Even at the risk of detaining the House for a few minutes, I wish to intervene in order to show that the promoters of this Bill are not wanting in gratitude for the great assistance which the Government have given to the measure. Their thanks are sincerely tendered to the Lord Advocate for what he has done. I do not conceal the fact that we rather rejoice that the Bill now before the House is a very different one to that which was brought up for Second Reading; it is a much more beneficent measure; it is more wide reaching, and it will do much more good to the country than the original Bill could have done. It would have been almost presumptuous for any privates Member to have thought he had a chance of passing such a Bill without the aid of the Government. When it first came before the House it was merely a Bill to prohibit casual employment in Scotland under the age of eleven years, and factory employment under the age of twelve. The Bill as it now stands assimilates both classes of employment and prohibits any employment of children in Scotland under, the age of twelve. Then as regards the methods of exemption; the original Bill proposed an educational standard, whereas I am happy to say the Bill now proposes to give the power of exemption to the school boards of Scotland—to, in other words, the people of Scotland, under certain conditions. These are very far and wide reaching changes, and I think the House will agree that they are changes for the better. It was with the knowledge of the great changes that have come over the Bill that the promoters took special care in no way to hurry the passage of the Bill through the House. The intervals which have elapsed between the different stages have been long ones, and in fact the principles embodied in the Bill have been before the country since last session. The Second Reading of this Bill took place on the 1st May, and since the 10th of that month the Bill has been in print in its present form before the country. It is a striking fact that in spite of the change that has come over the Bill there is practical unanimity in favour of it not only in this House, but throughout Scotland. After all, the Bill is merely the fulfilment in the United Kingdom of the pledges entered into by Great Britain at the Berlin Conference of 1890, and it is a matter for reflection, upon which I will not dwell now, whether it is politic to have allowed nearly twelve years to pass before the pledge was given effect to. But the difficulties of legislation are such that perhaps it has been impossible to act sooner. Neither one political party nor the other can claim immunity from blame for this delay, and I would therefore urge on Scottish opinion to make up for the years that have been lost in the struggle of educational competition in which every nation during the past twelve years has made such great strides. We have a good deal to make up and I trust that Scottish public opinion will not fall behind in the battle. I have said that the thanks of the promoters are due to the Government. Perhaps they deserve some slight apology from me for having exposed them to the gentle badinage of the Lord Advocate on account of some ambiguous representation I made. The promoters have also to tender their thanks to two hon. Members of the House who have been specially instrumental in furthering the passage of the Bill through the House and in framing it as it now stands. I allude to the hon. Baronet the Member for the College Division of Glasgow and to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire, whose interest in educational matters the promoters gratefully recognise. I trust that the House to-day will, without undue delay—although perhaps there may be occasion found for delay not directly connected with the Bill itself—despatch this measure on its last journey to another place. I would fain hope, too, that one result of this Bill will be to induce England to follow the example set in it, so that instead of our occupying a second place, as we have done during the last two or three years, in educational matters, the United Kingdom will be in the forefront. I would further hope that we in Scotland may thoroughly realise the increased responsibilities, which this measure throws upon us. These increased opportunities, coupled with the unprecedented gift of Mr. Carnegie,^* which has electrified the world, will make this year stand out as a remarkable one in the history of education in the United

^* Mr. Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish-American manufacturer, devoted the sum of ten million dollars to "improving and extending the opportunities for scientific study and research in the universities of Scotland, his native country, and for rendering attendance at the universities more available to the deserving youth of that country." Particulars are given in The Times of 8th June, 1901, page 16.

In bringing forward the Amendment I am about to move I desire to say that I am not animated by any spirit of deeply-rooted objection to the principle of the Bill as it originally passed its Second Reading in this House. I am sure that none of us on this side of the House desire to do anything to impede the progress of education in any part of the United Kingdom, and still less would we do anything which would prevent the speedy carrying out of the great benefits which the hon. Member suggests as likely to accrue from the passing of this measure. But, if I needed any justification for the motion I am about to make, I should find it in the remarks of the hon. Member himself, when he candidly admitted that this was not the Bill which was read a second time and when he added that the thanks of the promoters and himself were due to the Government for having taken the matter in hand. He said the Lord Advocate was responsible for the alterations which had been made, and, in short, he put the proposition before the House that the measure we are now asked to read a third time under the auspices of the Lord Advocate is altogether different from the private Member's Bill which we read a second time. Now, that is a somewhat extraordinary position, on which I shall have some remarks to make. I wish, however, first to refer to another observation which fell from the hon. Member. He said that this Bill had been before the public in its present form for quite a long time. I at first thought that there must have been two Bills, but when he informed us that this long period of time dated from the extraordinary date—the 10th May this year—or six weeks ago—

I said that the propositions embodied in the Bill were before us last session.

The hon. Member said that this Bill was printed on 10th May. I would ask the House to remember another point in connection with this Bill. It was referred to the Grand Committee on Law, and as far as I have been able to gather from the debates which took place when Mr. Gladstone proposed to set up Grand Committees, his idea was that more or less non-contentious measures should be referred to such Committees, with a view to the consideration of legal points and to the making of any alterations of a technical character which might be necessary in order to carry out the law, and that, thereby, some relief should be afforded to the congestion of business in the House itself. I venture to think it was never contemplated by Mr. Gladstone or by the House that a Bill should be sent to a Grand Committee containing one set of principles, and returned to this House embodying another and entirely different set of principles. I propose to describe the various stages through which this Bill has passed, and then to move, "That this House refuses to accept a Bill which effects extensive and ill-considered alterations in the law, not contained in the Bill as presented for Second Reading." I hope, as I said in my opening remarks, that these words will not be taken as indicative, in any sense, of a wish to retard the course of education in Scotland, but as conveying an expression of opinion from this House that this is not the way in which it was intended or desired by the House that legislative changes should be carried into effect. The Bill, as it was presented for Second Reading, was a very short one. It was contained in about half a page, and on the back of it there was a memorandum explaining its object. That memorandum stated that the proposal of the Bill was to raise the standard of partial exemption from school attendance from the third to the fourth, and the total exemption from the fifth to the sixth standard, provided that no child might be employed in any casual employment under the age of eleven instead of ten as at present, and that no child might be employed in any factory or workshop under the age of twelve, instead of as at present. It was proposed to carry that out by certain alterations in the existing law. Now I hope it is quite clear to the House that the original intention of the framers of the Bill was that, according to the standard named in that Bill, partial exemption should be granted from school attendance. There were no other means suggested. I think it would have been in order, on the motion for the Second Reading, had one so desired, to move an Amendment, the effect of which would have been that the House refused to sanction a Bill which granted partial exemption from school attendance according to standard, and which did not give the right of partial exemption to the school board. That would have been a question of principle and differentiation between the school board and the standard. I venture to draw the conclusion From that, that the main feature carrying out the principle of the Bill has been entirely and extensively altered by the Grand Committee, and that the Bill, as it has been returned to us, instead of consisting only of half a page of printed matter, contains two and a half pages and provides for a number of repeals of the present law, while it transfers or rather gives authority for partial exemption from the schools to the school board. It does away in this respect with the control of the Government inspectors. I should like first to point out the inconvenience of this kind of legislation. It may be necessary from time to time to repeal sections of Acts of Parliament in order to properly carry out the law, but surely there can be no possible reason why, in a small Bill of this kind, we should start repealing well-considered Acts of Parliament passed a number of years ago—Acts of Parliament against which it has never been alleged that anything has cropped up in the working of them to render desirable their repeal. There is no suggestion that these Acts have not been effectual for the purposes for which they were intended. Now what is it that it is proposed to repeal?—35 and 36 Vict., chap. 62, Education (Scotland) Act 1872, Sees. 69 and 73. I would ask the House to mark this, for it seems to me to be a very serious matter. Section 69 of the Act of 1872 provides that a parent must provide elementary education for his children between the ages of five and thirteen, and that if he be unable to pay for it, he must apply to the parochial board of the parish to pay the fees, which they must do if satisfied as to the parent's inability. But it goes further, and provides that no payment shall be made or refused on condition of the child attending any school in receipt of the parliamentary grant other than such as may be selected by the parent. That is Section 69. But when we turn to the Bill as amended by the Grand Committee, what do we find? The first clause of the Bill says it shall be the duty of every parent to provide efficient elementary education in reading, writing, and arithmetic for his children between the ages of five and fourteen years. Thus Section, 69 is repealed, and the children of unfortunate parents who are unable to pay are brought under an entirely new state of affairs. This proposal, in fact, entirely alters the law. I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned friend may be able to show some very excellent reasons why this has been done, but, so far at any rate, we have had no explanation, and I think the House is entitled to ask for one. Further, I would like to ask the Lord Advocate why he has not repealed Section 22 of the Act of 1878, which provides for the class of children whose parents are unable to pay the school fees. The effect of the repeal of Section 73 will be to abolish the necessity for obtaining the Government inspector's certificate as a condition of exemption. I suppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say that the reason for that is that the right of exemption is to be transferred to the school boards of Scotland. I do not understand why, although it may be necessary thus to transfer that power, it should also be necessary to take the power away from the Government inspector. It may be undesirable that there should be two authorities, but I should have thought the Government inspector was, at all events, a man in whom confidence can be placed. So far as I can see, therefore, there is no reason why this power should be curtailed, even if at the same time it is given to the school boards of Scotland. Now I come to the proposal to repeal 41 and 42 Viet., chap. 78. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to repeal Sections 5 and 6. By Section 5 the age limit is fixed at ten years, and it is provided that between the ages of ten and fourteen no child shall be employed who has not obtained a certificate under Section 73 of the Act of 1872 that he is attending school under the provisions of any Act relating to the education of children employed in labour or under a minute of the Scottish Education Department. Section 6 deals with casual employment and the age limit, and there is the same provision as to obtaining a certificate as under Section 73 of the Act of 1872. Now all these powers are to be placed in the hands of the school boards. There is to be no question of a standard raised, and I do not myself understand why this difference has been made. Why should the standard be abolished? Why should not the school board have been given power to fix a standard? There are four other sections of the Act of 1883 which it is proposed to repeal. When Section 4 was passed it amended Section 69 of the Act of 1872, and it limited the parent's obligation to cases where no certificate had been obtained under the 73rd section. It raised, too, the age limit to fourteen, and that it is now proposed to repeal. Again I would ask the Lord Advocate why in a Bill of this kind, dealing as it did with exemption by standard, he repeals sections of the Act of 1883 against the working of which, so far as I know, no complaint has been made. Section 6, which it is also proposed to repeal, is the section which, under the present Bill as originally drawn, the hon. Member proposed to amend. It amended Section 5 of the Act of 1878 by introducing as an additional case in which partial exemption from school might be granted the case where a child had passed the third standard, and was attending a public elementary school in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the Factory and Workshops Act, 1878. Again I will ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman why it is proposed to repeal this section, and why it could not have been left in existence, even although power was at the same time to be given collaterally to school boards. The other two sections are not, I think, very material. What I want to point out to the House is that whether the Lord Advocate can or cannot justify these repeals—and I have no doubt he can—there are two points to be remembered in connection with them. The first is that the repeals were not proposed in the Bill as originally drawn. It is problematical if the Bill would even have passed had it been originally presented in the form in which it now stands. I will not venture to give an opinion on that subject, but this I am entitled to say, that the Bill was not read a second time with these repeals in it; and if we are going to allow Bills to come down from the Grand Committee making material alterations in the law, and if in this connection I use the words "ill-considered," I do so in the sense that they have not been fully considered, and that the House has had no opportunity afforded it of considering them on the motion for the Second Reading—I do not wish for one moment to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman himself has not fully considered them—I can only say I think it is very unfortunate that a new precedent should thus be established in respect of private Members' Bills. I have thought it desirable that the House should have clearly and fully before it the proposals now contained in this Bill as to which no explanation was given by the hon. Member in moving the Third Reading. The new proposals are that a parent shall be compelled to provide education for his child between the ages of five and fourteen years. That, at all events, is a new principle. There were in previous Acts certain conditions under which a parent might be relieved. Those conditions are now to be repealed, and what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do in the cases of parents who are not pecuniarily able to provide education for their children I do not know. At all events, we are entitled to ask for an explanation. Then I have another question. Section 3 of the new Bill provides that no person shall take into employment a child under twelve years of age, or in other cases between twelve and fourteen years of age, unless he shall have obtained a certificate of exemption from the school board of the district, and also that no child under twelve, or between twelve and fourteen, who has not been so exempted, shall be employed in any casual employment as defined by Section 6 of the Act of 1878. That is to say, instead of amending, as was originally proposed, Section 6 of the Act of 1883, the Bill introduces a procedure which was not contained in it when brought on for Second Reading. It proposes to do away with the certificate of the Government inspector; it does away with the section of the Factory and Workshops Act, 1878, which formerly applied, and with regard to the third standard it does away with all limit of the Scotch Education Department fixing the number of attendances to be made. Section 3 lays down the lines on which the school board is to grant exemptions, and the control which it is to be subject to. I do not say that this is not quite right and proper to be put in the Bill, but at all events this much we are entitled to ask from the Lord Advocate, namely, a full explanation of the new provisions introduced in the Grand Committee. I want also to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with regard to the operation of Section 18 of the Factory and Workshops Act, which prohibits the employment of children under twelve, whereas under the Act of 1891 the age limit is eleven, why he has not proposed to amend that Act. Is the letter of the statute to over-ride the form? That is a legal question I cannot answer. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen admitted in his speech that the Lord Advocate had taken this Bill under his wing. That is the real reason for my Amendment. We are asked to-day to affirm the principle that a private Member's Bill may be referred to a Standing Committee, which may absolutely revolutionise and alter its contents. This seems to me to be a very important matter. Only on the 11th of this month the Leader of the House told us—when making his motion giving the Government all the time of the House—how far-reaching would be the effect of such proceedings as these which we are now asked to sanction. He first pointed out how short often was the discussion on Private Bills on Wednesday afternoons, even when such Bills might have for their object the carrying out of far-reaching constitutional revolutions. He referred to the fact that several Bills of wide importance had been discussed and divided upon after a debate lasting only from 12.15 to 5.30, and he pointed out that Government measures of comparatively minor importance sometimes occupied two or three days of Parliamentary time. He showed conclusively in that speech what would be the result of adopting proceedings such as were proposed in regard to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children Bill and the Pure Beer Bill. In taking the action I have, I have no desire to delay the course of education in Scotland or in Great Britain, but I do wish the House to have an opportunity of expressing once and for all its disapproval of such proceedings as have taken place in regard to this Bill, and of affirming that a private Member shall be responsible for his own Bill, and that the Government shall not take it under its wing, either in Grand Committee or when it is down for Third Reading. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

seconded the motion. When the Bill was last before the House he entered a protest against it, and he still objected to children being treated differently in England and in Scotland in regard to the age at which they might accept employment. Legislation on this subject should go side by side for the two countries, and he might remind the House that he objected strongly to Mr. Robson's Bill, chiefly on the ground that it dealt entirely with children who were in the employment of employers by whom the law was being strictly kept, and that violations of the law were confined to casual labour. Clause 2 of this Bill sanctioned casual labour, and that was one of his chief objections to it. He held that the Government ought to see that the law affecting children was the same in Scotland as it was in England and Ireland. The conditions obtaining in the two countries should be exactly the same, both as regarded inspection and in respect of casual labour.

It is impossible that any measure should have received fuller consideration than the Bill which is now before the House; with the exception of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark and the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, the whole of the Scotch Members are strongly in favour of it. I know of very few who have any antipathy to the principles of this measure; there was a great rush of Scotch Members to go on the Committee of Law, not all of whom were able to get there, but whether they got there or not they followed the Bill very closely and desire it to succeed. I think it is a matter for congratulation that a Bill promoted by independent Members should have been allowed to reach its present stage. Co-operation upon Scottish education has been no uncommon incident in our past history, and I think it augurs well for the future that we should have made such rapid progress with the measure before the House, and so repudiated, at any rate, our responsibility for any defect in the educational equipment of Scotland. The responsibility for measures such as this has shifted more completely upon the shoulders of private Members of late years. With regard to legislation direct from the Scottish Office, the prospects of their having sufficient time to promote legislation are not hopeful, which is much to be deplored; but this Bill is a step towards the organisation of secondary education. This has been a fruitful year, and we know the question of the organisation of secondary education is before the Scottish Education Department, and I certainly hope that another session will not be allowed to pass without, the same co-operation in educational matters, and I am sure the passing of this Bill without difficulty will afford a sense of general security that there will be general progress.

said there was one clause in this Bill which he read with great surprise, and which he thought was of considerable legislative importance. The first clause was—

"It shall be the duty of every parent to provide efficient elementary education in reading, writing, and arithmetic for his children who are between five and fourteen years of age."

"Parents to provide efficient elementary education for their children."

said he only rose because of the comments which had been made on the Standing Committee on Law, otherwise he would not be guilty as an Englishman of the rash conduct of attempting to interfere with the details of Scotch education. He did not intend to discuss the contention of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich further than to say that the interpretation which he suggested would not be accepted by any English lawyer. If any complaint was made of the way in which this Bill was passed by the Standing Committee he was most to blame. As chairman of that Committee he considered very carefully whether the Amendments which had been placed upon the Paper by the Lord Advocate should be put into the Bill, and came to the conclusion that they should. All the alterations which were made in the Bill were quite in accordance with the procedure of a Committee either of the House or upstairs, and nothing was done which could be described as making a new Bill. The wording was largely altered from first to last; there were alterations in details and machinery; but nobody could contend that a new Bill had been made. The Lord Advocate placed a large number of Amendments on the Paper, which no doubt reconstituted the Bill and made in certain details important alterations, but there was nothing in the Bill which was not in it before. When Mr. Gladstone commented upon the Standing Committee he said it was for the purpose of improving the law; this Bill as it had come down from the Committee was a very great improvement in the law, because from first to last it told its own story, and anybody who read it could understand it. There was not that mass of references to other Acts which was becoming every day the increasing curse of our legislation. When he admitted all these Amendments he felt he was acting in the spirit of the remarks of that great statesman, for he was improving the Bill in form, and in that way was acting in the direction of the principle laid down by Mr. Gladstone.

said, as he was considerably interested; in this subject, the House would perhaps pardon him for making a few observations. He felt in some difficulty, inasmuch as he felt bound to dissent from his two colleagues the hon. Members for Lancashire in the criticisms which they had passed upon the Bill. From first to last there had been a separate series of statutes, one affecting England and another affecting Scotland; separate codes, passed year by year; and separate Education Departments existed; it seemed, therefore, rather late in the day to say we ought to have one and the same system. Such a method of legislation would be injurious to Scotland and mischievous to England, because in matters of education Scotland was setting England a bright example—an example he should wish to see followed less slowly and less reluctantly. There was no ground for complaint or any surprise. The Committee was well attended, and he was impressed with, their interest—their enthusiasm—in respect to work which they had done. A week previously the Bill stood for Report stage; it had first place on the Paper, and those opposed to it had had every opportunity, if they so desired, of criticising it. The new print had been issued for very nearly a month and surely any hon. Member who was deeply interested in education could in the course of four weeks have formulated their objections, and have brought them before the House. He thought it was an unhappy circumstance that on the Third Reading of the Bill a motion of this kind should be made to pass a resolution which, if passed, would have the effect of staying the Bill, and would make it impossible to pass it this session.

reminded the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan that he had already stated that he had no wish to stop the progress of the Bill, but he thought it a Bill which should have been taken up by the Government.

said he considered that the subject submitted to the Standing Committee was one with which it was eminently fitted to deal. It was a matter rather of administration than policy, and therefore eminently fitted for discussion before the Standing Committee on Law. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had made a remark with regard to elementary education, but that remark was made rather late in the day, seeing that by the Act of 1872, Section 69, it was provided that every parent should provide elementary education in reading, writing, and arithmetic for children between five and thirteen years of age. That had been the law in Scotland since 1872, and no lawyer had yet endeavoured to put a limited construction on those words. The Bill had not been taken over by the Government. He wished it had been. It was in the hands of private Members, and step by step it had met every difficulty which Bills of private Members met when their desire was an improvement in the law.

said for the second time he found himself in disagreement with other Scotch Members. He was not in any way interested in any Bill which might follow this on the Paper, and he merely spoke on account of the importance of this question in the case of Scotland. It had been asked why the Bill was not opposed at the Report stage; if that had been done the Paper would have been studded with Amendments, and he would not have been able to deal with the measure in a comprehensive manner, as one should do on Second Reading and the Report stage. The Bill was a simple one, raising two points—it raised the age and it raised the standard of exemption from Standard V. to Standard VI. That was a Bill which he would have cordially supported, but what happened to the Bill was this. The Government took advantage of the innocence of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen and cut out everything that was in it, everything but the standards. Hon. Members did not appreciate the effect such an alteration produced. According to the Bill, no child in Scotland would be able to be employed in any employment whatever under the age of twelve. Under the present law in Scotland children over eight could be employed during the harvest and the fisheries season, but under this Bill the school boards would have no power to give exemption to a boy eleven years and eleven months old. A boy under twelve could not deliver a can of milk or a newspaper in the morning. Scotland was often thought to be superior in its system of education to England, but the number of scholars on the roll of the elementary schools was 17·29 per cent. of the population, whereas in England it was 17·81; while the average attendance was 14·60 in England, and only 14·47 in Scotland. There had been progress in England in the matter of secondary and elementary education, and a retrogression in Scotland, with the result that Scotland had lost its old place in advance of England. Legislation of this kind would not bring children into the schools. He supposed there would soon be a proposal that no child should be compelled to get out of bed before eight o'clock in the morning. He was prepared to say that in 1872 Scotland was ahead of England in this matter, but she was behind now, and if hon. Members looked into the matter they would find Scotland was going back. He ventured to say that if this Bill had been brought in by the Government it would have been rejected by the Scottish Members, and the Government would not have been able to carry it, and the only reason it was to be passed through now was because the Lord Advocate had taken advantage of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen. According to the policy of 1872, every parent was compelled to send his child to school, and certain standards of examination were laid down which every child should be made to pass. The policy of the law was to take care that the child was educated, and it was the first duty of schools and school boards to see that they were being educated. The result was that by individual examination they were able to test whether a child was being educated or not, but under this Bill individual examination was done away with altogether. He ventured to say that if this Bill passed into law the condition of things would be worse than before. Education would go back, and the position of the children would be that they would be idling their time.

As one who did not speak either on the Second Reading or the Report stage of this Bill, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words in support of the Third Reading. I confess I was surprised to find that, in the first instance, the promoters of this Bill, with a knowledge of past events, did not aim at the greater advantages which are secured to the children of Scotland by the Amendments which have been introduced in Committee. I am in sympathy also with the clause which gives the school boards the power to grant exemptions to children between the ages of twelve and fourteen. I believe that some of the Scottish school boards are in favour of doing away with exemptions altogether. But I hope that they will continue to exercise this prerogative, especially in connection with the children of widows and infirm fathers. The Bill, as it now stands, is really only a part, but certainly an important part of the much more comprehensive scheme for education in Scotland which was approved by the Scottish Education Department and embodied their policy, and which came to us from the House of Lords on the 28th of May, 1900. If that Bill had been passed, as it ought to have been, it would have come into operation in April of this year, but it was shelved, chiefly on the principle—which is I am afraid becoming rather a stereotyped principle in this House—that when occasion arises all Scotch business should be deferred to Irish or English business for the Government are very well aware that the Scottish Members are of a patient and long-suffering disposition, and that they will not clamour for their rights. There was probably another reason why the more comprehensive Scottish measure was not passed, namely, the complacent but delusive belief entertained by many Scottish Members, and also by some English Members, that Scotland occupies such a superior position in regard to education that it can very well afford to wait. The fact of the case is that the progress of elementary education in Scotland has relatively been very much inferior of late years to the progress in England. I cannot, however, concur in the statement that elementary education in Scotland is actually inferior, because, judging by the percentages of those who cannot read or write, Scotland still maintains a leading place, but there is no doubt that compared with some of the Continental countries, notably Germany and Switzerland, Scotland has been steadily drifting into a back place as regards both elementary and secondary education. The Bill now before the House will completely remove the stigma which attaches to us of not having fulfilled the engagement entered into at the International Conference at Berlin that the minimum statutory age in this country should be twelve years. Even with the advance which this Bill will secure we are still very much behind those two Continental countries, because there the limit of age is thirteen years. This is not a satisfactory position for us to occupy. No country in the world has taken so much, advantage of the aid of machinery and other labour-saving appliances as this country has done, so much so that some years ago it was calculated that we had 220 horse-power per thousand of the population as against only one-half of I that amount in the country which came next to us. So great was our manufacturing supremacy in many points that it was calculated that six British workmen could do the work of twenty-four Germans or Frenchmen, thirty-two Austrians, or fifty Spaniards. Our accumulated wealth per inhabitant also was nearly one-half greater than that of Germany or Switzerland, and I think it has been highly discreditable to this country that it should have allowed itself to lag so far behind these comparatively poorer Countries in regard to both elementary and secondary education. When the Bill similar to this for England was passing through the House I put an Amendment on the Paper to the effect that the standard should be raised to thirteen years, but at the request of the hon. Member for South Shields, and of other English educationists, who considered that such an Amendment might imperil the passing of the Bill, I withdrew it. I have found myself in a somewhat similar position in regard to the Scottish Bill In 1878, when the first enactment was made for limiting the age of children, the standard was fixed at eight years. How unnatural was the state of affairs that existed at that time may be inferred from the fact that children under eight years of age required to be protected by law from being sent to work. There has been steady progress since then. In 1879 the age was raised to nine years; in 1880 it was raised to ten years, at which point it has continued and will continue until this Bill comes into operation, and even then we shall still be a year behind two of the leading Continental countries. The main object of this legislation is to improve the condition of the children physically and educationally, but from a purely economical point of view also it is very sound policy to give our children a thorough education, which can only be obtained by enabling them to remain long enough at school. The competition among the principal manufacturing and commercial nations of the world is fortunately now one not so much of physical drudgery as of mental ability, and I am glad to think that we are progressing in the matter of giving our children an opportunity of being able to cope with Continental countries in this respect. This Bill has had the cordial support of my right hon. friend the Lord Advocate, and I would congratulate my hon. and gallant friend the Member for North Aberdeen upon the success of his efforts in this matter. I am glad that he has acknowledged the support he has received from the Lord Advocate, and I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for the zealous manner in which he has taken up this Bill and for the able and almost indispensable services he has rendered in introducing Amendments and in giving the Bill the position in the business of the House which it now occupies. I am glad to learn that the Government intend to bring in an English Bill this session, and I hope that the very first Bill which they bring in in the following session will be a more comprehensive measure in regard to Scottish education. In this connection all Scottish Members are able gratefully to acknowledge that a wealthy and generous Scotsman, recognising the deficiencies of education in his own country, has come forward, with unprecedented liberality, to help to restore Scotland to the old leading position which it occupied for so many centuries. In conclusion, let me say that material wealth should be applied to the development of the intellectual, physical, and moral life of the people, and this Bill will have great effect in that direction. It will do something, but not all, to remove from us the discredit which attaches to us of allowing very much poorer countries to excel us in regard to both elementary and secondary education; it will help to increase our material prosperity by giving a broader basis for the secondary and scientific education which we are now finding absolutely necessary to enable us to maintain our commercial and manufacturing supremacy throughout the world; and it will help somewhat to increase the number of healthy, happy, and educated children throughout the country, to secure which should be one of the first aims of all good Government. I cordially support the Third Beading of the Bill.

called attention to a possible danger involved in the Bill so far as Highland crofting counties were concerned. The matter was explained by the following letter which he had received from the school board of Urquhart (Ross), dated 14th June, 1901—

, in moving that the Bill be read the third time, said that it had passed through its various stages up to the present time almost without opposition. It was only a two-clause Bill; Amendments were carried on behalf of the Local Government Board at the Committee stage, and the text of the Bill as it now stood contained provision in the second sub-section that—

"In granting outdoor relief to a member of any friendly society the board of guardians shall not take into consideration any sum up to five shillings a week received from such friendly society in sick pay."

said that though this was not a very large Bill it contained a great deal that was interesting and important. It was a Bill which, like some others, was not fully apprehended by those who merely looked at it in the form in which it was printed. This was a case of legislation by reference to other enactments, although not a bad case of the kind. When he first saw it he had difficulty in finding the full scope of the Bill, and it took some trouble and research through previous Acts to find the interpretation, The Bill began by saying—

"The discretion given by section one of the Outdoor Relief Friendly Societies Act, 1894, to the boards of guardians to take or not to take into consideration the amount received by a member of a friendly society as sick pay when granting outdoor relief shall be limited as hereinafter provided."

"Notwithstanding any orders or regulations of the Poor Law Commissioners or the Local Government Board under and by virtue of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, or of any Act amending the said Act, it shall be lawful for any board of guardians, if they think fit, to grant relief out of the poor rates to any person otherwise entitled to such relief, notwithstanding that the said person shall, by reason of his membership of a friendly society, be in receipt of any sum, and that in estimating the amount of the relief that shall be granted to such person being a member of a friendly society as aforesaid, it shall be at the discretion of the board of guardians whether they will or will not take into consideration the amount which may be received by him from such friendly society."

"It shall be lawful for the said Commissioners by such rules, orders, or regulations as they may think fit, to declare to what extent and for what period the relief to be given.…may be administered out of the workhouse," and so on.

said the sub-section was not amended so as to appear in the print now before the House in the form in which it was passed by Committee. An HON. MEMBER asked whether they were able to discuss a Bill which was not printed in accordance with the Amendments which had been made upon it.

It is quite in order. There were only two drafting Amendments made in Committee. The words "up to 5s. a week" were struck out at the end of Sub-section 2 of Clause 1, and the words inserted were, "except in so far as such sum shall exceed 5s. a week." The House, as is usual in such a case, did not order the Bill to be reprinted.

said it was still a case where the limit was 5s. The proposal in this Bill was the negation of the Act of 1834. The idea of that Act was that support should only be given, whether by outdoor or indoor relief, after every other source of subsistence was exhausted. The present Bill had for its underlying principle the idea that people had a right to a certain amount of support, not to save them from starvation, but as a reasonable provision, and that the fact that a person was receiving certain benefits as the result of an investment in a friendly society Was no reason why he should not receive the same consideration in the matter of poor relief as a thoroughly thriftless person. That was a revolution in the way in which we had hitherto looked at poor relief. It approached the question from a socialistic point of view. It laid down the principle that a man had a right to assistance as against the State. Personally he had no objection to such a Bill, but to think that the matter would rest there was to deceive themselves. It would advance further stages in the same direction, until old-age pensions were reached.

said the noble Lord had referred to the Bill of 1894. He would remind the House that alterations were made upon it in another place by the present Prime Minister, and that was the reason why it was so complicated. When the Bill came back to the House of Commons he did not make any objection to the alterations, because he was only too glad that the principle of the Bill was accepted. He believed they were generally agreed as to the proposal in the present Bill to give assistance in the case of those who had made a certain amount of provision for helping themselves by becoming members of friendly societies. He had introduced the Bill at the instance of the National Conference of Friendly Societies, and he desired to thank the President of the Local Government Board for assisting its progress through the House. He also thanked the hon. member for Peckham for not persisting in his opposition which he had intended to give to the Bill.

said that as all the stages of this Bill had been taken after twelve o'clock, it had been impossible for him to explain his attitude towards it, and he should like now to say a few words in regard to the motives that actuated him. He had never had the slightest objection to the Bill as a Bill. Hitherto he had said that no man should receive outdoor relief unless he was in such a state that he could not subsist without it. He did not object to the Bill because it was proposed to give assistance to those who had become members of friendly societies. They owed to friendly societies very great obligations, and they ought to be encouraged in every possible manner. His only objection to the Bill was that it encouraged but one form of thrift. He thought that a man who invested a small amount of money in the Savings Bank or bought a small cottage was just as much entitled to the assistance provided by the Bill as a man who joined a friendly society. He thought it would have been advisable before passing the Bill to see whether some means could not be devised whereby others who had been thrifty would benefit in the same manner.

said it was only by a happy accident that they were in a position to pay any attention to the far-reaching principle which underlay the apparently insignificant and unimportant Bill now before the House. They were told that the Bill was introduced at the instigation, or, at all events, with the sanction, of a large number of the friendly societies of this country. That predisposed many hon. Members to accept the Bill. He himself yielded to no man in his admiration for friendly societies. They represented a movement which had, notwithstanding great difficulties, developed one of the most important features in our social system. The principle on which friendly societies were based was that of co-operative independence. The founders and promoters of those societies wished to be beholden to no man for assistance; but the friendly societies were forgetting the precepts of their founders when they desired to come in contact with the poor law system, from which it was originally desired to rescue themselves. He thought therefore that a good deal of weight which would naturally attach to their opinion in this matter was taken away. When the friendly societies were found in conflict with the principle so long established in the poor law that relief should be given only in cases of destitution, the House should pause and consider carefully how far measures of this kind were likely to lead. He understood from what Mr. Speaker had said that an Amendment had been introduced into the Bill—he knew not when or how—which extended the operation of the measure not merely to allowances from friendly societies in time of sickness, but to all cases where members of friendly societies were in receipt of allowances not exceeding 5s. per week. He did not know whether it was intended, but it was evident that they had there introduced in an insidious and unobtrusive way the principle of old-age pensions—a question which had not received the consideration of the House. The provision prohibited guardians from taking such allowances into account. It was pretty evident that they had gone a long way in the direction of old-age pensions without proper legislative sanction being given to the proceeding. That seemed to him a rather serious state of things. He hardly thought it proper that they should pass this measure after such scanty discussion on the Third Reading. It was a measure which might have far-reaching consequences, and he ventured to think that it contained much potential mischief for the friendly societies themselves with regard to the administration of the poor law up and down the country. It was a curious thing that the introduction and conduct of this Bill had fallen into the hands of two Members who represented West Country rural constituencies. Anybody who was acquainted with the way the poor law was administered up and down England knew that the objection to having recourse to the poor law did not prevail in anything like the same intensity in the West Country as in other parts. It had become almost a matter of course in the rural parts of Somerset for an old labourer to receive out-door relief from the guardians. The labourer did not think there was any disgrace in having accepted that form of relief. He could well understand how Members representing districts where that feeling prevailed should think they were doing the district a good turn in promoting such legislation as was now under consideration. But the House should recollect that there were other districts where high-minded and independent men were unwilling to avail themselves of an appeal to the poor law. This would be the first time since the Act of 1834 was passed that the House would put its seal to a proposal which would break down the principle that relief should be given for destitution only. The Bill either went too far or not far enough. If they were going to set their seal to the principle that there was to be encouragement of thrift, they ought to make it encouragement of thrift of every kind.

said that allusion had been made to the manner in which the Amendments had been introduced, but he would point out that the Amendments appeared on the Order Paper for a couple of days, and that they were passed in Committee of the whole House. He could not imagine any more public way of amending the Bill. He congratulated his hon. friends on their success in carrying the Bill to its Third Reading. The hon. Member for East Nottingham had said that he was a supporter of friendly societies and desired in every way to encourage them in their good work, but he added that the Bill was brought forward by hon. Members representing West Country and rural constituencies, and that it had not the support of other Members. As a matter of fact, however, the Members whose names appeared on the back of the Bill came from all quarters of the United Kingdom, and the Bill was universally supported by all who believed in the good work of the friendly societies for the thrift they had inculcated in the minds of the people. He was thankful that the Bill had reached its present position, and he was certain that when it became law it would have a good effect, especially in rural constituencies, in inducing non-members of friendly societies to reconsider their position. He desired very cordially to support the Third Reading of the Bill.

said he wished to congratulate the hon. Member for South Somerset on having brought the Bill into its present successful position. He also congratulated the Government on their changed attitude from a year ago, and he thought that the General Election had educated them more than anything else. The hon. Member for East Nottingham objected to the Bill because he said it would affect the independence of friendly societies, but he did not advance a single argument in support of that contention. The societies would be quite as independent as they were before, and he thought the Bill would help them by encouraging people to join. Poor law guardians were mostly in favour of the Bill, and from the ratepayer's point of view, it was undoubtedly a very important question. If the hon. Member for East Nottingham represented a constituency where friendly societies were strong, his view on the Bill would be very different from that which he expressed. The hon. Member said that the Bill was the beginning of a great social reform, but he was not even prepared to take the first step in it. The country, however, was not only prepared to take the first step, but to take further steps in the same direction. The hon. Member for Peckham said he did not know how to define what a friendly society was, but there was a public official known as the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and if the hon. Member applied to him he thought he would get a very excellent definition.

said there was no definition in the Act of 1896, to which he presumed the hon. Member was alluding, and he was further informed that the Act of 1896 could not be read in conjunction with the Act of 1894.

said that the best definition would undoubtedly be obtained from the Registrar of Friendly Societies. He, for one, would be quite willing to include more societies, but at any rate the Bill was an excellent Bill, and the friendly societies would be perfectly satisfied with it.

said he congratulated the hon. Gentleman opposite on having piloted through the rather troubled waters through which a private Member's Bill had to pass in the House of Commons a measure which he thought would be very useful, but which no one would deny was extremely important, as it introduced a valuable principle into the present outdoor relief system. He thought the Bill would be the forerunner of further measures of the same character. He did not, however, really know why an exception should be made in favour of friendly societies, and why persons who had deposited money in friendly societies should be entitled to relief, whereas persons who had put money into the Government savings bank should not have a similar advantage. That was a new principle, and would necessitate further legislation. He recognised entirely that the friendly societies had done most valuable and beneficent work for the poorer classes, but they were not the only means of encouraging thrift. He hoped the measure would become an Act of Parliament, and he believed that it would be the forerunner of other measures of a similar character.

said he thought the Bill ought to include other classes. There were, for instance, pensioners whoso pensions were insufficient to support them, and he thought the measure ought to comprehend such persons and others similarly situated.

said he was really in a difficulty with regard to the Bill, because, as had been pointed out, it was not known that the Bill had been amended in Committee. He now understood that the words "sick pay" had been struck out, but surely that entirely altered the character of the Bill, and with all respect to the hon. Member opposite, who took to task the hon. Member for Peckham for asking for a definition of friendly societies, he had been honestly striving to find a definition which would apply to friendly societies as mentioned in the Bill, and so far as he knew there was no such definition. The hon. Member who moved the Third Reading of the Bill appealed to the House to encourage thrift. He entirely agreed, as he thought it was extremely desirable that thrift should be encouraged; but the becoming a member of a friendly society was not the only method of encouraging thrift, and so long as the words "sick pay" remained in the Bill—

May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that in the last clause of the Bill the words "sick pay" are retained?

said that if that was so it made a great difference as regards the definition of the Bill, and he apologised for having misunderstood it in that particular. The fact that the words "sick pay" were retained made it much more easy to determine or define to what persons the Bill would apply. But he would point out that there were only certain societies which gave sick pay. Would an accident society, or one of the societies connected with the great railway companies which made good the wages of a railway servant for a number of weeks up to his full pay and for a certain number of other weeks up to his half pay? That was how it worked out and he would like to know whether a man who had contributed his own money to a society, in the expectation of getting a certain amount of benefit from so doing, was to be shut out from the benefits of this legislation because his society was not to be termed a friendly society under the terms of this Bill. Perhaps he had not made his point clear. But supposing a railway servant receiving 5s. a week from his benefit society was, under some unfortunate circumstances, obliged to appeal to the parish for relief, would he be permitted to retain that five shillings and yet have the benefit of parish relief? If the author of the Bill did not make that plain he would leave grave doubts in the minds of the House. There were other societies besides so-called friendly societies which promoted thrift. He himself had had the honour of taking an active part in the amendment of the law relating to building societies. In his own constituency they had some of the most important and he believed some of the largest building societies, and he believed they were the most solvent in the kingdom, and what he wanted to know was, whether a man who had set aside in these societies money to provide against the future was to be excluded from the benefits of the Act. It was obvious that the man who contributed to a building society was doing just as much to make provision for the evil day as the man who contributed to a friendly society, and yet they had his hon. friend the Member for East Nottingham saying that the new form of legislation which was going to alter the general law apparently applied to one class only. He thought the Bill ought to benefit all classes who had attempted to provide for themselves. He thought the Bill was a defective Bill, and he agreed with his hon. friend the Member for East Nottingham that it had either stopped short or had gone too far; if the Bill was for the purpose of benefiting those who exercised thrift, it ought to extend to all alike and not only to members of friendly societies. He was not opposed to friendly societies, and had always done what he could to promote and encourage them, and therefore he could not be open to the suspicion of having any objection to friendly societies; but they ought to be fair and equitable and extend an equal advantage to all who have practised the same virtue and made the same struggles to provide for their old age.

said that as a Member for an agricultural constituency he took a great interest in the Bill, and he would appeal to his hon. friends to look at the good portions of the Bill and endeavour to pass it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds had undoubtedly pointed out defects in the Bill, and the hon. Member for East Nottingham, with great honesty of purpose, and speaking on a subject with which he was well acquainted, also pointed out defects, but he would ask his hon. friends to look upon the Bill as an instalment. Friendly societies generally had had a very great struggle in agricultural districts, but they were now beginning to make their way among the agricultural labourers, who were fighting shy of the so-called "slate clubs," held in public houses, which were no use to them in their old age, and they were discovering the necessity of joining friendly societies. He knew of no Bill that the friendly societies were more anxious to have. That there were omissions in it he was prepared to acknowledge. His hon. and gallant friend had pointed out one, namely, Army pensioners, and he hoped that that class would receive some consideration, and that railway and other societies should be eventually added, but he would appeal to hon. Members not to throw the Bill out at the present moment. He believed the intention was a good one, and that though the measure might infringe some part of the sacred Poor Laws, which were looked upon with such respect by some hon. Members, he believed it would do incalculable good to friendly societies and to agricultural labourers generally

said he also desired to congratulate the hon. Member, He agreed that the Bill did not go far enough, and that all persons in receipt of an allowance from any society to which he directly or indirectly contributed should be included. The principle on which outdoor relief should be given was that the amount should be sufficient, in addition to what the recipient was receiving from any other source, to fit him to return to work as soon as possible. All the friendly societies in his constituency had urged him to support the Bill, and he trusted the House would give it a Third Reading.

said that he too wished that the Bill had gone a great deal further, and had included Army pensioners, and men belonging to railway societies who were in receipt of grants. But the friendly societies had encouraged thrift more than any others, especially that kind of thrift which saved the rates, and for that reason he thought that the principle of the Bill should be established. They were all indebted to the friendly societies for the good they did, and he would have been glad if the Bill had gone even further in their favour. If the Bill were carried into law it would not only be a good thing for the friendly societies, but it would effect a saving of the rates, by encouraging men to join the societies. He hoped the discussion would soon be brought to an end, as many hon. Members appeared to be inclined to continue the debate, with the object of preventing another Bill being discussed.

said he had the greatest respect for friendly societies, and considered that they had an additional claim on the sympathy of Parliament because they seldom came forward to ask for legislation, and he was prepared, therefore, to look on the Bill with the most favourable eye. But he would like to know what this Bill was going to do. The Bill of 1894 was an enabling Bill. It enabled boards of guardians to grant or withhold relief entirely at their discretion to or from members of friendly societies, and to grant relief to any person notwithstanding whether he was or was not in receipt of a grant from a friendly society. Had that discretion been abused? If so, he had never heard of it. Looking at the Bill as it stood, did it mean that the guardians ought to take into consideration what a man received from a friendly society? Did it mean that if a friendly society gave a man 16s. a week the guardians ought to deduct 5s. a week, and treat him as if he had only 11s. a week? It seemed to him that the Bill would not place boards of guardians in a very different position to what they were under the present legislation. The boards of guardians who had been niggardly and grudging under the Act of 1894 would not change their nature and increase their relief under the Act of 1901.

said he supported the Bill most heartily. One especial reason why the House should pass the Bill at once was that it would legalise what was done every day of the week. On the whole, whether it was legal or illegal, boards of guardians had always been glad to grant where necessary outdoor relief to members of friendly societies, and the Bill would legalise a practice which has been in operation for many years.

said the clause which he desired to propose defined certain expressions in the application of the Bill to Scotland. He could not understand why Scotland had been treated exceptionally in respect of cremation. It could not be that Scot land was not favourable to cremation, because in the report issued by the Scottish Cremation Society it was stated that the number of cremations was steadily increasing every year, and that every satisfaction had been expressed at the arrangement at the crematorium. In a pamphlet which had been issued he observed that the system which had been adopted in Glasgow in respect of cremation was as effective as any system established in England, and the apparatus was one of the best. He hoped the House would, therefore, gather that Scotland was not behindhand in matters associated with cremation. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire was one of the presidents of the first cremation societies in Scotland, and he hoped the hon. Member would inform the House as to the desirability of giving local authorities in Scotland the same opportunities as regards cremation as were given in England.

asked, on a point of order, whether the clause ought not to be postponed until the House had considered Clause 10, which stated that the Bill should not apply to either Scotland or Ireland.

The practice of the House compels new clauses to be taken first on the Report stage. It occasionally leads to inconvenience and difficulty, but it cannot be departed from now.

said he was quite willing to take a division as to whether the Bill should or should not extend to Scotland. A Clause, (Definitions, Scotland), brought up, and read the first time.—(Mr. Renshaw.)

said that if the Lord Advocate had no objection to offer on behalf of the Scotch Office, the Amendment might be accepted.

said he thought it was very desirable that the House should have an expression of opinion from the Front Bench with regard to the views of the Government on the subject, and he hoped the Lord Advocate would give the House some guidance. It did seem very curious that if they added the new clause proposed by his hon. friend, embodying certain definitions with regard to Scotland, they would later on come to Clause 10, which specifically stated that the Act should not apply to Scotland or Ireland. His hon. friend had said that he was perfectly willing to take a division on the question whether the Act should or should not apply to Scotland, and the hon. Gentleman opposite appeared to take the same view. He had looked through the Report of the Grand Committee, and must say that it was very meagre. It did not give the House much information. He had been informed that the subject of the application of this Bill to Scotland had not been brought before the Grand Committee for discussion at all. It seemed to him that, if this Bill was to be extended to Scotland and to Ireland, it should be remitted back to the Grand Committee on Law, that they might consider the proposed extension of the Bill to Scotland and to Ireland, and that the House might receive some assistance from the Grand Committee. He did not see many representatives from Ireland present. Possibly they had not taken into consideration that an Amendment extending the Bill to Ireland would be brought forward. He believed that the Irish members were particularly averse to this new mode of dealing with dead bodies by cremation, and if they had thought the Amendment would be brought forward they would have had something to say on the matter. Personally, if the Bill was carried through this House, with the insertion of the proposed new clause extending it to Scotland, he could see no objection to its extension to Ireland. What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. He hoped the Lord Advocate would give the House some advice on the matter.

said that, so far as he could see, there was no objection to the extension of the Bill to Scotland; but, while that was his personal opinion, he had had no opportunity of consulting the Local Government Board of Scotland. There were some expressions in the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire which would require to be altered. If the clause was road a second time, he would, therefore, move some verbal amendments upon it.

said, speaking as one of its vice-presidents, that the Cremation Society of Scotland was very strongly in favour of the proposed extension to Scotland. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would take into very serious consideration the responsibility placed upon him under Clause 4 of making regulations for cremation.

said he had been a member of the Standing Committee, and he thought it was unfortunate, in the position in which the Bill now stood, that there really had been no adequate time between the nomination of the Committee and its sitting to give that close examination of the Bill which was desirable. He took it that that was the reason for the Amendments now on the Paper. He questioned whether the clause as framed would not carry the construction and use of crematoria to a much larger extent in Scotland than would be the case in England. Whenever the Bill was put into force it would involve a considerable amount of expense to the burial boards; therefore he thought the House ought carefully to consider the amount of the pecuniary resources of the local authorities in imposing a burden of this kind upon them.

said there was a very large and well-equipped crematorium in Glasgow working very successfully.

said that was not his point. What he would like to ask was, what was included under the term "parish council" in Scotland, and whether a parish council or a town council was in all cases a proper body to set up a crematorium. He should hesitate very long before entrusting such a duty to parish councils in England, so many of which were very small bodies.

said that the Irish members were opposed to the application of the Bill to Ireland, and he did not know whether it was seriously intended to move an Amendment to that effect.

said that the clause under discussion related only to the application of the Bill to Scotland.

said that if the Bill was not to be extended to Ireland the Irish representatives would offer no opposition to it.

pointed out that it was expressly provided in the Bill that it should not apply to Ireland.

said he was very glad that the Bill was going to apply to Scotland, because if the Bill was a good Bill it ought to apply to Scotland. They in England ought not to keep all the good things to themselves. His hon. friend the Member for Salford said he could not understand what would happen if this clause were passed when Clause 10 specifically declared that the Bill should not apply to Ireland or Scotland; but he had Amendments to Clause 10 to make the Bill apply to Scotland and Ireland. He fully intended to move these Amendments.

ventured to suggest to his hon. friend who had moved this clause that he would be well advised in withdrawing it at this stage, and it could be discussed on a re-committal of the Bill at the Third Reading. They could not deal under this clause with the national circumstances of each country. It seemed to him a very strange thing that a parish council, if it were anything like an English parish council, should he allowed to make a crematorium. From that point of view it was most desirable that the matter should be considered in a regular way in Committee, and that, therefore, this Bill should be re-committed.

, as one of the members of the Grand Committee, said that the question of applying the Bill to Scotland or Ireland had never been raised in Committee, and it was an unreasonable thing to introduce it now. On those benches they were not at all disposed to obstruct the Bill as applied to England, nor even to extending it to Scotland; but if the hon. Member for Peckham persisted with his Amendment in applying the Bill to Ireland, the Irish Members must protect themselves and oppose the whole Bill.

said he should certainly move his Amendment applying the Bill to Ireland.

said it appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman's intention was to block the whole Bill.

said he represented mainly the views of the Government, which he must say, as far as the Bill was concerned, looked upon its application, at present restricted, as an extremely useful measure. The question of its application to Ireland or Scotland was never before the Committee, and he should be sorry if the Bill were amended so as to endanger its passing. He would remind hon. Members that, as to the applicability of the Bill, it was not a Bill to authorise cremation, which was perfectly legal at the present time, but to place cremation under proper rules and regulations laid down by the Home Office. Having regard to the fact that cremation was being carried on to a very large and increasing extent in England without any Government rules, as there were in the case of burials, he thought it would be wise if the House allowed the Bill to pass without being hampered by the introduction of Scotland or Ireland. There might be no objection to its application to Scotland, but certainly as regarded Ireland there was no pressing case for applying it to that country. It would be most inconvenient if they entered into practically a new discussion, on new lines, on a matter which might imperil the whole Bill.

said that, having regard to the speeches of some hon. Members, he desired to point out that the parish or town councils would be the only authorities which could be affected by the application of the Bill to Scotland. He must remind the noble Lord that parish councils in Scotland were not the small affairs he seemed to suppose. For instance, the parish of the city of Glasgow had a population of over 700,000 people.

said he did not say that a parish council being the burial authority was necessarily unfit to be entrusted with the carrying out of the Bill. What he asked was whether there were not some parish councils whose pecuniary resources were not large enough to make it light for them to construct crematoria.

said the speech of the Solicitor General was an illustration of some mistakes that were made. He intended to support the clause of his hon. friend for the extension of the Bill to Scotland, and afterwards to submit a motion for its extension to Ireland. He was very glad that the House reserved to itself the right to full consideration of the Bill after being sent down by the Grand Committee. If there was anything in the Bill that was good for England, he could not for the life of him see why it should not be extended to the United Kingdom. Taking all things into consideration, the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, in the interests of his own proposal, should withdraw his clause at this stage, for the purpose of moving it afterwards when the Bill was recommitted. It would also be necessary to have definition clauses in respect to Ireland as well as to Scotland.

said that this was a measure in which he took a very great interest, and he rose for the purpose of saying that if it was proceeded with, as sent down by the Grand Committee, it would meet with no opposition from the Irish Members. It was perfectly clear, however, that the object of the hon. Member for Peckham was not to extend the Bill to Scotland and Ireland, but to prevent the Bill being extended to England. So far as the hon. Gentleman's action went, it was refreshing to think that he had taken a new line, because, as a rule, he took steps to prevent any Bill being passed for any country whatever. If the representatives of England desired this Bill they were entitled to have it; but they from Ireland were certainly entitled to object to its application to Ireland. As to the application to Scotland, the extraordinary thing was that if there was a great desire on the part of the Scotch people that it should be extended to Scotland, that should have been voiced on this occasion, not by the representatives of Scotland, but by the representative of Peckham, which, after

thought it was very desirable that the Bill should be extended to Scotland, but he would suggest that a considerable part of the clause moved by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire was not necessary. It defined what a "Burial Authority" in Scotland was; but he contended that Clause 2 of the Bill, as it stood, contained a definition of a burial authority quite wide enough to include parish councils or town councils in Scotland if they performed the duties of a burial board in England. He suggested to his hon. friend that he would be well-advised to leave out that part of the clause. The other portions defining the Local Government Board of Scotland and the Secretary for Scotland were necessary.