asked if further stages of the National Galleries of Scotland Bill were contemplated in this portion of the session if it should be read a second time to-day. He also pressed the Prime Minister to give the Crofters' Bill precedence over it.

said there was no intention of going beyond the Second Reading of this Bill in this part of the session. He could not change the order of business for that day.

expressed his pleasure at seeing so many English Members present, and his hope that they would remain to the end of the proceedings. He was particularly glad that this Bill had been produced, but he was sorry that the Secretary for Scotland had adopted verbatim the Bill of his predecessor; had he drafted a Bill of his own, he would have produced a more democratic measure, and one more in accord with Scottish sentiment as well as one more useful for the purposes of Art. The Bill was the outcome of the report of a Departmental Committee which sat in 1903, a Committee which reported very strongly on the inefficiency of the present Board of Manufactures. This Board consisted of twenty-eight trustees nominated by the Secretary for Scotland for life. They were no doubt most excellent gentlemen: they formed a kind of local House of Lords in Edinburgh. Their average attendance at meetings of the last six years had been seven and a half out of a possible twenty-eight, and there were very few of them who attended regularly. He could not do better than quote the Report of the Committee, which said—

"the system of appointment appears to have been, not to select those whose particular qualifications and occupations rendered them suitable for the work to be done, but to confer membership as a mark of distinction on eminent men, with little regard to their special fitness."

On the Board there was no one representing the people, no one to whom a humble person like himself could make suggestions or offer reproof as the case might be. That was not the right kind of board for a National Board. The Committee had no permanent Chairman: Members took the chair in rotation, and consequently the Board suffered from a want of direction. The Report of the Committee showed the need for a vigorous strong Board. But what did this Bill suggest? It suggested a new Board to consist of seven members nominated by the Secretary for Scotland, and to hold office for five years. These gentlemen might be re-elected at the end of their term. That really was a continuance of the present system in a slightly modified form. He had the most perfect confidence in the judgment of his right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland, and believed that so far as he was personally concerned he would make the very best appointments he could, but he could not help remembering that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors in office were the people who were responsible for the nomination of the present Board, and though he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would still be in office ten years hence, he would be a bold man who would prophesy what would occur fifteen years hence. It might be suggested that as the appointments were to be made by the Secretary for Scotland there would be a certain amount of Parliamentary control, inasmuch as his actions would be subject to review in this House. In theory that was so, but in practice the House had no opportunity of reviewing the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. Could the right hon. Gentleman guarantee them an opportunity of discussing the subject once in five years? In the present session, while three days had been given to Irish Estimates, Scotland had had only one day, and two and a half hour even of that were absorbed by an Irish Bill. He had during the present session heard grumblings about the nominations made by the right hon. Gentleman to the Scottish Fishery Board, yet the representatives of fishing constituencies had not been able to bring the matter under the attention of the House The Departmental Committee proposed that there should be fifteen trustees, eight to be nominated by the Secretary for Scotland and seven by other public bodies, i.e., three by the Royal Scottish Academy, one by the Town Council of Edinburgh, one by the University, one by the Society of Antiquaries, and one by the Royal Society. He was in favour of a small Board because it would be more efficient; he thought fifteen too large, but seven too small. He would suggest a Board of nine, of whom the majority should be representative and not nominated. Four might be nominated by the Secretary for Scotland and five by public bodies. One might be nominated by the Edinburgh Town Council, which just now at the request of the Scottish Education Department was starting an art school, taking over the school of the Board of Manufactures and finding the site and a good deal of money. The school was to be managed by a composite Board, on which the Town Council would have but a small representation. Then the Glasgow Town Council, which ran the best art gallery in Scotland, if not in the United Kingdom, and which certainly had the best art gallery building, in the kingdom, should have one representative. The other representatives, might be appointed by the Convention of Royal Burghs, the Royal Scottish Academy, and the Edinburgh University or some such body. What were the duties of this Board? One was that of buying pictures. In the past there had been no definite policy pursued in the purchase of pictures. The Board had been the recipient of many generous gifts, but undoubtedly people were more likely to give to a responsible representative body than to a State Department. Another very important duty was to get the people to see the pictures. The National Gallery wanted popularising perhaps more than any other institution in Scotland. Ever since he was a small boy he had visited the gallery regularly and had benefited much thereby, but he regretted that now when he went there some four or five times a year he found it almost empty. He attributed that very largely to the non-representative character of the Board, which failed to, do what it might to popularise the Gallery and to advertise it. With a representative Board they might have a more forward policy in this respect. Another important duty was to agitate for more money to be given for the purchase of pictures. To secure that the Board must be independent and in a position to assert itself a good deal more than it had done in the past. Up till now it had been far too apathetic, and in the course of the inquiry the Secretary to the Board of Manufactures admitted that during the South African War the Scottish Office refused to apply to the Treasury for money actually due to Scotland on the ground that it was an inconvenient time to put in the claim. Therefore it was clear they must have an independent Board which, if necessary, would agitate even over the head of the Scottish Office. Mr. Inglis, the Secretary to the Board of Manufactures, in his evidence, said, in reply to Sir John Stirling-Maxwell—

" I should suggest that this meeting of Committee might be very valuable in calling attention to the fact that we, the Board of Manufactures, cannot very well take action against the constituted authorities of the Government. we have made our remonstrance on various occasions, but the thing has been going on for very many years.

"Sir Walter Armstrong: But is it not the duty of the trustees of a fund which belongs to Scotland through the Treaty of Union to do their best to see that the matter is put right? —An Act of Parliament is an Act of Parliament; we kick, but we can do no more.

"But did you kick enough?—I do not think there is any doubt about that. I am quite sure there was plenty kicking."

He was very much afraid that if they did not have an independent Board it would become a mere creature of Dover House. This same bureaucratic idea ran through the Bill. The Board was created but not trusted. The old Board appointed its own officers subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland, but subsection (5) of Clause 4 provided that the officers should be appointed by the Secretary for Scotland, while subsection (6) laid it down that the Board should comply with any instructions that might be laid down by the Secretary for Scotland. Thus the Bill made the Board a mere creature of the Secretary for Scotland. There was something still worse. The Board was not to be allowed even to hold its own property. The National Galleries were transferred to the Board of Works, a not very popular body in Scotland, for the Scottish people could not forget the way in which it neglected Holyrood Palace, with the result that the Lord High Commissioner was driven to live at an hotel. The Law Courts too had been allowed to get into a deplorable condition and the National Museum was badly ventilated. Much, however, was hoped from the approaching visit of the new Commissioner of Works. His contention was that the Board should be allowed to hold the build- ings which it had to administer. Dunblane Cathedral after its restoration was handed over to the Board of Manufactures by the Board of Works, but this Bill actually proposed to re-transfer it. He wanted to see a National Board of Trustees, to which should be entrusted the care and maintenance of their national monuments. He wanted to see a thoroughly representative body, strong and popular. His great objection to the Bill was that by it the national character of the National Gallery was to be taken away; the Gallery was to be run from London by some junior clerk in Dover House, and that, in his opinion, was not in accordance with Scottish ideas. It might be that in England there was a nominated Board who managed the national galleries, but surely what was needed was, not that Scotland should follow the English practice, but that they should level tip England to the Scottish practice. They had in Scotland some ideas of nationality, and they were quite capable of managing their own affairs. The right hon. Gentleman might say that the points which he was raising were Committee points and should not be raised upon the Second Reading stage. He should rather agree that that was the case, but he did appeal to the right hon. Gentleman if this Bill was read a second time to allow it to go to a Scottish Committee. Although they were glad to have the assistance of English and Irish Members upon Committees as a rule, still he thought that this was preeminently a matter for Scottish Members to settle. It should, therefore, go before a Scottish Grand Committee. He begged to move his Amendment.

seconded, and said that when he read this Bill two or three days ago he rubbed his eyes and wondered whether they were under a Liberal or a Tory Government. The Bill was, be believed, a relic of the: late Government, and not the production, of the present Secretary for Scotland. He had had experience of red-tape, centralisation, and officialism in another quarter of the globe, but he did not think that he had ever known a measure so saturated with the essence of centralisation, officialism, and red tape as was this Bill. The National Gallery belonged to Scotland, not to Edinburgh; it was a national institution, and there should be representation of all parts of the country —and more particularly of Glasgow, which had shown more liberality and enthusiasm in the promotion of Scottish arts than Edinburgh had—upon the Board which controlled it. The Board, he feared, would remain under the Bill a Board of Edinburghmen; and, what was more, they would not be able to eall their souls their own. They were tied hand and foot, slaves to the will of the Secretary for Scotland. He thought that representation on that Board ought to be more largely distributed and that its action should be largely free from official trammels Under the Bill the National Galleries would be managed from London. The Board would be appointed by the Secretary for Scotland, who would also appoint the Chairman. Then also the officers of the establishment were to be appointed by the Secretary for Scotland and the Board were ordered to comply with the directions given to them by that Minister. The whole thing was official from beginning to end; and the result would be that Scottish art would languish as it had languished for eighty years or more. Although the property and the buildings were to be vested in the old Commissioners it seemed to him that they were to be managed by the new Board. He did not see how the right hon. Gentleman could reconcile these two separate proposals. The measure was really a one man Bill, and the whole administration of the Scottish National Galleries would be managed from London by one man or by a local clique. A similar course had been the cause of the throttling of Scottish art during the last sixty or seventy years. The report of the Royal Commission showed how Scottish art had languished under the clique which had managed the National Galleries. In Glasgow, in the last fifteen or sixteen years, great efforts had been made to encourage art, and the success had been wonderful, due, in great measure, to the fact that officialism had been absent. There was a School of Art in the Western city which had sent out artists distinguished all the world over. There was the Royal Scottish Society of Painters in Water Colours, the only Royal Society of the kind in Scotland, apart from the Royal Scottish Academy. There was a new art gallery in Glasgow housed in a building which cost £250,000, a far greater amount than had ever been spent by any society in Edinburgh. It was paid for partly by the surplus of an exhibition and as to a large proportion by public subscriptions. The Corporation of Glasgow paid £12,000 a year in the upkeep of their galleries, and they spent £1,000 or £1,500 a year for the purchase of pictures, and the bequests were always on the most liberal scale and amounted to £50,000. Did they find that state of things in Edinburgh?. Read the Bill in any way possible, and it was a red-tape centralising and officialising Bill. He for his part would, on the whole, rather see the Bill rejected because, in his opinion, it was past mending. Amendment proposed—

"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House regrets that this Bill does not follow the recommendation of the Departmental Committee of 1903 for the appointment of a representative rather than a nominated Board"—(Mr. Gulland)—instead thereof.

was glad the Bill had been introduced, because a very serious state of matters existed in regard to art in Scotland, which, if the Bill was passed, it would do much to remedy. The point which had been raised was mainly with regard to the governing body, and he thought it desirable that the number of the Board of trustees should be small, as in that way they would secure more effective and more national control. He instanced the control of the great galleries in London: there the number of trustees was small. As to its being a representative body, he thought there was a good deal to be said, because if it were a strong representative body it could undoubtedly bring greater pressure upon the Government in regard to the money required for the undertakings which it was sought to benefit. Under this Bill they received a considerable additional grant, and he should hope that that grant might be yet increased. His hon. friend the Member for Dumfries had suggested that the Bill should be referred to a Scottish Committee, and he was entirely in accord with him, but he hoped that this was not the only Bill which would be referred to a Scottish Grand Committee. If, moreover, a Scottish Grand Committee could be set up and maintained as part of the ordinary procedure of the House it might do very important work not only in informing the Government as to the needs of art in Scotland, but in other matters. He entirely agreed with the strictures that had been passed on the Board of Works. The operations of that Board in Scotland had been very unsatisfactory; they had not only neglected the buildings, but they had in cases of repair allowed some very bad work to be done. Scotland had in fact been neglected by the Board of Works, and he should like to see a new Board in control of its own buildings and other buildings, and one which should appoint its own officers. So far he quite agreed with the criticisms upon the Bill, but as to the main point he was bound to say that there was a great deal to be said on both sides. Some hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House who were in favour of a representative body had rather abandoned that position in favour of the basis of the new Board. He granted the advantages if a fair representation could be obtained, but after all a representative system would not be established by giving representative members of the Board to Glasgow and Edinburgh, because that would not be a representative system for the whole of Scotland. The Bill would, however, give the Board a working control, and would give them something to do, and he hoped that they might have yet more to do in the future. He regarded this as a very urgent matter, and he should regret very much if there was any delay in pressing the measure. In supporting the Bill as it stood, however, he should like to guard himself against being supposed to be a supporter of nominated Boards. This was the only Bill in regard to Scotland under which he would approve of a nominated Board.

said he had placed a Resolution on the Paper in the hope that the claims of science in Scotland might have due recognition. The Secretary for Scotland, in reply to a deputation at Edinburgh some months ago, definitely indicated what course he was going to take in connection with the Arts, and distinctly showed that his mind held that the claims of art were a long way in front of the claims of science. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to occupy or take for the purposes of art two great buildings in Edinburgh at present in the possession of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and thereby dispossess that society of its ancient halls. The Royal Society of Edinburgh was the central society of science in Scotland; it was the clearing house of most matters scientific in Scotland. Through it had passed the works of a large number of scientists who had been born in that country—men who had developed important industrial agencies, who had improved telegraphs and other things, and whose work had contributed very greatly to the material well-being of Scotland. The Royal Institution was an institution of which Scotland was justly proud. It was proud of its past and its present. It was an institution which Scotland would be grieved to see injured in any way whatever. Judging from the speech the right hon. Gentleman made in Edinburgh it would seem that he had never thoroughly appreciated the importance of this society which he now proposed to dispossess of the rooms in which it had sat for eighty years. One of these great buildings was designed for the purpose of science and art, and rooms were actually designed and built in it for the purposes of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. They were now to be dispossessed. It seemed to him that this was only another instance of the way in which science was treated in Scotland. The Royal Society of London had £5,000 a year from a Government grant and £1,000 a year for publications, and it sat rent free in Burlington House. The Irish Royal Society received £1,500 a year as a Government grant, and sat rent free, while its fellows contributed £,310 to its annual revenue. The Royal Society of Edinburgh received in contributions from its fellows £1,200 a year, and £300 a year as a Government grant, and what became of that money? The £300 a year received as a Government grant from the Treasury was paid to the Treasury again as rent. That was the treatment that Scotland had received from a long succession of Governments. Although he blamed those Governments he did not blame them nearly so much as the succession of Scottish Members who had sat in this House, and had refused to combine together to obtain justice to Scotland. He had no doubt that the Secretary for Scotland would do his best, as he had assured the deputation he would, for the Royal Society, but he held that it would have been far better if they had obtained definite assurances from him as to the means of housing the Royal Society properly before bringing this Bill before the House. His statements with regard to art were very definite and very generous, but the future of science had been relegated to the background. He desired to be very frank with the right hon. Gentleman and to tell him that a considerable sum of money would be necessary to rehouse the Royal Society in such a manner as to maintain its dignity and prestige, and to house its extremely valuable library. He was glad of the one assurance which they had received from the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that the body proposed to set up would not dispossess the Royal Society of Edinburgh until proper accommodation had been found for it, but he would like to see some statement of that kind in the Bill, and therefore he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would accept as an additional clause something to the following effect—

" It is hereby provided that the society shall not be required to vacate its apartments in the Royal Institution Building appropriated to its use when the building was erected until equivalent accommodation on a suitable site shall have been provided out of public money for the use of the said society."

In his anxiety to see the interests of art provided for in Scotland he was second to none, but under all the circumstances he maintained that they had the right to make equal demands in favour of science. He would urge the right hon. Gentleman if he got his Bill to-day to relegate it to a Committee. He also wished to ask the Prime Minister whether it would not be desirable to establish before the autumn session a Scottish Bill Committee and to allow this thoroughly and essentially Scottish measure to be the first which came before it. He begged to move.

desired to say a few words upon this Bill, as he had the honour to take the chair of the Departmental Committee which considered the matter. While he generally supported the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he desired to see incorporated in the Bill some such Amendment as that which had been suggested. When the Committee came to inquire into the composition and the work of the old Board it came to the conclusion that the composition of that body was not satisfactory; that it was antiquated and not satisfactory for its present purpose. It was too unwieldy, consisting of twenty-eight or thirty members. Against those gentlemen, comprising the Board of Manufacturers, he had nothing to say. They were largely recruited if he remembered rightly from legal circles, and included in their number only one or two members representing art and science in Scotland. It was quite clear that the members of that Board in the past had been selected without sufficient consideration, having regard to the duties they had to perform. Many of them lived great distances from Edinburgh, with the result that the attendance was not regular and there was no general continuity of policy. The Committee also considered that there ought to be a permanent chairman of the Board, a provision he was glad to see in the Bill. The absence of such a permanent chairman had, in the opinion of the Committee, led to a want of system and to a want of continuity of policy. This Bill met to some extent the recommendations of the Committee, in the appointment of a permanent chairman, in the reduction of and the reconstruction of the Board, and in limiting the period of service of members of the Board to five years. But it did not secure what many members of the Departmental Committee desired, namely, an adequate representation of the artistic and scientific societies of Scotland; that the Board of Trustees should consist of fifteen members, eight appointed by the Secretary for Scotland, and seven by art societies and other bodies in Scotland. He believed the Committee recommended that there should be three members appointed by the Royal Scottish Academy, one by the Royal Society, one by the Society of Antiquaries, one by the University and one by the Town Council of Edinburgh. He thought those bodies ought to be represented. The hon. Member for Dumfries had suggested there should be a member representing the School of Art, Glasgow. He had great sympathy in that direction, because he believed there was no School of Art in the two countries which was better carried on or which possessed better attributes than the School of Art, Glasgow. When the Bill came up for consideration in Committee he trusted they would be able to secure some concession from His Majesty's Government in the direction of representation of the learned societies and the galleries in Scotland. The question of the retention of the Royal Society in the Royal Institution buildings came before the Committee when they sat in Edinburgh, and certainly it was not contemplated by the Committee that the Royal Society should suffer. The Royal Society occupied the whole of the west side of the ground floor of the building, and a large octagonal room at the south end. He did not think that the Royal Society even there were properly housed, or that they had room for their excellent library; but the question the Committee had to consider then was the tenure of the rooms, and he considered— and he thought the Committee agreed with him—that whatever legal right the Royal Society might have, they certainly had the moral right to continue the use of their present rooms, or, in the event of those rooms being imperatively required for gallery space, they should not be turned out unless and until some equivalent accommodation could be provided at the public cost. He did not know what the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland was on that point. He had hoped he would have made a statement earlier in the debate, because it might have saved time. But he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman was well advised in waiting to reply to the whole debate. What he should like to be assured was that if it was the intention, as he believed, to dispossess the Royal Society in the Royal Institution, at all events adequate provision would be made for their accommodation, or, at any rate, some money would be presented to them by the State for the purpose of finding accommodation. The Bill was not a Party one. They desired to see the Board properly constituted, and that it might be an efficient machine properly to carry out the duties which it was called upon to discharge. He still thought there ought to be a representative element on the Board, and that they ought not to be entirely in the hands of the Scottish Office. He appealed to hon. Members not to conduct this debate in a controversial spirit. He was perfectly aware that the Scottish Office during the late Government was of the same opinion as apparently the Scottish Office was now, but as a Member of the late Government he did not agree with that particular point, and he adhered to the recommendations of the Committee over which he presided. He was sure the distinguished member of the Committee sitting on the Treasury Bench would agree that they gave very great thought and took very great pains over their Report. He could not think that in the short period that had elapsed since that Report was presented any reason had arisen why the Members of the Committee should have changed their views. Whilst supporting the Second Reading of the Bill, he reserved his right to move or support Amendments on one or two points.

said he was sure the Members on the Ministerial side of the House welcomed the intervention in the debate of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He was sure also that they would respond to his appeal not to conduct the discussion of this Bill on Party lines. The Government had no reason to complain of the discussion that had taken place. It was said that this Bill, which had been founded upon the Report of the Committee, presided over by the I right hon. Gentleman, had not followed the Report in. all particulars. That was true in regard to some of the details, but the spirit and the intention was to disentangle and simplify the various functions discharged by the present Board of Manufactures, and that was done by this Bill, taken in conjunction with the arrangements which were now being made administratively. On behalf of the Government, let him disclaim emphatically any idea that either in the form or in the spirit of their proposals was any preference shown, or intended to be shown, to the interests of art as opposed to those of science, or that there was any coolness or neglect by the present Government towards the interests of science in Scotland. This was a Bill which established new machinery. It was agreed on all hands that the present arrangements did not afford adequate scope for the development of either science or art. New arrangements were necessary, and a stimulus to these new arrangements came as strongly from the desire to benefit science and the institution which was specially identified with science in Scotland as from the desire to benefit art and the institution identified with art in that country. It was hoped that the Bill would afford adequate scope for the development for a considerable time to come of both science and art in Scotland. Let him say a few words about the present allocation of the buildings. By Clause 3 of the Bill the Board of Manufactures ceased to exist, and its place was taken by the Board of Trustees of seven members nominated, according to the Bill, by the Secretary for Scotland. The Board of Manufactures consisted of twenty-eight members, and there was no permanent chairman. There was a secretary with a salary of £500 a year, and the total annual cost of the whole of the salaries of the department amounted to £1,080. In former days the Board's revenue was devoted to the assistance of various industries in Scotland; hence its name. It helped fisheries, woollen and linen manufactures, the cultivation of flax, and other miscellaneous purposes. These were all passed away, and its duties now were confined to the encouragement of art and the management of certain institutions, including the conduct of the School of Art, the maintenance and management of the. National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery, and the management of the Applied Art School, recently affiliated to the School of Art. The buildings under whole or partial control of the Board of Manufactures were the Royal Institution, the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, and Dunblane Cathedral. The arrangements which were being conducted in conjunction with the Bill changed in important respects the present allocation of the buildings, and it was one of those changes to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh University this afternoon had taken exception as affecting the Royal Society. The Royal Institution building was at present divided between the Board Offices, the Royal Society, the Statue Gallery, the School of Art and Applied Art and the staff. The National Gallery building was used practically for the purposes of the National Gallery and the Royal Academy. What the Government were endeavouring to do was to give more space for these various institutions. The necessities had entirely outgrown the present arrangements. That was true of the governing bodies, but it was still more emphatically true of the buildings. The National Gallery had no room for development because in the same building it had to find quarters for the exhibition of the Royal Academy. There was not half the wall-space that was required for either of these institutions. The Royal Institution housed the Royal Society, which even now wanted greatly increased accommodation. In both buildings there was congestion, friction, discomfort, and damage to all the interests concerned. It was therefore necessary that the Government should be enabled to proceed a. further stage to-day in the arrangements which it contemplated under this Bill. Parliament alone could afford the assistance for which he pleaded in the interests of all the societies concerned. It was true that the Bill rejected a scheme put forward by the Committee for a. National Gallery to cost £200,000. As. to that he could say that nothing in the Bill and no arrangements under the Bill were a real obstacle to the attainment at some future date of the scheme outlined in the Report. The Government did not feel justified in putting that forward at the present time in the condition of public opinion either in this House or outside, and they were putting forward a less ambitious scheme in the full confidence that it would meet for a considerable time the necessities of the case. In the first place, under the new arrangements the Government proposed to give to the National Gallery the whole of the accommodation in the National Gallery building, which would greatly increase the wall space and, it was hoped, give scope for the development of the Gallery, which was a national one. In regard to the other buildings, arrangements were being made, in conjunction with the Edinburgh Town Council and the Heriot Watt College, for the establishment of a School of Art which should have adequate premises in another part of the city and he had no doubt that with the friendly co-operation of the Town Council and the college authorities the scheme would be brought to a successful conclusion. That left the Royal Society and the Royal Academy unprovided for. Both bodies had equal claims upon the consideration of Parliament, and it became a question as to which of these two bodies should occupy the Royal Institution building. There was not room for both, and after a full consideration of the case, taking in view the necessity that any public exhibition of pictures should be accessible to the public, the choice of the Government was clear that the Princes Street site was that to which the Royal Academy and exhibition pictures had the prior claim. He could assure the House, however, that the pledge which he gave to a deptation of the Royal Society in Edinburgh that their reasonable claims should be met in a reasonable spirit would be most thoroughly and accurately adhered to. In the first place, he ought to recognise the way in which the Royal Society had faced the situation, and he ought to recognise also on behalf of the Government with gratitude the fact that they were now in co-operation with the Royal Society in endeavouring to find an adequate solution of the problem. He himself had no doubt that by the time this Bill reached the Committee he would be able to report that the claims of the Royal Society had been adequately met. The question of the vesting of the buildings in the Board of Works had been raised That was not so simple an operation a some of his hon. friends seemed to think. It was not his duty on this occasion to enter into arguments as to whether the control of Parliament over the Board of Works was or was not sufficient. The practical point for them to consider to-day was whether it was an advantage or disadvantage that these buildings should be so vested. He thought undoubtedly there was a distinct advantage in so vesting them, inasmuch as they would be maintained and paid for at the cost of the Board of Works. They could not have it both ways. They could not avoid the control of the Board of Works if the Board, with the assistance of the Treasury, found all the money for the maintenance of these buildings, and it was partly the advantage of the new state of things that British money, so to speak, would go to this purpose, and that a drift for the upkeep of these national buildings would not be made upon money which was purely Scottish. That was really the practical purpose of this change. Requests had been made by both the Royal Academy and the Royal Society that they should be mentioned in this Bill. It was not considered necessary that they should be mentioned. This Bill was for a limited purpose. A good deal had been said to-day about the failure of the Board of Manufactures to carry oat its work. He did not think, however, that they should allow the Board of Manufactures to pass away without a recognition of its long history, and the useful work which it had done in Scotland. The necessities of the case had outgrown the situation, and this Bill proposed to set up an authority which had a definite and limited duty. In defining and limiting that duty it was hoped to increase and press upon the authority its sense of responsibility. The duty of this new Board of Trustees would be to manage these buildings and to purchase pictures as they were allowed by the grant. Much criticism had been passed to-day upon the constitution of the governing body. This was entirely a matter which should be discussed and decided in Committee. He would venture to place his own opinion before the House, but he acknowledged the weight of opinion which had been expressed to-day in favour of the introduction of some representative element. He could assure the House that he would not fail to show every disposition to consider the wishes of the Committee on the point. It was agreed that the constitution of the Board of Manufactures would not do. A Board of twenty-eight members was far too large for any business body, and those who knew anything of business in Scotland knew I hat it was extremely difficult to obtain an adequate meeting of any large body, or of any small body sometimes, in Edinburgh. He had been a member of committees which were national in character, and unless the business was important, it was extremely difficult to secure a big attendance.

On nominated boards.

said he was referring to elected boards. His hon. friend objected to the Board because it was nominated. Let them consider the question dispassionately. There were two sides to every question. Let them hear what could he said on the other side, because, after all, they had to come to a decision on the point on a future occasion, and lie held himself perfectly free to alter his opinion, as he dared say his hon. friend held himself free to alter his. This Board had to manage the galleries and to purchase pictures. The Committee's suggestion was that the Board should be partly nominated by various bodies and partly appointed by the Secretary for Scotland. His hon. friend had suggested, and other hon. Gentlemen had expressed sympathy with the view, that it should be an elected body. He thought all agreed so far that it should be a small body. But it was very difficult to elect a small body to carry out a national work. How were they to be elected and by whom? How were they to achieve a fair representation of all the interests? He was pointing out the considerations which had led the Government to put forward the Bill in its present form as, at any rate, the basis for discussion. Let them look also at the experience elsewhere. He had made such researches as had been possible. He had examined the constitution of the governing bodies of national galleries both at home and abroad. He had had the opportunity of conferring with men who were certainly great authorities in this matter, and he found no testimony whatever in favour of an elected board for this particular purpose. Nor was it asked for by those who were perhaps specially interested, namely, the members of the Royal Academy. At any rate, the Royal Academy raised no objection on that point. As to the principle of election it was his desire that they should arrive at the best solution of this particular point in the interest of all concerned. He could assure his hon. friends that every clause of this Bill had been the subject of most anxious and careful consideration, and that it had not been until after the most detailed examination of all its provisions, and of their possible consequences, that it had been brought before the House in its present form. These were Committee points, and again he gave the assurance that so far as the Government were concerned they had a completely open mind with regard to them. He had been asked whether he could give an assurance that this Bill would come on as the first Bill after the holidays. Hon. Members must know that he had the warmest sympathy with that suggestion, but he was not able to give that assurance at the present time. He was not able to give and indication of what the future of the Bill would be, but he appealed to the House to allow it to be read a second time now. No interest would be prejudiced through that being done. It would enable the Government to proceed further with the negotiations which were now going on, and which he confidently hoped would be brought to a successful conclusion. He would ask his hon. friends to remember that the present might be a golden opportunity for settling this question in a satisfactory way. If they allowed the opportunity to pass it might very well be that in a subsequent session they would find the interests of the Bill conflicting with the interests of some other Bill against whose claims it might have to be weighed.

said that as he had not the honour of being a Scottish representative his apology for speaking on this Bill was that he had had a connection for twenty years with Edinburgh, and that the case for the Royal Society of Edinburgh was to his mind the case of Learning and Science throughout the United Kingdom. The charter of the Society went back to 1783, and the Society was now one of the great scientific centres of the whole United Kingdom. It had a library which was consulted by people from all parts of Scotland, and in the last ten years the cost of publication of its works of research had been actually doubled. The Secretary for Scotland would readily understand that this Bill did create very deep anxiety and apprehension in regard to the future of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and what the right hon. Gentleman had just said would be read with great relief not only in Edinburgh, but all over Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman had renewed in more emphatic terms the pledge which he gave some time ago in Edinburgh that reasonable claims of the Royal Society of Edinburgh would not be overlooked if effect was given to this Bill and the Royal Society was ejected from its buildings. The tenure under which the Royal Society held the buildings was very peculiar. It was only a tenant of the buildings, but at the same time a tenant under what was virtually a trust, and more than one distinguished Judge in Scotland had stated publicly that the Society could not fairly and equitably be dispossessed of its present accommodation without receiving equivalent accommodation elsewhere. That, he believed, was admitted now by the Secretary for Scotland. The Society had no formal legal right, it was true, but it occupied roomy which were built for three purposes, namely, art, science, and archaeology, and there it had been for the last eighty years. He urged that when a settlement came to be made with the Royal Society of Edinburgh it should be put in not only as good a position as it held to-day, but a very much bettor position. He admitted that no site could be superior to that on which the present buildings stood, but the Society should be put in a better position in regard to recognition from the State for the great public service it was doing. Scotland had received most penurious treatment in this respect as compared with the other parts of the United Kingdom. It would not be fair, of course, to compare the Royal Society of Edinburgh with the Royal Society of London as they worked on such a different scale; but he compared the Royal Irish Academy with the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Hs did not know to what the difference in their treatment was due. He believed that for some reason or other Scotland was not so articulate as Ireland. If hon. Members for Scotland would press their claims in the way Irish Members did theirs, lie did not think the anomaly and absurdity would continue. The Royal Irish Academy, starting with the s line grant of £300 a year, which was still enjoyed by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, had by successive increments gone up to £1,500, and was in addition rent free. The £300 received by Edingburgh had to be paid over for rent. That seemed to him a real Scottish grievance calling for remedy. He hoped that when the question of the housing of the Royal Society came to be considered by the Treasury Scotland would be treated in a much less parsimonious spirit than hitherto. The demand for an increased grant was unanswerable. It was a great relief to learn that the fear was groundless that under this Bill Art in Scotland was to be aided only at the expense of Science.

said they were all agreed that Scotland should get more money, and he was sure they would have the aid of the hon. Member who had just spoken in their efforts in that direction. He had listened to this debate with a more or less impartial mind, and, while there was a great deal in the Bill with which they all thoroughly sympathised, there were points which created strong feeling. He thought the main point was whether the body should be representative or not. On that point, which was one of Committee, there was room for a great deal of discussion. For his own part he should be pleased to relegate it to the Committee, but his friends who were inclined to oppose the Bill felt that in Committee the Government might override their opinion. That risk would be minimised if the Bill were sent to a committee upstairs composed wholly or mainly of Scottish Members, but it could not be entirely prevented, because a Government could always have supremacy in a House where they had a majority. It would be unreasonable to ask the Secretary for Scotland to give a pledge on that subject. It was a matter for the Prime Minister and the Government, and he could only hope that the Bill would be sent to a Committee upstairs. If they were clearly to understand that in Committee there would be full scope for discussion, he would suggest that his hon. friend might withdraw his Amendment.

said he agreed that it was quite time that a reform was made in the arrangements for the management of the Scottish Art Galleries. In the words of the Report of the Departmental Committee, museums or art galleries managed on the principles which had hitherto obtained must be dead institutions without that organic life or movement which, from the very necessities of the case, ought to be an essential to the conduct of a museum and art gallery. For his own part nothing could have condemned the Board of Manufactures more than their own last annual Report. A few months ago an endeavour was made to secure for the nation the superb portrait of Sir Henry Raeburn, by himself. A few private individuals, headed by Sir Thomas Gibson-Carmichael, subscribed the money by which the picture was secured by the nation; but not a word appeared in the Report of the Board of Manufactures in regard to the matter. He was glad to say, however, that Sir Thomas Gibson - Carmichael had since been honoured by being made a Trustee of the National Gallery. He approved of the proposal in the Bill for a nominated Board, although the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway and his friends recommended a representative Board. He wanted to know, representative of whom?

Representative of other galleries, and of the people of Scotland.

said he could not, see any advantage of having scientific societies associated in the management of the National Gallery, or that the Royal Burghs had any status whatever in the matter of looking after a National Gallery. The Royal Burghs in England were not represented on the body which looked after the National Art Gallery in London. The hon. Member for Dumfries Burghs had said that he thought a representative body would be in a better and more independent position in pressing for money grants, but he did not think that a body representing the Royal Burghs, or the Geographical and other scientific societies would be in a stronger position to demand money from the Government than a nominated Board. He did not agree with the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment, that this was a one-man Bill, and that the new Board would be dominated by a Secretary in London. After all, he did not think it was fair criticism to say that because the Secretary for Scotland had to spend the greater part of the Parliamentary year in London he was not under the control of the people of Scotland. The next question after that of representation which exercised hon. Members opposite was as to how the property was to be dealt with. Before they could settle how the property was to be vested, it should be clearly understood what the policy of the new body was to be. An hon. Gentleman had said that Edinburgh Castle and Linlithgow Palace should be transferred to the custody of the new Board. He was no great admirer of what had been done by the Office of Works in dealing with the ancient buildings and palaces of Scotland. He himself, having an intense interest in the preservation of these ancient buildings, thought that greater power should be given to those in charge of them to prevent damage being done. He hoped that it was not proposed to transfer the buildings referred to in the Bill to the new Board. The buildings of the British Museum, for instance, were not vested in the trustees of the British Museum, but in the Board of Works. He ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland that he should consider the propriety of recognising in the text of the Bill the title of the Royal Society and of the Royal Scottish Academy to full recognition and accommodation, in either the existing or the proposed new buildings. He was prepared to support the Bill as it stood, though it was in the nature of a compromise, and he was sure that when hon. Members come to work out their scheme of representation, about which they talked so glibly, they would find that the task was more difficult than they thought.

was grateful for the request coming from the Opposition side of the House and made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh University that this Bill should be referred to a Scottish Grand Committee. He thought that suggestion, coming from the Conservative side of the House, formed a welcome landmark. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would not only take to heart the question of referring this Bill to a Scottish Grand Committee, but would do so in the case of all Bills applying exclusively to Scotland. Scotland had been treated with deplorable parsimony for the last ten years. In regard to Art that parsimony had been increasing. His only point of alarm was that the Secretary for Scotland was not able to give a pledge that this Bill should go to a Scottish Grand Committee, but except upon that one point he was in agreement with everything the right hon. Gentleman had said. He earnestly urged that a Scottish Grand Committee should be constituted before the end of the session and that this Bill should be sent to it.

said it was essential that this question should be settled in accordance with the instructed opinion of Scotland. They had great artists in Scotland, also living voluntary associations of art-lovers, and he pleaded for a national system in this matter. Such a system could not be carried out by a wooden officialdom, and he should like to have an assurance that this matter was to be settled principally by Scotsmen associated only with those Englishmen and Irishmen who took a living interest in our national affairs.

said the Irish Nationalist Members had great sympathy with the aspirations of Scotland in this matter, and would endeavour to assist Scottish Members in securing what they desired. There should, he argued, be freedom in art, and he hoped when the case of Ireland was dealt with they might secure the support of Scottish Members for their claims.

hoped that the Government would consent to the Bill being referred to a Scottish representative Committee whose decision would be accepted by all the Scottish Members.

appealed to the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. He personally as a Scotsman welcomed the Bill simply because he felt that by it they were getting from the Treasury some money which belonged to Scotland. That was an achievement upon which he was perfectly prepared to congratulate the Secretary for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman was getting money which had been owing to Scotland not for the last fifteen years only, as had been stated, but from a date very much further back. If there was any blame attaching to the matter it attached to generations of predecessors of those who represented Scotland to-day. He desired to associate himself with what the Secretary for Scotland had said in regard to the constitution of the Board. The proposition that these Boards should be elected was entirely novel and it was not the proposition put forward by the Committee. The Committee proposed that the members should be nominated, but that they should be nominated by various bodies and representatives of those various bodies. His objection, so far as he cared to raise any objection, was that it was very difficult to fix responsibility for elected bodies on the Secretary for Scotland, but if there was a nominative body responsible to the Secretary for Scotland, anybody dissatisfied with the action of that board could come down and say "The board for which you are responsible has committed what we believe to be a mistake. Now we wish to have your opinion, and want to know whether you are prepared to put it right." Again, if they were to have a representative body how far was that representation to go? A claim had been put forward for a Glasgow representative on this Board, but, as the hon. Member for Leith Burghs had pointed out, there were other districts in Scotland with very high claims to representation, and if they admitted all those claims they would go near to make the board as cumbrous and as unwieldy as the old one. The point raised by the hon. Member for Leith Burghs as to the fabric had been already dealt with; the real point-was that the Board of Works were in future going to undertake the maintenance and the upkeep of these buildings, and if any Members who objected to handing these matters over to the Board of Works were prepared to say that the new Board were to undertake the maintenance and upkeep of the fabric, the Committee no doubt would be prepared to consider that. He personally dissented from any such suggestion, because he thought that that matter ought to be left to a national Department. As to the Royal Society, the Secretary for Scotland had, when in Edinburgh, given an assurance on this matter; the right hon. Gentleman hail repeated that assurance to-day, but he thought that the House would much appreciate it if the Prime Minister in his capacity as First Lord of the Treasury could contribute something more to that assurance. In his view this matter could be adequately discussed in the Committee stage and he hoped therefore that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.

said the Board need not be of so unwieldly a number as twenty-eight; it might well be a body of twelve. On that board they should have the representatives of the four principal towns in Scotland. Glasgow had an excellent-Art School and a splendid gallery; Aberdeen had a splendid gallery which, though smaller than that of Edinburgh, showed that the inhabitants of that town had done more for the progress of art in twenty years than Edinburgh had done in double the time. The feeling that existed in these towns was that everything was being done for Edinburgh. The Bill spoke of Edinburgh and did not recognise any other gallery but the Edinburgh Art Gallery. They could easily get a Committee of twelve from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee and the other large towns of Scotland. He did not care whether they were elected or nominated so long as the large towns of Scotland who had spent large sums on their art schools and galleries were recognised. He failed to see why, if the whole of the grant was used for the purpose of buying pictures, all those pictures should go to the Edinburgh gallery. It, was quite right to spend money to make Edinburgh attractive, but if money was to be spent for the pleasure and enlightenment of the people of Scotland and the Empire that money ought to be spread over the country, so far as the purchase of pictures was concerned, so that each town could have its share. All these four towns had good galleries, and would claim some of the fund in order to stimulate the generosity of the citizens, already so great and commendable. He hoped the Prime Minister would see his way to give Scotland a Committee entirely of Scottish Members, because this was naturally a Scottish subject, and he was quite sure, they would never give satisfaction in the north until these large towns were represented.

said he fully appreciated that the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman had had to face in getting an adequate Board were very considerable, but he thought that in getting a small Board the right hon. Gentleman was on the whole going on right lines. It would not be possible adequately to find representation for all those bodies which might reasonably claim representation. The number of such bodies in Scotland was large, and if the right hon. Gentleman appointed a representative from every body which could put in an adequate claim to be represented the Board would be too large and unwieldy. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that he had carefully studied this question and made inquiries as to what were the customs of similar galleries abroad. Then again some hon. Members suggested that this Bill should be submitted to a Scottish Grand Committee. If ever there was a question of an Imperial nature, surely it was this one. The claims in regard to this question were not upon the Exchequer of Scotland, but upon the Imperial Exchequer, He did not think Scotland had had anything like just or fair treatment in this session of Parliament, and he hoped that in future Scottish affairs would not be dealt with on a Saturday afternoon at the end of the session, but that adequate time would be allowed for their discussion. With regard to the Scottish Grand Committee, the right hon. Gentleman, whilst he had informed himself by every possible means, appeared to have taken that course which was always the least satisfactory. After saying he had looked into every corner of the question, he had wound up by saying that he had an open mind.

said that what he stated was that he would approach all these matters in Committee with a readiness to give full weight to all the arguments used.

said he did not think that a Scottish Grand Committee would be a very satisfactory body to deal with this question on many grounds. In the first place these were subjects of Imperial interest, and a purely Scottish Grand Committee would not be the best body to deal with science and art. As Scotsmen he thought they would be wise and liberal-minded if they invited the assistance and support of Members from other parts of Great Britain, who would be willing on a Committee to give them the benefit of their advice and experience. In dealing with the question of science, the right hon. Gentleman's words had fallen short of what he had anticipated. This was a question of the most vital interest, and all the right hon. Gentleman had said was that he had not any coldness towards science. He thought that was a very unsatisfactory and insufficient way of describing the feelings of the Secretary for Scotland towards science.

What I stated was that the Government did not wish to treat these two separate interests except upon absolutely equal terms.

said he had listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman and had written down his words.

And I also have got them here.

said he was not aware that the right hon. Gentleman was in the habit of contravening in any way the custom of the House by reading his speeches verbatim et litera im. The actual words used were what he had stated. He was pleased that their feelings towards science were not of a lukewarm character, and that the Government were taking a warm, firm and intense interest in the promotion of science. He hoped that the Secretary for Scotland would use all his efforts to see that the claims of Scotland were fully recognised. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would not mind taking the House into his confidence and giving them some idea of the terms which he thought would adequately and fairly meet the claims of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

That would not be possible without prejudice to the arrangements which are now proceeding.

said he had a most profound mistrust not of the right hon. Gentleman or his sincerity, but of the action which would be taken by the Treasury when this matter came to be dealt with. He had always found that the Treasury considered themselves custodians of the national purse, but the limit of their generosity was generally reached when they crossed the Tweed. He was somewhat fortified in that view by an expression of opinion by Sir Francis Mowatt, before the Departmental Committee. He stated that the rates of the National Gallery were paid by the Treasury in Ireland, but in Scotland they were not paid by the Imperial Exchequer. The treatment of the two nations had never been the same, and Ireland had always been the spoiled child whilst Scotland was the snubbed child of the Government. It was contended that the treatment had been equal, but Scotland had been content to be snubbed in this matter, and they had never been treated with the same consideration as was extended to It eland. He did not grudge any of the grants made to Ireland, but he thought they should stand together and see that Scotland was fairly treated. With regard to the Royal Society, it would have been more satisfactory and helpful and would not in any way have delayed the consideration of this measure had the right hon. Gentleman felt himself in a position to give some sketch as to what he thought was fair and adequate treatment. One hon. Member had stated that a suggestion had been made that £120,000 should be spent on National Galleries in Scotland. Any sum short of that would not be adequate treatment for science and art in Scotland. With regard to the Royal Society, it had done a great work in Scotland, but ever since the year 1780 they had been struggling along with inadequate means. They received now a miserable contribution of £300 a year, which the Government took back in the form of rent. He appealed to hon. Members not to be satisfied with a mere statement that the right hon. Gentleman intended to do his best. As far as the Second Reading of this Bill was concerned he should support it.

thanked the Secretary for Scotland for the close attention he had given to Scottish interests, for he had taken a great deal of trouble in the discharge of his duties. The right hon. Gentleman actually went up to Edinburgh in order to get the mind of the Scottish people on the spot. They thanked him for that, and they thanked him for this Bill. Since the year 1847 they had had a nominated Board in connection with the galleries, and it had not been a success. The failure was due to the fact that it was a nominated Board and to nothing else. He had taken the trouble to go over the Report which had been issued, and he wished to make a few quotations to show how the Board had failed. The Report said—

" we are satisfied that the present composition of the Board is not satisfactory. we have no intention of reflecting upon the capacity of the individual members of the Board, because a mere perusal of the list of distinguished men who at present compose it is sufficient to refute such a suggestion."

That was perfectly true, for he had analysed the composition of the Board, and he found that it contained ten Privy Councillors, seven peers, seven baronets, six judges, two knights, and five esquires. There was not, however, a business man upon the Board, and never had been. He recognised that some of the members were business men, but they had never devoted their business faculties to this particular Board, and his point was that the reason they had not done so was that they were responsible to no one and they received no salary. Nobody in Scotland had any real control over the Board, and its members were asked to attend only about ten meetings during the year. The Report said—

" A. certain number whose names we need not mention never attended at all. An average of 7½6 did attend, and the rest never came near the meetings."

And what did these 7½6 do? The Report said—

"they could give no satisfactory account of their meetings, duties or powers. we learn that their meetings were not frequent and no minutes were, kept. The curator discharges his duties admirably, but he is unduly restricted by the policy, or want of policy, of the Board."

That was a very serious indictment of the Board which was in charge of Scottish art, because all they did was to interfere with the only man who knew anything about the subject. But the Report contained a more comprehensive indictment for it said—

" Many of the pictures are so badly hung that it is impossible to see them."

The first duty of those in charge of an art gallery was to hang pictures where they could be seen. The Report went on to say—

" A valuable picture was lately bequeathed, but no room could be found for it except with difficulty. The National Gallery is not reasonably clean."

That was not the way to stimulate public generosity, and if there had been more business men on the Board, they might have taken more trouble to provide accommodation and see that the gallery was kept in a condition in which the public could comfortably visit the establishment. It was said that the management was such as to fail to inspire the public with confidence. To whom was this Board responsible? Surely not to the Secretary for Scotland. If the members of this Board had been receiving salaries the Minister at the House would have had Some control over them. Then came a more serious charge—

"they have failed to press Scottish claims for equivalent treatment in regard to the purchase of pictures. The salaries paid to Scotish officials compare unfavourably with the salaries paid in analogous institutions in England and Ireland. we can find no trace of anything like a specific statement that national buildings should be maintained on a sin i lar system in Scotland to that of the sister isle. Had such a statement be fully and clearly put forward we cannot but think that Parliament Would have recognised the justice of the claim. we think the failure to have put forward any such case amounts to a dereliction of duty on the part of a, Board to which the art paintings of Scotland were entrusted."

All this was due to the fact that the Board was nominated and therefore irresponsible. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give effect to what after all was the suggestion of a Committee that this Board should be made more representative. Why not elect some members from the Royal Scottish Academy and other representatives from various parts of Scotland? Some of those representing town councils might also be useful on the Board, for at any rate they would see that the gallery was kept reasonably clean. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would carefully consider the question of sending this Bill to a Grand Committee. Where were the English Members who were going to assist them in regard to this Imperial question,? It was known that this debate was coming on. They would not come to the House when the Bill was in Committee, and the great advantage would be that if it was sent to a Grand Committee they would have the same men there and it would be got through at once. They had only had a Saturday afternoon for their Caledonian day, and it was not too much to ask that they should have their next Caledonian day upstairs.

did not see any great difficulty in allowing this Bill to have a Second Reading after the promise of the Prime Minister that the next stage would not come on until the autumn session. He was sorry that the Government had introduced what in his opinion was a miserable Bill, unworthy of Edinburgh and Scotland. Surely a few months might have been allowed for the Members for Scotland to consider this matter with their constituents before the Second Reading was taken. He should like to know what the late Government did for Scot-arid; they ignored her on every possible occasion except when they wanted money. He was not satisfied with the present Bill, because he was certain it would not do what the Scottish people wanted. He did not think the people of Scotland would be satisfied in any way with this attempt to set up autocratically and bureaucratically a Board which would not represent the Scottish people. The Secretary for Scotland had told them that they ought not I to discuss this question until they got into' Committee, when he would give every consideration to this matter. Nominated boards had been the curse of Ireland and they were proceeding now to be the curse of Scotland. There were a number of them, and they did not care for the Secretary of Scotland or anybody else. They simply told the right hon. Gentleman what they wanted, and he had to do it. What was wanted was a board which would be fairly representative, not of any particular political views, or of the Scottish Office views, but of the views of the people of Scotland. He quite agreed with what had been said as to the way in which Scotland had been treated by this and other Parliaments in recent years with regard to money. Scotland was not begging for money at all, but simply asking for her fair share of Imperial funds. In asking that the erection of the buildings should be paid out of the public purse they were only asking for what they were entitled to and what was overdue. Under the present First Commissioner of Works it was quite possible that they might get fair treatment in regard to buildings. About thirteen or fourteen years ago he called attention to the neglected state of some of the castles and palaces in Scotland, and he was glad to say that something was done both at Stirling and Linlithgow. The Prime Minister, who was at that time Secretary of State for War, gave him Dumbarton Castle, and he (Mr. Morton), gave it to the town of Dumbarton for a museum, but the castle had not yet been handed over. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider that matter and fulfil his promise. A promise had been given to-day that an opportunity would be afforded in Committee for the discussion of the various points which had been raised, and he supposed, that they must accept it. His hon. friend the Member for Ross-shire had described this as a Caledonian day. Being a Caledonian day, it was surprising that the Prime Minister did not arrange to have the bagpipes.

Will the hon. Gentleman kindly address himself to the Bill?

suggested that his hon. friend should withdraw his Amendment.

said the Secretary for Scotland had promised to do his best to get a Scottish Committee for the consideration of this Bill. He hoped the Prime Minister, who was now in his place, would give effect—

The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make a second speech. If he is asking leave to withdraw his Amendment, let him do so, but he must not enter into a review of the debate.

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

said all who had listened to the speaker who had just sat down must be convinced, by a useful object lesson, of what would be involved in referring all Scottish questions to purely Scottish committees.

That is not the subject matter of the discussion now before the House. The subject matter of the discussion is the Bill. What the character of the Committee will be to which it is ultimately referred is a different matter altogether.

said the matter had been referred to frequently during the debate, and he thought he might be in order in touching upon it. His reason for rising was to urge once more the claims of the Royal Society for Edinburgh. He was sorry that the Secretary for Scotland had not been able to give greater assurances on that point. The assurances given had all been of a very general character, but Scottish Members would like to know how in the event of the Royal Society being turned out of its present location it was to be housed. He knew from experience how easy it was for the representative of the Government to say that such and such a question was under consideration with the Treasury, and that to give a greater undertaking might prejudice the negotiations that were going on. In the end when the Second Reading of a Bill had been got, and the particular emergency the moment avoided, very little was heard of the bargain with the Treasury. He should like exceedingly if they could have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the place which had been indicated in the negotiations with the Scottish Office would be the place fixed by general consent in Edinburgh as the future location of the Royal Society.

said that as a Scotsman he was very much disappointed at the speech of the Secretary for Scotland on this subject. Everything had been left by him in a very vague condition, and the right hon. Gentleman would have them accept the assurance that when the Bill got into Committee full weight would be given to any recommendations brought forward. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House had pointed out that the Scottish people had often been disappointed, if not deceived, by the Treasury. In the matter of the Royal Society they felt very strongly that there ought to be no loophole left for the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman ought to put in the text of the Bill a provision which would prevent the eviction of the Royal Society unless it had assured to it all the advantages which it now enjoyed. It had been urged that the Bill should lie referred to a Committee composed entirely of Scottish Members. That would be against both the desire and the practice of Parliament, when dealing with matters affecting the Imperial Exchequer, and it would at the same time be very unfair to exclude from the Committee Scotsmen who, though not representing Scottish constituencies, wished to see that their native country was fairly treated. Personally he felt strongly that by leaving the nomination of the Board entirely in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland it would not conduce to the creation of a Board which would give the best results in the interest of art, literature, and science, in Scotland as a whole. He had great misgivings in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill, in view of the very vague assurances which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman.

said that, both as an Englishman and as representing a Scottish constituency, he was exceedingly surprised at the way in which some hon. Gentlemen seemed to underestimate the reputation of the Royal Society of Scotland. He hoped that after the Secretary for Scotland's clear statement of the intention of conserving to the Royal Society of Scotland at least the same advantages as it enjoyed at present they might rely on its being regarded as a national and not merely a Scottish question to see that faith was kept Scottish Science, which had contributed to British Science such names as Black, Clerk, Maxwell, and Lord Kelvin.

said he should endeavour to state as briefly as he Gould the considerations which had prompted the Government to introduce the Bill which he had now the honour of submitting to the judgment of the House. The House was aware of the existing provisions and machinery of the Crofters' Acts. The principal Act was passed in the year 1886. It was the sequel and the product of some years of acute land agitation and had entirely justified in its results those who were responsible for it. There was great discontent in the Highlands at the time: distress, high rents, evictions, and general unrest. The Crofters Act established a system of statutory fair rents with periodical revision, fixed by the Crofters Commission, who were endowed with other powers, including powers for the enlargement of holdings. By general consent the Act had succeeded beyond all expectation: rents were paid regularly, the interest of the landlord had increased in value, while on the other hand the security of tenure had encouraged the crofter to improve his holding. Better houses had been built and there was a higher standard of cultivation to be found. In the year 1894 and also in the following year a Bill was introduced by the then Secretary for Scotland, Sir George Trevelyan, to amend the Crofters Act. These amending Bills proposed to admit leaseholder to the benefits of the Act and to extend the operation of the Act to eight additional counties. He ought to mention also that in 1897 the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act was passed, establishing a Board of Commissioners with an income of £35,000 a year to be applied at their discretion to providing land for sub-division into holdings, aiding migration from congested districts, developing agriculture, dairy-farming, the breeding of live stock, and other purposes. These two authorities had in recent years co-operated within the congested districts in the work assigned to them by Parliament. Of the purposes of this Bill the first which he should mention was the amendment and extension of the Crofters Acts within the crofter area. The Bill removed some of the restrictions limiting available land under Section 13 of the Act of 1886. These restrictions had in practice made it impossible for the Crofters Commissioners to deal with a large number of applications for enlargement which had reached them. The Bill also reduced the minimum number of competent applicants for enlargement of holding. It provided that the holder of land might use his holding for subsidiary or auxiliary occupations. It provided for the admission of leaseholders to the benefits of the Act. It raised the limit of qualifying rental from £30 to £50, the limit contained in the existing Small Holdings Act. It made amendments in the power of bequest and assignation of tenancy. It gave powers for the creation of new crofter tenancies, in the first place by agreement, and in the second place, where agreement was not found to be possible, by compulsory order. There were other amendments which he need not dwell upon at that moment. So much for the area of the existing crofter counties. He might note in passing that the congested districts form only a part of the so-called crofting counties. There remained the question of the extension of the Crofters Acts beyond the existing area. In considering this question two remarkable contrasts must be pointed out. Looking at them together for a moment, the main work of these two authorities, that was to say, the conferring of security of tenure at a fair rent and the settlement of crofters at a fair rent upon the land, operated according to the locality in which the work was done in two different directions. In one part of the country the purpose was the relieving of congestion, in the other, checking and counteracting de-population. In the western islands, where there was great congestion of population—cottars squatting upon the lands of crofters, and so forth —the work to be done and which had been done by these authorities was directed to the relief of congestion. On the other hand, on the mainland, except in a few isolated localities, their work had been directed to remedying the evil of de-population and to increasing the number of settlers on the land. There was another striking contrast. What was meant by a "crofter"? In the congested districts of the western islands, the crofter might be and often was a tenant at a rent of a pound or more, of an acre or two, with a share in the common grazing. There were 555 tenants under a rent of £1 in the island of Lewis alone; while on the eastern seaboard the crofter might be and often was a tenant of a holding of from five to five and twenty or thirty pounds a year, owning a considerable small stock of sheep or cattle, frequently without a share in any common grazing, and as a matter of fact indistinguishable in the circumstances under which he carried on his industry from any small farmer of a like rent in any part of Scotland, except that he enjoyed the security of tenure and the fair rent which he had under the Crofters Act. These two facts—firat, that the Crofter Commissioners had been striving to meet the two opposite evils of congestion on the one hand, and on the other, de-population; and, secondly, the identity in condition of the crofter upon the eastern mainland with the small farmer elsewhere in Scotland—showed that for the last twenty years the Crofter Commissioners had been working out problems, some of which were no doubt peculiar to the Highlands, and others of which were undoubtedly common to the whole country. It was right, he considered, that he should take this opportunity of paying a warm tribute to those who had during the last twenty years in the case of the Crofter Commissioners, and in the case of the Congested Districts Board, for the last nine years, been concerned in the administration of these Acts. The country, he felt sure, recognised the debt of gratitude which was due to them, especially to the Crofters Commission, and if he might say so, to the Chairman, who had presided over its work from the beginning, for their devoted and ungrudging labours in the public service. The Crofters Acts had never been, amended except in one or two small particulars in the early years after the passing of the principal Act in 1886. The Congested District Commissioners had done considerable work of an ameliorative character in many directions. In relation to the work of the Crofter Commissioners their work had lain in two directions: they had been successful, with the voluntary co-operation of various landlords, in the formation of crofters holdings by agreement. There were various instances of work of this kind carried out by them which had been hitherto and promised to be entirely successful. On the other hand, they had instituted a policy of land purchase which had not been entirely successful. Let him put before the House briefly the contrast between these two policies. They were familiar with the policy of land purchase, the model of which was to be found in Ireland. The experience of the Congested Districts Board tended to show that, at present, at any rate, the crofter did not ask for land purchase. It would be much more costly than crofter legislation, which had been successful. It was not necessary. It would expropriate, landlords, which was not desirable. The reluctance of crofters to purchase had led to great difficulty. On the other hand, under the crofter policy the rent of the crofter was fixed and periodically revised by the Commissioners; he made all his own improvements; he had no power of free sale; he had security of tenure, provided that he observed certain conditions which protected the landlord. This security of tenure, as he had already said, encouraged the crofter to expend his capital in improving his holding and every shilling he spent in the improvement of the holding for his own use improved the security of the landlord for the rent, and therefore the capital value of the holding. So far as the crofting counties of Scotland were concerned, there was therefore some experience to guide them, and he now returned to the question of the extension of the operation of the Act beyond the Highland counties. Great objection was taken in 1886 by critics of the Bill in the House of Commons to the narrow limits of its operation and in particular to the definitions upon which the Act was founded. In the Act, which applied to yearly tenants only, a crofter was defined as a person who was tenant of and resided on his holding, the annual rent of which did not exceed £30, and which was situated in a crofting parish, and the successors of such person in the holding, being his heirs or legatees. A crofting parish was denned as a parish in which there were at the commencement of the Act or had been within eighty years prior thereto, holdings consisting of arable land with a right of pasturage in common with others, and in which there still were tenants of holdings from year to year who resided on their holdings. The Government of 1886 firmly refused to extend the operation of the Act beyond the original seven counties, on the ground that they were convinced that beyond these limits no crofting parishes as denned above were to be found. In fact, the 1805 Bill did not in words alter this definition, but in proposing the admission of leaseholders it departed from the historical clan theory upon which the definition of "crofter parish" seems to rest. He had already pointed out that in many districts on the mainland the crofter under the Act was simply a small farmer who made his own improvements, as he might be in any county in Scotland. As a matter of fact, the 1886 Act admitted to its benefits individuals who, personally, had no historical claim, and parishes where in 1886 there was no common grazing, and where there was none now. These considerations had been evident from the first, especially to those counties which Sir George Trevelyan proposed to include in his Bill. To adopt the area of the 1895 Bill and to adhere to the definitions of "crofter" and "crofting parish "would, it was believed, admit to the benefits of the Act the island of Arran and certain isolated parishes elsewhere; that was only a very small proportion of the crofters and not necessarily the most needy, in the eight additional counties proposed in 1895. Large areas of land in the occupation of small tenants in these counties would be excluded from the operation of the P II. To apply the Crofters Act to some of the small holders in one of these counties and a Small Holdings Bill to others in the same county, each system with separate procedure and machinery, was hardly practicable. The Government, in view of these considerations, had therefore decided to abandon the definitions of the 1886 Bill. There were other considerations which were pertinent to this subject. Circumstances had somewhat changed since 1886, when high rents, accumulations of arrears, and evictions brought about the Crofters Act. Rents had fallen at least as heavily outside the crofting area as within it under the operation of the Act. There was a strong demand for small holdings legislation. While in many branches of farming, Scotland and England might be said to lead the way among the progressive countries of the world, in regard to small farming we lagged behind. On the one hand our farming suffered; we were increasingly dependent upon foreign nations for large supplies of perishable farm produce; from time to time small farms were thrown into large farms; and, on the other hand, our rural population was dwindling, and men who had devoted the best years of their life to farm service and farm labour found no career open to them in the country and were driven to swell the drift of population towards the large towns. There was room in this country for both kinds of farming; nobody contemplated the immediate division of the land of the country into small farms. But there was a strong demand for small holdings legislation. That involved as a sine qua non the grant in some form or other of security of tenure to the occupying cultivator; without it the small holder was helpless; with it he seemed to prosper everywhere—in Ireland, in the agricultural countries of Europe, and as a crofter. Many causes had contributed, no doubt, to reduce the number of farm labourers employed on our farms: labour saving machinery and other causes which he need not now name; but if the experience of other countries was to count for anything the only way to attract men to live in the country was to give them a secure interest in the land they cultivated. To check depopulation, the first step was to check the absorption of small farms. The absorption of small farms was not confined to the crofter counties, and the present Bill permitted all small holders in Scotland paying a rent of £50 and under to have a fair rent fixed and so to come under the provisions of the Bill. Further, the Bill gave powers for the creation of small holdings. The House would remember that the Crofters Act contained powers for the enlargement of holdings. This Bill applied and developed these powers for the creation of new tenancies under tenure of the Bill, in the first place by agreement. The Bill further provided, under careful safeguards and with consideration for the various interests concerned, that where agreement was not found to be possible, that was to say, where, in the opinion of the Land Commission, suitable and otherwise available land was refused by a landlord for the purposes of the creation of tenancies under the Bill, the Land Commissioners, after duly satisfying themselves on all points that might have arisen, might issue a compulsory order. In the creation of these new tenancies, whether by agreement or by compulsion, an alteration in the economic distribution of land was made in the public interest. It might be compared to the work of municipal corporations and private individuals in the pulling down of slums and the erection of new dwellings. There was a money loss in these transactions. It was not fair that it should fall on the former owner, and it was not fair to throw it into the rent of the new tenant. The community must bear the loss. Similarly with the dividing up of land into new tenancies. The farm stock might have to be cleared off and in some cases sold at a loss. The land must be divided and prepared; roads made and houses built. The difficulty of finding money for these operations had been one of the great obstacles to many proposals for the creation of small holdings. The experience of the Crofter Commissioners and of the Congested Districts Board tended to show that, while there were proprietors who were not willing, there were also proprietors who were willing to provide land and to accept selected crofter tenants, provided aid could be given, as it had been in several cases, to meet the cost of removing the farm stock and of dividing up and preparing the land. Authority was therefore given in this Bill to the Land Commissioners to expend their funds in grants or loans for the purpose of meeting such initial expenditure; in grants to enable landlords to fulfil their obligations under existing leases which might be compulsorily terminated, and in loans to individual applicants who wished to erect dwelling-houses on their holdings; and in so far as the expenditure took the form of loans, conditions were prescribed with a view to providing secuity for repayment. He now turned to the remaining provisions of the Bill. The Crofters Commission and the Congested Districts Commissioners disappeared and were merged in one body named the Scottish Land Commission, which was authorised to carry out the above purposes of the Bill. The annual income of the Congested Districts Board remained applied as heretofore to the congested districts, but would be so applied by the Land Commission for the purposes of the Bill, and the Land Commissioners were further authorised to expend an additional annual sum for the purposes of the Bill which might be expended in any part of Scotland. One further point. There was a strong feeling in Scotland that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, however zealous and energetic it might be in the discharge of its duties, was too distant and too little in touch with Scottish requirements to fulfil satisfactorily the demands made under present day conditions upon a Department of Agriculture. For instance, there was a demand for the encouragement of forestry as specially suitable or possible under Scottish conditions. The development of a class of small holders might be expected to increase those demands. It was therefore thought expedient in this Bill to create the nucleus of a separate Agricultural Department for Scotland. A Commissioner of Agriculture for Scotland was appointed with a general power of supervision of agriculture in Scotland, to whom it was intended to transfer, as found convenient, powers now exercised in Scotland by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. Provision was also made for the transfer to this Commissioner of certain powers now vested in the Congested Districts Commissioners, which under this Bill would hereafter vest in the Land Commission, but which it was thought might with advantage be transferred later to the Commissioner of Agriculture and be made of general application to the whole of Scotland. These were the main provisions of the Bill. It would be printed and issued as soon as possible. It was laid before the House as a proposal of constructive reform, an endeavour, a scheme which must be considered as a whole, as a careful attempt to solve a problem of vital importance to the country.

said that no one who had listened to the speech of the Secretary for Scotland could fail to have in his mind the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had introduced a. Bill of very great importance. One was reluctant to allude to the fact that such a Bill should be introduced at such a, late period. It was a Bill well worthy of being considered on its First Reading during the whole of one day's debate, and he thought some more favourable occasion than a Saturday afternoon ought to have been chosen for its introduction. It was a Bill of a wide and embracing character, and made a fundamental change in the composition of the Crofters Commission, whilst otherwise it dealt with a variety of subjects. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to see his way to give the House a slight hint of what he had proposed to do by this Bill, in order that when it came before them they might have been able to give it adequate discussion. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman generally upon that part of his speech in which he praised the success of the Crofters Commission, and announced to the House that in many respects they had carried out their duties most faithfully and well. He had rather wondered that under those circumstances they should have been swept away altogether by this Bill, and that their functions should have been transferred to another Board. He should have thought in the case of a Commission that generally had been such a success it would have been better in the first instance, possibly, to extend its sphere of usefulness in the counties in which it had done so much. The right hon. Gentleman based his measure on the Bill that was introduced into this House by Sir George Trevelyan some years ago. But Sir George Trevelyan did not go nearly so far as the right hon Gentleman in his proposals. Sir George Trevelyan proposed to extend to small leaseholders in the crofting counties the provisions of the Crofters Act; he did not go outside the crofting counties, and he proposed, if he (Mr. Cochrane) remembered aright, to limit the amount of rent paid by these leaseholders to a very low sum. But his right hon. friend must take warning by the response which Sir George Trevelyan's Bill met with. It did not meet with acceptance in Scotland, and he would warn the right hon. Gentleman that the same fate might befall his more extended attempt. Why did the right hon. Gentleman depart from the definition of a crofter which was given very clearly by Sir George Trevelyan? Speaking from memory, he believed Sir George Trevelyan laid it down that the crofter class was distinct from other classes of the community because they had a hereditary claim upon the land. Those were the circumstances which they had to meet and in which certain of the crofters had been dispossessed of their holdings. That was a perfectly different set of circumstances from that which arose in the case of ordinary leaseholders in Scotland. This Bill was not confined to the Highlands, but was to extend to the whole of Scotland. If it applied to the whole of Scotland, why should it not apply to the whole of England as well? He thought some of the English Members on the other side would have something to say to that. If the Bill were confined to the crofting counties there would be something to be said for it, but when the right hon. Gentleman applied it to the rest of Scotland then a question of the greatest magnitude arose. The Prime Minister cheered that remark. When at subsequent stages this Bill was dealt with, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear those cheers in mind and not curtail discussion on a Bill of such great importance. The right hon. Gentleman, in the speech to which the House had just listened, had given no justification for departing from the policy laid down by his predecessor in office. The right hon. Gentleman had given no reason whatever for including the leaseholders of Scotland. He had shown no scintilla of evidence that there was any claim throughout Scotland for this extension or that it was in any way desired. He ventured to say that to do that about small crofts in Scotland having fixity of tenure which, from the very nature of the case, compelled the holders to make their own improvements would have a paralysing effect. Fixity of tenure had two sides to it. Not only was a man entitled to remain, but he must remain; not only was he entitled to pay the rent, but he must pay the rent; and when the small lease-holders realised that, the right hon. Gentleman would find that the proposal was not so attractive to them as he thought. Any small leaseholder who was anxious to renew his lease on the same terms as that on which he held it had not the slightest difficulty in obtaining an extension of his lease. When they told the small leaseholder that out of the fulness of their heart it was intended to fix him on his croft and compel him to pay the same rent and pay for all the improvements, he would not greet the proposal with cheers. One could not meet with the crofters without being impressed with the fact that they were a fine, intelligent body of men, and one would be glad to see them living under every condition that would make for their happiness. But they must not merely dwell upon the historical and sentimental aspect of the case. Time had gone ahead, and the conditions of life all through the country were not what they used to be. There would be an increasing difficulty in getting men who were content to live in the primitive conditions in which the old crofters used to live and thrive from fifty to eighty years ago. There was now a great desire to move to the other parts of the country. The whole standard of living had changed. He believed that the case made out for the crofter was roughly that he had been from time immemorial almost coeval with the land, and that he made his own improvements. For that reason only, so far as he could make out, it was proposed to put the leaseholder on the same footing. Were the Government going in the first place to set up a Land Court for Scotland to fix the rent of every small farmer throughout the Lowlands of Scotland? At once they would be face to face with questions of enormous difficulty. Were they going to initiate in Scotland that fatal form of ownership which they all deplored in Ireland, and had spent so much to remove, the system of dual ownership? Here were questions of enormous importance deserving most careful consideration. He did not gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman exactly how he was going to deal with the question of de-population. He failed to gather that the right hon. Gentleman was going to deal in any way with that important branch of the question. He could not see that he had any proposals to relieve the somewhat unhappy position of the small cottar, or that he was going to deal in an adequate manner with the grievances of the crofters. One of the principal grievances now felt by crofters was that whilst it was proposed willingly to give him land on which to raise his crop, he had no means of getting the wherewithal to stick it. He thought that in the applications to the Treasury which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make he might consider that necessity. If the right hon. Gentleman studied the Report of the Commission, he would see that three whole pages were taken up with the question of settling disputes as to who was to succeed into entails. If a similar system were brought in from all leaseholds in Scotland, the legal profession might be well one in which to place their sons if not to enter themselves. In giving fixity of tenure, would they really be carrying out the proposals that the very title of the Bill suggested? Was this a Bill to promote small holdings? Was a landlord who divided his land into small holdings and let it out to a tenant on an agreement that at the expiration of nineteen years the land should be handed back to him, likely to encourage the class of small leaseholder in Scotland if he was entitled to step in and take the improvements for his benefit? That would not turn him into a successful farmer. As a rule a ploughman obtained a small farm and after steady progress he would take a bigger one, but the right hon. Gentleman was now proposing to fix him in one place because he had entered into a permanent contract to pay a rent for a certain number of years. Under those circumstances the prospects of the ploughman rising in the social scale would be considerably lessened. Not only would he find all the farms about the size he wanted permanently fixed in the hands of a par- ticular class, but every landlord who now kept a small farm in the centre of his estate would be induced to give it up and add it to the next farm. It was almost impossible that a Bill of this magnitude embracing so many subjects could be effectively dealt with in this way. The Bill would' interfere with freedom of contract, and he had seen no clear justification for that in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. It did not deal adequately with the cottar and the crofter, or provide for their material improvement. It did not deal with the redundancy of population and it hindered the formation of small farms, which were the stepping stones by which the ploughman rose to a more prosperous state of affairs. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had done right in not considering the further stages of this Bill until the Autumn session, when he hoped the disucssion upon it would be as full and free as it deserved to be.

said he was glad that after many years of waiting a Bill dealing with this question had been brought in, and he desired to thank the Secretary for Scotland and the Prime Minister for having introduced it. He also desired to thank the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down for his sympathetic remarks in regard to small cottars and crofters. They had been waiting and asking the late Tory Government in vain for the last ten years for legislation. They never could got land legislation for Scotland from a Conservative Government, and he did not think they would if they lived for 100 years. The policy of the Congested Districts Board in Scotland had not succeeded. They had no compulsory powers and he was glad to hear the Secretary for Scotland state that the Bill would give compulsory powers for the enlargement and creation of new holdings. For years in the island of Lewis they had been trying to get land and had failed, because they had no compulsory powers. He had no doubt that in due course when English agriculturists found Scotland was going ahead of them they would ask for similar legislation. He hoped that in future the landlord would be prevented from seizing the crofter's house and all the improvements in case of bankruptcy or failure of heirs to the exclusion of all other creditors. There were some matters of detail which he desired to raise but he would deal with them in Committee. He was very grateful to the Secretary for Scotland and the Prime Minister that the leaseholders had been brought in under this Bill. For fifteen years he had been agitating for this reform, and each year had brought in a Bill to include crofter leaseholders. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had made a mistake in raising rents from £30 to £50. Hon. Members were aware that fixity of tenure had made the greatest difference to the Highland crofter. He hoped in regard to questions affecting the Highlands that they would not be guided by newspaper reports or opinions of sportsmen who were in the habit of visiting the Highlands for a few weeks pleasure. It should be remembered that the crofter had to build his own house, and that the landlord did not provide one shilling of the cost. It seemed to him in regard to that matter the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the facts. Those who had travelled in the Highlands and witnessed the work done through the operations of the Crofters Commission would admit that the results so far could not be praised too highly. There were willing and unwilling landlords, and the working of this Bill would depend in a great measure on the spirit in which all concerned approached the subject. In the island of Lewis and other congested districts it was essential that advances of a generous character should be made for the building of houses. The poor people there had been robbed of their rights for generations. He hoped the Bill would be printed and circulated without delay in order that it might reach the Highland constituencies at the earliest possible date. He was sure that the Prime Minister was at the back of the proposals now made, and that he would facilitate the progress of the measure.

congratulated the Secretary for Scotland on the introduction of this Bill which he had so ably explained. It was perfectly evident to the representatives of the northern districts that the right hon. Gentleman had thoroughly studied the great questions which affected the north of Scotland. He had done well to divide the Bill into two parts. The hon. Member from North Ayrshire wanted to know what justification there was for the introduction of the Bill. In answer to that he would say—" we are the justification for the introduction of the Bill." This land reform had been demanded with a practically unanimous voice from one end of the country to the other. The measure which the right hon. Gentleman had now brought forward would, he believed, do excellent work in Scotland. There was one matter to which the hon. Member referred in the guise of a threat in recalling the fate of Sir George Trevelyan's Bill. That was a long time ago. The Bill failed because it was not sufficiently drastic. If they did not get a reform now, and if they had to wait a few years more, they would have to face a much bigger land agitation than they were endeavouring to meet at present He sincerely trusted that the efforts of the Government to promote this moderate scheme of land reform would be successful.

said the speech of the Secretary for Scotland was such as they might have expected from him in bringing in this Bill. The main lines of the Bill were not only bold but sound. He thought the £50 line was right. It was in the Bill which he brought in with his right hon. friend some years ago. When they came to extend the crofting area there was really nothing for it except the inclusion of the whole of Scotland. That was inevitable, They might dispute as to the exact kind of protection to be given to the small tenant within the crofting area and outside of it, but whatever they did beyond the crofting area must necessarily extend to the whole of Scotland. He did not think they need trouble about definitions. He thought now, as he had always thought, that in the old Bills the definitions consisted to a considerable extent of fiction. He thought the present Bill was based on fact. The whole country was alarmed at the lack of population in the rural districts and was beginning to appreciate that there were two ways in which the population could be restored; one was by small holdings and the other by allotments. Much attention had been given to the question of small holdings but very little attention had been given to the other matter, and he hoped more would be done in regard to it. As to the proposals of the Bill he could not himself give a decided opinion because the Small Holdings Committee had not yet reported. Local authorities were really of no use in dealing with the subject of allotments or small holdings. It was not because of want of will, but there was want of method and economy. When there was a central committee of the kind proposed not only would the question of loans come in, but also the question of cheap equipment., upon which an immense amount depended. Alarm had been expressed about the possibility of the Commission's taking a piece of land in a farm and dotting down a number of small farm on it. That was not the system on which the Bill would have to be worked. There were some districts where with compulsory powers the Commission would naturally in the first place give small holdings a chance, and where they had a right to expect they would succeed. He saw no difficulty as to that part of the proposal. The Crofters Commission had a most intricate and difficult work to perform, and it had performed it with much tact and justice. All over the Highlands there had been a great change. He did not know what had been the cause. It might have been brought about during the war when many recruits were raised from the Highlands. But for one reason or another there was far less opposition to small holdings than there had been, and he believed the great majority of landlords would cooperate with the Commission, whatever their views might be, in carrying out the policy of his right hon. friend. He believed this Bill would be of advantage in both the Highlands and the Lowlands. There were, no doubt, other ways b v which the ends they aimed at might be arrived at, and he thought there should be a certain amount of latitude in regard to details. They must admit considerable right of initiative on the part of the State if they were to make any real progress in dealing with the land question. He congratulated his right hon. friend on the measure which he had introduced, and he believed that rightly administered it would bring prosperity to the whole country. The Bill should, in his opinion, be sent to a Grand Committee of Scottish Members so that it might be properly and thoroughly considered.

thanked the Government for introducing this Bill, and especially the Prime Minister, who had so far redeemed the promise which he made during the last election. Some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had stated that they were going to oppose the Bill. He supposed that the Tories would oppose anything which was intended to upset the old feudal system; but it must be remembered that the Tories had passed an Irish Land Act which had upset all feudal notions as to land tenure; and that which Parliament had given to Ireland could hardly be refused to Scotland. It was significant that all the crofter counties were now represented in this House by Liberal Members, whereas, under the old system, the crofters were practically bound hand and foot to their landlords and had to vote as they were told. In the county of Sutherland there was plenty of land to give every crofter a sufficient holding on which he and his family could live. Nearly 400,000 acres had been earmarked by the Royal Commission for that purpose. Undoubtedly the proper user of the land was one of the most important questions which could arise in any country; and the problem had been solved in Belgium, Holland and Denmark, where small holders were able to till the land and live upon it. The unemployed question could only be solved by keeping the people in the country, and giving them the land to work upon. For over twenty years he had been traversing the crofting counties, and a better population could not be found anywhere. He denied that these people were lazy; they were only too anxious to till the land if they were allowed to do so. He hoped that the Government would afford assistance to the crofters in getting their produce to market, which would be not only for the benefit of the crofters, but for the benefit of the country at large. He was glad to hear that there was to be compulsory powers because he was sure that a great many landlords, when they knew that compulsory powers were to be given, would come to terms with their crofting tenants. In fact, he believed that in very few instances would the compulsory powers have to be used at all. He was glad that the Congested Districts Board was to be done away with. It had made many mistake, it had done no good whatever, and nobody would be sorry at its demise or weep over its grave. He trusted that the right hon. the Secretary for Scotland would be able to issue copies of the Bill as soon as possible, so that the constituencies in the crofting counties and in Scotland generally might be fully instructed as to its provisions between now and the 23rd of October.

said that this was a day to which the people in the north had looked forward for many years past, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would give heart to thousands in that part of the country. He thought the Bill projected was sound and generous. He had been informed that the Crofters Act had been of considerable assistance to the landlords; and he had been told by both landowners and factors that they would not oppose an extension of the Act to leaseholders. It was absolutely necessary that there should be no reduction in the £50 limit in the county which he represented, for that was the kind of holding for which there was the largest demand. He hoped that his right hoi;, friend would use his utmost endeavour to get the Bill printed and circulated as soon as possible.

said the mere fact that the Bill proposed to establish a Land Commission with full power to deal with all cases of hardship was very satisfactory. When the right hon. Gentleman referred to the possible expropriation of landlords, he was bound to say that in the part of Scotland with which he was associated that was the very last thing they desired. Nothing caused them more sorrow than when they saw the sale of the estates of families who had long lived in the district. Among the powers to be given to the Land Commission he hoped to see included that of land purchase. There certainly were cases in which it was highly desirable in the interests of all parties that the property should pass en bloc from the present proprietor to the Land Commission. He hoped power would be given to the Land Commission to become absolute owners instead of being merely the machinery for the transfer of land from one set of proprietors to another. In the case of congested or over-populated districts, such a power would relieve the situation. They were all agreed as to the importance of preserving the population of the Highlands. During the last thirty or forty years that population had decreased by one half. That was a matter which urgently demanded attention, because if there was one section of the population worth preserving in the United Kingdom it was the population of the Highlands. Historically speaking, it was one of the oldest populations permanently settled on the land. They all knew the share it had taken ill the foundation of our Empire.

representing as he did an industrial centre in the Lowlands of Scotland, wished to dwell on the importance of attracting the people back to the land and of keeping the people on the land. Prom that point of view he heartily welcomed this Bill as one of the means whereby they might hope to help to solve the great unemployment problem. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire complained that the Bill would interfere wth freedom of contract. Well, he hoped that it would Interfere with the so-called freedom of contract in land, and that it would thereby save the people from being starved. They were told that the Land Commission was to have compulsory powers, and he would like to press on the Government the importance of making the Commissioners representative of the masses and not merely of the classes. While he did not commit himself to every detail of the Bill, not having seen them, still he welcomed the measure as they welcomed the appearance of the rainbow through the rain; as it enabled them to feel that the Government's promise was not to be in vain.

wished to join in the chorus of congratulation to the Secretary for Scotland on his large and drastic measure of reform. Previous speakers had nearly all been representatives of county constituencies, but he desired to offer his praise as a representative of the city and burgh constituencies. This question was not merely one relating to the land, and to the depopulation of the rural districts and valleys of Scotland. The townships of Scotland suffered severely, and it was on behalf of the poorest paid labourers in the great cities, who were suffering from the migration of those clans which once found a living in the Scottish glens, that he ventured to express the hope this Bill would pass. The measure would in his opinion go far to help the lowest paid labourers in the city. He had no desire to say a word against the Congested Districts Board, but he very much doubted the wisdom of the expenditure it had incurred by sending lads from the country districts into the town, and subsidising them during their apprenticeship so that they might enter into competition with the sons of skilled artisans desirous of following their fathers' trade. He knew cases in his own constituency of Greenock whore artisans were unable to get their sons apprenticed simply because of this subsidised competition.

, as the representative of a Lowland constituency, desired to join in the chorus of praise. The Bill dealt with a matter of vital importance to the country. Reference had been made to the depopulation of the Highlands, but those records could be fully equalled in some of the southern counties of Scotland, where the decrease of population could only be likened to the devastations caused by the Thirty Years German War. He could point to one parish in which in the last fifty years 250 cottages had been destroyed and 1,200 of population had disappeared. When the population of their villages was thus decaying they might well ask the reason why. The land was as good as any which could be found elsewhere, and the population was even better, or the Colonies would not be so eager to attract the people composing. They had the finest markets in the world. Why, then, this decay? It was the land Jaws which were at the root of the evil: tenants had not sufficient security for their investments in the land, so that they could not avail themselves of those newer methods of cultivation and organisation which were enabling agriculturists to make such strides in other parts of the world. Tney were open to the increasing competition of those who had security of tenure. In Canada they had fixity of tenure, so too had they in Denmark, and it was not confined to those countries, as he gathered when recently reading a work on the "Transition of Agriculture," which described how the fortunate small holders of Lincolnshire and Worcestershire sent whole train loads of produce to Glasgow. A man should have some security for his labour, and he thought the Bill would tend to create a prosperous, happy, and contented rural population.

said that on the Grand Committee his hon. friend moved a clause substantially in the terms now before the House, and he agreed that it was proper matter for a new clause with the addendum which the hon. Member had now added with reference to the Factory and Workshops Act. He objected, however, to the whole proposal, as it would allow the Government to direct that inquiries should not be held. It would lead to secret inquiries, and as a matter of principle he thought it would be safer not to adopt the proposed new clause.

said that in the Grand Committee his hon. friend had raised this question and he had asked leave to look into the matter. He thought the introduction of the clause would do no harm and he had great pleasure in accepting it.

moved an Amendment to the effect that not less than seven days notice should be given by the procurator fiscal to any person or persons affected that evidence of fault or negligence, etc., was to be adduced by him at an inquiry. The hon. Member said it to him seemed to be quite impossible on any principle of fairness to extend the powers of the jury to bring in a verdict against a man who might not have received previous notice. He could not conceive that there could be any objection to a proviso of this kind. If the period was thought to be too long he was willing to reduce the number of days. They were told in the Grand Committee that a verdict under this Bill would not involve any suggestion of criminality, but he was told by many lawyers that it was undesirable that a verdict of this kind should be passed in the absence of any man.

seconded.

said there was no [grievance at all, as the inquiry was not a prosecution at all. If there was plainly something wrong why should the jury be prevented from telling the truth about it? To ask the procurator-fiscal to make up his mind seven days before-an inquiry that somebody or other ight be affected was out of the question. It would be the duty of himself or his successor to issue the ordinary regulations after the passing of an Act of this kind, under which it would be provided that when from the papers before them there appeared a possibility that a question of anybody's innocence might or might not be raised then they should send an intimation to that person. [" Why not put it in the Bill."] The reason was that to do so would make the procurator-fiscal a Judge. Under the Act of 1895 there was a proviso that the examination of any person as a witness at any inquiry should not be a bar to any criminal proceeding against him and that no such person should be compelled to answer any question tending to show that he has been guilty of any offence. He thought when he had made an offer which completely satisfied the Grand Committee and when he had shown how very dangerous it would be before the inquiry was held to have information handed to the person that he was accused of negligence it ought to be quite sufficient.

said the object of the Amendment was to insure that there should be in the Bill itself some definite assurance of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had just said. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that he would order the information to be given under certain circumstances. The reason they asked for this assurance was because they were firmly convinced that it was an entirely wrong and unconstitutional principle to say that any man in this country should be found guilty of an offence by a verdict of his countrymen, when he had not had previous notice of the charge. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was not found guilty, that this was a mere civil inquiry and that the liability which attached to it was a civil liability. He did not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended seriously to assure the House that if a jury said that A. B. had died through the fault or negligence of C. D. they were not bringing in a verdict which at its lowest point amounted to the blame of culpable homicide against C. D.

No, no.

said that he would address himself to the authorities. Ever since the right hon. Gentleman had denied this in the conference he himself had been studiously looking this matter up, and what he asserted was that when a man died through the fault or negligence of another man, the other man was open to a charge which at the lowest was culpable homicide. That was perfectly clear from the definition of culpable homicide, given by Hume. He could also give the right hon. Gentleman references from Alison, and he referred him particularly to the last great criminal work by the late Lord Advocate in this House.

I agree.

said he now understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to agree that when a man caused the death of another, that he fell under the blame of culpable homicide.

No, not at all.

Then what does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree to? He referred to a case in which it was stated that to put the blame on a man was sufficient. He submitted that by this Bill as it stood, they were actually blaming a person. The verdict in itself blamed the man, and said that he was in fault or guilty of negligence, as it might be. He put it on the authority of the decisions extant that when that was done the verdict at its lowest point amounted to prima facie evidence of culpable homicide, and where such blame was possible and where such blame attached to a man it was only reasonable that everything should be done to insure that the man likely to suffer such blame should have notice and information as to the inquiry. He hoped therefore the Amendment would be accepted.

hoped this Amendment would not be passed, because the procurator fiscal could, not carry it out. It would be an extremely wrong thing if the procurator fiscal was to be allowed to cast any reflection upon a person by giving him notice unless there was something to justify it. Hon. Members should bear in mind that no action could be taken until the case was taken to another court. A coroner's court in England with all its powers could not hang a person. They found a verdict against him, and then the case went through the ordinary procedure. The working men of Scotland who wanted this Bill wanted it because they wished to know whether there was anybody to blame before they took proceedings. What they said was that they went to the courts and to considerable expense only to find they were wrong. He thought it would be altogether wrong to allow the procurator-fiscal to give notice. They wanted to have many of these inquiries. When in the City of London they commenced to make inquiries into the cause of fires, whether there was loss of life or not, it was found I that fires were largely stopped. These inquiries ought to be held in the interest of everyone concerned and he hoped the hon. Member would not insist on his Amendment and so put an impediment in the way of these inquiries which were for the benefit of both employers and workmen.

said the hon. Member for Sutherland had stated that one of the reasons why he would not support the Amendment was that whatever verdict the jury might give no action could be taken, but that that verdict was connected with other legal actions which might be taken elsewhere. But though no further legal action might be taken what would be the state of a man's mind if a jury found that he was guilty of culpable homicide, when he was not present at the inquiry, and had no remedy and no opportunity of clearing himself of the charge? His position would be far more serious if he had no notice that such a charge was to be made, and no opportunity of refuting it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman agreed that before a charge was brought against an individual that individual should have notice, and the method which he suggested was that a letter should be written to the procurator - fiscal asking him to give him notice. If it were right that a man should have notice before a charge was brought against him, why not put it in the Bill? He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that unless he wanted to have a verdict of culpable homicide brought against him for keeping hon. Members in the House until Sunday morning he should meet them in a conciliatory spirit.

said he did not think there could be any better evidence of his having done so than the way in which he had dealt with the House. He had already accepted two Amendments.

admitted that the right hon. Gentleman was a marvel of good temper under the strain and stress of circumstances, but he would like to press his good nature a little further. The right hon. Gentleman admitted there was substance in the argument brought forward by his hon. friend. Could he not meet it by introducing into the Bill an Amendment stating that where practicable the. Procurator-fiscal should give notice to any person or persons likely to be affected? It could do no harm, and he thought it would remove a grievance.

said that by the indulgence of the House he might be allowed to say that there seemed to be a point in the last observation of the hon. Gentleman which might remove a difficulty in the practical working of the Act. The House would understand that he totally dissented from the view of anything in the nature of a criminal inquiry at all. On the other hand he would communicate the view last presented by his hon. friend to the Lord Chancellor to see whether, if possible, without interfering with, the practical and prompt working of the Bill they could adopt some words of the kind suggested. If it were not done the hon. Gentleman would understand it was because they believed it would kill the principle of the Bill. But they would very favourably consider it.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether in the communication he proposed to make to the Lord-Chancellor he would include in it the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire.

Certainly.

said he was quite willing to accept the right hon. Gentleman's offer, and would withdraw his Amendment.