. There are no records at the War Office which show the numbers of Militia or Volunteers who volunteered for service beyond the United Kingdom during the South African War. The Militia units which were sent abroad, all of which volunteered, were as follows:—

  68 Infantry battalions;

  6 companies, Royal Garrison Artillery;

  3 companies, Royal Engineers;

  2 sections, Royal Engineers;

  amounting to a force of 51,488 in all.
  The Volunteers who went to South Africa were composed of—

  The City Imperial Volunteers;

  1 battery of Artillery;

  38 sections, Royal Engineers;

  132 companies of Infantry and drafts;

  amounting to a force of 19,856 in all.

  Facilities for Men of the Leicestershire Regiment to Vote at Harborough Election.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the 3rd Battalion of the Leicestershire Regiment are now undergoing annual training at Edale, in North Derbyshire, as well as a number of the permanent staff of the regiment who are voters in the Harborough Division, in which an election is in progress; and whether he will cause arrangements to be made by which these men may have the opportunity of recording their votes without the expense of the railway journey falling on themselves.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) When an election takes place while a Militia regiment is out for training, any qualified to vote, who are desirous of doing so, may (in accordance with Section 39, Militia Act, 1882) be granted leave for the purpose with pay as may be absolutely necessary, and may travel at their own expense at Government rates. No departure can be made from this rule.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    The New Rifle at Bisley.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any opportunity will be given for the new rifle to be tried at Bisley this year.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT,): It is understood that the National Rifle Association, under whose auspices the rifle meeting at Bisley is held, will afford facilities for competing with the new rifle.

    Wages of Chinese Labourers in the Transvaal.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the minimum wage per head per month now being offered in the Transvaal to native labourers and to Chinese labourers indentured under the Transvaal Labour Ordinance.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I understand that the minimum wage for black labourers in the Transvaal mines is 45s. for men and 30s. or less for youths and boys per month of thirty working days. The minimum wages of Chinese under the Transvaal Labour Ordinance are shown in No. 53 of Cd. 2026 and the Papers referred to therein. Lord Milner informs me that he is well within the mark in his estimates of £2 10s. 0 as the average wage, and that the adoption of the schedule which has been inserted in the contract gives ample security that Chinese will earn present average Kaffir wage and will not be used to undercut the latter. Of course this is independent of the effect of piece-work, which will, Lord Milner believes, result in Chinese earning considerably more.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I asked the right hon. Gentleman to give me the minimum wage.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The, minimum average wage is 50s. for the Chinese. That is the provision I have impressed
    136
    on Lord Milner, and, as I have stated, he says that it is well within the mark as the average wage. That is independent of the effect of piece-work.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask what the right hon. Gentleman means by the minimum average wage; if it is the minimum it cannot be the average, and if it is the average it cannot be the minimum. Will the right hon. Gentleman state what the minimum wage is?
    MR. LYTTELTON: The minimum wage of Kaffirs is 45s. for men and 30s. or less for boys. The minimum wage for Chinese is 30s., which is the minimum wage for corresponding work done by Kaffirs.
    DR. MACNAMARA: As compared with 45s.?
    MR. LYTTELTON: No.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: These wages have been promulgated in the Transvaal. May we have a copy of what has appeared in the proclamation?
    MR. LYTTELTON: The wages appear in the form of contract.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Am I to understand that the minimum wage of the Kaffir is 45s. and the minimum wage of the Chinaman 30s.?
    MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir. The minimum wage of Kaffirs is 30s. But, as I have explained before, the system on which we have gone is this. Take 100 Chinamen and 100 Kaffirs doing work in the mines. If the 100 Chinamen earn on the average not less than is earned by the 100 Kaffirs, then the minimum wage would not come into effect at all. Our object is to prevent malingerers, or skulkers as they are called out there, from earning the 50s.; but, at the same time, the object we wish to attain is that the rate throughout should be not less than 50s.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Am I right in saying that among the 100 Kaffirs there would be included a large number of boys, or any boys at all?
    MR. LYTTELTON: Some of the work would be done by boys, I believe.
    MR. CROOKSMay we have a distinct answer to this—is the work to be day work or piece-work?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question on the Taper has been fully answered. If the hon. Member wants any further information he must put a Question on the Paper.
    MR. CROOKS: It is only on occasions of this sort that we can get information.

    Transvaal Finances.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: A few days a 50 the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary promised to lay Papers with regard to the condition of the finances of the Transvaal, and I beg to ask how soon we may expect to have them? Will it be in time for the debate on the Colonial Vote?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I hope the Papers will be ready next week but I am afraid I cannot give any pledge. I want to make them as complete as possible.

    Kimberley Census.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can furnish from the Cape Colony Census Returns the white population of the town of Kimberley for each of the last three years, including 1904, in which the census has been taken.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have not yet received the full Census Returns giving the white population of the town of Kimberley in 1904. The numbers for Kimberley District are 20,478. The numbers for the same district in 1891 were 20,306. The numbers for Kimberley Municipality were then 12,658. The previous Cape census of 1875 did not include Griqualand West, which was annexed in 1880.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: When may the result of the recent census be expected?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I think we ought to receive it very shortly.

    Transvaal Agreement with Portugal.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Transvaal Government in December, 1901, concluded a convention with the Portugese authorities, by which, as is alleged by the Cape and Natal Governments, a preference is given to goods entering the Transvaal by way of Delagoa Bay, as compared with goods entering by way of the Cape or Natal; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the convention and the communications from the Cape and Natal Governments on the subject.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I will lay the agreement concluded on 18th December, 1901, but I am not prepared at present to lay the correspondence, which is not complete.

    The Tibet Mission.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the approaching rainy season will prevent the keeping open of the 300 miles of communication with the Tibet Mission and that supplies cannot be drawn from the surrounding country, he will enter into direct diplomatic communication with the Chinese Government, who have accredited residents with escorts in all chief towns of inner Tibet.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRTCK,): I stated on Thursday last, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for North Manchester, the steps that have been taken to communicate with the Chinese Government and the Amban at Lhasa. It is not proposed to take any further steps at present.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless he communicates with the Chinese Government direct and asks them to give the Amban of Lhasa instructions, the Amban dare not meet the Mission?
    MR. WEIR: Is the Amban now at Lhasa?
    MR. BRODRICK: He was at Lhasa when we last held communication with him.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the officer in charge of our Mission is now on the Indian frontier, 300 miles from the Mission?
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: It is so.
    MR. PIRIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to the actual military situation at the present moment?
    [No answer was returned.]

    India and the Brussels Sugar Convention.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what is the instruction he has communicated to the Government of India with regard to its dealings with sugar; was that instruction due to any, and, if so, what, decision of the Brussels Permanent Sugar Commission; what were the arrangements which that instruction obliged the Indian Government to cancel at short notice; did their cancellation affect the levy by that Government of countervailing duties on all imports of sugar profiting by direct or indirect bounties in the country of production; and will he lay the terms of the instruction upon the Table of this House; do His Majesty's Government hold that they are under an obligation to impose upon the Indian Government, either by an instruction such as that in question or by any other method, decisions of the Brussels Permanent Sugar Commission.
    MR. BRODRICK: In November last the Government of India was instructed that, in respect of sugar coming from a country which in accordance with the Brussels Convention had reduced its surtax within the permissible limit, they should confine the duty countervailing the former excessive surtax to sugar produced before the surtax had been reduced, and should exempt sugar of the 1903–4 crop. (2). This decision was
    140
    taken after consulting the Law Officers and was not based on any finding of the Permanent Commission, but on the obligation of the Government of India to take off a countervailing duty when the bounty countervailed ceased to be operative. (3). The Government of India accordingly notified that instead of levying the special duties in question on all sugars up to 31st March, 1904, they would exempt new - crop sugars under certificate. (4). The sugar thus exempted could not be held to have profited by the bounty created by an excessive surtax. The decision does not affect the right of the Indian Government, to levy countervailing duties on bounty-fed sugar. (5). I do not propose to lay any Papers. (6). The answer to the last clause of the Question is in the negative.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the apparent contradiction in his answer? First he says that his instruction to the Indian Government was based on the decision of the Permanent Commission, and later on he said it had nothing to do with it.
    MR. BRODRICKwas understood to reply that the Indian Government were represented at the Brussels Convention and agreed to certain provisions, but it was not represented on the Permanent Commission.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The Indian Government has refused to be bound by the Convention, and nevertheless the right hon. Gentleman is imposing the decision of the Permanent Commission on it.
    MR. LOUGH: Is it not the fact that the Indian Government has refused to be bound by the decision of the Convention, and will the Government respect that determination.
    MR. BRODRICK: That affects the future and not the past.

    Port of London Bill—Cost of Promotion.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there are any

    141
    costs, charges, or expenses, preliminary and incidental to the preparing and applying for the passage of the Port of London Bill through the House of Commons, yet incurred by the Board of Trade; and, if so, what is the total amount of such expenses.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The expenditure incidental to preparing and applying for this Bill up to the present time amounts to a little over £4,000.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: In what Estimate will this be provided?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Under the Civil Contingencies Fund.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will it not appear on the Board of Trade Vote?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It will have to be repaid by the Board of Trade to the Fund.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: In what Vote is the Civil Contingencies Fund comprised?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Treasury Vote, I believe.

    Motor-Car Fatalities.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant a Return showing the number and nature of the casualties caused by motor-cars, in Great Britain and Ireland respectively, from 1st June, 1903, to 31st May, 1904.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I have no means of obtaining such a Return for the whole country; but I am making inquiries as to whether information on the point can be obtained for the Metropolitan Police District, where most, if not all, serious motor car accidents come to the notice of the police. If the figures can be compiled, I shall be glad to supply them to the hon. Member.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask whether any record is kept of the persons killed or injured by these infernal machines?
    [No answer was returned.]
    MR. SOARES: Do we understand that the right hon. Gentleman will not give a Return?
    ٭ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I do not think the hon. Member can infer anything of the sort from my answer. I have explained that I shall be prepared to give any information which comes into my possession, but that it is difficult to obtain a Return except from the Metropolitan Police. I will give any information I can get.

    Telephone Wayleaves.
    COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there have recently been a number of interruptions on the telephone circuit erected for life-saving purposes between Pad-stow and Hawker's Cove; and whether, seeing that Hawker's Cove is an important lifeboat station, he will take steps to improve the service.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The telephone line from Padstow to Hawker's Cove is regarded by the Admiralty as very necessary for life-saving purposes, as there are three lifeboats at Hawker's Cove, including the only steam lifeboat on the North Cornish coast. Colonel Prideaux-Brune, the owner of the land over which the line passes, insisted recently upon the removal of the wires, on account of the injury caused by them to his partridge shooting. A temporary cable on the ground had to be substituted for the wires, with the result, I regret to say, that interruptions have been frequent. I have been in communication with Colonel Prideaux-Brune, and have offered to pay a reasonable rent as compensation for any injury to the shooting; but I fear that, as he maintains his objections to the present route, it will be necessary to re-erect the line on another

    143
    route at a heavy cost to public funds. I am glad to say such extreme unreasonableness is rare—but difficulties are so continually put in the way of the Post Office when seeking to obtain wayleaves, that I am to-day bringing in a Bill which will give the Postmaster-General powers to deal with certain cases in which the present state of the law gives facilities for unreasonable obstruction.
    COLONEL DENNY: How many brace of partridges have been killed?
    LORD STANLEY: About five, I think.

    Orkney Mail Service.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if, in view of the decision that the call of the Orkney mail steamer at Swilha is only to be made when the conditions of weather and tide are favourable, and that the evidence before the Postmaster-General shows that under such conditions such detention does not delay the steamer more than ten minutes, the steamship company will be held responsible for delays to mails and passengers beyond that time.
    LORD STANLEY: The steamship company are held responsible for any delay which occurs on the Orkney mail steamer service, and they are required to furnish an explanation whenever the authorised time is exceeded. With regard to the call at Swilha, if it is found that in practice such a call interferes seriously with the Orkney mail service, the question of permitting it will be reconsidered.

    Non-Provided Schools—Qualifications of Teachers.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to two recent letters written by corresponding managers of non-provided schools to applicants in each case for a vacant head-mastership, in the first case from the Rector of Euston, Thetford, Norfolk, dated 20th March, 1904, asking whether the applicant could play the organ, as this extra work was in that place an essential; and in the second from the
    144
    Vicar of Alwinton, Rothbury, Northumberland, dated 31st May, 1904, stating that a man would be preferred who was a churchman and communicant, and who would be able to play the harmonium at one of the Sunday services; and, if so, whether, in view of Article 15, Clause (1), of the Education Code for 1904, which expressly forbids the imposition of extraneous duties as a condition precedent to appointment, he will state what action, if any, the Board of Education proposes to take in those and similar cases.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (SIR WILLIAM ANSON,): My attention has not been called to the letters described in the hon. Member's Question. The action which the Board of Education may take in these and similar cases must depend upon the circumstances of each case; and as yet I have no information as to these or any other cases of alleged infraction of Article 15 of the Code for 1904.
    DR. MACNAMARA: If I send the hon. Baronet the original letters will he inquire further?
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Yes, if any letters are furnished me with the information, I will inquire.

    Isolated School Areas in Scotland.
    MR. HUNTER CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how he proposes in the Education Bill to deal with single small isolated schools having their school area in two separate counties and drawing scholars and rates from each parish in each county, as is the case with the present school area of the Skelmorlie School Board, comprising Skelmorlie, in the county of Ayr, and parish of Largs, and Wemyss Bay, in the county of Renfrew and parish of Inverkip.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (MR. SCOTT DICKSON,): The hon. Member is referred to Clause 15 of the Bill.
    MR. HUNTER CRAIG: That is not an answer to my Question, which is, how does

    145
    the Scottish Secretary propose by this Bill to deal with such an educational area as that of Skelmorlie and Wemyss Bay.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE: Part will be in one district and part in another as the section of the Bill prescribes, and the property will be dealt with accordingly.
    MR. THOMAS SHAW: Is this not one of the cases which might be covered by the clause which is to be brought forward on the Report stage?
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: No I do not think such cases as these require separate treatment.

    Jurisdiction of Resident Magistrates.
    MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if his attention has been called to the fact that a resident magistrate, sitting alone, at Lisbellaw, county Fermanagh, on 31st May, out of petty sessions, heard and determined a case of assault; and, if so, will he state under which Statute this resident magistrate acted; and whether, seeing that in the ordinary course such a case would require not less than two justices to decide, he proposes to take any, and, if so, what action in the matter.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): In this case I think the resident magistrate intended merely to hold one of the parties to bail, which he would have had power to do out of petty sessions. But having examined the order he made, I think it amounts to an adjudication on the charge preferred. This was outside his jurisdiction. The order was therefore illegal and will not be enforced.

    Kerry County Court Decree Against Bridget Hovan.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what was the reason of the failure of the sheriff of the county of Kerry to collect the amount of a County Court decree obtained by the County Council of Kerry
    146
    against a Mrs. Bridget Hovan of Minish, near Killarney; and if such failure arose from any difference in the law in such matters in Ireland and England.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I have received this morning from the sheriff a report stating his reasons for not levying the decree in this case. I am consulting the Law Officers on the second query, and meantime would ask the hon. Member to postpone the Question until Monday.

    Congested Districts in Kerry.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that owing to the absence of a representative on the Congested Districts Board the work of that Board in the county of Kerry is not effective; and if he is now prepared to add such a representative in accordance with the request of the county council and other public bodies.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There is no local representative from Kerry on the Board, but the statement that the work of the Board, in consequence, is not effective, is not accurate. The Earl of Shaftesbury has made a special study of the needs and requirements of the congested areas in Kerry since his appointment in 1902, and the interests of the congested districts in the county have been ably advocated by him at all times. It is not practicable to compress within the limits of a reply to a Question a statement of the work done and the results achieved by the Board, but I shall be prepared to make such a statement when a suitable opportunity presents itself.

    Constable Anderson, Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what evidence he had before him as to the identity of the woman examined by two medical men in Dublin, when he decided on the ground of the certificate signed by them to reinstate Constable Anderson in the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I entertained and I entertain no doubt as to the identity of the girl examined. The doctors, to whom inquiries were addressed yesterday, fully believe that she was the person concerned. I acted on a letter from Mr. Mannion, which enclosed their joint certificate.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to inform the right hon. Gentleman that that is not an answer at all. The right hon. Gentleman has told us he believes in the identity. The question is, what evidence had he before him as to the identity of this girl.
    MR. WYNDHAM: My answer was that I had before me a letter from Mr. Mannion, a respectable solicitor, in which he enclosed a certificate by two doctors, one a medical doctor of Trinity College, and the other a licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians. I think that was sufficient ground on which to go. It may be right or it may be wrong, but there is no reason whatever to doubt the fact, and I really think in the interests of this girl it is rather hard that it should be suggested that she is again to take special steps in order to vindicate her honour.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Mannion holds any Crown appointment in the county [Cries of "Order" from the MINISTERIAL Benches].
    MR. MACVEAGH: Was this gentleman solicitor for the policeman?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the evidence before the police inquiry into the case of Constable Anderson was given on oath, and whether the witnesses were subjected to cross-examination; and whether he had any sworn evidence before him when he decided to reverse the decision of that inquiry; and what steps he took to test the value of the evidence on which he arrived at the decision to reinstate Constable Anderson.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The inquiry was on oath, and the witnesses were cross-examined. The statements of their evidence, authenticated by their signatures, were before me when the decision to reinstate Anderson was arrived at. The Question does not accurately represent what took place. The finding of the Court of Inquiry was not reversed. Fresh evidence, in the shape of a joint certificate of two medical men resident in Dublin, was submitted to me and authenticated by a letter from Mr. Mannion, a solicitor of respectability, who had represented Anderson at the inquiry. This fresh evidence, of the truth and accuracy of which there is no reason whatever to doubt, threw a new light on the conduct of which Anderson was accused, and showed that it was capable of an innocent explanation. I then gave Anderson the benefit of the doubt raised by this new evidence.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has not grasped the point of the Question. The evidence in the Court of Inquiry was evidence on oath and subject to cross-examination. He has reversed the decision of that Court upon evidence not apparently given upon oath and not subject to cross-examination. Does he consider that a desirable and proper proceeding?
    MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member is not seized of the facts as I am. It is within the discretion of the Crown to decide absolutely whether a person who is or is not guilty should remain in the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Crown is under no obligation to hold a Court of Inquiry in order to come to a determination, and when the Crown or I myself have before me evidence of that kind, it is quite within the discretion of the Executive to retain the services of the constable. The only point at issue is whether I was right in my discretion. If the hon. and learned Member is dissatisfied the matter can come up upon the Estimates.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: To be quite clear upon this point are we to understand that the decision of a Court of Inquiry come to on sworn evidence is to be overridden and put on one side for evidence not taken upon oath?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That, it seems to me, is arguing the Question.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Will the right ton. Gentleman place upon the Table all the evidence upon which he acted in superseding this Court of Inquiry?
    MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. This is a matter of discipline in a force of eight or nine thousand men. I have great confidence in the Inspector - General. I acted with him throughout. I am prepared to defend the action of the Inspector - General and myself if our conduct is impeached in this House.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Is there any precedent for the action the right hon. Gentleman has taken in this case?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. MACVEAGH: Is it a fact, as announced in the Belfast papers, that this constable was reinstated at the request of two Members of this House.
    [No answer was returned.]
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the authorities in Dublin Castle, when they considered the report of the police inquiry and decided on the dismissal of Constable Anderson, had before them the record of the constable; what was the nature of that record, and were they influenced in their decision by it; and why was Constable Anderson removed from Pullathomas by the county inspector.
    MR. WYNDHAM. Yes, Sir; the constable's statement of service and conduct accompanied the report of the Court of Inquiry and the evidence of the witnesses examined. The statement showed that the constable had served in the force for seventeen and-a-quarter years; that he had received two favourable and no unfavourable records; that his county inspector entertained a good opinion of his previous conduct, and that he considered him an efficient, useful, and energetic policeman. The same county inspector who furnished this report, which
    150
    contained nothing adverse to Constable Anderson, had transferred the constable from Pullathomas to Kiltimagh, under the regulations of the service which permit county inspectors to transfer constables as they see fit, within their county, without reference to headquarters.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statements that the dismissal of Constable Anderson was the result of Catholic bigotry and an instance of persecution of Protestants in Ireland; and whether, seeing that his dismissal was the result of police inquiry instituted on the initiation of the police authorities in Dublin, and in view of the amount of ill-feeling aroused by the statements made in connection with this case, he will consent to institute a full inquiry into all the circumstances of the case.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. I have seen such statements. On the other hand, the hon. Member almost seems to suggest that the constable was reinstated by me in deference to political pressure. I considered the proceedings of the Court and the medical certificate in conference with the Inspector-General. Upon that, and upon that alone, I recommended the Constable's reinstatement. In such cases, there is often, unhappily, a tendency to champion this or that view in accordance with religious or political sympathies and antipathies. In deciding whether a constable is or is not fitted to remain in the Royal Irish Constabulary, a matter absolutely within the discretion of the Crown, I disregard all such considerations. An inquiry would therefore be an inquiry into the decision at which I arrived. If the hon. Member thinks that I was wrong in recommending the constable's reinstatement he can criticise my conduct on the Estimates, when I shall be better able, if the House so desires, to go into the matter in greater detail.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer that portion of the Question in which he is asked was Constable Anderson's dismissal

    151
    a result of Catholic bigotry and an instance of the persecution of Protestants in Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I think I have answered that. [NATIONALIST cries of "No."] I have said that I have had regard only to the evidence before me. I paid no heed to the representations made either by one side or by the other as to whether this man was unfairly or too fairly treated. They did not operate in my mind in the least.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Was this persecution instituted at the request of any Catholic person?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order? That Question does not arise. The reference in the original Question is whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the statements that the dismissal of Constable Anderson was the result of Catholic bigotry and an instance of persecution of Protestants in Ireland.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I want to repudiate this charge and ask the right hon. Gentleman to assist me in that repudiation. He knows the charge to be absolutely false.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: The last line of the Question has not been answered. It asks "whether he will consent to institute a full inquiry into all the circumstances of the case," and, in view of the fact that the demand is made not only from the Nationalist side, but from the Unionist side also, and is supported by newspapers like the Irish Times, will the right hon. Gentleman grant such an inquiry into the whole case.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I think I have answered that. I cannot create a precedent in this matter. It is purely a case of discipline and one in which I am responsible to this House. I regret that imputations have been made by one side against the other, but I am no party to them and dismiss them entirely from my mind. I take the case from the disciplinary view, and on my action accept full responsibility to the House.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: But in view of the fact that this policeman was dismissed, and the evidence before the inquiry has been superseded, and also that there is a widespread demand for this fresh inquiry, will not the right hon. Gentleman assent to one?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I think this matter has been fully dealt with.

    Licence Fees at Belfast.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the clerks of the peace for the city of Belfast and the county of Antrim have demanded from licensed spirit traders in the city and county a certificate on the annual renewal of their licences at petty sessions, and a fee of 2s. 6d., although the requisite certificate for such renewal, with the necessary endorsement, had been in the meantime delivered to the clerk of petty sessions without any fee; and, if so, will he issue instructions to have this practice discontinued.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No such certificate is demanded by the clerks of the peace. But by the 10th Section of the 3 & 4 William IV., cap. 68, every person obtaining a licence to sell spirit is required to register it with the clerk of the peace and to pay to him a registration fee of 2s. 6d. There is no power to ignore the provisions of the statute.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To what purpose do these fees go?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I must ask for notice of that Question.

    Evicted Tenants in North Kilkenny.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state or give a Return of the number and names of the tenants who have been evicted from their holdings in North Kilkenny since 1st May, 1879, and who have not been reinstated; how many applications for reinstatement have been received by the Estates Commissioners, and what steps are being taken with that object; and if the attention of the

    153
    Estates Commissioners has been called to the fact that 1,600 acres of untenanted land at Tullaroan, the property of Mr. Thomas Scully, of Washington, United States of America, can be purchased by the Estates Commissioners to provide holdings for some of the evicted tenants; and whether he can state what action, if any, the Estates Commissioners will take in the matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The preparation of a Return giving the names of tenants evicted and not reinstated during the past twenty-five years would entail a vast amount of labour, and no useful object, it appears to me, would be served by such a Return. I am quite prepared, however, to give the hon. Member a Return showing the names of evicted tenants from whom application for reinstatement has been received by the Estates Commissioners. The Commissioners have not received an application for the sale of the untenanted land referred to. Should they acquire such land in the county it will be utilised, as far as possible, for the purpose of the reinstatement of evicted tenants.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Will the Estates Commissioners write to Mr. Scully at Washington asking him if he will sell the property?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have more than once suggested to hon. Members that the Estates Commissioners are quite alive to the necessity of acquiring these holdings, but it must be left to their discretion to get them as cheaply as possible, and the very act of addressing an inquiry to the landlord after a Question has been asked in the House would amount to an invitation to him to put on a top price.

    Irish Poor Law Inspectors' Reports.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in-view of the fact that the Reports of Poor Law inspectors in Ireland were furnished for the information of Parliament in Paper C. 764 of the year 1873, and that this precedent was followed in the case of the Land Bill of last session when
    154
    Mr. Bailey's special Report was published, he will, in view of the greater interest now attaching to the housing of the working classes, and in view of promised legislation, reconsider his decision on this subject and issue the specially prepared Reports from his Local Government Board inspectors.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There is no analogy between the Reports published in 1873 and the Reports recently made by the Inspectors. The former were prepared with a view to publication, but the recent Reports, as I have already pointed out, were intended for the private and confidential information of the Board and myself. With respect to Mr. Bailey's Report, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to his previous Question of the 11th February†.

    The New Army Proposals.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has some statement to make as to the business of the House, and I will therefore put to him the necessary Question.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I have to inform the House of a small Parliamentary contretemps, for which I alone am responsible. The House is aware that on two or three occasions—the last being no later than yesterday—I indicated to them that the first business to-morrow would be a statement by my right hon. friend the Secretary for War upon the new Army proposals. But that arrangement, I am afraid, must be regarded as deleted; and I am very sorry that it should be so. Those who are aware of the extraordinary complexity of the problem, and, for instance, of the complexity of the suggestions made by the last contribution to that problem—namely, the Report of the Militia and Volunteer Commission—will not be surprised that my right hon. friend is not ready to make his statement on Thursday. What they may be legitimately surprised at is that so old a Parliamentary hand as myself should have imagined that the thing could be
    † See (4) Debates, cxxix, 1038.

    155
    settled in that time. I am very sorry for the mistake, the whole blame for which rests on myself. In these circumstances we shall have to take different Supply; and I propose to put down the Vote for the Board of Trade first, the Diplomatic and Consular Vote second, and Class I. third.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked when the Army discussion would be taken?
    ME. A. J. BALFOUR: It will not be possible in any case to take it next Thursday, because we are pledged to take Irish Supply on that day; but in any case, having fallen into the fire once, I am reluctant to burn my fingers again by any premature statement.

    Port of London Bill.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: In view of the great interest taken in the Port of London Bill may I ask whether the Government still have hopes of getting that Bill through during the present session?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I had hoped that the discussion on the Scotch Education Bill would have been shorter and that the Port of London Bill would have come on this week; but I am afraid there is now no chance of its being taken this week, or next week, or, so far as I can see, for some little time to come; but I should hope the House would find it in its power to pass a Bill on which so much money has been spent and which there is so great a desire to see passed into law.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman still hopes to pass the Bill this session?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes. "Hope springs eternal in the human breast."

    The Irish Land Bill.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I desire to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that negotiations for the sale and purchase of land in Ireland are seriously hampered by the position of what is known as the "bonus" question, and, if so, has he any hope, eternal or otherwise, of passing the Irish Land Act Amendment Bill this session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I think we are bound to take that Bill.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Vincent Paul Kennedy, esquire, for the county of Cavan (West Cavan Division).
    PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
    Eighth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
NEW BILL.
  TELEGRAPH CONSTRUCTION BILL.
  "To amend the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1904, with respect to the construction and maintenance of telegraphic lines," presented by Lord Stanley; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 231.]

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 19.
Amendment again proposed—
"In page 8, line 30, to leave out from the beginning to the word 'commit' in line 31, and insert the words "A school board may from time to time."—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. CALDWELLI said that when this Amendment was under discussion on the previous night I two points had been raised. One was that it was desirable to trust the school boards in the matter of the exercise of their powers for the appointment of managers, and the other was in regard to the state of educational opinion in Scotland. Well, as representatives of Scotland, many of them knew the manner in which educational opinion was attempted to be impressed upon Members

157
of the House. He supposed that every Member for Scotland had received that day the telegram from the Educational Institute of Scotland asking him to support the clause in regard to managers as amended by the Secretary for Scotland. In addition to the telegram he had also received a letter which would go far to show how educational opinion had been and was being worked up in connection with the Bill The letter said—
"In view of last night's discussion in the House of Commons this Association respectfully asks you, as representing a constituency from which a large number of our members are drawn, to give your hearty support to the Scotch Secretary's Amendment which makes it possible for all school boards to appoint managers."
He thought the Secretary for Scotland would appreciate the manner in which it was being attempted to influence Members of the House by representing what was the so-called opinion of Scotland. This proposal to leave the matter to the school board, instead of, as provided in the Bill as originally drafted, securing that in every parish there should be a body of managers in non-enumerated districts who would represent practically the interests of the parish, could not meet with their approval. This question of taking the management of the schools from a body representative of the locality, as arranged under the Bill, and giving it to a body to be determined solely by the school board was no doubt being put forward largely in the interests of certain educational organisations in Scotland. It was, he took it, being put forward with a view to promoting the interests of the teaching profession so as to have a body of managers not directly connected with the parish. He was bound to say that, so far as the Bill was concerned, it proceeded on fair lines considering the fact that they were taking away the parish school boards and substituting the district school boards, who were to employ a body of managers in the parish to manage the parish schools so as to secure the representation of the local opinion of the parish.
Now he came to the suggestion that they ought to trust the school boards. Well, so far as that side of the House was concerned, they always had been in
158
favour of trusting the people, and consequently of trusting the representatives of the people. If this were a matter of a school board elected by a parish for the education of the parish, he could perfectly well understand them trusting the school board to represent the interests of education in that particular parish. But what was the position under this clause? They were dealing with a combination district representing six or eight school boards, and the people of one parish would only have one-sixth or one-eighth of the representation on the school board, and therefore, if they were to trust the school board as representing the people in managing the parish schools, they must realise that the electors in a particular parish would only have the nomination of one-sixth or one-eighth of the members of the board. They, therefore, were not trusting men elected by the parish, they were trusting a body of men which included many who were not elected by the parish, and he looked on this as separating the final link in the chain that connected local interests with the educational interests of Scotland as embodied in that Bill. In the first place, they had taken away the parish area and substituted for it the district area, and now they were taking away the control and management of the parish school from the parish as such, and giving it into the hands of a body largely composed of members outside the parish, and the effect would be that no ratepayer in the parish would feel himself to be in the slightest touch with the parish school. So far as the management of the individual school was concerned it would de volve on the combination and not upon the representatives of the parish. Thai, as he had said, was practically the last link which connected the parish school with the parish, and by this Amendment they would absolutely destroy all local control over the schools.
But they were going a step further, they were acting in the interests of a certain body of people who imagined that they represented the educational interest in Scotland, and who desired that the appointment of managers should be divorced from the parish. What were the duties of the managers? Those duties were now left very much in abeyance. If the Secretary for Scotland

159
would look at the Act of 1872, Section 22, he thought he would find that the present clause might well be deleted. In his view there was practically no need for it, and he believed that the power would remain in the school board even supposing that they did not appoint the managing committee. Anyone who had any knowledge whatever of the existing state of matters in regard to the management of schools by school boards must know that practically the board had very little to do with the question of education. The education given in the school was regulated by Code and by inspection, and all the school board had to do was to appoint the teacher, fix his salary, and deal with matters of that kind. If they found that the school board had practically, no power except as regarded those questions, then what was the necessity for delegating the power to managers? They were not going to delegate under Clause 29 the powers of the attendance committee. What, then, were they going to delegate? He must confess that from his point of view the question of the appointment of managers was immaterial. It did Dot matter whether they were to be appointed by the education authority or by the school board, or whether they were to be appointed as proposed in the Bill, all he wanted to point out was that they were separating the link which bound the people in the parish to the parish school. He thought that that was one of the greatest blots on the Bill, and in the public interest he hoped that it would not be persisted in.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said that if they were really anxious to pass this Bill—as he believed the great majority of hon. Members were—they must regret to have heard the speech just delivered. The hon. Member had read a telegram and suggested that it constituted an unfair attempt to influence the House, but he confessed he could see nothing wrong in the telegram. He protested against the hon. Member raising again a question which had already been discussed. The hon. Member having been beaten, now, in a vindictive spirit, did what he could to wreck the Bill. The course the hon. Member was taking was such as to put
160
the Bill in great danger from expiry of time.
MR. CALDWELL: May I explain that I have not put down a single Amendment which I would have done had I the intention attributed to me. It is ungracious on the part of the Secretary for Scotland to use such remarks. It is a most important Bill, upon which a Scottish Member has every right to be heard.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I shall be most glad to apologise to the hon. Member if his future conduct on the Bill makes it necessary.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman should at least withdraw the word "vindictive."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he would be most happy to withdraw any word that gave pain or offence to anybody in the House.
MR. CALDWELL: That is not the way to conduct the Bill.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that as to the hon. Member's remark upon not putting down Amendments, he had certainly made Second Reading speeches on Committee Amendments. He did so on the very first day as a matter of fact. But let them get back to the Amendment. His only object in moving the Amendment was to get what the people of Scotland desired. There was a middle course between the proposal in the original Bill and the Amendment. They might leave the enumerated districts free, but in the non-enumerated districts they might make the appointment of managers compulsory, while leaving the education authority free to choose the managers. Probably the case was best met by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, which provided that one of the managers should be a member of the school board who had been elected for that division where the school was.
MR. THOMASSHAWsaid the observations which the right hon.

161
Gentleman had just made were a complete refutation of any charge against his hon. friend who, after all, had not made a very long speech, as he spoke for only ten minutes. His hon. friend knew the Bill as well as any man in the House, and it would be a very bad day for the discussion of Scottish measures when they were deprived of the advantage of having such knowledge imported into their debates. His own opinion was that the difficulties which had arisen were due to the very drastic alterations which the Government had made in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had attempted to gather together the opinion of Scotland as to the amendment of the Bill, but the great mass of the Scottish people who approved of the Bill and did not propose to amend it had been dumb, and their voice had not been heard. Clearly the teaching bodies desired to be relieved of all kinds of control except that of their own body. But what was the attitude of the parish councils? A conference of representatives of ninety-five of the most important parish councils in Scotland had passed a Resolution approving of Clause 20 of the Bill, which delegated the appointment of school managers in rural parishes to the extent of two-thirds to the parish councils, and he supposed that if the parish councils had organised a number of district committees for purposes of agitation and had circularised hon. Members on the question the right hon. Gentleman would never have put down that Amendment. There was a strong feeling in Scotland against the abolition of the parish area in connection with education. He thought that the middle course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would provide that local opinion should be represented in large and densely populated geographical areas.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAW (Renfrewshire, W.)said he had followed the discussion on this subject with very great interest. He held that it was unnecessary to put an obligation on the new education authorities to appoint managers in either the enumerated or the non-enumerated areas. In many cases the new education authority would find it most desirable to appoint managers, and it would be desirable that the representatives of the locality
162
for which managers were to be appointed should be members of the managing body. That would be a guarantee, and the management would be in absolute touch with the education authorities. He him self had had some experience in this matter, as he was for a long time chairman of a large rural school board, and he knew that if they elected outside managers and no members of the school I board it was very difficult to get the managing work done as it should be. He therefore believed the best solution would be found in appointing managers to appoint local members of the school board and add to them local gentlemen interested in education.
MR. CROMBIEsaid he believed the education authorities in his constituency were in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. At any rate he gathered that from a deputation which waited on him recently. If the parish councils had power to appoint managers, there would be divided interests and divided authority. He wished to know how the right hon. Gentleman proposed to force the education authorities to appoint managers, how far the compulsion was to go and in what direction?
ME. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that now they had reached more peaceful times he would be happy to make his peace with the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark. He was sorry if he had offended the hon. Gentleman or hurt his feelings, for he was sure lie would do his best in assisting them to pass the Bill. What he now proposed was to leave Clause 19 practically as it was in the Bill, and in Clause 20, which dealt with the non-enumerated districts, to make it compulsory to appoint managers, but to leave the choice of those managers to the educational authorities, subject to the one statutory condition that among those managers there must be a member or members of the educational authority who were returned for the electoral division in which the particular schools were placed. If that met the view of the Committee he would move the necessary Amendments in their proper order.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he had no objection to the

163
compromise, although he would have preferred to see the right hon. Gentleman's former proposal adhered to. The parish school boards in the non-enumerated districts had not been so effective as many educationists thought, and he believed parochial managers would be still less effective because they would not have any really responsible work. He did not anticipate that local managers would do much good, but, on the other hand, under the present proposal they would be unable to do much harm. As he had said, he would have preferred the former proposal, as a fully representative character could have been secured if the units for election were properly arranged and the travelling expenses of representatives paid. He believed that that was the true solution of the difficulty. While regretting the change, he recognised that it had been made in the manner in which it would do the least possible harm.
SIR JOHN GORSTdesired to warn Scotch Members, as the result of English experience, against the great danger of allowing outside bodies to interfere in the appointment of managers. He thought the compromise would not do any harm, because it would not allow of any such outside interference. The great objection to the appointment of managers by outside bodies was, that if the board, of managers was not one in which the local authority had confidence, the local authority would keep in their hands powers which ought properly to be delegated. It was far better, therefore, to trust the local authority, and to leave the matter entirely in their hands, confident that they would then delegate such of their powers as could most conveniently be delegated.
MR. McCRAEregretted that the words in question were to be omitted, because he agreed that the power of appointing managers should be optional. With regard to the two clauses, the appointment of managers was an entirely new thing so far as Scotland was concerned, and he believed that Clause 19 if retained would be quite inoperative. In the un-enumerated districts it might
164
not be possible for the school board itself to undertake all the duties, so that in certain cases managers might be required. He suggested, therefore, that the power of appointing managers should be optional. If the managers were to be merely unpaid servants of the school board, with no power to initiate administrative changes or expenditure, then only a very inferior class of man would undertake the work. There was the further objection that it constituted a departure from the representative element. He understood that even in the working of the English Act the difficulty to which he referred had arisen, and managers had found that they were so subordinate to the local education authority that their power was practically nil. He fully acknowledged the disposition shown by the right hon. Gentleman to meet objections which were raised, and he appreciated the concessions which had been made, but he felt that the present concession was one in the wrong direction.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he was really giving the maximum of freedom of control. If the school board did not wish to appoint outside managers, what was simpler than for them to appoint their own body?
SIR ROBERT REIDthought the Committee might at once accept the amended proposal of the Secretary for Scotland; he entirely agreed that in substance the clause was optional though in form it was compulsory. In addition to freedom in the selection of persons to be managers, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would keep in mind the necessity for complete freedom in regard to the range of subjects committed to the managers.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that with the exception of the appointment and dismissal of teachers that point was conceded.
SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)was extremely glad the Secretary for Scotland had made this concession. The provision was so elastic that a school board would virtually have the power of appointing committees of its own number

165
to manage particular schools, or of selecting the fittest people in parishes, and that, he thought, would be a great advantage to the cause of education.
DR. MACNAMARAasked whether he understood correctly that in the non-enumerated districts the school boards might carry out this provision by appointing themselves as managers.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Yes.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that the principle which had been laid down, and with which he understood the right hon. Gentleman to agree, was that in the enumerated districts the appointment of managers should be optional, but that in the counties the areas being so large, and the distance between schools so great, the appointment of managers should be compulsory. The right hon. Gentleman now suggested that the provision should be worked by the school board appointing themselves managers. How could that bring in the control of, and the close touch with, the schools which the Committee desired? He contended that the provision did not carry out the principle of local control in any way whatever. The school board for the whole of Sutherlandshire, for instance, might constitute themselves managers of all the elementary schools in the county. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman intended to do so, but in effect he was misleading the Committee. ["No, no!"] At any rate he was misleading a number of the Committee.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Only the Englishmen.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that so long as this country remained a United Kingdom he claimed his right, as a Member of the British Parliament, to speak on this matter. He was not alone in the position he had taken up. Many Members desired that in the county areas there should be local managers, and he had certainly understood from the right hon. Gentleman that the power to appoint managers, while optional in the enumerated districts, should be compulsory in the non-enumer-
166
ated. The provision was now to be got round by the school board for the whole county constituting themselves the managers of all the elementary schools within the county. That was not carrying out the spirit of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman at the outset of the proceedings.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that in making the difference between the enumerated and the non-enumerated districts there was the feeling that, whereas in the enumerated districts there should be no obligation to appoint managers, in the non-enumerated districts that duty should be laid upon the school boards. He believed that the new educational authorities would be animated by a proper public spirit, and that on the question of appointing managers they would feel that the persons appointed should be real managers who could properly discharge the duties attaching to the office. The whole question would depend upon the circumstances of each particular case. For instance, if Sutherlandshire remained undivided, and the people who were elected to serve on the school board were not able fairly to undertake the duties attaching to the management of the different schools, in his judgment it would be a wrong thing for the school board to appoint their own members as managers. If, on the other hand, they had members who in sets of three or four said they could manage the schools in particular divisions there would be nothing improper in their being appointed as managers. It was really a question which depended on the circumstances of each particular case, and he was perfectly prepared to trust to the good sense and the proper feeling of his fellow-countrymen.
MR. THOMAS SHAWthought that the extreme case of an entire school board simply turning round and resolving itself into a committee of managers would be an evasion of the Statute. On the other hand, he thought the cases which most Members had had in their minds were those in which scattered over a school board area were townships and communities which had representatives on the school board. In such cases he

167
submitted that the school board could do no better thing than elect those members of its own body to manage the schools in the particular localities they represented, and that substantially was what was meant by the Amendment.
MR. MCCRAEsaid he entirely accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the provision would now be optional.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 8, line 32, after the word 'school' to insert the words 'or schools.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. BLACKthought it ought to be provided that the managers should not hold office beyond the period of office of the board by which they were appointed, and he moved an Amendment to that effect.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 8, line 37, at end, to add the words 4 Provided that no manager or managers shall be appointed for a period beyond the term of office of the school board making the appointment.'"—(Mr. Black.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. A.GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that as a lawyer he believed the words were unnecessary, but as they certainly carried out his intention he would not object to their insertion.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the object of the Amendment he now moved was to allow schools to be grouped for the purposes of management.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 8, line 41, after the word 'charge' to insert the words 'either singly or in conjunction with other schools.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. DOBBIEasked whether there was any minimum number of managers prescribed.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Not in this clause.
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 1, after the word 'school' to insert the words 'or schools.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 2, to leave out from the word 'shall' to the end of the clause, and insert the words 'include a member or members of the school board representing each electoral division or burgh, as the case may be, in which any such school is situated. Such managers shall observe such rules, conditions, and restrictions as the school board shall from time to time prescribe.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 22, at end, to add the words 'provided that no manager or managers shall be appointed for a period beyond the term of office of the school board making the appointment.'"—(Mr. Black.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, to leave out Clause 21."—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, to leave out Clause 22."—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, to leave out Clause 23."—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24.
MR. DOBBIEsaid the Amendment he had placed on the Paper was one more of draftsmanship than of substance. As the Bill stood, the clause read that the expenses of the school board in each education district "including the expenditure incurred in the performance of their duties by the managers of schools under the charge of the school board, in so far as such expenditure is approved by the school board," should be paid out of the school fund. The Amendment proposed to insert the word "lawfully" after the word "expenditure," and the effect would be that the school boards would be bound to pay all expenses lawfully incurred by the committees of management. The Bill made it clear that the managers were not to be entitled to incur any capital expenditure. It had been brought to his notice that, if the Bill passed in its present shape, the managers would not be a really responsible body. They would not be what the right hon. Gentleman wished them to be—a real live body—unless they had the right, subject, of course, to the conditions laid down by the board under a previous clause, to incur the expense necessary for the efficient conduct of business. The danger against which the Amendment would guard was the crippling of the action of the managers in the matter of incurring expense, not because it was improper or unlawful, but because, under the clause as it stood, a majority of the board might refuse to approve of the expenditure. So long as the expenditure by the managers was covered by the mandate given by the board their action should not be crippled by the risk of finding that they were individually surcharged for the expenditure.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 13, after the word 'expenditure' to insert the word 'lawfully.'"—(Mr. Dobbie.)
Question proposed, "That, the word 'lawfully' be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid this Amendment was thoroughly unnecessary. Who knew whether expenditure was unlawfully incurred or not? There was no definition either in statute or common law of what expenditure the managers of a school might incur. The
170
only practical way was to trust the managers not to run up bills except for purposes which would be approved by the school board. He took it that they would not spend any money unless they knew that it would be approved. That was a workable scheme. The hon. Member's scheme was not workable, and therefore he could not accept it.
Question put, and negatived.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 19, after the word 'Act to insert the words 'all fees received from scholars.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he assented to the words going in because it appeared to him that the school fund which was now to be transferred to the new school board would not be complete unless provision was made for secondary education. On the other hand he thought it was extremely regrettable that in an Education Bill for Scotland there should be any reference to school fees at all. He hoped the time was not far distant when the charge for school fees would be obliterated altogether from the Statute-book in Scotland. He was glad they had now a workable area upon which he hoped they would at some early date impose the duty of presenting its bill for secondary education to the Exchequer in the same way as the school boards now presented their bills for elementary education. He thought the whole system was defective by the fact that fees were charged for secondary education in Scotland. There were no fees for elementary education, and now on account of a munificent donation there were no fees for University education. He was sure he was speaking the mind of many in Scotland when he said that their education system would not be complete until the Treasury granted this award which Scotland so justly deserved.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. HALDANEmoved an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs, in regard to endowments specially

171
appropriated for the promotion of education in particular schools.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 25, at end, to add the words, 'Provided that any endowment, or part thereof, which prior to the passing of this Act has been specially appropriated under any educational endowment scheme or otherwise for the promotion of education in a particular school shall continue to be so appropriated by the school board.'"—(Mr. Haldone.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. WALLACE: Does the word "endowment" in this Amendment cover the case we were discussing yesterday?
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: No.
MR. WALLACEsaid he was told it did, but he did not think so himself. Was it intended that the grant made from the "Common Good" of Royal burghs should be appropriated to the school fund.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid his hon. friend would see, as he explained yesterday, that it would do him no good even if it was.
Question put, and agreed to.
DR. MACNAMARAhad given notice that he would move the following addition to Clause 24—
"Provided that any deficiency incurred by any school board prior to the fifteenth day of May one thousand nine hundred and five in respect of annually recurring charges on account of school maintenance shall be chargeable on the parish or parishes administered by the said school board."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he had been carefully considering this matter, and he thought it would be very much better that the hon. Member should not move this Amendment. He promised to bring up a clause on the subject, and to move that it be included in Part VI. containing the "transitory provisions."
The suggestion was agreed to.
Question proposed, "That Clause 24 stand part of the Bill."
MR. DOBBIEcalled attention to the remarks made yesterday by the hon. Member for North Camberwell in regard to the action of Forfar School Board. The hon. Member's suggestion was that the board was financing this year in their own interest by not imposing a rate in view of the new Act coming into operation. The fact was that Forfar School Board was in the happy position of having financed so well in the past that they had a full year's grant in hand to enable them to begin the new year with. Even if they levied no rate this year they would still have a surplus, and they, therefore, decided that it was quite superfluous to impose a rate.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he must apologise if he had said anything distasteful to the Forfar School Board. What he said was that last year they had an 8d. rate, that this year they had no rate at all, and that it was likely they were building up a debt for some other body to pay.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was surprised to hear of a Scotch school board having a surplus. He was quite sure that could not happen south of the Tweed. He should like to ask one question. This clause dealt with education expenses. Was there no sort of limit to the amount of money that could be spent on secondary education. [Cries of "No."] In the English Bill there was a limit, but in the Scotch Bill there was no limit at all. He thought he ought to move a limit, because Scotch Members voted for a limit when the House was dealing with English and Welsh matters which they knew nothing about. Now they voted for unlimited power when they were dealing with matters which, he supposed, they did know about. He thought it was exceedingly unfair that this should be done.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 25.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 31, to leave out the words 'allocate and.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
MR. A. GEAHAM MURRAYsaid that this was only a drafting Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 33, to leave out from the word 'district' to end of line 43."—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that this Amendment was carrying out what the Committee quite well knew he proposed to do, viz., as to the pooling of the debt. The Bill, as originally drafted, provided that if there was a particular debt applying to any parochial area, that parochial area had to take over the interest of that debt although it became merged in the general area of the new and larger district. So far as he could gather the general feeling on the subject, he was inclined to think that his present Amendment was in consonance with that general feeling. It had to do with the present debt and that debt alone. He thought the feeling which prevailed was that although the pooling of the debt meant in practice that those who had been alert in their duties suffered and that those who had been supine gained, on the whole it was better that the debt should be spread over the whole area.
MR. McCRAEsaid that he agreed with the Secretary for Scotland that the method now proposed as to pooling the debt was the right one.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid his Amendment had a double effect. First of all, it took out of Sub-section 1 words as to the pooling of the debt in order to introduce his substantial Amendment which proposed that instead of dividing the debt between the various parishes according to valuation alone, it should be divided according to valuation and population.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid that he was against the proposal in the new
174
provision, because it would really make a very large addition to the burden of the rates in the rural parishes. He was quite aware that there was a general feeling in favour of symmetry and that this proposal would make it easier to carry out the financial division. But those who had studied the figures in their own counties knew, in the first instance, that the amount of outstanding debt in burghs was much larger than in the rural districts; and in the second place, that the period of unexpired loans was much larger in the burghal than in the rural districts. The rural districts since 1872 had carried out most of the provisions as to increased accommodation; and since then, in some parishes, the population had actually decreased, and the result of the proposal now made would be to throw a much heavier burden on the rural rates. For instance, at present the lowest amount paid by any parish in his county in respect of the repayment of debt and interest was ¾d. in the £ per annum, and in a few years the debt would be extinguished; while in some parishes the amount was 4.89d. or nearly 5d. per £, and it would be a considerable period of years before the debt was extinguished. If there was so great an inequality as that, was the Committee prepared to say that it was fair to spread the whole of these debts over the new area? If it was done, it would do considerable injustice to the rural parts of the country, and put a heavy burden on them in respect to which they got no corresponding advantage. For his part he should have very much preferred the original proposal in the Bill.
SIR WALTER THORBURNsaid that in one of the counties he represented,—Selkirk—there were two secondary schools which had incurred a considerable amount of debt. The population of the burghs was 20,000. while that of the rural districts was only 4,225. The rental of the burghs, where these schools were, was £61,349, while the rental of the rural districts was £63,638. Under the Bill, as originally framed, the rural parts were not responsible for the debt incurred for the secondary schools in the burghs; but under the Amendment proposed by the

175
right hon. Gentleman they would have to contribute their share of the whole expense although they had got no good out of the secondary schools, and they were not likely to have in the future, because there were no railways to take the rural children to these schools. He protested most emphatically against the new proposal of the Secretary for Scotland without the counties having had an opportunity of considering the matter.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he did not want to enter into any controversy as between burgh and county if it could be avoided; but he thought the proposal of the Government was perfectly fair. He represented not only burghs but other districts which would share the debt on the secondary schools. The position was that these secondary schools had been largely maintained at the charge of the burghs while the benefit of them had been largely obtained by the country districts; and it was really too bad to say, as the hon. Member for Peebles and Selkirk had said, that the rural parts ought not to bear any share of the burden of debt on the secondary schools.
MR. BUCHANANsaid that it was only on last Saturday morning that they knew the Government were going to abandon this part of their scheme and he agreed with the hon. Baronet opposite that the counties in this respect were placed at a considerable disadvantage. If the people in the counties in Scotland had known that there was any chance of the Government abandoning their position there would have been a much stronger expression of opinion from the rural districts in regard to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. There could be no doubt that the proposal of the Secretary for Scotland would operate seriously against the country districts.
He did not know whether, at that moment when so many microscopic changes were being made in the Bill at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman and others, from day to day and from hour to hour, it was possible for them to make any effective protest. Short of that, the right hon. Gentleman ought to allow that this was a matter which might fairly be brought up again on Report. The case ought not to be finally decided against them now; and a further opportunity of expressing an opinion on it ought to be given.
SIR WALTER THORBURNsaid he I regarded the proposal as a gross injustice; and, as a protest, he would certainly vote against the Amendment.
MR. JOHN STROYANsaid he would suggest to the Secretary for Scotland that the matter be postponed until they had further information from the country in reference to it. Many excellent Amendments had been brought in by the Secretary for Scotland in connection with the Bill; but he thought that this Amendment had been rather sprung on the Committee.
MR. CORBETTsaid that very few of the Scottish Members would join in the protest against the Amendment. It was very satisfactory that the Secretary for Scotland should have been so willing to give expression to Scottish feeling in connection with this measure; and he was sorry that his right hon. friend had been exposed to so many attacks from that side of the House. He would support the proposal of his right hon. friend.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 54; Noes, 233. (Division List No. 153.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Horniman, Frederick John

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Jacoby, James Alfred

Barlow, John Emmott

Gilhooly, James

Joicey, Sir James

Burt, Thomas

Gladstone. Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Kitson, Sir James

Causton, Richard Knight

Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin&Nairn)

Leng, Sir John

Cremer, William Randal

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Lough, Thomas

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hay, Hon. Claude George

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Delany, William

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Edwards, Frank

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Elibank, Master of

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Morpeth, Viscount

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R.(Northants

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Stevenson, Francis S.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Rea, Russell

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Stroyan, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Rigg, Richard

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Walter Thorburn and Mr.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr

Buchanan.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Tomkinson, James

Russell, T. W.

Weir, James Galloway

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Dobbie, Joseph

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Donelan, Captain A.

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Ambrose, Robert

Doogan, P. C.

Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Doughty, George

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Arrol, Sir William

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Asher, Alexander

Duncan, J. Hastings

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbt. Henry

Dunn, Sir William

Lloyd-George, David

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dyke,Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Aubrey - Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Ellice,Capt. E. C(S. Andrw'sBghs

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

Balcarres, Lord

Emmott, Alfred

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Baldwin, Alfred

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lucas,Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

Fenwick, Charles

Lundon, W.

Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fergusson,Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Field, William

Macdona, John Cumming

Bignold, Arthur

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Black, Alexander William

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maconochie, A. W.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Boland, John

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Crae, George

Bowles,Lt.-Col.H.F.(Middlesex

FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose-

M'Iver,Sir Lewis (EdinburghW.

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Flower, Sir Ernest

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Forster, Henry William

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Burke, E. Haviland

Galloway, William Johnson

Milvain, Thomas

Caldwell, James

Gardner, Ernest

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Cameron, Robert

Gore, Hn. G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

Morrell, George Herbert

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A. (Glasgow

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Mount, William Arthur

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Murnaghan, George

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Murphy, John

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Grant, Corrie

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Cavendish, V. C.W.(Derbyshire

Greene,Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Gunter, Sir Robert

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Myers, William Henry

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A(Worc.

Hammond, John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Chapman, Edward

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Charrington, Spencer

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

Coates, Edward Feetham

Haslett, Sir James Horner

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Heath,Arthur Howard (Hanley

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Heaton, John Henniker

O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hoare, Sir Samuel

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hobhouse, RtHnH.(Somers't,E

Pemberton, John S. G.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hogg, Lindsay

Percy, Earl

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Hope,J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Pierpoint, Robert

Crombie, John William

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Pirie, Duncan V.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Hunt, Rowland

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Plummer, Walter R.

Cullinan, J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Power, Patrick Joseph

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Joyce, Michael

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Dalziel, James Henry

Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

Pym, C. Guy

Davenport, William Bromley-

Kenyon,Hon.Geo.T. (Denbigh)

Randles, John S.

Denny, Colonel

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

Rankin, Sir James

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Kerr, John

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Kilbride, Denis

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Kimber, Henry

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Knowles, Sir Lees

Remnant, James Farquharson

178

179

Ridley, Hon.M.W.(Stalybridge

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Walrond, Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

Ridley,S.Forde (Bethnal Green

Soares, Ernest J.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Spear, John Ward

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Stanley.Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Welby,Lt.-Col.A.C.E.(Taunton

Roche, John

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Wills, Sir Frederick

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Sullivan, Donal

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.

Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh.,N.)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Tennant, Harold John

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Thornton, Percy M.

Wyndbam, Rt. Hon. George

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Tollemache, Henry James

Wyndham Quin, Col. W. H.

Sheehy, David

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Young, Samuel

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Smith, H.C (North'mb.Tyneside

Tufnell, Lieut. -Col. Edward

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Alexander Acland - Hood

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Wallace, Robert

and Viscount Valentia.

MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that now the matter had been settled by the division just taken, he should move to strike out the other words in order to insert the words upon the Paper. Everyone would recognise that this was a very important change which represented so far as it went the acceptance of an Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire. It was part of the whole financial arrangement of the Bill, and, therefore, it would perhaps be proper to say not only what influenced him in putting down this Amendment, but what he was doing elsewhere, because all these financial arrangements hung together. He was aware when moving the Amendment which had just been carried that in the long run it would operate against the counties. He was also face to face with the proposition of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire that there should not be parochial rating at all, but county rating. That was the first proposition which had to be considered, and he came to the conclusion that the method of the Bill was the better of the two, and the opinion was backed up by a number of representations he had received from Scotland. He doubted whether many I people knew that, so far as the instructed opinion was concerned—that was to say, the opinion of those who had followed the whole of the Commissions, and who had examined this matter—the whole consensus of opinion was that the most equitable form of rating was on net rentals rather than gross rentals. Successive Commissions had been appointed by successive Governments, and not one had come to the conclusion that the gross
180
valuation was the proper basis. The last Commission came to the conclusion that the ideal system was the net rental. There was also the fact that in Scotland they had become well accustomed to the practice of levying the school rate with the parish rate, and it would be somewhat inexpedient to change it. Here a school rate was being levied to which the people of Scotland were quite accustomed, and therefore it was better to leave it where it was, and leave the questions of net and gross rental and other questions of the sort until one Party or the other were able to take up and deal with the whole question of local taxation. These were the reasons which led him to stick to the parochial instead of the county assessment.
This led him to the next step, namely, if they had a larger area, which must be in the nature of an agglomeration of parishes, it was necessary to assess each parish for the amount required. Originally the Bill did that by valuation alone, but when the figures were got out it was perfectly evident that it would press very hardly on the rural as against the urban districts, for the simple and sufficient reason that the rural valuation bore a larger proportion to the rural population than did the urban to the urban population. There were more people to an estate of £100 valuation in the urban district than there were in the country. This question did not affect the enumerated districts at all because his Amendment cut them out. In this matter his philosopher and guide was the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who some years

181
ago adopted this principle when distributing a grant. He then suggested that the grant should be distributed according to valuation and population, and he (Mr. A. Graham Murray) submitted that what was good in distributing a benefit was also good in distributing a burden. The same result would be attained if he took the view of the hon. Baronet behind him, who proposed that the deficiency to be apportioned to the various parishes should not be apportioned according to valuation alone but should be divided into two, and one half apportioned according to valuation and the other according to population. It was practically that proposal which this Amendment made before the Committee. No doubt it was very difficult, in taking in the whole arrangements of the Bill, for hon. Members to disassociate themselves from their constituents, but the Member in charge of the Bill had necessarily to try and take a wider view. If the last Amendment bore against the county, this bore against the burgh, but there was another Amendment put down upon the Paper which, if carried, would permit the burghs to retain the substantial sum of £100,000 out of the equivalent grant. Hitherto the burgh and county had been separate and now they were going to bind the two together, and if this had been according to valuation alone the county would be very heavily handicapped.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 11, to leave out lines 1 to 6, both inclusive, and insert the words 'in the case of an enumerated district according to their respective valuations in the valuation roll last available, and in all other cases one-half according to their respective populations as ascertained at the last preceding census, and one-half according to their respective valuations in the valuation roll last available; provided that in the case of portions of parishes the populations shall be taken as may be agreed upon between the school board and the parish council, or failing agreement as may be determined by the Secretary for Scotland.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid the Committee would agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the present Amendment
182
proposed a very important change. It was so important that he considered it quite out of place in an Education Bill. The present measure was not a Rating Bill, or one intended to change the incidence of taxation, and he deeply regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have introduced this most contentious matter into what was practically a non-contentious Bill. He had endeavoured to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman's speech the origin of his Amendment, and he gathered that certain proposals brought forward by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire had made the subject a matter for grave consideration. That being so, he wanted to ascertain whence the hon. Baronet got his idea. The representation of the county council of Renfrewshire upon the subject of the imposition of rates was as follows—
"That the total amount necessary to meet the instalment of the previous loans contracted by existing school board should be chargeable against the whole education district, and that the school rate should be imposed as a rate on all owners and occupiers equally, on the valuation as appearing in the valuation roll."
The county council of Renfrewshire had thus recommended that the time-honoured system of Scotland should be adhered to, but their representative in Parliament had brought in an Amendment which might shortly be described as an Amendment in favour of the landed interest.
The next point he had endeavoured to find out was the ground on which the Secretary for Scotland had been induced to give the proposal his favour. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were face to face with a proposal for county rating, and that he preferred not to have county rating. That was perfectly true, but it had nothing whatever to do with a proposal of this kind, which was really for differential and preferential rating in certain localities. Further, there was, doubtless, a good deal to be said in favour of the net rental as against the gross rental, but that again had nothing whatever to do with the present proposal. The right hon. Gentleman also urged that the school rate should be left where it was, and that the whole question of rating should remain untouched. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, and that

183
was just the reason why he opposed the Amendment. The whole question of rating ought to be left over, but instead of that the right hon. Gentleman had chosen to introduce this disturbing and confusing element into the Bill. It was said that there was advantage to the burgh and detriment to the country district. When burghs and towns and country districts were being linked together in school board areas no such cause of jealousy or friction between urban and rural populations ought to be introduced. This proposal would introduce a perpetual division in the matter of local rating, and produce the maximum of confusion and irritation. By use and wont the burghs had contributed from time to time large sums for the benefit of the burghs themselves. Under a Resolution agreed to yesterday it had been decided that all burgh contributions and burgh endowments applicable to the subject should go into the common fund for the benefit of the enlarged area. County Members all supported that proposal in order to get the benefit from the burghs. But to-day, backed by the force of the Government, after obtaining the benefit of the endowment from the towns for the landed interest, they were endeavouring to secure a perpetual relief from taxation, which, on the same principle as that under which they shared in the endowment, they ought to bear. There was not the slightest justification for such a revolution in taxation in favour of the landed interest.
He objected altogether to the theory that the country would be harmed and the towns benefited under this Bill; such a proposition introduced jealousies which ought not to be allowed to exist for one moment. Some of the best provisions in the Bill were those which enabled school boards to bring up promising pupils to the towns from the remote districts at the expense of the general school fund. But if the country districts were to contribute on the basis now proposed he thought it was very likely that the school boards would say that they must take care of their own promising children. No Royal Commission had ever reported in favour of such a proposal. There were in Scotland large areas over which there existed
184
the system which might be describe in Tennyson's words as that of "allowing the man to be less and less and the beast to be more and more." In deer forest districts a large rental was derived practically at the price of making a large area into a solitude. The interest of the country was that the population should be equally spread instead of being congested in certain districts. Under this proposal, however, it would I be to the advantage of the landed interest to drive the people more and more into the towns, because by so doing they would impose the rates to a greater, degree upon the towns, and thus the heaviest educational burden would fall upon the most congested districts, namely, the towns, which were already so heavily rated.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYpointed out that the effect of the Amendment would, in almost every case, be to lower the town rating and to increase the country rating.
MR. THOMAS SHAWdid not think that that was a legitimate or useful consideration to bring in. The object of the Bin was to give the whole country central secondary and technical educational facilities. The country districts would derive large benefit from that, and they would also get the special benefit, defrayed to a large extent by the town rating, of having their promising children transported to the towns. It was really too bad, in such a matter, to create jealousies which would last as long as the rates were imposed, and which would do no good to anybody. The proposal was solely for the benefit of the landed interest; it would do much educational harm, and it would tend to make school boards unwilling to benefit outlying districts by bringing their promising children to the towns. The parochial area had been abolished for many purposes in this Bill, and he failed to see why it should be kept up for the purpose of establishing this inequitable incidence of rating.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWagreed that the present proposal was a very important one. The resolution of the Renfrew County Council to which the hon. Member had referred was undoubtedly

185
come to upon the consideration of certain aspects of the case, but it was not correct to say that it was a resolution in favour of the present system. It was a resolution in favour of county rating on the county basis and not on the parochial basis. If it had been possible to secure that in the Bill it would have given a uniform rate throughout the new educational area, and that would have been a great advantage. A strong objection to the parochial system of rating in connection with this Bill was that as various parishes would be grouped together in an educational district, the rate would vary in different parishes in the same group. Some parishes had varying systems of taxation; all had an optional system of deductions, and the rates varied so much that in one parish there would be a 3d. rate, in another a 4d. rate, and in another a 6d. rate, although these parishes would be in the same district. Such a condition of things would be prejudicial to the economical administration of the fund, and it was from that point of view that the county of Renfrew desired to see adopted the system of county rating rather than the system of parish rating. He reminded the hon. Member for the Border Burghs, who had objected to this matter being dealt with on the ground that the present Bill was not a Rating Bill, that in 1892, when the Local Taxation (Scotland) Act was passed, the grants were distributed on the basis of population and valuation; that was to say, on the very principle which the Secretary for Scotland now proposed to apply to the distribution of the burden over parishes grouped together for educational purposes.
The system established under the Bill must necessarily be a new system, because new areas were being created. As long as the parish system was adhered to under which a certain amount of money was raised to be spent in the parish, that was one thing; but a totally different state of matters would be set up when a number of parishes were grouped together. The hon. Member had made statements of a very general character, but he had not attempted to substantiate by figures the assertion that the original system was a fair system. The total amount of the contribution by the burghs from the "Common Good" to
186
educational funds—to which the hon. Member had referred—was a little under £6,000 a year, whereas the total amount raised from the rates for education was about £1,250,000, or, outside the enumeraated districts, about £750,000. That appeared to meet the remark with regard to the generosity of the burghs. There was great force in the argument of the Secretary for Scotland as to the necessity for finding some more equitable basis than that of valuation alone upon which to distribute the burden between the grouped parishes. In Renfrewshire the average valuation per head of the population in a burgh was about £5, whereas in the upper district of the county it was £8 10s., and in the lower and more rural area it was £9. He did not believe that the new system would create any such rankling feeling of unfair treatment as the hon. Member suggested. It might be worked up to a certain extent for political purposes, but it would not be supported by those who were authorities on the rating question, because they would see that the proposal was a slight effort in the direction of equalising the burden on a fairer basis than that of mere valuation. It would be altogether unfair for the population in the rural districts of Renfrewshire to have to pay a rate of about 9d. as against a rate of 5d. in the burghs.
MR. THOMAS SHAWdid not think per head of population was the proper basis for reckoning in this matter. Education had been a burden upon the heritors for a great many years, but as legislation had developed they had gradually edged out of it and this was the last step in the process.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid that the burden of the rates still fell very heavily upon the heritor, and whereas it was formerly voluntary it was now obligatory. A further instance of how the matter would work was afforded by the county of Forfar. The relative percentage of school children in the burghal and landward parts respectively was fifty-seven and forty-three; but the relative percentage of cost on the basis of valuation alone would be twenty-nine on the burghal and seventy-one on the landward parts; while on the basis of one-half by valuation and one

187
half by population, the percentage would be forty-two and a half on the burghal and fifty-seven and a half on the landward parts.
MR. BLACKasked whether the figures given by the hon. Baronet were in reference to the education rate only or to the whole of the municipal rate.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid he was speaking of the basis upon which the education rate would be distributed as between various parishes under the apportionment valuation. Unless the proposed basis were adopted the effect of the changes would be to cause the rural districts to resent the burdens placed upon them as being altogether disproportionate to the benefits they would derive. According to the educational returns the average rate at present was 2¾d. in the £ higher in the burghal districts than in the rural districts, so that if the rate were equalised as proposed it would mean the imposition of an additional 1d. or 1½d. upon the rural districts, and that would enormously add to the burden they already had to bear.
MR. McCRAEsaid if he could imagine an opponent of the Bill looking about for an obstructive; Amendment he could not conceive one more suitable for the purpose than the one moved by the Secretary for Scotland. It was quite foreign to the object of the Bill, and he should have asked the Secretary for Scotland, if he had been in his place, to give the Committee a reference to any authority on rating, Royal Commission or otherwise, which would support him in making the proposal in the Amendment. He had quite a Platonic interest in this so far as his constituents were concerned. This did not apply to the enumerated districts, and therefore his interest in the question was entirely connected with his interest in having a sound principle of rating. This was a most extraordinary proposal, and he could not think that the Secretary for Scotland had really gone into the matter with any great care. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman had simply adopted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire without really looking where this was going to lead
188
him. The Secretary for Scotland started with the assumption that they could get no responsible rating authority to say that they should rate on the gross valuation. No such proposal was in the Bill. The education rate was to be nine-tenths of the gross valuation, so that the right hon. Gentleman's argument there was quite superfluous. It had really nothing to do with the case, and the right hon Gentleman forgot, when denouncing gross rating, that in Scotland all municipal burghs rated on gross valuation. That was really throwing dust in the eyes of the Committee, and it had nothing whatever to do with the question before them. The great object of the Commissions which had reported on the question of rating in the past had been to have a uniform system of rating. Now they had in this Bill, which was not a Rating Bill, a proposal to introduce a totally new system so far as rating was concerned. He would ask the Secretary for Scotland or the Lord Advocate to give any authority for such a revolutionary proposal. A Royal Commission had recently reported on the subject of taxation, but the Secretary for Scotland was going behind the Commission in attempting to deal with the question of rating on a side issue in this Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman had put forward the plea that the rural districts required special treatment. They must remember that the education rate was divided equally between the owner and the occupier. They must also remember that the rural districts had special treatment so far as local taxation was concerned, and that if they were in a burgh they were only rated on a fourth of their rental. More than that, they got a dole under the Agricultural Rating Act to, as the promoters of the Act said, equalise any anomaly involving injustice. If this were given it would only be another dole in the same direction, and it would be bound to come out of somebody's pockets. The Secretary for Scotland was attempting in this proposal to alter the basis of assessment. The only argument on which great stress was laid was that stated by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire that this must be a very good principle because it was the principle adopted by the Government in giving certain grants to local authorities. The

189
Secretary for Scotland and the hon. Member for Renfrewshire were either talking with their tongue in their cheek when they gave such an illustration or else they had not looked very closely into the matter. The reason why that principle was adopted in the distribution of those grants-in-aid was that it was Imperial money which had been raised from the individual taxpayer, and, on the plea that personalty should contribute to local taxation, it was given to the local authorities as having come from that particular source and not from rental.
What the Committee should bear in mind was this. So far as he was aware there was no such system at the present time of taking population into account in levying any assessment. The example of this principle being adopted in connection with grants-in-aid did not help the Secretary for Scotland at all in the matter now under discussion. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman understood this question perfectly well, and he was astonished at his having brought it forward at the present time. It was entirely in opposition to the principle which he supported the Secretary for Scotland in adopting, namely, that the debt should be pooled and that there should be equality of treatment. He ventured to say that if this principle were adopted it would give rise to great friction and inequality between the different districts, and make the question of education not the main issue at all. It would give rise to great resentment. The last and he thought the weakest reason the Secretary for Scotland gave for the proposal was that he was going so far to redress the balance by the fact that he was not going to take £100,000 of the equivalent grant which he had proposed in the Bill to take from the burghs. The burghs and the counties at present received £150,000 a year from that source, and if the Secretary for Scotland was only going to take £50,000 he could not at all see how that was going to redress the balance with regard to this proposal. He hoped the Committee would not pass the Amendment. If they did it would be a blot on the Bill. He really hoped that the Secretary for Scotland, after full consideration of the matter, would withdraw this Amendment,
190
because if they were to touch the question of rating, which was a very difficult question, let them do it not by a side wind but on those principles which ought to guide them in levying assessments. He did think that the right hon. Gentleman was setting at defiance the sound principles which ought to guide them in levying assessments.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he was very anxious that the Committee should not have any misconception about this clause. He thought the view put forward by his hon. and learned friend the Member for the Border Burghs, backed up by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, really put an entirely wrong complexion on what was being done. First of all, the general purport of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs, to any person who did not understand the subject, would tend to the belief that the Amendment was in some way or other to disturb an existing system. It was doing nothing of the sort. The hon. Member asked why they could not leave things alone. He did not know that he used that expression, but what he said practically amounted to that. They could not leave things alone for this simple reason, that they were face to face with a problem which they must solve, and which had never been solved before, because they never had precisely the same conditions. They were aggregating together a set of areas which were separate for rating purposes, and from these areas conjoint expenditure had to be collected; at the end of the year a certain amount had to be met, which was commonly called the deficiency in the school fund. This could not be raised by the ordinary rate, because there was no common rate over the whole area, no rating authority to rate the new school board area as such. They might take the parochial rate, and then levy a sum of money over the area conglomerate of the rating authorities of A, B, C, and D, and go separately to each authority. Necessarily, they must face the question how much should be asked from each. Obviously there must be a division in some way. Should it be according to proportion, one to the other, on the basis of valuation or population, or should the

191
division be half in proportion to valuation, and half in proportion to population? If he could, he would make the financial arrangements such that the rating of the past should not be disturbed; but that could not be done. If the Amendment were passed the rating of the future, so far as the individual was concerned, would be far nearer to the rating of the past than it would be if the Bill remained as it stood, in which case it would be much further away from the rating of the past. There would be more inequality, not less, if the Amendment were rejected. That was the only thing that the individual practical Scotsman looked to. As to the sentimental side, the hon. Member said that it would cause resentment. Where was the resentment to come in? He did not want to take sides in this matter, but surely the resentment could not come in the case of the burghs, for as far as the burgh ratepayer was concerned—and he had looked into the case in great detail—in almost every every case the burgh ratepayer would find that the school rate was lower. He would not resent that. And although there would be a little resentment on the part of the non-burgh ratepayer in finding that his rate went up, his resentment would have been greater if the Amendment had not been passed, because then he would have had to pay a still greater rate.
MR. McCRAEsaid he thought this Amendment had been proposed for the benefit of the whole of the ratepayers.
MR. A.GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that that was just what he had been saying. What he wanted the Committee clearly to understand was that he was not disturbing anything. The hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs was quite mistaken when he said that he was bringing in a thorny problem of rating. He would much sooner not bring in rating at all; but he could not take the existing system and he was bound to bring forward a system which would be equitable and cause the least disturbance to the present state of things. Therefore he proposed to stick to his Amendment.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that whatever the merits of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment might be he had introduced into this discussion an enormously difficult question. He was in the enumerated districts and his constituents would not be affected by the right hon. Gentleman's proposal at all. Therefore, he could take an impartial view of the question and approach it without any feeling of jealousy as between burgh and county and without any feeling of resentment of any kind. He wanted to put one or two Questions in further elucidation of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to certain inquiries that had been made. He supposed that these inquiries were public and that the results had been made public.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYwas understood to say that the inquiries had not been made coram publico. What he meant was that, speaking roughly, the burgh rates were always higher than the rural rates, except in a few cases where a particular rural district was suffering under a load of a very large debt for a particular school.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he had presumed that there had been some public inquiry. As to the first portion of the Amendment, he agreed with the hon. Baronet opposite for two reasons. First, because, on the whole, he thought it was right that the locality, having incurred the debt, should continue, notwithstanding this Bill, to be responsible for the debt; and, second, because he could not help thinking that the two Amendments, now dissevered, were originally one, and that the first was a quid pro quo for the other. Now, the last speech of the Secretary for Scotland was really an admission that this was a complete novelty in the law of rating in Scotland. Was there any precedent for what the right hon. Gentleman proposed? He took it from the right hon. Gentleman's last frank statement that there was no precedent.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that there could not be, because the same circumstances had never arisen.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid then this proposal was an unprecedented novelty in the distribution of public burdens, and the justification for taking that course was that the problem itself was new. But the fact that the problem was new did not justify a new allocation of burdens unless that commended itself to the judgment of the Committee. Why should half of the burden be divided according to population and the other half according to valuation.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that that was the only way to do it. He contended that if it was equitable to bestow a benefit in that way, it was equally equitable to impose a burden. The author of the whole matter was the right hon. Gentleman who sat beside the hon. Member.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that because his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition proposed that a grant should be distributed, not according to valuation alone, or population alone, but partly on one and partly on the other, that was no reason why the same proposal should be made as regarded public burdens. That would go to the root of nearly the whole of our financial system. Were they to accept this, that public money distributed from the Imperial centre might be divided exactly in the same fashion as the public burdens were. Grants ought to be distributed according to the needs of the locality which was measured by the population. Burdens were imposed according to ability to pay. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would gain much by his new proposal. At present they were dealing with the question whether the words in the Bill should remain in the Bill. He invited the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the destroying effect on his own proposal. He never knew of a Minister, except the Prime Minister himself, who was prepared to throw over his own proposals with such readiness. The Amendment he would support would be to leave out of the Amendment the words "according to their respective valuations in the valuation roll last available."
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid that when he was last speaking he quoted figures as to the burghs in his own constituency in regard to the average valuation per head of the population. He should have said that in Paisley it was £5 per head, in Greenock £6 per head, and in the smaller burghs £4 per head.
SIR ANDREW AGNEWsaid that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had alleged that the Amendment dealt with a matter foreign to the Bill. He did not agree. The Bill when originally introduced dealt unfairly with the ratepayers in the landward parts of the country, and the Amendment was an attempt to remedy that inequality. It had been pointed out that a rate spread over the whole area would produce considerably less per head in the burghs than in the counties. He presumed that the proportion of children according to population was the same in the burghs as in the country districts. What would be the result? It would be that two sets of people in the same district would be paying two different prices for the same article. This would obviously be unfair. Then it was suggested that the contributions out of the "Common Good," to be paid by the burghs, could be accepted as some sort of a set-off for this inequality; but, as his hon. friend had pointed out, the total amount of that fund was only £6,000, which was considerably less than the amount of the rates they were discussing. It should also be remembered that the tendency of population now was in the direction of the towns; and that the country districts were provided with all the schools they required, or, probably, they would require in the future; whereas the towns were continually growing. Therefore, all schools that would have to be built in the future would have to be built in the towns, and to the building of these schools the country districts would contribute. These were matters the Committee ought to remember. He did not know whether the Amendment entirely redressed the inequality which appeared in the Bill as originally drafted; but, at any rate, it would considerably reduce that inequality; and he would, therefore, vote for it.
MR. JOHN DEWARsaid he wished to draw the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to one feature of this matter which had, up to the present, escaped notice. He was rather favourably impressed with the proposal when he saw it first; but after looking into the figures, and the results it would have in many parts of Scotland, he was inclined to think it would cause injustice in some very poor districts. In the Highlands particularly the very poor had been confined to certain districts which were in a very congested condition, and the larger areas given up to the purposes of sport. He was anxious to direct the attention of the Committee not so much to the relative position of county districts as against burghs as to the difference which existed between parishes in the same educational district. Looking at the valuation per head of the population, they found some interesting comparisons. In one educational district in Inverness-shire it was only £4 per head in one parish whereas in another parish in the same district the valuation was £17 per head. One was a congested district, and was in receipt of benefits under the Congested Districts Act; the other was a district of deer forests inhabited by very rich men. If the rate were put on the valuation, the result would be that the rich men would bear a very much larger share, and would let the poorer districts off more easily as ought to be done. To show the incredible poverty of some parts of the Highlands of Scotland there were many districts in the West of Scotland where the valuation was only £1 per head. Those districts were, however, included in one area, and would not be injuriously affected. But the inequality he drew attention to was true of the whole Northern counties of Scotland. In Perthshire, for instance, one district contained a parish the valuation of which was £5 per head, while another parish in the same district had a valuation of £18 per head. One was a very poor parish; the other was inhabited by men who could well afford to pay their share. Another district in Perthshire contained a parish with a valuation of £7 per head, while another parish in the same district had a valuation of £20 per
196
head. That was true of many districts all over the North of Scotland; and in those cases the proposal of the Secretary for Scotland would act most unfairly. He merely wished to draw the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to that feature of the matter, because he knew that the right hon. Gentleman did not wish that any injustice should be done. In those circumstances, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the clause until its effect could be ascertained.
SIR MARK STEWARTsaid that there were great difficulties connected with this matter, which he thought had been met in a very fair and courageous manner. The Bill, as originally drafted, would not have been fair. There were great changes going on in the counties and burghs; but he considered that any difficulty that might arise would be met by the Amendment.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid it was to be regretted that the Secretary for Scotland should have announced, in the most extremely positive terms, his determination to adhere to his Amendment without waiting to consider the arguments against it. The position was this. Certain deliberate proposals were made in the Bill to which no sort of widespread opposition was offered that he knew of. Then the Secretary for Scotland put down an Amendment to his own Bill, and proceeded to argue with great warmth against his original proposals. He was seized with a kind of holy zeal; repudiated his own proposals, and insisted on those other proposals. The right hon. Gentleman would admit that it was a matter of very grave importance. The Amendment was not a light matter; and the principle involved was a very serious one. He wished to ask, in the first place, whether justice as between burghs and counties required this Amendment to be made. The right hon. Gentleman had not informed the Committee as to that; although he admitted that so far as the matter lay between burghs and counties, it favoured the counties. The right hon. Gentleman had not given any figures; but it was not an easy matter, and probably the right hon. Gentleman had not had time.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that if the hon. Gentleman asked him about any particular county or burgh he could answer him at once; but no general answer was possible. The matter did riot depend on valuation and population alone; it also depended on the existing school rate in a particular place. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness gave an illustration. The hon. Gentleman was comparatively right, but he was really almost wrong. He referred to a district the rate in which would be represented by 1s. 1¾d. That was not the exact rate, because for purposes of comparison he did not take the exact rate, but the rate which would be the produce per £1 of the rateable value. The hon. Gentleman then referred to another district the rate in which would be 7¾d.; but the rate for the whole district would be only 8¾d., which would be an advantage to the poorer district.
MR. JOHN DEWARsaid that the reduction should be greater still.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he doubted whether English Members would appreciate the subtlety of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. He said that his hon. friend was comparatively right, but that he was really almost wrong. He understood the nicety of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks; but it might not be generally intelligible to those who had not had a legal training. There were no figures before the Committee to show the degree of advantage the counties would obtain under this Amendment as compared with the burghs. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the advantage was transferred to the counties, but he said it was balanced by other considerations. No attempt, however, had been made to appraise any of those considerations. They did not know the bearing of the Amendment in that respect; and that was very unsatisfactory in dealing with a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, especially as people in the country who would be Able to supply arguments, had not had any notice of it. The Committee did not know the bearing of the figures or how the counter-balancing of the different equivalents would work out. That was not an unfair observation to make to
198
the right hon. Gentleman. The people of Scotland should be given an opportunity of enlightening the Committee; but the right hon. Gentleman had done nothing in that direction. Rating was not a novel problem at all but an old one, but this principle of rating by valuation and population was entirely new. He had faith in the wisdom of our ancestors, and believed that if there had been anything in it this system would have been adopted long before the right hon. Gentleman hit upon it. It was true that valuation differed considerably in the burghs and in the counties; it was also true that valuation was enormously greater on one part of the population than on another in the same burgh. In the East End of London valuation was very low, but the population was more dense, and the result, if this principle were introduced, would be that the burden would fall very heavily on those who lived in the overcrowded and poorer districts. If they departed from the principle of payment according to ability they at once descended to a poll tax in rating, and that principle had been discarded long ago because it fell upon the poor and not upon the rich. The effect of this, to the extent to which it operated, must necessarily be not only to induce people to alter their course of conduct, but to deplete the rural districts, because the effect of its universal application would be that when people employed in the country districts became chargeable to the poor rate they would be told by the farmers and others, "We do not want you here, you must go to the burgh," and there would be a shifting of people into the burghs to save the rates. Such places as deer forests, upon which there was a large valuation, would get off free, while the congested districts inhabited by crofters would be very heavily taxed.
SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid the Secretary for Scotland had pointed out that what was called a shooting parish would bear a larger proportion of the expense. The hon. Member opposite should remember that it would receive less benefit than a crofting parish because a shooting parish contained very few children to educate.

199
And there was this consideration to bear in mind, that in the parish the hon. Gentleman alluded to, many children at the present time would receive no education whatever unless the proprietor of the parish met the school board halfway. He did not regret that a shooting parish would bear a larger proportion of the expense than other parishes.
MR. MCKENNAsaid he intervened in this debate only because it touched the question of rating, which did not affect Scotland alone. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland had based his argument in favour of this proposal first of all on an old precedent created by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when distributing a grant. The right hon. Gentleman said if it was equitable to divide a benefit on the principle of valuation and population, it was also equitable to divide a burden in the same way. Had he considered the matter a little further the right hon. Gentleman would have seen that the reason why the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition adopted this principle on that occasion, was the very reason why this proposal should not be made now. For the purposes of dividing a benefit, valuation and population was a valid guide, because congested and overcrowded districts were generally poor with a very low rateable value, and therefore it was, when the question of relief was concerned, the principle of valuation and population was applied. But when it came to imposing a burden, the burden should be imposed heavily on the rich districts and lightly on the poor, and the argument in favour of valuation and population would not apply. When asked for a precedent for this proposal, the Secretary for Scotland said it would be impossible to show a precedent because this condition of things had never arisen before. That might or might not be so so far as Scotland was concerned, but it was the normal condition of the local taxation of this country. It was the problem which faced our Poor Law unions every year, and although the problem was being dealt with every day in this country, it had never been suggested that the burden should be distributed on a valuation and
200
population basis. If the right hon Gentleman looked into the Report of the Commission, he would not find a single instance of such a proposal as that which he had made to the House, and if this proposal had been made in the Bill itself and Members had had an opportunity of considering it for a longer period, it would have raised such a storm of protest that it would have had to be withdrawn. He should vote against it.
SIR WALTER THORBURNsaid if the figures he had quoted on the previous Amendment had any meaning at all, a very great injustice would be done unless this Amendment were carried, because, as he showed them, his constituency, which had a population of 4,200, had a larger amount of valuation than two of the burghs represented by the hon. Member for the Border Burghs, which had a population of nearly 20,000 inhabitants. He did not wonder that those who would derive a benefit from, its not passing should be desirous that this proposal should be defeated, but he, at all events, desired to see justice done. Although, as the hon. Member for the Border Burghs had said, this was not a Rating; Bill, it was nevertheless a Bill that would considerably raise the rates, and the urban populations would get much greater advantages under the Bill than the rural populations, because there were five times as many children in the burghs as in the country districts. Inasmuch as the proposal would in many cases relieve tenants who could ill afford to pay any increased rate, he thought it was one that ought to be supported.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that, having listened to the discussion with a perfectly open mind, he desired to state the reasons which had driven him to the conclusion that the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman ought to be opposed. On questions of this kind there were two possible standpoints—that of abstract justice and that of the interests of one's own constituents—and he had noticed in the discussion that the consideration of abstract justice had been somewhat tinged by a colouring drawn from the manner in which the matter would affect various constituencies. The

201
only persons who could be strictly impartial were the representatives of the enumerated districts, and so far as they had contributed to the debate they had been unanimously in favour of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELLdissented.
MR. ASQUITHsaid it was true the right hon. Baronet spoke as a representative of an enumerated district, but he thought his heart was rather in the Highlands. County Members in the strict sense, representing the rural districts, were naturally in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, while the interests of the burgh Members was rather the other way. Under these circumstances he had been thinking how he should stand in the matter as representing East Fife. He was not certain how the figures worked out, but in that district burgh and rural communities were intermixed with an amount of impartiality, both in intelligence and in comfort, that was not to be paralleled in any part of Scotland. Therefore, so far as it was possible for anyone to be who did not represent an enumerated district, lie thought he was in a position to approach the consideration of the matter with an impartial mind, from the point of view not only of justice but also of policy.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the division, both in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency and in his own, was almost equal.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that in that case both the right hon. Gentleman and himself could look at the matter apart altogether from any consideration of how it affected their constituents. It was agreed that so far as rating was concerned this was an entirely novel precedent, which was not dreamt of by the framers of the Bill in the course of their long deliberations on the subject, and which was not in the least degree supported by the precedent cited by the right hon. Gentleman of the basis on which grants were distributed. Being a member of the Liberal Party, he did not
202
say it was any objection to a proposal that it was novel or had not been dreamt of before, but it did necessitate, especially in so well-worn a subject as that of rating, that it should be approached with a certain amount of suspicion. It was idle for the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was not a rating question. It was perfectly true that what the Committee were primarily considering was how the gross burden was to be apportioned between the different constituent members of the newly created areas, but the rating must depend upon how the apportionment was made, and the apportionment must necessarily lead to consequential changes in the incidence of the rating. He had not heard any sufficient argument to justify this entirely unprecedented change in the principles of the law of rating.
His next objection was still stronger. On the ground of policy he considered that this matter was pre-eminently one which ought not to be introduced into a Bill of the kind now before the Committee—a non-contentious measure not dealing primarily with rating at all—until the opinion of Scotland had been clearly ascertained. He had received more representations in relation to this Bill, and more arguments upon its various clauses, than had been the case in regard to any other Scotch measure which he could remember, and yet not one of them had any reference to this point. Scotland was satisfied with the system as it stood, and they had no idea that this revolutionary proposal was going to be made. As to the equity of the case, he agreed with his hon. friend behind him that population was not a fair criterion in this matter. A comparative congestion of population might be an indication not of wealth, but of poverty. They could not possibly argue from the fact that there was a larger number of human beings aggregated over a particular area than over a corresponding area, that the one community was better fitted to bear the burden than the other. On all these grounds, though he did not desire to impute to the right hon. Gentleman anything else than an honest attempt to deal equitably with a very difficult problem, he should oppose the Amendment.
MR. MACONOCHIEsaid he should support the Amendment, which, he understood, placed the burghs in no worse position than they were at present, and the counties in the position of not having their rates unduly raised. He hoped they would be able to take a division as early as possible otherwise he was afraid that they would not get as far with the Bill as they were expecting.
MR. EUGENE WASONsaid that, like his right hon. friend the Member for East Fife, he had received a large number of communications in regard to this Bill, not one of which had any reference to this Amendment. He supported the Government most cordially in regard to their last Amendment, because he thought that this pooling of the debt was a right and proper thing to do. As to the present Amendment, he had not the remotest idea what its effects would be. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give them some information as to how the Division he represented would be affected by this Amendment. If he knew exactly how it was going to work he should support it. This was the wrong time and place to endeavour to introduce this absolutely novel application of the principles of rating. He thought the Secretary for Scotland would do well to postpone the Amendment for the moment in order that the constituencies might be consulted as to its effect.
CAPTAIN BALFOURsaid he was very much surprised to hear the hon. Member opposite state that this was a proposal which had never before been heard of in Scotland. He should have thought that anyone familiar with local government in Scotland would have known that the principle of this Amendment was not novel in Scotland, where it had frequently been adopted in regard to the erection of hospitals. When several districts combined for the erection of a common hospital they often did so upon the basis of this very principle which was now being proposed by the Secretary for Scotland. They were generally supposed to be business men in Scotland who knew how
204
to manage local affairs. Agreements upon this principle were made between different districts in Scotland because it was found to be a fair and beneficial arrangement to all concerned.
MR. McCRAEasked if the right hon. Gentleman could give him the figures as to the result which the working out of the plan of this Amendment would be likely to produce.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he was not prepared to give specific figures, but the general result of the Bill as the clause stood would be that the burgh rate would come down, and in the counties the rate would rise, and by the Amendment the result would be the same, but not to such a great extent. He did not think that he could usefully add anything to what he had said before upon this question, but he would like to point out that he had not introduced this proposal in order to launch his barque on some unknown sea of rating. What he had to do was to face a new problem which was not of his own creation, but which had been forced upon him by the form which the Bill had taken. He had got to apportion this burden somehow, and he had done it by the Amendment in a way that would make less disturbance from the existing state of matters than any other method which had been suggested. That was a part of his argument for this Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife failed to notice at all. He was under the impression that he had the honour of having the right hon. Gentleman as one of his auditors when he replied to this point before, and therefore he concluded that the right hon. Gentleman had ignored that point because he did not see any particular answer to it. Though there would be little difference in Fife, there would be more difference in the constituent units there. What they wished to do in making a new arrangement of this kind was to have as little disturbance as possible of the existing state of things. The ordinary ratepayer did not think of theories of taxation. What he thought of was the question—What is the school rate I have to pay? Under the arrangement proposed in this Amendment there would be less difference between the rate he

205
would have to pay in future and the rate he paid at present than if they stuck to the proposal in the Bill. There would toe no injustice under the proposal made on the Amendment, and it would cause less disturbance of the existing state of things. It was quite true that the county councils had met since. Among the many deputations which had waited on him was one from the County Councils' Association after the Amendment was put on the Paper, and they warmly supported the Amendment.
MR. CALDWELLsaid the Secretary for Scotland had looked upon this matter with the view of keeping to the existing state of things. He asked the Committee to recollect that a new area was to be created from the first. It was to be composed of eight or ten distinct parishes. Upon what principle was the school rate to be levied in that new area? They would necessarily levy the rate according to valuation so that every part of the area would bear its quota according to the extent of the valuation. What was the proposal, not in the Amendment but in the Bill? The proposal in the Bill was that before they began to subdivide the amount throughout the different local authorities they should first of all determine the amount which each of these parishes ought to bear. What was the amount which each parish ought to bear? Obviously valuation would be the principle upon which the assessment would be levied if the area were taken as one area alone. Why did this matter of subdivision come in here at all? It was simply owing to the fact that there were six or eight different parishes combined in the new area. It was proposed that these parishes should collect within their area the school rate in the same way as they were doing at present. In Scotland they had the anomaly that certain parishes had a classification—that was to say, certain deductions in some parishes and certain deductions in others. It would be seen, therefore, that if they were to assess the area as a whole everyone would be assessed equally according to his valuation. The Secretary for Scotland said, "Look at the existing state of things." That had nothing to do with the matter. The Government were creating a new area altogether for taxation purposes.
MR. WEIRsaid he was sorry the Secretary for Scotland had made the proposal in the Amendment now before the Committee. He had done his best to help the right hon. Gentleman to get the Bill through by keeping his mouth shut hitherto, but there was a time when one could no longer be silent. He could not believe that the right hon. Gentleman in his heart desired to have the whole of the Highland population cleared out. If that was his policy he could only say that he had been badly advised. The right hon. Gentleman should go up to Ross-shire and Inverness-shire, and see the vast tracts of land from which the people had been cleared out to make room for deer forests and sheep farms. He was sorry to find the right hon. Gentleman by his Amendment assisting the landlords in clearing the Highland people still further out of their native glens. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was a premium on depopulation. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was applauded by the hon. Member for Kirkcudbrightshire, who said it did not affect the South; but it affected very seriously the North. The owners of deer forests, sheep farms, and salmon fisheries ought to bear the burden, and not the poor fishermen and crofters who had been crushed down to the edge of the sea. He had never heard of the Highland landlords bearing the whole education rate; their policy had been to keep down the rates as much as possible, and if the Amendment was carried they would do their utmost to clear the people out in order that they might escape their share of the burden for the education of the people. The Amendment would put an unjust burden on the poorest of the poor in the Highland crofting counties whose conditions of life were such as he had never witnessed in any part of the British Empire except India. He was much disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman should have adopted this course. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would consider this matter in a spirit of generosity and justice to these poor people. The right hon. Gentleman must know that the people were quite unable to pay any further rates. They were too heavily burdened already.
MR. A. GEAHAM MURRAYsaid that the effect of the words would be to lower the rates in the very districts of which the hon. Member was speaking.
MR. WEIRsaid he listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, and he distinctly understood him to state that the country districts would be more heavily burdened than at present, and that the taxation in the burghs would be lighter.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid it was quite the other way. Under the Bill as drafted the burden would be heavier in the counties than in the burghs, but the Amendment would operate in quite the other way.
MR. WEIRsaid he contended that the burden should be imposed on the landlords and the landlords only. An hon. Gentleman opposite suggested that hospitals are in some districts provided by the landlord; but that was purely voluntary. They might find a landlord who would not give a cent to a hospital, or another landlord who was so precious hard up that he would be unable to give anything, having lost his all at Ascot or Monte Carlo. The effect of the Bill would bear very seriously on the Highland districts; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would find some way out of the difficulty, and impose the whole of the education rate on the landlords, the owners of deer forests and salmon fisheries in the Highland crofting counties.
MR. DALZIELsaid he wished to ask whether it would be possible to move a further Amendment in the event of the present Amendment being accepted.
THE CHAIRMAN: It depends very much on what the Amendment is. It would not be possible to move to re-insert words which had been struck out. The words now proposed to be inserted, however, will be open to amendment.
MR. DALZIELsaid there would, no doubt, be other opportunities of speaking on the question. He only wished to say that the Amendment would bear more
208
hardly on his constituency than, perhaps on any other; and, therefore, he wished to protest against it. The Amendment had been brought forward so suddenly that it had been impossible for Members to consult their constituents. The Bill had been practically accepted on all sides as a non-contentious measure, which, however, would require a great deal of consideration. Now a question totally foreign to the Bill was introduced. There was no more troublesome question than the question of rating. It was settled in a certain way as the Bill was originally drafted, and there was no protest against it from any part of Scotland. Now the right hon. Gentleman, at the very last, moment, dragged in this question, and wished to establish a precedent for the future. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would regret the responsibility of making the Bill a contentious measure. Hundreds of thousands of pounds had been spent in inquiries into the rating question; but there was not even a Minority Report in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had made this important departure. It would not make it easier for him to get his Bill through; the whole weight of opinion in Scotland, so far as could be judged from the speeches in this Committee, were against it, and this was a matter which ought to affect Scotland alone, and for that reason he should vote against the Amendment.
SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid this Amendment introduced a principle which he thought was very important and which should not be settled without some discussion. It proposed to make a complete change in the method of assessing rates in Scotland. He was always told by his Scottish friends that what Scotch people did to-day England and Wales were expected to do to-morrow; and he could not help thinking that, if this principle were admitted in this Bill, it was quite possible they would shortly see it put into an English Bill. He agreed that the Amendment proposed to relieve the rating in country districts and put it upon burghs, because if they attempted to put the whole of the rating upon valuation as it had always been the custom to do, of course the same

209
principle would be carried out in Scotland as existed in England at the present time; but they could not overlook the fact that already the agricultural interest had a special advantage in regard to rating, and he did think English Members should hesitate before they accepted the principle of the Amendment in the Scotch Bill. What was its effect with regard to Scotland? Supposing there was a large deer forest, of course if the rates were upon valuation alone the valuation of the deer forests would be extremely high; but, if half were put upon population, the actual rating of the deer forests would
be reduced. He could not see any justice whatever in putting this principle in the Bill, and he thought the Secretary for Scotland in making such a vital change in the method of apportionment of the rates ought to have given more notice to the House so that the question could have been more fully considered. He protested against the principle being introduced, and he should vote against it.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 113; Noes, 169. (Division List No. 154.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Fenwick, Charles

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Asher, Alexander

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Field, William

O'Malley, William

Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Shee, James John

Atherley-Jones, L.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

Partington, Oswald

Barlow, John Emmott

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bignold, Arthur

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Black, Alexander William

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Reddy, M.

Boland, John

Hammond, John

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Reid.Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Hayden, John Patrick

Rigg,Richard

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

Runciman, Walter

Burt, Thomas

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Russell, T. W.

Caldwell, James

Horniman, Frederick John

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Cameron, Robert

Joicey, Sir James

Schwann, Charles E.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Jones William (Carnarvonshire

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Camphell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Joyce, Michael

Sheehy, David

Cawley, Frederick

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan,W.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kilbride, Denis

Soares, Ernest J.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Labouchere, Henry

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R (Northants

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.)

Sullivan, Donal

Cremer, William Randal

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Crombie, John William

Leamy, Edmund

Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Cullinan, J.

Leng, Sir John

Walton,John Lawson (Leeds,S.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lloyd-George, David

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Delany, William

Lough, Thomas

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Lundon, W.

Weir, James Galloway

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Dobbie, Joseph

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Wilson, Henry J. (York.W.R.)

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Doogan, P. C.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Young, Samuel

Duncan, J. Hastings

Murnaghan, George

Dunn, Sir William

Murphy, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Edwards, Frank

Nannetti, Joseph P.

M'Crae and Mr. Dalziel.

Elibank, Master of

Nolan,Col. John P. (Galway,N.

Ellice,Capt E.C (S.Andrw'sBghs

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

NOES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Balfour, RtHnGerald W.(Leeds

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Balcarres, Lord

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Arrol, Sir William

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r

Bigwood, James

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Henderson, SirA. (Stafford, W.

Randles, John S.

Brassey, Albert

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Rankin, Sir James

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hogg, Lindsay

Ratcliff, R. F.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Bull, William James

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Renwick, George

Butcher, John George

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Ridley, S.Forde (Bethnal Green

Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow)

Hunt, Rowland

Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon.Arthur Fred.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerr, John

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A (Worc

Knowles, Sir Lees

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Chapman, Edward

Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Charrington, Spencer

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Smith, H.C. (North'mb Tyneside

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Spear, John Ward

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Davenport, William Bromley

Macdona, John Cumming

Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart

Davies, Sir HoratioD. (Chatham

Maconochie, A. W.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Denny, Colonel

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Stock, James Henry

Dickson, Charles Scott

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh,W

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Stroyan, John

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE.

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Doughty, George

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir FrederickG.

Talbot, Rt Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Univ.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Montagu, Hon.J. Scott (Hants.)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Morpeth, Viscount

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Morrell, George Herbert

Tufnell, Lieut-Col. Edward

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Fisher, William Hayes

Mount, William Arthur

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamH.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Forster, Henry William

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Webb, Colonel William George

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Welby, Lt. Col. A.C.E. (Taunton

Galloway, William Johnson

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts

Gardner, Ernest

Myers, William Henry

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nairn)

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Gore, Hn G.R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

Peel, Hn.Wm. Robert Wellesley

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Pemberton, John S. G.

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Percy, Earl

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Pierpoint, Robert

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Harris, F. Leveiton (Tynem'th

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Plummer, Walter R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Alexander Acland - Hood

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

and Viscount Valentia.

Heath, James (Staffords.,N.W.

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progess; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LEITH CORPORATION TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (BY ORDER.)
  Motion to refer to Joint Committee.
  MR. KERRformally moved under Section 9 of the Private Legislation
  212
  Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, that the Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.
  SIR LEWIS McIVERsaid as his hon. friend who had moved this Motion, being pecuniarily interested in this matter, could neither speak nor take part in the division upon this Question, the duty of explaining the reason for this Motion being made devolved upon him. The simplest course would perhaps be to state the facts upon which the

  213
  Motion was made. The system of tramways running between Edinburgh and Leith had been worked for some time by the Edinburgh Tramways Company, who leased the lines from the Edinburgh Corporation. The Tramways Company were under a Parliamentary obligation to run an omnibus in connection with their tramway between two points, a point in Edinburgh to a point in Leith. The Leith Corporation had recently embarked on a system of electric trams, and the Order was now before the House for confirmation. When the local inquiry was held the Edinburgh Tramways Company applied to be heard on the ground that they thought they would be damnified by certain provisions of the Bill, one of their greatest objections being that the new tramways would compete with the line of omnibuses which they were compelled to run under the statute. Being compelled to run these omnibuses by Parliament, they thought they ought to be protected against unfair competition. The speed at which the electric trams would run would be twice that which the omnibuses could attain, and the journey would be made in half the time, and the result, in the opinion of the Edinburgh Tramways Company, would be that the already bad business done by the omnibuses would be rendered far worse. The Edinburgh Tramways Company were not anxious in any way to oppose the preamble of this Bill. They merely wished to be heard, in order that they might be released from their Parliamentary obligations to run these omnibuses, which, in the face of electric tramways, had become obsolete. They contended that the Parliamentary agreement under which they ran this line entitled them to a hearing, but being refused a locus by the Commissioners this application was made to this House. That was the real ground for this Motion. In the House of Commons the question of locus was officially disposed of by the Court of Referees; in the House of Lords it was disposed of by five members of the Committee, but in all cases it was treated as a formal question and adjudicated on. In this case the Chairman of the Commission merely said he did not think they were entitled to a locus. The only possible objection to granting this Motion was that it might inaugurate a system of
  214
  appeals from the Scottish local tribunal. If he thought such a thing was ever likely to be the case he should have hesitated to have supported this Petition, but so far from that being the case no appeal could arise on the facts. He could not conceive a clearer case of where persons had a right to be heard and he submitted that as Parliament compelled them to run these omnibuses they had a primâ facie case for a locus standi. That was the sole reason why this Petition had been brought. There was no other procedure of which he was aware which would have enabled them to obtain an authoritative decision on the question, and therefore they were compelled to come to the House in this way. He begged to second.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."—(Mr. Kerr.)
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid this petition raised a point which was quite new in respect to the Act, and of considerable importance. He would venture to submit four reasons against this Motion. First, the Motion was against the letter and spirit of the 1899 Act; secondly, it threatened public rights under the Act by elimination, an essential provision, by encouraging appeals; thirdly, it was wholly unnecessary as regarded Leith; and fourthly, it would impose on Parliament a burden which the Act of 1899 sought to remove, and it would lower the status of local inquiries if appeals were allowed as regarded locus standi. The question of general interest under this Bill was a national question. The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act of 1899 was not a very ambitious Act, but it did impose on the Commissioners holding local inquiries the duty of determining a locus. The Act said that the Commissioners should hear and determine any question of locus standi, and in this case the question of the locus standi was heard at considerable length, and it was stated that all the formalities were not gone through, at all events, the Chairman expressed the opinion that he did not see the lessees had any locus

  215
  standi because of the omnibuses. If the city of Edinburgh, the lessors, were satisfied their lessees should be satisfied also. It certainly seemed rather hard that because a decision was given in a way which did not commend itself to everybody that the Corporation of Leith should be put to the expense and Parliament to the trouble of having another inquiry here. The Petition on which this Amendment was based demanded an amendment of the Act of 1899, because if such a plea as was in contemplation under this Petition was successful it would set a precedent, and there would be any number of appeals. It was difficult enough now to get Members to attend these local inquiries owing to the procedure adopted, but it would be infinitely more difficult to get Members to attend them in the future if they knew that appeals would be allowed on such matters as locus standi. The object of the original Act was to promote efficiency and economy and to relieve Parliament of a burden. All those objects would be largely defeated if this Motion were to be adopted by the House. The local question, which had been resurrected from the local inquiry, had been very well described by the hon. Baronet opposite, and he need not deal with that. The Corporation of Edinburgh, from whom the company leased those tramways, were quite content, and if the company thought they had a grievance that was a matter entirely between them and their lessor, the corporation. What Leith complained of was that by a side issue this tramway company had tried to get rid of their obligation to run these omnibuses without attempting to come to a fair agreement with the corporation. The cost of meeting this Petition alone was considerable, but he thought it would be well spent if it hindered the creation of, in his opinion, an exceedingly vicious precedent.
  MR. PARKER SMITHfelt that it would not be out of place if those who represented the Court of Referees interested in Scotch Bills said a word upon this question. He approached its consideration from a point of view entirely independent of any local circumstance. The principle of this
  216
  Petition was to admit the principle of a rehearing before this House. The scheme of the Legislation Procedure Act of 1899 was in the first place to have a hearing in Scotland. But it was not the intention of the Act to be finally satisfied with that hearing. The hon. Gentleman had complained of the evil effect that would be produced from a double hearing, but, after all, if there was a double hearing it only put them in the position under which they were before the Act of 1899 was passed. The position taken up by hon. Members on the occasion of a Bill coming up on its merits was that, as a matter of right, a petitioner had the same right to be heard before a Joint Committee as he had to be heard before the House. The House did not take that view, but expressed the opinion that a case ought to be made on the merits before application to be heard in this House was granted. But it would be going a step beyond anything that had even been done if the House were to decide in a case, not where a man had been heard, and his Petition rejected, upon the merits but where the Petition had been set aside altogether and denied a locus, that he should be denied the opportunity of coming and asking this House for a locus. It was perfectly well known that the House of Commons did consider competition an adequate ground for giving a locus. They had cases before them continually, some where the competition was so small that the question was whether the competition was sufficient to give a petitioner a locus, and others in which people petitioned on the ground of competition, and the competition was so strong that their Petition was not contested. In all these cases they had to consider how serious the competition was, and if the competition was of a mere imaginary or trifling nature then the hearing was not granted. So far as he could judge from the facts brought before the House, there was a substantial case of competition, and one which would justify the petitioners in coming to this House for a locus. It would be a very unsatisfactory result if this Petition was rejected, as a feeling would get abroad that people did not get a fair hearing even before this tribunal. The House should be very careful that those who had rights which they could maintain against anything but an Act of

  217
  Parliament, should be heard when anything took place which affected those rights. He thought the weight of probable advantage would be most distinctly in favour of allowing the petitioners an opportunity of being heard.
  SIR ROBERT REIDdid not consider that the case was of such a character as to justify a rehearing. He thought the sense of the House would be to refuse a rehearing except in very exceptional cases. The question they had now to consider was whether this was an exceptional case. Was it so exceptional that they ought to interfere? The proposal was that when a tramway Bill was being authorised which everybody desired, the matter should be reheard simply because somebody wished to get rid of a contractual obligation to the Leith Corporation. The Leith Corporation itself did not want to get rid of this obligation. Because the locus standi had been adjudged against the tramways the House was being asked that every one of these concerns, for which he cared nothing, should be allowed a rehearing because somebody wanted to get rid of their obligation to run an omnibus service after having failed to get rid of that obligation with the persons with whom they were bound to run that service. He gave the Government every credit for having passed the Bill dealing with private Bill legislation in Scotland, and he hoped they would not allow the main object of that Bill to be frustrated by permitting a rehearing in a case of this kind.
  MR. WORSLEY-TAYLORthought there was a prima facie claim to a locus standi, though he did not suggest that the petitioners, if allowed to be heard, would persuade the Committee that their case was right. The 9th Section of the Scotch Act provided that a Motion might be made that a Bill might be referred to a Joint Committee which might determine any question of locus standi. If that Committee decided that they were entitled to locus, then they would be heard; but if they came to an opposite decision then the petitioners would not be heard. The hon. Member for Leith had put this matter upon
  218
  the broad ground that there ought to be no appeals in cases of this kind, otherwise they would not be able to get Members to serve in Scotland.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONexplained that what he said was that it would aggravate the difficulty of getting Members to serve if their authority was diminished, because their authority under the Act of 1899 in regard to local inquiries enabled them to decide the point of locus standi.
  MR. WORSLEY-TAYLORsaid tint under Section 9 a Motion might be made to refer to a Joint Committee, who also were to decide questions of locus standi and he failed to see how that authority would be diminished. How could the authority of a Committee of this House be diminished by the fact that there was a right of appeal to a Committee of the other House? They did not find hon. Members objecting because their decisions upon various questions were subject to review in another place. He thought this was one of those cases which showed very strongly that the provision that there should only be a right of appeal by leave of the House was a very unfortunate one. For many years the House had relegated these questions of locus standi to the Court of Referees. Now the House was forced to discuss a question which in an ordinary Bill would be taken away and would be decided by the Court of Referees, which afforded every opportunity for the discussion of details and the studying of the maps which were so essential in matters of this kind, and with every possibility of dealing with them in a satisfactory way. Under the present procedure, they were obliged to decide this matter in the House without any of those facilities. It had been suggested that in this case there were no prima facie grounds of locus, but according to the practice of that Court he thought this was such a case as would give the petitioners a right to be heard. Briefly the circumstances were these: The petitioners were bound to run a certain omnibus service upon a definite route settled by Act of Parliament. So long as matters continued as at present they had no ground of complaint. But this Bill sought to introduce a new set of circumstances, and

  219
  the question now arose whether they should or should not now be allowed to state their case. They contended that they were now running that service at a loss. One provision of this Bill was that the Corporation of Leith with the rates at their back might run omnibus services. That meant that the corporation might run, with the aid of the rates, another omnibus service in competition with these people, who were under a statutory obligation to continue to run a service upon which they were now losing money. Now if the corporation elected to run a service in competition it was perfectly clear that they were in a position to practically ruin them. Under this Bill the corporation might build new tramways, which he was told were to be run in competition with the new service- If that were so, then what would happen would be that the Corporation of Leith, with the rates at their back, might put down trams also in direct competition with them.
  ME. MUNRO FERGUSON: The hon. Member is quite misinformed upon that point.
  MR. WORSLEY-TAYLORsaid this Bill practically meant that the corporation could run any service they liked for the limitation in the Bill did not seem a very real one. They might run an electric service, and although that service might not run along the same streets as this omnibus service, it might still be a very effective form of competition, because it might be quicker though more circuitous, and, as they would have the rates at their back they might charge half the fares charged by the petitioners. He agreed that the petition was not altogether an artistic one, and did not state in terms the word "competition," but competition was at the root of this Petition, and was a necessary implication from its statements, and the result of his experience was that if this were a matter for decision by the Court of Referees he ventured to say that the application for locus ought to be granted. He hoped, therefore, that the Petitioners would be allowed to state their case again for a hearing.
  MR. DALZIEL, said there was one thing which had been
  220
  made quite clear by this Motion, and that was that the question raised by it was a much broader one than appeared on the face of it. When the Private Procedure Bill for Scotland was passed the main idea before the House was that only on very rare occasions would there-be an appeal to the House of Commons. There was no doubt that if they were to reconsider the decisions of the Commissioners in Scotland in the House of Commons with regard to locus standi the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman dealing with this kind of legislation would no longer serve its purpose. They had a peculiar set of circumstances to consider in regard to this Bill. The Motion was moved by the hon. Member opposite, who was one of the principal parties concerned in this particular matter, and who was one of the principal shareholders in the tramways they were now considering. He doubted the wisdom of the hon. Member opposite, who was a member of the Court of Referees, coming before the House of Commons and stating what that Court would do under certain circumstances. He did not think that it was any part of the House of Commons to sit in judgment upon decisions which had been arrived at in Scotland. The House had not the maps before it, nor had hon. Members the advantage of hearing counsel on both sides, and that was the whole point. The Commissioners in Scotland had had the evidence before them and they had carefully weighed that evidence. They had carefully considered whether a case had been made out for a locus standi and they had come to the conclusion that a case had not been made out. It seemed to him that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and unless some stronger reasons were given, he had no alternative but to support the action of the Commissioners upon this question. Edinburgh was not opposed to the Bill, and therefore they had to look at the merits of the measure itself and the precedent that would be set up if they took the course which had been suggested by the hon. Member opposite. There were many persons in Scotland who regretted that the Private Procedure Bill was passed, and once the House of Commons sanctioned an appeal on such a small matter as this they would have a

  221
  large number of applications for a similar privilege, and the whole machinery of the Private Bill Procedure Act would be useless, for they would be discussing over again in the House the very questions which that Bill was passed to avoid. He did not think that a case had been made out for passing a vote of censure on the action of the Commissioners in Scotland in regard to this matter. The Act stated that the Commissioners could decide the question of locus standi. [An HON. MEMBER: Subject to rehearing.] But that provision was contained in another part of the Bill. It was very doubtful whether it was ever contemplated that there should be an appeal upon a question of locus standi. By passing this Bill they would be simply censuring their own representatives in Scotland, and the effect would be that they would not be able to get men to go to Edinburgh to give evidence and consider these questions, if their decisions were going to be reconsidered, and probably reversed, in the House of Commons. By such a course the Commissioners would lose their dignity, for they would be threatened all the time they were considering these cases with appeals from their decisions. He submitted that a case had not been made out for this Motion.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said that he was rather unwilling to take part in this debate, but in his position as the Minister responsible for these Orders he did not think it would be right if he did not tell the House how this matter struck him. He could not say that the case was an easy one to decide, and certainly he should not attempt to direct the House in the matter. He did not

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Denny, Colonel

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brassey, Albert

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Doughty, George

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. SirH.

  Chapman, Edward

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Balfour, RtHn. GeraldW. (Leeds

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Forster, Henry William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick,S. W.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M.M.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Bigwood, James

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  wish to dogmatise in this matter, but, on the other hand, it would not be fair to all the parties concerned if he did not state his views. He did not think it was necessary for him to go into the history of this clause or to discuss how it came to be inserted in the Bill. The original Bill gave a right of appeal. The clause in the Act stated that—
  "If before the expiration of seven days a Petition be presented it shall be lawful for any Member to give notice that he intends to move, and if such Motion is carried, then the question shall be referred to the Joint Committee to hear and determine any question of locus standi."
  The House would see that there was an appeal provided for in certain cases, but the Act did not give an indication as to what those cases were. He thought the view of the House was that unless a clear case was made out—something equivalent to a perversion of justice—the House w s not anxious to rehear a case. He was bound to say that he thought the locus standi in this case was wrongly refused. In view of all the circumstances of the case, in his judgment the preferable course would be to give the party who had been refused a locus an opportunity of showing before a Joint Committee that it had been wrongly refused. If he had no locus, he would be turned out at once. If, on the other hand, he had a locus, it was obvious that he would have suffered an injustice if he had not had an opportunity of putting his case before the Commission. In his opinion, it was not a case for the Government to interfere, but as an individual he should support the rehearing of a case for locus standi.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Aves, 103; Noes, 83. (Division List No. 155.)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford,W.)

  Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

  Spear, John Ward

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Mount, William Arthur

  Strovan, John

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham(Bute

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Myers, William Henry

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Percy, Earl

  Tollemache, Henry James

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lawson, JohnGrant (Yorks, N.R

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliam H

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

  Randles, John S.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Renwick, George

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E. (Taunton

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wilson-Todd, SirW.H. (Yorks.)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S)

  Russell, T. W.

  Lowther, Rt Hn. JW (Cum. Penr.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Sir Lewis M'Iver and Mr. Worsley-Taylor.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Smith, HC. (North'mb.Tyneside

  NOES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Partington, Oswald

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hammond, John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bell, Richard

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Reddy, M.

  Black, Alexander William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Boland, John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Reid, SirR. Threshie (Dumfries

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Rigg, Richard

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Burt, Thomas

  Joyce, Michael

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Caldwell, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Seely, Maj. J.E.B. (Isle of Wight

  Cameron, Robert

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal,W.)

  Sheehy, David

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leamy, Edmund

  Slack, John Bamford

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Leese, Sir JosephF. (Accrington

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R. (Northants

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sullivan, Donal

  Crombie, John William

  Leng, Sir John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cullinan, J.

  Lundon, W.

  Thomas, DavidAlfred (Merthyr)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  M'Crae, George

  Weir, James Galloway

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Wilson, Henry J. (York. W.R.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Morley, Rt.Hon. John(Montrose

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murnaghan, George

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Edwards, Frank

  Murphy, John

  Woodhouse, SirJ.T. (Hudd'rsf'd

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Young, Samuel

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Mr. Munro Ferguson and Mr. Dalziel.

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Malley, William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Shee, James John

  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to communicate this Resolution, And desire their concurrence.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHEE (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 25.
Amendment again proposed—
"In lieu of the words omitted in page 11, line 1, at commencement, to insert the words 'In the case of an enumerated district according to their respective valuations in the valuation roll last available, and in all other cases one-half according to their respective populations as ascertained at the last preceding census, and one-half according to their respective valuations in the valuation roll last available; provided that in the case of portions of parishes the populations shall be taken as may be agreed upon between the school board and the parish council, or failing agreement as may be determined by the Secretary for Scotland.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
DR. MACNAMARA)moved to amend the Secretary for Scotland's Amendment to Clause 25, by substituting one-fourth for one-half as the rate in respect of population. Broadly, he submitted that the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be to put heavier rates on the densely-peopled parts and lower rates on the sparsely-peopled parts, or in other words, to mitigate the incidence of the rate upon landed property. He thought they ought to stick to the old method of levying the rate upon the rate able value. The effect of this proposal made by the Government would be, in his opinion, to make the rate heavier in the rural areas, although he agreed that they would get the benefit of a better system of administration. Because he could not get any satisfactory statistical information as to what this great revolution meant in regard to the incidence of taxation in Scotland, he was bound to oppose this Amendment. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"To leave out the first words 'one-half,' and insert the words 'one-fourth.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'one-half' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
MR. McCRAE)pressed the Secretary for Scotland to give the data upon which he had made up his mind that the method of assessment he proposed was a fair one. He thought they ought to know exactly which counties were to be benefited by this proposal, and what would be the result of it. It was only fair that the Secretary for Scotland, in making this proposal, should place before the House the information, which he no doubt possessed, upon which he made this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that he was not able to give them definite figures, but surely he must have had some kind of statistical information to convince him that this was an improvement upon the method of rating now in force. He respectfully asked the Secretary for
226
Scotland to give the House that information, so that they might be in a position to decide what was a fair proportion to take between population and valuation.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said he could only repeat that the effect of the Amendment would be to mitigate the extent to which rural districts would suffer and burghs gain under the method of assessment upon valuation alone. When they put together a number of districts, say A, B, C, D, and E, the result, of course, was that the rate became an average rate. Roughly speaking, he thought it would be found that the high rate was the burgh rate and the low one the rural rate.
MR. McCRAEsaid the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have misunderstood the position. His point was not as to what would be the effect of this proposal as compared with the existing method, but he wanted to know its effect as compared with the assessment of the new rate on the old basis of valuation under the Bill. That point had been entirely ignored by the right hon. Gentleman. They wanted to know the result of the change taking assessment and valuation and comparing it with the process which for the first time to-day they were being asked to pass into law.
MR. BRYCE)said the Secretary for Scotland had argued this case as if this new principle, now being introduced for the first time, was going to be confined to the present Bill. Once they introduced this principle it might be made a precedent hereafter, and therefore they were bound to scrutinise it very closely and consider what its effect would be if applied more generally. Therefore he thought the demand that there should be some further data given to the House before they adopted this somewhat novel departure was a reasonable one.
MR. WHITLEYsaid as this question did not involve any difficult Scotch pronunciation he might, as an English Member, be justified in intervening in the discussion. He had had

227
brought to his notice some very great I injustices which were due to inequalities in rateable value. He had followed this discussion with very great interest, and he merely wished to put to the Secretary for Scotland a hypothetical case which he thought would give the House some guidance in the matter. Putting aside the question as between town and country, supposing you had two parishes in a certain district of equal valuation, I each valued at £10,000, one with a population of 100 and the other 500. In the one case deer forest or sport might be keeping the population at a minimum, while in the other the owner might be encouraging as many people as possible to live upon the land. Would it be the case under the present proposal of the Government that the parish which encouraged the use and development of the land and a larger number of inhabitants would be mulcted in favour of the parish with equal rateable value, but with a smaller population? Obviously, without considering the mere rights and wrongs between one policy and another, this proposal did affect a great principle of public policy, and this House ought not to adopt a system of rating which encouraged a single owner to discourage the cultivation of the land, and which penalised the individual who encouraged the development of population and the cultivation of the soil in agricultural districts. That would be the obvious effect of the proposal put forward by the Government, and unless the Secretary for Scotland could convince him that that was not the case he should certainly oppose this proposal.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.)said that, with the permission of the Committee, he would take an actual case in each one of the four districts of a county. In number 1 (Dundee) district of the county of Forfar the valuation was £338,671 and the product of a penny rate on the assessable rental was £352 10s. The population was 23,736. The valuation of the burghal area was £145,122 and of the landward area £193,549, so that if the assessment were levied on that basis the amount raised in the former would be £151 0s. 11½d., and in the latter £201 9s. 0½d. If the assessment were calculated on the basis of
228
population, the burghal area would contribute £187 7s. 9d., and the landward area £165 2s. 3d. In number 2 (Forfar) district the population was 27,322 and the total valuation was £323,537, giving a product on a penny rate of £336 10s., of which on the basis of valuation the burghal area would contribute £115 14s. 10½d., and the landward area £220 15s. 1½d., while on the basis of population the contribution of the former would be £190 16s. 3d. and of the latter £145 13s. 9d. In number 3 (Brechin) district the population was 33,851 and the total valuation was £390,952, giving a product of £407, of which on the basis of valuation the burghal area would contribute £178 2s. 11d. and the landward area £228 17s. 1d., while on the basis of population the former would contribute £256 12s. and the latter £150 8s. In number 4 (Montrose) district the population was 36,508 and the total valuation was £359,212, giving a product of £373 10s., of which the burghal area on the basis of valuation would contribute £237 3s. 10d. and the landward area would contribute £136 6s. 2d., while on the basis of population the former would contribute £283 18s. and the latter £89 12s. The proportion in the last mentioned case, if divided half and half, would be that the burghal area would raise £521 1s. 10d. and the landward area £225 18s. 2d. That was the only case out of the four in Forfarshire in which owing to the peculiar proportion of the burghal and the landward districts the proposal would work in that way. In the other three districts it would work in the direction of equalisation. His right hon. friend was perfectly right in saying that unless something of this kind were put in the Bill, in those counties which were largely burghal and rural in their character they would put an enormous additional charge on the rural population, while they would relieve the burghs to a very considerable extent. The result of that would be a rankling feeling of injury on the part of the rural population. He appealed to the Committee to allow the matter to be dealt with in the way suggested.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he was going to make an appeal to the Committee of another kind. It was perfectly

229
clear that if they went on discussing this clause they would make no progress with the Bill. He could assure the Committee that he did not put the clause down with any Macchiavellian intentions, but simply to do what he best could to try and conciliate the various interests that he thought were affected by the Bill. He wanted to make the Committee this offer. If they would allow the clause to pass, he would give them the promise to recommit the Bill on Report in respect of this clause. It would be perfectly understood that, in allowing the clause to pass now, hon. Members were not committing themselves at all to the principle of the clause. By that time they would have had ample opportunity of looking into the figures, and, for himself, he would say frankly that if he found that the clause was provocative of injustice instead of justice he should reconsider the situation. At present he did not think that it was. In regard to what fell from the right hon. Member for Aberdeen he would say that he did not think, when they came to consider it, that this was a case of insidiously introducing the thin end of the wedge because he did not see what else could be applied in Scotland except the particular condition they were here dealing with. They were here dealing with the incidence of the school rate in respect of the new district where the rating area was an agglomeration of districts. They could not introduce the question of population in an ordinary question of rating. The distinction which he drew at the beginning when he said that this was not a question of rating, but a question of apportionment, was not on the face of it a mere juggling with words. What was proposed was not introducing a new principle at all, but simply making less disturbance than would otherwise be the case. He hoped the Committee would fall in with the suggestion he had made, because it seemed that it would give hon. Members as much opportunity for discussion as they would get now, and they would then be able to deal with the subject in the light of any figures they might choose to get.
MR. McCRAEthought the right hon. Gentleman had made a very fair suggestion if he accompanied it with a promise
230
to lay before the Committee tables bringing out the very valuable results similar to those presented by the hon. Member for Renfrew. Perhaps even a better course would be to postpone the clause.
MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he had unbounded admiration for the manner in which the Secretary for Scotland had conducted the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had given every possible opportunity for submitting the Bill to the constituencies and finding out their opinions upon it. This was not a matter which should be decided now. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire had given the figures in regard to a particular constituency, but they could not follow them, and they could not tell whether they might be taken as representing the situation in other constituencies. The hon. Member had the figures at his finger ends, and on the strength of what he had said he expected them to hurriedly swallow this intricate clause in the Bill. He urged that they should be allowed time to ascertain what the opinions of their constituents were in regard to the proposal.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid the County Councils' Association for the whole of Scotland at a recent meeting in Edinburgh had by a unanimous resolution expressed satisfaction with the proposal.
MR. CATHCART WASONsaid all the counties were not represented in the association. The county councils all through Scotland were not particularly popular bodies, and very often they did not at all represent the opinion of the the counties. He did not doubt the good faith of the right hon. Gentleman in making the offer he had made, but it did not amount to anything, and he thought it would be very much better to stick to the proposal in the Bill as originally introduced. If the right hon. Gentleman found it unworkable he could bring in an amending clause later on.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that in his opinion the proposal of the Secretary for Scotland gave a fair basis for dealing with this matter. He would prefer that

231
the clause should be postponed. He did not know whether the Secretary for Scotland had so strong a view that he would decline to accept that suggestion.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he was afraid the suggestion was not in order. So far as he was concerned it would be absolutely the same. The acceptance of his own offer would give hon. Members more time to consider the question.
SIR ROBERT REIDthought there was force in what the right hon. Gentleman said. The point was to get an opportunity not only for themselves, but for those whom they represented, to consider what was acknowledged to be a novel and important proposition, He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would try to place in the hands of hon. Members as early as possible the best statistical and other information he could furnish so as to enable them to form an opinion as to how this would work. He wished to know how the new proposal would operate not only in the burghs and counties generally, but also in the congested districts.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he would furnish such information as he had. So far as he was concerned it would be a Return of the values in the areas.
MR. DALZIELthought the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was, on the whole, a good one. At the same time he believed it would greatly assist the right hon. Gentleman if hon. Members were allowed to express their views in regard to the proposal now.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he should withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that in accepting the offer of the right hon. Gentleman they did so without prejudice in respect to the proposal in the clause, and that they should be able to discuss it afterwards.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. Member is not committed to anything in the clause.
DR. MACNAMARAasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. JOHN DEWARasked whether between that time and the Report stage it would be possible to exempt the crofting counties from the operation of the clause.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I will consider the whole matter.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Proposed words inserted.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 11, lines 23 and 24, to leave out the words 'allocating and.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 11, line 35, to leave out the words 'annual value for that year,' and insert the words 'valuation as in the valuation roll last available.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid this, was a mere drafting Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 11, to leave out lines 37 and 38."—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 11, line 41, to leave out from the word 'powers' to end of clause."—(Mr. A. Graham, Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 5, to leave out from the word 'school,' to the second word 'the' in line 11."—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he moved this as a drafting Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 14, to leave out from the word 'powers,' to the word 'to' in line 20."—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 20, after the word 'committee,' to insert the words 'or committees.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed.
"In page 12, line 21, after the word 'committee,' to insert the words 'or committees.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 28, to leave out from the word 'powers,' to the word 'shall' in line 29."—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 31, to leave out from beginning of line to end of clause, and insert the words 'upon the school attendance committee, or committees.'"—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 36, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'from, and after the date of that Act.'"—(Mr. Bryce.)
Mr. BRYCEsaid that this clause was a very valuable one, and his Amendment was designed to make its provisions retrospective. There could be no hardship
234
in that, and it would be a considerable convenience and advantage to school boards.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he accepted the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 40, after the word 'playground,' to insert the words 'or recreation field.'"—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
Mr. PARKER SMITHsaid that in these days when they wished to give as much attention as possible to the physical training of children recreation fields ought to be provided as well as small playgrounds at the school, and the cost be spread over a considerable number of years.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he accepted the Amendment.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 13, line 4, after the second word 'out' to insert the words 'or in combining with one or more school boards to carry out.'" (Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 13, line 7, after the word 'managers' to insert, 'books or apparatus, or.'"—(Mr. Crombie.)
Mr. CROMBIEsaid that no need had been more strongly expressed in Scotland than the need for books in the schools.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he did not see his way to accept this Amendment. There was a possibility of getting books, but through another Department. That was to say, the expense of providing the children with books might be a reasonable Poor Law expense. It seemed to him that there really was a limit to the propriety of providing books free. He could not see why the child should be provided with books free any more than he should be provided free with clothing, which was even more necessary than books, to enable him to go to school. Hon. Members should not forget that, as a matter of fact, there was really no obligation whatever on the State to provide free education in Scotland. There was simply a Treasury contribution, known as the free grant, which freed parents from the school fees which they formerly had to pay; and the school boards were given power to put on a rate. To give the school board power to provide the children with books out of the rates would not be only an additional burden upon the general ratepayers, but would still more lessen the responsibilty of the parent to provide for his child. That was a really far higher question then making a case for the supply of books, for it was easy to say that a child could not be taught without books.
236
He did not think it was at all necessary to go beyond the State aid which had already been given. The line must be drawn somewhere, and he was inclined to draw it here, and not put a further burden on the ratepayers.
Mr. THOMAS SHAWsaid he was sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment. He knew that there was a widespread and strongly expressed feeling among the school boards that education could not be made efficient unless books and apparatus were provided for the children. In many cases there was a small reference library provided in the schools for the children. He wholly dissented from the idea that this was to be dealt with as part of the Poor Law expense of the country. It was nothing of the sort. He objected to the school boards being pauperised by this charge being placed on the Poor Law.
Sir JOHN GORSTsaid it was refreshing to find some educational matter in which England was in advance of Scotland. The English school boards for a very long time had had the power of providing books and apparatus for scholars, and had largely exercised that power to the great advantage of education. He was sorry that Scotland was to be in so benighted a condition that the school boards were not to be allowed to provide these first necessities of education. He should have thought that the Secretary for Scotland might have objected to the Amendment on the ground that it was unnecessary, because the general powers given to the school boards in Scotland to provide education for the

237
children would involve, as a matter of course, the provision of books and apparatus necessary for education, and that the greater must include the less. He earnestly hoped that the Secretary for Scotland would reconsider his decision. The great advantage of allowing the school boards to provide books and apparatus was, that they could give the very best apparatus and the very best books. He was quite astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that in providing books for the children it would pauperise the parents.
MR. HALDANEsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland would see that there was strong sense, not merely on the part of the Scotch Members, but of the Committee generally, that the Amendment should be accepted. It was their duty to take care that the education given was efficient. It could not be efficient unless the means were provided. He knew that there was a class of parents who grudged that the children should be taught in school, and would rather keep them at home to earn money. That was the very evil which had got to be met, and it could not be met if such parents were compelled to buy books for their children. As to the addition to the rates caused by free books, that was a very small matter indeed. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would recognise that there was a strong feeling in the Committee on all sides in favour of the Amendment, and that he would not insist in drawing an abstract distinction between one kind of education and another.
SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid he should not have thought that one so well informed as the right hon. Member
238
for Haddingtonshire believed that in Scotland there was any large number of parents who wished to keep their children from school in order to earn money. In his experience money had never been grudged by parents for the education of their children, and there was no desire on their part to escape from that duty. If they went on in this way relieving parents from the duty of educating their children, where would they stop? It was not reasonable to ask that parents should not pay the cost of the books.
ME. TENNANTsaid it was suggested that his right hon. friend stated that parents in Scotland grudged sending their children to school when they might be earning money at home. That was not what his right hon. friend said. He said that he thought there were cases where the parents did not wish a child sent to school when he might remain at home and earn something. Was this a question of principle or not? His hon. friend said that it was merely an isolated item in the Bill. Was it not, however, really a case of a principle which they desired to foster more than at present? He believed that if the Committee did not allow this charge to fall on the rates they would be grudging the education which they claimed to be setting up, and would be really deluding themselves. They would be depriving a most deserving class of parents from the power of educating their children. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would give way.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he did not regard with favour the idea of putting the cost of the books on the

239
rates as a uniform practice, and where parents were able to supply their children with them. He, however, appreciated the view that there were cases where the efficiency of a school could not be secured without making some such arrangement; and he would endeavour to insert some words empowering the school boards to give books where they were needed. Further if the Board schools were to be given books at the public expense the voluntary schools should be given a similar advantage. He did not know how that could be managed; but he would reconsider the matter and bring up a clause on Report.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would also consider the desirability of providing a little library in each school at an insignificant outlay.
Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he would look into that.
MR. BRYCEsaid he wished to make a further suggestion. In the technical department of the schools it would be absolutely necessary to provide apparatus which could not be provided by the children themselves. He hoped that the clause which the right hon. Gentleman would introduce would cover that.
MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he was glad his right hon friend was going to consider the question. He trusted that the Committee would not spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar. If money were not to be allowed to be spent on books and apparatus it would have a most injurious effect.
MR. BOLAND)said he was also glad that the right hon. Gentleman
240
had agreed to reconsider the matter, and that the voluntary schools would participate in the advantage.
ME. CROMBIEsaid as the right hon. Gentleman had practically yielded, he would withdraw the Amendment. He understood the right hon Gentleman would deal with the matter very seriously.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. WEIRsaid he wished to move in Clause 31, page 13, line 7, after "instruction," to insert "including the teaching of Gaelic." He could not for a moment imagine that the right hon. Gentleman would refuse to accept the Amendment. He had seen little children in schools in the Highlands who only knew Gaelic; yet they were plunged at once into English. Was it intended to crush out the Gaelic language in the Highlands? A boy or a girl had a very much better chance in life if he or she knew two languages instead of one. Therefore, every facility should be given in the Highlands for teaching the children Gaelic. The Secretary for Scotland had arranged for the training of Gaelic-speaking teachers, and why, therefore, should not the right hon. Gentleman accept his Amendment, which would not be compulsory on the school boards. He was most anxious to assist the Government in passing the Bill, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 13, line 7, after the word 'instruction,' to insert the words 'including the teaching of Gaelic'"— (Mr. Weir.)
Question proposed 'That those words be there inserted."
MR. AINSWORTHsaid he desired to support the Amendment. The matter was one in which the greatest interest was taken by all classes in the Highlands. Only the other day a deputation representing Highland Societies in London was received by the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, and was introduced by the Marquess of Tullibardine. As his hon. friend had stated, it was a distinct advantage to children to know two languages; and it was absolutely necessary if children in the Highlands were to be properly taught the English language that the teachers should themselves know Gaelic. In the ordinary way, teachers who had no knowledge of Gaelic were sent to Highland schools. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the matter his best attention. The right hon Gentleman was a Gaelic scholar himself; and he, certainly, was a distinguished example of the advantage of knowing Gaelic in early youth.
MR. JOHN DEWARsaid he wished to support the Amendment. Ho might say at once that he was not so much interested in the Gaelic language as he was in the teaching of the children who only knew Gaelic. At the last census, there were in Scotland 28,000 persons who knew Gaelic only, and 202,000 persons who spoke Gaelic and English, and no doubt most of them spoke Gaelic more freely and fluently than they did English. He was very anxious that children knowing Gaelic only should be taught by teachers who knew both languages. The right hon. Gentleman might say it was a Departmental matter; but the Department had not dealt with it. The great majority of teachers in the Highlands did not know Gaelic, and,
242
therefore, they carried on the education of the children with very great difficulty. He had read of an instance where an inspector visited a school, and hearing the children reading in English asked them what they were reading about. There was no answer; and he asked the schoolmaster for an explanation, and the schoolmaster replied that the children did not understand what the inspector said. Asked if they understand what they read, the schoolmaster said—"Not a word of it." Education could not be carried on successfully under such circumstances. He knew the difficulty of keeping Gaelic-speaking teachers in the Gaelic districts, because when they were offered better emoluments they naturally went away. What was wanted was a better supply of Gaelic-speaking teachers; and that could not be got unless they encouraged the teaching of Gaelic in the schools. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he could not accept the Amendment, not because he was not in sympathy with the objects of the hon. Member, but because it was unnecessary. He agreed with what had been said by the hon. Member who had just spoken. The real necessity was to have a sufficiency of Gaelic-speaking teachers, so that Gaelic speaking-children could be properly instructed. The Amendment would not achieve that at all. What would really do something in the desired direction was an Amendment which he proposed to add to Clause 39 and which was as follows—
"In aid of any scheme for the training of teachers instituted or approved by the Department as calculated to provide a supply of

243
teachers with qualifications adapted to the special requirements of any part of Scotland."
He put that down specially in order to assist the training of Gaelic teachers. Instruction in Gaelic was already sanctioned. No doubt Gaelic was a very proper subject to be studied; but there were other subjects just as suitable, such as arithmetic or geography. If Gaelic were to be specially selected, then they would be landed in the terrible question as to the comparative claims of ancient and modern languages. If French were put in, they would be told that they ought to include Latin; and if Latin were put in, there would be a claim for French. Then would arise the question as to whether Gaelic, Latin, or French should be first; and he had no doubt that the hon. Member for Ross would tell him that as Gaelic was spoken in the Garden of Eden it ought to be first. It would be quite out of place to specially mention any particular branch of study when they had included all branches of proper study. The Amendment he had put down to Clause 39 would carry out the promise he gave the deputation the other day.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he entirely agreed with the Secretary for Scotland. The words in the Bill undoubtedly would include the teaching of Gaelic, and, therefore, the Amendment was unnecessary. He understood that an unnecessary Amendment was out of order, and, accordingly, they had been wasting time over an Amendment which was not in order. He would appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to divide on the question.
MR. WILLIAM JONESsaid it was not exactly a
244
question of comparison between Gaelic and Latin or French. The true nature of education was to teach children to think; and that could not be done except through their mother tongue. That was recognised in Germany, Wales, and Ireland. All that vas wanted was that children who did not know English should be taught through their mother tongue. That was the basis of education; and he hoped facilities would be afforded in the desired direction.
MR. WEIRsaid he did not expect to be lectured from the Front Opposition Bench on a question which he had very much at heart. He was obliged to the Secretary for Scotland for the Amendment to Clause 39; and as the right hon. Gentleman had provided for the training of Gaelic teachers, who would be able to instruct the children, he would not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. PARKER SMITHasked if the right hon. Gentleman would have the Bill reprinted with the Amendments.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that would be done.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

COMPANIES (MEDICAL AND DENTAL).
Return ordered, "Showing the number and names of Companies registered under The Companies Act, 1862, in England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland for the specific purposes of carrying on Medical and Dental Practices."—(Sir John Tuke.)
Adjourned at four minutes after Twelve o'clock.