It may be convenient that I should state the course which the Government propose to take on the Amendments now upon the Paper, as it is one which, I hope, will facilitate the discussion of this question. There are two Amendments which stand at the head of the Paper relating to the composition of the Committee, one of them in the name of the hon. Member for Partick and the other in the name of the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire. The hon. Member for Partick will perhaps excuse me for saying that I am not altogether aware of the object with which the hon. Member moves his Amendment, for it is in a contrary direction to what is the general opinion of gentlemen who act and vote with him. I take it that the "qualifications of the Members selected" refers to their special knowledge of any special question before the Committee, and the "composition of the House" relates rather to the voting power of the two sides of the House. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire is quite clear as to its objects. Its purpose is to give instructions to the Committee of Selection to select Members for the Grand Committee, so as to approximate the balance of parties in the Grand Committee to that of the whole House. When I introduced this proposal it was not as a Party matter, but for the purpose of promoting Scotch business and facilitating the transaction of other business. Other interpretations have been put upon my words, but I think those hon. Members who know me will believe that I was perfectly sincere in the description which I gave of my intentions in introducing the proposal. Certainly, I am going to give a very great proof of that sincerity by saying that the Government accept as a practical proposal, and as a concession which we are quite ready to make to the feelings of hon. Members who do not agree with the original proposal, the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Renshaw). The consequence will be that the composition of the Grand Committee will be a true and thorough exponent of Scotch opinion, and the House at large will then be able either to defer to Scotch opinion—to accept the work in the shape in which it comes back to the House—or, if they think sufficiently strongly on the question, to go counter to that opinion, and then they will do so with their eyes open, and only upon due cause. When once this concession is made, I do not think, on looking through the other Amendments on the Paper, that there is anything which requires very serious consideration by the House. Apart from the Amendment of the hon. Member for Islington, which either is or is not in Order—It is not for me to say—the remaining Amendments refer to the classes of Bills that should, or should not, be referred to the Grand Committee. The Government have given the assurance that the only Government measures to be referred this Session to the Scotch Grand Committee are the Scotch Local Government Bill and the Fatal Accidents Bill; and that being the case, the Government are bound to resist all the Amendments which limit the scope of the Committee. Under these circumstances, I earnestly hope that the House will allow this discussion to close. Hon. Members on the Government side, and, I believe, many hon. Members on the opposite side, are willing to have the Scotch Local Government Bill laid before the House, and immediately the question of the Grand Committee shall be settled I propose to ask leave to bring in the Local Government Bill.

Amendment proposed, in line 9, after the words "Committee of Selection," to insert the words

"who shall have regard in such appointment to the desirability of approximating the balance of parties in the Committee to that of the whole House, and."—( Mr. Renshaw. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

^* said, he must congratulate the Government on having climbed down. [ Cries of "Oh!"] The concession did not go so far as the Opposition wished, because they objected to the proposal altogether. He could truly say there was no enthusiasm whatever in favour of this proposal in Scotland. In proof of that he could only quote The North British Daily Mail, which was the leading Gladstonian paper in Scotland.

The House is not now on the Main Question, but simply on the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Renfrew.

said, he was merely pointing out that the concession of this Amendment did not do away with the objections to the scheme. Even The North British Daily Mail said—[ Cries of "Order!"] He did not see why he should not refer to The North British Daily Mail. That newspaper said that the scheme of the Grand Committee was a temporary expedient, "about which few people are enthusiastic." [ Cries of "Order!"]

^* : The remarks of the hon. Gentleman would be perfectly appropriate when I put the Main Question after the Amendments have been disposed of.

said, he would only point out that the Government had now certainly changed very much from their position of last week. The North British Daily Mail had said that the Government did not know their own mind, and he would only emphasise the fact that this very day last week the Government did not hold the opinion which they at present held. The Leader of the House then said—

"As I understand the arguments put forward in support of the Amendment, they are that the 15 additional Members are to be taken from one political Party in order to neutralise the other 70. Such a proposal is one to which we cannot listen for a moment. If Members are to be added to the Committee, they must be chosen on the principle on which Members are selected for other Committees."

On the other hand, he quite admitted that the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had been successful in having his opinion accepted by the rest of the Cabinet, because, though he tried to minimise the words he used, he apparently was strongly in favour of this proposal from the first. In other words, a fortnight ago the Secretary for War was in favour of a proposal which the Leader of the House derided last week. What the Opposition objected to in regard to this proposal was the accentuation of so-called Scottish opinion which it brought about. The Scottish Unionists were in a minority of 23 to 49 on Imperial questions, but not on local questions. Even on Imperial questions, however, according to the votes at the last Election, in the view of the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney), who was a past master in proportional representation, the figures ought to be as 33 to 39. The concession would in no real way remedy this grievance, and would not prevent Scottish Gladstonian opinion from being unduly accentuated. The Scottish Gladstonian Members had been proved to be wrong before now on several most important matters, such as the Fisheries Bill, Temperance, Education, and the Church. [ Cries of "Order!"] He could quite understand why the Secretary for War succeeded in having his opinion accepted by the rest of the Cabinet. After all, what good did the acceptance of this proposal do to the Unionists? Hon. Members opposite would analyse every single Division that took place, and the result would be that all these Members that were added would be considered simply as nothing at all. The Secretary for War might also have urged that on the Committee there were amongst the Gladstonians 10 who were Members of the Government and five who were practising barristers. Fifteen Scottish Gladstonian Members would find it extremely awkward to attend regularly, and it would be by no means inconvenient to them that 15 Unionist Members should be added with whom they would be able to pair. If hon. Members from Scotland were absent, and had not paired, their votes could not be considered as expressing Scottish opinion; but, on the other hand, if they were paired with any of the English Members, their votes would no doubt be counted in the careful analysis that would be made. He was borne out in his opinion upon this concession by the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Reid), who, from his point of view, said that he would not for a moment ask for, or agree to, a Committee which did not consist exclusively of Scottish Members, while the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow, on March 6, 1888, said—

"As for this peddling and pottering through Grand Committees it is not wanted by the people of Scotland. It will not satisfy them, and it will not cure the evils complained of."

said, he attached more importance than his hon. Friend did to this concession. He thought it was an important one, and he did not accept it grudgingly. He did not need to enter into an explanation of his Amendment, because the present Amendment was a larger one. He regarded the present Amendment as important, because it accepted the desirableness of forming this Scottish Grand Committee not in accordance with the division of Members in Scotland, but according to the old principle, and in accordance with the composition of this House. If the Committee had been entirely in accordance with the composition of this House, he would have approved of it heartily. This Amendment went a long way towards recognising the old principle of following the proportional composition of the House, and it therefore removed a great part of his objection to the proposal of the Government for establishing a Scotch Grand Committee.

said, he did not think it was necessary that they should compare the concession the Government had now made too closely with their previous utterances. Without undue comment, he thought his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Hozier) was perfectly right in saying that, though this was a substantial concession, it was not one which in its nature could remove the fundamental objections they had to the proposals of the Government. It did not do so for more than one reason. But many of these reasons he would be out of Order in dealing with. He would simply say, with regard to the Amendment of his hon. Friend, that it was intended by its author to remedy one, and one only, of the objections they felt to the plan of the Government. That objection was that the proposed Grand Committee would not, as it stood originally, be a reflection of the composition of the House. It would not be a reflection even now. If the Government had chosen to accept the Amendment which was pressed upon them by his right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, and by his hon. Friend the Member for Partick and others, and had allowed 30 Members to be appointed for the pur- pose of redressing any disparity that might exist, then, no doubt, the fundamental injustice would have been largely remedied. However, the Government refused the Amendment, and he thought they were now in the rather inconsistent position of having conceded the whole principle which the Opposition asked for when they put down the Amendment, without carrying the principle which they accepted to its logical conclusion. He thanked the Government for what they had done; but he would point out that, even as regarded the particular objection which this Amendment was intended to meet, obviously it only met it halfway.

said, he should like to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Members appointed by the Committee of Selection were all to be taken from the Unionist Party? If that was done, he quite agreed that, to some extent, their objections would be removed. But he should certainly have preferred to have seen the composition of the Committee one which was the exact reflection of the political complexion of the House rather than, as would be, an approximation to it. He thought the time of the House would have been very much saved if the Government had come to the conclusion at which they had now arrived long ago.

said, he wished to know whether the 15 English Members were to be allocated to the minority in the House? He hardly thought the Grand Committee would prove satisfactory either to the Scottish Members or to the House generally. There was a very strong feeling against it in Scotland and on both sides of the House; therefore, it would give satisfaction to nobody. As they had the concession from the Government, he would be willing to let the matter go in the belief that these 15 Members were to be allocated to the minority.

^* said, he felt very strong disappointment that the Government had given way in this matter. It seemed to him that the Opposition had taken much too serious a view of this modest proposal. At the last Election there was scarcely a single candidate in Scotland who did not advocate some devolution of all Scottish business. No sooner was this simple proposal made by the Government than the Opposition ascended to the very mountain top of panic, and pointed out dangers and prophesied disasters as the result of the proposal. Now, what did the Amendment mean? It meant that the Scotch Committee was not to be a Scotch Committee, but a hybrid one, and the concession made by the Government was most important. The Scotch Party consisted of 49 Radicals and 23 Conservatives and Unionists, but there were eight official or semi-official Members who certainly could not be counted upon to attend, and who would, as a matter of fact, not attend. This reduced the number of Liberals to 41, and the Amendment adding to the Conservative Members 15, who were not to be Scotch Representatives, and who must be Conservatives, made the figures 41 Liberals and 38 Conservatives. He confessed he greatly regretted such a concession having been made. If the Opposition was unjustifiable at first, it had now become ridiculous. The right hon. Gentleman was pursuing a shadow and losing the substance, and he thought it would be far better to drop the proposal as it now stood altogether, and come forward boldly with a scheme of thorough devolution of purely Scottish affairs to some Scottish assembly. This would put before them something of substance and sense, and would call forth very little, if any, more opposition than had been offered to the machinery now before the House, and which all felt and acknowledged would be absolutely inadequate.

said, the concession made by the Government had no doubt much diminished the objections made on that side of the House to the proposal of a Grand Committee; but he saw not merely from the speech of the hon. Member who had just spoken, but from other indications, that it had very greatly diminished the value of the Committee in the eyes of the supporters of the Government. The position that had now been arrived at was one that made them regret that five days of Parliamentary time should have been spent on a proposal which came now to such a feeble conclusion. When one considered the numerical distribution of the Members of the Committee, one would see that the Scottish Liberal Members who were very anxious for this Committee would gain no real advantage in a majority of that Committee which put them in a better position than they would have been if the sound course had been adopted of standing by the ordinary constitution of the Grand Committees. He did not think the result now arrived at was so different from the result which would have been arrived at if an ordinary Grand Committee had been appointed as to make it worth their while to continue a controversy which, solely through the fault of the Government, had occupied so much of their valuable time. Although, as a matter of practice, he did not think the Government and their Scottish Liberal supporters gained anything by the adoption of the plan in its present form, he did not think they need waste valuable time by discussing what after all was a theoretical objection. But there was one point which ought to be noted before any final agreement was come to. The result of the adoption of this modified state of things would be that instead of the Committee being constituted by an impartial authority, as in the case of an ordinary Grand Committee, they would have all the Scotch Members sitting on it, and it would be the duty of the authority appointing the Committee to select 15 opponents of the Government in order to remedy as far as possible the disproportion in political influence which would then exist. He did think it a serious objection that 15 Members of a Committee should be selected with the express purpose and duty of counterbalancing a political majority. It was a great pity that any such proposal should have been selected. It was some satisfaction, however, to know that no Private Bills would be sent before the Committee, who would only have to consider this Session the Scotch Local Government Bill and the Fatal Accidents Bill. It must be understood that in assenting to this proposal the Unionist Party repudiated the idea that they were making any concession in point of principle or any agreement as to the permanent form in future of such a Committee.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire, who had blown hot and cold in this matter, had given the House to understand that the whole of the 15 Members were to be added from the minority. They had no answer from the Government to that suggestion. This so-called concession of the Government was, to his mind, no concession at all. They had been from the first opposing this Resolution on account of the impossibility of it reflecting the composition of the whole House upon the Scottish Committee, and they had not even now any assurance from the Government that the utmost efforts would be made to redress the inequality. Whereas in the ordinary Standing Committee the proportion would be 46 to 41, under the proposal of the Government the proportion, even if the whole of the 15 Members were added from the minority, would be 49 to 38. It had been said that the official Members would not attend. Were they to add a direction to the Committee of Selection, or to some other body, that the official Members who graced the Front Bench, and who had added so much to the enlightenment of the House in the whole of these proceedings, were not to attend on the Committee? Before this Amendment was agreed to they ought to have some further declaration from the Government as to whether it was their intention that the whole of the 15 Members were to be added on the side of the minority, and even if that was done, the proportion on the Committee would operate in the most unfair manner against those who represented the minority in that matter.

^* said, that, speaking on behalf of a large number of Scottish Members on that side, he did not oppose the concession of the Government, which he regarded as one of considerable importance. As the scope of the Grand Committee would obviously be the consideration of the two Bills mentioned by the Secretary for Scotland, he thought it was much better to allow the machinery to be set up as speedily as possible, and so avoid any prolonged controversy which might prevent the Bills from being proceeded with. But they did not regard it as an arrangement that could be at all a permanent one, and they could not at all accept it as a fulfilment of what they were led to expect would be granted for the consideration of all sorts of Scottish business. He trusted the experiment might succeed, and that, in future years, the original plan of the Government would be adopted.

Following the observa- tions of the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat, I wish to say this. If the hon. Member contends that this is a simple piece of machinery, set up for the one particular Bill, it must be understood that the House does not commit itself in any way whatever to the principle or constitution of the Grand Committee, and that it is, even in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but a piece of machinery to pass one particular Bill. There is a good deal of hesitation among hon. Members behind me as to whether this particular Bill should be referred; and what I wish to accentuate is this— that, notwithstanding the concession of the Government, and notwithstanding the change in its original proposition, we regard this now as simply a Sessional arrangement for the present year, and we also take it that hon. Members opposite do not consider the House committed by this Grand Committee to anything in the nature of the original proposal.

^* said, he regarded this as a storm in a teacup. He had had as much experience of Grand Committees as any man in the House, and was satisfied that in nine cases out of ten, if not in 19 out of 20, those Committees did not vote upon Party lines. Under these circumstances, he really thought that all this heated discussion was unnecessary.

^* said, he had a slight verbal alteration to suggest, and he proposed to amend the Amendment by omitting the words "desirability of approximating," in order to insert "approximation of." This proposal he made in the interests of precision and definiteness, and he thought it sufficiently explained itself.

said, he regarded this as an improvement of his own proposal, and was willing to accept the Amendment.

The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Renshaw) has been before the House for some time, and, as the Government has carefully considered it and accepted it in perfect good faith, I do not think it is wise at the last moment to adopt other words. I may remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government cannot dictate to the Committee of Selection; and as I am sure my hon. Friend drew his Amendment with great care, the Government would rather adhere to that.

said that, as Chairman of the Committee of Selection, he had been much disappointed to hear what had been said by the Secretary for Scotland. That Committee had for 12 years performed their duties to the satisfaction of the House, and they ought to have definite instructions as to what they were to do and what they were not to do. He earnestly hoped the Secretary for Scotland would see that the Amendment was very important as concerned the Committee of Selection.

I do not see why there should be any difference or misunderstanding on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke is, of course, a great authority on the question, but I must say I think it is not desirable that the House should dictate to the Committee of Selection, who always conduct their business, under the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman, in a manner which commands the admiration and confidence of every section of the House. It appears to me that the words of the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire are perfectly clear and intelligible, and that it is unnecessary at the last moment to change them; but if go high an authority as the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Amendment is an improvement, the Government are not prepared to resist it. It is a mere question of wording; our object is identical, and we have the same thing in our minds.

Amendment amended, by leaving out the words "desirability of approximating," and inserting the words "approximation of." — ( Mr. Wodehouse. )

Words, as amended, inserted.

said, he wished to move, in line 11, after the word "discharged," to insert the words—

"Provided that no Bill may be committed to the said Committee respecting the establishment or endowment or the disestablishment or disendowment of religion."

They had had assurances from the Government that a Disestablishment Bill would not be submitted to this Committee, and such assurances were quite satisfactory in so far as the present Ses- sion was concerned, but he would point out that the precedent now created would be judged, not in the light of the explanations which had been given by the Government, but by the terms of the proposal itself. He hoped, therefore, the Amendment would commend itself to the Government on its merits. It must be remembered that, notwithstanding the promise given, it would still be in the power of supporters of the Government to move that a Bill of the kind indicated in his Amendment should be committed. To guard against a discussion on such a subject hereafter, he thought it advisable that some such proviso should be accepted, or that they should get an assurance from the Government that their silence on the point should not be held to leave the question open in the future. For that purpose he formally moved his proviso.

Amendment proposed, in line 11, after the word "discharged," to insert the words—

"Provided that no Bill may be committed to the said Committee respecting the establishment or endowment or the disestablishment or disendowment of religion."—( Mr. J. A. Camphell. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, that if the Government accepted this Amendment they would not end the discussion of this Committee to-day or next week, because if they admitted one exception they must admit all. To exclude specially any Bill from the purview of this Committee implied that all Bills not so excluded stood a certain advantage. The Government had given an absolute assurance as to the Bills to be brought before the Committee. No Government could afford to break such a pledge— not even in the shape of not actively resisting with all its power any proposal of a private Member to refer a Bill of the excepted character to the Committee. He trusted the Amendment would be withdrawn, and that they would get to the Local Government Bill.

said, he admitted the difficulty in which the Government were placed. But it arose out of the position they themselves had chosen to assume. The words of their Resolution implied every conceivable kind of Bill, Private and Public, contro- versial and non-controversial; and they would remain on the Paper as the Sessional Order, and the only safeguards rested on the assurances of Ministers. He accepted the good faith of the Government that they had nothing else in their minds but two Bills. But while taking the word of the Government for this Session, they felt that the House to-day was taking a step which might be fruitful of ill effects in the future; and the necessity lay on them as far as they could to diminish that danger. The fear he had with regard to his hon. Friend's Amendment was that if the House accepted it, and did not accept others, they might in the future be considered as having assented to the proposition—to which they did not assent—that Bills other than those connected with the Church might be referred to this Committee. He saw danger in their appearing to concentrate their efforts even on so important a subject as the disestablishment of the Church of Scotland. That was a reason why they should not press such provisos, although he himself had one to which he did not think those particular objections occurred.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

"Provided that no Bill be committed to the said Committee which does not refer to the whole of Scotland."

The theory of the Government Resolution was that they wanted Scottish expert opinion upon Scottish Bills. He had given reasons for disapproving many of the principles which underlay the Resolution; but he did understand that where every Scottish constituency was interested in a Bill, and no other constituency was concerned with it, there might be some show of reason for the Committee. But that reason absolutely fell to the ground when they were dealing with Bills which did not refer to the whole, but only to a fraction of Scotland. On such Bills, Scotsmen as Scotsmen, and Scottish Representatives as Scottish Representatives had no more right to express an opinion than Irish or English Representatives. Take the Crofters Act. It applied only in a few counties in the North and West of Scotland. It involved broad, general considerations, on which the whole House

Amendment proposed, in line 11, after the word "discharged," to insert the words—

"Provided that no Bill be committed to the said Committee which does not refer to the whole of Scotland."—( Mr. A. J. Balfour. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had introduced an Amendment which was ingenious and interesting in itself, and did great honour to his powers of seeing aspects of a question which nobody else had seen before him, when he got up, but in which, when he sat down, everybody recognised not only novelty, but very considerable substance. He (Sir G. Trevelyan) thought that no Scotchman would admit that the population, the Representatives, the newspaper Press of Glasgow was not more interested in, and had not greater knowledge upon, Highland questions than the population, the Representatives, and the newspaper Press of London, Manchester, or Newcastle. They never should admit that for a moment. As a nation, they had complete solidarity of interests, and a most remarkable solidarity of knowledge of the circumstances of the whole country; and, indeed, their great argument for moving this Committee was that Scottish Members were not only conversant themselves with Scottish interests, but their constituents had such a thorough knowledge of those interests that they kept their Members up to the mark with information. What the right hon. Gentleman had failed to do was to draw any distinction between his Amendment and others on the Paper, which had either been withdrawn or passed over in silence. The Leader of the Opposition had been careful not to commit his Party on matters of principle beyond the present Session, and the Government equally were not willing to bind themselves at this moment in any manner further with regard to the future after the pledges they had given.

said, the Secretary for Scotland had committed himself, and endeavoured to commit the House to one proposal—namely, the consideration of all Bills introduced by a Minister of the Crown relating exclusively to Scotland, whilst they had undertaken with reference to the Session that they would not, except by order of the House, commit any particular Bills except two.

said, that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman seemed founded on these words, as if they included everything, even a Bill relating to crofters. But it had to be read with what followed —namely, Bills

"relating exclusively to Scotland which may, by order of the House, be committed to them."

The House was not likely to make an order against the will of the Government and of the Opposition combined, and alter the pledge that the Government had given. It was perfectly plain that a Crofters Bill could not be referred to the Committee.

said, that the point of his right hon. Friend was that the Secretary for Scotland dealt with the advantage of an expert Committee; and on crofter legislation they could only predicate expert information from a small proportion of Scottish Members. As to the solidarity of Scottish knowledge, he did not know if there were more ignorant persons in the world than some of the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman. If the Go- vernment got their Registration Bill, some 25,000 Irish would be added to the right hon. Gentleman's own constituency, and what did they know about those questions?

said, that the concession now asked would reduce the proposal of the Government to nothing at all. It was apparently directed to a single measure.

said, he had used one measure as an illustration, and so did not give any other.

defied the right hon. Gentleman to produce another illustration of the same kind. If he extended his principle to other cases, it showed at once the absurdity of the Amendment. The measure he cited referred to a particular country. Let him mention another that might come near it. Take the sea fisheries. Of course, the sea was not in the middle of the land. In a sense, knowledge of that subject would be confined to a certain portion of Scotland, and if they went on refusing to send Bills to the Committee on such grounds they reduced the proposal to absurdity. He hoped his right hon. Friend would not dream of accepting the Amendment. He thought they had already carried concession to the verge of weakness.

said, he rose to point out the inutility of attempting to conciliate an Opposition that would not be conciliated; and on that subject he would not use his own language, but words of wisdom from the Member for West Birmingham, who said—

"It is not possible for a Liberal Government to give satisfaction to Tory opponents, and it is not desirable.

Then the right hon. Gentleman went on. He was speaking at Newcastle, and—

"He asked the oldest inhabitant of Newcastle if he could recollect a time when, a Liberal Government being in power, and trying to do Liberal work, the Tories did not say that it brought the country to the verge of ruin, and that England was becoming a country in which no gentleman could live."

What Lad the right hon. Gentleman's friends opposite been doing on this and other questions? They had been trying to make the Government do that which was impossible and undesirable—concede everything to their Tory opponents. He remembered when this question of Grand Committees came on years ago—

^* : The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the consideration of this Amendment.

said, he would not continue to do so. He would only suggest to the Government that during the whole of this Session and last Session they had surely had enough experience of trying to satisfy Tory opinion. If the Government would stand fast it would take no longer time to defeat these Amendments than to accept them.

Could the House have had a better illustration of the way to waste time than in the speech which we have just listened to? It is the time of the Government the hon. Member has been wasting. As far as I am concerned, I make no complaint. He alleges of me and of my friends that our object is to spend the time of the Government. I do not complain when that allegation is made, especially when it is made by one who offers us, in himself, so powerful an ally. I hope that in the future as in the past he will not spare those interesting extracts from my speeches. They are always listened to by me with the greatest interest, and, I may say, with the greatest admiration. I think, however, that the hon. Member was wasting time in lecturing a Government which one would have thought was above any criticism of that kind. The Government themselves are the greatest offenders. What is their position this afternoon? They come down here and boast of having made a great concession. They say that they are particularly anxious to discuss the next Bill on the Paper, and that to enable them to do so they have made this great concession. Then comes another Amendment, which they are asked to accept. Why do they not carry out the same policy in regard to it? If they are right in making, as they say, a great concession, why not also make a small concession? We have been repeatedly reminded that this is only a Sessional Order, and that it is to apply only to one, or, at most, to two Bills this Session. My right hon. Friend proposes that it shall not, in terms, apply to any other class of Bills which, by the consent of the Government, it is not intended to apply to. Yet the Government refuse to accept the Amendment. Is not that wasting time? Why do they object, in drawing up this Sessional Order, to ex- clude definitely any class of Bills other than that to which the two Bills they have named belong? We want the exclusion, because we do not wish to commit ourselves, or wish to commit ourselves as little as possible, to a principle. The present proposal, if it were accepted, would not alter in the slightest degree the intention expressed by the Government, who not only at great length discuss the propriety of this matter, but allow the hon. Member below me to get up and occupy a good quarter of an hour. [ Cries of "Oh!"] I should have said, to try to occupy a good quarter of an hour in irrelevant matter — ["Oh!"] — and I have no doubt he would have succeeded but for the interposition of the Chair.

said, this discussion showed the extreme inconvenience of oral Amendments being sprung on the House, and of not putting all the Amendments down on the Paper. As far as he was able to follow the Motion, it would exclude from reference to the Committee almost any Bill if it did not relate absolutely to the whole of Scotland, no matter though it dealt with 999 out of 1,000 parts. A Scotch Bill which occupied a good deal of time in the late Parliament was the Burghs Police Bill. That measure did not apply to the whole of Scotland, and, under the terms of the present Amendment, it would be excluded from the consideration of the Scotch Grand Committee, because it did not apply to every town in Scotland.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 177; Noes 212.—(Division List, No. 35.)

^*

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—

"Provided always, that all the Members representing Scottish constituencies shall be excused from serving on Private Bill Committees."—( Mr. Hazier. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

I do not think the hon. Member will press this Amendment. He has called attention to the labours that may be thrown on Scottish Members, and, no doubt, has evoked a certain amount of sympathy. But it must be remembered that from this time forth Scottish Members will be regarded not in their character as Scottish Members, but in their character as Members of the Standing Committee, and the practice with regard to Members of Standing Committees is well known to be that they are not on that account to be excused from serving on Private Bill Committees. But the Members of the Committee of Selection are men of consideration for their brother Members, and when a man is engaged in hard work upon a Standing Committee it is probable that during that time he will be excused from service on Private Bill Committees and will be allowed to serve at some later period of the Session. I earnestly trust that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment and that we may be allowed to proceed with the Resolution, and to place the Local Government Bill before those Scottish County Councils which will be meeting almost in a week's time.

I think my hon. Friend is quite right in calling attention to this point. It is a very serious one, because undoubtedly there will be a considerable obligation on Scottish Members to attend the Committee, and it will be extremely inconvenient for them to be put on Private Bill Committees. At the same time, I am sure the House will be sorry to lose on the Private Bill Committees the services of many Members who have done excellent work on those Committees. This, however, shows the anomaly of the proposal of the Government. It is one of those difficulties which are coherent in the whole system, and which seem to me to vitiate it in a very important particular. I do not think my hon. Friend will be well advised to divide on the subject. He has raised the question of the difficulty in which the Scottish Members will be placed, and I am sure that the Committee of Selection will do everthing possible to enable Scottish Members to perform their duties.

said, the Secretary for Scotland had stated that Members of Standing Committees were not at present exempted from service on Private Bill Committees. The Scotch Committee was to be an addition to the present Standing Committees, and he wished to know whether in future Scottish Members were to be excluded from service on the Standing Committees on Law and Trade? He was not anxious, Heaven knew! to add to the duties of Scottish Members, but he felt bound to point out that when the House interfered with their functions it came very near to interfering with their privileges.

said, it would be a matter entirely for the Committee of Selection to decide, whether a man should be put on more than one Standing Committee.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question, as amended, proposed.

said, that on the general question of the appointment of this Committee he desired as a Scotsman and a Scottish Member to enter his most earnest protest against the whole idea and principle of the Government proposal. Scottish business, he held, had the same right to the attention and consideration of the House as the business from other parts of the country. He protested against the idea that Scottish business should be withdrawn from the House of Commons in any degree. It had been contended that such a measure as the Scotch Local Government Bill ought to be sent to a Grand Committee composed wholly or principally of Scottish Members, because they must be supposed to know more about Scottish local matters than English or Irish Members did, but he protested against the absurdity of believing that at the present time Scottish Members were returned to that House on account of their knowledge of Scottish local affairs. The political representation of Scotland had no real reference to Scottish feeling in regard to local matters. In proof of that, he need only refer to the composition of the great majority, if not the whole, of the County Councils in Scotland. In his own County Council, of which he was Convener, one of his strongest supporters in the Council was a gentleman who invariably proposed and seconded his opponent in politics. If further proof were wanted of the difference between the feeling of Scotland on political and on local matters, he would refer the Secretary for Scotland to the recent Conference of County Councils in Edinburgh; and he would find that many of the crotchets of those who were his supporters were rejected by a very considerable majority by the Conference— when discussed from the local and county point of view. He did not think the concession which had been made by the Government had made the Committee any more satisfactory or palatable to genuine Scottish opinion. But he was glad it had been made, because it showed more clearly than before the unfairness of the proposal originally made. What good, he should like to ask the Government, was to be obtained by this Committee. He was quite prepared to give full credit to the Secretary for Scotland for his intentions in the matter, but the real cue to the Motion, he believed, was that stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he said the other day he could give no definite answer to some questions until the Government had succeeded in getting Scottish business out of the House. If that was the object, his protest was all the more called for. Scottish business ought to have the same fair consideration from the House, which was the right of every part of the United Kingdom in the Imperial Parliament. If the idea of the Motion was the exclusion of Scottish business from the proper consideration of the House, it ought to be protested against by the whole of Scotland whenever Scotland could succeed in expressing her opinion fairly. If the Government had been genuinely anxious that the Local Government Bill should be fairly and properly considered by the County Councils, most of which began their meetings next week, they might have introduced the Bill three weeks ago, instead of spending the time of the House in discussing what he thought was a most mischievous proposal.

said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that this Committee would not give satisfaction to the people of Scotland. He took occasion the other night to remark that when Home Rulers asked for bread they were offered a stone. The proposal of the Government since then had been whittled down, so that it was not even a stone of the ordinary character. It had become an adamantine rock, upon which their policy had split. The Government ought to rise superior to the occasion, and instead of going on with this patchwork abandon their Committee, and adopt some more effective and popular method of dealing with Scottish business.

^* said, that before the House went to a Division he would like to say a few words upon the Main Question before them, in order that the country might clearly understand the attitude of the Scottish Opposition Members with regard to it. There was no doubt they would hear in the near future, as they were at present hearing, a great deal as to the opposition to this innocent proposal of the Government. In fact, there was a great deal more in the proposal of the Government than met the eye, and he wished the people of Scotland to understand the reason why the Opposition had so strongly opposed the Motion. The Secretary for Scotland referred to the pledges which had been given, and to the way in which the proposals had been hedged round, as showing that the fears of the Opposition were unreasonable. But the right hon. Gentleman could not get rid of the fact that he was making a new departure and establishing a precedent; and the Opposition would be doing less than their duty if they did not see that the precedent was surrounded by adequate safeguards. The Government would come down next Session with the same, or a still greater, demand, and they would ask that the Motion should be not a Sessional but a Standing Order. That being so, it was the duty of the Opposition to see that safeguards were set round such a novel proposal. If the proposal now before the House was the same as when it was submitted three weeks ago, it might be said that the criticism of the Opposition had been futile, and the time had been wasted. But the time had not been wasted, and the proof was that the Government proposal was totally different from that to which they were asked to agree three weeks ago. What they were asked to agree to then was no Sessional Order. Not a word about a Sessional Order fell from the right hon. Gentleman.

I said it was to be a Sessional Order.

There was not a word said by the right hon. Gentleman on the first night about its being a Sessional Order.

It was on the Paper, and was moved as a Sessional Order.

^* said, he was not sure about the exact technicality, but he believed before a Standing Order could be agreed to it must be moved as a Sessional Order. That was the procedure on originally setting up the Standing Committees. He appealed to hon. Members whether they did not understand from the Secretary for Scotland when he introduced the proposal that the change was to be permanent. At all events, the Opposition understood it was a permanent and not a Sessional Order. This was the sixth day on which they had discussed an Order which would apply to the remaining fraction of the Session—a Session which, according to the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was not to be unduly prolonged. The proposal had been further limited to those measures which were introduced by a Minister of the Crown. That was an additional safeguard, certainly. But the Opposition were asked to be grateful for the concessions. He thought the gratitude ought to come from the opposite quarter; the Government ought to be grateful to the Opposition for making the proposal more acceptable to the general sense of the House of Commons. The Leader of the Opposition had endeavoured to get the House of Commons to consent to a proposition whereby the Bills referred to the Committee should be only those applying to Scotland as a whole, and he was bound to say that the arguments used against that proposal had been extremely unsatisfactory. The}' wished to secure that, seeing the Government were setting up a Committee upon a national basis, only questions of a national scope should be submitted to it, and they regretted that that proposal had not been adopted. Seeing that it had not been adopted, their opposition to the present novel proposal was only intensified. They still saw a great deal that was objectionable in it, and intended to resist it to the last.

appealed to the House to now come to a decision upon the Motion. He thought that everyone would admit a six days' discussion was long enough regarding it. The object of the Government in submitting the Motion was to save time and accelerate the business of the House, and it was for that purpose he asked the House to allow the introduction of the Local Government Bill, which it was desirable to get printed and submitted to the County Councils at their meetings next week.

said, he was not going to contend against the wish of the right hon. Gentleman that an opportunity should now be given for introducing the Scotch Local Government Bill. He thought there was force in the view that the County Councils should have the Local Government Bill before them at their meetings. There was no desire to prolong the discussion on this Motion; and, so far as the Opposition was concerned, he would merely say they protested against it, not simply from the point of view of Scotland, although Scotsmen had the most right to protest against the withdrawal of Scottish business from this House; but he protested against it as an English Member —that Scottish business should be treated in a different way from English or Irish business. They had contended against the measure, as they looked upon it as an invasion of the constitutional rights of the different portions of the United Kingdom. As the proposal stood, it had rightly been described by the friends of the Government, one of whom had said that it had been thoroughly whittled down, another that it was absurd, and another that the Government had been reduced to impotency. That was the result of these Debates. They would divide against the Motion now as a protest, both on behalf of Scotland and on behalf of England, in order to show that, so far as the Unionist Party were concerned, it would be taken as no precedent for the setting up on a future occasion of any similar Committee.

Mr. HUNTER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

^* : I do not think there is any necessity to trouble the House with this Motion. I understand that the general feeling is that the discussion should end. If the hon. Gentleman has only a few remarks to make, that would still give time for the important business on the Paper.

said, he only wanted to ask a question arising out of a remark of the Secretary for War before they were relegated to the half-way house upstairs. It was not likely to induce them to curtail their remarks if hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House displayed the extreme intolerance they had displayed throughout the whole of this Debate. He wanted to ask a question relating to the Bill about to be introduced. Only yesterday the Leader of the House said he hoped to take the Second Reading of the Bill next week. The procedure in the County Councils would probably be that the Bill would be laid on the table, and a sub-committee would be appointed to go through the Bill and consider its details.

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Resolution before the House.

Main Question, as amended, put.

The House divided: — Ayes 232; Noes 207.—(Division List, No. 36.)

Ordered, That, in addition to the two Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47, a Standing Committee shall be appointed for the consideration of all Bills introduced by a Minister of the Crown relating exclusively to Scotland which may, by order of the House, be committed to them, and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 47, shall apply to the said Standing Committee:

That the said Standing Committee do consist of all the Members representing Scottish constituencies, together with 15 other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, who shall have regard in such appointment to the approximation of the balance of Parties in the Committee to that of the whole House, and who shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by them, and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged.

That Standing Orders Nos. 49 and 50 do apply to the said Standing Committee. — ( Sir G. Trevelyan. )

^* asked leave to introduce a Bill to establish a Local Government Board for Scotland, and make further provision for local government in Scotland, and for other purposes. He said: In accordance with the usual custom in the relation of Scottish and English business, England has had the start of a year in its local government reform. There is a danger about this that the Scottish Bill may be moulded too closely on the English Bill, and that Scotland may only get what England has got already. But the Government have been fully alive to the dangers of this, and I hope it will be found by the House that they will be avoided. We have proposed to give Scotland all the good things that England has; that wherever Scotch local government is defective we will try to correct the defects, and where the system is more effective than the English system, that we will endeavour not to reduce it to the level of England, but to go on and improve it in the Scotch direction. The proposal which I have to lay before the House commences with the proposal which has not its like in the English Bill. The first provision of the measure which I am introducing to the House, consisting of five clauses, relates to the constitution of a Local Government Board for Scotland. Now, the Local Government Board for Scotland, best known as the Board of Supervision, is wanting in several very important particulars. It is wanting in its relation to Parliament, which is not that of a Board responsible to Parliament, and it is likewise wanting in the fact that it is not under a responsible Parliamentary Chief. In England there are public offices with all sorts of names; there is the Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, the India Office, the Colonial Office, the Committee of Council for Education. But whatever they are called, they are all public offices in the right acceptation of the word— Boards they are only in name; they are Departmental in reality, with a responsible Parliamentary Chief, who himself is responsible to Parliament. But the Board of Supervision is a Board indeed, of a salaried chairman, who has eight colleagues—there are the Provosts of Edinburgh and Glasgow, two county gentlemen interested in local affairs, three Sheriffs (who receive £150 each as a stipend), and the Solicitor General for Scotland. The Board of Supervision is not responsible to Parliament—it has got no responsible chief. The Secretary for Scotland for the time being is its mouthpiece, if the Board of Supervision chooses to make him so, but they are not bound to supply him with information, and they are not bound to carry out the policy of the Government. It is not constituted as a public Department ought to be constituted. It is not responsible to Parliament as a public Department ought to be responsible. I must not say anything more in that strain without at once assuring the House, as is so often the case in our country, that the personal qualities of the men do much to correct the anomalies of the situation. The members who do the work of the Board of Supervision work as hard as men can do, and work well. The Chairman (Mr. Skelton) understands his business thoroughly, and performs it thoroughly, and gives to the performance of that business very eminent qualities which have distinguished him in other fields. The Sheriffs bestow on their business of advising the Board on legal matters the very greatest trouble, out of all proportion to their very modest stipends, and the Board is very well advised, indeed. Although the relations of the Board to the Secretary for Scotland are quite anomalous, I have always experienced, and I am sure that has been the case of my predecessors, the most prompt willingness to give all the information in the power of the Board, and a great desire as far as possible to suit their views to mine, and to meet every emergency in such a manner as I thought it ought to be met. But the men, on that very account, should have a good system to work under, and the time has come when the Board of Supervision should be remodelled. In the first place, the members should be much less numerous; they should be expected, all of them, to be always on the spot, and the business of the office should be their first duty, instead of only one among many, as it is the case with some of them. What we propose to do is this: The regular members of the Board will attend in Edinburgh as closely as the principal officers of the Local Government Board attend in London. There will be, according to our Bill, a Vice President, who will be a salaried officer, who will answer to and be the Chairman of the Board; one Sheriff, who will give legal advice, and whose stipend will represent the increased responsibility that is put upon him; and one medical man, who shall likewise hold a diploma in sanitary science, and who will do for an adequate salary the medical work both in the office and in the country.

What will be his salary?

It is not in the Bill, but I should say it would probably be about £1,000 a year. It is high time that on a body which superintends the public health in Scotland a representative of medical and sanitary science should find a place. These three officers, with a salaried secretary, will constitute what I may call the inner circle of the Local Government Board in Scotland. That is a much larger Board than the Local Government Board in England, which in good truth consists of no one but the President; but the circumstances of Scotland differ very much from those of England. The work has to be done on the spot in Edinburgh, and only a general control can be exercised in London, and therefore we have modelled the Board as far as possible on the lines of the Irish Local Government Board, which hon. Members in some parts of the House think has its faults, but which at any rate is under the recognised system of responsibility to Parliament and of the official Parliamentary Chief in a manner that leaves nothing to be desired. We propose, therefore, that the President of the Board shall be the Secretary for Scotland as the Chief Secretary is President of the Board in Ireland, and that the Under Secretary for Scotland and the Solicitor General should be likewise members of the Board. You will then have in Edinburgh a small, compact, and, I think, well-selected group of administrators who will be entirely confined to the work of their Department, and in London during the Session you will have a Parliamentary Minister who is really and truly responsible to Parliament for the information he gives it, and for the policy of the Board, which the Secretary for Scotland cannot in any sense be said to be at the present time. I will not enter into the details of the provisions by which the Board is turned from a body meeting at intervals into an ever-active and ever-working Department of the State. Those provisions have been very carefully arranged after consultation with the experiences of London and Dublin. But one thing I must ask hon. Members to consider — namely, that this Bill largely extends self-government to Scotland. For purposes of check, for purposes of information, and of financial control the Local Government Board of Scotland shall henceforward be as efficient a body as human official experience can possibly make it, and we cannot attain that efficiency except on the long-tried condition—first, that the State should have an absolute call on the professional services of every one of those who do the work of the Board, and next, that the Board should be in immediate, confessed and acknowledged relations to Parliament. That is the body that the Board of Supervision shall be as reconstituted. Now, I will inform the House in what new development the proposals of the Government are baaed on three principles. In local bodies, where the constitution is not popular, we wish to make them in the full sense of the word representative; we desire to reduce to the lowest point the number of separate elections, and to simplify the electoral machinery as far as compatible with genuine representation; and we wish to give to the bodies so constituted increased powers, so that the communities all over the country may have in their hands the management of their own affairs, just as the Municipal Bodies in Scotland have had with such very great success. Now, in marking out these principles we find a state of things very different from that which prevailed in England. In England there were no Parish Councils—no representative parish bodies at all. In England the Boards of Guardians were in full operation in charge of the Poor Law, and very generally in charge of the public health. But in Scotland the whole country is mapped out into Parochial Boards, which manage the Poor Law as the Board of Guardians do in England. Public health is entrusted to District Committees, which are composed partly of freely - elected representatives and partly of delegates from the Parochial Boards. But these Parochial Boards are in their constitution anything but truly elective according to all the ideas which are now held of what an elective body should be. And, therefore, by popularising the constitution of Parochial Boards we effect several operations at once. We establish genuine Parish Councils all over the landward districts of Scotland; we place the administration of the Poor Law on a responsible elective basis; and by popularising the Poor Law Boards we secure that henceforward the District Councils should be wholly representative, because the delegates from the Poor Law Board will henceforward be delegates from a truly representative body.

Will they be called Parish Councils?

I trust and hope that the House of Commons will be prepared to adopt the title of Parish Councils. That is not a point on which we should stand or fall, but just as we shall call the Board of Supervision henceforward the Local Government Board, I think we shall not shock any genuine Scottish feeling by calling the Parochial Boards Parish Councils. Now, there are 885 civil parishes in Scotland. I say nothing at present about the quoad sacra parishes, of which there are over 300, though later I shall have to make a proposal with regard to some of them. The Parochial Boards in these civil parishes are constituted in a manner familiar to all Scotsmen. In 10 burghal parishes—some of them great cities and some of them not larger than any ordinary parish— there is a comparatively small ex officio element; but in all the other parishes— that is to say, in 99 per cent. of them—the position of the Boards is most peculiar. They consist of a deputation from the kirk-session, and of all owners of land and houses over £20 a year, be they few or be they many—be they, as in some Highland parishes, only one or two, or, as in other cases, 300, 400, 500, and 600, even in one case over 2,000. These owners may delegate by mandate to their factors or other vicarious personages their own duties. Then there are a certain number of elected members, the number being settled by the Board of Supervision, but being not more in many cases than a 20th or 30th or 40th part of the Board, and even these electors are chosen by the plural vote and by voting papers, and in the burghal parishes on a high qualification. That in the rural districts of Scotland—for in the burghal parishes there is a small deputation from the Municipality—is a true description of a Parochial Board. It is, as I said, familiar to all Scotchmen, and it is beyond the power of any words of mine to exaggerate or intensify the disapprobation with which Scotchmen regard it. I say nothing of the efforts of private Members; I say nothing even of the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division (Sir C. Cameron); but since 1871 five Bills have been brought in by Governments, both Liberal and Conservative, for the purpose of reforming the constitutions of the Parochial Boards. These proposals fell through, as I believe, because they did not go far enough and did not satisfy the people of Scotland, who did not care to change so much for the sake of getting so little. But now, from the experience of last Session, it is quite evident that public opinion in Parliament has shown, in the case of the English Bill, that it has come up to the mark which, as I believe, public opinion in Scotland stood for some time already. This Bill proposes that the Parochial Board, which we call the Parish Council, shall henceforward be entirely chosen by free and open popular election. The constituencies will in landward parishes and parts of parishes be the electors on the Register of the County Council, in burghal parishes and parts of parishes they will be the municipal electors. Now this, as hon. Members know, is the widest suffrage that exists. It includes the service franchise, the compound householder, the lodger, and likewise Peers and women. The number of Councillors will be fixed by the County Council; in landward parts by the Town Council; in burghal parts and in parishes partly landward and partly burghal by the County Council and the Town Council jointly; and failing agreement, the matter is to be referred to the Sheriff. The limit of the number of Parish Councillors that is proposed in the Bill is between six and 30. Considering the serious duties that will fall to the Parish Councils, less than six should nowhere be elected; and if 30 seems high, it must be remembered that in the Boards of Edinburgh and Glasgow this number is already exceeded. In the smaller parishes, the number of Councillors will probably be elected on a single list; but in all cases the County Council and Town Council will have the power of dividing the parish into wards for the purposes of election. This brings me to the main difficulty of the Bill, which I hope hon. Members will think has been successfully surmounted. This is a measure not only for the reform of Parochial Boards, but for the establishment of Parish Councils to manage other affairs of the community. But in burghs these affairs are already managed by the Municipality. The burghal parts of the parish must be united for the purposes of the Poor Law. They must, however, obviously be separated for general Parish Council purposes. Suppose the burghal part was to forbid the rural part to have a recreation ground, or the burghal part should refuse the rural part of the parish leave to take action in matters of public health or lights of way, then they would be deprived of the powers which every English rural parish has, and which every Scottish rural parish ought to have. But, on the other hand, it would be extremely unjust that the burghal part should be rated for a recreation ground which was only enjoyed by the rural part of the parish, when, perhaps, the town itself had its own recreation ground. We therefore lay it down that, where the parish is both landward and burghal, the landward portion shall constitute at least one separate ward or wards, which shall form a Parish Council for all purposes other than for the administration of the Poor Law. But it will be said—"What will you do with the landward portions of parishes which are too small to make a Parish Council?" The figure below which we cannot have a Parish Council in England is 100, and in the whole of Scotland there are, I believe, only four parishes in which the landward part falls below that figure; and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire represents two of them. It must be remembered that, under the wide provisions of the 51st section of the Act of 1889, it is the very easiest thing in the world to bring about the absorption of populations into a neighbouring rural parish, or into the burgh. This amount of population, which cannot be dealt with under this scheme—in all, not exceeding 200 people in the whole of Scotland— ought not to be allowed seriously to stand in the way of what I believe to be the only scheme practicable for giving Scotland the full benefit of what England has got, without turning topsy-turvy the whole system which Scotland has already of financial and local administration. Thus, we propose to popularise elections. But, as I know by experience, Scotland would thank us very little if we multiplied the number, increased the complication, and swelled the expense of elections. Knowing how strong this feeling is, and how just it is, we have taken measures for simplifying elections which I earnestly trust the House will consider favourably. In the first place, the electoral roll will be the same absolutely for county and burgh and parish elections. This will be a very great saving of labour to the assessors, and a saving of expense to the ratepayers. All that is necessary is that the county and burgh Registers should be so framed and printed that the electors may appear upon them according to parishes and parish wards; and I am informed that that may be done with the greatest ease. Here I may say a word about the women's vote. As a matter of course, women, if elected, will sit upon the Boards under a clause which makes Parish Councillors qualified by residence in or within three miles of the parish; if chosen as delegates by the Parish Council, they will sit on the District Committee; and we give the Parish Council franchise to married women living with their husbands, who have a separate qualification. This is essentially the same as the English law now is. We go on to propose that the election shall take place on one and the same day, and in one and the same place as the County Council and municipal elections. For that purpose we enact that in settling the wards for Parish Councils, County and Town Councils shall, as far as possible, take into consideration the existing districts and wards for municipal purposes, and the election of Parish Councillors shall take place as nearly as may be in the same manner, the same place, and by the some returning officers and clerks as the elections for Town and County Councillors. This brings me to the important question —For how long are the Councillors to be elected, and how are they to retire? In England the Parish Councillors retire in a body at the end of three years. Guardians do the same. But if the County Council wish it, one-third of the Guardians may go out every year. In Scotland we have three alternatives. In the first place, over all Scotland one-third may go out every year. I must say that there are very great objections to this proposal. It is very difficult in the case of such numerous bodies as the Parochial Boards to find what the general feeling is; but as far as I can gather, in smaller Boards there is a very strong feeling indeed against being put to the trouble of an annual election. Another point is that the Register of the County Council is only made up once in three years, and, therefore, if we retire one-third of the Parish Councillors every year, it will be necessary that the county should be put to the immense expense and trouble of having its roll made up every year. Then comes the alternative which, as a matter of fact, we have adopted in the Bill— namely, that in every parish in Scotland the Parish Councillors shall retire at the end of three years. I am not quite certain that objection will not be taken to this oh the part of some of the largest urban Boards. In the year 1888 there was a Poor Law Conference which was attended by the representatives of 28 parishes in Scotland, beginning with the great Edinburgh and Glasgow parishes, and going down pretty well according to the size and dignity of the parishes. And one of the resolutions that were carried was that elected members should hold office for three years, one-third retiring annually. Now a third alternative would be that in counties in the landward parishes Councillors should be elected once in three years, and in the burghal parishes they should be elected one-third every year, retiring one-third. And this, of course, could be carried out very easily, because the municipal elections take place every year, and one-third of the Municipal Councillors retire; whereas in the case of the County Councillors the elections take place every third year, all the Councillors coming out together. Now we come to the powers to be given. These powers are largely contained in Clause 24 of the Bill. They include powers to provide or acquire buildings for public offices and meetings, and other public purposes; to provide and maintain grounds for public recreation, subject to the consent of the District Committee, or, where the county is not divided into districts, of the County Council; to acquire land for such buildings and recreation grounds; to acquire by agreement any right-of-way the acquisition of which is beneficial to the inhabitants of the parish; to hold and accept gifts of property for the benefit of the parish; to execute works incidental to any of the foregoing powers; to contribute to the expenses of doing anything above mentioned; to sell and exchange any lands or buildings; and to exercise all the powers of remonstrance and investigation and other matters relating to health which are at present enjoyed by householders or by ratepayers. For these purposes, and for the general purposes of this Act, the Parish Council may rate and borrow. In the English Bill there is a limit of 6d. in the £1—a limit arrived at in this House by the general agreement of English Members. I have my own doubts as to whether Scottish Members will have come to the same conclusion. In an ordinary rural parish in the lowlands of Scotland the whole parish rates, if you put education aside, very often do not exceed 6d. in the £1, and sometimes do not come near 6d. A 9d. rate would be a very high one in many rural districts. I am not at all sure that in Scotland very considerable consternation would not be created by the laying down in an Act of Parliament of the figure of 6d. as the rate up to which it was expected that the Parish Council should work. I am well inclined to leave the Parish Councils to their own common sense, which I believe will be their best guide, with regard to the objects they wish to attain, and the price they are ready to pay for them. With regard to borrowing, in the English Bill parishes are allowed to borrow up to one-half of their rateable value. From a Return I have had, I find that there are only some 25 parishes in Scotland which have borrowed, up to this time, more than one-tenth of their rateable value; and it would be, indeed, a jump if we gave a sort of inducement in an Act of Parliament so largely to increase the amount of debt in the parishes of Scotland which hitherto have been so free from it. The provision we have introduced is that the borrowing power of the Parish Councils for the general purposes of this Act shall be placed under the close and strict supervision and check of the Local Government Board; and wherever more than one-fifth of the rateable value has been borrowed they will have to get the leave of the Local Government Board to exceed that amount. I believe we may anticipate from this scheme great additions to the comfort and welfare of the people. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for North-East Manchester, asked me some time ago about recreation grounds and libraries, and what had been done to utilise the powers which Parliament has already put in the hands of Local Authorities? It is a very curious tale to tell. In Scotland a district committee is charged with providing recreation grounds. Now, there are two difficulties before this committee. In the first place, the district is so large that it cannot enjoy any given recreation ground. They are providing, not for themselves, but only for a portion of the community which they represent; and, in the next place, they cannot borrow money for this purpose. What is the result? Absolutely no recreation grounds have been provided throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.

At the public expense.

Quite so— at the public expense. I know that a great deal has been done by private benefaction. We make over this power to the Parish Council, which represents the community which desires and can utilise and enjoy the recreation ground, and the Parish Council can borrow in order to procure it. As to public libraries, they are now under the Parochial Boards, and the Parochial Boards have only set up four throughout the whole of Scotland. But freely elected Parish Councils, elected for the management of all the interests of the locality, instead of being a sort of omnium gatherum of all sorts of representative and pseudo-representative elements, chosen simply for the administration of the Poor Law, will be a very different body; and I earnestly hope, and firmly believe, that you will not merely have four, but 40, and perhaps hundreds of public libraries provided in the long run by the Parish Councils. I shall leave hon. Members to learn from the Bill the power which we propose to give to Parish Councils with regard to the provision of allotments, and the more speedy and efficacious procedure which I hope will make the Allotments Acts something of a reality instead of being, as they are at present, an absolute nullity in Scotland. There are provisions for meetings in schools for Local Bodies, and candidates for Local Bodies; powers of appointing committees for special purposes, and joint committees of parishes for objects which two or more parishes have in common; provisions for finance and audit. These and much else I pass over in order to devote a few minutes to the explanation of another portion of the Bill, which has no counterpart in the English measure. The Local Government Act of 1889 provided Scotland with machinery for local government, which we certainly do not think of pulling to pieces. That machinery had certain defects and omissions, and it is satisfactory that those defects and omissions have been discovered by those who work it, and that they are desirous of getting a remedy. I think it shows that the system has real life in it. The attention of the Scottish Office was called to certain points in which the system of county local government was defective by certain County Councillors, and I issued a Circular Letter to County Councillors asking them to point out defects which their experience had brought to their notice. The matter was courteously and promptly taken up, and not only did I receive a quantity of very valuable memoranda from the separate Councils, but a most important Conference was held on the 24th of January, which was attended by the representatives of 28 County Councils. That Conference was quite a model in the promptness with which they got through a large amount of business. The Government has introduced into this measure a series of amendments of the present system of county administration, most of which I think I can count on to receive the acceptance of the House. Some of the proposals made in the Conference I have not adopted, because they would demand not only an Act, but almost a code to themselves. I specially refer to everything that bears upon altering the incidence of rating, which are necessarily of such a controversial character that I am quite satisfied they would, if introduced, wreck the Bill. The first of the changes proposed has been anticipated by my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Renfrewshire, in a Bill which he has introduced, and which has already got very far in its passage. We propose that County Councils should be able to pay a reasonable sum to the funds of an Association of County Councils—a power which now exists in England. I am bound to say that my idea of a reasonable sum was more timid than that of my hon. Friend. Unless my hon. Friend's Bill has become law by the time we come to this point in Committee, he will see that his proposals are embodied in our Bill. We propose that the chairman of the District Council shall, by virtue of his office, be a Justice of the Peace for the county; and that nominations for County Council elections may be withdrawn by consent, in order to obviate the trouble and expense of a contest. The County Councils may erect and maintain county buildings. Then—and this is a most important provision, and one which will extremely affect the interests of the Highland counties—instead of being confined to the expensive and elaborate roads by way of communication, they may make cart-roads, footpaths, and footbridges, which will enable the road rate to be used for the benefit of portions of Scotland which at present get no benefit from it at all. The District Committee, and, failing the District Committee, the County Council, are charged with vindicating rights-of-way by public exertions, and, if necessary, at the public expense. In the Highlands the ferries have fallen out of public care ever since the Act of 1889, and we propose to give the charge and supervision of ferries to the County Council, and enable them to take over altogether those ferries which the proprietors are willing to make over to them. I am glad to say that this part of the Bill has been drawn by a Highland proprietor with the greatest knowledge of that part of the country where these ferries are most needed and there is the greatest danger of decadence. County boundaries are to be assimilated for valuation, and for the distribution of money under the local taxation and other grants; and the by-laws dealing with vagrants are to be defined, and the powers of the County Councils to deal with vagrants assured. The powers of borrowing for capital works, widening of roads, and other purposes is conferred on the County Council; and the time for the repayment of loans extended from 30 to 40 years. The land which is required for all and any of these purposes, whether by County or Parish Councils, if it cannot be bad by agreement, may be henceforward obtained under provisions for compulsory purchase—which we believe will be quite as effectual and quite as cheap as they can possibly be made. On one point only, so far as I can remember, we have gone against the majority at the County Conference. By a majority of 22 to 16, the Conference decided not to interfere with the composition of the Standing Joint Committee. We propose to ask Parliament to enact that the representation of the Commissioners of Supply on the Standing Joint Committee shall cease — and that the Police Committee shall be entirely composed of County Councillors, along with the Sheriff or Sheriff Substitute. The powers and duties of the Standing Joint Committee relating to capital works and borrowing we propose to transfer to the Finance Committee of the County Council —a body which, under the 75th section of the Local Government Act, has a statutory recognition and a corporate existence quite as marked and real as the Standing Joint Committee itself. I end my selections from the provisions of the Bill with perhaps the most—I am beginning to hope almost the only —very controversial one; and I do not argue it now. Sir, this Bill is founded on the existing civil parishes in Scotland. Undoubtedly these parishes are in some cases inconveniently situated and bounded. But already there exists a remedy for this. Under the Poor Law Act of 1845, on the application of any of the Parochial Boards interested, parishes may be combined for the purposes of the Poor Law; and under the 51st section of the Act of 1889—a section to which the attention of the country has not been nearly sufficiently directed—on the representation of a County or Town Council, the Secretary for Scotland has the largest, the widest—I was going to say the most arbitrary power—for uniting, and dividing, and re-grouping parishes and parts of parishes. There is one class of parishes to which these powers might be most usefully applied, and that is the quoad sacra parish, which likewise is a School Board district, and which is composed of parts of several other parishes. There are 53 such parishes and School Board districts, made up out of portions of 101 civil parishes. Now it is almost certain that where a quoad sacra parish has been chosen as a School Board district, it is a self-contained community, with a life of its own, and could with great advantage be endowed with a corporate existence, and would be able to exercise for itself all the powers given to Parish Councils under this Bill. The Bill, therefore, enacts that the County and Town Council shall take into consideration the case, and determine whether the quoad sacra parish shall be converted into a civil parish, which, therefore, would ipso facto become conterminous with the School Board district, a matter which in itself is a great advantage. It only remains for me to say a word about a question which last Session provided fuel for so many hot debates—the question of charities. I hope and believe our discussions on this question will be much less prolonged and much quieter. In the first place, this matter has been largely arranged already. By the 53rd section of the Poor Law Act, the funds which have been left for the benefit of the legal poor of Scotland have already been made over to the Parochial Boards, and, therefore, under this Bill will pass quite naturally to the Parish Council. Of such funds there were in Scotland, as ascertained in 1869, nearly 200, some of them of very large value—£1,000, £2,000, and £3,000 —and since then a certain number of others have been ascertained and vested in the Parochial Boards. All these are now managed by the Parochial Boards, and all these under the Bill will pass to the Parish Council; but, besides, there is a large number of charities, non-ecclesiastical in their character, vested for the most part in the kirk-session, and with trustees in some cases. Of these non-ecclesiastical charities the commonest form is providing money, coal, and beds in the hospital to the poor of all denominations, for apprenticing boys and educating deserving young children, irrespective altogether of the Church to which they belong. In these cases the existing trustees, whether they be of the kirk-session or not, will have the power if they think fit to transfer the trust to the Parish Council; but if they do not take this step, various provisions will come into effect to give the Parish Council a strong hold on these charities. The best known proposal in the English Bill is not suited to Scotland—the proposal, namely, which enacts that the Charity Commissioners shall place trustees upon the Board in order to take part in the deliberations, and possibly a preponderating part, with the old trustees. But in Scotland, where the kirk-session or the heritors, and, still more, where the kirk-session and the heritors, are trustees, to add a majority of trustees would make the Board ponderous and numerous to absurdity, and in the next place we have no Charity Commission in Scotland. We propose, therefore, that in these cases the Local Government Board for Scotland shall make a scheme nominating a new Board of Trustees of a convenient size from the existing trustees and from the trustees appointed by the Parish Council, taking care, in the case of a non-ecclesiastical charity—and these are the only charities which will be dealt with —to give a majority of the nominees to the Parish Council. This is our-practical and simple method of dealing with what, I believe, the Scottish people consider a practical and simple matter, unless, indeed, the Scottish Members go further, and take the advice of a very powerful body of Members in this House, not at all belonging to one Party, and make over these charities bodily to the Parish Councils. I have endeavoured to give the House a compact sketch of a large measure, and I think I have said enough to show that we have fulfilled our promise; and while Scotland gets everything that England has got, while nothing has been withheld, a good deal more has been given, or, at any rate, has been offered. In conclusion, I would only ask hon. Members to read the Bill as favourably as possible, and, at any rate, to read it very carefully, and not hasten to condemn any single provision until they have thought it over thoroughly in connection with the other parts of the measure which surround it. A detail which at first sight may strike an hon. Member unfavourably may be absolutely necessary for the purpose of carrying out a general scheme of which, on the whole, he approves. And again, it must be remembered that the Bill, as it enters the House, will not be the same as the Act which I hope and trust will leave the House. The framers of the measure readily admit that it is susceptible of improvement from the experience and acuteness of hon. Members, and from the knowledge which they possess, and of which they are kept constantly in possession by the constituencies which they represent. But none the less do we believe it to be sound and solid in its framework, and practical in its main detail, and with the help and co-operation of all concerned, we hope to bring it into such a shape that it may establish throughout Scotland popular responsible self-government in those quarters where and with regard to those objects for which it is at present wanted.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Local Government Board for Scotland, and make further provision for Local Government in Scotland."—( Sir G. Trevelyan. )

I have only one or two observations to make on the Bill, but I rise at present mainly to make a suggestion to the Government. It is clear, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, a speech of great clearness and lucidity, that except by arrangement it is impossible that the First Reading can be taken to-night. There are certain advantages from the Scottish point of view in getting the First Reading to-night, because it is desirable to get the Bill printed, and that it should be referred to the County Councils of Scotland, that they may have a full opportunity of discussing it before we come to the Second Reading. If this is conceded by the Government, I should advise hon. Gentlemen to refrain from comments until the later stage, provided that the Government undertake to give at least a full night's Debate after the County Councils have discussed the Bill, and after hon. Members have had an opportunity of weighing the opinions expressed by those bodies. The County Councils do not meet till next month practically, and therefore it will be impossible to take the Second Reading before the Whitsuntide Holidays. If the Government do not see their way to that, they cannot complain of our discussing the principles and even the details of the Bill at this stage. But there are two points of great importance raised by the Bill which even on the First Reading I should not like to pass without a word being said from this Bench regarding them. The first is the subject of borrowing by Parish Councils. The right hon. Gentleman, with the example of the English Bill before him, has decided that there shall be no limit put to the expenditure of the Parochial Councils, and practically no rigid limit to their borrowing. In justification of that departure from the English precedent, he says that Scotsmen are so naturally economical, and have shown themselves in the past so reluctant to burden the rates by unnecessary expenditure, that to put any limit of 6d. for expenditure and a limit of half the rate for borrowing purposes, as is done in the English Bill, would be something like a legislative invitation to the Scottish Authorities to raise rates and indulge in expenditure which they would otherwise be loth to undertake. I am not satisfied with that. Recollect that you cannot argue of the future of these Bodies from the past of the Bodies you are dispossessing. There may be and are anomalies in the existing Constitution of the Parochial Boards, but at all events they do represent in overwhelming force the opinion of the people who have to pay the rates, and naturally enough they were extremely economical of the rates they themselves had to pay. One object of this Bill is to transfer the power not only to a class who do not in some cases pay the rates, but you are also giving powers to carry out objects which those classes will be specially anxious for. One consequence of that will be that there will be a pressure in the direction of expenditure, and the removal of ancient obstacles to expenditure, which may make the future of these Parochial Bodies very different in this respect from their past. I think it a most rash piece of inductive reasoning to suppose that because the old Parochial Board, as it was constituted, had proved a most economical administrator, the new Parish Council, elected on an entirely different line, and having entirely different relations with the rate-paying class, will carry on the financial traditions of its predecessors. I do not feel myself justified in giving a final judgment on this matter, but I confess I do regard it with apprehension, and I trust that those who discuss this matter will see fit to make the legislation in regard to Scotland run in this respect more absolutely on all fours with the legislation which the Scottish Members have aided in imposing upon England. The only other point I wish to speak on at present is the abolition of the Standing Joint Committee. I do not complain of the Government taking the opportunity of introducing this Bill to settle some much-needed reform in the Act of 1889. But, under the inspiration of some form of legislative insanity, the Government have deliberately imported into a Bill, which in other respects they have striven to make uncontroversial, this most controversial matter. If you are going to introduce this reform into Scotland by means of the Parish Councils Bill, why, when you were dealing with England, did you not introduce it into the English Bill? That is my first objection; but there are other objections of the gravest substance to this proposal. It entirely destroys the financial machinery of the County Councils, deliberately adopted by Parliament in 1889; and not content with that, it entirely destroys the machinery by which—through the police —the law is administered, and the liberty and peace of Her Majesty's subjects preserved. I must, at this very first moment, enter my protest against it. I was a Member of the Government which introduced the original proposal, and I was largely responsible for it, but I believe it to have been founded on justice and equity, and I do not think it was open to the charge of being an interference with the liberties or rights of any popular body. Then, with regard to the financial authority of this joint committee, what is it? It has no control over the annual expenditure, or over the annual taxation for the purposes of expenditure. What it has is a control over the borrowing powers of the county; and when we recollect that the County Council is elected by a constituency on whom the burden of meeting these permanent liabilities will not in the main fall, and that it will give to those on whom it will not fall a much greater voice in the matter, is it not a very strong order that, without justification, without the slightest defence given by the Minister in charge of the Bill, he should make this far-reaching alteration in a Bill adopted by Parliament after long and full discussion? That was the financial part; but the police part of the proposal appears to me even more important. There are parts of Scotland where it cannot be said that there is absolute unanimity among all classes, as happily is the case in many parts of Scotland, to see the laws enforced and supported by the forces which this House had placed at the disposal of the Local Authorities; and yet you are here handing the power to a body elected by those who may not want to see the law enforced against certain kinds of offences, and you are placing the unfortunate Sheriff of the County, who is responsible for keeping order, in a minority of one, it may be, in the Police Committee, which is to have absolute control over the whole machinery by which he is to carry out the duties of his office. Cases have arisen even under the existing system where you have some qualification of the character of this Police Committee, and where it has been found impossible for the Sheriff to obtain the necessary police force to enforce the law. With that example fresh in your minds, how can the Government bring down to this House a proposal which has nothing whatever to do with the main objects of the Bill, which is foisted in artificially, and which is not covered by the title of the Bill, as far as we have heard the title? How can they make that provision with that instance fresh in their minds of the difficulty of officers carrying out the law under the existing system? Here, then, are two gigantic subjects with which the Government have deliberately determined to embitter and lengthen our Debates. Why are they not content to deal with Parish Councils in an uncontroversial manner, in doing what every Scotsman wants to see done, without running their heads against this stone wall, and compelling us—who would certainly approach the consideration of this Bill in other respects with the most favourable feelings, and with a desire to see this question settled effectually and quickly—to receive this part of the Bill with protest and warning? I trust that even now the Government will see fit to alter their policy, and I confess I think they would have been more honest and more straightforward with the House if they had told us, in the course of the four days' discussion upon this Standing Grand Committee, that the Bill they were going to refer to it was not a Parish Councils Bill, was not the uncontroversial measure which they have pretended that it was—but that it contains proposals for modifying! profoundly the original arrangements of I Parliament with regard to County Councils, and that it contains subjects on which sharp divisions must make themselves felt. This is not an uncontroversial measure. It might have been had the Government so willed it. I think they ought to have told us its character before they asked us to assent to that Grand Committee; but as they have conceded it for obvious reasons, at all events they must now take the consequences. I hope they will give us ample opportunity for discussing not only the merits of the Bill, but the propriety of sending it to the Committee with such proposals, which from their nature ought to be discussed and decided in Committee of the whole House. I am not making an unreasonable demand also when I ask that we shall have ample time after Whitsuntide to consider the Bill on its own merits and in connection with the opinion of the various County Councils.

I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman, who has addressed to the House some very forcible animadversions and criticisms, as to which I have no complaint to make, should have expressed himself as surprised at finding these provisions in the Bill. When the Local Government (Scotland) Bill of 1889 was before the House, these points were debated, and the right hon. Gentleman must remember that the Liberal Party protested in the strongest possible terms against the constitution and the powers given to the Joint Committee. The Liberal Party from the first opposed the existing arrangement in the strongest possible terms, for the very reason that they had no sympathy with the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman has urged. We, unlike him, believe that the best thing, in the interests of law and order, is to entrust the electors with a much larger power over the police and the machinery of order. I am not going to enter into that controversy now. I am only surprised at the right hon. Gentleman being astonished to find such provisions in this Bill.

What I am astonished at is to find such provisions in a Parish Councils Bill; and, in the second place, that they are introduced in a Bill that is not a controversial one.

said, this was not a Parish Councils Bill; this was a Local Government (Scotland) Bill, and, therefore, Parish Councils came legitimately into it. He acknowledged the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman proposed that, in the circumstances, they might be allowed to introduce the Bill to-day, and take the Second Reading after Whitsuntide. He imagined it would not be an extreme undertaking for him to say that the Government would not bring the Second Reading on until after Whitsuntide, and promise a full night for the discussion. He hoped, if they made that concession, that that night would seethe end of the discussion on the Second Reading, and the reference to the Committee.

said, It was impossible for him to give any pledge that the Debate would only take one night. From his own point of view, speaking at this time, that would be sufficient. There would be no desire on their part to prolong the Debate.

said, it must be understood that this one night's Debate included the reference to the Standing Committee.

said, that as a Scottish Member he did not think any such promise could be given. It might be that the exigencies of private business would reduce the time at their disposal. He referred to one or two important points, such as the reconstruction of the Board of Supervision, the desirability of a continuity of policy in the administration of the Poor Laws, and the question of a no-limitrate, all of which would require careful consideration.

inquired if provision was made in the Bill for the payment of travelling expenses of County Councillors?

said, there was no such provision.

Then I beg to give notice that I shall move an Amendment to that effect.

said, he understood that the Leader of the Opposition, though he did not promise positively, saw no reason why the Second Reading of the Bill and its reference to the Standing Committee should occupy more than one night, and that he was prepared to do his best to secure the attainment of these two objects. On that understanding the Government were quite ready to defer the Second Reading till after Whitsuntide.

said, he entirely accepted the right hon. Gentleman's version of his position. He could not himself imagine that it would be necessary to give more than a full night to the Second Reading, unless some entirely new phase of controversy arose in consequence of the discussion of the Bill in Scotland.

said, that in regard to the Standing Joint Committees, they were a necessary protection. There were counties in which the existence of these Committees as a possible safeguard had been of very great importance during the last few years. He was sorry that education was not included in the Bill, and a single Board established in the parishes which would not only have the functions of the Parochial Board, but have the functions of the School Board as well.

thought that in the smaller rural parishes the School Board and the Parochial Board might be united. There might also be introduced some limitation of borrowing powers of Parish Councils.

also regretted that no attempt had been made to amalgamate the functions of the School Board with those of the Parish Council in the smaller parishes.

said, he should have to say a good deal about education when the time came. He had no objection to a limit of borrowing power of any sort or kind; but he doubted whether the Scottish people would not be rather alarmed at it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir G. Trevelyan, The Lord Advocate, and The Solicitor General for Scotland.

Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 202.]

Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Acts Amendment (County of Bute) Bill.—(No. 142.)

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—( Sir C. Cameron. )

said, this Bill should not have been introduced by a private Member, and he would like to know from hon. Members who were responsible for the Bill what they considered brought the Islands of Bute and Arran within the scope of the Act?

It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill. (No. 140.)

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill.—(No. 150.)

As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

Public Buildings (London) Bill

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 4.

Amendments made.

Another amendment proposed, in page 3, line 30, after the word "served," to insert the words "The Order shall not require to be confirmed by Act of Parliament."—( Mr. A. C. Morton. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

It being after Ten Minutes to Seven of the Clock, and Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday next.

Selection (Standing Committees)

reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Building Societies (No. 2) Bill: Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Banbury, Mr. Benn, Mr. Thomas Henry Bolton, Mr. Bucknill, Dr. Clark, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Crosfield, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Thomas Healy, Mr. Lees Knowles, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Pickersgill, and Mr. George Russell.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order (No. 2) (Bridgwater, &C. Canals) Bill

On Motion of Mr. Burt, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade, under "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act. 1888," containing the Classification of Merchandise Traffic and the Schedule of Maximum Rates, Tolls, and Charges applicable thereto, for the Bridgwater Canals Undertaking of the Manchester Ship Canal Company and for certain other Canals, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt and Mr. Mundella.

Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 198.]

Marriage With a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill

On Motion of Mr. Rees Davies, Bill to amend the Law as to Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Rees Davies, Mr. Albert Bright, Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. Arch, Mr. Husband, and Mr. Joseph Pease.

Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 199.]

Steam Trawlers (Scotland) Bill

On Motion of Mr. Crombie, Bill to compel the Masters of Steam Trawlers fishing in Scotland to hold certificates of competency, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Crombie, Mr. Anstruther, Mr. Renshaw, and Sir William Wedderburn.

Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 200.]

Mines, Royalties, and Easements

On Motion of Mr. Atherley-Jones, Bill to amend the Law relating to Royalties and Mining Easements, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. Charles Fenwick, Sir James Joicey, Mr. John Wilson, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Joseph Pease, and Mr. Pickard.

Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 201.]

Statute Law Revision Bills, &C

Lords Message [26th April] relating to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills, &c, considered.

Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords on Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills do meet the Lords Committee in Committee Room B, upon Monday next, at Twelve of the Clock, as proposed by their Lordships.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—( Mr. T. E. Ellis. )

The House Suspended its Sitting at Seven of the Clock.

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the Crofters (Scotland) Act of 1886 be amended so as to include leaseholders; to increase and make effective the power to enlarge existing holdings; and to provide that a person who, in the opinion of the Commissioners, is substantially a crofter and who is resident in the crofting parish in which his *** holding is situated, shall not necessarily be excluded from the benefits of the Act because he does not reside on his holding,"

said, he understood that a technical question had arisen with reference to the first part of the Resolution, inasmuch as it contained a recommendation which was included in a Bill that had been read a first time. If under these circumstances it was out of Order for him to move the first part of his Motion, he would leave it out and move only the second part.

^* : I think that the part which relates to the inclusion of leaseholders will not be in Order, as it anticipates a Bill now before the House.

said, he would, then, leave that out, and he could do so without difficulty, because the Government had already accepted the principle of the Bill. The question he had therefore to discuss was limited to two points. The first related to the enlargement of existing holdings. There was a clause in the Crofters Act of 1886 providing for the enlargement of holdings, but he thought the House would not be surprised to learn that that clause was so restricted that practically it had been a dead letter. As far as he could make out from the Report of the Crofters Commission of 1892, in the eight years since that Act wag passed only 44 holdings had been enlarged under the permissive clause of the Bill. It was obvious, therefore, that it had not fulfilled the purpose for which it was intended. The Motion did not, of course, refer to a Report which would be received shortly from the Deer Forest Commission, but it was evident that the restrictions now in force would practically make it impossible for the Commissioners to enlarge the holdings to any extent. The Crofters Act would have to have been a much better Act than it was if it had not been necessary, after the lapse of time that had taken place since its passage, to put it into dock for alteration and repair. It had been found to be a very weak measure. He remembered that during the discussions that took place when the Bill was before the House in 1886 he ventured to predict that it would not answer the purpose it was intended for sufficiently to satisfy the just demands of the people of the Highlands. But while he said that this prophecy had unfortunately been fulfilled, he must admit in all truth and honesty that the Act had done more for the Highland people than he ever expected. The one great thing it had done which could not be undone was to place upon the Statute Book the recognition of the principle that the native population— what he might call the aborigines of the Highlands—had rights in the land as well as the landlords. It was impossible to over-estimate the value of the recognition of that principle. The Act had effected a reduction of rents from 30 to 60 per cent., and it had also struck off a number of arrears that hung round the necks of the crofters, and made the struggle for life impossible. But, at the same time, defects in the Act had been made plain, and it was the manifest duty of the House to remedy those defects if it could be shown to be just and reasonable that they should be remedied. He was convinced that it was just and reasonable that the holdings should be enlarged, and he was also convinced that the restrictive clause, which defined what was and what was not a crofter, should be amended. He should be afraid to say how many letters, petitions, and papers he had received on the subject of this restrictive clause. The Commissioners had decided that men who were bonâ fide holders of crofts, but happened to live in little hamlets which had the crofts all round them, were not crofters. The result had been the exclusion from the benefits of the Act of a very large number of people whom the Act was originally intended to include. There were many other Amendments of the Act which might be recommended to the House as necessary; but he desired to approach the subject with the utmost moderation, and in a practical spirit, and he proposed only that which he believed he should be likely to succeed in carrying. He had left out a very large class of deserving people in the Highlands, but he was waiting hopefully for the Report of the Deer Forest Commission, when he trusted that a sufficient amount of land would be found to be available in the Highlands to provide land for all who needed it. Two small Acts of Parliament were passed by the late Government which were supplementary to the Crofters Act, but extended over a wider area—namely, the Small Holdings Act and the Allotments Act. He said nothing about the motives of the late Government in passing those measures, but certainly if they had been designed to prevent the acquisition of small holdings and allotments they could not have been better framed for the purpose. County Council after County Council had refused to put them in force because of the intolerable restrictions contained in them. He was anxious that the discussion should not occupy more time than was absolutely necessary, and he would therefore do no more than appeal to the House on behalf of a deserving humble people, who, if they had been less law-abiding and less deserving, would have had their grievances redressed many a year ago. They had been an uncomplaining people, although they had suffered under landlord tyranny to an extent that the House was not fully aware of. The principle of the Crofters Act, recognising as it did the interest of crofters in the land, was invaluable, not merely as a means of obtaining a reduction of the rents they paid, but as a means of constituting them free men who were not afraid of eviction at every glance of the landlord's factor. They asked respectfully, lawfully, and humbly that as much justice should be done to them as had been done to their fellow-subjects across the water in Ireland. There were no restrictions as to leaseholders or as to those who did not actually live upon their crofts. The present legal definition of a crofter was absurd, unjust, and unreasonable. He appealed to hon. Members, far removed as they were from all knowledge of the misery of these people, to try and do something that would ameliorate their condition. He had been in a great many parts of the world, including countries like Turkey, that were called benighted, and he declared there, before the House, that he had never seen a civilised people that were condemned to live the life that many of these poor Highlanders had been reduced to. It was a scandal and a shame that such things should be. He was quite sure that an appeal of this kind would not be heard with deaf ears by the Secretary for Scotland (Sir G. Trevelyan), and that he had in this matter, as in all others affecting the welfare of the people, the full sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman. He moved the Resolution with the alteration that he had already indicated.

. in seconding the Resolution, congratulated his hon. Friend on having obtained the opportunity of bringing it before the House. It was very appropriate that his hon. Friend should be the Member to bring it forward, because many Members would remember the active and energetic aid the hon. Member had given to his constituents and to the Highlanders generally in passing the Crofters Bill through the House. He (Dr. Farquharson) could also congratulate the Secretary for Scotland (Sir Gr. Trevelyan), whose name would be , always in Scotland honourably associated with the passing of the Crofters Act, on having had the opportunity afforded to him of completing the work he so well began a few years ago. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that the Crofters Act had been a great success in Scotland. Only the other day emphatic testimony was given of the improvements that had been made by the Crofters Act in the parts of Scotland to which it had been applied — how it had given the stimulus of hope to the poor and suffering people, and such security of tenure, and such fair rents as enabled them to carry on their methods of agriculture with a greater prospect of success than before. His hon. Friend had, however, well pointed out that, good as the Act was in many respects, it still required amendment. He concurred with his hon. Friend in hoping that the results of the labours of those Commissioners who were now conducting very laborious investigations throughout Scotland would be to enable the Crofters Commission to carry out further good work, and to enable the Highlanders to obtain that greater amount of land which they so urgently required. He was bound to say that his interest in the question was a little wider than the scope of the Resolution which his hon. Friend had proposed. He had always wondered why the Crofters Act had not been a little more widely extended, and that other parts of the country had not been brought within its scope. He could not help feeling a shade of disappointment that his hon. Friend had not made his Motion as wide as was its Preamble. He hoped to see an extension of the Crofters Act to other parts of Scotland besides those to which it was now applicable, and he was glad to see the Amendment which the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Buchanan) had placed upon the Paper. Aberdeenshire was essentially a crofting county, and it actually contained a larger number of small holdings than any other county in Scotland. At this moment there were in Aberdeenshire over 8,000 holdings of less than £50 annual rent, and 6,000 of them were of less than £20 annual rent. These holdings had great claims to be included under an Act which would give fixity of tenure and fair rent. They were small, and very many of them were held upon conditions under which the holders might at any moment be forcibly dispossessed with out having any claim to compensation. Very many of the holders had pasture in common, and they were also under other conditions which ought to bring them within the provisions of the Crofters Act. There was no county in Scotland in which the demand for the extension of the Crofters Act to itself was so keen, so strong, and so universal as Aberdeenshire. He thought the Aberdeenshire farmers felt that the large number of small holdings in that county had been the making of their farming industry, and that they had been the means of building up the great prosperity of the county as an agricultural centre, and, above all, as a great cattle-feeding and breeding county. The fact was, that the small farms had fed the large, and, between the two, Aberdeenshire had been erected into what he might call the premier county in Scotland for cattle-feeding, if not for cattle-breeding. The county had been enabled to hold its own better during the present depression of agriculture than any other part of Scotland. It was perhaps not unnatural that, under these circumstances, the Aberdeenshire farmers were casting wistful eyes upon the advantages which the Highlanders derived from the Crofters Act. He thought that if there could be an extension of the Crofters Act in these parts of Scotland it would be of enormous advantage. It would check the present tendency to abolish crofts and small holdings—the landlords being anxious to avoid keeping up the buildings on them; it would keep the people on the soil, and would operate in some degree as a remedy for the prevailing agricultural depression, as it would induce the tenants to put their capital into the soil. He most cordially seconded the Motion of his hon. Friend.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word " That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—

"In the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the Crofters (Scotland) Act of 1886 be amended so as to increase and make effective the power to enlarge existing holdings, and to provide that a person who, in the opinion of the Commissioners, is substantially a crofter, and who is resident in the crofting parish in which his holding is situated, shall not necessarily be excluded from the benefits of the Act because he does not reside on his holding,"— ( Sir D. Macfarlane, )

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

said, that the hon. Member had been obliged to leave out of his Amendment that part of it which applied to leaseholders, but he might say that his opinion on that question was well known. As to the second part of the Amendment, in 1888 he had the honour of calling the attention of the House to the great disappointment that was experienced in regard to the operation of the provisions of the Act for enlarging the holdings of the crofters. The Government of that day were pleased to grant a special Return by the Crofters Commission to show the reasons why the Act had failed in that respect; and as soon as that Return was laid on the Table of the House, it became evident that there must be some remedy for the existing state of things. Little had been done up to that time. There were 24,000 crofters, so far as the Government knew, in the crofting counties of Scotland. The net result of applications for the enlargement of holdings had been that 57 had been carried into effect, to the advantage of 844 applicants. No less than 444 were in one county—Sutherlandshire.

And one is the Duke.

And one was the Duke. That made 443. In that district the matter had been carried through largely by agreement, but in other counties comparatively few applications had been made and brought to a successful result. He earnestly trusted that Parliament would soon have an opportunity of dealing with this matter. Up to the present enlargement was only competent when five or more crofters applied. He thought that an individual crofter ought to be allowed to apply. Under Section 13, Sub-section 5, of the Act it was not competent for the Crofters Commission to grant an application for enlargement of crofts if it would have the effect of raising the annual value of the holding to a higher amount than £15. It was not competent to the Crofters Commission to raise the annual value of the holdings to a higher figure than £15 each. His opinion was that the figure of £15 ought to be raised to that of £30 as the amount of rental which a crofter could pay without losing the benefits of the Act. Then it ought seriously to be considered whether the limit of £100 rental, below which no land could be taken from a farm for the purpose of enlarging crofters' holdings, ought not to be reconsidered. Rents had fallen in the Highlands from the same causes as in other parts, and a rent of £100 for a mountain farm was a high standard below which land might not be taken for enlarging crofters' holdings. In the next place, Section 22 of the Act ought undoubtedly to be repealed, and the powers which the Commission had for the purpose of enlarging crofters' holdings ought to be made permanent powers, not depending on the willingness of Parliament to prolong them from year to year. Besides that, the provisions about the continuity of crofts ought to be carefully reconsidered. It was with the object of preparing the ground for legislation on this important question that they had appointed what was generally called the Deer Forests Commission. He had come down provided with an account of the work the Commission had been doing, and he had reason to believe that the complete survey of the Highlands that was wanted in order to found upon it a satisfactory measure for the enlargement of crofters' holdings would be concluded within a reasonable time. Now he came to the third part of his hon. Friend's Motion—

"To provide that a person who, in the opinion of the Commissioners, is substantially a crofter and who is resident in the crofting parish in which his holding is situated, shall not necessarily be excluded from the benefits of the Act because he does not reside on his holding."

These were very important words in the opinion of the Commissioners, and he did not believe the Commissioners ever extended the benefits of the Act to a person that was not actually a crofter, if he lived in a crofting parish; and he did not see why he should be debarred from the benefits of the Act because he resided in a crofting village, though his actual dwelling was not on the croft itself. If he fulfilled the conditions of the crofter, if the improvements had been made by himself or his predecessors in title if he resided on a pasture, he was a crofter to all intents and purposes. He was very much gratified with what his hon. Friend had said about the operations of the Crofters Act. They referred to hon. Gentlemen opposite and to the advantages Irish Members had got in their turn; they referred to the advantages the crofters had obtained, and he was bound to say not without some reason. He found that since the Act had been in operation, in no less than 14,000 holdings out of a gross total of 24,000 the rents had been reduced from £73,000 a year to £52,000 a year; that was to say, there had been an average reduction of 29 per cent., and, what would be regarded in Ireland as an enviable advantage, the arrears, which amounted to £180,000, bad been cancelled until only 32 per cent. had actually to be paid. The effect of the Act had certainly been in every respect equal to everything that his hon. Friend described. In certain respects the crofters and their descendants had been encouraged, and he was told that interference by the factor— interference of a vexatious sort—was a thing scarcely known. From a letter sent to him recently, it appeared that a most excellent Judge said the effect of the Act had been that in the majority of cases the crofter took a greater interest in his holding, and had made improvements and used better methods of cultivation. Among other things, the system of the rotation of crops had been more widely adopted than formerly. The administration of the Act had had a large educational effect, including the adoption of important suggestions for improved methods of farming. As to improvements in buildings, it was beyond all doubt that a very large number of new dwelling-houses and standings had been erected at the crofters' expense since the passing of the Act. This fact had certainly forced itself even on such cursory observation as he had been able to make, and a friend of his connected with this movement, from the point of view of a promoter of the movement by agitation, had informed him that he had been in every part of the Highlands, and he knew no part in the crofting counties in which much better houses had not been built in place of the bad ones, and he ventured to say that in many places in the Highlands, from being almost worse than the Irish cabins, had become equal to the best cottages in Northumberland and the North of England. To-day he had had sent him a telegram from Argyllshire, which, however, was somewhat marred in the sending—

"The Medical Officer for the County of Argyll has reported on the general condition of Argyll; he has reported to the County Council showing great improvements have been carried out in the dwelling-houses on the island."

—he (Sir G. Trevelyan) thought it must be the Island of Tiree—

"During the past three years about 30 houses have been entirely rebuilt. This has been voluntarily done by the crofters on the security which is afforded by the Act."

When the Act had produced such great advantages, including among them a regular and cheerful payment of rent, he was sure the House would only be too glad to agree with the Government in extending the Act as far as his hon. Friend proposed by his Motion.

said, he was sure his hon. Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Sir D. Macfarlane) must have heard with satisfaction the speech just delivered, and all Scotch Ministers would agree with him in satisfaction at the acknowledgment given by his right hon. Friend to the various Amendments which the Government promised to support. The right hon. Gentleman had shown most clearly what an immense boon and advantage the Crofters Act had been during the eight years it had been in operation in that part of Scotland to which it was extended. But he had heard his right hon. Friend in one respect speak with a certain sense of disappointment, for he did not allude to the proposals made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) for an extension of the Act to those parts of Scotland to which the Act did not now apply. During the progress of the Bill through the House, before it became an Act, it was urged on the Government of the day that the Act should not be arbitrarily limited to one geographical portion of the country, but that it should be made applicable to all crofting tenants, no matter where they were. Scottish Members representing crofter constituencies claimed that those who held under substantially similar tenure in other parts of Scotland should have applied to their crofts precisely similar legislative remedies. That was the claim they made, and urged on the consideration of the House and the Government, and he was sure his hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) would agree with him in asserting that there was no subject that demanded greater attention and consideration. There was a strong feeling in the North-Eastern Counties, not confined to one political Party, that at all events a similar measure should be passed for crofters whose position was similar to that of the crofters as defined by the present Act. The crofter in the North-East of Scotland, like the other crofters, had a claim on the soil from his ancestors. He had built the house in which he lived, and he had made the improvements in the holding. They had just the same reason as the crofters in the North and West for their rent not being raised on their own improvements. The crofters in the North-East had also suffered from insecurity of their tenure, and been capriciously dismissed from their holdings. Sometimes it was in order, no doubt, to carry out some great agricultural improvement. A crofter had brought a bit of hillside into cultivation, another had done the same on the land adjoining, and the landlord, wanting to throw these and perhaps a dozen other crofts into one large holding, had the right to turn these men out without any compensation. Anyone who remembered the inquiry of the Crofter Commission a dozen years ago would find these were the great grievances under which the crofters of the West Highlands were suffering. Though as a general rule in the North-East of Scotland most of the crofters possessed leases, it was not universally the case, and he was prepared to show how up to the present time there were constant cases occurring in that part of Scotland where the tenant was turned out of his holding without notice being given or any compensation being given. There was one case that came under the attention of the House and the country less than a year ago, which he would explain to the House, as it illustrated the unfortunate position of these men most clearly. In the west of Aberdeenshire, on property belonging to the Duke of Fife, a large number of sales took place in 1888 and 1889. In that part of the world the Duke sold a good farm to one of his tenants for a very small number of years' purchase. On that farm was a small croft of about five acres. The tenant who had bought the holding himself sold it to another man from another part of the country. The new landlord on entering on the property found this croft of five acres at the corner of the holding, and finding that the crofter who held it had no title to it and no lease, the landlord gave him notice to turn out of his holding in six months. No compensation was ever given to the man for the improvements he had made on the croft, or for the house that he had built upon it. This crofter was one of the oldest inhabitants of the district, and was alive now, being about 89 years of age. His father and his grandfather had rent receipts dating back from 1795, and had had 19 years' leases from 1845 to 1883. When this man wanted to renew his 19 years' lease, the factor to the Duke of Fife said, "Oh, you can go on as you are, you will never be disturbed." The man believed him, but the property was sold, and no means were taken that the property of this man should be safeguarded in the sale, and the new landlord was within his legal rights in turning him out without any compensation. The Duke of Fife was not in any way to blame for this, and as soon as the case was referred to him the Duke took action and immediately gave the man another croft in the neighbourhood. But what they wished to press upon the House and the Government was that it should not be in the power of a landlord to do this, that the legal rights of these men should, as in this case they ought to have been, be provided for under the sale and properly safeguarded. He would just say a word on the subject alluded to by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson), that there were wider interests involved than were evident at first sight. They had constant complaints, which everyone deplored, that the population in the country districts was steadily decreasing, and that there was a migration from the country districts to the towns. That had taken place to a large degree in the country with regard to which he was now speaking, and, if they looked into the facts, they observed it was amongst that very class of individuals to which he was referring, and that it was most undesirable that it should be so. His right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, in his observations on the good effects of the Crofters Act, alluded to the fact that the houses of the crofters had been so much improved under its provisions. He could give an illustration which showed how much the benefits of the Act were wanted in the North-East of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman would find it stated in the Report of the Assistant Labour Commissioner that during last autumn he visited part of the North-East of Scotland, where he found that one crofter had to leave his croft because the house had been condemned by the sanitary officer, the landlord could not afford to rebuild it, and would not give a lease to the crofter so as to secure him in the rebuilding. That showed that the want of an extension of the Act perpetuated insanitary and bad houses in that part of the country. One word more on the general considerations. His hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) alluded to the fact that Aberdeenshire contained a larger number of agricultural holdings than any other county in Scotland. His hon. Friend quoted a Return issued for the year 1881, which showed the total number of holdings to be 11,947, and the holdings under £10 value numbered 3,866. In the Assistant Commissioner's Report they had the figures given for 1891 for Aberdeenshire, which showed that in the course of the 10 years the total number of holdings had diminished to 11,462, and the holdings under £10 had dropped to 3,100. That showed that the greatest diminution had been amongst the class who were crofters and cottars, and this had a very serious effect upon the general agriculture of Aberdeenshire and Banffshire; therefore he thought they could earnestly urge this extension of the provisions of the Crofters Act upon the Government in order to check the drain that was going on. They urged it for the sake of these crofter tenants themselves, in order that they might get security in the cultivation of their holdings, security that they would reap the benefits of their industry, and would not be turned out of their homes that in many cases they had built themselves without due compensation. He also urged it on the House and the Govern- ment that the provisions of the Act should ' be extended to them on the ground that they would thereby substantially improve the conditions of agriculture generally throughout Scotland, and do something more than they could do by these new Allotments and Small Holdings Acts to keep the small holdings that at present existed and check in some degree the constant drain that was going on from the country districts into the towns.

supported the Motion, and urged that this legislation should be extended not only as regarded the subject-matter, but geographically to those parts of the country where those who were under the same condition as the crofters could also, in the same way, get the relief which was conferred by the existing Crofters Act. He would specially refer to the county he had the honour to represent, because it was essentially a crofters' county and deserving of relief in this respect. It appeared from the Parliamentary Return which had already been quoted in the course of the Debate, that in the County of Banffshire the number of crofters—that was to say, those who paid less than £30 a year in rent—was no less than 3,573, whereas the larger holders who paid more than £150 a year only numbered 212. In other words, the small holders were as 16 to 1 compared with the large ones, and therefore Banffshire must have been accidentally overlooked when this relief was being given under the Crofters Act. With regard to the concession that had been agreed to by the Secretary for Scotland in the matter of the residences of the crofters, he should like to draw attention to a particular class of holding which was of considerable importance in his county. Many people in connection with their houses held in addition a portion of land in the near neighbourhood of a town, although they did not happen to live beside the town. They held the land on the strength of the occupation of the house, and the whole of the improvements in the land were made by themselves. But if the owner of the house sold his proprietary rights, the holder of the allotted land lost the whole of his improvements, which went to the purchaser. The tenant who had made the improvements had no possibility of getting compensation. This was a hard case, which might be met by the proposal of the Mover of the Resolution, supposing the Crofters Act was extended to such counties' as Banffshire, and the people were anxious that this legislative relief should be extended to them. The County of Banffshire had a special anxiety as regarded one portion of the Crofters Act—namely, that portion with reference to harbours. There was no part of the Scottish coast more exposed to shipwreck and disaster than Murray Forth, and his constituents hoped that, by the extension of the Crofters Act, they would receive more attention to this question of harbour accommodation. He trusted the Secretary for Scotland would give the matter his most kind and careful consideration. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not consider that, because a very active agitation had not taken place in these parts of the country, that the people did not on that account feel very deeply. They were an extremely law-abiding, quiet, patient people, and he had always assured them that, in regard to what had been done for their brethren in the West, they must never think that because they were so quiet and patient the Government would fail to give them the same redress.

said, that the crofters in his constituency owed a deep debt of gratitude to the Government of 1886 for passing the Crofters Act, but, during the eight years it had been in operation, it had been shown that a considerable number of ameliorations and alterations were requisite. When the Act was passed it was felt to be a great act of emancipation, but unfortunately it was not a voluntary emancipation on the part of some landowners.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present:—

House adjourned at ten minutes after Ten o'clock till Monday next.