In regard to this Bill, I, on behalf of the London County Council, have to say that some clauses which I understood were agreed to have been accidentally omitted; but I am assured by the promoters that they will be considered in another place, and, accepting this assurance, I offer no opposition to this proposal.

If the objection has reference to the notice of a new clause "As to Sewage of West Ham," standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Fulton), I think, Sir, you will rule that it is not in Order; and under the circumstances, and at this period of the Session, I hope the Bill will now be allowed to go through.

The new clause, of which notice has been given, is quite irrelevant to the Bill, and cannot be moved.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Dundalk Chamber of Commerce have suggested the suitability of the Red Barns range, near Dundalk, as a military range for the new magazine rifle; and whether, considering the convenient situation of Dundalk, the exceptional railway and steamboat services, and easy communication with all parts of the country, the War Office will adopt the suggestion?

I am not aware of any communication from the Chamber of Commerce of Dundalk relative to the Red Barns rifle range. The present Red Barns range answers very satisfactorily for military purposes, and no necessity is felt for increasing it. I shall be very glad to consider any representations on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been the usual custom to give one-third of the grants for education to the assistant teachers; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government would recommend an additional grant of £70,000 to enable the Commissioners of National Education to pursue their usual rule of distribution?

The Commissioners of National Education report that it has not been the custom to make any such proportional distribution of the grants to assistant teachers as is indicated in the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Martin O'Donnell, at the date of his enlistment in the Connaught Rangers at Galway, was under the prescribed age for recruits; and whether, having regard to the fact that this young lad of seventeen years of age is the only support of a widowed mother, who has eight other young children, he will order O'Donnell's discharge?

Martin O'Donnell enlisted last February, and gave his age as eighteen years. He is five feet nine inches high, weighs one hundred and forty-five pounds, and has a chest measurement of thirty-five inches. An application for his discharge was made, but as he was well over the standard measurement the general officer commanding in Ireland did not feel justified in permitting it; a further reason was alleged that he is the sole support of his mother, and on this subject I am making further inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the continued increase of the emigration from Continental Europe to the United Kingdom, amounting last month to 22,295 persons, an addition of 8,868 over the same month in 1891, of whom 3,793, or 1,215 more than last year, had no intention of endeavouring to enter the United States; and if he has observed that while May, 1891, brought only 166 aliens to Hull and Grimsby, 674 landed last month at these ports of the manufacturing districts of Yorkshire and Lancashire, notwithstanding the serious depression and lack of employment for the home population in the hardware and textile industries; and if he is now able to name a day when the contemplated measure on the subject of this foreign invasion will be introduced, having regard to the fact that unless it is dealt with in this Parliament it must continue unchecked throughout the winter?

Yes, Sir. The figures quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend correctly give the number of immigrants who were actually stated to be en route to America; but I have reason to think that many of these aliens subsequently leave this country. Of the 674 aliens who landed at Hull and Grimsby in May, 1892, 186 were seamen. My hon. Friend will find that the increased immigration for the whole of this year comes mainly from Gothenburg, Christiania, and other ports, and not from Hamburg, which is the port whence the destitute aliens are likely to come. Hamburg has this year sent 5,993 immigrants more than in the corresponding period last year—a number not sufficient to cause alarm or to constitute a case of immediate urgency. I am not able to name a day for the introduction of the measure dealing with this subject.

Have any steps been taken to ascertain how many of these immigrants were the descendants of British parents?

No, I am not aware of that.

When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of those who are en route for America, how does he draw the distinction? Are these persons required to show their through tickets?

Yes, that is so. Those having through tickets are described as being en route for America, and others not having through tickets leave for destinations unknown.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Volunteer Corps whose inspection have been ordered for the period between the receipt of the writ and the election in a constituency may be allowed to parade, having regard to the inconvenience and expense of postponement, provided that such date is not the day of the poll, and particularly if musketry practice may be allowed to continue?

The existing regulation—Article 377 of the Volunteer Regulations—is intended to prevent commanding officers from assembling their regiments during the period between the receipt of the writ and the election. But if an inspection or a camp is arranged with the authority of the War Office, the fact that it falls within the period indicated will not bring it within the regulation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if any record is kept by the commanding officers of Volunteer regiments as to the usual occupation of men joining; and if he can state the number of officers deficient of the proper complement in the entire force, and if any means are being taken to supply such deficiency?

The muster-roll book of a Volunteer corps contains a column in which the occupation of a Volunteer at the time of joining is shown. There are at present 1,579 officers deficient in the Volunteer Force; and I have already stated by what means it is hoped to make the Service more attractive.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether Her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests have recently sold or leased the foreshores, or any portion of the foreshores, of Loch Sween; if so, to whom and on what terms; and if the Commissioners have had regard to the undertaking of the Government that sales of such Crown rights would not be made?

(who replied): No sale or lease of any portion of the foreshores of Loch Sween has been recently made. In June, 1891, the Board of Trade granted to Colonel Malcolm, M.P., and Major Campbell, the undertakers of an oyster fishery in Loch Sween, established by a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament in May, 1891, a lease of the Crown rights in the soil comprised in the fishery—about four thousand acres—below water mark. The lease will be valid during the time the Order is in force, but not longer than for sixty years; and the annual rent is for the first three years £3, for the next six years £7, and for the remainder of the term £12. I am not aware of the undertaking to which the hon. Member refers, but the Fishery Order established by Parliament could not be efficiently worked without full possession of, and control over, the soil of the area of the fishery.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the rank of medical officers, mentioned in Article 267A of the recent Royal Warrant, as carrying "precedence and other advantages indicated by the military portion of the title," has been infringed by a recent ruling of the Commander-in-Chief of the Bombay Army, relative to the position, at mess, of medical officers organically belonging to native regiments in India, in which it is declared that the senior combatant officer present takes military precedence on all occasions; and, if such ruling be valid, what is the precise nature and scope of the "precedence" set forth in the Article quoted of the Royal Warrant?

The Secretary of State has not seen the ruling referred to; but such ruling would be in accordance with paragraph 66, Section 7, of the Queen's Regulations for the Army. The latter part of the question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for War.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what inducements, if any, are held out to the junior officers of the Navy to acquire foreign languages, and if periodical examinations are held; and if he is aware that French officers who visited England last year expressed surprise at the deficiency in this respect of the English naval officers?

The Admiralty attach great importance to the knowledge of French and other foreign languages, and have in the last few years done much to encourage its acquisition by naval officers. In the competitive entrance examination for the training ship "Britannia," 250 marks are allotted to French out of the total 1,150 marks allowed for the compulsory subjects. A naval cadet receives instruction in French throughout the four terms of his course in the "Britannia," and twice a year prizes are awarded for proficiency in that language. Every year junior officers afloat are examined in French and other subjects, at which certain prizes are offered for special attainments in foreign languages. Arrangements have been made to secure the services of French teachers for the junior officers of certain large ships, when lying for considerable periods in certain foreign ports, and also those naval officers who are interpreters receive remuneration for teaching junior officers. In addition various inducements are offered to naval officers to qualify themselves in foreign languages, after they cease to be junior officers, such as extra pay as interpreters and opportunities of studying on full pay abroad.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the surveyor for the Northern District of Ireland refused to forward a Petition from the postal staff of the Belfast office because the Petition was a printed one; whether there is any rule which directs that Petitions should be in manuscript; and whether any English surveyor has refused to forward a similar Petition on the same ground?

I am informed that the surveyor refused to forward a Petition on the ground that it was a printed one; but on being again asked to forward it he referred to Dublin and was told he might do so. There is no rule in the Post Office prescribing that petitions should be in manuscript, though there might be some reason in one. No English surveyor, so far as is known, has refused a Petition on the same ground.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the commencing salaries of Civil Service writers, who have been recently promoted to abstractorships, assistant clerkships, &c., were calculated upon their average earnings for the previous twelve months; and, if so, whether he will direct that all Civil Service writers who have been promoted to similar appointments within the past year be granted the same terms?

I am not aware that the commencing salaries of copyists appointed to abstractorships and similar places have been calculated on their average earnings for the previous twelve months. The pay of these posts is fixed in each case upon consideration of the circumstances, and I see no reason for laying down any general rule in the matter.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that, although the Regulation 10 (d) of the Science and Art Directory states that—

"Graduates of any University of the United Kingdom, whose degrees cover the subjects they propose to teach,"

The Department cannot consider a graduate of Aberdeen University qualified to earn payment on results in physiography without further examination, because, according to the calendar of that University, chemistry, magnetism, electricity, and physical astronomy are not included in the junior class, which is the only one imperative for the degree. A qualification is never given to teach the elementary stage alone, and it would be undesirable to do so for obvious reasons. There is no special exception in the case of Aberdeen University. The degrees of several other Universities do not cover the subject, and are open to like disadvantage.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the promised consideration of the subject of reduction of patent fees in the cases of persons who have already applied for and obtained patents has yet resulted in any decision?

In the cases of persons who have already applied for and obtained patents the payments will be reduced in accordance with the new scale as soon as it comes into operation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the new scale will come into operation?

I cannot give the exact date. Perhaps the hon. Member will ask me to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the cow of a labourer named Michael Traynor, of Creerylake, near Carrickmacross, County Monaghan, was seized on the 4th instant by a bailiff named Henry Stubs when trespassing on an evicted farm on the Shirely Estate and impounded, and that Stubs detained the animal for three days, and charged the owner £3 before releasing it; and what was the charge of £3 for, and was it a legal charge?

I have no official cognizance of the subject matter of this question, but I understand the seizure referred to was made by a sheriff's bailiff in respect of a sum of £3 due for county cess, and that on the payment of this sum by Traynor the animal was released.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it has been brought to his knowledge that, on the 5th February last, Catherine O'Toole, a weaver, had one of her eyes destroyed by a blow from the shuttle of a loom beside where she was working in the weaving factory of the Belfast Flax Spinning and Weaving Company (Limited), Waterford Street, Belfast; that another weaver, named Lizzie Boyd, had one of her eyes destroyed in the same way in the weaving factory of the York Street Spinning Company (Limited), Belfast, on the 3rd May; were those injuries caused by the neglect of the employers or their superintendents to have suitable screens erected at each end of the loom so as to prevent the shuttle flying out in case of accident; and whether the Government, having regard to the frequency of such accidents, will cause to be appointed, as Inspector of Factories in Belfast, a tenter or other person recommended by the Belfast Trades Council, and having practical knowledge and experience of the working of such looms?

Yes, Sir, I have received a Report from the Inspector as to both these accidents. I am informed by him that in each case the loom was protected by a guard. As to the cause of the accidents I ought not to express an opinion, as I understand that proceedings are pending under the Employers' Liability Act. With regard to the last paragraph of the question, I may say that the Inspector in whose district these accidents occurred had, prior to his appointment, practical knowledge as a weaver from early life, and is fully acquainted with looms and weaving machinery.

Having regard to the great importance of this question to trade in Belfast, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration the appointment of an Assistant Inspector there, recommended by the Trades Council; and I may mention that the Council entertain a strong opinion on this subject?

I have had no complaint of inefficient inspection, and I may remind the hon. Member that in regard to the shuttles no sufficient guard has yet been discovered.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether India is to be represented at the Chicago Exhibition; and, if so, whether the Government of India proposes to give a grant in aid?

After very careful consideration the Government of India have come to the conclusion, in which they have the support of all the Indian Chambers of Commerce, that it is not necessary that India should be officially represented at Chicago, either directly or through the British Commission; or that any grant in aid should be made. The Government is, however, supporting the Calcutta Tea Association in the establishment of an Indian section at the Exhibition.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether since 1890 the agricultural statistics have been furnished by the officers of Excise without extra remuneration; and whether it is contemplated to remove the work to another Department, or to vote an extra sum to the Excise Department for the performance of these duties?

In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question, I beg to refer him to several answers which I have recently given on the subject. No change in the system is at present in contemplation.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General the exact date and hour of the arrival of the Orient steamship "Orotava" at Naples last week, at what hour the mails left Naples for London, and the cause of the delay in their arrival here; whether he is aware that this steamship, the "Orotava," arrived at Plymouth from Adelaide on Tuesday last, the 7th instant, one day before the Australian mails were due overland from Naples; and whether he has inquired what sum of money the Peninsular and Oriental and Orient Companies would require to bring the Australian mails all the way by sea under the present contract time?

The "Orotava" reached Naples on the 1st, being four days in advance of contract time; the mails were forwarded by the first train and reached London at 6 p.m. on the 4th, having been delayed, as reported, by the heating of an axle of the train in Italy. The "Orotava" reached Plymouth on the 7th. I have not inquired for what additional payment the companies would accelerate their contract service by three or four days and continue it to an English port. It would doubtless be heavy.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when an official reply will be sent to the Petition of the Supervisors, Officers, and Assistants of Inland Revenue, forwarded to the Board of Inland Revenue for transmission to the Treasury on 27th May, 1891?

In reply to this question I can only refer to the answer given on the 3rd instant.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if the Memorial, forwarded in February last by the auxiliary postmen, has reached his hands; and, if so, when a reply to it may be expected; and if it is a fact that the auxiliary postmen have not participated in the benefits granted recently to the established postmen; that they have to work as hard as the established postmen, while they are paid far less; that no allowance is made to them for stripes, or for boots, or Sickness, or medical attendance; that they are given no annual leave, or extra pay for work on Sundays and bank holidays; and that no pension is given to them, no matter how long they may serve?

The Memorial referred to has been received. Extensive inquiries, however, had been already commenced and are still being made respecting the rates of payment for auxiliary duties throughout the country, and until these are completed it will not be practicable to send a reply. The benefits mentioned as having been recently granted were specially authorised for the regular established postmen, who perform the full duties and give their whole time to the service. Auxiliary postmen perform shorter duties, and do not give their whole time to the service; indeed, it is a condition of employment that an auxiliary postman should have another occupation as well. It is not the fact, therefore, that they work as hard as the established postmen, but the reverse. When qualified, however, they usually succeed to vacancies in the establishment in their turn.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a letter in the Pall Mail Gazette of 10th June, from Mr. W. S. Caine, stating that Mr. Oudh Behari Lal, of Allahabad, who had been nominated for a Government appointment in the North-West Provinces, was refused the appointment by the chief of the department, because he had publicly advocated the views of the Indian National Congress, and was the honorary secretary of the Allahabad branch of the Anglo-Indian Temperance Association; and whether it is the intention of the Government of India to disqualify for Government service those Indians who identify themselves with the Congress and Temperance movements?

The Secretary of State has seen Mr. Caine's letter, but has no further information on the subject. There is no such intention as that spoken of in paragraph 2, so long as applicants for official employment, whether natives or Europeans, do not identify themselves with movements of the nature of those mentioned in a manner which would be inconsistent with the proper discharge of official duties.

Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiry into the case mentioned in the letter?

The question and my answer to it will be sent out to India, and attention will thus be drawn to it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a street of cottages situated outside of Mountjoy Prison and tenanted by the officers of that establishment is enclosed at either end by massive iron gates, that these gates are locked by the Governor's orders every night at 10.30, and the gas in street and houses shut off, and that any officers or members of their families who happen to be out after that hour are excluded from their homes for the night; whether he is aware that this rule is regarded as a great hardship by the officers who are on duty within the prison from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., and are then practically imprisoned in their own homes under this rule for the remainder of the twenty-four hours; and if he will consider whether these restrictions might be abolished?

The street of cottages occupied by Mountjoy Prison officers, and which is part of the prison premises, is not, as the hon. Member seems to suppose, inclosed by massive iron gates, but is separated from the public street by a low light-barred gate, and has a low wooden gate adjoining the prison. These gates are locked at 10.30 at night for the safety of the premises, and the gas, except when specially permitted to remain, is turned off after that hour. No one need be excluded from his home for the night, as a key remains with the occupant of the cottage adjoining the gate for the use of the residents after 10.30 o'clock if required.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the object of closing the gates if they are opened when required? The premises are outside the prison walls. Why not let the people go in and out as they like?

As a matter of safety, I suppose. I know no other reason.

Safety for whom?

For the occupiers.

They can take care of themselves.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made with the determination of the schedule of maximum rates and charges of the Birmingham Canal; and whether the schedule can be dealt with by Parliament next year?

had notice of the following question: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether legislation in regard to the rates and tolls of Canal Companies is so far advanced that it is likely to be brought before Parliament in this or the next Session?

Perhaps the hon. Member for Huntingdon will allow me to answer his question at the same time. Although much progress has been made with the inquiry into the schedules of rates and tolls of the six principal Canal Companies, including the Birmingham Canal, it will not be possible that the inquiry can be so advanced as to enable a Report to be presented within the probable length of the present Session. Under these circumstances, as the law stands, it is doubtful whether legislation could be introduced next Session, but, looking to the advance which has been made in the knowledge of rates, I think the Board of Trade should now be empowered to introduce a Provisional Order at any time after they have presented a Report to Parliament, and I propose to introduce a short Bill of one clause to give effect to this suggestion. Should this Bill become law, Provisional Orders could probably be introduced next year.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Highland Railway Company have offered to construct, work, and maintain a line of railway from Culrain to Lochinver, on the west coast of Sutherland, at a cost of £250,000, on condition that the Treasury will guarantee a dividend of three per cent. for thirty years; whether the Duke of Sutherland has offered to give the necessary land as his share of the stock of the proposed railway; whether the Government intend to take advantage of this offer, and give the required guarantee; and whether, in the case of the Mallaig Railway, the Government had such, or any, facilities of a local character offered them?

Offers, which are in substance correctly described in the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's question, have been made to the Government. The proposals in connection with this and other lines are under consideration. In the case of the Mallaig line, the negotiations for which are nearly completed, certain local facilities are to be given, and the local guarantees required by the Government are forthcoming.

Can the right, hon. Gentleman say what these local guarantees are?

I could not describe them off-hand, but the position is such that no risk whatever is involved to the Government. If the hon. Member wishes for detailed information, perhaps he will repeat his question to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the War Department has sold, lent, or given any arms or ammunition to the Imperial British East Africa Company, or if any officer has inspected arms or ammunition for the East Africa Company?

The Company have been allowed to purchase some rifles and carbines, with ammunition for them; but inspections have not been made on their behalf.

I beg to ask the Attorney General if the Charter of the Imperial British East Africa Company confers on them the power of conferring military commissions?

The Charter of the Imperial British East Africa Company does not confer any power of conferring military commissions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will now appoint the Committee of the House of Commons that he promised in this House on the 25th June, 1891, to investigate the cases of alleged grievances of certain purchase officers of the Army, a classification of their cases, drawn up in view of that pledge, having been under his consideration for a considerable period?

I am, of course, ready to do what I have already indicated. I have always declined to re-open the principles upon which the purchase system was abolished, and which were fully considered and settled at the time; but I added that, if there appeared to be any class of cases as to which there was substantial doubt as to the mode in which these principles have been carried out, I should be ready to agree to refer it to a Select Committee. My hon. and gallant Friend has submitted a number of cases setting forth alleged grievances, many of which simply indicate a desire to re-open the whole purchase question. I have replied to him very fully. It will now be for him and his friends to show whether in the case of any of these classes a reasonable case, within the lines above indicated, can still be put forward.

Does the right hon. Gentleman repudiate his promise to refer the grievances of these officers to a Committee of this House?

No, I entirely adhere to it; but I decline altogether to allow the principle on which purchase was abolished to be re-opened. I can only consent to the class of cases I have mentioned being investigated.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if so, what, steps have been and are being taken to provide labourers cottages and allotments for labourers in and around the village of Kill, County Kildare; whether the majority of houses occupied by labourers have been condemned by Sanitary Authorities for years past as unsanitary and incommodious; and whether he is aware that the main opposition to allotments and erection of such cottages proceeded from the local landowner; and, if so, whether steps will be immediately taken to provide the required plots and cottages?

The Guardians of the Naas Union have been authorised to provide one hundred and twenty-three cottages. Of these ten are in the Kill Electoral Division. The Local Government Board are not aware whether the majority of the existing dwellings in the village have been condemned, or whether the case is as stated in the last paragraph. But it is to be observed that lands can be compulsorily acquired for the purposes of the Act where the circumstances warrant it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local landowner, a noble Lord, is the main impediment to labourers getting their dwellings?

No, I have not heard that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman cause an inquiry to be made, and will he send a Local Government Inspector to insure these dwellings being provided, they having been pressed for during the last eighteen months?

There is no power on the part of a local landlord or anybody else to stand in the way. The Board of Guardians can frame a scheme and go with it to the Local Government Board.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there are any, and, if so, how many cottages built in the Ballyvaughan Union, County Clare, under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; whether such cottages are urgently needed in the Union; and whether any, and, if so, what steps the Government propose taking to remedy the alleged want?

No cottages have been built in the Ballyvaughan Union under the Labourers Acts. It appears that some time ago the Guardians had under consideration the question of erecting such cottages, but did not proceed further with the matter. If there is any necessity for such cottages, it is open to the ratepayers or the labourers interested to bring the subject again before the Guardians.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many cottages have been provided under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts with allotments in the Counties of Armagh, Fermanagh, and Antrim, respectively, and how much land granted in allotments?

No labourers cottages have been authorised in the Counties of Armagh and Fermanagh. In the County Antrim eighteen cottages have been authorised in the Ballymena Union, and twelve of these have been built. The quantity of land taken for each of these houses is half an acre. Eight houses have also been sanctioned for the Ballycastle Union. The proposed allotment for each of these houses, including the site, is two roods and five perches.

Will it be possible, in new schemes promoted in County Antrim, to get land to the extent of one acre?

I do not think it would be possible to secure that, but as the hon. Member knows an Act has been passed empowering the Guardians to allow that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken to obtain a site for a cottage under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts in the parish of Doneraile, County Cork, near Oldcourt graveyard, and if he is aware that a site was chosen by the dispensary committee, approved by the engineer to the Union, but obstructed by a local tenant farmer; and whether, in view of the fact that the provision of this cottage has been repeatedly asked for by the people of the locality, the Local Government Board will take steps to settle the matter?

The site first selected for the proposed cottage referred to appears to have been objected to by the occupier of the land on the ground that the site was demesne land. The Guardians have now before them a scheme which includes a representation for a site for this cottage about one hundred yards distant from the former proposed one.

Can no pressure be brought to bear—no steps taken—to meet this urgent want?

I have already said a scheme is before the Board of Guardians to secure a site one hundred yards distant from that mentioned in the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken in the Mallow Union to carry out Scheme 6 under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; and, if not, for what reasons?

The preliminary proceedings of the Mallow Board of Guardians in connection with the Scheme No. 6 referred to were informal. This was explained to the Guardians by the Local Government Board, and it is understood that the houses proposed in that scheme will be included in a further scheme the Guardians are now framing.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Local Government Board will reconsider their decision as regards the fifth scheme for labourers cottages in the Mallow Union; whether the Guardians of the Union received notice of the inquiry into the said scheme; whether Colonel Spaight, Local Government Inspector, refused to adjourn the inquiry when the Guardians did not attend; and whether the proceedings under this scheme cost the Union upwards of £200?

The matter referred to in this question was disposed of two years ago, and the Local Government Board are not aware of any reason for re-opening it. Public notice was given of the proposed local inquiry, and it was specially pointed out to the Guardians that they should be prepared to produce at the inquiry the necessary evidence in support of the scheme. Nearly all the Guardians absented themselves, but the other parties to the case being duly in attendance, in pursuance of the notice, the Local Government Inspector did not feel himself in a position to adjourn the inquiry. The Local Government Board have no information as to the cost incurred by the Guardians in connection with this scheme.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has observed that the Pembroke Township (Dublin) Commissioners have passed a resolution protesting that there are no funds at their disposal for the purpose of defraying the cost of compulsory education in the township; whether he is aware that the proposal to charge upon the ratepayers of Irish towns the cost of a system imposed upon them without franchise to the inhabitants or discretion to the Local Authorities, meets with emphatic disapproval; and whether he has any reason to anticipate that the compulsory system will be worked and paid for in those cities and towns in which the Local Authorities have already protested against the continued exclusion of the schools of the Christian Brothers from the primary system and the free education scheme? I also wish to repeat the question I put the other day whether right hon. Gentleman has considered the statement submitted to him by the Mayor of Waterford, on 14th April, on behalf of several Municipal Corporations in Ireland representing that the Education Bill, as it stands, will do violence to the religious convictions of the people, and whether he will grant the interview asked for on behalf of those Corporations?

First, with regard to the question on the Paper, I believe it is true that the Pembroke Township Commissioners did pass a resolution somewhat in the form stated in the question. I have been advised, how- ever, that the Bill as drawn would confer upon them power to levy a rate, but if there is any doubt about that it is very easy, by putting a couple of additional words in the clause in Committee, to make it perfectly clear that they have the power. With regard to the other questions, I did receive a communication from the Mayor of Waterford, who stated that he represented a good many Corporations of Ireland in making such a protest. I do not agree with the view expressed by these bodies, nor do I agree that there would be any difficulty in carrying the law into effect.

Has the right hon. Gentleman yet given the Irish Corporations, who will have to work this Act if it passes, that interview for which they asked in March last, and for which they have been pressing ever since; or does he propose to proceed with the Bill without giving these bodies that interview?

Yes, I do not think it necessary to delay the Bill in order to afford that interview. I have been in communication by correspondence with them, and I have expressed my views in answer to their Memorial. I have also stated that if they still desired to have an interview I would afford them such an opportunity, but I could not hold out any hope that even if the interview took place that the opinion I have already expressed could be altered as regards the Christian Brothers' Schools.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the contract for Government work in the painting trade in Dublin is presently to be determined for a period of three years; and whether the Board of Works will take care, in framing the advertisements and conditions relating to this contract, to embody the terms laid down in the recent Resolution of this House, especially with regard to fair wages, in order to secure that the contract shall be executed in accordance with those terms?

The contract for Government work in the painting trade in Dublin referred to in the ques- tion will not be made until November of the present year. The Board of Works have not yet framed the conditions of the contract, but when doing so they will not lose sight of the Resolution of the House referred to.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can inform the House how many boats and the number of people they would accommodate were carried by the steamer "Albert Edward" at the time of the recent collision on the passage from Boulogne to Folkestone; and how many passengers were on board the steamer at the time of the collision?

I understand that, on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers, the "Albert Edward" carried four boats, capable of accommodating seventy-three persons, in addition to life belts and life buoys for four hundred and sixteen persons. Life-saving appliances were therefore supplied for four hundred and eighty-nine persons, whereas those on board consisted of three hundred and sixty passengers and a crew of twenty-three.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has come to the knowledge of the Irish Fishery Inspectors that wholesale destruction of salmon fry and eel fry is going on in the Shannon and its tributaries at Limerick, and that nothing is being done to protect the fry by the Limerick Fisheries Board or their staff; and whether he can yet fix a date for the promised inquiry into the condition of the Limerick fisheries?

It appears to have been alleged that there has been a destruction of salmon fry and eel fry in the ponds or reservoirs of the Limerick Water Works. The Inspectors of Irish fisheries have called for a Report in the matter.

Why has there been this long delay?

I have already stated in answer to a question that the delay is in consequence of the fact that at present we have only two Fishery Inspectors, and that they have been called upon to perform very arduous duties; but I hope we are now within a very short time of having the question settled by the appointment of a third Fishery Inspector.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can explain how Mr. W. Doveton Smyth, who defended two men named William Norman, alias Lynch, and William Ansburgh, who were charged before London Magistrates on the 6th and 12th April, 1883, with connection with dynamite conspiracies, got access to those prisoners, by whom was he engaged to defend them, and whether the cost of their defence by Mr. Smyth was paid by the Crown; and, if so, out of what fund; whether Mr. Smyth got access to Dr. Gallagher or any of the other prisoners except Norman and Ansburgh; and whether they were afforded opportunities for engaging a solicitor to represent them at the Police Court on the dates when Norman and Ansburgh were represented by Mr. Smyth?

Mr. Doveton Smyth had access to Norman and Ansburgh at their own request. Norman was admitted as Queen's evidence and was not tried, and Ansburgh was acquitted. There is no reason to believe that the cost of the prisoners' defence was paid by the Government of the day. Mr. Smyth in the first instance had access to Gallagher as his solicitor at that prisoner's request, but subsequently Mr. Smyth retired from the defence, as Gallagher applied to be defended by Mr. de Tracy Gould and Mr. Morris. Mr. Smyth had access to the prisoner Wilson, but I am informed, as in the other cases, at the prisoner's request. The prisoners were both afforded every opportunity at the Police Court and while awaiting trial to engage any solicitor whom they pleased to represent them.

How could Norman, who had never been in London before, have known to ask for Mr. Smyth?

I am afraid I cannot give a definite answer to that question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government will take care that at the Dissolution the Writs reach the Returning Officers of boroughs on such a day that it shall be possible for them to fix the election on a Saturday?

If the hon. Member will allow me, I shall answer his question when I make my promised statement on Public Business to the House.

I beg to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he has come to any decision as to Mr. Pelham's Report on the proposed rifle range at the New Forest?

I have considered Mr. Pelham's Report on the New Forest range, and I have come to the conclusion, independently of any other consideration, that the peculiar circumstances of the New Forest render it practically impossible to compensate the commoners without further legislative process. If, therefore, it should be decided to proceed in another year with any site for a range in the Forest it will be submitted in the ordinary way for Parliamentary sanction. In the meantime, I will cause further inquiry to be made as to any possible alternative sites which have been or may be suggested.

I am under an engagement to make a brief statement to the House with regard to the position of Public Business, and the prospects of proceeding rapidly towards the termina- tion of the Session. As the House is aware, we have already either passed, or are on the brink of passing, the following important Bills:—Small Holdings Bill, Education and Taxation (Scotland) Bill, Burgh Police (Scotland) Bill, India Councils Bill, Bank of England Remuneration Bill, and the Clergy Discipline Bill. These, I think, were all Bills mentioned in the Queen's Speech. There is another Bill mentioned in the Queen's Speech which, no doubt, may require some further consideration—I allude to the Irish Education Bill, which has been read a second time, but which still remains to be dealt with in Committee. Some conversation occurred across the floor of this House last Friday between the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) and myself, but nothing that has occurred leaves me in doubt that that Bill also may be counted ultimately among the measures which we shall see passed during the present Session. It will be extremely disastrous, I think, if that were not so, because practically upon that Bill depends the passing of the Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of education in Ireland. Then, Sir, there remain two important Bills mentioned in the Queen's Speech which I should not wish the House to consider at this stage of our proceedings. These are the Irish Local Government Bill and the Private Bill Procedure Bill. The Irish Local Government Bill, as will be recollected, was passed on the Second Reading by a very large majority. I know—perhaps not in this House, but elsewhere—many persons formed from that majority a very confident expectation that the Bill would be finished. But I think it will be evident to everyone acquainted with our proceedings that a Bill of that kind, if it be strenuously opposed, is not one that can by any possibility be passed into law except after very prolonged discussion. The English Local Government Bill, although it was not opposed on the Second Reading, and although, on the whole, its provisions met with favour on both sides of the House, occupied an amount of time corresponding to six weeks before it passed the stages after the Second Reading of the Bill; and we are informed, I have no doubt rightly, that the Irish Local Government Bill will not receive such favourable treatment as the English Bill, and that six weeks would, I presume, be extended into eight or twelve weeks, and in these circumstances I feel it would be absolutely impossible to ask the House further to consider the question. With regard to the Private Bill Procedure Bill, that has not yet passed the Second Reading. It is a Bill which, although valuable and important, it is impossible to ask the House to accept without very full discussion, dealing as it does with some important prerogatives of this House, and it also must be abandoned. Now, Sir, I pass from those which I may describe as first-class measures to other measures which are important, but still cannot be placed in the same rank. We did a good deal of business on Friday, and cleared the Orders of a large number of non-contentious measures; but there still remain to be dealt with the following practically unopposed Bills. The Naval Knights of Windsor, Poor Law Schools (Ireland), Land Commission (Ireland), Civil Bill Courts (Ireland), and the Casual Wards Bill, which my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board is going to introduce, and which I believe will meet with very general approval in every quarter of the House. In addition to these, which are Government Bills, there are four Bills hitherto in charge of private Members which I propose to "star," following the suggestion thrown out the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). At his instance the Government entered into a pledge to oppose after twelve o'clock the passage of any private Member's Bill; but as a set-off against that, and as a means of to a certain extent enabling the House to deal with private Members' proposals which were generally accepted, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should "star" certain Bills of importance. The Bills to which I propose to accord that special privilege are the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Bill, the Witnesses Protection Bill, the Coroners' Deputies Bill, and the Public Health Acts Amendment Bill. In addition to these Bills there are a certain number not yet before the House, but either of a formal character or the discussion of which is already proceeding in another place. There are the Fishery Board (Scotland) Bill, a Bill which I believe in principle is accepted by all parts of the House; the Canal Rates Bill, which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade proposes to introduce, so as to obviate certain difficulties that must arise by the premature termination of the Session, and the Bank Charter Bill. It is usual, when the Session is cut short by a Dissolution, to pass a measure to prevent the promoters of Private Bills from suffering pecuniary loss, or any greater loss of time than is absolutely necessary by the fact of the conclusion of the Session. We shall bring in as usual a Bill to enable the promoters of Private Bills to resume the proceedings which have to be prematurely cut short without repayment of the fees, and at the stage at which they were left during the present Session. In the same category of Bills of a more or less uncontroversial character which are not yet before the House I may mention the Local Loans Bill and the Statute Law Revision Bill. There is also a Bill for enabling my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland to expend in Ireland for the extermination of pleuro-pneumonia a sum of money allocated by Statute in England, but which is not required for English purposes. As the House may recollect, £160,000 a year was voted to the President of the Board of Agriculture for dealing with this disease. Through his efforts the disease has been practically stamped out in England. He has some funds available which are urgently required in Ireland, and I am sure the House will accept that proposal. There are two Colonial Bills of which I only heard to-day, but which are more or less of a pressing character. The first deals with the great calamity by which Mauritius has been visited. It is proposed, in accordance with precedents on similar melancholy occasions, to enable the Colony to borrow £600,000, with the privilege of a British guarantee. That would be, of course, an immense saving to the Colony, and would, I am informed, involve no danger to the Imperial Exchequer; and I think probably the House would feel some consideration is due to the inhabitants of this Colony, who have suffered so cruelly from this visitation. The other Colonial Bill deals with crofter emigration to British Columbia, £150,000 was guaranteed by the Treasury under the British Columbian Guarantee for the purpose of facilitating crofter emigration. That proposal was made some six months ago to the Colony. They have, however, for reasons with which I am not acquainted, reserved their final decision on the subject till a comparatively recent period; and I understand that within the next few days a gentleman will come over empowered by the Colony to deal with the Exchequer of this country. The British Columbian Parliament passed an Act, and I think it would be unfortunate if the whole of their trouble and the whole of our trouble should either be wasted or, at all events, that the fruition of our labours should be delayed for a twelve-month. That finishes the Bills which have yet to be brought before the attention of the House, and I think the House will agree that they are of an important and at the same time of a non-controversial character. The Telegraphs Bill, the Superannuation Bill, and the Criminal Evidence Bill are now before either a Select or a Grand Committee, and I have hopes—confident hopes—that all those Bills may pass into law. In addition to these I have to note the Military Lands Consolidation Bill, the East India Officers Bill, and the Public Elementary Schools Bill—and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson) reminds me that I ought to have mentioned the Galway Infirmary Bill. The Military Lands Bill, the East India Officers Bill, and the Public Elementary Schools Bill are measures which I should be unwilling to drop, but I cannot hope to pass them into law if any very great length of time is required for their discussion, or if they meet with any serious hostility. The Access to Mountains Bill, the House will remember, was brought in by the Government in consequence of a Resolution passed by this House on that subject. I am given to understand that the measure we have prepared meets with very little favour from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They think that the limitations and the safeguards we have introduced are of too stringent a character. I am bound to say that such further investigation as I have been able to give to the subject leads me to a somewhat opposite conclusion, and I am inclined to think that we have not sufficiently safeguarded certainly the rights which will be seriously menaced if the Bill passes into law in its present shape. I have therefore to recognise that a Bill which is thought by one Party to go too far and by another Party not to go far enough, is not a Bill which, at the present stage of our proceedings, is likely to pass into law. I think I have now gone through all the measures which we hope to pass; and I come, therefore, to the period which would be required to pass them, and upon that, of course, I can offer no confident prophecy. Much will depend upon the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) and his friends. No doubt some of the Bills are such as may very properly require some consideration by the whole of the House. I have also to recognise that we have to pass the whole of the Irish Estimates, that we have to pass the Report of a certain amount of Supply which we got on Friday, and the Report of the Supply which we have yet to get. We have also to consider that it is not merely the business which this House has to do, but the business which the House of Lords has to do must be taken into account before we can speak with confidence as to the special day of Dissolution. The Dissolution can only take place, of course, when the business has been completed by both Houses and the requisite Councils have been held which are necessary to give legal formality to this step. I am not very familiar with the process myself; but I understand that two Councils have to be held—one for the Prorogation, and the other for the Dissolution—and it is not always easy to find a day which will be convenient for holding those Councils to carry through these necessary proceedings. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stuart) asks me whether I can so fix the day that it shall be possible to have the election on a Saturday. I am no great adept at Election Law; but I think the hon. Gentleman will see that, as I am unable at present to fix a day at all, I cannot give a categorical answer to the question. I see this further difficulty in giving an answer. He requires me, on behalf of the Government, to say that, in our opinion, the election should not take place except on a Saturday. He requires me to say that, in the opinion of the Government, the returning officers should so use their discretion that the election must take place on a Saturday. No indication of that duty on the part of the returning officers has been given in the Act of Parliament, and I think it would be highly inexpedient if the Government were to declare that, in their opinion, the discretion of the returning officers should be used in such a way. I think, therefore, while the House will see that I am not in a position to say definitely within what twenty-four hours the Dissolution will take place, we may say, with some confidence, that it is very unlikely to take place before the end of the week beginning with Sunday, the 19th, and most unlikely to occur after the middle of the week beginning with the 26th. That leaves a very narrow margin of doubt. I hope the House will be satisfied with the statement I have made.

I have consulted with my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Londonderry (Mr. Justin McCarthy) as to the Irish Education Bill; and looking to the declaration which has been made to-day by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in regard to the Christian Brothers' Voluntary Schools, looking also to his contemptuous treatment of the Irish Public Bodies, which, during the past three months, have been in communication with him in reference to the Bill, and looking also to the failure of the least indication of his respecting the views of the Irish Members and of the Irish people, I have to give notice that the Irish Education Bill, in all its further stages, will receive the most strenuous opposition.

I beg to move for leave to introduce a Bill for making further provision respecting certain payments to the Banks of England and Ireland, and, availing myself of the privilege which is sometimes given, to make the shortest possible explanation of this Bill, I may remind the House that there are four positions in which the Bank of England stands to the Government. It is the issuing bank, giving a portion of the profits of note-issue to the Government; it is a creditor of the Government to the amount of eleven millions sterling; it manages the National Debt, and it is the banker of the Government and custodian of the public balances. The scheme which I have to propose leaves the arrangements between the State and the Bank of England as regards issue undisturbed, so that, if a future Parliament should think fit to make any changes in that respect, nothing in the present arrangements would have tied its hands. With regard to the amount of eleven millions which the Government owe to the Bank, the Bill proposes to reduce; the rate of interest from three to two and three-quarters per cent., by which an economy of £27,500 will be secured. As to the management of the Public Debt, there will be a change made in the payments, by which there will be a saving of £9,400. The charge of £3,000 for assessment of Government Stocks to the Income Tax will be no longer made by the Bank, so that on the management of the Public Debt there is a total saving of £12,400. In its capacity of custodian of public accounts the Bank will no longer make charges on the Government, which amount to £6,300; and will also make some concessions with regard to interest on deficiency advances, making a total saving of £9,300. There are some counter items, but the change will effect a total saving of about £45,700. The case of the Bank of Ireland has also been taken into consideration, and in regard to that the total saving is £7,800. On the whole arrangement, the total saving to the country is £53,500. Legislation will only be necessary with reference to the management of the National Debt and the interest on the Debt, because the arrangements with regard to other matters have been made by agreement with the Treasury. Hon. Members will see the exact particulars of the proposed change when the Bill is in their hands.

I beg to move that the Bill be re-committed in respect of Clause 2. The sum of £265,000 is given to Scotland as an equivalent for the ten shillings per head paid on the average attendance of children in England, and we find, on looking at the Estimates for this year, that there will be 567,000 children in Scotland requiring to be provided for. That means that we shall get £18,500 less than if we received ten shillings for every child attending school. If the Bill pass in its present form Scotland will therefore have only nine shillings and fourpence per head instead of ten shillings, as in England. This may seriously affect the School Boards in Scotland, and it may be necessary to increase the education rate. I can see no reason at all why we should not have ten shillings per head per child, as they have in England. If the Bill pass in its present form we shall lose £18,500 this year, and probably larger sums in future years.

It is the case, as the hon. Member has mentioned, that 567,000 children appear in the estimates for this year, but from that figure a certain deduction must be made in respect of children over fifteen years of age, because the average attendance of children in Scotland does not square with the average attendance in England. That, to a certain extent, reduces the magnitude of the objection stated by the hon. Member. I believe that in England about 32,000 children are deducted from the calculation on the ground that they are over fifteen years of age. The Scottish Education Department allow for a certain increase year by year, and I believe the increase allowed for this year is three and a half per cent. Last year the increase was unusually high; but according to experience of the past, the increase next year will be rather under than over the average, and if that is so it would very seriously affect the figures which the hon. Member has laid before the House. It cannot be taken as certain that the increase which appears in the estimates will be maintained. If the increase turns out to be less, and if the ten shillings per head is adopted, the difference will have to be surrendered. On the other hand, the English Education Department have only allowed for an increase of a little over two per cent. for this year, and if a Supplementary Estimate is rendered necessary the result will be that that Supplementary Estimate will go proportionately towards increasing the amount due to Scotland. That being so, I think the hon. Member may well leave the matter as it is. The figures which the hon. Member has laid before the House are not anything like sufficient to induce the Government to change the basis of calculation; and that calculation, so far as we can forecast the future, will not lead to the consequences which the hon. Member has shadowed forth. On this ground I would ask the hon. Member to be content with the protest he has made against the basis of calculation, and allow the Bill to be read a third time.

I must protest against Scotland being treated in this case as a separate nationality, instead of as an integral part of the United Kingdom. The proportions in which the three countries receive the grant are eighty per cent. for England, eleven per cent. for Scotland, and nine percent. for Ireland; and the Government are seeking to stereotype these percentages before they have demonstrated their correctness. The question which, of course, arises is: what is the amount which Scotland should receive? Hitherto Scotland has been treated as an integral part of the United Kingdom; but in this case, while ten shillings is allowed per head for the children attending school in England, Scotland is reminded that it is no longer part of the United Kingdom, and that its children are not to get ten shillings per head. If, however, ten shillings per head is given for the children in England, you ought in fairness to give ten shillings per head for the average attendance of children in Scotland. What is the effect of this policy of treating Scotland as a separate nationality? We lose £18,500. Even if a deduction is to be made for the children over fifteen years of age, we shall still lose £16,000 a year. I think we are entitled at least to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a great mistake in dividing the United Kingdom into three separate nationalities in this matter, and in giving to Scotland less than its proper proportion of the grant. There is no reason whatever why Scotland should not be treated as an integral part of the United Kingdom, and why it should not be allowed ten shillings per head in respect of the average attendance of children, instead of being defrauded to the extent of £16,000 a year.

I do not wish to lengthen the Debate at this stage. The facts of the case are perfectly simple and plain and do not think anyone could dispute the justice of the claim which we make on behalf of Scotland in regard to this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has set up, during the last two or three years, a fantastic method of dealing with these so-called international money payments, and in order to suit our system to this arrangement the sum to be given to Scotland is made to depend upon the number of children attending school in England. That in itself would be enough to condemn it; but beside that, we find, on looking into it, that our original suspicions are more than confirmed, and that we in Scotland will be losers by the arrangement to the extent of £18,500 a year. The Lord Advocate makes some deduction from that sum on account of children over fifteen years of age, but even then we still lose £15,000 or £16,000 in consequence of this fantastic arrangement. I think that is quite enough to justify our protest against the proposals of the Bill, and I hope my hon. Friend will therefore go to a Division in order that we may express our opinion on the subject. The Lord Advocate may say, and has said, that the figures quoted are only estimates. But that is all we have to go upon. We have no information other than the estimates; and seeing that the estimates, of which we were not before aware, amply corroborate all our ideas and suspicions on the subject, we are still further convinced that the proposal is unjust to Scotland, as it is undoubtedly inconvenient and unreasonable in itself. And on those grounds, besides the lofty ground from which the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Caldwell) based the opposition—the ground of maintaining a decent union between Scotland and England—I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division against the Bill.

I shall certainly support this Amendment. To me the question of the estimates appears to make very little difference, because the money will not be paid according to the estimate, but according to fact when the fact is ascertained. I support the Amendment not alone on the ground of the proposal being the deprivation to Scotland of many thousands of pounds, but I support it also on the ground that it is a very undesirable mode of conducting finance. I wish to point out that from first to last the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, I believe, been consistent in this—that he has always absented himself whenever we have been discussing these financial arrangements. Member after Member has appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but what is the use of appealing to him when he is not present, and when only one Member of the Government answers such appeals? I think it is rather disrespectful to Scotland that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should absent himself during the discussion of this Bill, which is financial as well as educational in character, and thus preclude us from obtaining information we desire.

The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Charles Parker) who has just sat down has thought it necessary to attack the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not being present during the discussion of this Bill. But the hon. Gentleman must be aware of the calls made upon the time of Ministers, and that occasionally public business, urgent in character and which cannot be avoided, makes it absolutely imperative for a Minister to absent himself. On the merits of this question I do not propose to say very much, except that I think hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have greatly underrated the complexity of the problem with which we had to deal. If in Scotland and England you had a similar state of things calling for precisely similar treatment, then it would be perfectly unnecessary to go to the kind of division of the relative contributions of the three countries my right hon. Friend has had to adopt in settling the amount of this equivalent grant. But where you have systems so different as the English, Irish and Scotch systems in matters of education, you cannot go upon similar principles. It is absolutely necessary to find some other principle by which equity and justice can be done. I think it was the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Caldwell) who appeared to call in question the equity of the proportion of eleven per cent. which is given to Scotland. Well, Sir, I will not go into that; but I know that the calculation was made by the Treasury and based upon all the information at their disposal, and I do not believe that any of the criticisms to which it has been subjected have shaken it in any important degree. It is clearly convenient to allocate the money between the three countries in the manner we have observed, otherwise we might give much too little to one and too much to another. Education in Scotland costs, I believe, more per head than education in England, and education in Ireland costs very much less; and it seems to me that where the cost per head is so different as in this case, and where the system is so different, it would not be statesmanship but mere pedantry to apply the hard and fast rule of ten shillings per child in all cases. We have, therefore, had to fall back upon some other principle, and the only other principle at once clear, intelligent and equitable was the principle adopted by the Bill of giving Scotland in respect of the equivalent grant precisely a proportionate share of the amount given to England for carrying out similar objects. As a matter of fact that course, which I think justifiable in itself, was rendered almost necessary by the historical development of the whole subject; because, as the House will recollect, education was freed in Scotland, not out of the fund which is now going to be devoted to that subject, but out of quite a different fund, and therefore the whole subject was finished in Scotland before the ten shillings was fixed in regard to England. That, however, I admit is not a ground which ought for all time to necessarily regu- this matter, and I do not think that for all time the present arrangements must necessarily hold. But I do say that there are great difficulties, not present in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, in dealing with a system so different from the English system as the Scotch system of education; and if you cannot deal with it in precisely the same manner, it is only natural and equitable to fall back upon the simple and obvious plan of giving to each country a proportion of its general contribution to the Imperial Revenue.

I cannot help thinking that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were founded upon a misconception of the case. It is not a question of difference in education. It is a question whether Scotland's share of this money should be limited to the average attendance in England. It is well known that children attend very much better than in England, and it is a question that the money should be allocated upon the attendances made by Scotch children themselves. To put the argument upon any other grounds is, I think, to attempt to confuse the issues. My hon. Friend will be perfectly justified in dividing this House upon the question.

As this Bill is now going to leave the House, I should like to take the opportunity of saying one word about it, and to repeat the expressions of regret which I have made on every occasion, and which I know are shared by a great many Members of this House, that an opportunity has been lost of conferring great benefits upon Scotland—an opportunity that may not return in our time. I thankfully admit that the Bill has been improved during its progress in the House. We have had the appointment conceded of a Departmental Committee, which it is to be hoped will render the plans for spending money on secondary education better than those which were shadowed out in the Memorandum presented to the House. And we have had from the Government the concession of powers to the County and Town Councils to apply the sum of £100,000 which is given to those Councils not merely for the relief of local rates, but to other objects of public utility which the Councils may propose. In these respects the Bill is certainly better than when it entered the House. But, at the same time, we view with very great regret the gift of no less than £50,000 to the Parochial Boards being spent by them upon the relief of the rates which they levy. We consider that is a substantial relief to the wealthier and better class of ratepayers, and that being taken out of the general taxation of the country, the larger proportion being paid by the poor, it is pro tanto not a relief of the poor. It is a measure framed for the benefit of the better and not the humbler class. We still more regret that since this sum is being applied to local purposes its destination should be one which, so far as I can see, has no promise of permanent improvement either in the addition of power or administration of Local Government in Scotland. I make these remarks for the pupose of calling attention to the fact that a very large number on this side of the House do not consider the present Bill is final. Indeed, the First Lord said a few moments ago, in defending the Government proposals with regard to the allotment of the money, that the proposals made in the Bill were not to be considered as to endure for all time.

I was referring to the particular allocation of money.

I quite understand that, and so I intended to convey. But I desire to extend the scope of his remark beyond that allocation, and to say that in our view the loss of this opportunity is one which we should try to repair at the earliest possible time. We look upon this as a tentative step, and we shall endeavour to reverse the policy in this Bill, and endeavour to submit those questions we have argued in Committee here, and upon which we have been defeated by an English majority, to another Parliament, and, if possible, to secure the devotion of the money to other purposes.

On behalf of the Government I will only say that in framing this Bill we have endeavoured to consult local opinion in Scotland; and though we are far from suggesting for a moment that the various representatives from Scotland do not discharge their duties as Members honourably and effectively, we cannot admit that they are the sole exponents of Scotch opinion, or that we are precluded from going beyond them in order to obtain the opinions of the various Local Bodies which have to administer the money. Having taken such measures to secure this opinion as were open to us, we believe that in determining the allocation of the money we have fixed upon a plan which generally, and speaking broadly, meets with the approval of the people of Scotland.

rose to address the House—

The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.

There is one concession to which the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) has not referred. I think it is desirable that public attention should be drawn to it, because it certainly is the most important concession we have been able to obtain from the Government by our opposition to this Bill. As this Bill was introduced, it proposed to give £100,000 per year to the County and the Town Councils in relief of local rates. Now, as the Bill leaves the House, discretion is given to the Local Authorities to apply the money, not in relief of local rates at all, but for the payment of any obligations which they may now incur, and also for any scheme of public utility framed by them, subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland. That is an important concession, because this is a Bill for the relief of local rates. It is a Bill which places the money absolutely at the disposal of the Town and County Councils; they may apply the money to technical education, continuation schools, public libraries, or for any object of public utility which may be sanctioned by the Secretary for Scotland. I also regard the concession as important, because if the working classes allow this money to be used in the relief of the richer classes, then the blame will fall upon them and not upon us. I regret that while the Bill has been improved in this direction, the Government have missed the opportunity of removing one of the greatest blots on the educational system in Scotland. They have given ninety thousand pounds per year for higher education; but they have so done it as to make that education synonymous with the education of the richer class. It was in their power, by applying the fifty thousand pounds for the relief of the poor rate, to supply the people of Scotland with a sum—insufficient, I agree, yet far from contemptible, for the creation of bursaries and exhibitions, which would enable a large number of the sons of working men to reap the advantage to the extent of secondary and University education. I regret very much that the Universities in Scotland are no longer the Universities of the poor to the extent they used to be. The tradition that the Scotch Universities were open to the sons of working men is, I am sorry to say, becoming more of a tradition than a reality, and that is due to the simple fact that in former days the distance between the elementary schools and the Universities was not so great as to prevent a considerable number of boys passing from elementary schools to the Universities. But owing to an improvement in the standard of the Universities, an improvement which I heartily approve of, that distance can only be bridged over by four or five years' education in a secondary school. How are sons of working men to go to these secondary schools, the fees of which are enormously increased? When I was at the Grammar School at Aberdeen the fees were 10s. a quarter, a sum which an ordinary working man would have no difficulty in providing. And when I look back I find that it is not the boys who came well dressed from the West End of Aberdeen who have most distinguished themselves in the world, but the boys who came with patched trousers. Now, Sir, if we are to retain the old traditions of the Scotch Universities, and to keep the doors of these seats of learning open to the poorest class, it is absolutely essential that a very large sum should be expended in providing exhibitions and bursaries to enable them to attend the secondary schools. When I tested the opinion of this House on this question, I was happy to find that I was supported by a majority of Scotch Members. We were, however, overruled by an English majority. I think that is very hard lines. After having expended their own money in their own way, surely the English Members might have abstained from interfering and frustrating the desires—and what I am sure no one will deny are most laudable desires—of the majority of the Scotch Members. And what makes it all the more cruel is that this £50,000 a year which is given for the relief of the poor rates will only to an unappreciable extent find its way into the pockets of the working classes. The 630,000 persons in Scotland who live in a house under £15 rental will get only £1,442 out of this £50,000; whereas if this money had been applied in the remission of the duties on tea, or of other taxes which press with equal severity on the poor and the rich, this same class of people, instead of receiving only £1,442, would have got £40,000. But by this ingenious plan—which has been patented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—of raising money by taxes on commodities and distributing it for the relief of the rates, £40,000 is kept out of the pockets of eighty per cent. of the occupiers of Scotland. Out of the remaining £40,000 the sum of £25,000 goes into the pockets of owners of property, and £15,000 into the pockets of the richer ratepayers—those with a rental of over £50 a year. Now, Sir, this Bill is the crowning edifice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. During the short time he has held office he has increased the grants in aid in Scotland from £300,000 to a million. I will let the House into the secret why money is raised on this lavish scale by Imperial taxation, to be expended in the relief of rates in Scotland. If this million of money were applied in the remission of taxation, how would the matter stand? Why, eighty per cent. of the occupiers in Scotland would receive a benefit which could be hardly less than three-quarters of a million. How much do they receive by the relief of rates? £80,000 only, so that the working classes, and all those whose rental is under £15, lose annually by this operation £670,000, of which half a million goes straight into the pockets of the owners of landed property, and £170,000 to those ratepayers whose rental is in excess of £48 a year. In other words, the money which is now being expended in local taxation in Scotland gives a relief of half a crown to eighty per cent. of the population; but if it had been applied in remission of taxes—in giving a free breakfast table, and in reducing the tax on tobacco—these same people, instead of receiving half a crown by way of relief in rates, would have benefited to the extent of 24s. in the relief of taxation. By this means nine-tenths of the people of Scotland lose—less perhaps, certainly not more, than one-tenth of the population of Scotland gain. Now, Sir, that is the crowning of the edifice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may boast that he has done for the Tory Party what the Tory Party never had the wit to do for themselves—that whereas he found this system of grants in aid, this ingenious system of robbing the poor man in order to increase the riches of the rich, at the moderate figure of £300,000 a year, he has raised it to more than a million a year. And on the epitaph of the right hon. Gentleman may be inscribed the fact that never was any Chancellor of the Exchequer so ingenious as he in the art of fleecing the poor and adding to the luxuries of the rich.

I only rise to protest against the doctrine put forward by the First Lord of the Treasury to the effect that in a matter of this kind Local Bodies, such as Town Councils or Parochial Boards, are to be considered as representing the opinion of Scotland more than the Parliamentary Representatives of that Kingdom. Both on constitutional grounds and grounds of fact, I think that is a mistake. The Town Councils and Parochial Boards are not elected for the purpose of representing the people of Scotland on such a matter as this. They are elected on totally different grounds, and on the question as to whether this money should be given for the relief of rates or for the encouragement of education they have no authority to speak, and to attempt to set aside the opinion of the Scotch Representatives in favour of the opinion of these bodies is, I venture to say, insulting to Parliamentary institutions and inconsistent with the real facts of the situation. None of these Parochial Boards or Town Councils have been elected within the time that this subject has become a matter of public consideration in Scotland, and I venture to state in my place here, with a full sense of my responsibility, more especially as I shall soon have to meet my constituents, that they—and they are a fair specimen of the people of Scotland—are entirely out of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters in the way that has been so well and so truly and statistically, if so repeatedly, described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter).

The Amendment which stands in my name, and which I now rise to propose, is that the words "in equal proportion" be added after the word "assess," in page 134, line 23. The object of the proposal is that the rates shall be equally divided between the occupiers and owners of property in the burghs. I move this Amendment, not only upon its own merits, but also upon the precedents which Parliament has established in regard to such matters. During the last twenty years the rates that have been imposed in Scotland by Parliament have been uniformly divided between the owners and occupiers. Several days have now elapsed since this question was mooted in the House, and in the meantime the people of Scotland have had an opportunity of expressing their views upon it. The Town Council of Glasgow has, by a majority of two to one, voted in favour of it, and every burgh in my own constituency is, I believe, also in favour of the Amendment which I now submit to the House; and, so far as I can gather, I am of opinion that the whole of Scotland, generally speaking, approves of it. That is shown by the fact that when the police burghs have the opportunity of rating under different Acts they prefer those which give them the power to divide the rate between the landlord and the tenant. I do not think the Lord Advocate opposes this proposal on its merits; I believe he will say that this is not an opportune time for dealing with the question. But it seems to me that this is exactly the time for dealing with it. This Bill is intended to replace the Bill passed in 1862, under which the whole of the taxes have been placed upon the occupiers. Since 1862 the House of Commons has frequently given expression to its opinion on this question, and on every occasion its decision has been in favour of the rates being divided between the occupier and the owner. I contend, therefore, that this is the proper time for fixing the incidence of taxation under this Bill; because if it is allowed to pass now without the adoption of this Amendment, there is every probability that the question will not again be dealt with for an indefinite time. For these reasons I urge the favourable consideration of this Amendment upon the Government.

I suppose we are going to be opposed on this point by the Government, although the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a public meeting stated that the division of the rate between the owner and occupier was as much the object of the Unionists as of the Gladstonians. If the right hon. Gentleman was correctly reported, I take it that the other side of the House are in full agreement with us on this matter. The only question, therefore, that remains is whether this is the proper time to deal with it. This Bill has been before the House for nine years, and we hope to see it passed before the termination of this Session; and if the Government are as anxious as we are to effect a division of the rates, now is their opportunity. I should like to hear some reason given by the Lord Advocate for not accepting the Amendment.

The only reason why I did not reply at once is that I have on previous occasions expressed my views on this question when it has been brought forward. I have, however, no objection to remind hon. Members of what I then said. This Bill preserves the status quo as to assessment, and therefore it is vain for hon. Members to say that we are proposing by it to do anything contrary to the existing law in Scotland with regard to the general assessment for police burghs. The lines upon which the Bill proceeds are those of the police assessment as laid down in the Police Act of 1862, and it is remarkable that the only burgh which has been mentioned as having come to any adverse conclusion is a burgh to which this Act does not apply. I received only to-day a letter from one of the burghs situated in the county the hon. Member represents—the Burgh of Arbroath — urging that the Bill should be allowed to pass, and that it should not be delayed for a moment by this question. That, I think, justifies me in saying that it is not expedient to raise this whole question at the present time, as it would be impossible to deal with it in the present Parliament. The analogy of recent legislation with regard to counties entirely fails unless a great deal is added to the Amendment. Let me remind the Committee that so far as the owners are assessed in counties, they have representation upon the assessing bodies quite different from that in the assessing bodies in towns. Another difference that suggests itself is that the police in burghs are in a different situation from the police in counties, the benefit being much more directly in favour of the occupiers in burghs than in the counties. On all these grounds the Government do not see their way to accept the Amendment, and I am in hope the hon. Member will not press it.

It is evident from the speech of the Lord Advocate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds different views from himself. If the status quo had been maintained by the Bill I should not have minded so much, but you are relieving the landlords of their liabilities. The change will not be made, because the late Lord Advocate, who gave a binding pledge on the subject, is not here, and the present Lord Advocate takes a different line. The position now is that we are not going to have the changes that we desire, and we are going to retain things as they are, although all the changes that have been made in this Bill have been made in favour of owners. This policy of the Government will assuredly help us during the General Election, and I hope my hon. Friend will press this matter to a Division in order to show what the Scotch Members think.

The Lord Advocate has given two reasons why we should not have this division of rates in the burghs. In the first place, he says it is because of the status quo, which is not to be altered. It is precisely that status quo to which we object and which we say should be altered. Then he says that if we were to alter the status quo, so as to do more justice to the burghs, the Bill would not pass. How does he know that the Bill is going to pass? My own impression is that if the Government would make the changes we desire it would very much facilitate the chances of the Bill passing. I am not at all of the same opinion as the people who have written to the right hon. Gentleman. I think this is a bad Bill, and I would rather that the Bill were lost than that it should be carried without amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has discovered a new argument. He says that the functions of the police in the burghs are different from the functions of the police in the counties. That is a somewhat delicate subject for a Tory Lord Advocate to enter upon, and I was not surprised to see that he clothes his statement in ambiguous language. I fully admit that there is a great difference. In the burghs the police are employed for the protection of persons and property; in the counties they are employed as preservers of game and to catch poachers. That is, to my mind, a work of supererogation, and is no part of legitimate police duty, and we say that that circumstance ought to be taken into account in determining who shall pay the rate. If we lose this opportunity of dealing with the question no one knows when another may arrive, and I tell the Government it will be vain for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go to the country and say that he is in favour of equal division of the rates between landlord and tenant, when in two or three minutes the Government Whips will be sending Members into the Tory Lobby to vote against the equal division. This is all the more unjustifiable, because we are only asking that the burghs may be put in the same position as the counties were placed by a Conservative Government. If now they obstinately refuse to adopt this Amendment they must not be surprised if the electorate judges them by their deeds rather than by their language.

The next Amendment that stands in my name is intended to place one-half of the rates upon the owners. This is a different Amendment from the one just moved by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay), because it provides for the paying of the rates whether the premises are occupied or unoccupied. Unoccupied houses require to be watched, &c., and yet at present they do not contribute one farthing to the rates. The system in London is that the owner pays half the rates and the occupier the other half, and thus when the houses are empty the authorities get something to recoup them for what they are obliged to spend.

It is quite true that this Amendment has not been disposed of, but it differs very little in principle from the one on which we divided just now. The law as it at present stands is that the owner shall not bear any part of the rates for unoccupied premises. As owner he is exempt, and the reason is that the basis of the assessment is occupied property. We cannot, therefore, accept this Amendment, because it is inconsistent with the present basis of assessment.

The right hon. Gentleman has given no reason why the basis of the assessment should not be altered. A number of changes have been made by this Bill; but they are all for the benefit of the owner, and none for the benefit of the occupier.

The Government always refuse to consider alterations that are submitted in favour of the occupiers, and you can hardly wonder that the people in Scotland look upon them as a Government of landlords. I fail to see any reason why the Government should not alter the assessment basis, so as to divide the rates equally between the owners and occupier.

Order, order! That is not the point raised by this Amendment.

The object of the next Amendment is to bring Feu Duties under assessment for local purposes. Those duties now escape taxation altogether. The latter portion of the Amendment deals with another class of property, and it proposes that this class shall be assessed at not exceeding four shillings in the pound on four per cent. of the capital value of the said land. A few minutes ago the Lord Advocate repudiated the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer when he declared that his right hon. Colleague was mistaken in supposing that the Unionists were in favour of equalising the rates. Now, he may repudiate a more important Member of the Government, the Marquess of Salisbury. The Prime Minister was a Member of the Committee, several years ago, on the Housing of the Working Classes, and he attached a special Memorandum to the Report of the Committee, in which he recommended the proposal which I am now making—that is, to have taxation of capital value. The present basis of taxation is annual value, but that means anything. I am taxed for my little house in London at a much higher rate than the large castles. What we want to get is what Lord Salisbury thought a fair method of taxation. He recommended four per cent., and I advise that; and the only point on which I go further than Lord Salisbury is that I would allow the owner to declare what is the capital value, and the capital value must surely be best known to the owner. Of course, as everyone knows, there is a vast difference between the agricultural value and the feu value; and if the landlord has declared the agricultural value, it would be open to the Local Authority to purchase the holding at the value declared by the owner, and thus secure for the ratepayers the difference between the agricultural and the feu value. At present the Feu Duties entirely escape taxation.

This is a very wide question, and one which, in my humble opinion, it is quite impossible to discuss at this time. We are now merely dealing with a Police Bill, and the hon. Member has raised a question which could only be properly introduced in a large measure dealing with assessments generally. The first part of the Amendment, with respect to the taxation of feu duties and ground rents, is charged with fallacy. It is fallacious to say that feu duties escape taxation at the present moment. That question was carefully considered in the Town Holdings Committee, and the fallacies were so obvious that I do not think a single Member of the Committee which considered the matter was of opinion that they escaped taxation, or that in touching them you would touch a new source of revenue. The fact that they escape direct taxation does not prove that they escape altogether. This Amendment would alter the whole basis not only of taxation, but also of valuation, and it is one which the Government cannot accept. With respect to the second part of the Amendment, it is apparently hopeless to convince the hon. Member that the proposal is not legitimate. What the Amendment means, or how it could be carried out, I do not know. I know what the object of the hon. Member is, but his proposal would be an impossible excrescence upon a Police Bill. To say that the owners of unfeued land in the burghs should be taxed on capital value is opposed entirely to the whole valuation system; and if it is considered at all, it must be on a large measure dealing with the system of valuation, and not on a measure for the regulation of the burghs. The proposal that the valuation should be by the owner himself may or may not be a good one, and may or may not be feasible; but it would be introducing a new principle of taxation into the Bill, and on that ground alone I cannot agree to it.

The Lord Advocate forgets that the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a new principle of taxation when he made the grants in aid of local taxation. Local rates were levied on rent alone; but now those who contribute to Imperial taxation contribute to local rates. The working classes, therefore, contribute to local rates far and above the rates on their rental, and it is only fair that other persons should be asked to contribute also. In Glasgow the value of feu duties has increased enormously during the last fifty years, owing to the increased prosperity of the City, brought about by the expenditure of local rates. We are, therefore, entitled to ask that owners of feu duties and ground rents, who reap the benefit of the increased prosperity of the City, brought about by the expenditure of local rates, should contribute towards those rates. The proposal is that you should not tax them above four shillings; but in fifty years the feu duties have increased in value more than the capitalised value of four shillings, so that you will simply be taxing the increased value given by the community. Besides, feu duties are heritable property, and it is more legitimate to tax heritable property than to tax individuals.

I shall, of course, press this to a Division. This is the first opportunity we have had of carrying out the recommendations of the Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, the opinion of which is of more value than that of a Select Committee. I am trying to put into legislation what the Commission recommended, and we shall be able to see if hon. Members are prepared to go as far as the Commission, or think the recommendations of the Commission too revolutionary.

I hope this is one of my Amendments which the Lord Advocate will accept. Under the law as it stands, when a house is let for less than twelve months the owner can be taxed for that period. The Bill changes that, and provides that where an occupier takes a house for, say, the last three months of the year, the previous occupier having gone without paying his rates, the former shall be liable for the rates for the whole year. I want to hear some reason for this change. At present the owner is responsible, and that is the best way, when the house is let for less than twelve months and he can arrange to cover it in the rent. To say that an occupier should pay not only his own but the previous occupier's rates is absurd. My Amendment is to leave the law as it is at present, under the provisions of the Police Act of 1862.

I desire to support the Amendment, as I think it is hard that a new-comer should be charged with the unpaid rates of his predecessor. I think the Amendment is a fair one under the circumstances. The landlord you have always with you, but you are never certain of the tenant. It is the landlord who derives all the benefit from the property, and he should be responsible to the locality for the rates.

The clause will lead to serious grievance if a man who comes into a house for the last three months of the year has to pay for the whole year. I have an Amendment dealing with the question, and I propose that the tenant shall only be charged a proportion of the rates corresponding with his occupancy, leaving the Police Commissioners to recover the remainder from the previous occupier. Thus the new tenant will only be responsible for his own tenancy.

I think the hon. Member is under some misapprehension as to the effect of the clause. This is one of the Amendments which were discussed in Committee upstairs, and I cannot find that the clause was passed as it stands otherwise than unanimously. It would be a serious thing to alter the clause in the way proposed unless some substantial reason could be given for doing so. The present law is that the occupier is bound to pay his assessments, but if he fails to do so, the law says in such a case the owner shall be liable. The proposal of the hon. Member is that the owner and not the occupier should be liable. The way the clause works out, as I understand it, is that where premises are let for less than one year the occupier is personally assessed; but if he cannot be found the owner has to pay. This is merely a power given to the Commissioners, when the occupier cannot be discovered. When a new occupier comes in, and is found in possession at the moment of assessment, it seems hard that he should have to pay for his predecessor; but that is just one of those things which the occupier who comes in will look to when the law is known. The Select Committee have settled this clause, and I think we should be incurring a great responsibility if, without a grave reason, we set aside the clause as it stands.

This clause involves a principle which many Water Companies have tried to get into their Acts—namely, to make one man pay another man's debt. That is monstrous; to make the innocent occupier liable. The Lord Advocate said that when the law becomes known a new occupier will refuse to enter on premises until he has seen the receipts for the rates of the other tenant. When will the law become known? Did one ever listen to such insensate nonsense? At the end of ten or twenty years you will not find one lawyer in a hundred who will be aware of the clause. It is a maxim of law that everybody knows the law. But how do we know the law? By exercising our common sense and our sense of common honesty. No one would imagine that a person taking premises at the end of a year would have to pay the rates which the previous tenant had gone away without paying. That is against common sense, and should not be sanctioned by the House. It is inconsistent with the ordinary transaction of business that any human being taking a house should be called upon to inquire into the debts of his predecessor, and whether or not he had paid his rates.

My right hon. and learned Friend has expressed the general view that he could not depart from the unanimous finding of the Committee.

That is a mistake. The question was postponed for the general rating question. Nothing was done. There was no decision at all taken.

My right hon. and learned Friend was not a Member of the Committee, and was only informed of the fact. However, I confess I think it would be rather hard if the incoming tenant should have thrown upon him all the debt which his predecessor should have paid, but I do not think the best way out of that is simply to tax the owner and leave him without any remedy against the person who ought to have paid the debt. The person who ought to have paid the debt is the outgoing tenant, and the person who is made to pay according to the Bill is the incoming tenant. So far as I can see, the equity of the case would be met if we introduced words, either on this stage or on Report, which would make the owner liable for the debt of the ex-tenant, but with a remedy against the ex-tenant. That, I think, is not the Amendment of the hon. Member, but I think it carries out the object for which he contends. My right hon. and learned Friend will, on Report, bring up words to carry out that object.

I have no objection to that course being taken. This is a very important point. In Scotland a house is taken from Whitsuntide to Whitsuntide. A tenant may be in for six months or three months, and then bolt, and another tenant comes in, and at Martinmas the rates for the year must be paid by the owner or the occupier under the present Act. The consequence is that under the Bill you take away the liability from the owner altogether. A man may come in for the last three months of the term and pay a special price for the tenancy. Under the old law the Burgh Magistrates could go against him or the owner. Generally they went against the owner; sometimes they did not. This Bill proposes to do away with the right of going against the owner, and puts the burden on the incoming tenant. I have no objection to postpone the matter till the Report stage, on the understanding that you will draft a clause on the lines to meet both cases, where property has been unlet, and where property has been occupied, but the occupier has gone away without paying rent or taxes.

According to the Amendment to be introduced, each occupier will be liable for the time which he occupies, and for that time alone; and where the occupier makes default then the landlord will be liable.

If the Local Authorities neglect to get the money from the previous tenant by the powers they possess then it is their own fault, and they ought to suffer for it. If this Amendment is withdrawn, I shall move a subsequent Amendment which deals with this matter.

These two Amendments put together meet one of the cases raised by the hon. Gentleman, but they do not meet the other case.

My Amendment meets both cases.

I beg to move in page 137, line 19, after "Acts," insert "or under 'The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889.'" This is an Amendment which I believe the Government will accept.

Clause 401 is not one of the postponed Clauses.

I wish to ask the Lord Advocate whether the omissions were considered? My hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron), who had an Amendment down to leave out Clauses 403 to 406 inclusive, is not here.

Yes, they were considered.

I beg to move, in page 147, line 3, after Sub-section (5), add—

This is rather a dry matter of detail. When the Local Government Act of 1889 was discussed in this House in the shape of a Bill the matter came up for discussion as to whether the change that was made in the Local Authority should carry with it a change in the arrangement which had theretofore been entered into in reference to schemes under the Public Health Act; and the limit fixed by Parliament at that time was this—that those burghs in which schemes had been carried out before the date appointed for the commencement of that Act should be in one position, and those in which they had not should be in another position. In order to clear the field, if I may say so, for the application of that Act, the Board of Supervision recalled all the determinations made theretofore in reference to the Local Authorities of the areas to which those schemes applied; and the result of that was that in almost all the cases a change took place. In the case of Coupar Angus, the scheme was not within the words of the Act. I have not heard anything to lead me to think that if what the hon. Baronet has just said had been stated to Parliament then they would have come to any different conclusion from what they did; and, therefore, I do not see myself that there would be any propriety in accepting an Amendment which really is not appropriate to the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, but an Amendment of the Local Government Act, and thus altering the verdict come to on the Local Government Bill in 1889. I have very carefully considered the question with the assistance of the information which the hon. Baronet was good enough to give me, and I am not able to see sufficient reason for accepting this Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 150, line 12, after "liable," insert "on conviction before the Sheriff." I think these are very serious offences, and the penalties should not be imposed by the magistrates, but by the Sheriff Substitute, who is a trained lawyer.

I think it would be an unfortunate thing if trial for these offences should be withdrawn from the police magistrates, and laid upon the over-burdened shoulders of the Sheriff Substitute. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.

I will not press it at the present stage; but I think that persons charged with these serious offences should have the protection of a trained lawyer, and should not have magistrates, who have sometimes been guilty of disgraceful conduct on the Bench in Scotland, trying them.

I beg to move, in page 158, line 31, leave out "sixty," and insert "six." I think this is a new crime and a new penalty; and the proposal of my hon. Friend is to limit the penalty to thirty days. After a man has been convicted of drunkenness twice in the same year, on the occasion of the third offence he is by the Bill to get sixty days extra. My hon. Friend proposes to limit it to another month instead of two months. I propose that it should be "six" days.

I think this is the most absurd thing I ever met in the way of legislation. For the most serious crime of theft and other crimes of that character a penalty of sixty days is usually awarded in Scotland; but here it is proposed to give a man sixty days' imprisonment at the option of the bailie for being drunk. Now, a man who is drunk no doubt injures himself, but, as a rule, he cannot hurt his neighbour. I must remind the Committee that these cases would be decided occasionally by very rabid teetotalers on the Bench, who would consider that they were doing a good service by inflicting the largest penalty possible upon any unfortunate drunkard who might be brought before them.

The hon. Member appears to think that the offence referred to here is that of drunkenness alone. That is not so. It is an offence which is a good deal heard of in police burghs—it is the offence of being drunk and incapable. It is not the case of a man being in drunkenness, or even aggravated or habitual drunkenness, but it is the case of a man being a danger, not only to himself, but to other people, and giving the police infinite trouble. When that occurs more than three times in twelve months I do think it would be perfectly ridiculous to give him six days. I am prepared to accept "thirty" days, which I understood was the Amendment which the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow proposed.

I do strongly protest against this absurd kind of legislation. If a man who is drunk and incapable does give the police a little trouble in carrying him in a conveyance to the police office, that is a damage which might be repaired by the payment of five shillings. As a Scotchman, I feel ashamed that such legislation should be passed.

I wish to put before the Government the question of the expense of keeping these drunkards in prison for a month or two months. I think six or ten days would be quite sufficient punishment.

The man who is punished may be married, and in that case the effect of his imprisonment may be to send his wife and children to the workhouse. I think the penalty proposed is rather drastic, and I think the matter should be considered by the Government on Report.

I wish to point out that the penalty will be in the discretion of the magistrates. Thirty days is the maximum penalty. It is "not exceeding thirty days." The maximum penalty would be very rarely imposed, and the ordinary penalty would be just the ordinary few days which the hon. Member desiderates. As to the penalty being additional, that is one of the reasons which induces me to assent to the substitution of thirty days for sixty days as the maximum.

I have appealed to the reason and common sense of the right hon. Gentleman in vain, and now I beg to give him notice that I shall examine this Bill more carefully than I have done, and that I shall put down a sufficient number of Amendments on the Report stage to compel the Government to adopt, at all events, such very reasonable and moderate proposals.

I should like to ask your opinion, Sir, whether it is in Order for a threat to be made to the House of moving Amendments, which would not have been put down in different circumstances, for the purpose of extorting other Amendments, so that this House is to be compelled by the mere waste of time to accept Amendments which would not otherwise be proposed?

At present it is merely a threat. If it were carried into action, it would doubtless be met by other action.

I move that "fourteen" be there inserted.

I think there must be some misunderstanding with reference to this and the next half dozen clauses, because it was practically agreed they would not be kept in the Bill. Clauses 470 to 476 are all of a similar character, dealing with public health, and it was agreed that they should be struck out, as it was thought there should not be one public health law in one part of the country and a different health law in another.

I understood that Clauses 470 and 471 were to come out, but that the remaining clauses—472 to 476—were to remain in, as they were a recognition of clauses of the Act of 1862. Probably in order to carry out the understanding it would be better that I should assent to their deletion, leaving myself free to restore on Report any of those I should find left unprovided for in other Acts.

This is a clause which the Lord Advocate agreed to amend. It is a preposterous thing that a man whose child has committed an offence, and who is ordered to find caution for it, should be sent to prison if he does not find it.

I think my Amendment will meet the case.

This clause gives power to the Magistrate to inflict a fine of £20, or to send a person to prison for three months. I wish to limit the powers of the Magistrate to imposing a fine not exceeding £5.

I beg to move—

Page 201, line 34, to leave out after "nothing," to end of clause, and insert "in this Act contained restricting the amounts of fines or periods of imprisonment shall apply to or affect the prosecutions authorised or the penalties enforceable under the Licensing (Scotland) Acts, 1828 to 1887, or to the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, or to any Act other than this Act under which the Magistrate has jurisdiction to impose fines for greater amounts or imprisonment for longer periods than those of this Act."

What is the object of the Amendment?

At present the powers are those exercised under the Public-houses Acts alone. Under these Acts there are certain offences of such a nature that the Magistrates can give as much as six months or a very heavy fine for them. There are various Acts not specified here where the Legislature has given larger powers to the Magistrates, and it was thought that while the restriction to sixty days should operate within the limits of this Act, it should not operate to exclude the larger powers which the Magistrates have already.

I beg to move the following new clause:—

I beg to move the following clause:—

It seems to me that my hon. Friend goes very much beyond what he tells the Committee he desires. I have no objection, if it simply affects the Dean of Guild Court; but if it is for other purposes I think we should have to give it some consideration.

This clause has been considered carefully, and the exemption of drains and sanitary arrangements is obviously necessary. But with that addition it does seem to me that buildings used for railway purposes, other than dwelling houses, may fairly be regarded as within the railway system, and buildings which ought not to be interfered with by the Magistrates. There being other means of dealing with those buildings, the Magistrates' interference might, in conceivable circumstances, be detrimental to the safe working of the railways. I have looked into the precedents on this matter, and I find that in several instances, notably in the case of Glasgow, a similar clause has been introduced, and also that a similar clause to a certain extent is in the English Public Health Act. The railways are there exempted as regards buildings, other than dwelling houses, which are used for railway purposes; and I have satisfied myself—I believe on sufficient information—that the clause is a reasonable one.

I beg to move the following clause:—

I only desire to say a single word on this clause. I had this under consideration some time ago, and I have not been able to discover why a similar provision intro- duced in the Act of 1862 has been dropped out. It does seem to me reasonable for the purpose of obviating cases of extreme hardship that the Magistrates should have this discretion of remitting assessments. The only suggestion I would make to the hon. Member is that, inasmuch as poverty is the only recognised ground for exemption, the words "or inability" should be struck out, so that poverty may remain, without any qualifying term, as the real ground for exemption, or that it should run "inability through poverty."

I am not responsible for the wording of it. I have merely taken the clause out of the 1862 Act. I have no objection to your changing it if you like.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the clause. I can assure him that this clause in the old Act has caused great annoyance to the Police Commissioners. A great many applications are made for remission of taxation upon very insufficient grounds, and I wish to point out to the Lord Advocate that in the case of people who occupy houses of £40 and upwards their taxes are paid by the landlords, and I do not see that there is any reason why exception should be made in their case. The matter is a very great cause of vexation to the Police Commissioners.

I beg to move, in page 150, after Clause 421, to insert the following clause:—

I beg to move, in page 205, after Clause 563, to insert the following clause:—

I may remind the Committee that the two places named were dealt with under the Local Government Act of 1889. I accept the principle of the Amendment, but I would propose to bring up on Report a proposition applicable to these two burghs. On that understanding I hope the hon. Member will consent to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move the following Amendment:—Page 209, line 14 (column 3), leave out "1." The object of the Amendment is to abolish the right possessed by the Town Council of Inverness to levy "petty customs" in certain parts of the town. Such duties would be objectionable if applied to the whole of the burgh, but they are especially objectionable when applied only to a portion of it. The result is that a shopkeeper in one part has to pay half as much again as a shopkeeper in another part of the town. The existence of such a state of things surely cannot be defended. It is, moreover, an improvident arrangement, because the cost of collecting the taxes is thirty-five per cent. of the amount collected. It would be more satisfactory to levy taxes on the whole burgh. Therefore I hope that my Amendment will be agreed to.

This and the next five Amendments are practically meant to effect the same purpose, and may be dealt with together. The petty customs of Inverness are by no means peculiar to that place; it is a well-known means of levying taxes in several burghs. It may or may not be an economical way of raising money, but the Government cannot agree for one moment to select one burgh for the purpose of putting an end to such a custom in it alone. Of the fairness or unfairness of the tax I say nothing. I will only mention that the question was not raised before the Committee upstairs, and that it is a wholly new point. I am, moreover, informed that these petty customs realised some £2,000 or £3,000 a year.

No.