said that the position of Belfast in regard to its water supply was peculiar, as the supply was under the control, not of the Corporation, but of a special Board of Commissioners. A large number of applications had been made to Parliament during the last 20 years by the Board for authority to increase their borrowing powers, and the present Measure had a similar object in view. The point to which he desired specially to draw attention was this: As would be in the recollection of the House, the district governed by the Corporation of Belfast had been recently extended, and had been divided into 15 wards, which was the result of a compromise between the Catholics, the Protestants, and other religious denominations of Belfast. The result of the compromise was to give the Catholics, who had never previously been represented on the Municipal Council, such a representation as would ensure their voice being heard, although he would not say that they received a fair share of the representation. The present Bill contained clauses which were drafted in view of the alteration of the wards of Belfast, and Clause 15 provided that there should only be one representative from each of the 15 wards on the Water Board. It would be remembered that after the discussion that took place on the Municipal Bill, two of the wards were so limited as to give them practically to the Catholics, which would give the Catholics six members on the Municipal Council, namely, three for each ward. But under the provisions of the present Bill the Catholics would only obtain two members on the Water Board, namely, one for each of the two wards appropriated to them, and consequently a large section of the Nationalists of Belfast thought that they would not be in as good a position on the Water Board as they were in regard to the Municipal Council. Unless some satisfactory settlement could be arrived at upon this point, he should be compelled to move an Instruction to the Committee as to altering the number of the Commissioners. He could see no ground on which the Water Board could object to an increase of the numbers, especially now that the district itself had been largely extended. He should suggest, in order to meet the point raised, that the numbers of the Water Commissioners should be increased from 15 to 30 or 45, so as to give the Catholics a representation of from four to six on the Board. Furthermore, he thought that it would be an improvement to incorporate the provisions in Clause 68 of the Municipal Act, which provided for the retirement of the Commissioners. By that clause it was provided that all the Commissioners should retire once in three years, but he should suggest that only one-third should retire every year. He should not attempt to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but he should like to know what were the views of those in charge of the Bill, because if they could not arrive at some satisfactory agreement upon the point, he should be compelled to move the Instruction which he had indicated. Bill read a Second time, and committed.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can explain the delay in printing the Minute of the Scotch Education Department of 10th June; and if he can promise that no action will be taken there under until the House has had an opportunity of discussing its provisions?

The Minute was printed at the earliest possible date as a Parliamentary Paper and has now been circulated. In reply to the second part of the Question, it will not be possible to delay action after the Minute has lain on the Table for one month.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, have complaints reached him regarding the insufficient accommodation afforded to merchants and the general public at the Clones Post Office; and whether, seeing that repeated representations have been made, without effect, to the Clones Postmaster by the Department in regard to this matter, the Postmaster General will take into his own hands the providing of premises for a post office in the town of Clones?

The need for a better Post Office at Clones is admitted, and for some time past the Postmaster has been making inquiries, by advertisements and otherwise, for other premises, but hitherto without success. A new proposal, however, is now under examination, but if that prove to be unsatisfactory, it will probably be necessary to consider the question of taking steps to provide a Crown Office.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. J. G. WEIR), I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the practice within the Metropolitan area to classify as paupers patients who are under treatment in County Asylums, notwithstanding the fact that the cost of maintenance is provided by the relatives or friends of the patients; and, if so, whether it is proposed to take any steps to amend the present system of classification

I am informed that all patients in County Asylums are classed as paupers whose maintenance is paid for by the Guardians, although it may be that in some cases the Guardians are partially recouped by sums received from relatives. I have no information which would lead me to think that a grievance exists, but I will make further inquiry.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state on what date the Government first engaged in the Brennan torpedo manufacture, the total sum expended to date (including any royalty paid to the inventor), whether any torpedoes have been produced, and, if so, how many?

The manufacture of Brennan torpedoes commenced in 1887. The total expenditure on them to the 31st March last was £265,320. An amply supply of torpedoes for all approved stations and for a reserve has been completed. I cannot be more specific.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state on what day he intends to introduce the promised Bill which will place parish councils in Scotland on the same footing as similar councils in England in regard to telegraph extension and money order office guarantees?

This Bill will deal with other subjects besides those mentioned in the Question, but I hope to introduce it at any rate next week.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government is still paying royalty on machine guns; and if so, will he state how much is paid on each of the respective guns, and when the royalties will cease?

Royalties are still being paid on the Maxim rifle-calibre machine gun, and they will continue to be paid until the patent expires in 1900. The royalty on each of the first 200 guns ordered in any financial year is £40, above that number £25. The main patent expires in 1900, but there are patents for improvements not expiring until 1901 and 1904, the royalties payable under which will have to be considered when the main patent has expired.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) if it is the case that a building grant to the proposed School of Science and Art at Nantwich has been refused by the Lords of the Treasury on the ground that they cannot make an exception to the rule; and (2) if he will state what is the rule to which reference is made, as it does not appear in the new Science and Art Directory containing the Report of the Committee appointed to revise the grants made by that Department?

The answer to the first paragraph is, Yes. The new rule, laid down last February, is that no new applications for building grants to schools of science or art will be entertained. These grants are now an anachronism. They date from days when little or no assistance was given to higher education in other ways, and when similar grants were given to elementary schools. The latter grants have long been discontinued in this country, and the localities now have large sums at their disposal for technical education. The new Science and Art Directory has not yet been issued. The hon. Member has no doubt been misled by the fact that the Report of the recent Departmental Committee on the Distribution of Science and Art Grants contains a proposed revise of the old directory, but this is neither authoritative nor final. The new directory will contain no provision for building grants.

:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that last week, before Mr. Byrne, magistrate, Dublin, a student named Robert Davis, and a labourer named William Greville, were charged by the police with fighting in the streets of Dublin; (2) whether he can say why the student was acquitted and the labourer sent to gaol for a month; and (3) whether he will get the case of Greville reconsidered with a view to his release?

The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. Greville made no defence and was fined in a sum of 40s. or, in default of payment, to be imprisoned for one month. The student was acquitted on the ground that he had acted in self-defence. Any memorial that may be received from Greville praying for a mitigation of his sentence will be considered by the Lords Justices in the usual way.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. J. T. FIRBANK), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in consequence of the murderous outrage at Poona made on Mr. Band and Lieutenant Ayerst, the Indian Government will consider the desirability of adopting effectual means to prevent the inculcation of sedition through the Press?

said that before that Question was answered he wished to direct attention to its wording. In the first place the Question assumed as a matter of fact that sedition had been inculcated through the Indian native Press. That was an argumentative and hypothetical expression, and there was not a particle of evidence offered to support the statement. Moreover, sedition was a matter of opinion. [Laughter] He was perfectly serious in making that observation. The question of sedition could only be determined as an issue of fact, which when answered became an issue of law. What was or what was not sedition could never be discovered until the matter was subjected to some judicial investigation. He therefore objected to the Question, as it appeared upon the Paper, being put to a Minister. It was a most vicious Question in a Parliamentary sense, reflecting upon a whole class of the Press, that had ever been presented to the House of Commons.

The statement as to there having been a murderous outrage at Poona is a statement of fact which, if I recollect aright, has already been quoted in this House by a Minister of the Crown. As regards the latter part of the Question, I see nothing irregular in it. ["Hear, hear!"]

The police are now inquiring into the causes and circumstances of the outrage which has been recently committed at Poona. But the habitual dissemination of false intelligence and of appeals to religious animosities by a portion of the vernacular Press is a matter which has for some years past received the careful attention of the Indian Government; and if the result of the present inquiry be to show that this outrage was prompted by articles of this character, the question of taking measures to prevent the encouragement of crime through the Press will undoubtedly be taken into consideration. ["Hear, hear!"]

Would the inquiry be public?

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that a public inquiry into a murder conspiracy of this kind would facilitate the ends of justice he stands alone in that opinion. ["Hear, hear."]

That is a speech.

I am quite content to stand alone.

Is it not the case that under the penal code stringent punishment is provided for these incitements to crime?

Order, order! That is really arguing the question. The noble Lord has simply stated that there will be an inquiry into the matter, and that does not justify the hon. Member in arguing the question that there are other means which would make it unnecessary to hold such an inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received copies of a joint Hindu and Mahomedan memorial, dated 10th May 1897, regarding the Poona plague administration, addressed to the Governor of Bombay by upwards of 2,000 leading citizens of Poona and presented on their behalf by the principal Mahomedan and Hindu associations of the Deccan, giving specific instances of oppression and insult inflicted upon their families and religion, and declaring that a reign of terror had existed for the past eight weeks; whether he will state what reply was given to the petition, and what inquiry was made to test the truth of these allegations; and, whether he will lay a copy of the petition and of the reply upon the Table of the House?

I had not seen a copy of the memorial to which the hon. Member refers until I received one to-day from him. The measures taken at Poona to prevent the spread of the plague, which have been attended by a very remarkable amount of success, the deaths from plague having fallen from 177 per week to 7 per week within the last two months, have been made the subject of much misrepresentation and exaggeration in a portion of the vernacular Press. At present I can express no opinion as to the contents of the memorial, nor have I seen a copy of the Governor of Bombay's reply; but I am confident that he has been and is most careful to confine the action of the authorities to what is absolutely necessary for checking the plague, and to show all possible consideration to the religious opinions and customs of the inhabitants. I can say nothing with regard to laying papers on the Table until I receive an official report on the subject from India.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether his attention has been drawn to the bitter complaints which have appeared in the vernacular newspapers of Poona and the Deccan, generally with regard to the methods pursued by the authorities in dealing with the plague; whether he is aware that no such complaints have been made with respect to the administration in Bombay, and if it be the case that the work of dealing with the plague at Bombay has been surrounded with more difficulty than at Poona; whether he is able to lay Papers upon the Table of the House with regard to the serious outrages which have been reported from Poona; and, whether he will order that a public and impartial inquiry shall be held to investigate the ad ministration with regard to the plague at Poona?

I am aware that, although the measures for checking the spread of the plague have been conducted on the same system at Poona and at Bombay, the unfavourable comments of the vernacular Press have been mainly confined to the newspapers of Poona and the Deccan. In view of the tone which had been previously adopted by those newspapers, this contrast does not afford matter for surprise. The recent outrages are now being inquired into by the police, and any publication of papers might tend to defeat the ends of justice. I have no reason to think, as at present advised, that any inquiry into the administration of Poona during the plague is necessary or desirable.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether, in view of the fact that the Daisy, with a complement of seven, and the Beatrice with a complement of five, both engaged in the duty of protecting the interests of the line fishermen against illegal trawling, are, by reason of their being sailing vessels, quite useless to watch and overtake fast and powerful steam trawlers, will the Government arrange for steam cruisers to be substituted; and if not, will he state what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take for the better protection of those parts of the coast where the sailing vessels Daisy and Beatrice are now employed?

The Daisy is constantly employed under the Fishery Board for Scotland entirely in the inshore waters of the Firth of Clyde and Loch Fyne districts. The gunboat Starling is stationed in the Clyde district and is very frequently employed on Fishery duties. The Beatrice is only occasionally employed on Fishery duties. There are two fast torpedo gunboats and a steam cruiser already frequently employed in the districts to which the Beatrice belongs.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, although the population of the Island of Lewis is nearly 30,000, there are only six money order offices in the island and only ten other offices at which postal orders can be purchased; and, in view of the difficulty which the people experience in remitting money in payment of their rates and for other purposes, will he arrange for more money order offices and for additional offices where postal orders may be purchased?

The Postmaster General regrets to find, from the returns taken at those post offices in the Island of Lewis which are not now money order offices, that he would not be justified in opening any of them for money order business except under guarantee. Inquiry shall be made, however, whether the sale of postal orders can be extended to some of the offices where they cannot now be purchased.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state when the Report of the Committee on the ventilation of the tunnels of the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways will be laid upon the Table of the House?

The Committee hope to conclude the taking of evidence next Tuesday, 6th July, when they will consider their Report. They have arranged to visit the Severn Tunnel to inspect the ventilating arrangements on July 12th, and the Report will be made as soon as possible after that date.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate why the Provosts of all Burghs in Scotland were not invited to the Presentation of the Municipal Address to the Queen on 23rd June; and, in view of the dissatisfaction caused by these omissions, will the Government secure that the Jubilee medals to be issued to Mayors and Provosts shall be sent to all Provosts in Scotland without distinction?

In considering who should be invited to the Municipal. Presentation to Her Majesty on June 23rd, the precedents of 1872 and 1887 were followed, with this addition, that the Provosts of the Police Burghs having a population of 5,000 and upwards were included in the invitation. The second part of the hon. Member's Question deals with a matter which does not come within the discretion of the Government.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether Jubilee medals will be distributed to the chairmen of urban district councils, having regard to the fact that such chairmen often preside over much larger interests than do many of the mayors on whom the medals will be conferred?

I am sorry that I am quite unable to reply to the Question of the hon. Member, which appeared on the Paper this morning. I have nothing to do with the Jubilee arrangements, and have no information upon the point in question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, on Wednesday 30th June, the officials at post offices in London declined to forward telegrams to ships in the Fleet at Spithead, unless upon payment of the sum of 25s. whether he will state what are the arrangements of the Post Office for the dispatch of telegrams by boats to ships, and whether these arrangements are permanent or whether they are subject to any increase of charge on special occasions that the boatmen may choose to impose; and whether the regulations as to boat hire will be re-considered, with a view to securing the public against arbitrary and exorbitant overcharges?

The Postmaster General is not aware that the officials declined to forward telegrams to ships in the Fleet at Spithead unless upon a payment of 25s. Telegrams for the Fleet were delivered without charge three times a day by means of torpedo boats, and the post offices in London and elsewhere were duly made acquainted with this arrangement. It was only when the sender required his telegrams to be specially delivered that he was asked for a deposit of 25s. Every endeavour was to be made at Portsmouth to deliver such telegrams as cheaply as possible, and any unexpected balance was to be returned to the sender. The arrangements at ordinary times are to pay a uniform charge of moderate amount which is duly notified to all post offices; but on such an occasion as the review of the Fleet, the demand for boats is so great that it is impossible to procure the delivery of telegrams for the usual charge, and the Postmaster General fears it will not be possible for him to provide by regulations against the imposition of a higher charge when the demand is so much in excess of the supply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Members of this House who handed in telegrams for the Fleet were not informed of the arrangement, but the 25s. was demanded of them absolutely without condition?

All I can say is that the information ought to have been given to everybody.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state the total number of persons who were on board the Campania at the Naval Review?

In consequence of the questions addressed to me on Tuesday, I caused the following telegram to be sent to the Admiralty Transport officer, who was on board the Campania:: —

Question in Parliament this afternoon states 1,800 persons were on board Campania at Naval Review. Admiralty limited number of guests to 1,600, and company were informed only holders of Admiralty tickets should be allowed on board. Can you explain the discrepancy?"

I have received the following reply:—

"In reply to telegram Cunard Company say there were no more than 1,600 persons on board Campania, and these were all holders of Admiralty tickets except 30, including members of Press and directors who were associated with the company."

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Government will grant a Parliamentary Inquiry into the Prison System of Scotland, similar to the Parliamentary Inquiry into time Prison System of England in 1894?

After consultation with Secretary for Scotland, I do not find that the facts in our knowledge are such as to justify the Inquiry asked for. If the hon. Member is prepared to bring forward specific charges against the Prison Administration in Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland will give them careful consideration, and along with them the question of the expediency of an Inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the uniform of the boatmen of Customs is supposed to be issued on 1st May; and, if so, why the contractor has in some cases not supplied this uniform until two or three months after this date; and, whether he will take steps to enforce the punctual fulfilment of the contract in the future?

The annual issue of the uniform of the Boatmen of Customs should take place on the 1st of May. The clothing for the present year has in many cases not been yet received from the Contractors, who, in reply to communications as to the non-delivery, have stated that all the uniform is under inspection at the Army Clothing Department, and they have alleged that the delay has been occasioned to a great extent by the abnormal pressure in consequence of the requirements for Her Majesty's Jubilee. The Board of Customs have already taken steps with a view of enforcing the punctual supply of the clothing in future, and are making further inquiry as to the cause of delay. The contract is for three years, expiring next December, and in 1895 the Board levied a fine of £58 14s. 2d. upon the Contractors in consequence of their failure to deliver certain clothing until two or three months after the time prescribed in one of the Articles of their Agreement.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is making any inquiry into the disastrous effects of the recent severe hailstorm in the county of Essex; and, if he sent down a Government inspector to report upon damage sustained by agriculturists?

Yes, Sir. I have instructed an inspector to at once visit the district affected by the disastrous storm of last Thursday, and to make a report to me as to the character and extent of the damage done. But I may say that from what I myself saw in the course of a tour of inspection which I thought it my duty to make yesterday there can be no doubt as to the grievous nature of the calamity which has befallen agriculturists in the parts of the County visited by the storm, which was of a most exceptional character, and it is clear that much distress and loss of employment will arise which will urgently call for relief.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman will he take into consideration, in conjunction with the Chief Secretary for Ireland, when he is extending relief to Essex, the advisability of extending relief to the starving people of Belmullet?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will take any steps to give effect to the strong opinion expressed by Irish representatives in favour of the application of a portion of the Exchequer grant in aid of the erection of labourers' cottages in Ireland to the relief of the unions in which cottages were erected prior to 1891?

This matter was fully discussed in Committee of Supply on the 21st May, and I am afraid I have nothing to add to the statement made by me on that occasion.

May I. ask, is it in the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant to distribute the money as he thinks fit?

No, it must be done in accordance with the Act of Parliament.

Is it not a fact that every Irish representative who took part in the discussion of this question on the Local Government Board vote, strongly urged that the application of the grant should be made retrospective?

I have already fully explained that if a change were made it would have to be made by legislation. The whole subject was fully considered last year, and the conclusion arrived at was a deliberate one, and I am unable to alter it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received en appeal signed by, among others, Mr. Joseph Cowen, the Mayor and Sheriff of Newcastle-on-Tyne, over 30 Justices of the Peace, and over 40 Town Councillors of the Tyneside district, asking for the release of the few remaining Irish prisoners now in prison under the Treason-felony or Explosives Acts; and whether he can see his way to lay this petition upon the Table of the House?

I have received a printed copy of this memorial, which shows that it is signed as suggested in the Question. It is, however, quite contrary to practice to lay petitions to the Crown upon the Table of the House, and I do not propose to depart from the usual practice in the present instance.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot see his way to accede to the prayer of so influential a petition? ["Hear, hear!" and Irish cheers.]

That is rather a different question. I have not yet received the original. I can only say that when I do, it shall be duly considered, and every weight given to the importance of it. At present I am not in a position to add anything to the statement I have already made to the House.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will, in the weekly statements of the public income and expenditure, include in the income the gross receipts from the Customs, Excise, and Death Duties, and show in the expenditure the amounts paid to the Local Taxation Account?

The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, aware that the information he desires is given in the quarterly accounts, and also in the Budget statement. I doubt whether it would be advisable to give it in the weekly statements, which would then no longer be an Exchequer account, and would, owing to the manner in which the amounts are paid to the local taxation account, be somewhat misleading. But I will consider the matter and communicate with him upon it.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can say what course he intends to take with regard to the Third Reading of the Mersey Docks Bill on 5th July; and whether he is aware that this Bill, if passed into law, would be very injurious to the cattle trade of Ireland?

Since the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the similar Question addressed to him on May 27 last, further representations have reached us with regard to the Bill to which the hon. Member refers, and the conclusion at which we have arrived is that it would involve serious risk of the dislocation of the very important trade in cattle now carried on between Ireland and the port of Liverpool. This being the case, we do not propose to support its Third Reading.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what stage the negotiations of the Great Powers to secure the autonomy of Crete have reached

The measures for carrying into effect the autonomy which has been promised to Crete are still under discussion between the Great Powers; and considerable progress has been made towards an agreement. While the negotiations are still continuing, it would not be of advantage to make any further statement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in The Pioneer of 14th March last, that the Government of India has issued a Circular to the officers whose duty it is to report the deaths from famine, directing them not to report any deaths as due to starvation except in cases where it could be clearly established that the victims had no food for several days; and whether any means have been taken to prevent the trustworthiness of the record of famine mortality being vitiated by this Order?

I am aware of the statements in a letter published in The Pioneer to which the hon. Member refers. I have seen no circular of the Government of India which would justify them, but I know that that Government have had reason to believe that deaths are frequently reported as due to starvation when they are really due to other causes, and that they have issued orders to prevent the famine statistics from being vitiated by inaccuracies of this kind.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury (1) whether his attention has been directed to the pronouncement of the Archbishops and Bishops on the subject of Catholic University education in Ireland; and (2) whether, in view of the statements contained in that pronouncement, he is now in a position to inform the House when the Government will introduce a Bill dealing with the Irish University question?

As regards the second paragraph of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I have not—as he may probably have anticipated—anything to add to the answer I gave him, and, I think, another hon. Member, on the some subject earlier in the Session. With reference to the first paragraph, my attention has been directed to the pronouncement of the Archbishops and Bishops. I fully recognise the conciliatory spirit which animates those prelates, mid the importance of the pronouncement they have made.

I must confess that I did not anticipate the nature of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am very much disappointed by it. [Ministerial cries of "Order, order!"] I am going to ask a question—namely, whether, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement at the commencement of this Session, and of the way in which that statement has been met by the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland, he cannot now give us some definite pledge as to when a Bill will be introduced on this subject, which is now practically a non-contentious one?

It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in thinking that the subject is a non-contentious one; but, quite apart from that, I think he must feel that my answer is a perfectly reasonable one, and absolutely consistent with everything I have said, either in speeches or in answer to questions in this Session or in any other.

In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, which I do not consider at all reasonable —[cries of "Order!"]—I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the statement is correct that their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York are about to visit Ireland; and, if so, whether it will be possible for them to visit Belfast and Ulster, where they will have a cordial welcome?

I understand it is a fact that their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York propose to visit Ireland in the course of the present summer; but, of course, it will depend on their Royal Highnesses themselves what is to be the length of their visit and the places to which they will go.

said the Irish Estimates would be taken to-morrow night.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposed to hold any inquiry into the lamentable loss of the steamship Aden on the Island of Sokotra, and whether that inquiry would include the consideration of the question of the desirability of erecting a lighthouse there?

Yes, Sir; it is the intention of the Board of Trade to hold an inquiry, and of course if there be reason to suppose that the loss of the ship was caused by any want of a proper light, that, no doubt, will be brought into evidence. I desire to take the opportunity in regard to this matter to read to the House a telegram I have received from Her Majesty: —

"The Queen is deeply concerned at the disaster of the loss of the Aden, and asks you to express her sincere sympathy and condolence with the bereaved and the survivors in the terrible sufferings they must have undergone."

["Hear, hear!"]

I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what reply has been made to Her Majesty's gracious Message to the House on Tuesday night last?

I should say the best reply which the House can make is for hon. Members to go down to Windsor on Saturday. [Cheers.]

proposed to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months." He though the Scottish Members and the Scottish people were quite entitled to complain of the short time that had been given for the consideration of the Measure. The subject was one in which the Scottish people took the deepest interest, and it was only on Tuesday last that the print of the Bill reached Scotland. They were, accordingly, without any guidance from the School Boards of Scotland and from the people of Scotland at large, who were deeply interested in the Measure. They were asked to discuss the Second Reading of the Bill without a single Parliamentary return showing the operation and effect of the Measure. They were asked to discuss the merits or demerits of a Measure which only forty-eight hours ago had reached Scotland, and which to this hour had not seen the light of day in a large part of the Scottish area. When they came to examine the provisions of the Bill, then their dissatisfaction greatly deepened, and it deepened into the strongest objection to the Measure. He moved the rejection of the Bill primarily on the ground of its gross inadequacy to meet the requirements of the case. They could not increase the grant proposed by a single penny. They could only mark their sense of its inadequacy by moving the rejection of the Measure as a whole. The money proposed to be given to Scotland under the Bill was £40,000. The sum of £28,000 was to be given to School Boards, and £12,000 to the fragment of their educational system in Scotland known as the Voluntary Schools, and this was to be done under what in Scotland they believed to be the iniquitous method of a preferential grant to the voluntary system of education. He gave the Lord Advocate full credit for the £26,000 which he said was required to keep up their measure of 12s. per head instead of 10s. in England. As to that £26,000 he should have to show how it would be reduced to the extent of £8,000. But in reference to this Bill he must now ask the House to consider what was the position of Scotland in regard to the legislation of this Session, as there had to be taken by action of that House in its legislative capacity from the Imperial Treasury a sum amounting to about £800,000. Where was that taken from? It was taken from the Imperial Treasury to which the Scottish taxpayers, one and all, had contributed, and Scotland had been and was a contributor to the very fund which had been taken to the extent of £800,000 fur exclusively English purposes. The principle had been recognised since the year 1888, and had been repeatedly acted upon since, in regard to technical education and in a large variety of items including, indeed, the legislation of last year as to the agricultural rates, of the equivalent grant which they as Scottish Members were emphatic in their determination, if possible, to induce the Government to apply to the subject now in hand. Under that equivalent grant they should get a sum of £110,000 per annum for Scottish local purposes, but under the Bill before the House they were only to get £40,000. He was perfectly willing not to state the principle of the equivalent grant in his own words, but to use the words of its author, the First Lord of the Admiralty. "This equivalent grant" (said the First Lord of the Admiralty),

"was originally conceived in order to save Ireland and Scotland from a disadvantage under which they would otherwise have laid."

Up to the point, therefore, to which they had gone they saw that this Bill was not a Bill for the purpose of saving them from the disadvantage under which they would lie, by a comparison with the English grant of the present year, but it was a Bill which would ratify and sanction by Parliamentary approval, the disadvantage which the author of the grant principle stated that he wished studiously to avoid. Again the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the principle of the equivalent grant was this—

"It was held by Parliament and repeatedly acted upon, that when a certain proportion of the Imperial revenue was intercepted from the common purposes of the United Kingdom and handed over to England and relief of local ratepayers, that an equivalent grant should be made to Scotland and to Ireland in the proportion of 80, 11 and 9, which should he expended for the local purposes of those other parts of the United Kingdom."

He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he was going to interpose in this Debate, if he could give any solid or sufficient reason why a principle he had adopted when dealing with an Irish matter, should not also be adopted when dealing with a Scotch matter deeply affecting the interests of the whole Scottish people. This Bill instead of being an adherence to the principle of avoiding any disadvantage to Scotland, was a deliberate violation not only of the principle laid down, but was also contrary to the practice of Parliament and it would require a very considerable amount of explanation, argument, and defence before the Scottish people would be satisfied that they had been justly and fairly treated in this matter. On the sum awarded under this Bill there would be £40,000 granted, but on the explanation given by the Lord Advocate, there would be £66,000. From the £26,000 added, according to the Lord Advocate's explanation, £8,000 must, he thought, be deducted. Take it any way they liked, Scotland was being unjustly deprived of her due share of public money. If £40,000 was to be granted, she was deprived of £70,000 a year, and if the other principle were adopted she would lose £44,000 a year, while, should there be the deduction of £8,000 to which he had referred, she would be unjustly deprived of £52,000 a year. The Scottish people would not be slow to characterise the Bill in terms not approved in this House as one under which Scotland would be cheated to the extent of £1,000 a week. He understood that the true defence of the Measure was, that there was a desire to introduce symmetrical treatment in the matter of educational grants. That raised at once Scotland's cardinal objection, because they objected to have their Scottish educational system moulded on the lines of the English system. ["Hear, hear!"] For centuries Scotland had been in advance of England in this matter, and it stood to reason that the lines of symmetry which was the defence of this Measure meant the lines of educational reaction. Besides, the symmetrical principle was illogical, because it applied the symmetrical method to systems which were diverse in their operation. The modern educational feature of which Scotland was proud was that they had School Boards in every district in Scotland. The Voluntary Schools were comparatively few. For every Voluntary School in England there were only four Board Schools; but in Scotland, for every five Voluntary Schools there were thirty-three Board Schools. A more striking contrast could not be conceived between the two systems, and if the lesson of the Bill was to introduce symmetrical treatment between England and Scotland, then he would say that that was the peculiar hardship of the Bill, because the best thing that had happened since the passing of the Act of 1872 for Scotland had been the absorption of the Voluntary Schools into the Board School system. In Scotland they had 523 Free Church Schools. Every one of these had been given up by the Free Church, for that Church had recognised that the time had gone by for propagating education under anything like a sectarian mechanism. Why, then, should Scotland be punished for having so few of those Voluntary Schools? These had been multiplied in Scotland as in England. Instead of getting £12,000 for Voluntary Schools Scotland would have got £80,000, so that Scotland was to be punished to the extent of £68,000 a year because that country had approved of the management of education by public School Boards, and had been loyal to the Act of 1872. The House would require some extraordinary explanation of that conduct on the part of Her Majesty's Government, for if it was symmetry they were to be governed by, Scotland was to pay far too high a price for it. But was it symmetry? So far as grants to Voluntary Schools and necessitous Board Schools were concerned, if the system was to be symmetrical it must be a complete symmetry; yet there was no proposal by the Government to make any alteration in the working of the 17s. 6d. limit in Scotland, although they had abolished the working of that system in England. That was not a small affair, because under this Bill they would still have continued the deductions from that grant. If they were to have in Scotland a system symmetrical with that of England, why not abolish the 17s. 6d. limit and give to Scotland the £73,000 she would thereby gain? The next point was that there had been no general public demand in Scotland for any measure of this kind. No such proposal had emanated from any School Board in Scotland, and as to the Highland districts, they wanted to know from the Lord Advocate whether the relief to Board Schools was to affect the Highlands of Scotland? He took it that it was to affect all schools generally, and, if so, observe the predicament the Government was in. If it affected the Highlands it affected the area which already was the subject of special educational grants and special treatment to bring the Board Schools up to solvency and efficiency. Therefore, he suspected that if this measure was to be operative in the Highlands the increased grant under this Bill would be an unanswerable weapon for stopping the present special grants for making the Highland Schools efficient and solvent, and so they would be robbing Peter to pay Paul. And as for the Voluntary Schools, the Scottish Voluntary Schools, unlike those of England, were suffering no intolerable strain, and they filled up no educational gap, because under statute Scotland was meeting the educational requirements of the country. So far from the Voluntary Schools of Scotland suffering from any intolerable strain, they had thriven and fattened on the grants which had already been given them. As an illustration, he pointed out that in 1872 the Roman Catholic Schools in the whole of Scotland numbered 22, but grants had been made and aid given with the result that these schools in 1896 numbered 183. They had been able by the existing system to increase their numbers ninefold.

Without any charge to the rates.

agreed with the hon. Member, but said the educational efficiency was the best answer to the sug- gestion which the interruption involved. Sound public opinion in Scotland was for a national and against the voluntary system of education. They had hoped, not for a Bill of this kind, but for a Bill which would recognise the difference between the English and the Scottish systems, and which would also recognise that in Scotland secondary education was the peculiar care of all the School Boards. They wanted a Measure which would methodise the existing grants for secondary and technical education, which would see that all the public moneys devoted to the subject were really used to promote such education, and which would make a further effort to make free the entire system of education—not only primary, but also secondary and technical. From the Reformation downwards, amid many material privations, education, not of the few but of the many, and education, not to elementary limits but to the highest point attainable, had been the ideal of the people at large in Scotland; and the reason was that they had found in a scheme of that kind, in Knox's language, the best security for ''the comfort of the Commonwealth." With this money, which was their due, a great national opportunity was offered, but by this Bill a great national opportunity had been thrown away. The Bill, if it Were proceeded with, would be forced upon Scotland against its will. As proof of this statement, he pointed out that they had three great institutions which handled the subject of Board and secondary education—the Educational Institute of Scotland, the School Boards Association, and the Association for Promoting Secondary and Technical Education. Within a. week's time each of these great public institutions had declared, almost in vehement terms, against the Measure of the Government. ["Hear, hear!"] At a meeting of the Executive of the Scottish School Boards Association on the 28th June—

"reference was made to the proposed Government grant and to the Bill which had been introduced by the Lord Advocate, providing for the disposal of the same. Disappointment was expressed that the principle of an equivalent to the grant for England should have been departed from. It was felt that the amount of the grant was too small, and the method of its application inequitable and quite inadequate to meet the necessities of the case of Scotch education."

The Executive Committee of the Scottish Association for the Promotion of Technical and Secondary Education said,—

"In many quarters dissatisfaction is already being expressed at the prospect of a restricted view being taken of the claims of Scotland to receive at this time a considerable grant for educational purposes. It appears to this Committee particularly unfortunate, when the reorganisation of higher education in Scotland is taking place, that there should be the possibility of financial difficulties in the matter, and that such an opportunity should be lost of providing satisfactorily for the evident needs of secondary and technical education."

The Educational Institute of Scotland adopted several resolutions—

"1st. That the School Board system being universal in Scotland, the Educational Institute of Scotland hopes that the manner and conditions of distributing the proposed aid grant to Voluntary Schools by the Education Department shall be such that they can not be taken advantage of to increase the number of these schools."

"2nd. That a sum proportionally equivalent to that required in England under the provisions of the Voluntary Schools Act, and of the Necessitous Board Schools Act of this year, should be devoted to Scotch education.

"3rd. That in so far as the total grant to Scotland under the proposals of the Government will come short of the proportionate equivalent to that provided for England under the Education Acts of this year, the difference should be set apart for further educational purposes in Scotland."

And they went on to say,—

"There is especial need for aid in connection with higher education. In rural districts the laudable attempts of School Boards to provide higher education for the community in the ordinary public schools are seriously hampered by want of funds; and in urban communities the paucity of funds is no less a bar to success."

These were early but important expressions of public opinion, and, unless the Government took heed in time, they would find that this was only the beginning, of a storm north of the Tweed. If the Government were wise they would be warned ere it was too late. Scotland was entitled to expect that the British Treasury should be approached with more firmness and spirit by a Scotch Department which had a Cabinet Minister at its head. He asked the Government on an early occasion to produce a Measure which would be more worthy of a powerful Ministry, and which would show more respect to the needs, to the traditions, and to the rights of Scotland. [Cheers.] He begged to move his Amendment, "That the Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months."

supported the Amendment. They did not move the rejection of this Measure from any indifference to the interests of education. If others forgot, they, at all events, remembered, that it was to that side of the House that the country owed its present system of education. The foundations of that system were laid broad and deep by Liberal statesmen. They had reason to be proud of their achievement, and were not likely to be either slack or negligent in the maintenance and preservation of a structure which cost the Liberal Party many a struggle to rear and which had proved itself already, even in this generation, an incalculable blessing to the people. They moved the rejection of this Measure because they were alive to the importance of the matter, and because they were satisfied that the Bill now before the House was inadequate, ill-conceived, and prejudicial to the best interests of national education. What was the genesis of the Bill? Had it sprung from the demand of the people of Scotland? Had it emanated from a genuine desire on the part of the Government to redress some intolerable grievance in the Scottish system? Was it offered to them because Her Majesty's Ministers believed it to be necessary in itself? None of these things were true. It was thrown to them as a bone was thrown to a barking dog—because the Government, having voted enormous sums for England, felt that something must be done, whether well or ill done, to stifle the clamour for an equivalent grant that was justly due to Scotland. Were the Government anxious to promote the interests of education in Scotland? If they were, why did they only the other night cut off the grant from the evening continuation schools? Were they really anxious to promote the highest interests of education in Scotland? If they were, why did they offer them a limited grant of £40,000, instead of the £100,000 to which, relatively and proportionately to England, they were entitled? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this was not a case for an equivalent grant. Why? Because, forsooth, the educational systems in the two countries were not identical. He thought the Government had done with logic; but, if they had not, to what a preposterous position they were reduced by their Bill. The systems were not identical. Therefore, when it was a question of grant, they were to have £40,000 only instead of £100,000. But when the expenditure came to be considered it was to be distributed as if the two systems were alike. Could anything be more illogical, more absurd, more untenable, except, possibly, from the point of view of a Chancellor of the Exchequer and a parsimonious Treasury? The systems were not identical. That was apparently sound ground to stand upon financially, since it enabled the Government to cut down the grant; but, the money having been voted, the ground of its limitation was contemptuously ignored, and the money was allocated upon the lines of a system to which it was admitted the educational system of Scotland bore no analogy! In Scotland School Boards were everywhere, and Voluntary Schools were few in number— so few that the grant of 3s. and 1s. respectively would amount on the average to little more than 1s. per head as against an average of 3s. 3d. in England. Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer contend that that was a fair proportion? But he objected personally, upon principle, to the granting of public money to schools whose sole raison d'être was the teaching of sectarian doctrines. The principle was unsound, and if it were admitted without protest he could not see upon what ground the principle of concurrent endowment could be effectively resisted. In the case of England the grant of public money to Voluntary Schools was defended upon the ground that the English system was a compromise, and that the Voluntary Schools educated more than half the youth of England. No such argument could be employed in the case of Scotland. In 1872 there were only 46 Episcopal and 22 Homan Catholic Schools in Scotland. If there were more now they had grown with the growth of the Board Schools, and under the existing conditions of the established system. Nor had there been any cry of an intolerable strain from the subscribers to the Voluntary Schools in Scotland. The gift of 3s. to these schools by the Government was therefore a spontaneous and gratuitous gift, without any basis in justice or necessity, and it constituted a grievance of which the Board Schools very justly complained. The hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs had quoted memorials emanating from public bodies in Scotland most qualified to speak with authority upon this subject. He believed that the protests of these bodies expressed in very mild language the feelings with which this Measure would be received by the people of Scotland. Upon this ground, and for the reasons which he had endeavoured briefly to indicate, he begged leave to second the Amendment moved by his hon. and learned Friend.

said he supported the Bill, which had been received more coldly than it deserved. It was true there was a certain amount of disappointment that secondary and technical education had not been dealt with in the Bill, but he hoped with some confidence that next year the Government would bring in a separate Bill dealing with those important branches of education, and placing them on a broad and practical basis. The amount of the grant that Scotland was going to receive was a matter he would not discuss. He supposed there was no record at the Treasury of any grant ever having been thought satisfactory by the recipients, and certainly they, as Scotsmen, would be unfaithful to all the traditions of their race if, when there was any money to be got, they did not try to get as much of it as they possibly could. He sincerely hoped that when secondary and technical education were dealt with, Scotland would get more than she was about to receive under the present Bill. But the amount of the grant having been settled, the question was how to make the best use of it in the interests of all educational institutions. So far as he could see, the proposals of the Bill were just in that respect. It was impossible to overlook the claims of the Voluntary Schools of Scotland considering the Bill which had been passed that Session for England. The Voluntary Schools in Scotland had a stronger claim for relief than even the Voluntary Schools of England. In Scotland the Voluntary Schools were small in number, and they mostly consisted of Roman Catholic and Episcopalian Schools, while all the Board Schools were practically denominational, the Bible and the Shorter Catechism of the Presbyterian religion being taught in them. He found from a return of the Scotch Education Department that during the last ten years the subscriptions to Voluntary Schools amounted to £288,000, and the voluntary subscriptions to the Board Schools to only £4,500. During the same period the Board Schools received out of the rates £2,461,000, and the Voluntary Schools, of course, received nothing from that source. Again, there was a considerable number of children educated in the Voluntary Schools. The average attendance last year in those schools was 80,000 per day, as against 580,000 in the Board Schools. It was said that the attendance in the Board Schools was decreasing in number, but that was a misleading argument. The Presbyterian Voluntary Schools were decreasing, for, very naturally, Presbyterian parents preferred to send their children to very good Board Schools where, besides, they would be taught the same religion as in the Voluntary Schools. The Episcopalian Schools had increased about 10 per cent., and the Roman Catholic Schools about 35 per cent. during the last ten years, and, speaking as a Presbyterian, he thought it was only fair and just that those schools should get a share of the Government grant. It should be remembered that all schools were supported by the State with the object of bringing the best brain in the country to the front, irrespective of creed.

said he felt a certain amount of responsibility in opposing the Bill, because a good many Scotsmen would think that, after all, half a loaf was better than no bread, and that it was a pity to throw away by rejecting what they were offered by the Government. But he felt, even on the low ground of policy, that in the present instance no bread was better than half a loaf. Scotland was not a pauper claiming relief. They had not asked for this thing, and they did not realise that there was any necessity in Scotland claiming this relief. But if they were to get anything at all, they must receive what they were entitled to in bare justice. What was the question they had to settle in regard to this matter? It was simply this—was the predominant partner to be allowed to put her hand into the common purse whenever she liked, and take out of it for herself whatever she liked, and hand over to Scotland just as little as she liked? The Scotch Members did not ask that the common purse should be opened, but, now that it was opened, they would be utterly false to their trust if they were to accept a penny less than 100 per cent. of their just claim, and they would also permit in that case an exceedingly dangerous precedent to be set up. The principle upon which equivalent grants were settled between England and Scotland was the proportion of 80 to 11. The predominant partner had put her hands into the common purse and taken out £727,000 for herself, of which £617,000 was given to the Voluntary Schools and £110,000 to the Board Schools. The generosity with which the sectarian schools were treated in England might be represented by the figure 5. The meanness with which the Board Schools were treated in England might be represented by the figure 1. But that was a question for English Members. He would point out that in order that Scotland might get justice, she ought to receive £100,000 or £110,000. Instead of that, Scotland was to receive under this Bill just one-half of what she was entitled to. The Lord Advocate, when introducing the Bill, spoke about equality of treatment, and said that the Board Schools in Scotland were to be treated just as the Board Schools in England were treated. But the Board Schools in England had been treated in the most miserly fashion, and the Government proposed to take this niggardly treatment and apply it as the basis of treatment to Scotland. In England the Board Schools had at least the consolation of feeling that if they had been niggardly treated their friends the Voluntary Schools had been treated with great generosity, but to Scotland even this poor consolation was denied, for the Voluntary Schools, as well as the Board Schools, were treated in the most miserable way. Instead of getting 5s. per head, as was given to the Voluntary Schools in England, the Voluntary Schools of Scotland were only to get 3s. per head. In one word, while England received under her Acts 3s. 3d. for each child out of the common purse, Scotland was to receive only 1s. for each of her children. All that Scotland asked for was simply justice. She did not want one penny more than was fairly her due, and she would not have one penny less. But he contended that Scotland should get more, and not less, for both her Voluntary and her Board Schools. She was entitled to more for her Board Schools, because of the wonderful manner in which she had carried out the Board Schools Act. He had heard English Members speak of the extravagance of the Board Schools of England. He wished those English Members could visit his native town of Aberdeen, and see the palaces that had been erected there for the purposes of education. And yet the people of Aberdeen were not lavish of their money. [Laughter.] It was said, indeed, that Aberdeen was the only city in the world where a Jew could not thrive. [Laughter.] Yet the people, of Aberdeen had not spared a pound that could be spent on increasing the efficiency of education. With regard to sectarian schools, he respected conscientiousness; but he believed that in England there was a great deal of sectarian education with which conscientiousness had nothing to do. It was often the result of fear of a School Board rate. In Scotland that was not so, for there was a. School Board in every parish. Therefore, if anything, the Scotch grant to Voluntary Schools should be larger than the English. But though it might be true that the position of elementary education in Scotland left little to be desired, secondary education was in different case. Scotch boys were sent to the Universities far earlier than in England, because the arrangements for secondary education were weak. He was sorry, therefore, that the Government had denied to Scotland her just due, for the money might have been spent with immense benefit to the people of Scotland and with great credit to the Government.

said that hon. Members opposite were labouring under the idea that this Bill was necessarily the last word of the Government in the matter of giving additional assistance to education in Scotland. That was an entire mistake. ["Hear, hear!" from the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.] If he thought it was the last word he should share the disappoinment of hon. Members. But he supported the Second Reading, with the qualification that the Bill was not to be accepted as a full discharge of what might be considered to be due to education in Scotland because of what had already been done this year for education in England. [Ironical Opposition cheers.] The Bill so closely resembled the English Bills in form, that it might seem strange to English Members that Scotch Members on his side of the House should only support it with the qualification he had mentioned. But the circumstances of the two countries with regard to schools and educational legislation were so different that it did not follow that the Measures suitable for one country would be suitable for the other in the same degree. The principal educational Measure of this year for England was the Bill for giving additional assistance to Voluntary Schools. In Scotland there were only 390 Voluntary out of a total of 3,120 State-aided schools; so that to pass a similar Measure for their assistance, however proper in itself, would not give Scotland equal treatment with England in the matter of additional assistance from the public funds for the promotion of education. England had been in want of additional assistance for its Voluntary Schools; Scotland was in want of additional assistance for other educational objects. Scotland would accept this Bill as a payment to account of what was due—but not as payment in full. The position of his country in relation to the question now before the House could not be properly understood without bearing in mind the difference between England and Scotland in respect of educational arrangements. Scotland had an Education Act of its own—one which differed from the English Act in important respects—it had a separate Education Code and a separate Education Department. As had been often stated in these discussions, while the English was an Elementary Education Act, the Scotch was an Education Act without the restricting word "elementary." The Report of the Scotch Department contained paragraphs headed "Secondary Education" and "Technical Education." The Department had to do with the examination of Higher Class Schools, with Secondary Departments in State-aided schools, and with advanced instruction in the ordinary schools. Again, they had in Scotland local committees in the counties and large burghs, organised under a Minute of the Education Department and responsible to that Department. Their system, was thus one which embraced advanced as well as elementary instruction. In Scotland the primary branch of education was comparatively well-provided for; but the Voluntary Schools and certain of the School Boards were entitled to receive such assistance as the Bill would give. The Voluntary Schools were under a certain disadvantage as compared with Board Schools in having no share of the School Rate, and when a similar disadvantage suffered by Voluntary Schools in England was met by the Bill passed this Session, it would be inconsistent not to give help of the same kind to the schools in Scotland. In like manner necessitous School Boards must be considered. Assistance was given to them in Scotland under the existing law, but something further was required, and it was proposed to be given under this Bill. He thought, therefore, that the Bill was reasonable and right as far as it went. But as regarded the larger question of what was due to education in Scotland, because of what had recently been done for England, he would look on this Bill as an instalment, and an instalment only. It was sufficient of its kind—but something more was wanted of another kind. Scotland required assistance for the development of secondary and technical education. A beginning had been made by the local committees. If only the resources of those committees were increased, much good might be done, but an improved organisation also was desirable to bring all parts of the country under something of a uniform system, and to have that system properly supervised. The Education Department was moving in that direction. It was in future to have the administration of the Science and Art grants, and it was endeavouring to bring technical instruction more closely in connection with the local committees on secondary education. But it was undeniable that the cause of advanced education required more assistance. Private liberality might be appealed to, but in order to elicit private liberality it was desirable that the national importance of well-equipped schools for that kind of education be recognised by liberal assistance to them from the public funds. Private liberality may be trusted to do much to supplement what is done by the State, but the State must first show that it regards the object as one of national importance. He had said nothing of University Education. In Scotland it had never been usual to look upon the Universities as institutions standing entirely apart; but as the terminus to which all schools should point the way. Were any portion of a grant for education to be bestowed on the Universities, it would excite no surprise in Scotland. Education was there a wide term. The present position in Scotland was simply this—that while they themselves required assistance for education in the broad sense they were called upon to pay their share of certain assistance to elementary education in England and Wales. They did not grudge that contribution, but they contended that it was only equitable that a corresponding amount of assistance should be given to Scotland towards the educational work which stood waiting to be undertaken there, of which assistance the grants under the present Bill were only an instalment. In saying that Scotland looked for much more than the Bill offered he was following an excellent lead—that of the Scotch Education Department—because in. a circular of the Department, dated June 10, relating to a Minute of the same date, on "the distribution of the sum available for secondary education," he found the following words:—

"In connection with the additional educational grants which it is proposed to make to England, a claim for a corresponding measure of liberality arises for Scotland, and my Lords trust that the increased resources thus made available will stimulate further development of education in all its branches."

Here we had the declaration of the Department that a claim for a corresponding measure of liberality had arisen for Scotland, and we had besides, the expression of the trust of the Department that a stimulus for the further development of education in all its branches would be given by "the increased resources thus made available." In the light of that statement he was surely justified in regarding the grants under the present Bill as an instalment— a just and reasonable instalment, but still only an instalment—of what was due to Scotland in consideration of the additional grants made to England and Wales.

was of opinion that the Bill did not do justice to Scotland as a whole, and especially to Voluntary Schools. The Voluntary Schools in Scotland had at least, as well as the Voluntary Schools in this country, deserved well of the community. They were for the most part the schools of the poor. They had been launched by those who had, in many cases, conscientious objections to education for their children in any school but their own. They had furnished the schools and maintained them out of their own resources, without any charge whatever on the rates. They had not received a penny they had not earned under existing regulations and in accordance with Government requirements. They were paid, not in respect of denominational teaching or framing, but exclusively for the secular education which they afforded. They asked for no more than that. Now of the Voluntary Schools in Scotland, by far the greater number were Catholic schools. Out of 390 Voluntary Schools, 180 were Catholic schools, educating, without any charge to the ratepayers, something like 500,000 children. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the object of the Bill was to treat Scotland in exactly the same way as England. But under the English Bill Voluntary Schools in England were relieved of the burden of rates, while under this Bill Voluntary Schools in Scotland were subjected to the burden of rates. In that respect this Bill was very far from being fair to Scotland as compared with England. The burden of rates was one which would press more heavily in the future or schools. On 23rd October last a circular was issued from the Local Government Board in Scotland to the effect that the rating authorities had no discretion in the assessment of school premises, many of them having been in the habit of exercising a merciful discretion in respect of school premises. Under those circumstances he hoped the Government would see their way to assent in the Committee stage to an Amendment which would put Scottish Voluntary Schools on the same footing as English Voluntary Schools.

observed that every speech made in the Debate, from whichever side, picked holes in the Bill. The fact was that the Government would not in their educational Measures, whether introduced for the sake of England or Scotland, look at the point at which they ought to look; they would not put educational efficiency in the first place. They would not concentrate themselves on that, but they would try to redeem pledges, real or fancied, which had bees given at election times, now far distant, and against which it might now be fairly supposed that the Parliamentary Statute of Limitations had run. One would imagine that it was now possible for the Government, two years after the General Election, to look at What most conduces to education instead of what conduces to the well-being of little sections of far less importance than was attributed to them, and which seemed to be making claims successfully on all hands, to the prejudice of those who represented the general opinion about education in the country. In saying that he was not saying that Voluntary Schools had not a claim to consideration and the 17s. 6d. limit pressed upon them strongly. The Bill did very little towards their relief, and the schools with the smaller incomes would receive less benefit than the schools with the larger incomes. The Government did not satisfy the primary claim of their clients. What were the Scotch Catholic schools asking for? They bad raised their schools to a certain state of efficiency, and they would be glad to, get their share of the public money, and would submit themselves to the strictest conditions of inspection providing there was no interference with their religious teaching. But the Bill proposed to give them a mere trifle, something that would go a very little way to meet their necessities, and it imposed no conditions as to the standard of teaching. True, it was said that the Education Department were to lay down conditions, but there was not an inkling of what they were going to be, or upon what footing the money was to be distributed, and least of all was it known whether the Catholics would be put in a position to get their share of public money like others on the basis of educational efficiency. The criticisms from the hon. Members who had spoken were well founded and the Government would do well to consider them. The matter did not rest there. It had been pointed out by hon. Members, who had spoken what the demand in Scotland was, and which the Bill did nothing to meet, though it had been the subject of private, public, and official representations. The system existing in Scotland since 1872 was not merely a system of elementary education. The Act of that year provided more than an elementary education following the traditions of the Scotch parish schools which gave an education far beyond what could be considered elementary. In Scotland there were two sets of educational institutions and not three. In England there were the Universities, the public and intermediate schools, and the elementary schools. In Scotland Board Schools often gave a considerable amount of secondary education, and the Universities came much nearer to the schools than was or could be the case in England. As a result there was an educational system organised on a wholly different basis, and on this basis there was urgent need of assistance. The point at which the assistance was urgently required was where scholars passed from the schools, which were not elementary and were not quite secondary schools in the sense in which the term was understood in England, though they gave a certain amount of secondary education, and the Scotch Universities which gave a little more than secondary education. These were four in number, and were of course sometimes distant from the homes of students the sons of poor parents. By a judicious extension of the system of bursaries more assistance could be given to Scotch education than in any other way. But what did the Bill do towards realising that claim? Did it even assist the schools by putting pupils in such a condition as would enable them to take advantage of the University system? It did nothing of the sort, and the House was face to face with a state of things in which money was more urgently wanted than for any other purpose, and the Bill was silent upon the, claim. They were not in a position to assume as conceded in their own favour the basis of the equivalent grant, for the Government had laid down their policy, and Scotch Members must be content, but putting that principle out of account it was admitted that something was wanted to assist Scotch education where the need was urgent. Because the Bill did not do that, because it deliberately set aside Scottish opinion and neglected claims entitled to recognition, he felt bound to give his vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

said the discussion had been financial rather than educational in its character, and the hon. Member who had just spoken made one concession he was most glad to welcome, that the Government were entitled to abandon, as he called it, the principle of the equivalent grant.

said he had admitted the Government had taken up a strong position on this point, and he did not think it right to argue the question, and he therefore placed himself on a footing which was common ground.

said that was an observation the hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his speech; the remark to which he was now referring was towards the end of the hon. Member's speech, and the import of what he said was that the Government were quite entitled to say that the equivalent grant did not apply to the, matter in hand. Of course he was perfectly aware that this had not been the view of other speakers, and in particular the hon. Member for the Border Burghs who had moved the rejection of the Bill based himself on the equivalent grant almost alone. Accordingly the first question for the House to consider was whether really the equivalent grant had any relation to the topic with which the House was dealing. The hon. Member in support of his proposition made a certain quotation from a speech of his right hon. colleague the First Lord of the Admiralty. He did not actually say from what particular speech that quotation was taken, but probably it was a speech made at the time when an equivalent grant was made to Scotland in respect of contribution from Imperial sources in aid of local taxation.

said the speech was much more recent; it was delivered on 6th May this year, when the right hon. Gentleman absolutely defended the principle of the equivalent grant.

said he did not remember the occasion.

said it was in discussion on the Irish Financial Relations and the right hon. Gentleman defended the relative proportions of 80, 11, and 9.

said he could not deal with that particular speech which was not within his recollection, but he thought he was right in supposing that his right hon. Friend was then dealing with the subventions to local taxation, but whether he was right in that supposition or not, he wished to bring before the House the obvious distinction in principle when dealing by equivalent grant with subsidies from Imperial sources in aid of local burdens, and in dealing with such a subject as education, in which the conditions might vary in the two countries, though undoubtedly the duty of the Imperial Government was the same in either country. The principle adhered to was that education was a national subject, and there should be corresponding treatment of it in the various parts of the Kingdom, but you cannot take a certain portion for England and, drawing a geographical line, say so much money being spent in England raises the right in another part of the Kingdom to a certain proportionate sum. There was no particular reason for the delimitation of Scotland any more than there was for a delimitation of London or Lancashire.

said the two countries had separate Education Departments.

said yes, for purposes of administration they had, but as far as the duty of the Imperial Parliament was concerned there was no difference in the national duty towards Scotland and England.

said there were separate laws and separate Departments.

said there were differences in the ways the grants were administered, but that the duty of the Imperial Parliament was the same in both countries, was a proposition not to be controverted, and this was a fatal stroke at the principle of the equivalent grant as applied to education. He quite agreed with the principle of a corresponding grant, and many persons might say that corresponding and equivalent meant the same thing. So that might be, but in the Parliamentary glossary the latter term had a technical meaning, and when he used the expression "equivalent grant" for clearness of discussion, he meant a grant computed in arithmetical proportion as between the countries. When he used the words "corresponding grant" he meant that any Imperial expenditure in England on education, necessitated in Scotland a corresponding grant from Imperial funds. This Bill carried out this undertaking. There was in the Bill what was in the two English Bills corresponding to this, a subvention for necessitous Board Schools, and a subvention to Voluntary Schools. Hon. Members opposite thought that when they said that they gave away their case. They did nothing of the sort. Hon. Gentlemen said that, though there was verbal equality, there was not real equality, because, while there was a great many Voluntary Schools in England, there were very few in Scotland, and that, although the Government affected to give equal treatment, and upon mere words did give equal treatment, between the one country and the other, they were really defrauding Scotland, because she had not got so many Voluntary Schools. It was perfectly true that so far as the Voluntary Schools grant was concerned—if they pinned themselves to that alone—Scotland would get rather the worst of it, because it had fewer Voluntary Schools, but hon. Members opposite had altogether found it convenient to forget the necessitous Board Schools. And just as Scotland lost upon the question of the Voluntary Schools so she gained upon the question of the necessitous Board Schools. He was not talking of equivalent proportions, but, using the equivalent grant as a mere barometer to see where the expenditure mounted to, let them look how the figures stood. Under the Bill which had been passed the amount allotted to necessitous Board Schools in England would be, roughly speaking, £154,000. The amount allotted to necessitous Board Schools in Scotland would be £41,000. Those proportions were as 80 to 21·6; but, according to the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite, they ought to be as 80 to 11. In other words, Scotland had got 10 per cent. the better as regarded necessitous Board Schools. If they were to take the principle of the equivalent grant, how was it possible to confine their attention to the mere fragment of figures embodied in this particular Bill? ["Hear, hear!"] They must take the question of the equivalent grant altogether, and therefore, logically speaking, they would be entitled in showing whether there was justice or injustice between the two countries, to go far beyond the ambit of the educational Vote and take every Vote where there was an Imperial contribution as a local subvention. In the present case they must not pin their attention to the simple figures that were voted in this Bill, but must take the entire sums that were voted by the Imperial Parliament for the purposes of education. If they did that how did the figures stand? Deducting the fee grant—that was to say, taking merely the education grant—the total sum for England and Wales was £5,021,910, and the total sum for Scotland was £844,308. Putting that into proportions the English was to the Scotch as 80 was to 13·5.

Might I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is giving us together the amount earned by the scholars and the amount paid apart from what was earned?

said he was giving the amount paid, not earned. He was going to answer by anticipation a question which he felt sure would be put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs. On the First Reading the right hon. Gentleman said their Scotch children were more assiduous, and that they were not entitled, as in the question of Imperial liberality, to put against the Scotch what they had earned by their assiduity. [Opposition cheers.] He entirely agreed, but just let him state how the figures stood here. If hon. Gentlemen would look into the Estimates for this year they would find that, roughly speaking, there was 2s. 6d. more earned by each Scotch child than by each English child. Of that 2s. 6d., 1s. represented the additional assiduity of the Scotch child, while 1s. 6d. of the 2s. 6d. represented the extra favourable conditions in the Code. Supposing they had an ideal school of 50 children who were perfectly capable. The position of the two educational systems was this, that 50 children of exceptional talent in Scotland could earn, as a matter of fact, 1s. 6d. per head more than 50 English children of the same calibre.

Studying the same subjects?

said No; but taking advantage of what the Imperial Parliament said they might get. It might be said that they should alter the two Codes and make them correspond, but all he was doing was pursuing the argument of what they got out of the Imperial Treasury. To make his argument quite correct upon this point, for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs, he proposed to deduct the 1s. per head, which represented the additional assiduity of the Scotch child, and the proportion of the total sum, which stood at 80 as to 13 5, would then be reduced to 80 as to 13. As long as he was above the 80 to 11 he entirely rebutted the charge that there had been any injustice to Scotland on the question of the equivalent grant. But he had not exhausted the whole of the advantages of Scotland when he had given these figures. In giving the total educational vote, hon. Members would notice that he particularly said he deducted the fee grant. As a matter of fact, the fee grant in England was 10s., while the fee grant in Scotland, according to the promise of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was going to be 12s. It had always been 12s., because they had always contributed 2s. out of local money. But as hon. Members knew—and here they must not merely take the Bill, but the whole educational policy of the Government— there had been a promise made, ratified by a declaration which he had made across the Table of the House with the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Imperial money would be given to keep for the future that amount of 2s. which would otherwise be exhausted. He would now give a very striking illustration of the method of criticism which had been adopted upon the other side of the House. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment pinned his faith to what he described as a deficiency of £52,000. He did not admit the hon. Gentleman's figures. There was £41,200 which was given to Scotland under the necessitous Board clause, £12,500 under the Voluntary Schools capitation grant of 3s., and £26,000 under the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep up the capitation grant of 12s. instead of 10s. The three sums made £79,800, or, roughly, £80,000. To England was given £617,000 under the Voluntary Schools scheme, and £110,000 under the necessitous Board School scheme, making £727,000. If they took the English grant at £727,000, the proportion would come out at £80,000. He agreed that 11-80ths of £44,000 had to be added to the £80,000, which would make the sum £86,000.

The sum of £50,000 or £60,000 winch was given under the 17s. 6d. limit should be added.

said that that was a question he could not now discuss. He maintained that the sum would be £86,000 as against £110,000. Even if they took the addition under the 17s. 6d. limit, which the right hon. Member for Rotherham had just referred to, it was quite evident 11–80ths would not raise the £86,000 to £110,000: it would make it £93,000. But leaving the figures of the hon. Member for the Border Burghs as he himself stated them, there was a. very curious illustration in respect to the question of the equivalent grant which would strike the House. In theory he would go back to 1870 and 1872. The 67th Clause of the Scotch Act and the 97th Clause of the English Act established the question of additional help to necessitous schools, and, accordingly, if the argument was worth anything, there ought to have been equivalent treatment as between the two countries at the time those two clauses were passed. How did the figures stand? Scotland was paid under the operation of the 67th Clause £13,800. An English Member might have said, "If you are passing a Bill which gives identical treatment, and Scotland is to get £13,800, we are entitled to a sum which will bear to £13,800 the same relation that 80 bears to 11." If such a proportional sum were worked out, the answer would be found to be £100,360. As a matter of fact £41,600 was paid to England, so that there was a deficiency in the case of England of £58,760, a sum which was more than £6,000 above the deficiency which was complained of by the hon. Member for the Border Burghs. There were certain other topics dealt with by the hon. Member. He spoke of the Bill as being something in favour of symmetry, and he said symmetry meant educational reaction. The hon. Member proceeded to say that the proudest educational boast of Scotland was that there was a. Board School in every parish'. It certainly was a new doctrine to a Scotchman that the Scotch educational boast began in 1872. One used to hear about John Knox in connection with education. The hon. Member for the Wick Burghs said the educational system was founded by Liberal statesmen.

I said the present system.

thought the hon. Member made wider claim; he was glad the hon. Gentleman gave up John Knox as a Liberal statesman. [A laugh.] Really this Bill had nothing to do with educational reaction. The Bill was admittedly introduced because of the Scotch demand that arose upon the help that had been given to primary education in England. The hon. Member spoke of the great sacrifices that had been made by the Free Church of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman might have quoted the Church of which he was a distinguished Member, the United Presbyterian Church, and he need not have altogether forgotten, as he did, the Established Church of Scotland, because, while 500 schools were handed over by the Free Church, 1,000 were handed over by the Established Church. The two Churches knew very well that the national education that was going to be given in the Board Schools was to be denominational. ["Oh, oh!"] It was absurd to talk of the education in Roman Catholic and Episcopalian Schools as sectarian; it was denominational. The schools in favour of which the hon. Member for Donegal spoke were not one whit more denominational in their own way than the Board Schools were in their way. [Mr. MUNDELLA: Oh, oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield cried "Oh, oh!" He did not know how much the right hon. Gentleman knew or did not know of Scotland. [Laughter.]

I administered the Scotch Education Acts for nearly six years.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman had learned the Shorter Catechism. If he had not he did not know what denominational education in Scotland meant. [Laughter]. They were taught a religious education by a creed which was shared by the three great Churches of Scotland. It was a great advantage that the cleft which existed between those three great Churches had to do with Church government, and not with doctrine, so that they were enabled to have their common standard taught in the public schools of the country. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member said next that there was no public demand for this Bill. Here again he thought he might appeal to the speech of the hon. Member for Donegal, and if he wanted a further witness he would ask the hon. Baronet the Member for Bridgeton (Sir Charles Cameron) to intervene. The hon. Baronet knew well that the Roman Catholic schools and the Episcopal schools would have felt themselves very unjustly treated if they had found that the Voluntary Schools in England were to be assisted, while they were to be left out in the cold. So far as the hon. Member for the Hawick Burghs was concerned, he could not but contrast the attitude of extra sympathy which the hon. Gentleman displayed with his Irish friends the other day on the question of the deportation of paupers when he was ready at their bidding to upset what was really the Scottish settlement system.

I must ask my right hon. friend to withdraw that observation. I am at nobody's bidding for the discharge of my public duty. What I consider is the merits or demerits of each case. [Opposition cheers].

I am not aware that I said that the hon. Gentleman was at anyone's bidding. I would have made no such imputation. I do not withdraw it, because I did not make it. I said extra sympathy.

You said "at their bidding."

Did I say that?

Yes, you did.

You withdraw that, I suppose?

Well, I absolutely withdraw if I said it. The reporters will bear me out as to whether I said it or not. Continuing, the right hon. Gentleman said he wished to contrast the hon. Member's attitude on the deportation of paupers' question with his attitude towards the Irish Members' very just demands on the present occasion. In regard to the application of the Bill to the Highlands, the Bill would have no effect whatever upon the application of the minute of March 1895 as to the Highlands grant. Coming to the general question of secondary education, he was entirely in sympathy with something that was said, but not entirely with the expression of it, by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow University. Of course the Government hoped that this was not the very last word of this or some other Government upon the question of education. [Ironical Opposition cheers and laughter.] He did not say that the Government was to be composed of people on the other side of the House. [Ministerial cheers.] But the point of the Bill was, that it was introduced in co-relation with the Measure introduced for the benefit of primary education in England, and, accordingly, all he said about secondary education was, that when it was taken up by the Imperial Exchequer, with a view to making direct grants in favour of secondary education, it must be taken up as a purely Imperial subject, and they could not keep it to Scotland. At present there was no direct grant from the Exchequer in favour of secondary education, and what he urged upon the House was that the question of this Bill was not upon the attitude of the Government to secondary education, that they had the cause of secondary education at heart, and that in future they hoped there might be steps taken in that direction, not only for Scotland but altogether for the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Donegal had introduced the question of the I7s. 6d. limit. It was asked why did they not abolish the 17s. 6d. limit as in the English Bill? There were several answers to that. The first was that there had been absolutely no claim or wish generally expressed on the part of the people of Scotland that the 17s. 6d. limit should be taken away for this very good reason, that its withdrawal would not be an unmixed blessing. It would undoubtedly lead to a great extent to farming in schools. People would simply give a school to a teacher and say, "Here is the school, earn what you can out of the Government." Another answer was, that as a matter of fact, the 17s. 6d. limit, although in terms a 17s. 6d. limit, was not really that in Scotland. It was in the first place a 19s. 6d. limit, because as the fee grant had been paid in Scotland at the rate of 12s. a head, instead of 10s., and inasmuch as, according to the Act of Parliament, the fee grant, although paid from Imperial sources counted as local, it was quite obvious that the limit, so far as Scotland was concerned, was really a 19s. 6d. limit. That was not all. There was a sum of £60,000 given under one of the Educational Local Taxation Acts for secondary education in Scotland. That grant was administered through the medium of the Board Schools, and to the extent that it was paid, it also counted upon the question of the 17s. 6d. limit. Taking those three facts together, the Government had not thought it necessary to abolish the 17s. 6d. limit in this Bill. He came next to the question of the justification of the 3s. The hon. Member who raised it still seemed to be under the impression that Scotland was being unjustly treated in comparison with England, which got a 5s. grant. The origin of the free education in Scotland was the devoting to free education of the sum of money which was equivalent to the purely local subvention given in favour of the relief of rates in England, and the calculations which were originally made upon the money so provided, allowed of a payment of 12s. per head. In 1892, when in the intervening time free education had been granted to England at the rate of 10s. per head, Parliament thought fit to make an exchange between the two moneys, that was to say, it took away the old sum which, being put into the Local Taxation Account, was given out to pay the capitation grant of 12s. for educational purposes, and replaced it by a direct education grant, which was now calculated in precisely the same way as the English grant, namely, at 10s. per head. As a matter of fact, the proceeds of the original grant had been so exuberant that they had sufficient savings to make up the 12s. since 1892, although they were only getting 10s. from the direct Parliamentary grant, but during those years they had spent their savings; and accordingly by this year, if they had gone on with a further promise from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they would only have been able to pay exactly 10s. per head; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that as they had been conducting their system in Scotland on the scale of 12s., he would make up this 2s. out of the Imperial Treasury. It therefore seemed only just that when they were giving this help to the Voluntary Schools they should take this contribution from the Exchequer of 2s. into account, and make the grant 3s. instead of 5s. ("Hear, hear!") The hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. A. O'Connor) mentioned the question of the exemption of Voluntary Schools from rates, and said there had been a merciful discretion under which the local bodies had hitherto in many cases exempted these institutions from rates. The fee grant was paid equally to all Voluntary and Hoard Schools, and accordingly they had this fact, that out of the Imperial Treasury there was paid over and above the general capitation grant of 10s. this extra 2s. under the promise of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He agreed with the hon. Member for Donegal when he said that the rating authorities had exercised a merciful discretion in the matter of the exemption of school buildings from rates, because they were doing what they had no right to do under the law. All he could say with regard to that matter was that the Government had no wish to introduce any Parliamentary contest, and so far as he could see nobody objected to that being clone, and if the hon. Member would put down an Amendment on the Committee stage in the terms of the provision in the English Bill he could promise him favourable consideration for it. ["Hear, hear!"] He had now, he thought, gone through the various points that had been raised, and he submitted that Scotland was not being defrauded in this matter, seeing that the topic of secondary education did not directly arise upon the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that the whole speech of the right hon. Gentleman had been directed to satisfying the Scotch Members that the grant they were entitled to as corresponding to that given to England had been paid. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn a distinction between corresponding and equivalent, but he could not follow him over a great deal of his ground. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to many Acts and regulations, and the question was so complex and involved that he had to ask the Government to call upon the Treasury to prepare a statement for the House to show how matters stood. In dealing with the amount voted to England and Wales under the Act of last year, the right hon. Gentleman omitted two amounts which went to those two countries indirectly under the Act. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that the amount given under the Voluntary Schools Act was £617,000, and under the Necessitous Schools Act, £116,000, making altogether £733,000, which came out of the taxes; but the right hon. Gentleman did not say that England and Wales also received a sum estimated at £40,000 by the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit, and that they would also receive a sum estimated at £100,000 through the exemption of school buildings from rates. He presumed that in Scotland they would get relief from the rates, but they would not get the relief given to England and Wales by the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Board Schools in Scotland were denominational; technically this might be true, but they were certainly not so in the sense that the Episcopal or Catholic Schools were in Scotland, or the Voluntary Schools in England. It was impossible, in his opinion, to say that because they used the Scottish Catechism, the Board Schools in Scotland were denominational. In the first place, there was no ecclesiastical control. It was only as a member of a School Board that a clergyman could have anything to do with their management, whereas Voluntary Schools in England were entirely under ecclesiastical control. He did not know how the Lord Advocate was going to defend the non-application of the principle of an equivalent grant in this ease. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the amounts given to Scotland for other purposes, but in many cases to be furnished by the Treasury. Scotland got nothing like an equivalent grant, and a statement such as he had asked for would show that the grants given to England were much larger than the proportion of 80 to 11. Speaking some time ago, the present First Lord of the Admiralty said,—

"The equivalent grant was originally conceded in order to save Ireland and Scotland from a disadvantage under which they would otherwise have lain. The ratio of these contributions has proved on the whole to be singularly fair. From that time forth Ireland and Scotland have always been indemnified when any particular relief has been given to England."

In this case particular relief had been given to England, and the Scotch Members now asked that Scotland should receive equivalent relief. He did net understand from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that they got it under this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the Lord Advocate had indicated that the object of the present Government was to secure uniformity. To attain uniformity in education between England, Scotland, and Ireland would occupy the rest of the time of the present Parliament. They were three distinct systems in England, Scotland, and Ireland. There was no uniformity now, and in this Bill the Government were not giving anything in the shape of uniformity. The right hon. Gentleman had claimed that Scotland was getting an equivalent, but the old system was being carried out, if not in the letter, in the spirit. When the former Unionist Government brought in their Bill to create County Councils in England they determined that for the financing of these new bodies a certain proportion should come from personal property and there was handed over to them one half of the probate duty and a portion of the licence duty, and that was to allocated in the principle of nationality. England was to keep her share, Scotland her share, and Ireland her share, and the grants which Parliament had been in the habit of voting annually were to be taken away. England used her share of the money for the purpose of reducing local rates. But Scotland used her share for abolishing school fees. Thus, when the English Bill making elementary education free was brought in, Scotland already had free education, which she paid for herself. Scotchmen thereupon asked for an equivalent grant, and the result was that 11–80ths of the amounts set aside for primary education in England was handed over to the Scotch Office. That was done under the Act of 1892. Under that Act Scotland got hold of her own Probate Duty, and gave 12s. a head out of it to various schools. Scotland got a sum of £265,000, and £30,000 out of that sum went to university education, and £060,000 to secondary education. When he first entered that House sums were voted every year for the Scotch universities, the old Scotch Estimates having been taken over at the time of the Union. The charges for the Scotch universities remained in the Estimates until 1888. That the money should be voted by the Imperial Parliament was a bargain, and that bargain was honourably adhered to until nine years ago, when a Unionist Government deliberately refused to support the Scotch universities, and the result was, that out of her own money Scotland had to provide £30,000 for the support of university education. England, therefore, had repudiated her obligations in a most dishonourable manner. Parliament had given colleges and universities and endowments to Ireland; it had done the same thing for Wales, mid it was giving £25,000 a year to English colleges, so that the burden of English, Welsh, and Irish colleges was borne by Parliament of its own free will, whilst it had repudiated dishonourably the burden of supporting the Scotch universities. In England a Royal College of Science had been established, and Ireland was to be larly benefited; but Scotland was to be left out in the cold. English boys were thus to be given special advantages over Scotch lads. In regard to the sum of £265,000 which Scotland ought to receive under the Act of 1892, he wished to know how it was that the sum of 12s. a head to schools was no longer to come out of it. Had the Probate Duty in Scotland dropped, or had the number of school children greatly increased? He was of opinion that there had been a "deal" between the Treasury and the Scotch Office. It was most amusing to hear why the 17s. 6d. limit should not be abolished in Scotland. It was said that probably the Voluntary Schools might make a deal with the teachers, and that the teachers would farm their schools. What evidence was there of this? If that, was likely to be the case in Scotland why should it not be the case in England? Why were the Government so anxious to protect Scotland? He should like to hear the reason for the course which was being taken. As far as he saw, the only reason was that the Government were defrauding Scotland of £7,300 a year. That was the only policy of the Treasury in educational matters—to do what they could to defraud Scotland. The Scottish people were in this position—a poor country believing in education in the past, having spent their money in every Department of education, were not getting anything like a fair equivalent of what the English were receiving. He supported the rejection of the Bill.

said it was a significant fact that of the Scottish Members who had taken part in this discussion not one, except the Lord Advocate, had expressed any very cordial approbation of the Bill. Two hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had treated this as a mere instalment of what was due to Scotland, and they looked forward with a simple-minded faith which he admired, to another year when something very great was going to be done for secondary education in Scotland. But the Lord Advocate appeared to be chiefly anxious to prove—he could not say that he had succeeded—that Scotland received quite enough for education at present as compared with England—in fact, rather more than her proper share. He did not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would persuade the Scottish people of the correctness of this contention. One fact ought to be borne in mind, namely, the immense sacrifices which the Scottish people had made, without grumbling, for 25 years in the payment of school rates. [Cheers.] In many parts of England, no doubt, heavy rates had been incurred for the same purpose, but in Scotland the rates were universal. That fact ought to go somehow into the account. In England, on the other hand, there had been complaints against the heavy burden of rates and subscriptions, but even from the Voluntary Schools in Scotland he had not heard any loud complaints of their uncomfortable financial position. For his own part he disassociated himself from any of those who might deny the right of the Voluntary Schools in Scotland to any assistance if they could make out a good case for it. When they spoke of Voluntary Schools in Scotland they meant Roman Catholic schools, and if they suffered in any way he was sure that those who did not belong to that communion and who even disapproved of the character and management of the schools would not grudge them any relief which might be thought necessary. But the right hon. Gentleman entered upon that subject which was becoming an almost inextricable maze—the subject of equivalent grants. The way in which this question was treated now was that when a fixed equivalent grant meant less than a calculation of the absolute necessities of the case in the individual country then the Government were in favour of equivalent grants; but when an equivalent grant was more than some sum which might be supposed to represent the necessities of the country then there were objections raised to equivalent grants, and the matter was settled on the ground of necessity. [Cheers.] He thought it was time, as the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues introduced the system of equivalent grants, to invite the House of Commons to make up their minds one way or the other. As to the 17s. 6d. limit, he did not think a sufficient reason had been given for neglecting to repeal that limit in Scotland when it was abolished in England and Wales. When the English Bill was under consideration there was a provision in it to abolish that limit, and an hon. Member moved that it should be postponed. The First Lord of the Treasury on that occasion said that the 17s. 6d. limit was open to a great many objections; it was a great temptation to the manipulation of accounts, and fined poor but efficient schools in a manner highly detrimental to the interests of education. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman added, he could not defer even for a month. ["Hear, hear!"] The abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit must not be deferred even for a month. The right hon. Gentleman would not be able to sleep in his bed—[laughter]—if he thought this provision was still in operation in England and Wales. Yet they had introduced what professed to be a corresponding Measure in Scotland, and left this iniquitous and obnoxious 17s. 6d. limit in all its deformity. [Cheers.] This was hardly the time for asking questions on the details of the Bill. But there was one which would have to be answered later on. Clause 2 said that for the purposes of Section 19 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, in so far as it related to Scotland, the aid grant paid to Voluntary Schools should be deemed to be income derived from other sources than the Parliamentary grant. So that it would go towards the 17s. 6d. limit. But if that was to be the case in the Voluntary School, why not in the Board School? ["Hear, hear!"] Neither he nor any of his hon. Friends could at all understand why the distinction should be made. The truth was that they were dealing with a country which had a totally different system of education from that of England, and which had not only a totally different system, but different conditions, ideas, and conceptions on the subject of education altogether. The right hon. Gentleman became exceedingly warm when he spoke of the part John Knox had played but whether it was due to John Knox or any other person, the Scotch people had for generations taken a different view of the subject from the English people at large. They had regarded education as almost a necessity of life, and had never feared or grudged it. Therefore they were ahead of England in this matter— a fact that was too apt to be lost sight of in debates and legislation. They were told that the grants given in England were for primary education; therefore all the money available for Scotland must be confined to primary education, and secondary education was to be relegated to the distant future. But in Scotland primary education was dome with. They were at the secondary education stage. Therefore the analogous provision for Scotland would be a provision for improving and completing secondary education. Yet they were made to give this money where it was really, in one sense, not wanted—at any rate, not urgently wanted—while they received nothing for purposes of secondary and technical education, which all who took any interest in Scotch education knew would be of immense benefit to the whole community. The Scotch primary schools differed from the English also in that they were predominantly Board Schools. "But," said the Lord Advocate—who not only introduced John Knox but the shorter catechism and all sorts of sacred subjects—[Laughter]—" the Board Schools all the same were denominational schools." No doubt they were in the sense that more or less dogmatic religion after the Presbyterian form was taught. But the Boards who authorised the teaching, were elected by the ratepayers, and the schools were in no sense clerical. They were in a totally different position from the Voluntary Schools, whose raison d'être was to propagate certain distinctive doctrines. ["Hear, hear!"] But if, on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, the Board Schools were denominational, why did he differentiate against them? ["Hear, hear!"] He had given the House some of the reasons why he and his friends could not consider the Measure in any sense a satisfactory one. He cordially agreed with the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. It might seem singular and ludicrous to refuse money. But there was no such absurdity in reality. They regarded the sum proposed as very far short of what they were entitled to, and if they were to receive any money at all it was not for these purposes they would have it. A small sum might be given for the relief of certain Voluntary Schools, if they mode out a good case for it. But the bulk of the money that went to Scotland ought to go now for secondary education. Some of his Scotch friends on the other side looked with confidence to a future Bill; but what he feared was that it would be moulded not according to the views of Scotch Members, who knew the feelings and wishes of the Scotch people, not according to the requirements of Scotch education, but according to the prejudices and the necessities of England. Their great desire —and he was sure it was shared by the Lord Advocate and by every Scotchman on the Government side of the House— was to maintain Scotland's pre-eminence in education; and it was because this Bill, if not in one sense a backward step, was, at all events, an omission of an opportunity to take a distinctly forward step, that they were compelled to oppose it.

, Who rose argil cries of "Divide!" wished to join in the expressions of dissatisfaction which had proceeded from Scotch Members on both sides of the House of account of no provision having been made by this Bill for Secondary Technical Education. Under the old parochial system Scotland held, as far as elementary education was concerned, a foremost place amongst the countries of Europe. She had been making progress since, but not as much as she should have made; and as far as technical education was concerned she had been passed in the race by Germany. He thought the Government had missed a great opportunity by not incorporating in the Bill a provision for fostering secondary and technical education. Notwithstanding, he was prepared to support the Bill, for this reason, that he believed half a loaf was better than no bread. Ho believed the provision for Voluntary Schools, and especially for necessitous schools, of which there were many in the Highlands, would do a large amount of good. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs hall said that they had done with primary education in Scotland. He could not agree with that as long as 10 per cent. of their people were illiterates. The grant to the Voluntary Schools would greatly assist the reducing of that percentage. The Voluntary Schools were divided into two classes—Episcopalian and Roman Catholic; the Episcopalian educating 2 per cent. and the Roman Catholic 8 per cent. of the children. A large proportion of the Roman Catholics were Irish. The constituency he represented had received a larger influx of Irishmen than any other in the United Kingdom; and having had a. great deal of experience of the operation of the Education Act in connection with Irish children, he knew that it had been most beneficial. Twenty-five years ago Irish children were the most illiterate and uneducated part of the Scotch population. Now they came very close up alongside their Scotch neighbours, and were making continuous and rapid progress. He agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow University that the provisions of the Bill were inadequate; but he looked forward with hope, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs had said, to the Government before long making proper provision for secondary and technical education.

thought the Bill was right in one sense in giving money to the denominational schools, which, to his knowledge, greatly needed it in some places. But, while it was just that the Scotch Voluntary Schools should receive some assistance, it was most unjust that they did not receive the same assistance as the English. It was all very well for the Lord Advocate to point to some figure of 2s., which he had handled very skilfully; but the fact remained that, under the English Bill of this year the English denominational schools would get 5s. more than they had got hitherto, under the Scotch Bill the Scotch denominational schools would only get 3s. more.

said the effect of the promise he had made was that the Scotch Voluntary Schools would get as much as the English.

said he coupled with the 3s. grant in the Bill the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the 2s. The fact, however, remained that that 2s. had hitherto been received by the denominational schools in Scotland. The difference, therefore, between this and the English Bill was that the denominational schools in England were better off by 5s. and the denominational schools in Scotland by 3s. per head and no more. That was not fair play. ["Hear, hear!"] Taking the whole sum together given to all classes under the Bill the Government gave, according to the Lord Advocate's own contention, £80,000 instead of £110,000, which was the equivalent grant. That could not be fair. ["Hear, hear!"] It. was no use going back to former grants and comparing them. If they went back at all let them go back to the whole comparison of the receipts and expenditure in Scotland. ["Hear, hear!"] The whole of that subject, he thought, was reserved for consideration in order to ascertain the truth of the entire question, and they had no right to select a small piece out of the whole and manufacture that into an argument in support of the present Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped Scotland would resent the use of a large English majority against a small number of Scotch Members to impose upon her what was not fair and could not be justified. ["Hear, hear!"] He would have preferred that the policy they held on this matter should have been embodied in an Amendment, as there were inconveniences and possible misunderstandings in voting against the Second Reading of the Bill itself. But, inasmuch as there were no other means left to him—it was not quite fair to leave no other means—of expressing the resentment that he thought he was entitled to feel at the disparaging treatment as between England and Scotland in this matter, he should vote with his hon. Friend the Member for Hawick Burghs. ["Hear, hear!"]

thought that when seed or appliances had been bought and paid for they should not be inspected by any official.

said there were similar powers in the Congested Districts (Ireland) Act. These things were to be sold at less than cost price, and that being he thought the Commissioners should have power to see that they were being properly used.

said more notice should have been given of the proposed addition. He objected to the clause being passed in its present form, and submitted that the Bill would be better as originally drafted. He hoped the Lord Advocate would consider the Motion between now and the Report stage.

said that when the Bill was last before the House ample intimation appeared on the Paper as to what was to be done. As the hon. Member for Lanark had said, it was merely proposed to give the Commissioners the same powers that had been given to the Congested Districts Board in Ireland. When articles were gifted or sold at less than cost price, he thought power should be given to see that they were being properly used.

maintained that nothing was said about things being sold at less than cost price. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

said he could scarcely accept the Amendment. The Bill was a tentative one. There was a great deal of land available in the Highlands, and they did not anticipate that so far as the actual letting of land was concerned there would be any difficulty, even although there were no compulsory powers in the Bill. He could not accept t he analogy of the other Acts which had been mentioned by the hon. Member. There were provisions for the compulsory taking of land in the Parish Councils Act and in the Light Railways Act, but in those cases the purpose was strictly local, and the land was taken for the purpose of an undertaking which ex hypothesi would benefit the locality to a certain extent. Of course, the position under this Bill was different. To take people from a congested district in one part of Scotland might, of course, benefit the locality from which they were taken, and might be necessary from an Imperial point of view as an act of policy, but it could not be said to be necessarily advantageous to the locality to which they were removed. To his mind that was the great distinction between this Measure and the Act s which had been named. They thought the scheme should be given a chance to work without compulsory powers, and then, if it was found to be really hampered by the want of such powers, it would always be possible to conic to Parliament and get them.

regretted that the Lord Advocate should have taken up such a position. The object of the Bill was to relieve congestion, but the cause of that congestion was the want of land. The Deer Forest Commission showed that there were something like two million acres of land available. As the Government themselves were appointing this Commission, and the Chief Commissioner was to be the Secretary for Scotland, it scented to him that the Lord Advocate was unnecessarily apprehensive with regard to the powers which they desired.

agreed with the Lord Advocate that this Measure should be considered as tentative, and he was sure there was every desire on both sides to make it a success, but he could not but think that compulsory powers were necessary in order to make it a success. He was, however, in favour of full compensation. \He believed they might entrust the local authorities with full powers, and if that might be done with local authorities how much more might it not be done with a strong Commission of the kind proposed to supervise the work. He did not think there was so great an area available for small holdings in the Highlands as was very often supposed, but there were certainly sonic cases where lands which were capable of supporting a population were lying idle, and in such cases certainly this compulsory power was essential. There were cases where at fishing stations they found land suitable for small crofts, and where the landlords would not give the land except under compulsory powers. It was in such exceptional cases that powers should be given to acquire land. If those powers were not given, lie was afraid there was a bad prospect of carrying to success those necessary reforms in the Highlands.

looked upon the Bill as a fair and honest attempt to solve the congested districts question, but regretted the decision of the Government not to accept this Amendment. In the present temper of the Mathieson family, they would not be able to get the necessary land in the island of Lewis without compulsory powers. He hoped that Mr. Mathieson might change his mind, but he feared that compulsion would be found necessary. It might also be anticipated that compulsory powers would be necessary in the ease of Sir John Orde and Long Island. He believed nine-tenths of the landlords would associate with the authorities in giving the experiment a fair trial, and only a miserable minority of landlords would refuse to give land, and the compulsory powers were necessary to compel this minority to do their duty.

did not think he would be doing his duty to his constituents unless he protested against the statement that no case had been made out for the compulsory acquisition of land in the Highlands. An unanswerable case had been made out for giving those powers; and he did not see why they should make any difficulty in the matter when there were so many safeguards which they could apply in giving the power to acquire. When the Crofters' Act was before the House, the same argument against compulsory powers was used by the party who now sat on the Treasury Bench. It was said that there was no necessity for increasing the compulsory powers wider that Act, because the landlords, seeing the temper of the House, would give the laud willingly on reasonable terms. Experience had shown how groundless was that anticipation. The Crofters' Commission stated in a special 'Report that the reason more land had not been distributed among the people under the Act was that they could not get the landlords to move. The new landlord who had been installed in Lewis had already categorially declared that he had no land fur the people, and that he would give them no land. That was an illustration of the temper of the landlords of the I Highlands. He declared that so far as the chief provision of the Bill was concerned—the provision for distributing Inure land among the people—the Bill would practically be a dead letter when it became law.

still hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. They must remember that the working of the Act would be in the responsible lewd of the Secretary for Scotland. Surely he was an authority that could be trusted. Everyone desired to see the Bill a success, mid there was no doubt that compulsory powers to take land would greatly contribute to that end.

regretted that the Lord Advocate had not accepted the substance of die Amendment. In the absence of compulsory powers, the price of the land which it was desirable to acquire would be raised exorbitantly.

said that this special Sub-section was picked out simply hi accordance with the policy they discussed on the last Amendment—whether or not they should have compulsory powers. Sub-Section 1 of Section 3 of the Allotments Act was already expressed in the same words in file beginning of Section 5 of this Bill. Subsection 2 was the sub-section which dealt kith compulsory purchase and not with voluntary purchase; Sub-section 4, which they did take, was appropriate to voluntary purchase, and the alteration it made upon the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, which would otherwise be operative, wits that it gave, practically, single arbiter, instead of two arbiters, and provided a less expensive and easier tribunal. The reason they did not take the Act which was suggested by the hon. Member in his Amendment, was because that was a Code which was appropriate to compulsory purchase. They wear, going not upon compulsory purchase, but purchase by agreement.

said he had been misled by the words that any question of compensation should he referred to a sole arbiter. Of course if they had, practically, optional powers, no question of compensation could arise. It seemed to him the phraseology they were adopting was based upon compulsion, and that was why lie asked the question as to Subsection 2. He did not see how the phraseology here could apply to idly willing buyer or willing seller.

said that under the Lands Clauses Act an owner could agree to sell his land. It was purchased by agreement, although they did not agree upon a price. Compulsory taking was where they could take the land, whether the owner wished it to be taken or not. Purchase by agreement did not necessarily imply that they had settled upon a price. It was perfectly possible to say "I will allow you to take my land, but we have to fix a price yet, and it shall be fixed by an arbiter." He thought that was the origin of the words "disputed compensation" being included.

said the proviso here that the quest ion of disputed compensation should be referred to an arbiter to be appointed by the Secretary for Scotland, was very appropriate in an Act where there were compulsory powers. But they took out a section of the Act which was passed for compulsory powers, and then said that in a case where there was no compulsory powers whatever, but where a man was to be free to make any agreement he pleased, it should also apply. It occurred to him that this was quite unnecessary, because it really applied to a ease of compulsory purchase, but had no application to a Bill, which was restricted entirely to voluntary purchase. It seemed strange to put in an odd clause which had no relation to voluntary purchase.

pointed out that Sub-section (2) allowed the limited owner to sell at such a price as having regard to the purposes of the Act could best be obtained. This went further than the Lands Clauses Act. The justification for the phraseology of the Bill in this respect was that it was the phraseology of the Lands Clauses Act.

said that under the Allotments Act the Secretary for Scotland appointed the sole arbiter. Under Section 25 of the 1894 Act it was more a Departmental matter. In this respect he thought it was much better to adopt the method of the 1894 Act. The other point of difference was that the Local Government Act excluded the 10 per cent., and he would ask the Lord Advocate whether he could amend the Bill in those two particulars.

said he thought it was a small matter whether the arbiter was appointed by the Secretary for Scotland or by the Local Government Board, of which the Secretary for Scotland was the President. As regarded the 10 per cent., he had always thought it was wrong to exclude it front the Parish Councils Act, and he had always voted against it. He could not, therefore, exclude it from the present Bill.

said he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said lie was quite ready to accept the words "deemed reasonable" in lieu of the words "that can be reasonably obtained." He could not, however, accept the rest of the Amendment, though he was quite willing, to consider it before Report. The clause was borrowed from the bight Railways Act. The assumption of Parliament was that if a light railway were made it would benefit the estate through which it ran, and therefore it was reasonable that a proprietor or limited owner should be able, if he had the sanction of a Government Department, to give land fir the purpose of the railway. It was not quite the same here. There might be some eases where the point would apply, but there were others where obviously it would not. Again, it might be found to be a mistake to introduce the Board of Agriculture. ["Hear hear!"]

proposed, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words, "as can be reasonably obtained," in order to insert the words, "deemed reasonable."

said the Amendment had not been long on the Paper, and therefore he would like its consideration to be deferred until Report. There were certainly two sides to the question. It might be well to add to a holding, but on the other hand it must be remembered that the crofter legislation differed from the Irish legislation. They were not discussing Irish politics at that moment, and lie was not inclined to introduce that policy into Scotland. As to free sale, he should resent anything that would alter the tenure of a crofter's holding. The crofter retained his croft as long as he paid his rent. He was fully impressed as to the advantage of having some machinery, and he would consider the matter before the Report.

could not agree with the Lord Advocate. He thought that some such proposal as that submitted by his hon. Friend should be considered, and effect given to it.

said the improvements were invested in the crofter by the Crofters' Act, and this clause permitted the acquisition and disposal of the land. H any change in this direction were made, he should like to go further than his hon. Friend proposed. There was an absolute right to compensation, as the Act vested these improvements in the crofter, but he had no right to remain there longer than the Crofters Commission decided.

said the hon. Member spoke under a wrong impression. Obviously the Commissioners could not be heirs-at-law. He had assured the hon. Member that he would consider the matter.

was most anxious that the crofter should not be turned out of his holding. His hon. Friend had lost sight of a large class, the cottars, who really caused the congestion.

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. He was quite satisfied with what had been said by the Lord Advocate.

thought the words had better be left in than taken out.

supported the Amendment.

said he wished to say, in addition to what he had said before, that he was afraid that if these words were taken out, these men would be always asking for buildings when, as a matter of fact, they might be able to put them up themselves.

said that thought the buildings were erected by the crofter, the landowner usually found the wood; and he would suggest that the words in line 30 should be made to read, "of erecting or assisting in erecting." That would assimilate the new method to the old.

I agree to this.

said he had an Amendment to move, which was not on the Paper. It was really meant to meet the Amendment which was down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Ross-shire. The point of that Amendment was that, as the Bill stood, it would make a cast-iron regulation that the Commissioners should be obliged to exact repayment the loan by half-yearly payments within the date of the loan. He could not take that Amendment as it stood, because it would make a cast-iron rule the other way. He thought the matter ought to be left to the discretion of the Board. Therefore he proposed to move, in line 1, page 4, to insert after "loan" the words, "or at such dates thereafter, not exceeding 18 months." He took 18 months, because it corresponded to what they were all familiar with in Scotland, namely, a backhanded rent.

urged that 18 months was hardly sufficient. He thought two years would be better, and he would be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to make that concession.

also thought that 18 months was too short a time. He the night they might safely leave it to the discretion of the Commissioners. All those who had been with the crofters in Canada said that two years should be the very shortest time within which the first payment should be made.

pointed out that no promise had been given that the Resolution would not be taken.

suggested that his hon. Friend might withdraw his Motion, as there would be subsequent opportunities for discussing the subject. Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.

thought not the least satisfactory feature about this Bill was that it was not really a Measure that belonged to one side more than another. It was a Measure in which all were agreed. It was originally introduced in its main features by the late Lord Selborne, then by the present Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords, and reintroduced by Lord Herschell, from whose hands it came down to this House. Latterly the Lord Chancellor appointed a small Departmental Committee, of which he was a member, and they revised the draft with a view to meeting the various practical suggestions of commercial experts, and he believed the Bill was now a most satisfactory Bill alike to landowners, to the legal profession, and to the public.

supported the Motion. The Bill introduced important changes in the law which should be discussed before the Bill was read a Second time. People wrongly supposed that solicitors object to the purpose of the Bill. On the contrary, a compulsory system of land registration would make the fortunes of the present generation of lawyers, but they were not so sure of its being beneficial to their clients, and too great care could not be taken in framing its provisions.

said amendment of the system of land registration was highly necessary. The Bill required very careful consideration, but if the Debate were adjourned the Bill would probably not be passed this Session, and the present time, when the House was in a reasonable frame of mind and there was an absence of Party spirit—[laughter]—was a good time to consider it.

said he could assure his hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead that if he had the least feeling that ally harm would be done to the interests he represented, or that it was necessary for his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall to consider the details of the Bill which he believed he understood thoroughly at that moment—[laughter]—he would consent to the Adjournment. He could say without fear of contradiction, having read the Report of the meeting between the bankers and the representatives of the land registry, that there was not one objection which went to the Second Reading of the Bill. All the objections could be dealt with in the Grand Committee, and if not satisfactorily met in the opinion of those raising them, they would be able to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill. He was extremely anxious to get the Bill before the Grand Committee, where he was quite satisfied it would be discussed in a workmanlike way, and where ho would endeavour to deal with any objections that might be raised.

said that after this assurance he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.

thought it a great pity more notice had not been given that the Second Reading would be taken to-night, se that they might have heard the various points of view put forward, not only by the bankers, but by those representatives of the land and real property generally, which a great majority of the Members of the House had not the advantage of hearing at all. On the Committee which sat on this question, and of which the hon. Member for Haddington was a Member, there was a considerable amount of distrust of such a Measure as this, even by those conversant with conveyancing, and he was afraid if a matter like this did not come before a General Committee of the whole House, however acceptable might be legislation upon it, it could not possibly be understood.

desired to say that the objections taken in the Committee to which the hon. Member had referred were formulated by Mr. Benjamin Lake, one of the ablest opponents of the Bill. This gentleman was satisfied with the alterations that hail been made, and had written to the newspapers warmly endorsing the Bill, and the Incorporated Law Society had passed a Resolution approving of the Measure. ["Hear, hear!"]

observed that delay hail been suggested in this matter in the interests of the three parties who were concerned in the Bill, namely, the great body represented by the Incorporated Law Society, the bankers, and the owners of real property. So far as the Incorporated Law Society were concerned, he would point out that they were satisfied upon every question raised by the Second Heading of the Bill; the bankers were also satisfied on the understanding—which he promised to carry out on the part of the Government — that certain object ions which they had to the details of the Measure should be considered in the Committee. He would remind hon. Members that a Bill substantially like the present had been passed in the previous Session, therefore, Parliament might be considered to have already assented to the principle. Several Parliaments in his own recollection hail assented to it, and those who cared to go back into the dim vista of the past would find many Parliaments in which the principle hail been assented to. ["Hear, hear!"] Then there were the owners of real property, but if they were represented anywhere they were surely represented in the House of Lords, who had passed this Bill he was afraid to say how many times. ["Hear, hear!''] In these circumstances they need not, be apprehensive that they were taking any rash step Hint night if they accepted the Second Reading of a Bill the principle of which, in that House and out, of it, had received every species of sanction, assent, and approval of which a Bill was capable. ["Hear, hear!"] In Committee he thought they would be able to put the Measure into a shape which would command the universal assent of every section in every part, and he trusted, therefore, the Second Reading would be agreed to and the Bill referred to the Grand Committee on Law. ["Hear, hear!"]

observed that the fact that this Bill had passed through the House of Lords, and that it had been brought forward in such: 1, satisfactory manner that night, gave them some hope of its passing into law. He remembered how, ten years ago, Lord Randolph Churchill was sanguine of passing such a Bill, declaring that they had a Lord Chancellor who meant business. The long, delay led them to doubt this, but now they were approaching the matter with vigour and their hopes were revived. He could speak on this subject front experience. He happened to have been engaged all his life in matters connected with conveyancing in relation to both large and small properties, and had from day to day and week to week heard the objections of those who wished to deal with property of this class, as to the large expense and trouble that were connected with it. He did not think his hon. Friend was correct in saying that the expenses would be reduced four-fifths. That, he thought, was almost too much, but if any Member of his profession had a doubt about the Bill because it was going to reduce the scale of costs he might, surely be encouraged by remembering how very much larger the quantity of business would be and how the number of Snell land transfers would be increased. He hoped the Bill would receive the assent of the House and be placed on the Statute Book this Session.

said he should like some explanation with regard to the local registries. He understood that the fees, which were excessive, would be cut down, and if so that would be very satisfactory. He understood that it was intended to set up a system of local option, and that each County Council was to decide whether the Bill was to be made compulsory within its own area. He thought that would be a very confusing and complicated system, and as far as bankers were concerned, he thought it would he worthless. If the Bill were going to be compulsory in one area and not compulsory in another, it would involve such an investigation on the part of the bankers as would deprive them of the security which was necessary. He hoped the system would be made compulsory all round. He wished to know whether it was proposed to set up new registries in every county, or to utilise the present registries.

said this Bill came to the House supported by lawyers on both sides, and with the approval of the House of Lords, and any Measure which was brought there under such auspices he regarded with suspicion and jealousy. Moreover, the Bill was a comprehensive one, containing 25 or 30 clauses, and ought not, therefore, to be rushed through the House. He should oppose the Motion for the Second Reading.

urged that it was necessary when. a transfer took place that a certificate as to the boundary of a property should be given. He believed there was to be no map registered.

asked whether the existing registries would be utilised or new registries established?

was understood to say that some new registries would be established.

said that as the Bill did not apply to Ireland, Irish Members might accept it on the responsibility of its eminent sponsors on both sides of the House. Bill read a Second Time.

thought the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be satisfied with having got the Second Reading of the Bill. He would warn all Members on both sides of the House of the danger of landing themselves into difficulties by going on with the business too quickly. It should go slowly if they would come to a safe end. He thought the Attorney General should postpone his Motion until to-morrow, in order that other Members might have an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the Bill.

hoped the. Attorney General would accede to the very moderate request of his hon. Friend.

considered the Grand Committee on Law the wrong Committee to which to refer a Bill affecting the landlords' pockets. He suggested that it be referred to the Grand Committee on Trade, and as the subject was technical that some lawyers should be added to the Committee.

asked his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether he would promise that ample notice would be given of the day the Bill would be reported to the House after the Committee stage.

said he would endeavour to see that his hon. Friend was not taken by surprise in the matter.

asked whether use would be made of the evidence taken by the Select Committee to which the last Bill was referred?

said that the Bill came front a bad quarter—namely, from the House of Lords—and it was supported by lawyers on both sides. Therefore, it would be most unwise to refer the Bill to a Committee of lawyers. It should be referred to a Committee of the whole House or the Standing Committee on Trade. Business men ought to be on the Committee.

said that this was a Bill which essentially required the consideration of the Committee on Law. The whole House could not deal with the minute but serious points involved. He had put on the Paper an. Amendment on behalf of the bankers, whom he in some sense represented. But after the promise of the Attorney General that all these points should be carefully considered, he should not think it necessary to move the Amendment.