Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave to introduce the Bill which stands in my name. As hon. Members are aware, the amount available for the purposes of this Bill to be allocated and distributed arises from the passing of the English Education Act of last Session. That Act had for its object the relief of fees, and established a fee grant of 10s. per child, but so far as Scotland was concerned the abolition of fees had been already attained, and it was felt to be inconvenient to disturb an arrangement under which Scotland has a larger capitation grant per child than was calculated to be sufficient in England. Accordingly an annual payment is to be made to Scotland, which may be spent either upon purposes such as relief of rates, or upon objects wholly or partly new. But the application of that money as regards Scotland ought at all events to be regulated and determined, I think, exclusively with a regard to the circumstances and wishes of Scotland. With regard to the amount of the money which it is proposed to settle by this Bill, the first sum which falls to be dealt with is that for the current financial year. As hon. Members know, the relief of fees took effect in England on the 1st of September, 1891, and as a consequence of the arrangements made for the calculations of these payments, less than a half-year had to be applied during the financial year now current, when the supplementary grant in England amounted to £806,000, and applying the process which had already been followed, to that figure, it comes out that there is applicable to Scotland £110,000. As regards the future, the proportion for Scotland, on the same basis, for the following and future years will be £265,000. It is proposed to proceed by this Bill with the distribution of both of these sums. It would be possible to leave future years to look after themselves, and settle the distribution by resolution of the House, but I think it will be the wish of all interested in this question that those who are to receive this money should be able more or less to count upon it. They will no doubt be anxious to know how much they can count upon; if it be not settled, their mode of dealing with it would be hampered to a certain extent, and in the second place they would be deterred from such operations as this money may make them feel free to enter upon. It will also put an end to the doubt and disappointment which must inevitably result from this question being left in an unsettled state, and, therefore, we propose that the Bill should deal, although in an elastic way, with the future application of the money. There is one possible mode of dealing with such a question which our experience does not incline us to adopt, and that is to allow what I may call too large an option to the various Local Authorities with regard to its allocation from year to year. That not only leads to disputes, but also to uncertainty, and uncertainty leads to the result that the distribution of the money from year to year must be more or less tentative. Therefore we propose to settle it once for all, in what way I shall now proceed to explain. The Government have weighed, and weighed very carefully, the various claims and the quarters from which they have reached us, for participation in this so-called equivalent grant. Broadly speaking, these claims may be said to fall into two classes—8the one is the relief of the ratepayer, and the other is the furtherance of some other purpose of large or national importance. I do not deny, Sir, that the ratepayer comes before us in a strong position. It is to the credit of Scotland that the benefit of free education was conferred by the voluntary surrender of a fund which had been applied, as regards the corresponding money, to the relief of local rates in England; but at the same time it must be borne in mind that the surrender was freely and frankly made, made ungrudgingly, and, so far as I am aware, with the unanimous consent of the representatives of Scotland. I hope and believe that the average Scotch ratepayer is a Scotchman first and a ratepayer afterwards, and that if a really strong claim is made for spending a portion of this money for a purpose which is in accordance with the traditions and history of Scotland, and which will result in much benefit at comparatively small expenditure, the ratepayer will be quite willing not only to consider the proposals on their merits, but also to accept them if they are in the direction of the general improvement of the community in which he shares. With reference to the allocation of the£110,000 I have referred to, the Government have considered themselves bound by the indication—to place it no higher—which was given last year with reference to the destination of that money, and therefore we propose in the Bill to hand it over to the Town and County Councils, on the same basis of allocation as was adopted in regard to the Local Taxation grant—on the basis of valuation. I believe, at all events, that the voting of the whole of the money to the Town and County Councils was a thing which had been reckoned upon, and in certain instances reckoned upon practically and acted upon, not altogether without warrant, and therefore I hope there will be a general acquiescence in that mode of dealing with the sum which arises during the current year. With regard to the future, we propose to devote a certain amount to other purposes. The fund, as I have indicated, is more than has been anticipated, and of that amount of £265,000, which will be the amount when on a permanent basis, we propose to allocate £175,000 in relief of rates. Of that sum,£100,000 we propose should go to the Town and County Councils on the same footing as the £110,000 I have already dealt with, and we propose that the balance of £75,000 should be handed to the Parochial Boards, to be applied by them, to the extent of £25,000, towards the cost of maintenance of the pauper lunatics, and as regards the rest of it, namely £50,000, in relief of the local rates levied by those bodies. We believe that will be regarded as no unsubstantial benefit to the ratepayers in the way of relieving the burdens which have been imposed upon them by the increasing expenses of local administration; and, getting that benefit as they will, we further believe they will be willing, as we think the public opinion of Scotland will be willing, that the remainder of the money should be devoted to other purposes of the nature I have indicated. We therefore propose to devote a large sum out of the balance of £90,000 which remains, to the improvement and development of secondary education. We believe that this object is one which is not only in accord with the traditions of Scotland, but also is one that directly affects every class of the people, and certainly I do not think that the ratepayers of Scotland, considered as a class will be the persons the least interested in this mode of expending the equivalent grant. I do not believe that there is any class of the community who will be more grateful for it, and I believe, further, they will be quite willing in lieu of the fair fee that many are prepared to give for the higher education of those dependent upon them—they will not be unwilling to grant the benefits of higher education, sought for and obtained through the means of this grant, wisely expended, to those who cannot afford to pay for it. I apprehend one of the objections which may fairly be taken to the present state of things is this, that a child has to be sent to a distance, and perhaps to be boarded, in order to obtain that higher education which, in the belief of many, was practically given under the old system of rochial and burgh schools. It is uoubtedly a hardship in some quarters at the advance and development of elementary education has been accompanied with some amount of detriment to higher education. That development has fallen heavily on the rates, but it has led to the opportunities for secondary education being restricted in more directions than one. I may remind the House as an illustration that the burgh schools were put under the School Board by the Education Act of 1872, but they were not eligible for the grant, and in consequence, the School Boards had a natural disinclination to spend the rates in an undue amount upon them. They have in some instances been conducted with increasing difficulty, and that has led to a certain extent to a decrease in the efficiency; that, again, tends to the increase of the fees, and the result in some cases is that the school goes down, the children attend elsewhere, and the place in which the school is situated is deprived of some, at least, of the advantages it used to enjoy as an educational centre. That is not a fancy picture, but has been realised in certain parts of Scotland, and is within the knowledge of Members on both sides of the House. We propose that the amount to be devoted to this purpose should be £60,000 out of the £90,000, and that the distribution of it should be in accordance with the Minutes of the Education Department to be laid before Parliament. I shall take leave to reserve the more detailed development of what is proposed until a later stage.

Do you include Technical Education under Secondary Education?

I rather think not, but the hon. Member will take my answer subject to correction. The only features which I should venture to lay before the House at this stage are these: In the first place we desire, as far as possible, to combine those pupils who can pay a moderate fee with those who cannot in this matter of secondary education, and we propose that such cions should be made as to secure thombination. In the second place,undoubtedly undue and unfair con with voluntary schools ourided as much as possible, ythere may be found, or, may be created, in the large entree of population particularly, a school under public management that would be the proper recipient of this part of the grant. And in the third place, while we have no desire—but the contrary—to interfere with the development of elementary education, and the increasing thoroughness of it, we believe that the requirements of secondary education will not be fully met without encouraging, where the locality admits of it, and where it is considered fitting to do so, the higher grade departments in the ordinary schools. These have already been developed satisfactorily, with good results in some places, and although the conditions of the Code are well suited to elementary education, it is felt that they do not adapt themselves so well to the higher or secondary education, and, therefore, that the work in that direction would be conducted more efficiently if such departments formed a portion of a large scheme for the organisation of the higher education of Scotland. Well, the sum I have mentioned as proposed to be devoted to this object is, I am aware, not so large as the most earnest advocates of secondary education might desire; but, at the same time, we have considered the necessities of the case and have inquired into the existing means for the furtherance of this important branch of the educational system of Scotland, and we have come to the conclusion that with the sum I have named we shall be able to do much to stimulate the higher education; to perfect the existing system, and to carry it further in the direction I have indicated, so as to make it more national in its character. There remains a sum of £30,000. The topic to which I have just adverted leads naturally to the Universities of Scotland, and we propose that this balance of £30,000 should be handed over to the Universities of Scotland, to be distributed amongst them in accordance with an ordinance of the existing University Commissioners. It is known to hon. Members that a Commission has been sitting under the Act of 1889, and that they have developed in certain directions schemes which will require additional pecuniary aid to carry them out, and it is thought the sum I have named will go far, if not wholly, to meet the pressing necessities of the case, having regard to the ordinances already presented and about to be issued by the Commissioners; will go so far as to enable these Commissioners to carry through the much desired and much needed reforms of Universities, and therefore the balance of £30,000 we propose to devote to that object in the mode which I have described. That, Sir, is a very brief and imperfect description of the proposals of the Government in the Bill which I now ask leave to introduce

I am not unmindful of the presence of my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, and of the authoritative admonition which he addressed to us a few nights ago in regard to the imprudence of discussing a Bill before seeing it in print. Upon this occasion I am not quite sure that the prudent course he referred to can altogether be followed, because these are matters with which we are familiar, and the nature of the proposals is such, that I think we are about as well qualified to discuss them now as at any other period in the proceedings. The first observation I have to make affects the form, not the substance, of the proposals by which the Government have thought it right to deal with this matter. They still divide the money that is coming to us into two portions; they deal with these two portions separately. They deal with the money which has accrued in the present financial year differently from the rest of the money. It is not divided between the Universities and secondary education and the Town and County Councils and Parochial Boards, but it is handed over entirely to the County and Town Councils for the relief of the rates. Why should this difference be made? Last year the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor —and I ought, by the way, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the admirable clearness with which he stated his case—the late Lord Advocate, on the 9th June, broadly stated the various claims that had been made on this money, and he said that it was so difficult to decide between them, and our knowledge, especially on the matter of education, was so imperfect, that the Government would devote the Autumn to the consideration of the matter, and would therefore not proceed with their scheme until this Session. But the money that was accruing during this year they proposed immediately to deal with. It was regarded as urgent, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman said—" As we have not time as regards this £110,000 to consider how it should be apportioned among the various claimants, we will, without prejudicing the course we may take with regard to the annual sum afterwards, simply hand this money over to County Councils and Town Councils for the relief of rates." There was something to be said for that course then; but there is nothing to be said for it now. I cannot see any reason why this sum should not be distributed in the same proportions as it is proposed to apply to the annual income. But something has happened since then, and I wish to call the attention of the House to it. The Government consider themselves pledged to give this £110,000 to Town and County Councils. And why? Because certain Town Councils —I do not know whether any County Councils—have actually proceeded upon the supposition that the money would be given to them. They have reckoned on it in their annual budgets, and if they do not get this money they will have, by a rate, to meet a deficit. This must seem to us a very imprudent and foolish course on the part of a public body. I can quote no higher authority than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Speaking on the 31st July last year on this very question, he said—alluding to a statement made that action had already been taken upon the view that a lar class of ratepayers would reit—that the course was premat

"Because the Minister that a certain coucannot be assumed to afford ainistrative action."

That is true doctrine, because any other doctrine would involve that this House was to be set aside as of no consequence, that there was no probability of our altering in any way the proposals of the Government, and it even would deny to the Government the opportunity of changing their mind. Therefore, up to this point, we are driven to the conviction that these local bodies have done something very foolish and improper. But that is not so, because what did these local bodies do? The principal among them, the Corporation of Glasgow, had some of its representatives in London. They went to the Scotch Office, and asked the officials of the Scotch Office whether, they would be justified in counting upon this money, and they were told that they were justified; they were told the exact amount they would receive; they were informed that cheques were being written out, and thus, upon the mere statement of a Minister that it was the intention of the Government, in an Estimate that had never been before the House, to take at some future period of the Session a certain course, not only the House of Commons but the Government itself was actually set aside by the officials of the Scotch Office. I venture to say that it was a breach of duty on the part of those officials, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who represents that Office (although I fear he has very little practical acquaintance with it) what has happened to the official who gave this reply? Has he been rebuked for it? Because I think I have never known in the whole course of my acquaintance with public Departments anything more improper on the part of public officials; because it compromises the freedom of the House of Commons, and supersedes Parliamentary action altogether. The truth is that this is only another of the little proofs we receive from time to time of the evil which arises from the fact of the Scotch Minister being in the other House of Parliament. If the Scotch Minister had been in this House he would have known the situation better, and would have been sure that they could not count upon the distribution of the money among local authorities until the Vote had actually passed the Committee of this House. That is a matter by the way, but I think it deserves some attention on account of its importance. I come now to the proposals. The Government propose to proceed first by Vote for this year for the purpose of relieving the rates, and thereafter by Bill. Now the question occurs to us at once. Why by Bill? There may be advantages; it may in some respects be necessary to have a Bill, but it is perfectly evident that there are one or two very serious objections to proceeding to deal by a Bill. In the first place, it destroys, as I understand it, our chance of benefiting by the elasticity of the sum involved. As I understand, Scotland and Ireland are to receive certain grants annually as an equivalent for the sum which is to be expended in England for the abolition of fees. The sum to be expended in England is 10s. per child upon the average attendance, and this sum is calculated upon the statistics of three years ago. These statistics are not stereotyped. The population is increasing, and, even if the population were not increasing, we hope that under the benefits of free education there will be an increase in the attendance, so that there is every chance that a larger sum, if this doctrine of equivalents is to be kept up, will be available year by year. We are accustomed now-a-days, under the influence of our Separatist Chancellor of the Exchequer, to consider with great nicety, and to weigh the balance carefully, between the three Kingdoms, and I really think, if this principle is a proper one, the amount ought to be a moveable sum. The Bill, however, will stereotype it, and it will stereotype not only the sum to be treated under it, but also the objects to which it is to be applied. There may be differences of opinion even on this side of the House with regard to these objects; but I think no one will dispute that there is at least no very fixed opinion in Scotland with regard to the distribution of this money. I have endeavoured, to the best of my power, to gather the opinions of my constituents and others. I gather that there are some things that they do not like, but I have not been able to get much light upon the particular things which they desire. I have said that we have a Separatist Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it is not in that respect that he is peculiar; because we have had these sums dangled before the Scotch people from year to year, and they have been invited to say what they wanted, and what they would spend them upon, when really they had expressed no very definite desire for money of this kind at all. Ordinarily, it would seem that a Finance Minister should consider what were the financial requirements of the year, fix his taxes to meet those requirements, and then invite the people to bear them; but our Chancellor of the Exchequer lays on the taxes, and then asks the people what they want the money spent upon. Members on both sides of the House will admit that the Scotch people, in regard to the greater part of this money, have no very definite feeling whatever, and therefore it seems to me that it would be undesirable that we should embody this temporary allocation in a Bill; that we should embody in a Bill something which cannot be altered, not only without the difficulty of passing a Bill through the House of Commons, but without the consent of the House of Lords, which body may take a very different view from ours upon Scotch matters. Again, I say, we have a very peculiar Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is not the first occasion, nor even the second or third, upon which expenditure which should be voted by the representatives of the taxpayers has been stereotyped—I do not say in order to deprive, but with the effect of depriving Parliament in future Sessions of having the free disposal of its own money. I will not dwell upon these extraordinary arrangements further; upon this see-saw between the countries—one always having to receive something equivalent to a grant of some sort given to the other the year before—nor upon the sort of Dutch auction in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been engaged. But coining to the purposes to which it is proposed to apply this money, I would say, speaking for myself, I am entirely opposed to giving it to any Body whatever for the mere relief of the rates. I have no objection indeed to assisting from the general taxation local expenditure in a proper way. Local expenditure does bear heavily in many instances, and I have no objection to assistance being given towards definite objects and in a definite proportion, and so as not to invalidate in any way the direct pecuniary responsibility and sense of responsibility on the part of administering bodies. But I can conceive nothing more demoralising or ineffective than the mere handing over—flinging—a lump of money to people, saying "Here, if you are short of money you may make it up out of that. We do not care much what particular object this relief shall be applied to. Relieve your rates, make yourselves popular, and leave us alone." It will be said there is an almost unanimous opinion, from Town Councils especially and Parochial Boards, in favour of getting this money. I do not wonder at it, and I do not blame them for it. If I were a member of a Town Council or a Parochial Board I should be very anxious to make my short reign of office popular by reducing or keeping down the rates. But I have observed a remarkable uniformity and almost identity in the terms of the memorials on the subject, not indicating that voluntary and spontaneous action which one would expect; and I find that, unanimously, the members of these very bodies, which have memorialised in favour of the money being used in relief of rates, are ready to admit in private conversation that they think this state of things is a mistake, and that although they were very glad to get it, and although it would be very useful to them, yet it is bad finance and very likely to have an evil effect in the long run. I am therefore not afraid of having the authority of these public bodies thrown at my head; but I say with regard to the Parochial Boards—the right hon. Gentleman says the Government propose to give £75,000 to the Parochial Boards—there will be a considerable feeling against that so long as the Parochial Boards are unreformed and are not thoroughly representative bodies. I conceive there is much less harm in giving, as is proposed,£25,000 for the definite purpose of relief in respect of Pauper Lunatics. This is free from some of the objections I have been urging; but to give money for the general relief of rates to bodies which do not, as a rule, command the confidence of the people is a course which ought not to be taken, although some of the large Parochial Boards, I admit, are extremely well administered, and not open to any criticism of that sort. But I have another objection with regard to this relief of rates. Not only, as I consider, would it be about the least proper purpose to which he could apply this money, but also the relief would be given to the wrong people. I am not going to enter at this stage into the niceties of Scotch rating, but undoubtedly in many cases this relief will go into the pockets of the landlords, and in the towns the sensible relief will go to the larger ratepayers, the manufacturers and large shopkeepers, while the benefit the working classes will obtain is practically infinitesimal. Each man may get a halfpenny, or a penny, or twopence as his proportion; and when we consider that it is the working-classes that contribute the greater part of the money out of which this is to be paid, I think it furnishes an additional, and perhaps a stronger, argument than those I have already adduced. These are the views I entertain. I am aware that some of my friends may have other views; but I thought it right frankly to state the very strong feeling I have on the subject. Now, what are the other purposes to which the money is to be applied? The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about completing the freedom from fees of the primary schools. That, I understand, is not included. I deeply regret that decision of the Government; and my impression is that even those most strongly in favour of obtaining all they can get in relief of rates, and who are perfectly fanatical against secondary education, will admit that the completion of free primary education was the very first charge upon this money, and I regret that the Government have omitted it. Then I go on to secondary education. Well, I am very pleased to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are going to give so large a sum of money for this purpose; not so much that it is wanted in the towns or populous places, or in places where there are School Boards, with a very large area, which can make special arrangements to meet the case; but I have rather in my mind the country districts and sparsely populated districts where we have undoubtedly fallen back. I hope I shall not be held to be at all offensive when I say that we have fallen down towards the English level. We have lost a great deal of the old superiority we had, when we gave in all the parochial schools higher education to the sons of the people. I am quite sure of this, that no Scotchman will express in this Debate or in any other Debate any jealousy of secondary education. The old theory that continuation schools and opportunities for higher education—scientific, literary, and technical—were peculiarly for the middle-class population, and not for the working classes—that is a theory which never had any footing in Scotland, and, I hope, never will. It is a great benefit to the poorest and humblest man in the community, as it is to the middle-class man, that there should be this opportunity all over the country for superior education, and we have not that opportunity at present. The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything—perhaps he could not say anything—as to how the Government propose to meet the difficulties of the case. That is to be done by ordinances from the Education Department. I am not sure that we are very full of, or overflowing with, faith in the Education Department. But that is a point of detail which may be more properly discussed, perhaps, at another time. I am perfectly aware of the difficulties that may arise from conflicting jurisdictions and other sources; but, at the same time, we will certainly co-operate with the Government in arriving at the best solution of it. Then the last purpose for which the money is to be given is the Universities. Speaking for myself, personally, I am in favour of giving quite as much money as this to the Universities, but I have a strong idea that we do not receive a sufficient amount of money for our Universities compared with the other countries, at present, out of the money annually voted by Parliament, and I should prefer to see this money coming out of a direct Vote on the Civil Service Estimates rather than out of this fund, to which it does not properly belong. At the same time, we must not look a gift horse in the mouth; and if money is scarce—I should much prefer to take it from other sources myself, but rather than see our Universities go without the money, I think we may take it from this. But if the Estimates are looked into, I think it will be found that the other parts of the Empire have an advantage over us in respect of money given to the Universities; and I think that it ought to be taken out of the ordinary expenditure for the year. As for the rest of the money, as I have said, the Government give it in relief of rates. For want of any more definite claim on the part of the Scotch people, I should have been content to see it given over to the Town Councils and County Councils, but for definite purposes which could not otherwise be met out of the rates. And, at any rate, I would at least bargain for this: that if the proposal of the Government be adopted, if the money is to be given over to the Town Councils and County Councils, surely they need not be tied down to apply it for the relief of the rates. I think we might at least strike out these words "for the relief of the rates" from the Vote which is on the Table when we come to deal with the definite words, and leave it to the discretion of Town Councils and County Councils. These are the observations which occur to me. I cannot express too strongly my opinion that the whole of these proceedings are slip-shod finance, and slip-shod administration. That is not our fault. We have to make the best of it. I have said that the proposal to hand over the money for the relief of rates for the present year may be accepted. It may be inevitable in the present state of public opinion, but we should be slow to pledge ourselves, by actual statute, either to any fixed sum, or to objects which we are not certain will satisfy the Scotch people.

I think the majority of the Scotch Members who have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down will agree very heartily with the expressions which he has used in regard to this Bill; and I sincerely hope that this may be the last time we shall be called upon in this House to discuss an equivalent grant. When a generous Government scatters bounty over the land like this we find that the money is wasted, and we find that the local administration becomes entirely disorganised. Now, with regard to the specific proposals of the Government, I also very much regret that no, place has been found amongst them with regard to primary education. So far as secondary education is concerned, I believe that we are not yet provided with a plan which would warrant such large expenditure as is sometimes proposed for that very necessary branch of education, but a large sum may very well be voted for that purpose. Again, with regard to technical education we find no provision whatever made under the proposals of the Government; and so far from making any provision for it, the, County Councils are absolutely prohibited from undertaking further work in connection with this case. The County Council with which I am connected myself have shown no disposition to spend this grant in relief of the rates. As it is desirous of carrying on technical education, and as there are quarters in England where the sum of £750,000 has been spent by County Councils in connection with agricultural and other forms of education, I feel that in Scotland we will be placed at a very serious disadvantage if we are to be prohibited from undertaking a work which is doing so much good throughout the whole of the counties of England. The Universities are to be given £30,000, and, knowing as I do the necessity for a grant of that character, I must confess that I do not see my way to oppose it in any form whatever. But, at the same time, I should be very much surprised to find much enthusiasm on behalf of this proposal amongst hon. Members on this side. Our chief knowledge of the Universities on this side is that we find their representatives ranged against us upon every possible occasion, and instead of men of science or men of high culture being sent to represent the Universities here, we find a lawyer or a politician coming to this House in order to pursue Party purposes. I do not think that this is a recommendation which will enable hon. Memhers on this side of the House to receive the proposals of the Government as well as they might otherwise do. At the same time, I think that what has been said, that the University grants should come from the ordinary taxation of the country, is extremely fair; and I think that the money for the Universities ought to have come out of the Treasury in the ordinary form instead of that in which it now appears before the House, The £25,000 which is to go to the relief of the charge for the pauper lunatics should also come under the same head. A statement has been sent round by the Parochial Board which demands that some contribution should be made towards the support of the pauper lunatics. It shows that the rate in Scotland amounts to about 3s. a week, while in England it is fixed at 4s. a week. I think here, again, this is not an occasion for making a demand upon the equivalent grant, but it is an occasion demanding that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall treat Scotland upon equal terms with England. With regard to the expenditure on medical relief and those other matters, they should more properly come before the Committee on the equalisation of the burdens of local taxation upon different parts of the United Kingdom which is now sitting. I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend has said in regard to the objects to which it should be obligatory upon the Local Authorities to give the money that should come to them under this grant. I think some good might be done if this money were spent for public libraries, for baths, for the improvement of public parks, and for other necessary purposes, such as technical education, or in the construction of harbours or new works, which are very much required. In Ross-shire the demand for new works and harbours is very great. I think these are matters to which we might perfectly well devote the money which is to come to us under the proposals of the Government. The whole system of these wants I think is entirely unsatisfactory; and as these promiscuous bounties descending upon us lead to a very bad system of administration, I sincerely trust that we see the last occasion upon which this may be done. I think there has been an immense amount of money wasted, and I think it upsets the whole system of Imperial finance.

We have already taken advantage in Scotland of the grants from Imperial taxation to give free education to Scotland, and the only subject that remains now is to see whether we will adopt the English practice and give this grant entirely to the relief of rates, or whether it is in accordance with the feeling of the people of Scotland, to give a portion to improve the education which has been already made free. I think that the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs as regards this amount being stereotyped is a very forcible one. We were told that this sum of £265,000 is more than originally was calculated would conic to Scotland, and, as the calculation was wrong in the past, it very probably will be equally wrong in the future, and as education and the number of children must increase in England, so the share to Scotland will be considerably increased, and I hope, in a few years, will amount to £300,000. If that is the case, I think this measure should state the manner of allocation. It is right that a certain sum should be stereotyped. I think it is perfectly right if the Universities are to receive £30,000, that sum should be definitely fixed. I have very great sympathy with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs upon this Vote. I think it very hard upon Scotland that this £30,000 should be taken out of this money. I think that money should be given altogether out of the general finances of the country. The right hon. Gentleman rather sneered at the members of the local Town Councils and County Councils in effecting economy and reducing the rates. I would remind him that he is the representative of the same electors as have returned these bodies; and that, while it is their duty to diminish the rates as far as they can, the same electors would be very thankful if the right hon. Gentleman, in his place in Parliament, would do his utmost to get a grant by which the rates should be reduced. The right hon. Gentleman alleged, as regards grants being given to the Parochial Boards, that the Parochial Boards were not elected upon a sufficiently popular basis. I would remind him that it was entirely owing to the action of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House that a measure for the establishment of Parochial Councils in Scotland was not carried at the same time as the County and District Councils Act. It is not a question really of throwing money at the heads of the ratepayers of Scotland. This is a question to enable the Scotch ratepayer to get that relief to which he is justly entitled; and which he did not get for two years owing to his desire to have free education for his children first. I must say I should like to have had a more definite view from the Government in regard to the £60,000 which is to be spent upon Secondary Education. I cannot adopt the view that this higher education affects all the children in Scotland. I think that the poorer classes will derive very small benefit indeed from the £30,000 to be given to the Universities, and it will depend entirely upon the manner in which this £60,000 is appropriated whether the children of the working classes will get any benefit from it at all or not. It is impossible for the children of the working classes to attend school beyond a certain age. If they are to earn a living, and, at the same time, to improve their education, they must be apprenticed, or must be learning, from the age of 14 and upwards, the trades which they are going to pursue. It can only be by the means of technical education that they can hope to raise themselves to a higher position than that which they now occupy. I think, therefore, that it would have been a very great advantage if the Government had seen their way to enable a portion of this money to be applied towards technical education. What is wanted in Scotland is not so much more money, but a thorough administration of existing funds. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says the allocation should not be embodied in a Bill. I think it should be. It was done in the case of England, and that course met with general acceptance. The Government have, in my view, shown wisdom in defining the objects to which this money is to be applied. If the county of Ross, for example, desire that part of the money should go for roads, it can spend it in that way. But, Sir, I think it is altogether opposed to the general local convenience of the county that it should be made as matter of contest every three years how certain money is to be applied. One of the strongest arguments in favour of this measure is that it defines definitely the destination, instead of leaving it to the passing breath of the moment. I think also that the Government were wise in adopting the principle of valuation, and not of assessment. This will contribute to economy. No reason has been shown why this Bill should not be now read a first time, and I trust the negative criticisms, of the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not be allowed to retard its progress, but that the points that have been mentioned will be reserved for Committee, where they may be properly discussed, and a Bill advanced by which the people of Scotland will get considerable remissions of local taxation.

I think the hon, Gentleman who has just sat down is a little hard in protesting against one of the few opportunities which Scotch Members have of discussing Scotch business, and I do not think the Government will join with him in his protest. In a question of this great importance and complexity, and at the same time so familiar to hon. Members that they have all made up their minds upon it even on this its first presentation to the House, I imagine it will be a much greater assistance than an obstacle if the opinions of the Scotch Members are expressed as clearly as they have been expressed. And it is necessary that those who do not take altogether the same view as those who have already spoken should say something remembering, at the same time that we have no right, on the first reading, to speak longer than is necessary to express concurrence or emphatic dissent. Now, Sir, I feel bound to say I never heard a speech in which I more agreed with the conclusions, but in regard to one or two of the principal arguments with which I less agree than that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling. Therefore, it is necessary to put in a protest against one or two of those arguments, in order that the Government may not think that there is universal agreement amongst Members on this side. The history of this money, the disposition of which we are discussing, is complicated enough, and goes through various historical stages; but the present position of it is undeniable. It is the same sum of money which was made over to the English ratepayers from the Exchequer, and to do anything else than give it, in one form or another, to the Scotch ratepayers is to lay upon the Scotch ratepayers a special Imperial tax. You may like the distinction, or you may dislike it; you may like to spend money on the University or on secondary education, or you may dislike it; but no less if so spent we levy a differential tax upon the Scotch ratepayer, and against that I briefly but unreservedly protest. I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend that Scotch opinion is anything like unanimous in this matter. The local bodies are, in my opinion, on this question of expenditure the true spokesmen of the country. Hon. Members deny that the Municipal Bodies are fair exponents of the feelings of the boroughs. I think that the principles we hold on this side oblige us to say that those local bodies, in regard to the larger cities at any rate, are strictly representative, and they almost unanimously regard this money as a debt to the Scotch ratepayer. So far as I know, they unanimously regard any other application as frittering away Scotch resources instead of keeping them intact to give sensible relief in the quarter in which relief is due. They are unanimous in thinking that the relief of 2d., 3d., or 4d., even 5d., which has been given to great English cities, would be equally acceptable to Scotch cities, and equally their due. There was a great deputation last year to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The strongest arguments were urged by members of Municipal Bodies and of Parochial Boards. But of what Parochial Boards? There are many Parochial Boards which contain a really representative element. I know that the representative members of the Parochial Boards are elected under the plural vote, and in so far they are less representative than we would wish to see them; but in the Barony Parish of Glasgow, out of 29,21 are elected members. As regards the deputations from the Municipal Bodies, there can be no question whatever as to their elective character. The constituents of these bodies—the enormous town populations of these cities—have not found it necessary to take exception to the action of their representatives last year. I do not want to put the matter mainly on the ground of Scotch feeling. I maintain that there are grave reasons of public policy against dribbling out fractions of public money to be applied to special services. Nothing leads to so much waste and gives rise to so much worry among Local Bodies as having a certain sum from the Treasury to put to a certain use, to which, perhaps, they do not want to put it. The importance of the public object, and the wisdom of carrying it out, ought to be considered on its own merits by the local authority. When the Glasgow Municipality set up baths and wash-houses and model lodging-houses they, first of all, considered whether these were advisable matters to be undertaken by a public body. Having considered and determined that, they allotted a sum of money out of the rates. But that is a very different thing from giving a body like the Glasgow Council a certain amount which may only be spent in the superannuation of the Police, on secondary education, or on technical education. My right hon. Friend says he wishes Parliament to have the disposal of its own money. I wish the local Parliaments of our great towns to have the free disposal of their money. If Glasgow or Aberdeen, or Dundee, wish to have secondary education or public parks, or model lodging houses, well, let them say so, but do not give them a sum of money which they may not have unless to spend upon some service which Parliament dictates—money which is indubitably their own, and which they have a right to spend as they choose. I cannot agree with the hon. Member in thinking that the allotment of money for technical education in the English counties has been altogether a success, but what has made it even the success that it is, is this—that they are not obliged to spend it upon technical education; therefore, if there is not a real machinery for carrying out technical education, they would not spend the money upon it. In what follows I am speaking entirely for my constituency, which is in a different position from the rural districts. I entirely object, and the people in Glasgow entirely object, to regarding secondary education as a proper burden for the ratepayers. There are great endowments already in Glasgow, quite sufficient to give secondary education to the entire city. Already, the poorer ratepayer, the working man, as well as everybody else, pays large sums for keeping up the High School at Glasgow, upon which I am told that there is a debt of £45,000 for building and repairs. Who go to the High School? Not so much the sons of the working men, not even exclusively the sons of professional men and commercial men of Glasgow, but people from a distance, whose education is largely paid for by the poor working man of Glasgow. But that is not all. Glasgow is in a very peculiar position. In Glasgow directly you improve by public money the elementary school, so that it is able to give that sort of education which the right hon. Gentleman described so admirably at the end of his speech, and which is a special characteristic of Scotland—so soon as the school is able to give that education, what does the School Department do? Why, Sir, it separates that school from the rest, and puts it into a special class of fee-paying schools. These schools are not the schools of the ratepayer. He has to pay for the building and maintenance of these schools, but he cannot send his children there. He has to pay his money out of the rates in order to make more of this class of schools, which are to remain select and privileged, and from which his children are to be excluded. I have no objection to any amount of bursaries that will enable the children of the elementary schools to get a higher class education, but I do object, in Glasgow especially, to the ordinary working man ratepayer paying for secondary education which he does not share. As regards the Universities, I gather there is unanimity. We all wish the Universities to have more money, but we all wish that it should come from the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury—if he will allow me to refer to his admirable replies to the deputation that waited upon him from Scotland—spoke of Oxford and Cambridge as being very highly endowed. But these are not the only Universities in the South. There are Colleges in Wales, there are Universities in England—some in existence, some in embyro—and if more money is given to the Scotch Universities out of the rates there will be, almost immediately, a demand for more for the South country Universities. Again there will be an equivalent grant to Scotland for which we shall have to find some special destination, and, therefore, we will go on in this vicious circle of special grants for special objects to Local Bodies in Scotland. The remedy is plain. Let the Local Bodies have their own money, and let them dispose of it themselves. We talk of the wisdom of Parliament, but these Local Bodies are wiser still with regard to their own wants. I would not fetter them. I would not tie them down even to the relief of local rates. I would leave the matter to their absolute discretion. I apologise for having spoken so warmly on a subject on which there is so much difference of opinion, and I thank the House for its attention.

I tender to the Lord Advocate my warmest congratulations upon the clearness and lucidity of his speech, and upon his proposals generally: though it seems to me that the discussion upon those proposals will come more conveniently when we have the measure before us in print. In the next place, I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down upon a most unwonted display of backbone. The confident way in, which he spoke shows that he has many supporters at his back, and on the present occasion I am one of the most enthusiastic of them. Thirdly, I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs on the comparative moderation of the language with which he now attacks the unfortunate ratepayer in Scotland.

I did not attack the ratepayer.

Perhaps not the ratepayer, but at any rate the relief of rates. He said the ratepayer ought to be able to do without any relief whatever. On the 28th July, 1890, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of "the naked and brutal relief of rates." That was a little stronger than his language this evening.

I am sorry the hon. Gentleman does not understand the word brutal, which I used in its French, rather than in its English, sense. In its French sense it means "simple."

I think that on the whole, Sir, a Scottish Member in the British Parliament ought to speak in English rather than in inferior French. A naked and brutal relief of rates, indeed! It is a "nakedness" of which no Government need be ashamed, and a "brutality" for which the people of Scotland may well be deeply grateful. Now, Sir, we hear two voices from the Front Opposition Bench. Is it possible that there are going to be dissentient Gladstonians in the future? Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs act as the spokesman of his Party when he says that deficits are better than surpluses? He said every Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be very careful not to have a surplus at the end of a year. Sir, as a County Member, there is one portion of this Bill on which I look with some anxiety—namely, that portion allotting £60,000 for technical education. It is difficult to see how the rural districts will derive much benefit unless, indeed, there are to be lecturers who will go about from place to place. I understand that technical education is not to be included in secondary education. If that is so, I must say that I am very sorry indeed. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Munro Ferguson) earnestly hopes that no further sums of money will be granted to Scotland. Of course, that merely means that he earnestly hopes that his Party may come into power, for, with the Gladstonian Party in power, there is not the slightest chance of there ever being any surplus.

I shall not adopt the controversial tone of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and, as I come after him, I shall escape the lash of his criticism. Sir, as regards this very important Bill, I believe that £265,000 wisely husbanded and wisely expended will do a great deal of good, and make many improvements that are much required. I do not follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in making comparisons between measures of relief and other measures relating to Ireland. I confess I listened with astonishment to that comparison. Sir, I desire to mention one or two points to which the Government may give consideration. These points mainly refer to the £60,000 for technical education. But on the point of rating I should say that I am more in agreement with the Member for the Stirling Burghs than the Member for Bridgeton. I am not astonished that the Government has gone some way in the relief of rates. I agree there has been no strong demand from other quarters in regard to the disposition of this money. It does not carry us any length to say the Parochial Boards are not unanimous in asking for this money. and then the right hon. Gentleman said that it was not desirable to give the money to Local Bodies and to tell them to apply it for certain purposes which they did not ask the money for. I agree with my right hon. Friend when he said that the money should be given to these Local Bodies with a large discretion as to the use of it. But that is not the proposal of the Bill. It would be very easy to make the proposal still more advantageous and workable by this addition to it; the Local Bodies should have the power of accumulating this grant. They ought not to be obliged to spend it, and, it may be, waste it year after year. I know the Town Councils have come to the consideration of how this money is to be spent with a good deal of anxiety. Why should they be obliged to spend the money all in one year? If they are allowed to save it up and make it the foundation of a common-good fund, such as many of the towns of Scotland used to have, that money would be a most valuable nest-egg to the County Council. I earnestly ask the Government to consider this point—that in addition to giving the Local Bodies discretion as to the use they are to put the money to, they should also have the power of accumulation. With regard to the sum that is proposed to be devoted to secondary education, so far as my information goes, I think it is too small. I should say that not less than £75,000 would be necessary for the purpose. The proposal to split up the educational endowments is an entire impossibility. These endowments must remain localised. The question is—and it is an all-important question—how is this money, which it is proposed to devote to secondary education, to be administered? The Government proposed that it should be administered by the Education Department. Let them remember that this is local money, and it is so called even under the title of the Bill. It, therefore, ought not to be administered by any central department whatever. I look with the greatest anxiety and jealousy on the proposal if it is really persevered in by the Government. I am aware that the Scottish Education Department is not only faithfully, but most zealously and ably, administered at the present moment, but that is no reason for placing in its hands what I might describe as an unconstitutional discretion in the disposal of public money. There is no precedent to be found for it in the large sums that passed through the hands of the Education Department under the Act of 1872, because the money goes out almost automatically and according to rules, so that it was impossible to favour one school more than another. But by the present proposal it would be the duty of the Department to pick and choose here and there what part of Scotland was to get the dole out of this education money. And why should this expedient be resorted to when we have a much better one at hand? and that is that the distribution of the money should be by the counties. The proper authority to administer the money is the County Council. It is local money, and ought to be locally administered, and in the manner which the Local Authorities thought the best. Speaking generally, the County Councillors are, for the most part, the pick of the School Boards, and are therefore perfectly competent to form a sensible plan to meet the educational needs of their own county. Let the Government look to the precedent of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of 1889, under which it is the duty of the County Council to form an educational scheme, for the wants of the community. I think this money ought to be available, both for intermediate education as well as secondary education.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate on the clearness of his statement in introducing the Bill. I join the hon. Member opposite in expressing satisfaction that the claims of secondary education are recognised by the Government in the measure. On this subject, however, as to the application of the money, one must reserve his opinion until the details of the scheme are made known to the House. I am not prepared to say that the Scottish Education Department is not a very fit source from which the scheme should emanate, but a great deal will depend on how the money is to be applied, and we have no information from the Lord Advocate to enable us to give a decided opinion on the subject in its details. I am sorry to find my hon. Friend the Member for South Lanarkshire not quite clear as to the principle of applying part of this money for the promotion of secondary education. In Scotland we have always considered secondary education to be mixed up with primary education, so that they could not very well be entirely separated; and if we find that primary education is a fit subject to receive money which might be said to be claimable by the ratepayers, we may in the same way claim the same character for secondary education. I am sure there will be no dissatisfaction in Scotland with this application of a portion of the money, provided the scheme for its distribution be a fair and reasonable one. It is of importance that this should be done. Our educational measures of late years have rather thrown secondary education into the background. It has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton that the working man has not the same interest in secondary schools as his neighbours who are better off. But in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who was Lord Advocate last year, we had an assurance from the Government that they would consider the importance of having facilities for deserving youths who are not themselves in a position to obtain admission to secondary schools, finding entrance to them as bursars. That is a principle which has been largely followed in many parts of Scotland, and I hope the Government will provide some facilities for extending the system. On the subject of assistance to the Universities, I have to acknowledge with satisfaction that our claims have been very fairly met by the Government, I will say this, however, that no grant given in this way to the Universities must be looked upon as a closing of the account, or as if we are thereby to release the claim which the Universities have, as national institutions, to any support from Government which is really necessary for their maintenance and prosperity. But the Act of Parliament passed a year or two ago for the Universities has exposed them to great additional expenses, and without some such assistance as it is proposed to give them in this Bill it will be almost impossible to put in practical application the Act of 1889. I believe that what is proposed to give them now will go a great way towards making it possible to apply that Act in such a manner as to benefit the Universities as the country would desire. After all, the sum to be given if divided equally among the four Universities, will only amount to £7,500 each. That is not so large an amount as to lead us to suppose that there will be no more need for private benefactions to extend these institutions, to found new Chairs, and so on; but it will go a great way towards making it possible to put them in thoroughly good working order under the new constitution which this House has recently given them. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Munro Ferguson), while not wishing to say any thing against the Universities, objected to this part of the Government proposals, because their Parliamentary representation is not entirely to his mind. In reply, I may say this: that this money is not for the Parliamentary representatives, nor for the graduates who elect them, but to enable the Universities to do better work as teaching institutions; and the hon. Member may console himself with the thought that if the Universities do their work with greater efficiency, they will in the future turn out better graduates—men who will possibly exercise a better judgment in the selection of their Parliamentary Representatives.

I look upon this question from another standpoint than that of the hon. Members who have spoken; and I do not know that it is necessary for me to move an Amendment, but I intend to vote against the First Reading of this Bill, and to oppose it from its first stage till its last. I am very strongly opposed to this dying Parliament, which does not represent the feeling of Scotland to-day—trying to tie the hands of future Parliaments in reference to this matter. I am astonished at my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton looking at England and Scotland from the same standpoint. Of this grant of £175,000, £75,000 is to go to the Parochial Boards. Well, one-half of that will be a present to the landlords, because, as my right hon. Friend is aware, in Scotland one-half of the rate is levied upon and paid by the landlord, and the other half by the occupier. So that as regards one-half, or £37,500, there is no doubt at all that it will go to the relief of the landlords. Then another share is to go for the relief of rates in the counties in burghs; and assuming that only 15 per cent. goes to the relief of the landlords, that at once gives £15,000 that will go to the landlords.

They will get 22 per cent.

Well, I will take it at 15 per cent. only; I want to be moderate. Well, then, at least £50,000 will thus at once go into the pockets of the landlords; and those who have bought estates with certain burdens on them will immediately have the value of their property increased by the proposed application of this grant. That is for the present year; but ultimately the whole will go into the pockets of the landlords, so that we are by this Bill simply voting a subvention of £175,000 to the Scotch landlords. I, for one, am strongly opposed to that; I, for one, want to secure the very opposite. In the past, landlords have been turning all the burdens they took upon themselves on to the shoulders of the tenants, and I want to turn back those burdens upon the landlords. I therefore hope that when this Parliament, which was elected upon false pretences, goes back to the constituencies, the new Parliament will consist of men of a different type altogether—men who will be animated by new ideas. The proposed method of distributing this grant simply means the taxing of industry for the benefit of the landlords. The workers of Scotland are the people who contribute four-fifths of this money; yet not one-fifth of it will go back into their pockets. Here, again, you are trying to rob the workers for the benefit of this privileged class of landlords. I do not object to the contribution to be given towards secondary and technical education, but the £30,000 to the Universities I do object to on historical grounds. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer three years ago brought in a Bill by which he proposed, by giving £46,000 to the Scotch Universities, to free this Parliament from the pledge given at the Union to maintain the Scotch Universities, I opposed that proposal. I think the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) is scarcely accurate in what he said as to Scotland getting more than England for University purposes. The English Universities were endowed by Governments and Parliaments. The Scotch Universities were not so endowed. They came under the control of the bodies constituting them, and they got annual votes for their maintenance, which is a wider and better system than that of England, a system by which Parliament has been able to retain control of the Universities. Then, when we united with England, this was one of the burdens which was to be taken over by the united Parliament. We had the privilege of taking upon us our share of the English burdens, not one of which has been lightened for us; but England, to its eternal disgrace, has been lightening her burdens so far as Scotland is concerned. Where she does carry out her bargain she gives a miserable thousand pounds, say, to the National Gallery. In every way I hold that Scotland has been badly treated by England, just as in this case the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by giving £46,000 to the Universities, sought to relieve Parliament of the promise to maintain the Scottish Universities. I opposed that proposal persistently, and until the Chairman of Committees refused to take any more Amendments from me. I say you have taken upon yourselves the burden of the Scotch Universities. We have taken the burden of your National Debt and other burdens; and you must carry out your part of the agreement as we have done ours, and I will tease this House in the future, as I have done in the past, until I can get for Scotland financial fair play. On these grounds I oppose this Bill; but I admit that what you may have a right to do is to give your gift to the landlords for this year. You, however, want to pass a Bill that would tie the hands of what may be a much more Democratic House of Commons through the action of the House of Lords. Well, I do not care if you do bring in the House of Lords. We are going to fight the House of Lords; but I think the only true and honest course for Members who think as I do is to vote against this Bill in all its stages. I am opposed to its principle. You may apply it in this way for England. The English Members have frittered away this money and have lost it; but we, the Scottish Members, refuse to do so. Our position with reference to rating has always been different from that of the English Members. I am willing that this money, which we must have as our equivalent grant, should be spent for any purpose for which there is at present no rating power. If you use it for a purpose for which you have already a rating power, then you are throwing away the money. If my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) brings in a scheme for pensions in Scotland, and allows us to test the pension question in Scotland as we did Free Education, then I would support the use of this money entirely for that purpose, although I agree that, to a certain extent, it would come to relief of the rates in the end. But as far as I am concerned, my intention is to oppose this Bill in any shape or form. The only thing you have a right to do is to settle the question for the present year, but not to tie our hands in the next Parliament.

The hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) has avowed a policy which I cannot think will be very acceptable to his own constituents; and I shall be curious to see how many Scotch Members will follow him into the Lobby if he carries out his intention to divide the House. He seems to think that this Bill is thrown out as a sop to the landed interest.

Hear, hear.

Well, I think not. I would point out, in the first place, that in his county the crofters pay two-thirds of the taxes and the proprietors one-third. I believe that the opposite to that is the case in the burghs. But then, again, we find that the proprietors pay the county rate, and they have hitherto paid large portions of the cost of the formation of new roads and bridges, and still do so. They also pay half of the road rate and half of the poor rate. But there are other rates which fall exclusively on the shoulders of the proprietors, such as those under the Cattle Diseases Acts and other matters which it is not necessary for me to go into at this moment. To say that £100,000, to be given in relief of local rates levied by the Councils is a sop to the landlords, therefore, is not at all the case, and is very far from being in any way accurate. The way in which the Government propose to allocate this £100,000 will, I maintain, be found to be most equitable to the country at large. We had a large meeting some weeks ago in Scotland of various bodies interested in this matter, and they came to the conclusion that a large proportion—a half—of this grant should go for the relief of the rates, leaving the application to particular rates to the discretion of the different Local Authorities. It was not, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs had said, to be stereotyped; but it was to be left entirely to the discretion of those who levied the rates to decide how the grant was to be applied. Well, now the Bill has met with general acceptance in this House, but there are many questions which must come up for further discussion, and one of them will relate to the £60,000 to be given for secondary education. It is a most important provision of the Bill, but one which it will be difficult to carry into practice. I suppose in country districts it will be used to provide more teaching power in the schools. It is all very well to put in another master; but although sometimes there will be many farmers' sons anxious to reap the benefit of secondary education, at others there will be very few to attend a class. Any clause on this subject ought to be an enacting clause, appropriating a certain sum for secondary education each year. While I have always been a friend of technical education, I must honestly say that my view is not shared in my part of the country. I should like to know whether the Local Authority would be permitted to use any part of the grant out of the £40,000 for building as well as for teaching purposes? I believe the allocation made by the Government generally will meet with the approval of the whole country, and satisfy the people of Scotland, whether Liberals or Tories, University or otherwise, and I am grateful to the Government for the course they have taken.

We have been asked by an hon. Member on the other side to declare as between the conflicting views of the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs and the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division, and I have no hesitation whatever in declaring in favour of the Member for the Stirling Burghs. I object entirely to so much of this Bill as proposes to give relief to the rates, though I have no objection to the greater part of the measure. I believe in the end the whole of this money will go into the pocket of the landlord. A significant phrase was used by the Lord Advocate when he said he would tell what the Government proposed to do, once for all, in this matter. It is not, therefore, a mere question of dealing with £265,000 a year, but of dealing with the capital value of that sum, which, even at the present price of "Goschens," is something like £10,000,000 sterling. It is, therefore, £10,000,000 which you will ultimately give to the landlords. To 70 or 80 per cent. of the population of a large town of Scotland the relief given by this Bill will be something like half-a-crown a year. One of my hon. Friends says a shilling, and another fourpence; but take it at half-a-crown, and we find that the relief you are to give to the large majority of my constituents is not so much as a half-penny a week; yet to wealthy people, like rich mill-owners, you will give from £25 to £100. I wish to notice a portentous fallacy in the speech of my right hon. Friend below me, who said that, inasmuch as the English ratepayer had got the benefit of the money, if you did not give it also to the Scotch ratepayers it would amount to a tax upon the ratepayer. That contention begs the whole question.

Where does the money come from?

The money comes from this House, and belongs to the whole people of Scotland, and the argument of my right hon. Friend is scarcely worthy of him. I do not object so much to the educational portion of the Bill; and as allusion has been made to the Universities, I think it only fair to say that, so far as the Lord Advocate is concerned, it is his political colour only that we can object to, and that for culture and academical distinction he is the most fit representative of the University in this House.

The hon. Member for Kirkcudbright expressed an opinion that this Bill would be received with unanimous approval by hon. Members for Scotland, but much difference of opinion seems to prevail upon the other side of the House as to how the money ought to be allocated. In the last two or three speeches the words "landlord" and "pocket" have been frequently used. As Hannibal spent his life in fighting the Romans, so has the hon. Member for Caithness consecrated his life to waging war on the landlord; and I can imagine that if he, and the hon. Member who has just spoken, had an opportunity of visiting the locality described in Dante's Inferno, the first place they would ask for would be that in which they kept the landlords. I doubt whether the Member for Caithness can prove that the whole of the £175,000 is to go into the pockets of the landlords. A portion of it might do so in rural districts eventually; but I cannot understand how money to be devoted to the relief of the rates in Glasgow can find its way to the landlord. There appear to be two parties on the opposite side of the House on this question, and I propose to join that of the Member for Bridgeton; for I consider that this is ratepayers' money, and that the ratepayers are entitled to dispose of it. As to a Vote for the Universities, I consider it is placing them upon the rates, and I think the money to be granted to them should come from Imperial taxation.

When the Members for Glasgow do agree their unanimity is wonderful. They seem to be disturbing the House by introducing into it a new Party, and I am not surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been in his place during any part of the evening to witness what is the some what degrading spectacle of the Representatives of Scotland meeting together to discuss, not the question of what taxation may be necessary or useful, but how certain swag should be disposed of. I can see no reason in the speech of the Lord Advocate to justify his arbitrary division of this fund, and I am sure he will not say he has acted upon any profound or certain calculation, or gone upon anything but the rule of thumb. It is much too soon to proceed by Bill in this matter. There is one omission in it which all Parties regret, and that is that opportunity has not been taken for absolutely freeing primary education. With reference to the £60,000 for intermediate education, the Lord Advocate might have plucked up courage to extend the amount to £75,000. I regret the introduction of this Bill, aid I feel sure, if it is proceeded with, as no doubt it will be, it will only increase the discontent of the Scotch with the way in which their business is transacted in this House, and their wishes overruled by an English majority.

I do not wish to go into the details of this scheme, but I do wish to place on record the fact that I object to the scheme altogether. I maintain that the Government are going to rob Scotland in this matter, and not to obtain any great national advantage. Here you have a great sum of £260,000 a year, and how are you going to use it? Simply to try to blind as many different classes in Scotland as you possibly can. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not the way to deal with a great national matter like this. Windfalls of £265,000 a year do not come to Scotland every day, and therefore, I say, this sum ought either to have been used for some great scheme of national education, some great scheme, like that of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, of national pensions for Scotland, or some other scheme for the benefit of the whole people of Scotland. Several references have been made as to how the different classes of the community would benefit from using this money in relief of the rates if the Government scheme were adopted. Calculation has been made, I think, with regard to Edinburgh, in which it all came out in a very clear manner. The Treasurer of that city calculated that he would have £33,000 to deal with this year—that is for the coming year and the current half-year, and on that he calculated that he would be able to reduce the rates by 3d. in the £. What benefit would that confer on the ratepayers? Forty per cent. would have 2s. 6d. each in their pockets; 28 per cent. would have their burdens lightened by sums varying from 2s. 6d. to 5s.; 19 per cent. would have sums varying from 5s. to 12s. 6d.; and 13 per cent. would absorb in varying proportions more than one-half of the entire grant. That is to say that 13 per cent. of the population, and they the richest and best able to bear rates, would receive the greatest relief. It seems to me, Sir, that that calculation absolutely condemns the proposal of the Government.

There is one point in regard to this fund on which we shall all agree: it ought not to be stereotyped. The Bill fixes it at £265,000, being a certain proportion to the amount granted to England. Now, if there is one thing more certain than another, it is that the charge for free education in England will increase, and we should take care that Scotland has her fair share of that increase.

The amount will fluctuate each year according to the fluctuation of the corresponding amount for England.

That will remove and explain some difficulties. It seems to me that inside the division made by the Government between the claims of rates and education there will be other divisions—between Municipal and County Councils and Local Boards, in respect to the amount to be devoted to the local rates. There will be a great disappointment among these bodies at the fact that in future years they will receive less than in the present year. The Lord Advocate did not say who were to be the residuary legatees of this fund, and obtain anything which is over the exact figures he specified.

That would go to increase the£175,000 in relief of local rates.

That ought to go a good way in satisfying the Town and County Councils. It is the Municipal and County Council rates which need relief more than those imposed by Parochial Boards; the latter in respect to the general poor rate are diminishing positively and more rapidly as valuation increases. It is proposed to distribute this money according to valuation; but the result will be that the rates in counties will be diminished three times as much as in the boroughs. The assessment in counties is almost three times as great as in the towns, and the population in the towns is nearly three times as great as that in the counties. In regard to the money devoted to education a question will arise between Universities and Schools. I do not say anything against the claims of the Universities to£20,000, yet as they are, to a large extent, national institutions, a share of that money should come from the general fund of the country, and not from that specially for Scotland. I cannot agree with the hon. right Member for Bridgeton in his attack on the Elective Bodies who had been dealing with the schools and making the best of them fee schools. I have been round looking in England and Scotland at the best schools I could find, and I must say that the equipment of the school I saw at Govan was better than any of those I saw. The hon. Member for South Lanarkshire said that this scheme would be of no use to the country. It is of the utmost importance that in any scheme or secondary education special care should be taken to make it apply to rural districts as well as to the towns. I think it might be done by developing the higher branches of study in the schools. I feel that to some extent we ought to have local work in the administration of this money, something corresponding to the case of Welsh Intermediate Education, though I agree with the control being to a great extent in the hands of the Scotch Education Department. In a general way it seems to me that the Government may be very well satisfied with the reception accorded to their scheme. It has been a very difficult task indeed to satisfy all the claims on this fund; but it will be a great blessing to hon. Members living in Scotland to have an Act passed which will save us from the continual and inconsistent claimants from all sides.

I was inclined, when the Lord Advocate introduced the Bill to congratulate him on inaugurating his representation of the Government in Scotch affairs by introducing a Bill which would give a large gift of money to Scotland. But since I have listened to the debate and seen how much diversity of opinion exists among Scotch Members, how much work there is before us before we get rid of the allocation of the money, I am not sure that I can make that congratulation. There is something very peculiar in the way in which the question comes before us. As a rule Bills of this kind would be framed with a view of providing for an object which everybody desired, and that we should go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him to provide the money. But here we reverse the order. We, having a sum of money thrown at our heads which has not been disposed of, have to find some way of disposing of it. This is a grant in aid of local taxation which has never been asked for by Scotland. It will be recollected that the question was brought up by English County Members on account of the undue pressure of the rates upon them, and they called on the Government to relieve the pressure. In those debates I do not think there was any indication of a similar demand on the part of the Scotch Members. However, something has been done to relieve the rates in England, and an equivalent is given to Scotland. I believe I may say with some confidence that there does not exist among the people of Scotland a desire for a relief of the rates—at any rate it does not exist outside of Glasgow. The Town Council of the city I represent is in favour of the proposal, and the Parochial Boards will be glad to get the money, but l do not believe that they represent the opinion of the mass of the people of Scotland. If we were to take a plébiscite of the boroughs of Scotland as to the disposition of the money, we should have an overwhelming majority against expending it in relief of rates. I believe the reason of that is that the relief would not be to the majority of the ratepayers, but to a minority, because it would go to the pockets of the wealthier class. This money would have furnished an opportunity for conferring some great and permanent benefit on Scotland. It is a serious incidental evil in this case that the relief which appears to be given to the ratepayers by the grant from the central Exchequer will not be found, in the long run, a standing benefit to them, because it is generally found that instead of producing a diminished charge on the ratepayers it only produces a somewhat larger expenditure, and therefore I do not believe that the benefit to be derived from the grant to Parochial Boards, for instance, will be so great as the Government appeal to expect; it will be felt only to the extent of 50 or 60 par cent. of the whole grant. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the great difference of opinion which has been shown to-night among Scotch Members as regards the distribution of the money furnishes an extremely effective argument against disposing of the money once for all by the scheme of the Government Bill. When we see all these differences between the Scotch Members with regard to the rates as between town and country, and with regard to the Universities and secondary education, there is surely a very strong case for not proceeding rashly and wholly in this matter; for giving the people of Scotland and their Representatives here opportunity to consider the matter in future years, and to see how the experiment works we are asked to try is succeeding, and to take the true constitutional view in money questions; of having an opportunity in each Session of considering the matter, and, if necessary, taking away some of the money from appropriations where it is not doing well, and giving it to some other purpose. When we come to the Second Reading I hope the Government will see the force of the argument used at the beginning of the Debate, and say that this shall only be done by Bill for one year. On the question of secondary education we hope also to have, not a suggestion that this sum of £60,000 should be applied according to the goodwill of the Scotch Education Department in pursuance of Minutes framed by that Department, but a real scheme for the reform and extension of secondary education. We have not heard from the Lord Advocate the intentions of the Government in the matter of secondary education, and we ask that some inquiry shall be held on the matter, or the mind of Scotland consulted during the Recess. There has been some discussion amongst the teachers, but the view of Scotland, as a whole, has not been troubled on the question, and we are asked to vote this money without any idea as to how the Scotch Education Department may deal with it. I agree that there is now a great opportunity to re-develop secondary education, which is the weak point in our Scotch education. We feel that this sum of £60,000 should be taken to put secondary education on its feet. One hon. Member referred to the fact that, though we have large educational en- dowments in Scotland, they are so tied up by local restrictions that we cannot dispose of them in places where they are most needed. The example of Wales is very much in point. The Endowed School Commissioners have re-distributed school endowments, and have met with much opposition, but if you give power over the local endowments to Local Authorities that experience does not occur. Proposals for the re-distribution of endowments which would not be listened to if they came from the Charity Commissioners have been accepted and carried through, with little friction, when they came from the County Council. I think the same would be the case in Scotland if we created County Authorities to deal with the question of secondary education. I believe you would be acting entirely in accord with Scotch opinion if you were to endeavour to create a Scotch Local Authority to deal with the matter. If we let this £60,000 now slip through our fingers and give it away as some piece of patronage, to be disposed of by the Scotch Education Department, we lose the chance of establishing a truly national system of secondary education, and that is another reason why I hope the Bill will not be accepted as a final settlement of the question, but that the House will insist on retaining in its hands the control of this fund, and will insist on revising its application in the light of the experience of a year or two.