asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in consequence of a telegram from Sir Evelyn Baring, the Foreign Office has intimated to Mr. A. B. Wylde that he will not be permitted to land at Suakin; whether Mr. Wylde is not a British subject and a merchant at Suakin, who has been for the past 14 years associated with the Eastern Soudan and Abyssinia; whether he will state the reason of this action of the Foreign Office; and, whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Wylde purposed leaving for Suakin early next week as Foreign Correspondent for a British News Agency, and with the view of opening up, on behalf of a number of gentleman with whom he is associated, negotiations with the tribes in the neighbourhood of Suakin, he will give immediate directions that no obstacles are to be placed in the way of Mr. Wylde's visit to Suakin?

In answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to say that Mr. Wylde, who is what he is described in the second paragraph of the Question, has been warned that, in present circumstances, Sir Francis Grenfell considers that his presence at Suakin would be inopportune; and that, Suakin being in a state of siege, the commanding officer has absolute discretion as to permitting or forbidding the landing of any individual. He was, therefore, dissuaded from starting. It is clear that while Suakin is actually besieged the military authorities, who are responsible for the defence, must be free to judge as to what channels of communication and negotiation shall be employed or permitted. When hon. Members desire to have answers to Questions of importance, and at very short Notice, it would be a great convenience to Members of the Government if they would let them know the night before. I only received Notice of this Question from the Notice Paper this morning.

I only received information of it last night. Would the right hon. Gentleman state what is the reason of this action of the Foreign Office?

The reason appears in the Question of the hon. Member.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider if the Government thought it expedient to enter into negotiations with the Arabs, whether it would not be well to have Mr. Wylde on the spot, who is intimately acquainted with Arabic and the Arabs, and has been resident at Suakin for some years?

I can give the right hon. Gentleman no further answer at present. If he will give Notice of it for Monday, it will be considered by the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that the military authorities are responsible in these matters. A Question has been asked on two successive days to which no answer has as yet been given. Who is responsible, politically, at Suakin for the relations of the Egyptian Government and the English Government there? The First Lord of the Treasury when asked, said he was not aware. Now I ask the right hon. Gentleman who is the person responsible for the political relations at Suakin?

If the right hon. Gentleman had asked me the Question yesterday I could have given him the information he desires; but, no doubt, hon. Members are aware that the House met early, and I had no opportunity of communicating with the First Lord of the Treasury before he entered the House. The Egyptian Government is represented by Colonel Smith, Governor General of the Red Sea Littoral. There is also Her Majesty's Consul at Suakin, who represents the Government of this country, and who is a direct subordinate of Sir Evelyn Baring. That officer is at present on leave; but the duties are discharged by the senior naval officer at Suakin. In a political sense, therefore, there is an officer representing the Egyptian Government, and one representing Her Majesty's Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made as to the causes that operated with Sir Evelyn Baring in preventing Mr. Wylde from landing.

I have already stated that it is not Sir Evelyn Baring, but the authorities at Suakin, who might prevent him from landing in the circumstances mentioned.

I have not received quite the answer I wished to my Question. I want to know who is the individual to whom Her Majesty's Government here would communicate their instructions with reference to any political or diplomatic action at Suakin in reference to the troops of the Mahdi? The right hon. Gentleman has said that there is a person who represents the Egyptian Government; but I conclude that it is not through him that, the instructions of the Cabinet here would be given. He also said that there was a Consul at Suakin under Sir Evelyn Baring, but that he is absent at present. Am I to understand that it is the naval officer through whom the instructions of the English Government in these matters are given?

No, Sir; not at all. It is manifest that the responsible officer is Her Majesty's Consul General in Egypt, Sir Evelyn Baring, who communicates with the officer immediately responsible to him. He has another channel of communication, and that is the Egyptian Government, with whom, I am glad to say, he is on the most friendly and cordial terms. The Egyptian Government communicate with Lieutenant Colonel Holled Smith, Governor General of the Red Sea Littoral, and, of course, with the military commander. Then, of course, on purely military matters, there is a channel of communication—namely, through the War Office to the British officer in command.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question which, if it is not convenient to answer, I will give him Notice of. Mr. Wylde is, I understand, a newspaper correspondent. Are all newspaper correspondents to be prohibited from landing?

I think the hon. Baronet had better give Notice of the Question.

I will repeat the Question on Monday.

I wish to ask whether the Egyptian Government propose to hold any other port of the Red Sea Littoral besides the town of Suakin? I should also like to know whether General Grenfell is directly under the War Office?

No, Sir; he is not. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Egyptian Government hold many other ports besides Suakin on the Red Sea Littoral. Again, I must say I think it would be better if Notice were given of these Questions.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the event of Her Majesty's Government having reason to suppose that the statements respecting the captivity of Emin Pasha and Mr. Stanley may be well founded, they will consider the desirability of attempting to enter into negotiations with Osman Digna and the Arab tribes, with the object of procuring the release of the European captives at Khartoum, before commencing hostilities with the force besieging Suakin?

I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government share to the full his deep anxiety, and that of the public, with regard to the news which has been received. The information in the hands of Her Majesty's Government is still of so uncertain a character that it would be impossible to suspend the relief of Suakin during the many weeks, or it might be months, which might elapse before the fate of Emin Pasha and Mr. Stanley could be ascertained. We have no actual proofs of their captivity beyond the fact that a letter, or a copy of a letter, which was once in Mr. Stanley's possession, is, apparently, in the possession of an officer of the Khalifa. Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that it would be out of the question to keep all the troops in close and hot quarters at Suakin, with the certainty of much loss of life from sickness, while the facts were being verified, and equally out of the question to bring them away at the present moment. And, more than this, would it be possible to ask for an armistice from an enemy who is actually attacking us, on the strength of information which, even if true, would not relieve us from the necessity of defending Suakin, and repelling the enemy who is investing it? At the same time, I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government will use their utmost endeavours to ascertain the truth of the news; and, if it turns out to be true, to discover whether there is any hope of successfully negotiating for the release of these gallant men.

Has Her Majesty's Government been in communication with reference to this subject with the two Governments of the two countries of which Emin Pasha and Mr. Stanley are citizens?

Of course, the German Government has been informed of the news which Her Majesty's Government have received.

And the American Government?

No; I think not.

The answer of the right hon. Gentleman to the noble Lord opposite is a very serious communication, and we are unwilling to interrupt the discussion of the Business which is set down for to-day, and if it was possible to avoid it we would gladly do so. On Monday I understand there will be an opportunity, on the Consular Estimates, of discussing this question. Would the right hon. Gentleman consent to direct that military operations should be at least suspended—that is to say, if active military operations are contemplated—until after the House has had some opportunity of expressing an opinion? This opportunity will legitimately arise on Monday, when the Consular Estimates are under discussion.

Her Majesty's Government quite appreciate the desire of the right hon. Gentleman that this mat- ter should not be foreclosed till Monday—until after an opportunity has been afforded the House of expressing an opinion upon it. But I put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether we can with safety give such instructions to the officers in command? They may receive news of reinforcements arriving, which would make operations more difficult a few days hence than they are now. To tie the hands of the military officers at such a moment as this appears to me to be out of the question. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman need not fear that instructions will be given to hurry the operations in any way. The House may be perfectly satisfied that we shall take no such course as that; but we could not take upon ourselves the responsibility of suspending military operations. I have had no opportunity of consulting the Prime Minister on that particular point; but I am sure I express the views of the Government in the statement I have made.

Although I have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I think, on the whole, I may take it as expressing the views and the opinions of the Government that they, at all events, will do the best they can to prevent action being taken which would prevent negotiations proceeding if that was thought desirable next week.

No, Sir; I cannot tie the hands of the military authorities; and I could not, I am sorry to say, go one inch further than the statement I have made.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in view of the brief space prior to the next Session, he would give an assurance that no further extension of the orders issued with regard to the outdoor officers (Customs) would take place until next Session?

replied in the affirmative.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he could state to the House what course the Government proposed to adopt with regard to the Universities (Scotland) Bill?

The House is aware with what great regret the Government would see this Bill abandoned; but the situation in this—that Scottish opinion in this House is very much divided on the subject, and it would be difficult, probably impossible, to pass the Bill, and for such Amendments as might be introduced in the Bill to be considered by the Lords in time for its becoming an Act this Session. At the same time, I understand that many hon. Members from Scotland are anxious not to be brought back to London if the Scottish Estimates are passed to-day. If there is a general view and understanding that the Scottish Estimates will be passed to-day, then the Government think it would not be right to put the Universities (Scotland) Bill down again in order to bring hon. Members back from Scotland, who, after all, might not be able to see the Bill passed. With that understanding we may finally dispose of the rest of the Scottish Estimates to-day.

There is every reason to hope that the Scottish Estimates will be passed to-day; but I am not in a position to say positively. I think, under all the circumstances, we might expect to get a more definite answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this Bill is to be dropped or not.

I should wish to get a more definite answer from hon. Gentlemen opposite as to whether the Scottish Estimates will be passed to-day. If they should not be passed to-day, and if Scottish Members have to come back to consider the Scottish Estimates on Tuesday or Wednesday, then I do not, see why we should not make an effort to pass the Bill. That is the situation. I trust, however, hon. Members will see that it is better they should make up their minds to pass the Scottish Estimates to-day, in which case I can positively state that the Universities (Scotland) Bill will not be taken.

The arrangement proposed is substantially that which my right hon. Friend desires, and it will suit the convenience not only of the Scottish Members, but the House generally. I think the Government may have the less hesitation in giving up all idea of proceeding with the Bill, because those hon. Members who wish the Bill brought forward only desire it for the purpose of having a discussion, and not in the hope of passing it this Session.

If the Bill should have to be dropped this Session, hon. Members will have a full assurance that it is the intention of the Government to introduce it and proceed with it at the earliest opportunity next Session.

I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before introducing the Bill next Session, the Government will take some means of ascertaining whether a smaller Commission than that proposed in the Bill could not be adopted; and, also, whether the Commission will consist not of representatives of Glasgow and Edinburgh Universities alone, but of the other Scottish Universities?

I am not in a position to give any pledges on the subject.

asked, if the House would sit beyond 6 o'clock?

If necessary; but I hope it will not be necessary.

said, that several months ago he gave Notice of the Motion which stood on the Paper in his name for the reduction of this Vote. He had been constrained to take that course owing to the way in which Scotch Business was conducted, and not with any personal reference either to the late or the present Lord Advocate. He proposed now to make a few observations to the Committee in order to point out the inconvenience which arose owing to the position occupied in the House of Commons by the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate was purely the Scotch legal officer of the House. When the Secretary for Scot- land was appointed the administrative business of Scotland was placed in the hands of that officer, and the Lord Advocate was simply left in charge of the legal business, occupying a similar position to Scotland to that which was occupied in regard to England by the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. But, nevertheless, the Lord Advocate, although only the Law Officer, had thrust upon him virtually the whole of the administrative business of Scotland in the House of Commons, so that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was placed in this difficulty. He was expected to be familiar with every matter connected with the administration of Scotland upon which the Scotch Members naturally asked questions and wanted information, whereas he knew nothing whatever about the matters he brought before the House, and was simply able to read to the House the answers which had been supplied to him from the Secretary of State's Office. Personally he had no more to do with the administrative business of Scotland than the Attorney or Solicitor General had to do with that of England. His department was entirely separate; he occupied a separate office, and there was no connection between the two. He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought himself to be the first to complain of being put in such a position, because he had to ask the Secretary for Scotland for information on every matter that might be mentioned in the House. He could not give a better illustration of this fact than to point to what occurred in the course of debate on Friday and Saturday last in regard to Scotch Business. Questions were asked as to the intentions of the Government with reference to Scotch Business, and it was naturally expected that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would give an answer. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman remained silent with regard to the questions addressed to him. It was not the fault of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that he was unable to give a reply; it was the fault of the position in which he was placed. The only person who could give the information was the Secretary for Scotland, and he did not possess a seat in that House.

said, it was obvious that the hon. and learned Gentleman must assign some reason to show that the observations he was making were relevant to the Vote now before the Committee. So far the hon. and learned Gentleman had been complaining that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate did not take a particular course which, by the present arrangements of the Office, he was unable to take.

said, he wished to show that for all the purposes of the present Vote, the Lord Advocate was simply and solely the legal Officer of the Government, and therefore his impression was that it would be regular to consider the question of his salary. He maintained that, to a great extent, the presence of the Lord Advocate in the House of Commons was unnecessary. The legal work of Scotland was performed in Scotland, and if they were to have there both the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General simply as law officers, they would practically have nothing to do. He presumed that the salary of the Lord Advocate was paid to him under the old condition of things, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman had undoubtedly a great deal of Parliamentary work to do. Before the creation of the Office of Secretary for Scotland he had almost the entire management of Scotch Business in that House, and the salary was paid in reference to that work. He confessed it seemed to him that what they were now doing was paying the Lord Advocate a very high salary for work which was taken out of his hands and done by somebody else, to whom a salary was paid also. The salary paid to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he were to be regarded simply as a legal officer, was certainly too high for the work he had to perform in that House. There were one or two matters in reference to the course taken by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate in that House as to legal matters, of which the Scotch Members had a right to complain—especially in regard to questions of law respecting the legal rights of the public. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had assumed the position that it was no part of his duty to give information to the House upon questions relating to the legal rights of the public in Scotland. That was certainly the attitude of the late Lord Advocate, and he wished to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite proposed to take up the same position, seeing that there were various questions now agitating the public mind, such as the foreshore rights, and important fishery rights. He should be glad if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would tell the Committee whether his Predecessor was instructed by the Secretary for Scotland as to the nature of replies he should give to questions upon legal topics. If such a course had been adopted he could not help thinking that a more improper course could not have been pursued.

said, he was of opinion that there was not sufficient work in that House for one Law Officer, much less for two. All that the Lord Advocate had to do was to read out certain replies to questions, which, he presumed, were made up for him at Dover House. What he should like to have an explanation about was, how the Scotch Law Officers succeeded in occupying their time? What was the nature of their employment? There might be some work for the Lord Advocate in Scotland, but he could not see how there could probably be any for him in London. Certainly there was not a sufficient amount of work for both the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General, and perhaps the best solution of the difficulty would be to make an arrangement as to which should remain in London and which stay in Edinburgh. So far as Scotch Legislation was concerned, certainly during the three years he had been in the House, the Scotch Members had received no assistance whatever from the Lord Advocate or from the Solicitor General in the promotion of Bills, except in the case of measures brought in by the Government themselves; they had opposed, as far as they could, all other Business. Every Bill put down by a private Member, with one solitary exception, had been opposed by Her Majesty's Government. During the present year there had been 25 Scotch Bills brought in, 20 by private Members and five by the Government. Not one of them had been passed into law, with one exception.

pointed out that the hon. Member was not discussing any question relative to the Vote for the Office of Lord Advocate.

said, he would reserve his remarks for another occasion.

said, he could not agree with the hon and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) with the strictures which he had passed upon the Office of Lord Advocate. His opinion was that the Lord Advocate held an entirely different position in Scotland to that which was held in England by the Attorney General, and that he very much filled the position of Minister of Justice for Scotland. He did not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be a mere prosecutor, but it was desirable that he should have regard to the interests of justice on both sides. He therefore could not follow the references which had been made, but, on the contrary, he thought it was the duty of the Secretary for Scotland to consult the Lord Advocate on all questions relating to the administration of justice. And he was far from thinking that the Lord Advocate was overpaid for the important function he was called upon to discharge. Of course, if they took away both legal and administrative duties the Vote ought to be reduced, and in that case only should he be prepared to vote for a reduction. He thought there ought to be a representative of the administrative business of Scotland in that House. One Law Officer was amply sufficient, and he ought to receive a salary, but there ought to be another and a separate officer to discharge duties connected with the administrative Department. In the interests of the Lord Advocate and of the high position he held, it was degrading, he thought, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be employed as the mere mouthpiece of the Secretary for Scotland. It was an injustice not only to the Lord Advocate, but to Scotland and to the Scotch members, who were fairly entitled to have a Representative in the House of Commons. In that view he should feel inclined to support a Motion for the reduction of the Vote.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of prolonging the discussion, but to make an appeal to his hon. Friends around him in regard to the use of the time at their disposal that day. There were two classes of Estimates for consideration—one of them included Votes such as that now before the Committee—Votes which were not of an urgent character, and could be equally well discussed three or four months hence when the Government promised to bring on the Estimates again. But there were other questions of a larger character—such as State aid in regard to the emigration of the crofters, and also the urgent question, especially in connection with the introduction of the Universities Bill next year, of Training Colleges. He would, therefore, appeal to hon. Members on that side of the House not to occupy time by discussing questions which could be satisfactorily disposed of in the spring.

said, he trusted that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would give the Committee an assurance that during the Recess he would not allow the question of the pollution of the water of Loch Long to escape his attention.

said, he would also ask the Government during the Recess to consider the relation of the salaries of the Scotch Law Officers in comparison with those of the Law Officers of England. He found that the Attorney General for England received a salary of £12,000 a-year, and the Solicitor General a salary of £8,500, while in the year 1886–7 the Lord Advocate only received £3,500, and the Solicitor General for Scotland £1,173, or about one-half of the salary received by the Solicitor General for Ireland. His own opinion was that the Law Officers of the Crown should be paid entirely by salary, and that they should not have private practice. The present arrangement was not only unfair to the Bar, but disadvantageous to the public. In the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, perhaps some other Member of the Government might be able to give an assurance on the subject.

said, he wished to set his face against the supposition that Members on that side of the House had entered into a bargain to dispose of the Scotch Estimates in the course of the present Sitting, on the understanding that no further steps would be taken in regard to the University Bill. With regard to the position of the Lord Advocate, he took a very strong view of the matter without any reference whatever to any mere personal or Party object. His opinions had reference altogether to the position of the Lord Advocate. He thought that in discussing that question they ought to take into consideration that the Lord Advocate was the head of the criminal administration in Scotland. His position was very different from that of the Attorney General in England. The Attorney General in England was not charged with the administrative duties which the Lord Advocate had to discharge in connection with Scotland. It was therefore most important, if the criminal jurisprudence of Scotland was to be attended to properly, that the Lord Advocate should be on the spot where the business was carried on. He therefore strongly protested, in the interests of the Scotch people, against both the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General being in London at the same time, and altogether away from Scotland, the whole criminal jurisprudence of the country being left to manage itself. He wished it to be understood that those remarks applied no more to hon. Gentlemen opposite than to hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. Both were equally to blame in the matter. What was the object of the training which the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland underwent? It was known perfectly well that they were trained for the Bench, and the first vacancy that occurred in the Court of Session, the Lord Advocate would cease to be a Member of that House, and would find his way upon the Bench. He protested against the principle that a political partizan, whether he sat on one side of the House or the other, should necessarily get to the top of the criminal administration of Scotland or of any other country. He therefore looked upon the bringing up of the Lord Advocate from Scotland to London and taking him away from the higher duties of the Office as prejudicial, not only to the interests of Scotland, but to those of the House of Commons itself. Formerly the whole of the business of Scotland, which now devolved on the Secretary for Scotland, was done by the Lord Advocate. The bringing up of the Solicitor General to the House of Com- mons was only a modern invention. Was it because there was more work to do? Nothing of the kind. There was in reality less to do, and he found all the world over that whenever there was less work to do more people were employed to do it. It was of great disadvantage to Scotland that the Lord Advocate should be in London, because, as a matter of fact, he exercised a certain amount of influence on the legislation of the country, and it was impossible to obtain any alteration of the law except through the Lord Advocate. What was the result? He had a private practice which depended, to a large extent, on the manner in which his influence was exercised on the Writers to the Signet in Scotland, and those Writers to the Signet were the agents of the landed proprietors. In this way it would be found that the whole training and tendency of the Office of Lord Advocate was, in the first place, in the direction of securing the monopoly of the Writers to the Signet. The Bar in Scotland was not made open for everyone, but it was a kind of preserve for the Writers to the Signet, simply on account of their influence with the Lord Advocate, and it was impossible to get any reform except through the Lord Advocate. Again, what happened if they desired to effect any alteration of the law? Probably the Secretary for Scotland, who was a political man, would look at the matter from a political point of view, and would be quite impartial, having no preference whatever for the landed proprietors, but any Act of Parliament passed through that House must be introduced by the Lord Advocate; and whether the person occupying that Office was a Liberal or a Conservative—for he would appeal to hon. Members around him whether it was possible to get a better measure because the Lord Advocate belonged to the Liberal Party—the interests of Scotland were not properly looked after. The whole system, whatever Government was in power, was bad. The entire training of the Lord Advocate was in the direction of holding on to the doctrine of vested right, and the old principle of the landed proprietors' right in the soil, and unless they got rid of his influence it would not be possible to bring about many much-needed reforms. Then, again, there was the Solicitor General for Scotland. He thought it most unfair that both of the Scotch Law Officers should be in the House of Commons while there was so much very important business to do in Scotland itself. The people of Scotland complained bitterly of the present system of centralization, and said that they should at least have the legal administration of the country carried on in Scotland. There was an unanimous feeling that the Administrative Department should be centred in Scotland. It might be contended that it was necessary to have some representation of the Administration in the House of Commons; but if the administrative could not be separated from the legal duties, then let both be carried on in Scotland. No country could ever prosper from which they drew the energy and life of the nation, and centred it somewhere else. The existing system deprived Scotland of political activity, and of that progress which she would otherwise make. Take the case of Italy. What did they find there? It was simply because Italy now possessed political activity that it was making such rapid progress. What was required in Scotland was that they should have men there who would manage the affairs of Scotland, and not have to come up to London to spend the whole of their time here, and be led into habits which were totally at variance with the feelings of the people. [Laughter.] Of course, he meant in this way—that the Lord Advocate could not become so thoroughly acquainted with the views of the Scotch people, which would be more easily ascertained locally than in any other way. The Lord Advocate's Department had a great deal to do; but if he was brought from Scotland, where the work was to be done, there must naturally be a considerable amount of correspondence, and clerks were necessary to conduct it. He saw there was an item in the Votes of this nature, in which the salary of the officer in London was put down at £100, and his expenses at £180. If the Lord Advocate were in Scotland he would do his own work, and the expenses of a clerk here would not be required. He regretted to find that it was the policy of the Government to centre all the administration in London, when it was essential for the interests of Scotland that it should be carried on in that country.

said, he thought it would be inconvenient to raise the question of the administrative relations of the Lord Advocate's Department with Scotland upon the present Vote. No one was more anxious than himself to extinguish legal jobs, but he owned that he failed to perceive anything of that kind in the present case. It was perfectly clear that there must be a Scotch Legal Adviser in the House of Commons, and as it was necessary that he should sit in the House continuously great inroads must be made upon his private business. It was only right that, from a financial point of view, the fees and salaries should have some relation to the private practice surrendered. He did not wish to inquire too closely into what an able Lord Advocate could earn; but, in his opinion, a salary of something over £3,000 a-year and fees for non-contentious business, which amounted to a few hundreds, did not amount to a sum which would justify them in saying that such Lord Advocates as they had had of late years had been overpaid. On these grounds, and because he wished to establish a principle which would carry them a long way in an economical direction when dealing with Scotch and Irish Votes in the future, he should vote for the Lord Advocate's salary.

said, he wished to draw attention to the position of the Procurators Fiscal in Scotland. There was a complaint that when the conduct of one of these officers was called in question, the Lord Advocate applied to the person incriminated in order to obtain the information that was necessary to enable him to answer any question upon the subject. Of course, as their own credit was involved, it was only natural, in supplying the right hon. and learned Gentleman with information, that these gentlemen en deavoured to screen themselves as much as possible. In a recent case, where a boy was found dead in the Island of Harris, and there were certain suspicious circumstances connected with another person who had been last in the company of the deceased, the Procurator Fiscal himself never went to make an inquiry until public attention was called to the matter by Questions in that House. He thought that when complaints were made of the conduct of a Procurator Fiscal, the Lord Advocate should employ his Sheriff Court Advocate Depute, as unconnected with the Procurator Fiscal, and as having no interest in the case. Any report made under such circumstances would give satisfaction, which those now made certainly did not.

said, the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) had accepted the bait thrown out to the Scotch Members by the Government—namely, that if they would pass the Scotch Estimates that day they would hear no more of the University Bill this Session. As his hon. Friend was strongly opposed to the University Bill, he accepted the proposal of the Government at once and deprecated obstruction. He (Sir George Campbell) hoped they would lose no time in discussing the Estimates, but he should certainly not be influenced by the prospect of getting rid of the University Bill.

said, he thought he would best meet the wishes of the Committee if he were to abstain from entering into a discussion upon the general subjects which had been raised in the course of the debate. Of course, it would be impossible to discuss, adequately, the question of the general administration of Scotch Business which had been raised by the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell) without entering into a subject which had been already debated, and which would assume proportions quite incommensurate with the time at the disposal of the Committee. He would, therefore, only deal with the other important points which had been raised by hon. Members in the course of the debate. He thought it right to say that there appeared to be some misconception as to the position of the Lord Advocate. He was not purely a legal officer, and his functions had not been invaded or encroached upon by the Act of 1885. Nor should he dwell upon the suggestion of the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General and himself were not engaged in their proper functions in the House of Commons. He desired to say, once for all, that the administration of criminal justice was attended to, and everything which was of importance came before the Lord Advocate either in Edinburgh or London. The transfer of functions which took place under the Act of 1885 was a transfer from the Home Office to the Office of Secretary for Scotland, and not one from the Office of the Lord Advocate; and he would give no countenance to the idea that he was less responsible, or less assiduously engaged in the administration of criminal justice in Scotland, because he had the honour of a seat in that House. It was not the fact that the introduction of the Solicitor General for Scotland into the House of Commons was novel. One Solicitor General had a seat in the House as far back as 1865. With regard to the case of the man Matheson, which had been repeatedly referred to, following the invariable rule relating to communications between the Home Secretary and the Law Officers of the Crown, he would not state to the House what had taken place between Lord Lothian and the late Lord Advocate on that case. He had been asked to say whether he intended to refuse to give legal opinions to the House. His reply was that he would not be niggardly or parsimonious in stating, when proper occasion arose, the law as he understood it to exist; and that would apply not only to his conduct in the House, but also to the communications which might be made to him by hon. Gentlemen in the Lobby. At the same time it was no part of his duty to answer such inquiries on specific legal questions which had arisen between parties in Scotland, and which really fell within the cognizance of the Courts of Law. The hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) had called attention to the position of the Procurators Fiscal in Scotland, and the communication made to them from time to time. Of course, certain facts were properly within the cognizance of the Procurator Fiscal, but he (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) should always hold himself perfectly free to avail himself of other means of inquiry in the event of the Procurator Fiscal being himself the person implicated. He did not know that it was necessary to enter into any of the smaller topics that had been raised, but the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had referred to one matter of interest—namely, the pollution of the water of Loch Long. The subject would not escape his attention, and he would see that it was carefully inquired into.

said, he had carefully abstained from moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, and had contented himself with calling attention to what occurred to him might be a difficulty in consequence of the position of the Lord Advocate. He had no desire to prolong the discussion, and he would not, therefore, take a Division upon the Vote. He had not stated that the salary of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was too high, but his observations pointed to the fact that as many of the duties formerly performed by the Lord Advocate were now attached to the new Office of Secretary for Scotland, it might be regarded by some hon. Members as too high.

said, he had placed upon the Paper a Motion in reference to the burgess fee of two guineas charged in the Burgh of Hamilton in the case of persons who were anxious to obtain representation on the Town Council. He had asked the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate the other day whether the exaction of a fee of that kind was or was not legal, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman evinced an unwillingness to answer the Question. It seemed to him (Mr. Philipps) a very doubtful matter whether the fee was a legal one or not, but he did not complain of the refusal of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to give an answer. He would, however, further ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he would give a pledge to introduce a short Bill next Session to clear up the matter? The law was in a very doubtful state, and it certainly did appear to be a great hardship upon working men who desired to obtain representation on the Town Council, that the law should be left in a state of uncertainty. It was not to be expected that a working man would go to the expense of litigation in order to have the question settled. It would not be very difficult, he thought, to pass a short Bill through next Session. Certainly no objection would be taken to such a measure on that side of the House, and he hoped the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would agree with him that working men should not be discouraged from standing as candidates for seats on the Governing Body. A good many of the working men in his own constituency took a great interest in local affairs, and wanted to be directly represented on the Town Council. Only one or two days had been devoted this year to Scotch legislation, and as it was impossible for any private Member to have a chance of getting a Bill through, he hoped the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would undertake to introduce a Bill. If such a measure came from the Government Bench it would probably not be opposed, and working men would be greatly encouraged in their efforts to obtain a share of the representation on the Governing Bodies of the country.

said, he quite understood the object the hon. Member had in view, and he thought it was most undesirable that there should be any pecuniary obstruction to the entrance of working men into the Town Council; and if it should appear, in the first place, that the Act 39 and 40 Vict. c. 12, still left this fee legally exigible from householders who were constituted burgesses by that Act, and, in the second place, that the fee of two guineas really formed a practical barrier in the way of the constituency being represented by working men if it chose them, the subject would deserve attention. He should not have thought that so small a fee would have been considered objectionable. He could not, however, undertake to clear up legal questions which the parties concerned would not take the trouble to raise in the ordinary way before the Court.

, in moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £500, said, he had to complain that the Solicitor to the Woods and Forests Department in Scotland, a paid official of the Crown, had also acted as the private agent of the parties who had received Crown grants of the salmon fisheries in Loch Morar without the public knowing anything about the matter. The question had been discussed at some length on a former occasion, and, therefore, he would not go into it again. The Crown official was paid upwards of £1,000, and was, at the same time, a member of a firm which was endeavouring to prevent the public from using this sheet of water which they had been using from time immemorial. The proprietors, having obtained a grant of the fishing rights from the Crown, had taken proceedings in Edinburgh to prevent the use of the water by the public. A greater act of aggression had not been committed in modern times. The four persons who were proprietors had succeeded in shutting up a sheet of water 12 miles long, and stopping free traffic across it. The point he wished to urge was that, as this gentleman had taken upon himself to act against the public, he was not entitled to receive a salary from the public. There was another item in the Supplementary Vote of which he should like to have an explanation—namely, the sum of £200 for unexpected costs in a process or proceedings in which the Crown was interested. Those who were acquainted with the history of the principal Vote would remember that some 30 years ago there was a Solicitor to the Woods and Forests who was in the habit of attacking people right and left, in order to run up bills for legal proceedings. In one year the bill of this gentleman amounted to £4,000, and the proceedings were taken in some instances without any authority whatever. The Government could get a very good solicitor for £1,000 a-year who would confine himself to his own particular duties. Under the circumstances he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £500.

said, the case which had already been discussed partially raised an important point which he earnestly desired to impress upon the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate and the Govern- ment. The allegation was that the Crown was the owner of certain salmon fishery rights of very small value, but which carried with them, along with the ownership, the right of depriving persons of the use of the loch as a means of transit. The loch was almost completely land locked, and, therefore, it was extremely valuable to the inhabitants as a means of transit from one side of the loch to the other in boats. In consequence of the Crown having sold the salmon fishery rights for a very small sum, the new proprietors had deprived the public of this valuable and useful privilege.

pointed out that a general attack upon the administration of the Woods and Forests Department was quite irrelevant to the present Vote. It would, however, be perfectly in Order to raise the question whether the Solicitor to the Woods and Forests should do the business; but the Vote had nothing to do with the administration of the Office.

said, the solicitor, as had been pointed out by his hon. Friend (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh), had acted both on the part of the Crown and on the part of the purchasers.

said, it was perfectly legitimate to arraign the Official acts of the Solicitor to the Woods and Forests, but he understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman was entering into the question of the policy pursued by the Department. That would be relevant on the Vote for the Woods and Forests, but not on the present Vote.

said, he wished to have an assurance from the Government that they would fulfil their promise of a few weeks ago that there would be an investigation, by Committee or otherwise, into the transactions regarding Woods and Forests in Scotland, and the transactions of the agents there as to salmon fishing. He also wished to call attention to the Supplementary Estimate which dealt with the transactions of the Solicitor to the Office of Woods and Forests. If hon. Members would look at it they would find that it was of an unusual character, because the sum asked in the Supplementary Estimate—£1,850—was more than the sum asked in the original Estimate, £1,720. They were told that it was to provide for two unforeseen and special cases that had occurred, and the one in which the largest expenditure had been incurred was connected with certain salmon fishery rights in the North of Scotland. It was a case in which the Office of Woods and Forests had been involved, and in which this gentleman had been acting for them. Seeing that the sum amounted to nearly £2,000, he thought there ought to be some explanation of the matter. He also wished to ask the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate a question with regard to a Bill which dealt with the officers of the Court of Session, which was withdrawn on the 26th of November, along with a number of other Bills. He wished to have some assurance that that Bill would be re-introduced next Session. He would further ask for a promise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would re-introduce next Session, in time to secure its passing, the Presumption of Life Limitation (Scotland) Amendment Bill, which was a measure to which many people attached considerable importance.

said, he wished to call attention to the anomalous position of the Crown agent in Scotland. While he served the Crown, he also served private proprietors as well, and was, therefore, unable to give an impartial opinion. What was the precise opinion on which the Commissioners of Woods and Forests acted in selling the fishings at the price they did? He regarded the Solicitor to the Office of Woods and Forests as occupying a very extraordinary and indefensible position. While acting as agent to private persons who were desirous of purchasing particular rights, he was also legal adviser to the Commissioners, who wore asked to dispose of them. There was great reason to suspect that the rights of the public had been sacrificed for those of the proprietors. He should like to know what was the precise opinion given by the Solicitor, and what opinion the Commissioners of Woods and Forests acted upon in selling the Crown rights in the fisheries of Loch Morar? Had they taken any independent advice? He supported the Motion for the reduction of the Vote; and if nothing could be done in the matter now, he hoped that on the next occasion when the Crown rights were to be disposed of the Government would take care that some inde- pendent lawyer in Edinburgh was appointed to act as Crown agent.

said, he thought the action of the Woods and Forests in these matters had been perfectly scandalous. There were various items in the Vote for the cost of litigation, and he maintained that all actions should be under the control of the Secretary for Scotland, and not under that of a distinct authority in London, who had no respect for the rights, interests, and feelings of the people of Scotland.

said, the hon. Gentleman was travelling into irregular matter.

said, he trusted that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests and the Secretary for Scotland would in future have more regard for the customary rights of the people of the country.

said, he was desirous of saying a word or two upon the Sheriffs' Courts, but he was afraid that his remarks would not be in Order until the Amendment now before the Committee had been disposed of.

said, they would not be in Order at all.

said, he thought it would be better, in view of the presentation of Papers as to Loch Morar, not to discuss that question now. Hon. Gentlemen overrated the importance of the Solicitor in these transactions. This official did not take the initiative, nor was he consulted upon the question whether the grant should or should not be made. Mr. Beith exercised no influence in obtaining this right from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. He had simply carried out the action resolved upon by others. In regard to the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) as to the Supplementary Estimate, the largest part of the expenditure was required for the costs of an action in which the Crown had been unsuccessful. The nature of the case was this. The Crown had an estate in Caithness which was let to a sheep farmer at tenant. Some years ago the Crown gave the tenant permission to change and divert the course of a river, with the re- sult that an injurious effect had been produced upon some land lying lower down. It was a most turbulent stream, and it would appear that some part of the operations had not been carefully managed, and had led to an invasion of the rights of other people. The case was a very complicated one, and the position of the Crown was that they could not free themselves from the engagement they had entered into with their tenant, nor retire from the litigation until their rights were ascertained. It had been a costly case, but the Crown felt that they had no option but to defend it. The rest of the Supplementary Estimate was principally made up of an item in which the Treasury had relieved the Sheriff of Inverness-shire from certain costs to which he had been rendered liable, owing to an error of judgment in the discharge of his official duties. Another item was for the cost of an arbitration in reference to some buildings at Peterhead, and the Crown, as the promoter of the undertaking, had necessarily to bear the expense. The Bill in reference to the officers of the Court of Session had been dropped merely for want of time, but it would probably be introduced again, or some measure somewhat similar, next Session. As regards the Sheriff Clerks' Deputes, that matter had been within the last few weeks under the consideration of the Government, who had felt it necessary to ascertain the views of others interested in the question besides the Sheriffs. It would probably be enough, at present, if he said that the subject had received, and was at present receiving, careful and, he hoped, impartial consideration. The Government would also try to re-introduce, next Session, the Presumption of Life Bill.

said, that according to the statement of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate the Solicitor to the Office of Woods and Forests, who received a salary of £1,000, did not advise the Commissioners in reference to the sale of the salmon fishing rights at Loch Morar. Under the circumstances he thought they should have some information as to what he was paid for. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the solicitor was not consulted, and that all that he did was to do the conveyancing for the Commissioners while he was a gent for the proprietors, and acted generally in their interests. He must say that the explanation of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was most unsatisfactory. He saw no charge for legal advice to the Office of Woods and Forests, and he should, therefore, be glad to learn who had advised them as to the title of the Crown, and whether any payment had been made for the advice? He presumed that advice was taken and that it was paid for, and if it was not included in the present Vote where was it to be found? Was it included in the Supplementary Vote of £1,850? He understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that part of that Estimate was to defray the cost of some unsuccessful legal proceedings in which the Sheriff of Inverness had been engaged. He should like to know what particular proceedings the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to?

said, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Woods and Forests Department had their expenses voted in a separate Vote, and the advice they acted upon was supplied by their own Department. The expenses included in the Vote under discussion were the expenses likely to be incurred in asserting the rights of the Crown where they required to be dealt with in Scotland, and no advice had been given in regard to the exercise of the Crown rights in Scotland, but in London. The action against the Sheriff of Inverness was one in which he was sued for damage for a report which he had sent to the newspapers in reference to some proceedings in Skye. The report would have been privileged if it had been sent to the Commissioners of Supply, but having been sent to the newspapers and published it was held not to be privileged, and the Sheriff incurred certain expenses in consequence of the course he had taken. The Treasury took the matter into consideration, and came to the conclusion that it was a case in which the Sheriff ought to be recouped the cost to which he had been put. It had been incurred, in the discharge of serious duties, owing to a pardonable mistake.

asked, what the amount was?

said, he thought it was £201.

said, he wished to point out that the fact that the management of the Woods and Forests was in England was an additional reason for having a Crown Solicitor independent of the proprietors. There should be some official in Scotland competent to advise the Commissioners with regard to questions of title, and they ought not to take the opinion of an agent of the landed proprietor.

said, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Trea-(Mr. Jackson) some time ago informed them that there was some doubt as to the title in the fishing in Loch Morar, and he (Mr. Barclay) wanted to know who had advised the Commissioners of Woods and Forests on that question of title? In the ordinary way it would be the Solicitor to the Treasury, but he submitted that an English Law Officer was scarcely the person most competent to give an opinion upon a question of Scotch law. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had given as an excuse for the low price at which the fishery had been sold that the present proprietor claimed the fishings. Were the Committee to understand that the Solicitor to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had given an opinion as to the validity of that title, that solicitor being at the time the agent of the proprietor?

said, he had not the least desire to put off the hon. Member for Forfarshire by asking him to wait until the Papers were laid, but he thought the hon. Member would see from the Papers bearing upon this question, which were very voluminous and extended over a long series of years, that the fishery had been sold at a low price, not on account of its doubtful title, though that was considered, but on account of its almost worthlessness. In one letter it was stated that the greatest number of salmon grilse which had ever been killed in the loch in a season was six; therefore, it was only natural that the price agreed on should be a comparatively low one. The transaction had certainly been more advantageous to the Office of Woods and Forests and to the Treasury than to the proprietor. [Mr. J. W. BAROLAY dissented.] The hon. Gentleman opposite shook his head, but that was the result which he (Sir Herbert Maxwell) had arrived at after a careful perusal of the Papers.

Do not the proprietors ask for the fishing five times the price paid for it?

said, that question had already been ruled out of Order.

said, that without any desire to unduly prolong the discussion he desired to raise a question on Item N, though he did not intend to go into it at any length. There was a large expenditure under that head in regard to Sheriffs' Courts and a subject of some interest arose in regard to those Courts. In the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Lord Advocate they looked forward hopefully to a person who would take an active part in considering some of these questions which had been for a long time agitating the minds of the people of Scotland. Speaking from a commercial point of view, he (Mr. Esslemont) thought he was warranted in saying that considerable dissatisfaction existed owing to the dual Sheriffships in Scotland. They had there a person under the title of Sheriff who practically did no work, and they had another official under the title of Sheriff's Substitute who practically did all the work. In regard to the Substitute, so far as concerned the constituency in which he (Mr. Esslemont) was practically interested, they had been singularly fortunate in having extremely able and well qualified gentlemen in that Office; and this remark applied to the Sheriffs as well as to the Substitutes; but they saw no reason, from anything which existed in Sheriffs' Courts, why all the wisdom of the Judge might not be embodied in the Substitute to whom the cases were at first relegated. It was a matter which was not disputed that in many cases—he would not say in most cases—the Sheriff's Substitute was the more able Judge of the two. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would not pretend to say that there was any claim of superiority in the Sheriffs themselves. Now, the Scotch people contended that these Courts should be constituted on the most simple and effective principle; and if Sheriffs' Substitutes were underpaid men and were not the most qualified, and if there was anything in their appointment which made them in any sense inferior Judges, the defect ought to be looked into, but, at any rate, they saw no reason why they should be at the expense of these double Courts. The litigants were not led into very great expense. An appeal to the Sheriff was not a costly affair, but it really decided nothing. It was a case of shuttlecock and battledore. Some persons respected the Sheriff's opinion more than the Substitute's, and others respected the Substitute's opinion more than the Sheriff's. The thing led to the Court of Appeal all the same. Speaking commercially, he believed the commercial community of Scotland were dissatisfied and wanted this matter looked into. He did not wish to do more at the present moment than to speak from a commercial point of view, and to ask the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to give this matter his consideration. He would give the right hon and learned Gentleman notice that he would on the earliest opportunity next Session raise this question in some form in the House.

said, this was a very tempting question, and he had been very glad to hear what his hon. Friend had had to say on the subject. He would point out, however, that Sub-head N. did not include the salary of either Sheriff or Sheriff's Substitute. The only item concerning Sheriffs was under Subhead D, and he would, therefore, ask the Chairman whether, under the circumstances, it was in Order to continue on this topic? But he wished to call the attention of the Committee to a novel and what appeared to him most dangerous departure, which had just been referred to in connection with the Supplementary Vote. They were told that a part of the £1,800 Supplementary Estimate which they were to be called upon to vote over and above the original Estimate was caused by costs amounting to over £1,100, arising out of two "special unforeseen cases," and they were told that one of these cases was the action against the Sheriff Principal of Inverness. Now, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had given an explanation—and he (Dr. Cameron) utterly dissented from that explanation—setting forth the facts of the case. As a matter of fact, Sheriff Ivory had been engaged in an expedition, and had written a Report on that expedition to the then Lord Advocate. That was a confidential communication. It contained very grave accusations against certain individuals. It was Sheriff Ivory's duty, doubtless, to send that Report to the Lord Advocate, but before it could reach the Lord Advocate, and without the Lord Advocate's leave or sanction, and directly in the teeth of the wish of the Home Secretary, he published that confidential Report in The Scotsman newspaper. Sheriff Ivory knew that in doing so he was doing wrong, because he not only published the Report, but published with it the assertion that this Report had on such and such a day been laid before the Commissioners of Supply. That was false. He (Dr. Cameron) had at once asked the Lord Advocate at what date the Commissioners of Supply had sat, and he had ascertained that they had not sat on the date mentioned by Sheriff Ivory at all. They found, therefore, that the document had been published without the slightest right, on the part of Sheriff Ivory, in The Scotsman newspaper, and before it had reached the hands of the Lord Advocate. Well, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that if this document had been communicated to the newspapers as a Report of the Commissioners of Supply for Inverness-shire it would be privileged. But it had no business to be communicated to the Commissioners of Supply of Inverness-shire at all. It was a confidential Report addressed to the Lord Advocate, and it was for the Minister for Scotland to judge whether or not the document should be given to the public at all. At that time the Home Secretary was the Minister for Scotland, and he (Dr. Cameron) had asked him whether the document published was really what it purported to be, and whether, if it were so, he would give it to the House in the form of a Return, and the right hon. Gentleman had absolutely declined to do so. Now, if Sheriff Ivory had done his duty, this document would have served its purpose as a confidential Report, and would have done no harm to anyone, As it was, the slanderous assertions contained in it were published far and wide throughout the country, and the result was that an action was brought against Sheriff Ivory by a person interested in the matter—a common civil action. Privilege was pleaded, but the plea was one which would not hold water for a moment, and then Sheriff Ivory compromised the case for £25. Well, there was nothing in that—it was not a matter which concerned the Crown one iota. He believed the then Government refused to pay the money for Sheriff Ivory; at any rate, there were loud complaints in some Edinburgh newspapers because the Government had left Sheriff Ivory in the lurch, and had not paid his expenses. They were told in the Estimates that this item was "unforeseen," but those expenses had been incurred before the last Estimates were framed. Why were they not inserted in the last Estimates, and why were they now put in a lump sum as expenses "arising out of two special unforeseen cases?" "Unforeseen cases," forsooth!—why the thing was known all over Scotland 12 months ago and more. The Government should never have interfered in the matter at all. They had here interfered on behalf of a gentleman who happened to be a Judge, but whose action had been taken entirely upon his own responsibility as an individual, and in no official manner whatever, in dereliction of his ordinary duty by the publication of a private and confidential Report which his superiors had refused to present to the House. Sheriff Ivory threw up the sponge at an early stage, and yet the Government came and asked the Committee to vote £201 on his behalf. He (Dr. Cameron) could understand in a case where Sheriff Ivory had an action brought against him for deeds committed in the discharge of his official duties—he could understand the Government indemnifying him for any expenses to which he had been put, even where his action, acting in an official capacity, had been irregular. He did not know whether Sheriff Ivory had ever attempted to recover his costs from the other side, but if the Court had upheld him it would have been right for the Government to pay his expenses; but in this case the matter was totally different. He had been guilty of a gross dereliction of duty and had lost his case, having seen fit to slander people under cover of an untruth, with which the Government had no concern whatever. To come forward now and ask the House to pay this £201 under such circumstances was a most invidious and impolitic thing. There was no one in Scotland who, by his high handed proceedings, and by his disregard of the feelings of the people, had brought himself more into unpopularity than Sheriff Ivory. That, however, had nothing to do with the present question. What he (Dr. Cameron) wanted to know was, whether they were for the first time to come forward and gratuitously pay Sheriff Ivory's expenses in an action for slander, of which Sheriff Ivory had been guilty directly in the teeth of the desire of the then Home Secretary? He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £200, which would be about the sum paid.

said, he perfectly agreed with all that had been said by the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow on this matter. No doubt it was the duty of the Crown to defend an official whenever his official conduct was called in question, and to defend him for anything done in the exercise of his official duties. The ground of the action in the present case, however, was that Sheriff Ivory had acted outside his official duty. If Sheriff Ivory had only done his duty in this matter there would have been no occasion for the payment of any expenses. Sheriff Ivory could not substantiate his plea of privilege, and therefore there was no more call upon the Government to pay the expenses of his action than there would be to pay the expenses of any non-official person.

said, he wished to know what grounds Sheriff Ivory gave for publishing his Report? Did he know he was wrong in publishing it, or was he unaware of that fact? If he did not know he was wrong, he possessed very little knowledge indeed of his duties, and was not fit for the position he occupied. For his own part, he (Dr. McDonald) was inclined to give this interpretation of the facts—that Sheriff Ivory was "possessed" for the time being. He had believed he had a Heaven sent mission to go and put down what he called "the rebellion in Skye," and he thought he could do nothing at all to exceed his duties. Unfortunately, he was backed up by the Lord Advocate of the day.

said, he thought that paying this amount out of the public funds was altogether an unprecedented proceeding. The expenses had been incurred through a gross dereliction of duty on the part of Sheriff Ivory in making public a strictly private document. Sheriff Ivory's object evidently was to glorify himself and the work he had done in the pacification of Skye. Well, the people of Scotland generally had a very different opinion of Sheriff Ivory's work. They considered that he had greatly exceeded his duty, and had created a great deal of ill-feeling in the West of Scotland; and it was too bad now for the Government to ask them to pay money to indemnify this man for his high-handed and illegal proceedings. Sheriff Ivory had gone out of his way to slander certain individuals, and to make public a private report which he had drawn up in his official capacity. By so doing he had shown himself unfit for the position he occupied.

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was mistaken in saying that this money was paid to cover a dereliction of duty. It would, perhaps, be well at the outset to admit that there might have been an error of judgment, and that there was probably an error of judgment on the part of Sheriff Ivory; but, so far as he (Mr. Jackson) was able to gather from the Papers, there was a singular agreement on the part of successive Lord Advocates who had been brought into contact with this gentleman, that, having most delicate and difficult duties to perform, he discharged them conscientiously and creditably. Most unquestionably, at the time he made the statements which led to the action, he was under the impression—and this had been affirmed by the Lord Advocate of the day, who had stated that he believed Sheriff Ivory was bonâ fide under the impression at the time—that he had the express sanction of the Lord Advocate to make the statement which led to the action. The Lord Advocate, he need scarcely remind the Committee, was the right hon. and learned Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour). The Treasury was appealed to in this matter, and the case was most carefully investigated by two very competent officers, whose judgment he was sure the Committee could rely upon. They came to the conclusion that Sheriff Ivory made his statement in the bonâ fide belief that the Lord Advocate had given his sanction to it. The statement led to an action, and in the opinion of the Treasury, when an action was brought against a public servant, that public servant was entitled to the protection of the State. Sheriff Ivory might have been, and probably was, guilty of an error of judgment in making the statement he did. The Treasury were prepared to admit that, but the hon. Member for Glasgow would recognize that it would be undesirable to relax the rule and take away from public servants the protection given to them in the discharge of their duty. If, in the course of the discharge of official duties, actions were brought against public servants—and in this case Sheriff Ivory bonâ fide believed that he was entitled to take the course he did—then, unquestionably, the servants of the State were entitled to protection. The Committee might think that the State dealt with its servants in some cases very liberally, but he assured hon. Members that in this case the Treasury had examined the Papers with the utmost care, and obtained the evidence of persons concerned, and came to the conclusion that a case had been made out for the payment of Sheriff Ivory's expenses.

said, he thought that no one would be disposed to dispute that Sheriff Ivory desired to act conscientiously, but that he had discharged his duty well was not, at any rate, the opinion of the majority of the people of Scotland. This official had unquestionably been guilty of a great error of judgment. However, the present question was as to paying a sum of money to indemnify a person against damages inflicted upon him for the defamation of the character of a private individual. No doubt it was not desirable to have the rule relaxed under which Executive officers were indemnified in case of actions brought against them for whatever they might have done in an official capacity, but he did not think the Government should protect an official for what he did outside the discharge of his official duties, and certainly not for taking the unprecedented step of making public a private and confidential document. It had not been shown to the Committee how far the Lord Advocate had given his sanction to the publication of the Report. He (Mr. E. T. Reid) did not know that the Lord Advocate could give that sanction—at any rate, how was it that the Sheriff was led to believe that the Lord Advocate had given his sanction? One was, of course, sorry to see an action brought against a person at any time, but it might happen to anyone to be placed in Sheriff Ivory's position of being guilty of an error of judgment. When a man got outside his official functions he was no longer an official person, and was not entitled to have any of his expenses paid by the State.

said, he was going to make a suggestion which, perhaps, would remove part of the difficulty. The question of Sheriff Ivory's conduct in this particular matter was an old story. It took place some years ago; but he was bound to say that until now, at the end of the year 1888, on the Supplementary Estimates, they had never had an idea that any payment was to be made to this gentleman to recoup him for the costs in the action which had been brought against him. On the face of it, therefore, and without the fullest and clearest explanation, the Voteought to be refused. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) had, however, made a statement in perfect good faith that the Committee were bound to accept from him, and he (Mr. Childers) would suggest that the Vote should not be negatived, but should be withdrawn for a time, and that, in the meantime, Papers should be laid on the Table, showing what correspondence had taken place with regard to this action and pecuniary claim, and showing what Sheriff Ivory's position in the matter had been—what promises had been made to him, and what were the answers to those promises. The item under discussion could be inserted in the Estimates for next year, which were now being prepared, and then there would be a full opportunity for dis- ussing this matter with the facts before the Committee. He threw this out as a suggestion, not at all of a hostile character, and he hoped the Government would accept it. It was a question now, as he said, some years old, and it would make very little difference whether the money was paid now or next year.

said, he was very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for making the suggestion, which would save time at this particular period. He would, however, make a modification in the proposal, which he thought the right hon. Gentleman would not disagree with. There would, no doubt, be some Supplementary Estimates to introduce when the House met again before the end of the financial year, and he thought it would be more regular to deal with this matter in the present financial year; and he, therefore, proposed that the Vote should be taken in the next Supplementary Estimates. He believed that if hon. Members were really in possession of the facts which had been brought before the Treasury, they would exonerate the Treasury from any charge of having dealt otherwise than fairly and equitably with Sheriff Ivory under the circumstances. However, he should have no reason to complain if the Committee should prefer that the item should be withdrawn and put into a further Supplementary Estimate, instead of being passed now.

said, he accepted the suggestion as a very reasonable and fair one.

said, no doubt the Scotch Members would be ready to accept that proposal. He wished, however, to call attention to the fact that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was responsible for the Supplementary Estimates, and that this Estimate was drawn in such a way that it was only by accident that they had discovered the meaning of the item they were discussing. It was only through a question which he had addressed to the Government that they had found it out. He maintained that when payments of this kind were made, further particulars ought to be given on the face of the Estimate than were to be found in such statements as "two special and unforeseen cases."

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman would see that this Estimate was necessarily prepared in the Scotch Office, and that, except for some special reason, the Treasury always followed the Department which prepared the Estimate in the first instance. He only said this by way of explanation, because, of course, he accepted all the responsibility for the way in which the Estimates were prepared.

The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will, of course, lay upon the Table Papers explanatory of this matter.

Yes; I will.

The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will, perhaps, move to reduce the Vote himself. Might I ask if this money has been paid?

Yes; it has.

said, he desired to point out that the Lord Advocate had denied that he had given Sheriff Ivory authority to publish the Report. However, even if the Lord Advocate had given that authority, it would not have made any difference in the legal aspect of the matter. The document would not have been privileged until it had been submitted to Parliament. He thought the Treasury should have looked into this matter, and taken account of the circumstances before they sanctioned the payment. He could not help thinking that if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury paid a little more attention to the Scotch affairs which he had to administer he would save himself considerable trouble, and probably save the country some expense.

said, that in point of form it would, perhaps, be as well to withdraw the Vote and propose it in a reduced form, otherwise it might be said that the reduction had been final, as the result of a hostile Motion.

Of course, I withdraw the Amendment.

said, he wished to call attention to the sum of £650 charged for the preparation of Bills in Parliament in connection with the Lord Advocate's Office. The Legal Secretary to the Lord Advocate received a salary of £500 a-year; but in addition to that he was to receive this £650 for the preparation of Bills in Parliament. He thought that was an excessive sum to pay, seeing that only one Bill had been passed for Scotland this Session—namely, the Bail Bill. He thought that no Scotch Bills should be brought forward unless the Government were prepared to go on with them; and it certainly was no use to pay a large sum of money for the preparation of Bills simply for the purpose of putting them away in pigeon-holes. He did not wish to reduce the Vote, but simply to call attention to the fact that they were paying £650 for the preparation of a Bill consisting of one page and a-half.

said, he maintained that they must have a man of experience to draft their Bills and to attend to this Parliamentary work, whether there were only one, or two, or three Bills which passed during the year. If a man undertook work for the Government he expected to make an income as good, or nearly as good, as that which he might obtain in his profession. They must have an able man to prepare these Bills, and it was absurd to talk of reducing a man's pay because he did not do as much work as they would like him to do.

said, that the Legal Secretary was already paid a salary of £500 a-year, and, besides that, was probably allowed to do some extra work. This £650 was altogether an extra charge.

said, that he thought the Item for the Office of Registry of Deeds required some consideration. In 1881 a Departmental Inquiry took place, and a Report was submitted to the effect that the work of the Department was not of an important character, and might be performed by clerks of a superior order, and recommending that the in- erior clerks should receive from £200 a-year upwards. The Treasury had issued a Minute giving effect to the recommendations of the Report of this Departmental Inquiry in nearly every instance. It was stated that the duties of the head officials were not of a very onerous character, and that they were to be sent to other offices when vacancies occurred. That was in 1881; but in 1885 the chief officer died, and instead of transferring his successor to some other office a person in the Department was promoted to the vacant post, and matters remained so up to the present time, except that the position of the junior officers was worse than before. Although the work did not require high officials to superintend it, it involved a large amount of clerical labour and regularity. Four thousand deeds were registered annually; and through the inattention of the Registrar no less than 40 volumes of the Register were incomplete. There was nepotism in this office, not that vacancies were given to the friends of higher officials, but vacancies were created for the friends of higher officials to be put into. He drew attention to this matter in no hostile spirit, but because he desired that close inquiry should be made into the circumstances.

said, the hon. Member was perfectly justified in expressing the opinion that inquiry into this Department would be beneficial. An inquiry had taken place into the organization of the Sasines Office, but the other Department was not examined into at the time, as vacancies had to be filled up in the Sasines Office, and it was essential not to delay the Report. He would take care, however, that what the hon. Member had said about the Registry of Deeds should be looked into. When the Committee had dealt with the other matter the question of the Registry of Deeds Office would be considered.

said, he wished to ask an explanation of his constituency during the past 12 months. He wished to have some explanation from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate as to the appointment of Chief Inspector Gordon, of Ross-shire. Chief Inspector Eraser, it would perhaps be remembered, had been appointed to Stirlingshire, or was about to be appointed five years ago, but when his appointment came up for ratification the Lord Advocate of the day refused to assent to it, because Chief Inspector Fraser had overstated his age by one year. Well, he should like to know whether Chief Inspecter Gordon had not overstated his age by one year, and if it was not intended to treat him in the same way that Chief Inspector Fraser had been treated?

said, he did not think this subject could be discussed under the present Vote. The question the hon. Gentleman had asked the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was one which would come under the Lord Advocate's Vote. This Vote had reference merely to the pay of Inspectors, and the contribution of certain charges connected with the county police. It was impossible, in connection with that contribution, to raise a question as to the administration of a particular Police Force.

asked, whether he could move to reduce the Vote by the salary of this Chief Inspector?

said, it was not competent for him to do that.

Then I will not pursue the subject.

said, he should like to ask the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to be good enough to say whether he had now reconsidered the position of chaplains in Scotch prisons, as compared with the position of chaplains in English prisons? He believed that in answer to a ques- an occurrence which had taken place in tion put by the hon. Member for Caithness some time last spring the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) had stated that this matter should have favourable consideration. If the hon. Gentleman had considered the position of Scotch chaplains, perhaps he would state to the Committee the result of his deliberations.

said, he thought this point had been made a subject of debate on the English Prisons Vote quite recently, and it was in the recollection of the Committee that he then promised, in answer to an appeal made to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), that between that time and the next Estimates he would consider whether, in connection with the English Prisons Vote, some alteration should be made. He must remark, however, that from his position as Secretary to the Treasury it would suit him much better to reduce the Vote for English chaplains than to raise the Vote for Scotch chaplains. Therefore, he hoped that the hon. Member for Stirling would take it from him that the matter would be carefully considered. He did not, however, wish to be taken as holding out a hope that the salaries of Scotch chaplains would be raised. He thought he could invent a remedy much better than that.

said, he rose before the hon. Gentleman who had an Amendment on the Paper because he had a larger reduction to move, and should probably be out of Order if he proposed it after the hon. Gentleman. This Vote was one which eminently deserved the attention of the House. Ten years ago there were some 50 or 60 prisons in Scotland, but now the number had been reduced to 15. There had been a change of machinery with the object of producing economy. The number of prisoners now estimated for was 2,500, as against 3,400 10 years ago, and yet the estimated cost had risen from £81,000 10 years ago to £107,000 that day. The increase of expense in this Department was something prodigious, and quite unaccountable. It was said that the reduction in the number of prisoners was owing to the adoption of a new system; but that was altogether absurd, the influences which had been at work lessening crime having been education and the spreading of temperance. That was no reason, however, why it should cost more now to maintain 2,500 prisoners than it did formerly to maintain 3,300. What rendered this matter pressing and important was that the enormous increase of expense which had attended the administration of the Prisons Department in Scotland had been also attended with constantly increasing dissatisfaction. In 1878–9 the total cost per prisoner, excluding cost of new buildings, was £21 per head, but it had now risen to £30; and, whereas the cost of management in Edinburgh in 1876 was only £1,300, it was now £1,700. Other expenses had risen in like manner, and the amount proposed to be spent on new buildings was something appalling. Since 1879 up to last year £250,000 had been expended, and there was still £125,000 to be spent. Everything seemed to have run up in the same ratio. Superannuation allowances, which in 1873 were £1,300, were now £2,500. They had got two Inspectors at £700 a-year each, besides travelling expenses—two Inspectors to inspect 15 prisons containing a little over 2,500 prisoners. What would they say of a Factory Inspector who received £700 a-year as salary and £300 as travelling expenses, and whose duties were to inspect factories employing about 1,250 people? It might be said that there was no Government money expended in connection with factories, but take matters in which Government money was spent—take, for instance, school inspection. What would they say of a School Inspector being appointed at a salary of £700 a-year with travelling expenses, bringing up his total receipts to £1,000, who only inspected a school population of 1,250 congregated in 7½ schools? Take the inspection of the police. The Government charge in connection with police was very large—about £150,000, and there were some 40,000 men scattered all over the country to be inspected, and yet a single Inspector did the work of inspection. The principal feature connected with this matter was that, whilst they had this enormous increase of expenditure, they had universal discontent excited by the method the administration was carried on. Public Bodies, for instance, were discontented, and were protesting in every direction. A number of prisons had been closed. Take the case of the Cupar Prison. That was admitted to be one of the best managed prisons in Scotland. Forty years ago a large sum of money was spent in building the prison, but in 1887 the establishment was handed over to the Government. He supposed that now Cupar was expected to buy the place back again. There was great discontent prevailing amongst the higher class of prison officials. They declared that, under the new system, all the fat posts were given to military men. It was said that, out of 12 appointments in connection with Scotch prisons, eight were held by military men receiving over £5,000 in salaries. The warders were dissatisfied almost over the whole of Scotland. His hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) intended to bring forward the case of the Perth warders. Their case was not peculiar, because similar complaints had proceeded from the new prison at Barlinnie, in the neighbourhood of Glasgow. That prison contained no proper accommodation for the warders. The result was they were obliged to live 2½ miles from their work. They had to rise at half-past 4 in the morning in order to get to the prison before 6 o'clock, and once a week, or three times a fortnight, they were obliged to sleep a night in the prison. They had to be absent two days and one night from home without any provision being made for them to procure a warm meal during the time. They complained that their treatment during that time was infinitely worse than that of the prisoners themselves. Then there had been repeated remonstrances as to the change which had taken place in connection with discharged prisoners. Formerly their fares used to be paid from Barlinnie to Glasgow. Now the prisoners were simply discharged at Barlinnie. It had been necessary to make some economy, and it had been effected in the paltry item of cab fares. The men had to walk the country roads to the alarm of the inhabitants. In those parts, in consequence, the number of constables had had to be increased. On account of the closing of a number of prisons, the cost of transporting prisoners had been enormously increased. In 1878, under the old system, the cost of conveying the prisoners from one place to another was £1,000, but now it was over £7,000. He had shown that the general public were dissatisfied and that they were incommoded by the petty economy which had been resorted to. He had shown that warders and higher officials were dissatisfied at the administration under the present system. He now came to the case of the prisoners themselves. Owing to the number of prisons shut up, prisoners were obliged to be taken—untried prisoners often were obliged to be taken—to prisons at a distance, and were, therefore, removed from easy access to their solicitors. In certain cases they were removed as far as 100 miles from the place of their abode. In the olden days prisoners were confined in some place near and had easy access to their law advisers. That was now no longer the case. So grave was this scandal that it had called forth strong protest, not from the prisoners, but from the Procurators of one or two towns and the Procurator Fiscals of Scotland. When they had public officials interfering on behalf of prisoners and declaring that an injustice was being done by the system, it showed that there must be something very materially wrong. The diminution in the number of prisons had also involved in many localities the expense of providing new police cells in which prisoners, on their sentence for trifling offences, were confined. It was said that in certain districts, where the authorities did not wish to go to the expense of providing accommodation, trifling offenders were allowed to go undealt with, because there was no proper means of punishing them. To keep men for seven or 14 days without proper supervision was a system of administration which could not be defended. He maintained that the remedy for this state of things was to make the Prison Department a Department of the Scotch Office. Here, again, the whole work could be done perfectly well by an Inspector under the Scotch Office, and an enormous amount of saving, besides a great amount of efficiency, might be effected. The matter was one of very great importance. Probably, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate would consent to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the causes of this enormous increase, and of the great dissatisfaction which prevailed, that would meet the case; but if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate did not do so, he (Dr. Cameron) would suggest the amalgamation of the Department with the Scotch Office. As compared with the period, not only prior to the Prisons Act of 1877, but for some years subsequently, the increase of expenditure had been enormous, besides which, as he had explained, there was universal dissatisfaction. Believing that a saving of at least £5,000 a-year might be effected by the amalgamation he proposed, he moved to reduce the Vote by £5,000. Of course, as he had said, if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would grant a Parliamentary inquiry, he would not press his Motion.

said, he was most anxious to save the time of the Committee, and for that reason, on the general question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), he should say nothing, except that the administration of prisons by the Commissioners was not giving satisfaction in Scotland, and especially was not giving satisfaction within the Service itself. He wished to move a reduction of the salaries of the Commissioners on account of the way in which they had treated certain officers of Her Majesty's General Prison at Perth. He brought the charge first and chiefly against the Prison Commissioners, and that was why he desired a reduction of their salaries, unless he received satisfaction, but also, in a minor degree, against the Secretary for Scotland and his advisers, and, in a very considerable degree, against the officers of Her Majesty's Treasury. What happened was this: Sixteen of the prison officers had binding contracts, which he believed could be enforced in a Court of Law, as to what their salary and emoluments should be. The contract was that they should receive the same scale of salary as was given to similar officers in England, but with free quarters. The Treasury at first said that free quarters were not in the contracts. He said, "Let the contracts be examined." But also the Treasury took up another line. He was speaking of the Treasury before the present Government came into power. The Treasury argued that, even supposing the contract was binding upon others, it was not binding upon them, because they had never sanctioned free quarters. His answer to that was that there was an authorized scale of salaries, carefully considered by the Treasury, and that in that scale of salaries free quarters were allowed in a prison. Whether the highest prison authority in Scotland had power or not to grant free quarters, or whether, as was suggested, it was at the discretion of the Treasury to say, "We shall not allow it," at all events the Treasury did not interfere when free quarters were given. These men enjoyed free quarters for some years, and discharged their duties to the full satisfaction of the Governor. Suddenly, upon the appointment of a new Commissioner, it was sprung upon them that they were to be deprived of free quarters, which were reckoned to be equal to one-twelfth of their remuneration. It was now nearly three years since he took up this matter as a breach of faith, and he had met with great courtesy at the Scotch Office and at the Treasury. He had had long conversations and correspondence, and of the 16 officers aggrieved 12 had received redress, but not until after 18 months' delay. He knew that the Scotch Department were in a difficult position, because they had to deal with the Treasury. He supposed they felt that since redress had been given in 12 out of the 16 cases, they ought not to press matters further. He would not press matters further if it was a question of anything but justice. This was a question of breach of faith and of injustice, and, as far as he was informed, he did not know any reason why a few officers should be deprived of the redress given to their 12 colleagues. Some of the officers who had not received redress were amongst the oldest in the Service. He believed it would be no longer argued that the contracts of the Prison Commissioners were ultra vires; but it would be said that these men had had promotion, and that promotion cancelled contracts. He believed, if they were to go into details, they would find that on each occasion of promotion a new contract was made, and that new contract ought to be fulfilled. The new Commissioner, upon his arrival, looked round to see where any economy could be effected. He might have been quite right in saying, "Here is a case where the warders have on the whole a higher scale of remuneration than the warders in any other part of the service, because they have these free quarters. Therefore let us make a saving here in the future." Where, he thought, the new Commissioner made a grave blunder was in not remembering that they must look at the rights of individuals serving under contracts. He had a further serious complaint to make against the Commissioners, and that was, that when these poor men protested—each man wrote out his own case—it was impossible for them even to get from their Governor any information as to whether their documents had really gone before the Secretary for Scotland. Throughout there had been great inclination to withhold information, at all events from the men directly concerned, although he (Mr. C. S. Parker) had received much courtesy. What he hoped Her Majesty's Government would be disposed to do in this matter was not to regard this matter as finally closed. It might be officially closed between the Scotch Department and the Treasury, but he could not accept this as final. If one received three-quarters of justice he ought to stand out for the other fourth. It could not be for the public interest to economise by breaking contracts. True economy consisted quite as much in spending where they ought to spend as in saving where they ought to save. He trusted he would be told on behalf of the Government, that although they would of course argue their view on this question further, they would not regard it as finally closed, but would give him the information which he asked, as to why the few remaining officers were left without redress, and allow him to put the facts again before them.

said, there was one question he desired to put to his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson). The hon. Gentleman had told them that the case of the chaplains would receive the attention of the Treasury. He wished to ask if the case of the prison surgeons also would be considered. These officers had grie- vances—their work was the same as that of those in similar positions in England and Ireland, but their remuneration was considerably less. He hoped that the medical officers would have their case considered by the Treasury before the next Estimates were framed.

said, he had to complain that the Vote for the convicts employed in connection with the harbour works at Peterhead did not appear under the head of charges incurred in the making of Peterhead Harbour. The public ought to know the vast amount of money that Harbour was costing.

said, he would remind the Committee that this matter had been again and again under the consideration of Parliament, and that Parliament had solemnly decided that there should be a prison for convicts erected at Peterhead. That decision was arrived at very long ago, and the prison was well on towards completion. They were certainly not justified in going into the general question as to whether it was right that convicts should be employed during the period of their detention in the execution of public works. It had been conclusively established that the effect of the policy had been largely to diminish the number of men lapsing into crime after their discharge from convict prisons. The men became familiarized with work, and upon their release were able to take their place among the labourers of the country, and able to get employment much more easily than they otherwise would do. He confessed he was surprised his hon. and gallant friend should re-open this question, which had been considered again and again by successive Committees of the House.

said, he had studiously abstained from doing the very thing his hon. and learned Friend accused him of doing. He abstained from objecting to the construction of Peterhead Harbour. The House of Commons and the people of England would soon discover the vast expense of that harbour, and he had merely stated that the Vote for the convict prison at Peterhead ought to appear under the head of Peterhead Harbour.

said, he had a word to say with regard to the item of £3,250 for the ordinary repairs of buildings. He apprehended that under that head came the charge for the alterations of prisons. The experience he had gathered with regard to one of the largest prisons in the whole of Scotland was that enormous alterations were made without any regard to the promotion of economy or efficiency. No doubt efficiency was studied to a certain extent, but he maintained that alterations were made, buildings were taken down and others were put up, without the attainment of the real thing the Prison Commissioners had in view. Much more careful supervision ought to be given to this matter, so that in future no alterations in buildings should take place without the fullest consideration being given to the subject.

said, he desired to direct attention to one particular case which came under this Vote. It was very useful in matters of this kind to have discussions regarding mismanagement and was to upon a large scale in connection with administration, but sometimes it was quite as useful to discuss a particular case in which they could see both mismanagement and waste. He thought he found both in one of the allowances granted under this Vote—namely, the allowance of £50 in lieu of a house to the Governor of the Ayr Prison. The Governor was appointed some five years ago, and a very special and peculiar arrangement seemed to have been made with him. It was to the effect that he should not be required to live in the Governor's house within the walls, but that instead of doing so he should be allowed £50 for house rent outside. That was an arrangement which he (Mr. J. Sinclair) thought could not be defended. It was not made on account of any peculiar or special qualifications on the Governor's part, but for reasons into which he (Mr. J. Sinclair) preferred not to enter. This was the only case in the whole of Scotland of such an allowance to a Governor. The case was quite unique, and the feeling entertained by a great many people acquainted with the facts of the case was that if the place was not good enough for the man, the man was too good for the place. No allegation could be made that the house was not a good one. It stood upon an esplanade adjoining the sea beach, and there could be obtained from it a view of the Firth of Clyde and the beautiful mountains of Arran. With this house all previous Governors had been perfectly content; they had all resided there, and no complaint had been made by them. Now, what had happened? Within the last year very expensive alterations and repairs had been made on the house. He would like to know if it was at the instance of the Governor, because if so, it was to be presumed that he said to the Prison Commissioners, "Repair the house, and I shall come and live in it." In that case it would be interesting to note his subsequent conduct. If, on the other hand, the alterations and repairs were made at the instance of the Commissioners of their own accord, the Committee would see the Commissioners were spending a large sum of money upon the repair of the house when they knew that under their agreement with the Governor he had not occupied the house, was not occupying it now, and never intended to occupy it as long as he was in that office. Surely that was a waste of money—he would not hesitate to call it both wanton and needless. The alterations and repairs had been made at a cost very closely approaching £600. The house had been made very much better than it was before, if not up to the luxurious taste of the Governor. Why, then, did not the Governor reside in it, as all his predecessors had done? He still resided without the walls, and had no intention of entering the place. He (Mr. J. Sinclair) had two questions to put upon this point—namely, were the Prison Commissioners justified in spending this large sum of money in alterations and repairs when they were aware that, under the arrangement or bargain made, the Governor would not reside within the walls of the prison at all, or, on the other hand, having repaired and altered the building, and made it comfortable, if not luxurious, were they justified in continuing the allowance of £50 to the Governor? This matter did not affect the Prison Commissioners or the Governor alone, because what was the consequence of the Governor residing outside the prison? Some of the warders, who, otherwise, would reside outside entirely, had to take their turn week by week, residing within the walls, because the Governor did not do so. They got no extra pay for that—he supposed it was considered part of their duty, but he did not think they should be expected to do this. They might reasonably say, if the Governor does not reside within the walls, why should we do so; are we to have additional labour thrown upon us simply because the Governor declines to sleep in the Governor's house within the prison? He trusted the hon. and learned Lord Advocate would say why these repairs were made when there was no intention on the part of the Governor to occupy the house at all, and why public money should be wasted to the extent even of £50, as long as the Governor of Ayr Prison lived or continued to occupy his present office.

said, he was glad the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) had brought the question of the treatment of the Perth warders before the Committee. His observation and study of the case enabled him to say that absolutely every word his hon. Friend had stated was perfectly correct. The grievances which his hon. Friend had stated, and which he had been pressing on the attention of the Government for several years past, were real grievances, though they might appear small and unimportant. He considered that the economies made in this case by the Prison Commissioners were all of a mean, pettifogging, and paltry character, and that while they had secured a minimum of benefit, they had produced a maximum of worry and discomfort to the warders of Perth. They had brought about the impression that there had been a breach of faith and a breach of the contract under which the men entered the service. The warders had every right to consideration at the hands of the Government. They were performing difficult duties, involving great labour, if not danger, and he thought their position ought to be made as secure as possible. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would take his hon. Friend's appeal into careful consideration, and might be able to see their way to remove the grievances of these deserving and hard-working men. There was a little point he desired to raise with regard to the Barlinnie Prison. He understood that that establishment contained 700 people, and that the duties of the Governor were of a very continuous and very harassing nature. The poor man was obliged to be on duty every day of the week, including Sunday, and had no opportunity whatever for rest and relaxation. In connection with the prison system of Scotland there was a seething mass of discomfort which affected every one, from Governors, chaplains, doctors, and warders, and even to the prisoners themselves. The best remedy, in his opinion, would be to adopt the practical suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and let the whole question be inquired into by a Parliamentary Committee.

said, that they must bear in mind in considering the present prison system of Scotland that it had only been in force since the passing of the Act of 1878, and that the policy of that Act, having been deliberately adopted, must, in the mean time, be followed to its consequences. He thought that a close investigation would satisfy hon. Gentlemen that those consequences were beneficial both as regarded the better efficiency and the discipline of the establishments, and even as regarded economy. He impressed on the Committee that to take any steps such as the appointment of a Committee now would be really to throw out of gear a system which had barely been adopted to the full. The whole scheme of the Act of 1878 involved the suppression of the smaller local prisons and the concentration of prisoners in a comparatively small number of large prisons. That was the necessarily essential feature of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had said that even worse than expense was discontent. The hon. Gentleman could not be amazed that there was discontent in the various places where prisons were suppressed as an essential condition of the new system, because prisons in a number of small towns involved a certain amount of employment, the withdrawal of which necessarily gave rise to discontent. Nay, more, the withdrawal of administration from the Local Authorities was not a measure altogether popular with those who enjoyed the exercise of administrative power, and it therefore created a certain amount of dissatisfaction and discontent. As to the question of expense, he must point out to the hon. Member the central fact in the administration of the new system. The prison at Barlinnie, of which much had been said, was built with 800 cells, and had only approached completion during the present year. That was the centre of the new system, and without that being in full play one could not appreciate or appraise the financial results of the change. It was, therefore, altogether premature to take the figures in this transition stage as a fair criterion of the result as it would be when once the complete substitution of the one system for the other had taken place. Perhaps he ought incidentally to mention that the Barlinnie Prison in some parts was not actually completed. As he had mentioned the Barlinnie Prison, he might be allowed to say that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the College Division was not in possession of the latest information as to the system of releasing prisoners. Prisoners were now released, not at Barlinnie, but at Glasgow. He thought it was very desirable the Prison Commissioners should take means of informing the public, not through the interference of a Committee of the House of Commons, but through the publication of figures, of the real results of the system. It was very expedient that that should be done, but the Committee ought to carefully keep in mind that when a sweeping, general charge of increased expenditure was made, it was necessary to ascertain what were the elements in the expenditure. If any hon. Member would go over the figures in this case he would find that a number of burdens had been imposed upon this Service which were entirely new since the earlier period, the statistics of which the hon. Gentleman quoted as a standard of economy. Many hon. Gentlemen were aware that by a decision of the Courts of England the cost of the conveyance of prisoners from the bar of a Court to the prisons now fell upon the Prisons Vote. That was quite a new thing, and accounted for about £2,000 a-year. Then in these Estimates, again, the bringing of remanded prisoners had been transferred from the Criminal Vote to the Prisons Vote. Accordingly, there they had on the two items an increased charge on this Vote of £3,000, which accounted to a large extent for the increase in which the hon. Gentleman was so much concerned. Furthermore, a new Treasury scheme had come into effect, and that action involved the annual expenditure of more than £1,000. He merely mentioned this for the purpose of showing that there was no ground for apprehension that there was any want of economy. There was another feature bearing in the same direction, which also illustrated what he had already said as to the prematureness of considering at present the financial results of the new system. As he had said, the full operation of Barlinnie was essential to the complete development of the new system, and when they found that since Barlinnie had been in existence the cost of maintenance, which was so large and prominent an item, had been going down, the Committee would see that that was a much safer criterion or indication to go upon than the aggregate amount of expenditure which involved the construction of new prisons. One or two specific grievances had been stated. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. J. Sinclair) had said that there was now a Governor's house, but that it was not occupied, the Governor receiving an allowance of £50 for a residence outside. But there were negotiations as to the transfer of the Governor to another place, and the instance referred to was merely one where, owing to temporary arrangements, it was impossible to make the Governor comply with the rule, which would be enforced in the case of a new Governor. Accordingly he begged the hon. Member not to cite this as a typical instance of extravagance. [Mr. J. SINCLAIR: What about the repairs?] The House had been put in proper repair, and stood for the reception of anyone to whom the Commissioners were not pledged as to the provision of a residence elsewhere, His hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Mark Stewart) had made observations respecting reconstruction of buildings, which should receive due consideration at the hands of the Prison Commissioners. The hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had said that there was dissatisfaction on all sides, even amongst the prisoners themselves. The hon. Gentleman was himself responsible for legislation passed with a view of giving increased access by prisoners to their agents at the stage of examination before the magistrate. Here, again, was another instance of the increased expenditure which fell upon the new system. At Duke Street, in Glasgow, a considerable amount of expenditure had been incurred, owing to the necessity of providing improved facilities of access of prisoners to their agents. There was no indisposition on the part of the managing body to incur expense in facilitating due communication of prisoners with their agents. When the hon. Gentleman referred to the more general question of the increased distances prisoners had to go, he (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) could only fall back on the general observation with which he started—namely, that that was one of the necessities of the system deliberately adopted by Parliament in 1878, and which was only now coming into full effect. The questions raised by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) and his hon. Friend the Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Mr. J. A. Campbell) would be dealt with by the Secretary to the Treasury.

said, that an important question surrounded the expenditure upon prisons under the new system. Some years ago he had experience both of the English and Scotch systems, and he begged the Scotch Department not to lay the flattering unction to their souls that the new system was any pretext whatever for increased expenditure. It had not been so in England, where the new system had been consistent with, and, indeed, had caused, very great economy. He could not charge his memory at that moment with the figure; but, if he remembered rightly, between £50,000 and £100,000 was saved in consequence of the greater concentration of prisoners. The new system was no excuse whatever for any increase of expenditure. On the contrary, it was very bad administration that was accompanied with any large increase of expenditure. That was, anyhow, his experience. He had a great deal of knowledge of the Scotch administration of prisons down to 1885, and he was sorry to say that the Scotch administration of prisons compared very unfavour- ably with that of the English prisons, especially in regard to the matter of expenditure. At that time the building of the great prison at Edinburgh was going on, and he remembered perfectly well having to address strong remonstrances to the prison Department in Scotland upon the subject.

said, that in complete conformity with what the right hon. Gentleman had just said, the charge for maintenance had decreased, and was going down since the new system had come fairly into operation.

said, he desired to draw the attention of the Lord Advocate to the difference in the prison statistics of Scotland as compared with those of England and Ireland. In England and Ireland the statistics were absolutely uniform; and, therefore, an hon. Member could easily compare them one with another. The prison statistics of Scotland, however, had no relation to those of England and Ireland; and it was impossible for one to study the statistics—especially statistics relating to education—to see whether education was reducing crime in Scotland. He hoped the Lord Advocate would consider whether it was not possible to bring the statistics of the three parts of the United Kingdom into uniformity.

said, he did not feel justified, after the reply made by the Lord Advocate, in asking to withdraw his Motion for a reduction of the Vote. As a matter of fact, the cost of maintaining 2,500 prisoners in Scotland was much greater than the cost of maintaining one-third more than that number 10 years ago. He could not be content with the Lord Advocate's statement; and, as a protest, he must ask the Committee to divide.

said, that he might, perhaps, be allowed to say a word in answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker). The question of the warders of Perth had been most carefully considered; and, as the hon. Member had pointed out, it had practically been reduced to a question of three warders. The position taken up by the Treasury was that the Treasury had assented to the proposal which had been made by the Secretary for Scotland. The hon. Member would hardly expect the Treasury to initiate additional charges. Although it might be true—he did not admit it, because it was not on the Papers, and therefore he had no means of verifying it—although it might he true that promises, either verbal or written, were made to the warders some time ago, the Treasury held that the position of these men to-day was better than it was at the time when the promises, if they were made, were made, even taking into account the payment for quarters, which the men were now called upon to make. It had always been held, he believed, that promotion counted in some way as a fresh contract to a man already in the Service. He impressed upon the hon. Member that it could not be shown that the men were to-day in a worse position than they would have been supposing the promises which were alleged to have been made had been carried out. He did not wish to say that the last word had been spoken on this question, because he was perfectly willing, if the hon. Member would come and see him, to endeavour to convince him that the Treasury were perfectly correct in the matter. If the hon. Gentleman was able to show that such was not the fact, the Treasury would gladly reconsider the matter. His hon. Friend the Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Mr. J. A. Campbell) asked him whether his answer to the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. J. C. Bolton) had reference to the chaplains only, or also applied to the case of the surgeons? He (Mr. Jackson) did not want the Committee to suppose that he was contemplating any general increase of salaries. What he had promised was that the question should be carefully considered; and it was rather with a view of considering whether they were not paying the English prison surgeons more than they ought to pay. He might say that as regarded the surgeons, certainly at Barlinnie, something ought to be done. Indeed, he might go so far as to say, without making any promise, that the Treasury would not shut out of their consideration the case of the prison surgeons of Scotland.

said, he gladly accepted the hon. Gentleman's offer to examine with him the case of the Perth warders. He would only add that the point he should endeavour to estab- lish would be that on promotion a fresh bargain was made, and that that bargain had been broken. It was no answer to say that the men were in a better position now than they once were. Men naturally expected to rise in the Service. The case of the chief warder was a particularly hard one. Having been promoted for long and faithful service, no doubt he was in a better position than eleven years ago. But that was not the question. The question simply was—whether a fresh contract was not made on promotion, and some years later broken?

said, he was prepared to have afforded the Committee somewhat ample information as to the circumstances and condition of Scottish Education; but the period at which this topic arose was so late that he thought he should best consult the convenience of the Committee if he brought his observations within the smallest compass. The Vote was for £568,322, which was an increase of £14,930, arising mainly upon day and evening schools, and, to a small extent, on Training Colleges and the grant under Section 67 of the Education Act in aid of local rates. As regarded attendance, the Estimate of the present year depended on the assumption of an increase of 2·5 per cent which might be expected to be reasonably accurate when it was remembered that last year there was a difference between the Estimate and the actual attendance of 500 only. The Estimate of the earnings of the children this year was 18s. 11d., as against 18s. 6¾d. last year; and in that connection he would remind the Committee that the changes in the Code had, for the first time, been in operation for a whole year. Accordingly, it was possible that the Estimate upon which calculations were made was more or less problematical, although he had no doubt these would prove to be approximately accurate. As regarded night schools, the same calculation of increase was made with regard to attendance; and he hoped it would give satisfaction to the Committee to say that, although involving expenditure, the attendance in those schools had increased. There had been some vicissitudes of fortune on the part of the schools; but now there was an important increase of attendance, and he thought it would be considered that these schools constituted a very important arm, and that every encouragement should be given to them. At the same time, it must not escape attention that the present conditions under which night schools received State aid did not compel a corresponding local effort in the supply of funds; and it was matter for regret that in some cases very little effort indeed was made. That was a matter which might come to require consideration. Turning from that, the Committee would allow him to remind them that the main feature of the alterations in the Code was the dispensing with individual examination below the Third Standard; and the importance of that was shown by the fact that the children under that Standard represented about 50 per cent of the whole attendance. The next feature of the changes made was the development of class subjects, which was intended to raise the general intelligence of the classes and to widen the scope of the curriculum. He believed there was a general concurrence in that change, and in desiring that it should be continuous. The point he had first adverted to with reference to the lower Standards might be extended or not beyond its present limits; but he would now merely say that the degree in which it should be extended was necessarily one for watchful consideration on the part of the Department, who regarded with great interest the experiment now being made. It might interest the Committee to remember that this year, in the case of class subjects, elementary science was offered as an alternative to English; and that had special interest, looking to the fact that in elementary science the principles of agriculture might be included, so that there was a wide and general bearing in this change in the direction of technical education of a highly practical kind. There were many subjects which deserved consideration if they had time to give it, but on the present occasion he should do no more than advert to one or two of them. The Committee would be aware probably that local difficulties had arisen in some parts of the country. The financial embarrassments of the School Boards in parts of the Highlands had brought things to a somewhat acute stage of difficulty in the administration of the Education Act; but with regard to that he hoped hon. Gentlemen would accept the assurance that the subject was receiving the closest and most anxious consideration at the hands of the Department, that they were in communication with the Boards concerned, and that they would take whatever means were open to them to afford some alleviation of the present difficulty and to help towards a solution of the crisis. The caution of the Education Department arose from the necessity of recognizing the bounds between the general Imperial contribution and local exertions; and he was sure the Committee would agree that it would be most injurious that anything should be done which would upset the ideas of local duty, and, on the other hand, prevent the attention of the Department being given towards some means of getting over what he trusted was but a temporary embarrassment. On the subject of secondary education the Committee would expect him to say a word on the new measures which had been adopted in relation to inspection. That was now the third year during which there had been inspection of the schools which imparted secondary education; and hon. Members must have been interested in observing the successful experiments which were made with regard to the inspection of schools of all kinds—State-aided and private. What had taken place with reference to the leaving certificate showed that there was a high appreciation of that kind of inspection, both as regarded the persons in charge of the school—the school managers—and as regarded the public generally. What was, perhaps, still more important was the action of those professional and business bodies which had consented to accept the leaving certificates as dispensing with the necessity for examination in the departments to which those certificates related. The stimulus which had thus been given to the schools, and the information acquired by the managers and teachers as to the general standards which were looked for, were of the very greatest importance; and there would be general satisfaction in hearing that the Department looked forward to this as a very important although a very modest feature in the scheme. When he said modest he meant especially with reference to expenditure, because it was satisfactory to know that only £300 was required from Parliament for those purposes. The progress of technical schools under the recent Act had not been rapid; and it was necessarily very much in the arbitrament of the Local Authorities, influenced by local opinion, to decide as to how far it was to go forward with greater rapidity. At present there was a certain amount of reserve on the part of School Boards to come within the provisions of the recent Act; and it was possible that the grant now obtained for some of the branches of technical education, through the Science and Art Department, might induce School Boards to remain where they were rather than enter into what they might consider more or less an experimental course. But, at the same time, there was evidence of interest in the subject, and the Department had acted towards advancing and giving free play to the views of districts progressing that way by arousing the attention of School Boards to the opportunity afforded; and he thought they had done all that was incumbent on them probably to stir up what must ultimately depend on local action and on local opinion. As the Committee would be aware, the Endowed Schools Commission had been extended for one year—to the end of 1889. Their work was very nearly complete, and the continuance of the Commission was in order that there might be a proper winding up of its executive work. During its six years' work 442 schemes had been prepared by the Commission; of these, 79 were remitted by the Education Department for alteration; 293 were approved; 275 became law; one, referring to a school near Kirkcaldy, was rejected by the House of Commons on a legal point, and 17 awaited confirmation. These were the statistics as to the important work of that Commission, and the action of the Education Department had been nearly continuous during the progress of these schemes. He thought he had put before the Committee, although in the barest outline, the facts of the case; and if he had condensed his observations within narrow limits, it was rather by way of suggesting that on an occasion like the present there was a scale or perspective in the length to which hon. Members might speak, and not from any want of appreciation on his part of the importance of the subject.

said, that, unfortunately, the Scotch Education Department was practically separate now from the English Education Department, and he regretted that it should be so, because they thereby lost the advantage of seeing what good might be derived from the progress which was being made in Scotland. Some very important experiments were now going on in Scotland which deserved to be carefully watched in England, because the results promised to be very valuable. One of those was the collective examination, which promised well; and next, with regard to night schools, the enlarged subjects introduced into them had contributed to their success. Night schools were decreasing in England, because they were becoming unnecessary; but in Scotland they were increasing, because of the enlarged subjects which had been introduced. He did not think he would be disclosing any Government secret when he stated that lately the Treasury had consented that drawing in Scotland would be placed outside the ordinary 17s. 6d. limit, and that Scottish pupils would henceforth have the same advantages as English students. As regarded secondary education, he wished very much to show the appreciation, which he was sure all educationalists had for the experiment of the leaving examination in those schools. The sum expended on the leaving examination was a mere bagatelle; and not only did it do away with a number of evils in examinations, but a largo number of Bodies, such as the Pharmaceutical Society, and similar societies, which required examinations on entrance, now accepted the leaving examination certificate; it therefore remained the only standard examination with them, and was, in consequence, of great advantage to the secondary schools of Scotland. He was told that in those schools where they had been successful with leaving certificates, the attendances had considerably increased. If there had been very little progress in technical schools, one reason of that was, that the endowed schools in Scotland, had, in many cases, become good technical schools, and the Boards had not felt the same interest, in places where there were few endowments, in having technical schools. He hoped the Scottish Education Department would keep in view that it was very important in manufacturing towns to train the hand and eye, and not to confine the instruction merely to writing, reading, and arithmetic. Those were now the subjects of experiment in Scotland, which, if their English friends would introduce here, would, he believed, give a stimulus to the English School Boards and lead to a good result.

said, his observations on this Vote would be confined to the grant to the Training Colleges. It seemed to him that the Government had, in this matter, practically challenged the opinion of the House, for this reason—the subject had been brought before the Committee of Supply two years ago by some hon. Members with whom he usually acted, and the Secretary for Scotland then promised that the matter should have his attention. That promise was left to a Departmental Committee, consisting of two officials and two Members of that House; but, with all respect to those Gentlemen, he did not think that Scotch Members could be held bound to accept this as a fulfilment of the promise of the Government, or be foreclosed by the opinions which those Gentlemen had expressed as to matters on which Scotch Members thought they ought to have an opinion of their own. His objection to the continuance of the grant were mainly two. He objected, in the first place, because the Training Colleges were denominational; and, secondly, because they supplied inferior culture, to the neglect of the Universities, which were well able to supply superior culture. He wished the Committee to notice that the public school system in Scot- land was becoming more and more unsectarian. In 1872 the Church of Scotland had 1,311 schools; in 1887 it had only 85. In 1872 the Free Church had 523 schools, and in 1887 only 25; and it was curious to notice that the only denominations which had extended the denominational system in that period were the Episcopalians and the Roman Catholics. Further, it would be seen, from the number of columns in the Blue Book which were left blank, that the class for whom the grant was made did not appear to take any interest in the Training Colleges. He thought it time that the sectarian character of the Colleges should be done away with. The Departmental Committee to which he had referred had given some attention to this matter; but it seemed to him that in examining the question they had been imbued with the spirit of the Education Commission for England—a bias of a clerical character. For instance, in dealing with the suggestion that the Universities should undertake this work, the Committee asked what guarantee there would be for the religious and moral training of teachers; and, further on, when accepting the principle of University training, they said that religious instruction could be undertaken by the Professors of Divinity, showing that their minds hinged on this question of religious training of the young teachers. He did not know whether the Committee had considered that persons going to enter the ministry went to the Universities at an earlier age than teachers went to the Training Colleges, but he had never heard any fears expressed about their moral and religious training, or that it was incomplete. The time had come when the school system of Scotland should be relieved entirely from sectarian and clerical influence; and on that ground he was utterly unable to accept the conclusion to which the Committee had come. There was another point of great importance in connection with the Colleges. It was confessed in the Report of the Committee that the Training Colleges supplied inferior culture. He absolutely accepted the words of Professor Donaldson, of St. Andrew's University, when he said that the time had now come when the teaching profession should be put on the same footing as the other learned professions, and have a definite course of training constituted for it at the University; that in the case of Theology, Medicine, and Law, University Chairs existed and students had simply to attend the classes, and by passing the examinations they became members of those Bodies. He thought that the same plan ought to be adopted in the case of education. The Committee refused to give the Universities this State function, not merely because they thought the Universities were not to be trusted in the matter of morals and religion, but because the young teachers were not up to the University standard; and that meant that the Colleges were deliberately and consciously providing inferior machinery, and that they were turning out inferior work. If the University standard were too high, it would raise the standard of the teachers; and although that might reduce the number, it would likewise reduce the supply of inferior men, and a better class would soon come forward to make good the deficiency. He would call the attention of the Committee, and especially of hon. Members who did not represent Scotch constituencies, to the very serious expenditure which the Vote involved. The grant for the Training Colleges was £29,000, and for Science and Art about £1,700 a-year—in all about £32,000, for which sum there were turned out about 400 inferior sectarian schoolmasters annually. His point was that they were spending in the manufacture of this spurious article from £35 to £40 a-year upon each teacher. Hon. Members who had been graduates of Scotch Universities would know that the Bursaries, through the aid of which so many distinguished men had been trained, only averaged about £10 a-year; and yet they were paying for what were really Bursaries £40 a-year to these inferior teachers. That, he said, was monstrous. He suggested that the £32,000 should be applied in the form of Bursaries, and £200 given to each of the Scottish Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, St. Andrew's, and Dundee, on their undertaking to provide a scheme of professional training for teachers, and of the desire or ability of the Universities to undertake the work he had no doubt. It was said that women attended the Training Colleges; but he would point out that women were already being gradually admitted to the privi- leges of the University system. In his own University they were perfectly willing to undertake their instruction, and an immense work had been done for them in the higher branches of education. Moreover, in the Scottish Universities Bill special provision was made for the training of women at Universities, and that, he thought, supplied a complete answer to the only substantial point in the Report of the Committee. For those reasons he could not consent to the further continuance of this grant; and he hoped an opportunity would be give to Scotch Members to show that on the Opposition side, at least, they were practically unanimous in condemning this inferior, this sectarian, this un-Scotch system of supplying schoolmasters under a denominational system.

said, he rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the Committee to a grievance affecting his constituents in Stirlingshire, and which was especially felt by the masters of board schools in that county. Those gentlemen thought they were able to show that this grievance was due to the unfitness of Her Majesty's Inspector—Mr. Waddell—for his office; which resulted in a serious lowering of the educational system of the county, and placed in peril their professional reputation. The case of the masters had been fully stated in a Memorial addressed to the Secretary for Scotland, and bore the signature of 53 head masters of the district inspected by Mr. Waddell, the great bulk of whom were in the county which he had the honour to represent. The Memorial did not include the names of the head masters of every school in the county; but he believed it did include, with very few exceptions, those of the schools of any note in the county. They said that the educational position of Stirlingshire had been seriously lowered since the appointment of the present Inspector, and that schools which formerly held a high position had lost it, while their circumstances, in the mean time, were unchanged; and they said that in the year 1882, before the present Inspector was appointed, Stirlingshire stood higher than the average pass throughout Scotland in every subject and in all combined, and this statement they showed to be correct by reference to the Blue Book for the year. But now they said that the county had fallen so far behind that, while the general pass of Scotland had improved, in Stirlingshire it was considerably lower, and that, instead of being higher, it was lower in every subject and in all combined. That, also, they substantiated by reference to the Blue Book for the year. It would be in the memory of some hon. Members that, on a former occasion, he had put a question to the Lord Advocate having special reference to the pass in specific subjects; and although the right hon. and learned Gentleman replied that the changes in respect of specific subjects had prevented accurate comparison, yet he did not state, as he (Mr. J. C. Bolton) thought he ought to have done, that the fall in specific subjects in Stirlingshire was an exception to the general rule throughout Scotland. Notwithstanding all the changes which had been made, the percentage in Scotland had only fallen by a fraction—that was to say, from 58,210 to 58,131 between 1882 and 1887, whereas in Stirlingshire the numbers had fallen from 3,503 in 1882 to 1,887 last year. Those gentlemen went on to say, in a statement attached to their Memorial, that the Inspector went beyond the Code, and that he put impossible questions in his examinations. In addition to the statement, a few sentences from which he had extracted, the Memorialists supported their case by individual statements made by 15 different head masters, having reference to questions put at the inspection of their schools which came under their special observation; and to a few of these he hoped the Committee would allow him to refer. Mr. Waddell, in the third stage of physical geography, put this question—

"How is the distance from the earth to the moon ascertained? "

Then, in the third stage of domestic economy, he asked—

"How much material would, you require for a dress for yourself, and how would you cut it out?"

Mr. J. Fergusson, the Gentleman who gave this account, also brought the grave accusation against Mr. Waddell that he left the school without examining in geography and history of Standard VI.; but, nevertheless, that he reported unfavourably as to those subjects. Another head master said that one of the questions of Her Majesty's Inspector at his school, in Standard VI., was this—

"Suppose you take a sail down the St. Lawrence, and having arrived at its mouth, steer your boat East, what places are you likely to see?"

The children, he said, named aptly enough the islands, &c., with which they were familiar; but to every one of these answers there came the reply—

"No, that is not what I want."

The head master said the answers were soon exhausted, and that, after a painful silence, the Inspector proceeded as follows—

"No, I suppose you do not know; I shall require to tell you. Why, you would see Greenland."

If the children could have seen Greenland, in the case supposed, they must have been blessed with an extraordinary power of vision, extending over the distance between latitude 50 degrees and latitude 60 degrees, or about 600 miles. In another case the Inspector was stated to have held up a ball of worsted and a square of red flannel, and asked the children the question—

"Do you see any difference between these two articles?"

The answer came at once that one was a ball of worsted and the other a piece of flannel.

"Think again,"

said the Inspector; and the child replied—

"The ball of worsted is round, and the piece of flannel is square."

To this the Inspector replied—

"No; I see you know nothing about it."

And so the examination ended. The last example he should give was this—the Inspector was examining in the infant department, and, pointing to the upper part of a window, asked what was the shape of it. The answer was—"A semi-circle;" to which the Inspector responded—"Why?" and, after a short silence, he informed the children that they had not been taught to think; and so ended that matter. Now, he did not desire to have it thought or inferred that he held Her Majesty's Inspector condemned on these exeparte statements; but he did hold that the representations of 53 gentlemen, constituting the great bulk of the head masters of the schools in Stirlingshire, ought to have received different treatment from that which had been accorded to them by the Department. The schoolmasters sought, and sought alone, that the matter should be investigated. That request, he was told, had been refused, the only notice taken of it being contained in a letter written by the Secretary to the Department, a copy of which he had in his hand. The Secretary wrote that he was directed by the Marquess of Lothian to state that he should adhere to the decision not to receive a deputation on the subject of the Memorial. He said—

"My Lords are at all times ready to investigate any specific evidence with respect to any alleged inequality of standard or imperfection of method; but after examining the statements now submitted in order to ascertain the weight which is to be attached to them, my Lords are unable to hold that these statements contain anything to warrant them in departing from their usual practice of requiring that the complaints must be supported by school managers, and must refer to a specific case."

Now, he (Mr. J. C. Bolton) would submit to the Committee whether specific evidence with respect to alleged irregularity of standard or imperfection had not been given in the quotations which he had read to the Committee? If it was not a specific charge to say that an Inspector had reported that he had examined a class which he had not examined, then specific charges were something very different from what he had ever understood them to be. He maintained that specific charges had been made, and that the truth of these charges ought to be tested. The other condition which my Lords declared had not been fulfilled—namely, that the support of the school managers had not been received—was certainly plausible; but it was not a substantial argument. He would have the Committee bear this in mind—that the school managers were elected in April, and that, consequently, none of them were concerned in the matters referred to in the Memorial; and there was no proof, as a matter of fact, that those gentlemen would not be supported by their superiors. The allegation was that they were not supported by their superiors in the shape of having the signatures of those superiors attached to the Memorial; but the fact of their signatures being appended to the Memorial would have appeared to indicate that they had personal knowledge of the accusations made in the Memorial, whereas they could not have had such knowledge, and it was not customary for school managers to be present during the examination of the schools. Moreover, if they had been present he did not think the Department would place much confidence in the opinion of those managers as to whether the examinations were properly or improperly conducted. He had endeavoured in these few words to place before the Committee as clearly as possible—contracting rather than enlarging his observations—the facts of the case. He trusted he had placed the grievances of those gentlemen fairly before the Committee; and he would now appeal to the Government to put a stop to the agitation which had commenced, and which would go on until those grievances were either proved or disapproved, or until the Government gave an assurance that they would take steps to have those accusations thoroughly investigated, and to remedy the grievances if they were really found to exist. He would urge that not only in the interests of the constituency he represented, whose educational interests were undoubtedly suffering, but as a matter of justice to a set of men who were as honourable, he believed, as any set of men in the Kingdom. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote.

said, he did not intend to say much, but he wished to support, as strongly as he could, the appeal which his hon Friend (Mr. J. C. Bolton) had made to the Government. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had not the slightest inclination or desire to prejudge the question. From all he had been able to ascertain amongst the community, the feeling with regard to this particular Inspector was that he was an exceedingly able and conscientious man, but in some respects failed to bring out the proper educational results which should come from his examinations. However that might be, those results were sufficiently startling to require some investigation and explanation. Here was a district which hitherto had held a very fair place among the districts of Scotland, so far as education was concerned. Suddenly, on the appointment of this Inspector, it dropped in a mysterious way in almost all its averages. In 1882, as he understood it, of the eight districts of which the Western Division of Scotland is composed, there was only one higher than Stirlingshire. In 1887, Stirlingshire suddenly became the lowest. On the subjects of reading and arithmetic, Scotland varied only to the extent of 3 per cent between 1881 and 1887, yet Stirlingshire had fallen 11 per cent in those specific subjects. He was aware that in this there had been some alteration of the Code which affected the figures; but any change in the Code or in the figures one would expect would be equal in its effect all over Scotland. Since the application of the present system of inspection there had been an unfortunate blight on the educational results in Stirlingshire. He was not able to go into the subject of the inspections, as he had not been present at any of them, and he did not know what the cause of this state of things might be; but he felt, with his hon. Friend, that he not only represented the feelings of the schoolmasters but of the District, when he said that this was really a condition of things which was quite exceptional, and required explanation. The Government took refuge in this position—they said that any complaint of this kind ought to be made through the managers of the school, and that they could not recognize direct applications or complaints by the schoolmasters. That, no doubt, was true in the case of an individual complaint from one schoolmaster; but here they had 53 head schoolmasters and the public feeling of the district all declaring that some investigation was required; and, under the circumstances, he should have thought the Government would have considered the case one which required looking into. He should have thought that it would not be an improper course if the Scotch Education Department had referred the complaint of the teachers to the School Boards concerned, and asked whether they concurred in it. He merely threw that out as a suggestion, as one way in which the difficulty might have been dealt with. However that might be, his object was to represent to the Lord Advocate and the Government that there was serious perplexity and anxiety on this subject in Stirlingshire and the neighbourhood; and he trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman, after what had been said, would not be content with saying that these were vague charges, or that this was an improper way to bring them forward, but would say that this was a state of things that should be inquired into, and that he would, by the appointment of another Inspector, or, by investigation through the Chief Inspector, give some attention to the general feeling in the district.

said, that the Department, of course, found it necessary to discourage general sweeping accusations against an Inspector. It would be absolutely impossible to maintain a system of inspection if such accusations were allowed. On the other hand, there was no indisposition on the part of the Department to obtain information as to the anomalous results of an inspection. It might be that the standard of inspection was too high, or that it was being applied in a way more or less capable of amendment. That matter, however, the Committee would agree fell within the province of the Chief Inspector. It was for him to ascertain whether the system was working smoothly, and whether this was a case where that statement applied. Hon. Gentlemen might be satisfied that in that case the Government would draw the attention of the Chief Inspector to the matter without undue interference with the action of the Inspector, who might find a way of making matters work more smoothly. He trusted hon. Gentlemen opposite would accept that explanation.

said, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would forgive him, he would like him to be a little more definite. If he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly, the Department would consider whether they would not use the Chief Inspector as the medium of ascertaining whether these allegations were well or ill founded?

said, he did not propose to appoint the Chief Inspector to make an Inquiry into the case. What they would do—and that was fair and reasonable—was this. They would direct the attention of the Inspector to the fact that there were these apparently unsatisfactory results, and it would be for the Chief Inspector, in the proper course of his duty, to look into the matter.

said, he thought that decision would hardly restore public confidence. He had no doubt that the Chief Inspector—Dr. Kerr—was a gentleman of great capacity and impartiality, and so forth; but, unfortunately, the idea had got abroad in the district affected that he was extremely favourably disposed towards this particular Inspector. The complaint had not come from the schoolmasters of the district alone; but the Falkirk School Board had passed a resolution on the subject—although it was true that a contrary vote had been given by a majority of one in the Stirling School Board. What the schoolmasters and their supporters wanted was that there should be a change in the inspection, and that the Chief Inspector of the district—Mr. Ogilvie—should go down and take the thing in hand, and see whether the district was really as bad as it was represented to be. Specific subjects had fallen lower in Stirlingshire than anywhere else under the present system. They were threatened with extinction, for the schoolmasters declared that they could not subject themselves to the snubs and heartburnings consequent upon the action of this School Inspector. From an administrative point of view, he (Dr. Cameron) would ask the Lord Advocate to consider whether, by means of a little shifting in the districts, transferring Inspectors from one place to another, friction could not be avoided?

said, he did not think that the proposed inquiry on the part of the Chief Inspector would be satisfactory. The schoolmasters would have no confidence in an inquiry the only effect of which would be to exonerate the Inspector. It seemed to him that the question was of such magnitude that it could only be satisfactorily settled by having an impartial inquiry. If the matter was patched up by the Chief Inspector, as proposed, and the Inspector complained of were removed to another district, it would only be regarded as a censure upon that Inspector; whereas, if they had an impartial inquiry, they would have a protection not only for the teachers but for the Inspectors themselves. If the result of the inquiry was to show that the complaints made was groundless, the teachers would be careful in making complaints in future. Looking at the fact that great dissatisfaction would spring up if any other course were adopted, he thought that there should be a full and impartial inquiry into the matter.

said, he considered that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had suggested the most prudent course to pursue. He (Sir Lyon Playfair) was of opinion that, in listening to remonstrances from collective teachers or from individual teachers in regard to the results of the examination of an Inspector, all the use of inspection would be lost. There had been a remarkable change in Stirlingshire, no doubt; but that might be explained by an ordinary system of inspection. Probably it would be well for the Department to transmit the Memorial to the School Managers, and ask whether there was ground for investigation; but they might just as well put an end to inspection altogether as to listen to the complaints of schoolmasters, however numerous they might be.

said, that a deputation of his constituency on the borders of Stirlingshire had waited upon him a few days ago to press upon him the consideration of this subject, and to induce him to bring it before Lord Lothian and the Government. He thought the Lord Advocate should undertake to press the matter upon Lord Lothian, and that speedily, because he was sure that this continued ill-feeling on the part of the teachers and parents would cause great injury to education in the district.

said, there was considerable dissatisfaction in Scotland with regard to these Inspectors, and the question had been very prominently brought forward lately, owing to several appointments. He was afraid that some of the Sub-Inspectors were not fit to be appointed Inspectors; but he though there was a sufficient number of educated teachers in Scotland who would be willing to accept the post of Sub-Inspector, if they had the chance ultimately of becoming Chief Inspectors, for which work they would be perfectly qualified. The rule in England was that the Chief Inspectors should be appointed from the body of Sub-Inspectors, and he thought the same rule should be made applicable to Scotland. That would be a great stimulus to the Sub-Inspectors in the discharge of their duties. He hoped that in any future appointments of Sub-Inspectors due attention would be paid by the Department to this question.

said, he had been much alarmed by the statement of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) that the School Board of Stirling had not only omitted to support the Memorial of the schoolmasters, but had absolutely, by a majority, refused to do so. He (Sir George Campbell) thought it a most dangerous thing to allow the teachers to memorialize the Government in opposition to the view of their School Boards.

said, he had not heard the grounds on which the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had made that statement. He had not heard that any School Board had decided against the Memorial by vote; quite the contrary. He was unable to accept the proposal of the Lord Advocate, as it seemed to him to be clogged with so many qualifications and conditions that it could not be satisfactory to the community that he represented. If the Lord Advocate would say that some means would be taken—he would not tie him to the particular means—to ascertain the correctness or incorrectness of the statement made by those gentlemen, he would accept that, He (Mr. J. C. Bolton) had not been satisfied to take up this case and bring it before the Committee without first ascertaining from gentlemen whom he knew had given great attention to the matter of education in Stirlingshire, whether or not, in their opinion, there were good grounds for the statements made by the schoolmasters. He could assure the Committee that the result of these inquiries convinced him that, although there might, in any individual case brought forward, be circumstances to exonerate the Inspector, yet, on the whole, the general opinion was in conformity with the view expressed by the schoolmasters. Unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman could go further, he (Mr. J. C. Bolton) must ask the Committee to express its opinion upon the matter.

said, he wished to explain that the Falkirk School Board had memorialized the Government in this matter; and a Motion expressing want of confidence in the present system of inspection, and asking for a Senior Inspector to be sent to inspect their schools, brought before the Stirling School Board, had been lost only by one vote.

said, that the complaint of the Falkirk School Board had been dealt with by the Department, and the Board now expressed its complete satisfaction with the way in which the matter had been disposed of.

said, they had so little time for the discussion of the Education Vote, that he would not have spoken at all were it not for the very direct attack made by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) upon the Committee of which he (Mr. C. S. Parker) had the honour to be Chairman. He was sorry that the hon. and learned Member, having delivered his attack, had left the House, so that he was unable to hear a word in reply. He (Mr. C. S. Parker) did not claim for the Committee that they, as a Committee, could speak with any great authority. All hon. Members would, no doubt, have preferred a Royal Commission; but at the time when the Committee was appointed there was a flood of Royal Commissions and probably the reason why the right hon. Gentleman who at the time was Secretary for Scotland appointed a Committee rather than a Commission was that the House and the Government would grant no more Commissions. But, whatever authority might attach to the recommendations made, he hoped hon. Members would give some weight to the evidence taken by the Committee. He regretted that accidentally the evidence relating to Training Colleges, being in a separate volume, might easily be overlooked. He was sorry that an hon. Member representing a Scotch constituency should have made so unqualified and so unmeasured an attack upon the schoolmasters of Scotland, who were conscientiously doing their duty. They had been accustomed to think that the schoolmasters of Scotland could, at least, hold their own with the schoolmasters of England. The hon. and learned Gentleman, without saying a single word in their favour, had described them as teachers of an inferior and sectarian character, and had misstated altogether the facts as regarded the part taken by the Universities in training Scotch schoolmasters. How could any hon. Member read the Report of the Committee, and then proceed to say that the Universities in Scotland were standing by neglected? If it were said that in England while Training Colleges were doing the work the Universities were standing by neglected, there would, of course, be much truth in the statement; but to say that about Scotland was an entire misrepresentation of the fact, the fact being that in Scotland schoolmasters of ordinary schools went more to the Universities than in any other country in the world. Yet the Committee recommended that still more should be done to combine College training with University education. It was recommended that every master who was qualified to do so with profit should attend University classes; that anything he had to do in the Normal School should give way to University requirements; and that the whole curriculum should be so arranged as to assist the students rather than embarrass them in their University studies. Again, the Committee's recommendations were not, as represented, wholly in favour of existing Colleges. They had recommended that if any other Body equally well equipped, and willing to take upon itself the same financial responsibility, would come forward to undertake the training of teachers, a share should be assigned to them in the work. If the University of St. Andrew's, which was the only University that seemed at all keen about it, chose to build upon that recommendation, organizing itself as a Training College, and undertaking the necessary responsibility, ha would gladly advocate its claim for grants in respect of teachers trained. He was surprised that on the question of Training Colleges the Committee should be accused of having a clerical bias. He did not think there was anything particularly clerical about his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Inverness Burghs (Mr. Finlay) for instance, or about the Under Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Cochran-Patrick), whose enlightened speeches on education many hon. Members would recollect, or about the Secretary to the Education Department. For himself he said nothing. The Committee were under no clerical bias. They were under the influence of the evidence which they took from the Universities, from the teachers themselves, from the Chief Inspectors of Schools, and from the chief School Boards elected by the people of Scotland to conduct their educational affairs. He might refer especially to the evidence given on behalf of the Glasgow School Board. He did not wish to make any invidious comparisons; but he must say that he admired the ability and thoroughness with which that Board transacted all its business, considering the vast population it had to deal with. If anyone would read the Report of the Committee, he would see that the Committee were prepared to support any other Body who were in a position to take part in the excellent and very necessary work which was being done, both for male and female teachers, by the existing Colleges. He hoped hon. Members from Scotland would not hastily make up their minds to overthrow the present system in favour of a crude scheme of 800 University Bursaries for young men and young women intending to be teachers. The question would be brought up again early next year, and he trusted that, in the meantime, hon. Members would study the Committee's Report, together with the evidence taken, and form their judgment calmly and deliberately. He certainly thought that for the present, at any rate, the Committee did not go very far wrong in recommending that the grants to the old Colleges should be continued.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) had rather misunderstood the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson). He (Mr. Hunter) did not understand the speech of the hon. and learned Member to be at all in the nature of an attack, but rather in the nature of criticism, which criticism was very short, owing to causes they all understood. He should not follow the hon. Member (Mr. C. S. Parker) in his defence. The hon. Member had stated his own views, along with the other Members of the Committee in the Report which was before the House. He (Mr. Hunter) only wished to say to the Government that it was impossible to exaggerate the importance of affiliating the training of teachers to the work of the Universities. He did not say it ought to be an absolutely indispensable part of the scheme of University reform; but his contention was that no scheme of University reform for Scotland would be worthy of support which did not include the entire training of teachers, both male and female. With that remark he should content himself, because at that hour of the evening—6.15—it was impossible to discuss the question as it ought to be discussed. The Committee's Report amounted to this—firstly, a justification of denominational Colleges, on the ground that the teaching was inferior to that of the Universities, and therefore more suitable to the class of persons who attended; and, secondly, a justification of denominational Colleges, on the ground that they imparted moral and religious training. He (Mr. Hunter) could speak, from personal experience both as to the products of the Training Colleges and of the products of the Scotch Universities; and he assured the hon. Gentleman that the Committee over which he presided were rather taken in by some of the evidence. It was nonsense to pretend that better moral and religious training was given in the denominational Colleges than was given in the Universities.

said, that, as one who had passed through one of these Colleges, he wished to say a word upon the subject under consideration. He maintained that the present Training Colleges were entirely unnecessary as matters now were. They were simply secondary schools, and not of the very best class of secondary schools. The hon. Member for Perth complained that the hon. and learned Member for Dundee had described these establishments as sec- tarian. What else were they but sectarian? They were purely sectarian. If they were not sectarian, why should they have two establishments at Glasgow within 200 yards of each other—one belonging to the Free Church, and another belonging to the Established Church—when one staff would have sufficed for both? He quite agreed that the sooner the money now given to these Training Colleges was given to the Universities the better. What was more, he had been informed—he did not know that it was a secret—that the last Government absolutely drew up a scheme for doing away with the Training Colleges in Scotland. He hoped that the time was not far distant when such a step would be taken.

said, he desired to say a very few words on the question of Training Colleges, as he was a Member of the Committee of which the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) was Chairman. He (Mr. Finlay) did not, in the least degree, object to the friendly criticism the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) made upon the Committee and upon its Report; but he wished to say a word or two upon the arguments with which his hon. and learned Friend supported his criticisms. As he (Mr. Finlay) understood, the objects of the Training Colleges were two in number. In the first place, they were connected with religious bodies in Scotland. The reason for that, he presumed, was two-fold. In the first place, there was general satisfaction in Scotland with the work of these Colleges; and, in the second place, he apprehended that the Colleges could not be justly stigmatized as sectarian, for special inquiry was made by the Committee as to whether there was any hardship upon those who did not happen to belong to the denomination with which the Training College was nominally connected. There was an absolute and complete failure to supply the Committee with a single case of hardship in that respect. A Memorial was sent in to the effect that cases of, at least, alleged hardship were continually coming up. The Committee asked for particulars; but those who had sent in the Memorial said that they had found, on inquiry, that the statement had been made by mistake, and that now they did not intend to allege there was any hardship at all. Furthermore, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. E. Robertson) desired a better style of culture than that which was imparted in the Training Colleges. In that desire he cordially agreed with his hon. and learned Friend; but he thought in that matter his hon. and learned Friend's zeal had really outrun his discretion, for he had forgotten two very important considerations. The first consideration was that many of the School Boards in Scotland could not at present afford to pay for the services of a graduate of the University to act as teacher. That was a matter of practical consideration which the hon. and learned Member for Dundee should not altogether lose sight of. The second consideration was that, in addition to University training, it was necessary that anyone who was going to act as a teacher should be specially trained for teaching. At present Universities were not prepared to give the special training for the profession of teacher which was supplied in the Training Colleges. The hon. Member for Boss and Cromarty (Dr. R. Macdonald) spoke of the Training Colleges as mere secondary schools. But they gave special training to teachers, which was just as essential for the profession of a teacher as special training was essential for the profession of a doctor or clergyman. He quite concurred in the idea, which was very freely stated, that the ideal state of things would be that every teacher in a Scotch school should be a graduate in a University, and should also have gone through a special professional training for his vocation as a teacher. That, certainly, was what ought to be aimed at; but they must look at this matter from a practical point of view. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee seemed to be speaking in the air. He seemed altogether unaware how the educational wants of Scotland could be effectually met. He protested against the hon. and learned Member's proposal that they should sweep away machinery which had existed so long, and which was now doing excellent work. His proposal was certainly enough to show the unpractical nature of his views upon that point. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that they ought to devote all the money which they devoted to maintaining the Training Colleges to the supplying of Bursaries for the benefit of students in the Scotch Universities, in the hope that the students would afterwards devote themselves to the profession of teaching. As things at present stood, with the salaries School Boards were able to offer, they would find those who had gone through University training, with the help of the proposed Bursaries, would turn their attention to other and more profitable professions. They could not expect those who availed themselves of the Bursaries to bind themselves to adopt teaching as a profession. Certainly, if they obtained such a bond from the students, they never could enforce it. He really thought that if his hon. and learned Friend had paid a little more attention to the evidence adduced before the Committee, he would have abated somewhat his zeal for some of the theories he had laid before the Committee.

said, that when the Scotch Estimate for Education was brought before the Committee at 5 o'clock on a Saturday in the middle of December, it was hardly likely that the debate could be a very satisfactory one. The Lord Advocate, at the close of his very interesting speech, said that he had no intention to take up much of the time of the Committee, and the same position had been taken up by every succeeding speaker. He intended to follow the example which had been set; but he very much doubted whether that attitude would meet with the approval of the people of Scotland. He did not think that the Scotch people wished the debate upon the educational system of Scotland to be turned into a mockery to which no real attention whatever could be given. He hardly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) when he spoke of the disadvantage of the Scotch educational system being disconnected from the English system. He believed their only security was that they were separated entirely from an administration which, at all events, whatever the faults of their own might be, was inferior to theirs. But he could not help thinking that one of the great hindrances to the educational system in Scotland was the excessively small areas of the School Boards, which had a prejudicial effect upon teachers, and also upon the general con- duct of education. He hoped some means might be found by which the areas of School Boards could be enlarged. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the unsatisfactory condition of education in the Highlands; and he (Mr. Munro Ferguson) believed, from considerable experience of that part of the country, that the great reason for the unsatisfactory state of educational matters in the Highland counties was the excessive poverty of the inhabitants, that rendered the payment of fees for education unpopular; and there was no method by which education could be more improved within that area than by the introduction of free education. Primary and secondary education had been referred to; but it appeared to him that the two systems, primary and secondary, in Scotland were becoming so intermixed, primary overrunning into the province of secondary, that it would be difficult by-and-by to disentangle them. He was delighted to hear that the question of drawing, not being included in the 12s. 6d. limit, had been settled, for he believed that to that they might look, to some extent, for the failure in the working of the technical education system last year. Drawing, he might say, formed the basis of technical instruction, and, without an efficient system of instruction in drawing, it would be hopeless to expect a successful outcome from the Act of last year. Of course, there was the larger question of money; and if they had in Scotland a system such as the majority of the people desired, there would be a much larger part of the cost of education supplied from State funds on this account. They had borne their system of technical education up to now without State aid; and, in fact, the Government did not seem able to allot the £5,000 devoted to agricultural schools in the early part of the Session. The State must vary its regulations, and, in some way or other, the means must be found by which Scotland would be enabled to keep her foremost place in educational matters. If in England the educational system allowed the people to be distanced by competition in Germany and America, that was the look-out of the people of England; but if Scotland could not obtain the time in the House, and by the help of the Government, to carry out the reforms considered essential, Scotch Members would have to defend the interests of their constituents in the best way they could. His firm belief was that, owing to the Irish policy of the Government, time had been uselessly employed that might have been usefully occupied in Scotch educational affairs, and Scotch people would insist that their requirements should have attention.

said, he did not rise to continue the debate on the general question of education, for the occasion did not offer the opportunity the subject demanded. One matter, however, he desired to refer to. It was admitted, he believed, on all hands, that secondary education in Scotland showed symptoms of decline; but not only was that the fact, but since 1886 the attendance at Scotch Universities—which from the year 1861 to that date had increased rapidly to the extent of 50 per cent—had declined without parallel in the educational history of Scotland. It was important to observe that the decline of secondary education was connected with the decline of private schools in Scotland; accordingly, as the School Board had usurped the whole educational interest, Scotch secondary education had gone down, and this was now affecting attendance at the Universities. From the Return laid before the House, it appeared that the decline in secondary education was beyond control, unless some extraordinary effort was made. There had always been an anxiety to ascertain what had been the progress of education in Scotland since 1872 but it could never be made out from the Reports of Her Majesty's Government; and there was now a Report that placed the matter beyond doubt—the Report of the Scotch Education Department last issued. From that Report it appeared that in all the schools in Scotland, State-aided and non-State aided, the average attendance was 544,886; and, as that number represented 77·8 of the number on the register, there was the important fact that there were 700,000 children on the rolls of all the schools, State-aided and non-State-aided. Comparing that with 1872, and without going into all the details, there was this important fact—that there were 546,000 on the rolls, and in 1881 there were 558,000 children in the Census Returns. So, in fact, it was beyond doubt that, at the present moment, taking it per population, there were 17·40 of the population attending schools, and in 1872 there were 15·92. In point of fact, out of 700,000 attending schools, only 60,000 were due to the operation of the Education Act, the remainder being due to the increase in population. Another important fact was that in 1872 there were 280,000 children attending State-aided schools, and 266,000 attending non-State-aided schools, so that 200,000 had been transferred from the one to the other. The Education Department would have it believed that there was that increase in attendance; but nothing of the kind—it was simply a transfer of children. Looking at the important result that, according as private schools were reduced, secondary education and University attendance had declined—and that was the important point he wished to place on record in the meantime—when again the House had the Education Estimates under consideration it would be impossible lightly to dismiss so important a matter.

asked were the Committee to understand that it was not intended to proceed with the Crofter Emigration Vote?

replied, that it was not intended to proceed with the Vote that Session.

said, he had given Notice to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000, which was about the sum contributed by the Exchequer to the Divinity Chairs in Scotland. For many reasons he did not on that occasion propose to enter into the question at length, nor did he think he should trouble the Committee with a Division, considering the period of the Session at which they had arrived. But there was one aspect of the question, unconnected with the denominational aspect, to which, for a few minutes, he would direct attention. He found, from a Report before the House, that the total amount of endowments, including the Government grant to Divinity Chairs, was no less than £7,742. That was a remarkable fact, for that was almost the amount the Government proposed, in the Bill now about to be withdrawn, to add to the existing Government grants for the Universities of Scotland; and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be justified if he buttoned up his pockets and refused to part with another 6d. from Imperial funds until the money that the Scotch Universities already possessed was properly utilized. Comparing the number of Divinity students with the amount he had mentioned, he found that, in round figures, the education of each Divinity student cost £40 from the endowments. That sum of money was, in itself, amply sufficient to carry out the required reforms in improving and widening the curriculum of Arts in the Universities of Scotland. Not troubling the Committee with other statistics, he took, as an instance, the University of Aberdeen. There the endowments devoted to Divinity amounted to almost £1,946, and the average number of students was 30; the total amount of fees was £178, and the result was that every Divinity student in Aberdeen University cost £66 out of the funds of the University, and the grants made by Parliament. How did that compare with the figures as regarded Art students? He found that, estimated in the same way, the cost was £4 15s. per annum! The whole of the endowments—not speaking of Bursaries, and leaving those aside—the whole of the endowments payable to Art Professors amounted to £4 15s. per student per annum. Taking the whole of Scotland, that was but about one-fourth of the amount devoted to Divinity. Could that be considered a fair division? The Government, in their proposals, did not propose to make any addition to Divinity Chairs, and it would have displayed unreasonable courage if they had proposed to do so in the face of the facts he had stated; but he was prepared to go a step further, and, in the face of those facts, would commit himself to the proposition that it would be a public scandal if, when one of those Chairs became vacant, it was allowed to be filled up. It was monstrous that for £66 given to one professional class, only £4 15s. should be allowed to general education. What could be done in the way of enlarging the curriculum of Arts with that endowment of £7,700? There could be an enlargment of existing Art Chairs, the establishment of a Chair of English Literature, of French, of German, of History, another of Experimental Physics and Biology; and all with that money alone, and without another penny from the Exchequer, and providing a complete curriculum of Arts. He was not going to enter into any question of religious equality; he only wished to point out to those facts, and ask the Government to take them into serious consideration before the re-introduction of the University Bill.

said, he only wished to correct a mistake into which the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) seemed to have fallen. He gathered from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he asserted the attendance of Divinity students at Aberdeen University was 18. However that might have been in any one year, the number now was 37, and it had been at a similar figure for many years past. He thought the hon. Member must be giving the number of first-year students only; but the students attended the Divinity Classes for three years.

said, he had got his figures from the Return, and he understood that in each year the total was given in every class of students; he counted up the total number of students, and he found that in the last 27 years the number came to just under 18. If he was wrong, he must be equally wrong in the Faculty of Arts; else there should be more than 1,200 Art students in Aberdeen University, which the hon. Gentleman would not find.

said, however the hon. Member fell into the mistake, he could assure him that the number of Divinity students in Aberdeen University was 37; that it was 32 last year, and 33 the year before.

said, there was only £380 for the Faculty of Divinity in Aberdeen.

said, he would only delay the Committee for a moment to obtain an assurance in reference to a practice that had been brought to his notice. He understood it was the practice throughout Scotland, to some extent, to employ police officers to remove pauper lunatics to asylums—a course of proceeding that was naturally most painful to the relatives of those poor creatures who had to be removed. It was not a proper thing, and he hoped the practice was not so extensive as it had been represented, and that the Government would undertake to say that they would give directions that the Asylum attendants, and not policemen, should be employed in the conveyance of the patients.

said, he admitted that the circumstances to which the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) alluded would be deserving of serious attention, if they constituted a general practice throughout Scotland. But, in his (Sir Herbert Maxwell's) personal experience of some 15 years as Chairman of a Parochial Board, no such practice came to his knowledge. Only in such cases where, through the violence of the patient, assistance was required, the police were called in. He would take care that the attention of the proper authorities was called to the matter. Vote agreed to.

said, he might be permitted to say, in reference to the work of one of the Commissions, the expenses of which was included in this Vote, the Royal Commission on the condition of the blind, the deaf, and others, that they had collected an enormous amount of valuable information—they had been at work now for a considerable time; and that Members of the Commission were exerting themselves to the full to bring their work to a conclusion as speedily as possible, their noble Chairman, Lord Egerton of Tatton, exercising considerable pressure upon his Colleagues towards that end. He (Mr. Woodall) had himself been engaged upon the Commission for a considerable part of the day, and some of his Colleagues had been devoting themselves steadily to the work from day to day. Expressing his own opinion, he was bound to say there was some danger of valuable work being made less serviceable by the Treasury exercising pressure in order to close the work of the Commission during the present year. He frankly and candidly said he did not think the work could be completed within the current year without endangering the completeness of the task they had set themselves to accomplish.

said, as this was the first non-Scotch Vote the Committee were entering upon, it might not be out of place to ask a question in reference to the Scotch Vote which had been omitted—that for Crofter Emigration. What course was proposed to be taken? Emigration was, he understood, still going on at considerable expense.

That question does not arise on this Vote.

said, he must take some other opportunity of asking the question.

said, he proposed to take the Probate Duty (Scotland and Ireland) Bill on Monday. He hoped to pass it this Session, and that Members from Scotland and Ireland would see in it an honest attempt to distribute the duty as fairly as possible. He hoped it would not be postponed, as that would mean postponement of payments to Scotland and Ireland till next Session, and it would be difficult to make them within the financial year.

asked, if the right hon. Gentleman would not see his way to make the Bill temporary for this year?

replied, that separate provision was made for this year in the Bill, and that the clauses affecting the distribution in future years were provisional only, because the Bill said "until Parliament shall otherwise direct," indicating that that was a temporary arrangement. The Government next year proposed to take Local Government for Scotland in hand, and it would be a natural sequel to the reform of Local Government in Scotland to re-cast the system of local finance.