To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a letter purporting to be written from Government House, Natal, in the present year, on behalf of the Governor, in which it is suggested that His Excellency is advised in the matter of reserving Bills by the law officers of the Crown for Natal, and must be guided by their opinion; and whether he will state how far, as concerns subjects named in instructions as those which should be reserved, a Governor is guided by the advice of members of the Government directly concerned, and how far he acts on his own responsibility.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware of a general desire in His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, North and South, that a re-arrangement of time for the three months November, December, and January should be effected so that the working hours for the three months may become, the same as those arranged by the Admiralty from 1st February to 31st October, thus creating one uniform time; and whether, in view of the advantages to the employees accruing from the concession of the working hours of the aforesaid nine months, he would grant their continuance for the whole of the twelve mouths, thus placing the employees on the same system as at Portsmouth dockyard.

To ask the Secretary for Scotland what is the number of prisoners (male) which it is estimated that the new Greenock Prison will hold.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland when the Charitable Loans Fund Bill comes into law; and whether he can hold out any hope that the debenture holders in the Edgeworthstown Loan Fund, who lost their lives' savings by the defalcations of a fraudulent clerk named Flaver, will be recouped any of their losses by the operations of this Bill.

To ask the Lord-Advocate whether the United Free Church have made representations to the Commissioners, urging that the amount of £3,000 a year allocated for the education of students for the ministry of the Free Church should be made by way of annual contribution at the hands of the United Free Church; and, if so, whether this is an allocation of the Free Church property as between the two churches.

To ask the Lord Advocate whether, seeing that Subsection 3, Clause 1, of the Churches (Scotland) Act enacts that the funds and property of the Church are to be applied in accordance with the second column of the First Schedule of the Act, he is aware that, notwithstanding this fact, the Commissioners had allocated the three Free Church colleges to the United Free Church, along with five libraries, and that they have allocated only the upper floors of the offices of the Free Church to the Free Church to serve as a college, without any library; and whether, seeing that the Act provides that the Free Church is entitled to a college from the colleges, he will say what section of the Act of Parliament gives the Commissioners power to act in this manner.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has in contemplation legislation in regard to compulsory vaccination which will prevent parents who have gone to the trouble and expense of making application to the magistrates for exemption for their children, on the ground of conscientious objection, being subsequently summoned and fined for adhering to their opposition.

To ask the Secretary of State for India, when the Return of the correspondence between the India Office and the Government of India and the British Cotton Growing Association, which was presented to the House on 5th November, will be in the hands of Members.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to say what steps, if any, will be taken by the Congested Districts Board to improve the landing facilities at Cooscroum, County Kerry.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from James Clancy, Drumaculla, Largydonnell, barony of Rosclogher, county of Leitrim; and, if so, what steps they are taking with a view to his reinstatement.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, having regard to the damage caused to the crops of the neighbouring farmers by the overflow of the Largydonnell River, in the barony of Rosclogher, county of Leitrim, and to the fact that the bed of the river has been gradually filled with stones until it has completely disappeared, he will urge the Congested Districts Board to reconsider their decision regarding the drainage scheme and give a sufficient grant to have the work carried out.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether negotiations are pending for the sale of the Nash estate, Drumnacross, Kilosnet, County Leitrim; whether he is aware that the agent, Mr. Hewton, refuses to give a tenant named Michae M'Goldrick turbary, although turbary is available on the estate, even for tenants living on adjoining estates; and whether he will request the Estates Commissioners not to complete the sale until they have investigated the complaint made by M'Goldrick.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application for reinstatement has been received by the Estates Commissioners from James Galvin, Portarlington, who was evicted from a holding on the estate of Dr. Tabuteau, situate at Brackna, near that town; whether he is aware that Dr. Tabuteau, who is medical officer of the district, recently applied for sick leave to the Mountmellick Board of Guardians, and immediately proceeded to superintend farm operations upon Galvin's evicted farm; and, seeing that a substitute was appointed and paid out of the rates to perform Dr. Tabuteau's duties, can he say what course the Local Government Board propose taking in the matter.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many of the majority of fifty-two, who voted at the Agricultural Council meeting on the 27th November last in favour of subsidising the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society out of the Department's funds, were officials and members of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society; and can he say how many of the majority of fifty-two were nominated members of the Agricultural Council.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will inquire from the Board of Works, Dublin, the reason why the holiday which was formerly granted to the staff on New Year's Day is about to be discontinued; and, in view of the fact that in nearly every Government Department in Dublin, including the Chief Secretary's Office, as well as in numerous commercial offices, this day is given as a holiday, will he see that the same privilege is extended to the Board of Works officials, considering that the working of the Department was not hindered in any way by the arrangements made in former years. (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am informed that the Board of Works have reconsidered the holidays granted to their staff with the view of bringing them into conformity with the general regulations and practice of the Civil Service, and have therefore excluded New Year's Day, which is not generally recognised as a holiday. I see no reason for interfering with this decision.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the present position of affairs respecting the proposed extensions to the Cavan and Leitrim Railway, for which provision was made by the late Government in the Development Grant Estimate; and whether it is intended to renew this provision in the Estimate for 1907–8.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the amount set aside out of moneys provided by the Marine Works Act on harbour works, originally contemplated at Innishlyre, county Mayo; whether the construction of these works has now been definitely abandoned; if so, is it proposed to expend the full amount of the grant provided for Innishlyre on other works of public utility in the county Mayo; and whether he can hold out any hope that effect will be given to the recommendation of the late Government in favour of the opening up of the district between Mullaranny and Belmullet, by the construction of a line of railway connecting these places, in substitution for works at Innishlyre.

:To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to state the cause of the delay in the sale of the O'Brien estate at Cornakelly and Corglass, in North Longford; whether he is aware that the negotiations for the sale of this estate have extended over seven years; whether the offer of the Estates Commissioners to the Land Judge for this estate has yet been made or accepted; and, if not, can he hold out any hope that the sale will go through and state when the Estates Commissioners will give the tenants their vesting orders.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the Hussey estate at Ahabeg, North Kerry, which has been purchased by the Congested Districts Board, will be taken over by the Estates Commissioners and vested in the tenants.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Messrs. Coffey and Considine, Local Government Board inspectors, are at present conducting an inquiry into certain charges of neglect of duty, preferred by the Strabane Rural District Council and the Strabane Board of Guardians against their clerk, Mr. J. E. Sharkie; that, on the 20th November, 1906, during the investigation of these charges by the inspectors, Mr. Sharkie tendered his resignation to the above-mentioned bodies; will he say whether Mr. Sharkie has been censured by the Local Government Board for neglect of duty; and if so, how often; whether Mr. Sharkie has been summoned by the Local Government Board to Strabane Petty Sessions; if so, what was the nature of the charge preferred, and the decision of the magistrates in the matter; and whether, pending the result of the inquiry, the Local Government Board will sanction the acceptance of Mr. Sharkie's resignation by the above-mentioned bodies?

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the limit of age in connection with the forthcoming examination for junior inspectors, excludes several school teachers who proposed to compete; and whether, seeing that the limit of age for such teachers was thirty-nine years, in consideration of being already in the service of the Commissioners of Education, the Commissioners can state the ground for the alteration in the present examination?

To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the strength of the following branches of the service prior to June, 1895, viz., Reserve of the Royal Artillery, Army Service Corps, Army Ordnance' Corps, Royal Army Medical Corps, Army Pay Corps, Army Veterinary Corps, Post Office Reservists, and Sick Bearers in connection with the Royal Army Medical Corps, but not actually serving; and what are the strengths at the present time?

To ask the Prime Minister if he will assign Wednesday to the remaining stages of the Public Trustee Bill; and, having regard to the daily increasing loss caused by the misappropriations of trustees, and failing the possibility of such enactment this session, if he will undertake that the Bill shall have an early place in the legislative programme of next session?

who had given notice of his intention to propose the insertion of the words "of science and" after the word "promotion," said he would not move the Amendment, because he had come to the conclusion that the interests of science were sufficiently safeguarded under this Bill. He heartily congratulated the Secretary for Scotland on having arrived at a solution of the difficulty in a statesman-like and business-like manner.

The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make a speech, as he is not moving his Amendment.

moved as an Amendment that the Board should consist of nine members, one to be appointed by each of the following six city councils, but not necessarily a member, namely, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen, Inverness, and Perth, and three by the Secretary for Scotland. The hon. Member said he included Inverness because it was the capital of the north of Scotland. He complained that the Report of the Committee which sat in 1903, and over which the right hon. Member for St. Augustine's presided, was being ignored from beginning to end, and he failed to understand why a Committee which considered the whole question so thoroughly should have its Report treated in such a manner. This was not a mere Edinburgh affair, but a Scottish matter, and it should be treated as such. He had no faith in the gentlemen appointed by the Secretaries for Scotland to these Boards, especially after the experience they had had in connection with the Board of Manufactures, to which gentlemen were appointed—not to do any work but to secure for them some sort of official position. According to the Report of the Committee they did not make good attendances at the meetings. He desired to know what the Secretary for Scotland proposed. Everything had been done in a most secretive manner. Moreover, it was unfair that a Bill of this character should be brought in at the fag-end of the session.

said it was true the Bill did not follow the recommendations of the Committee to which the hon. Member had referred, but it would be found that the Government's proposals as a whole followed in many respects the suggestions of that Committee. The congestion of accommodation in Edinburgh would be completely relieved by the proposals of the Bill, founded largely on the help of the Treasury, who in this matter, he thought, had been considerate and generous. The changes in the Bill would give double space to the National Gallery and to the Royal Academy, and for the latter it would provide a new home. Further, it would contribute largely to provide a new School of Art, and with the help of the Government in this matter, combined with the efforts of the Town Council of Edinburgh and the Scottish Education Department, and the aid of voluntary contributions, they hoped to establish a fitting School of Art in Edinburgh as the capital of Scotland. The Bill proposed to substitute for the present controlling Board a new branch of smaller size and more business-like character, whose duties would be the care of the National Galleries of Scotland and the promotion of the fine arts generally. To the proposal that there should be an element in the Board not nominated by the Secretary for Scotland, but by some outside authority, there were objections which were very difficult to overcome, one being that this was a Board entrusted with duties in Scotland, the execution of which depended largely upon Parliamentary grants. The House of Commons, which contained the only really national representation of Scotland, should have the right to challenge the appointment of any member of the Board.

How?

said the nomination would be made by the Secretary for Scotland, who was responsible to the House.

But we shall never get a chance of challenging them.

said the House had a perfect right to challenge any action on his part. But the right of challenge would not exist if the nomination was vested in anybody except the Minister responsible to the House, and it was desirable that they should maintain that principle. The second reason for not departing in principle from the proposals of the Bill was that it was exceedingly difficult to have any equal and fair representation of all parts of Scotland. They might take Inverness and leave out Perth. They might take Edinburgh and Glasgow and leave out Perth and Dundee; or they might include Perth and Dundee, and leave out Paisley, Kirkcaldy—

And Alloa.

continuing, said that even then there were counties which would not be directly represented. The principle required that the nomination of the members should lie under the control of the House of Commons, and the facts of the case supported principle in that respect. For that reason they had departed from the recommendation of the Committee, and were unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sutherland. He quite recognised that there was great value in the proposal that the Board should be kept in touch, so far as possible, with local and municipal interests in Scotland, and, provided they could secure that without infringing on the principle he had mentioned, he thought they should do what they could to obtain it. What he proposed to do was to suggest to the House acceptance of an Amendment to the effect that three of the seven members should be members of elected local authorities in Scotland. The small Board would be a more business-like arrangement. Fresh blood could always be brought in to keep up the connection with the local life in Scotland, so that the direction of the interests of art might be according to the real aspirations of the people.

said to could not support the Amendment, and he was not more in love with the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. He complained that the right hon. Gentleman had departed from the recommendations of the Departmental Committee in two important particulars. Under his proposals there would be no direct representation of the Royal Scottish Academy and other scientific societies, and there would not be a National Gallery in Scotland worthy of the nation. Apparently the present building in which the national pictures were hung was to be turned into a gallery, and any idea of a new National Gallery was to be abandoned for ever.

Not for ever.

said they were asked to sanction a large expenditure for the purpose of turning into a National Gallery a building which, according to the evidence given before the Committee, was absolutely unsuited for that purpose.

I do not think I can allow a discussion on the question of sites and buildings to go on on this Amendment.

replied that statements of the kind had been made by the other side, and he failed to see how he could reply to hon. Members if he was not allowed to deal with the points they had raised. But, of course, he bowed to the ruling of the Chair. He concluded by saying that the right hon. Gentleman had ignored the point of the Committee that there should be representation on the Board of the Royal Scottish Academy and the Society of Antiquaries. He asked for some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that in making the appointments under the Bill he would bear in mind the special interests he had mentioned.

admitted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Augustine's Division of Kent, did valuable service for Scotland as chairman of the Departmental Committee which inquired into this question. But he thought the right hon. Gentleman had hardly been fair to the Secretary for Scotland, because if he allowed for the changed conditions he would see that the present Bill was largely framed on the recommendations of his own Committee. The Royal Society did not now require extra accommodation, as it was excluded from the purview of the Board. The constitution of the Board with which they were now dealing was entirely on the lines recommended by the Departmental Committee in so far as it gave an absolute majority to be nominated by the Secretary for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman had said that the Royal Scottish Academy was not directly represented. He did not know what was in the mind of the Secretary for Scotland, but he was sure that any Board nominated by the Scottish Office would include a representation of the Royal Scottish Academy. In this matter they must trust the representative of Scotland in this House. The Amendment was entirely subversive of Parliamentary control and against the recommendations of the Committee which his hon. friend so largely supported. His hon. friend in proposing local representation ignored the county councils of Scotland. He thought the smaller Board would discharge its duties more conscientiously, and that more responsibility would be placed on each individual member. A great deal could be said for local representation, but if it were to come in, the Secretary for Scotland would have a difficult task before him in justly apportioning local representation over the whole of the country. Perhaps they were exaggerating the importance of local representation, and he would give a word of warning on this point, because if the proposal of his hon. friend were given effect to it would only be representation once removed. He knew no form of representation more dangerous and unsatisfactory than that. If they were to have direct representation Edinburgh had a large claim, not only on account of its geographical situation, and as the capital of Scotland, but because it was going to provide £30,000 for the promotion of a new school of art. His hon. friend the Member for the Dumfries Burghs wished the Convention of Royal Burghs represented. That was no doubt a very useful and distinguished body, but it was not specially representative of high art, and there they would have representation twice removed. He saw great objection to a hard and fast line being laid down in the Bill with regard to either the localities or the interests concerned, but there was a strong feeling that there ought to be some form of local representation on the board of trustees. He thought the solution of the difficulty was to be found in the Secretary for Scotland's Amendment. The most important thing to secure, however, was that they should have complete Parliamentary control, and that they would obtain if the appointment were left in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland, who was responsible to Parliament. They were dealing with money provided by the State, and it was absolutely essential that control should be kept in this House. If in the past Parliamentary control had not been effective it was largely due to the fact that they had had ten years of unsympathetic government. If in future Parliamentary control were not effective the blame would rest entirely with his hon. friend the Member for Sutherland and others who sat in this House. The Minister for Scotland must be held responsible for the administration of Scotland, and he thought those who were objecting to the constitution of the Board ought not to press their objection to the point of delaying the passing of the Bill. It was wanted in Scotland, and they really got so little for Scotland that they ought to take all they could get. This was not a vital point and he hoped Scottish Members would not do anything to delay the Bill, because if they did, it would not facilitate the granting of any further demands, and he was sure they did not wish to give an opportunity to those who believed that the only duty of an Opposition was to oppose, and who, he had no doubt, would take advantage of any stick with which to beat the back of the Government. However, he did not think there was any real desire on either side of the House to delay the Bill, which was accepted as a benefit to Scotland, and he hoped they would unanimously approve Clause 4.

hoped the discussion would not be prolonged. At the same time it was fair to point out that whilst they were discussing a compromise, it was not a compromise entirely between the Secretary for Scotland and hon. Gentlemen opposite. He recognised that the compromise suggested by the Secretary for Scotland was a very fair one, and he should give it his hearty support. The view of certain artistic associations and authorities in Scotland had been very strongly in favour of direct representation upon the Board, but there had been a change of opinion on one side among the witnesses, and the view of those most competent to deal with the subject in Scotland had gone rather away from the Report of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and in favour of the proposal of the Secretary for Scotland. He therefore though this right hon. friend's suggestion was the best solution of the question, and he trusted the proposal would be embodied in the Bill.

said it was a sound proposition that the Secretary for Scotland should be responsible for the Board. He thought it was not beyond the power of the House to say that some of the gentlemen whom the right hon. Gentleman nominated should be representative of art interests in Scotland—who knew art practically, and had given their lives to it.

said he was very much surprised indeed to hear the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh. He thought his hon. friend entirely misrepresented public opinion in Scotland with regard to the appointment of a Board which was to manage a great national concern. His hon. friend ought to know that if there was one thing more repugnant to the feeling of Scotland than another it was nominated boards. Unless there was a large share of popular representation on the Board the Bill would entirely fail to evoke in a tangible form the national sentiment of Scotland to aid in the promotion of art. In saying this he was also voicing the opinion of a conference of artists and laymen in regard to the main part of the Bill. He would only quote two sentences from the opinion of the conference and begged the House to weigh thorn well—

"The Bill will fail of its purpose unless it is altered because it proposes a Board of Trustees to be chosen by the Secretary for Scotland—that is, a purely bureaucratic Board—intended to be national in effect. No Bill could do this, especially in Scotland. It is against the spirit of the people. For a thing to be national in Scotland you must take the nation with you from the start and keep it with you. No matter what label you put on it, such an insti- tution can only be truly national if it effectively brings into play the living interest of the nation, interest to equip it, interest to maintain and administer it, and interest to appreciate it."

thanked the Secretary for Scotland for the concession he had made, although he had an Amendment which he of course preferred to any other plan. He was not at all afraid that his right hon. friend in his nominations would not have regard to the interests of art; but what he had been afraid of was that his right hon. friend might not appreciate the necessity of having on the Board men who really represented the people and the visitors to the galleries, because under the old Board that was the chief trouble. This Board not only had to buy pictures, but it had to induce people to see them when they were bought, and it was to popularise the constitution of the Board that he had put down his Amendment. But he quite appreciated the desire of the Secretary for Scotland for Parliamentary control, and he thought his right hon. friend had met them very fairly indeed in agreeing that three of the members of the Board should be members of directly elected local authorities. He wanted business men, accustomed to business affairs in town councils and county councils, to look after a matter like this, and to be in touch with the people, so as to see for one thing that the galleries were open on public holidays, and also to remove the obnoxious charge for umbrellas and sticks which was made in the Scottish galleries but not in the English galleries.

regretted that the hon. Member opposite by implication should have charged him and his hon. friends with obstruction. It was not necessarily the duty of the Opposition to oppose, and all he would say was that if the hon. Gentleman would do him personally the honour of looking back on the Parliamentary records he would find that a good many years ago he was the only Member who raised the claim of Scottish art when the question was unpopular in this House, and when such a claim was unheard of in Scotland. They had had a thoroughly business like discussion for forty minutes to-day, and he therefore resented any suggestion of there being a disposition to obstruct, especially as there was only one other question of importance raised by this Bill. He regretted this change in the Bill. He was inclined to think that seven was too small a number to constitute the Board. It was not exclusively a question of buying pictures and keeping the galleries clean. They had to look after Dunblane.

said as a matter of fact the Board would only have to hold the funds for Dunblane and would have nothing practical to do with respect to it.

said he did not realise that the First Commissioner of Works had to be responsible for anything beyond its structure. However it was not a material point, though, of course, to that extent he was wrong. But when they had selected three members from local authorities, there were only four left to be nominated from other bodies, and it was obvious that the Antiquaries must be represented on the board, and it was admitted that the Royal Academy must be represented; that rather reduced the sphere from which the right hon. Gentleman could select representatives. If after two or three years it was found difficult, as he anticipated, to get a regular quorum, it would be a very simple thing for the Secretary for Scotland to have the number enlarged. It was purely an experimental number. He thought it would prove in the long run to be too small. This new Board was not going to be an affair to meet once a quarter, but it was to do its work regularly and properly, and in any case a quorum of three was too small for work of this character. He liked still less the Amendment standing in the name of the Member for Dumfries Burghs. He was in favour of a wholly nominated Board, and if the Secretary for Scotland made a bad nomination it was the duty of hon. Members to haul him over the coals. As to local representation, if they chose the three best men for the purpose in Scotland they would not represent local and municipal life. He submitted that hon. Members were setting to work in the wrong way. Each Member representing a Scottish borough would expect his own borough to be represented, he supposed. Edinburgh had almost a right to be represented, and the reason only one municipal or local authority was recommended in his right hon. friend's Report was that only one municipality in Scotland had given towards a National Gallery. He feared they were not going to got a wholly nominated Board as originally proposed by the Secretary for Scotland, and they were not going to get the wholly representative Board as proposed by the hon. Member below the gangway. There was absolutely no guarantee that these men would represent local or municipal life. The right hon. Gentleman could only select from among persons who, at the time of selection, were elected persons. They were to be nominated by the Secretary for Scotland, but they could retire from the local authorities without ceasing to be members of the Board of Trustees. He appealed to the Lord-Advocate to say whether that was not what was meant by the words in subsection (1) of Clause 4, that the Board "shall consist of seven members, who shall hold office for five years from the establishment of the Board, and who may be re-appointed."

said that the security taken in the Bill was that the trustee should be a member of a representative body when appointed, but that his appointment might be for a longer term than five years.

said there was no guarantee, that a man would remain a member of the local authority after he had been appointed a member of the Board. If he did not retire from the Board on ceasing to be a member of a local authority, 30 per cent. of the "local touch" might be lost. The Secretary for Scotland had given notice of an Amendment to provide that three of the members should be members of elected local bodies in Scotland, and he merely wished to point out that that need not necessarily bring about the local touch which the right hon. Gentleman desired to have. He should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman had adhered to the provision in the Bill in this particular, and above all, to the financial particular that followed. He did not admit that any local authority had a direct qualification to appoint a member to the Board. Members of local authorities were elected on wholly different grounds. The case was different in England, where local bodies appointed aldermen because of their special knowledge of various subjects. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would carefully watch the experiment which it was proposed to make, so far as the constitution of the Board was concerned, with the view to amending the Act if it should be found, as he rather anticipated, that seven Members were not sufficient adequately to fulfil the duties.

said the noble Lord entirely mistook the feeling on both sides of the House if he supposed that his intervention in the debate was resented. On the contrary they welcomed it. He would say frankly that he thought the compromise proposed was a fair Parliamentary transaction, and one which entitled the House to say it was thankful that the Secretary for Scotland had, in conjunction with Scottish Members and Scottish local bodies, been able to come to a conclusion which scorned satisfactory on all hands. The noble Lord seemed to think that there might be difficulties in obtaining the artistic element from the area of selection. He would simply refer him to two or three municipalities. The municipal Corporation of Glasgow had shown the very highest interest in the development of art in Scotland. The same could be said of the municipalities of Aberdeen and Dundee. Edinburgh also had a good record in that particular. That was a complete answer to the objection that there was not material of excellent artistic quality from which to make the selection. On the whole the Government preferred a system which, on true democratic lines, produced artistic results, rather than to be forced into a selection of people called aldermen, of whom they did not happen to have any north of the Tweed. The noble Lord's speech would not be lost on his right hon. friend in making the selection. He conceived it utterly impossible that any responsible person in his nominations would neglect the existing artistic bodies in Scotland. The arrangement now proposed was open to Amendment on the lines which the noble Lord had suggested, but he did not think there would be any difficulty in regard to a quorum. He did not agree with the noble Lord as to the size of the Board, as he thought it was better to have a compact and proper business assembly in matters of this kind.

said the noble Lord the Member for the Chorley Division rendered great service to Scotland in this matter in the last Parliament, and none of the Scottish representatives resented the part he had taken in the debate. He had good reason for knowing that the Bill and all its details had been most carefully considered by the Scottish Members, and he thought the conclusion to which the Scotch Secretary had come was a fair compromise.

said he had spent thirty years on municipal bodies, and he knew something about them. He infinitely preferred the Board originally proposed to the compromise which the Secretary for Scotland had come to with those who had been squeezing him for the last two or three weeks. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been left with a perfectly free hand. There were not many people connected with the local authorities in Scotland who could be chosen as trustees. Sir James Gibson Carmichael would make an excellent representative, but he had come across very few who could be suitably chosen in the county councils with which he had been connected. He did not wish to sound a note of discord, or to be thought obstructive, but he wished to express regret that the right hon. Gentleman had not adhered to his original proposal.

said he still thought nine would have been a better number than seven, because he was anxious to got a larger representation of outside bodies.

said it should not be assumed that the three largest municipalities in Scotland were necessarily to be represented on the Board. There were local authorities in smaller places from which persons of artistic taste might be chosen.

said that nobody could allege that they had had too much time to discuss Scottish questions during this session. This was practically the only Scottish measure which had been brought forward this year, as everybody knew; and when any Scottish Member had to attack the Secretary for Scotland on some appointment which had been made, it was made a personal affair as against the Secretary for Scotland, and if a division were challenged the Party Whips were invariably brought in to outvote the Scottish Members. He did not wish to make any personal attack on the Secretary for Scotland, who was most courteous and gentlemanly, and treated the Scottish Members fairly; but, still, on questions like this the right hon. Gentleman,could by the power of the Government Whips, bring in a majority which could vote down the Scottish Members unmercifully. He complained that they had not had the slightest chance this session of discussing Scottish affairs. He did not see why they should have to attack the appointment of these gentlemen through the Secretary for Scotland. He had been accused of being a simple-minded enthusiast; but his enthusiasm, unlike that of the hon. Gentleman, went beyond the Scots Greys. It seemed to be left to English Members to discuss these matters of Scottish historic buildings, and he confessed that he would like to see a little more enthusiasm among Scottish Members in regard to, for instance, the King's Park at Stirling, which he had saved for the people. He agreed with the noble Lord that the members of the Board of Trustees who represented the local authorities should cease to be trustees when they ceased to be members of the local authority. He wanted to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the new body of trustees, when appointed, would have power to consider the question of a new building for a National Gallery, and the site on which it was to be erected.

said that that question was not in order. What they were now discussing was the constitution of the new Board.

said he bowed to the decision of the Chairman, but supposed he would have an opportunity later on of raising the point. He confessed that he would have been much better pleased if they had had no Bill at all during the present year than a bad Bill. He thought that the people of Scotland ought to have had more opportunity to consider what was the best thing to be done in this, which was a national matter, and not a mere Edinburgh affair.

said he thought the Committee were entitled to an answer from the right hon. Gentleman on the two points which had been raised, viz., whether the claims of the Royal Scottish Academy and other art societies in Scotland would be considered by the right hon. Gentleman in constituting the Board, and whether he would consider other qualifications when he was making the appointment.

said that all the claims and elements mentioned were bound to be considered in constituting the Board. It would be his duty to inform himself to the very fullest possible extent as to every claim that could be made.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not reconsider the question of increasing the number of the Board of Trustees to nine.

said that the number of the Board originally proposed was seven, and that had been arrived at after very careful consideration. From the point of view of getting a good working Board, he thought the number should be limited to seven; and in that he was supported by his friends behind him; therefore he was very reluctant to make any change in the number of seven.

said that that was not the opinion of the Scottish members generally, who thought that there should be a larger number on the Board.

said he really could not let this discussion go on. The number of members of the Board was already decided.

thought the words of the Secretary for Scotland would limit the area of selection on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The mere nomination of men who happened to be members of a local board did not secure local interest such as would be obtained if the municipalities themselves nominated the members. He, however, did not propose to divide against the Amendment.

asked if the persons who had served as trustees for five years, and on their appointment were members of local authorities, were to be allowed to continue on the Board of Trustees when, they had ceased to be members of the local authorities.

said they would not be continued on the Board of Trustees as representatives of the local authorities; but they might be reappointed in another character.

as Deputy Chairman of Committees, took the Chair, in place of Mr. Emmott.

said he wished to express the pleasure with which the Members for Scotland welcomed the Deputy-Chairman of Committees back to the House after his illness. He had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out "four" in Clause 4, and insert "five of whom may be reappointed."

ruled that the Amendment was not in order.

moved an Amendment to the effect that when vacancies should occur on the Board new members should be appointed by the Board and not by the Secretary for Scotland. He ventured to think that the Secretary for Scotland had sufficient power in connection with the Board, and that in the event of vacancies occurring he ought to allow the Board to fill them.

hoped that the Secretary for Scotland would not accept this Amendment. The words which came before them dealt with a casual vacancy. It was necessary that the right hon. Gentleman should have a large range of choice. The lines of the Bill followed the Report of the Committee in this matter.

said that, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, they were following the Report of the Committee upon this subject, and they would stultify themselves if they consented to any change of the Bill in this respect. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

moved that the chairman should be appointed by the Board and not by the Secretary of Scotland, pointing out that the chairman would have a double power in regard to voting.

seconded the Amendment, to which he hoped the Secretary for Scotland would agree. If they were to appoint a Board which was to have no power except at the will of the Secretary for Scotland, and to do what he told them, the Bill would be absolutely useless. If a board of guardians could not appoint even a nurse without the consent of the Local Government Board, that was not local control If this Bill were adopted in its present shape they would have the same sort of thing in Scotland by and bye, as the right hon. Gentleman would not always be Secretary for Scotland. Why this selected body of seven could not be allowed to appoint their own chairman he could not understand. If they were not allowed to do so it would be better not to have any Board at all, but to leave the whole "show" to the Secretary for Scotland. The representatives of the people of Scotland should have some control; responsibility and control should go together.

hoped the Committee would give the Secretary for Scotland discretion in the matter. It would largely depend upon the chairman, at least for the first few years, how matters would go, and it was for the Secretary for Scotland to say whether the men selected for this duty were really the men who intended to give time and thought and trouble to the interests of the Board. He asked hon. Members to look to the future and not to the past and to adhere to the proposals of the Bill.

said the right hon. Gentleman had asked them to look to the future, and that was the point which ought to be taken into consideration. It would be all right if they were satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman was going to be at the Scottish Office for the next twenty years. He thought they might have confidence in his carrying out the Bill in its entirety. But they had to consider how a Tory Secretary might administer it. This was a small reasonable Amendment, and after all there should be some recognition of the democratic principle by a democratic House of Commons.

said one of the great complaints made against the old Board of Manufactures was that there was no continuity of policy, and it was pointed out that one of the reasons was that they had no permanent chairman. He supported the Secretary for Scotland in this matter, and thought that it was of great importance that the Secretary for Scotland should appoint the chairman. They desired to put the responsibility upon the Government, because by so doing a better qualified man would be obtained. If the Secretary for Scotland had the appointment he would have to bear in mind that the person appointed should possess both artistic and business qualifications, and that his action was a matter for Parliamentary criticism. To secure also a continuity of policy the appointment should be made for a considerable period. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would adhere to his proposal.

complained that during this session only three or four hours had been given for the discussion of Scottish affairs and that time was devoted to the question of pupil teachers. Before discussing the Amendment before the Committee he submitted that the ought to have some explanation from the Secretary for Scotland as to the intention of this clause. Was it the intention to appoint a permanent chairman whose duty was to extend beyond the period of the Board over which he presided, or was it proposed that he should cease to hold office when the Board ceased to exist? If it was intended that the chairman should hold office for five years the clause would require an Amendment.

said that briefly the principle that he recommended was that in order that the House of Commons should have full control in this matter the chairman should vacate his position at the end of five years.

said in that case a detailed Amendment was necessary, namely, that it should not be less than one year.

said that was a very small point which might be left to the regulations that were to be prescribed for the conduct of the business of the Board.

Would those regulations be submitted to this House?

No, Sir.

:I thought not.

asked whether these regulations would say that the chairman should not be appointed for less than one year.

replied in the negative; the regulations would only supplement in detail the main lines on which the Board might act, as laid down by Parliament.

said he entirely agreed with the desirability of the Board appointing its own chairman, and as part of the compromise entered into he would not move his Amendment. His hon. friend had reserved one point, namely, that the chairman's appointment should come up annually for confirmation—that if a man was appointed chairman for a period of five years his appointment should come up annually to be confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland so that this House might have an opportunity of criticising that gentleman if he failed in his duty in any way. He would, therefore, like to move to insert the word "annually."

said the Amendment could not come in at this point.

said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that those regulations would not be laid on the Table of the House, and his hon. friend had spoken of withdrawing his Amendment as part of a compromise. The so-called com- promise was not a compromise with the whole of the Scottish Members but with one or two who had given the rest away. What the Scottish Members wanted was to adhere to the principle that the Board should have the appointment of its own chairman and its own officers down to the office boy. He repudiated this compromise by three Scottish Members. It was quite contrary to what the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate had agreed to at a previous meeting.

supported the Secretary for Scotland from whom he thought the nomination should come. He thought the selection of seven men would give him a very good range in which to find a man for this position. The right hon. Gentleman might not appoint the man most fitted to carry through the business, but they should trust him further and let him appoint the chairman.

said there would be great difficulty in getting continuity of policy unless the chairman was appointed for at least five years, and there was some advantage in allowing the chairman to be appointed by the Secretary for Scotland. Only last week this was brought to his mind with reference to a Board with which he was connected. There were six members, three on each side, and the chairman had died and for the whole of the year the business of the parish had ceased to proceed. It took him one hour and twenty minutes to get into the chair, but directly he got there they got through the business.

said he recognised that he had not sufficient support upon this point, and therefore he would withdraw his his Amendment.

moved an Amendment to insure that the Board when appointed should have control of the appointment of their own officers. Unless they had the right of appointment they would have no control. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would give them something in the way of democratic government even if that something was only in the direction of enabling the Board to be master in their own house. It would make the Board more self-reliant and more efficient if they had the right of appointing their own office boy even, than if they had nothing to do with the appointments at all.

thought his hon. friend hardly understood the importance of an Amendment of this kind in such a Bill. By common consent one of the most important offices was that of secretary to the Board. A great deal would depend upon the experience of the officials of the Board. It was essential therefore that the House should have control over these appointments and be able through the Minister responsible to Parliament to criticise them. As this clause did nothing more than give the control which this House insisted on retaining with regard to the officials of all the Boards of Scotland, it was desirable that this clause should be retained. It was not put in in order that the Secretary for Scotland should interfere in the administration of the Board in its own business. There would not be the least desire to interfere with the work of this Board any more than there was a desire to interfere with the work of other Scottish Boards.

said that what they complained of, as Scottish Members, was an absence of control over the affairs of their own country. The Secretary for Scotland was right theoretically, but practically he was wrong. What he said was that the secretary of this Board would be a most important official and therefore should be appointed by the Secretary for Scotland. But, at the same time, while it gave the nominal control to the Scottish Boards working in Scotland, the real control was vested in the Secretary for Scotland instead of, as it should be, in the Scottish people. He desired that the Scottish people should be satisfied as to the true reason for every Amendment which had been moved, and in that regard the debate had done good by showing the whole Scottish nation how its interests were neglected in this House.

thought the Secretary for Scotland might rest content with having the appointment of the secretary in his hands, and allow the Board to appoint all its other officers. It was a very dangerous way of conducting business not to allow them to appoint their own officers, and had worked very badly in many Boards in this country. If he (Mr. Morton) gave up the appointing of the secretary, surely the Secretary for Scotland would allow the Board to appoint other officers. [Mr. SINCLAIR dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head. He would allow no power whatever. That was a mistake, and it was wrong to try and push this Bill through the House at this late period of the session.

asked whether the secretary was to be appointed for five years in the same way as the chairman. The whole difficulty of that would be that, being appointed by the Secretary for Scotland, he would in a certain extent be the master of the Board instead of their servant. He would be able to say that he was elected as secretary for as long as the Board existed, and it was quite conceivable that a certain class of gentleman might make it very awkward for the Board. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, in the appointment which he made, would take care that the Board was master of the secretary, and not the secretary the master of the Board.

The hon. Member need have no fear upon that point.

said he apprehended that the secretary of this Board would not occupy the same position as an ordinary secretary. He would be, so to speak, the adviser of the Board and would assist in the purchasing. He would be what might be called the buyer.

said the secretary would be purely and simply secretary of the Board, and in every sense the servant of the Board, and he would be appointed by the Secretary for Scotland in the same way as other important officials of other Boards in Scotland were appointed by the Secretary for Scotland. With regard to all minor officials, there was not the same need of care in their appointments, and there would be no interference with them. Those appointments would be under the control of the Board itself.

said there was a very strong feeling among the supporters of the Government that their proposals were far from adequate in this matter and that more power should be given to the persons forming this Board. They were willing, however, to agree that the Secretary for Scotland should appoint subject to the approval of the Board or vice versa. That was a kind of compromise which should be acceptable to the Scotch Secretary, and it would give the Board a dignity which they ought to have. If a permanent official were to be thrust upon them against their will, he would become, the master of the Board of which he was nominally the servant.

said under the circumstances he certainly thought it was necessary to leave considerable power to the Board.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider this matter on Report and endeavour to meet the Scottish Members in some way?

said he would be delighted to refer again to the practice of other Boards and see what change could be made in the Bill. The hon. Member for Greenock need not be under the least apprehension that this official would not be the servant of the Board. He would also point out that whoever was trusted with the approval of the appointment, the real power lay with the person who had the final say in the matter, and that was the Secretary for Scotland. This system was recommended as being the one which would cause the minimum of friction and the maximum of efficiency.

moved an Amendment dealing with the allocation of sums out of the general fund of the Board of Manufactures. He said he would like to take this opportunity of stating the financial arrangements which were consequent on the new distribution of buildings carried out by the Bill. At present, as the Committee were aware, the Board of Manufactures had for its resources a capital sum of about £38,000, and an annuity of £2,000, called the service annuity, from the Treaty of Union. That was supplemented by a small grant. He should mention that the responsibilities which fell upon the Board of Manufactures in connection with these galleries, and which were defrayed out of the funds he had mentioned, were, in the first place, the cost of maintenance of the buildings, which represented approximately £1,130 annually; and, in the second place, the payment of the officers of the various institutions, giving a total of £2,560. In aid of that expenditure they received a grant of £800, which left the average annual expenditure at £1,760. The expenditure in future would be increased by the maintenance charges which would be due on the new buildings to be occupied by the Royal Society. So it might safely be estimated that the total charges of maintenance in these two respects would not be less than £2,000 a year. These were the present arrangements, and would hold until the Bill became law, when the Treasury had agreed to enter upon new arrangements which were much more satisfactory and much more generous. That was really the consideration which he thought should prompt them to do everything they could to pass the Bill into law. Members were aware that the first result of the distribution of buildings was that the Royal Society, which had hitherto occupied rooms in the Royal Instution building, would leave those and go to new promises which were to be acquired for them, leaving the Royal Institution building as a whole for the occupation of the Royal Academy. In its present condition, however, it was not adapted for use as picture galleries, and considerable expenditure would be required to fit it for that purpose. That expenditure would be borne entirely by the Treasury, and it would reach a sum of £14,000. The outline sketch plans for the adaptation of the building promised to be entirely successful, and to give complete satisfaction not only to the city of Edinburgh, but also to artists. Then came the question of the expenses, which amounted to not less than £2,000 a year. That charge had hitherto been borne partly by a grant of £800. It would in future be borne by the Treasury and by Votes in Parliament. The Treasury would thus fit up the new Royal Academy at a cost of at least £14,000. They provided by the Votes £2,000 a year, which was at present borne by the Board of Manufactures as part of its annual expenditure. Then there was a sum of £1,000 a year which was already enjoyed, dating from the publication of the report, and was now given for the purchase of pictures. In addition to that the Board of Trustees would have at their disposal £2,000 a year, being the Scottish annuity. That would form part of their income for the purposes of art in Scotland. These were the details of the income of the new Board of Trustees. One further change must be alluded to. The School of Art, which had hitherto occupied premises in the Royal Institution, would be removed to other premises as a result of the combined effort of the Edinburgh Corporation and other bodies. Out of the capital sum of £38,000 belonging to the Board of Manufactures, it was proposed to give a sum of not more than £10,000 as an aid to the establishment of this School of Art. He had now to mention the arrangements proposed for the housing of the Royal Society. For that purpose it was proposed to expend £28,000 of the capital in the hands of the Board of Manufactures. A sum of £25,000 would go to the purchase of a building, and £3,000 would cover the expenses of fitting up, redecorating the new premises, and transferring the library and other effects of the Royal Society to the Royal Institution. The Treasury were giving the Royal Society a grant of not more than £600 a year. At present the Royal Society received a grant of £300 a year, which grant was paid by them as rent for the part of the Royal Institution which they now occupied. In future the Royal Society would be placed in occupation of their new premises, and they would also have the grant of £600 a year for scientific purposes, and would be free from any obligation to pay rent. He thought it would be conceded that the Treasury had been, not extravagant in this matter, but generous. Some criticism might be directed to the proposal to employ part of the accumulated funds of the Board of Manufactures in the purchase of a building for the Royal Society. On more than one occasion, however, the savings of the Board of Manufactures had been employed in the erection of buildings. Notably they made an important contribution of £47,000 in the year 1823 for the erection of the Royal Institution building. The Royal Society from that date had occupied rooms in the Royal Institution building, and had certainly a claim to be considered in any new arrangements which involved their removal from those rooms. Under the arrangement proposed the Royal Society had received nothing but fair treatment. The money could not under the circumstances be put to any better use than to be invested for the nation in the premises about to be occupied by the Royal Society. The effort of the Government had been to treat with equal consideration the claims of science and of art. The new Board of Trustees would find themselves unfettered by any other consideration than the duty of promoting the fine arts of Scotland and caring for the National Galleries. They would also find themselves in possession of a very handsome income, which would be devoted to these purposes. On the other hand, the Royal Society would be placed in a position, he hoped, of equal comfort in regard to their accommodation, though, perhaps, the new accommodation would not have the historic interest which the occupancy of the Royal Institution had. They would also find themselves in possession of a handsome income to be devoted to scientific purposes, he hoped that these new arrangements, which would give much greater liberty, much greater scope to the interests of art and science in Scotland, would also give an encouragement and a stimulus to those who were actively interested in Scotland in art and science, and make them feel that they had public support behind them in maintaining the position of Scotland in these progressive times in regard to both art and science.

asked whether they were to understand that the whole of the £1,000 a year, to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, would be devoted to the purchase of pictures?

said it would be clear as an income of the Board of Trustees.

said he understood they were to pay all the expenses out of that.

No. At present they paid their officers and the maintenance cost of their buildings. Both of those charges would, under this arrangement, be undertaken by the Treasury.

It was a debtor and creditor account so far as the Treasury was concerned.

said it was not. This money had been accumulating for years. The Board of Manufactures had not been a very enterprising body, and matters had been rearranged so that all these Boards should have a definite income and a definite purpose.

said he wanted to ascertain what net clear amount of money in the future would be available for the purchase of pictures.

said the Board of Trustees were not obliged to spend every penny in the actual purchase of pictures; they had also a distinct duty to care for the national galleries and promote the fine arts in Scotland. They had a clear income of £3,000 unfettered by any obligation as to management.

asked whether a certain proportion of that amount would go in payment of expenses. If so, it would be necessary to distinguish between the payment of expenses and the amount available for the purchase of pictures and objects of art.

said the maintenance expenses would be paid for them. The Board would have in the first place a grant of £1,000 a year from the Treasury, which would be expended in the purchase of pictures, and it would probably have an income from the Scottish annuity of £2,000 a year, which they would spend as they thought proper within the limits of the Bill—it might be on pictures. The officers of the Board would be paid by the Treasury.

said if he referred back to the Estimates he thought he would be able to show that a specific grant of £1,000 was allotted to Scotland for the purchase of pictures. That was the amount Ireland had received for generations. This Amendment, which had been on the Paper for forty-eight hours only, would change the whole scope of the Bill. The truth of the matter was that the Secretary for Scotland was going to take art money to pay a science obligation. He was prepared to show that this money was art money in spite of the fact that the Board of Manufactures had control over the sciencebuilding—the Royal Society Building. This scheme gave the Secretary for Scotland two powers—to take out of invested capital as much as he thought fit, first, for the School of Art in Edinburgh; and, secondly, for the erection and equipment of buildings for the Royal Society. On the first point, he did not much like taking the money of the Board of Manufactures for building a School of Art in Edinburgh; but, at all events, it was an art purpose, and as such, to his mind, was less objectionable than the second item of the scheme, which was to take the capital of the Board of Manufactures to pay for the Royal Society. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee earlier in the debate that the new Board would have nothing whatever to do with science, and that the sum of money required for the Art School was about £10,000; but the right hon. Gentleman did not tell them how much of the remainder was to be allotted to the Royal Society. The total, he understood, was £38,000, so that there was a balance of £28,000, which could be devoted to that purpose. This Amendment was inconsistent with the original Bill altogether. Under Clause 6, as introduced, all property belonging to the Board would be in future vested in trust for the promotion of fine art in Scotland, and under that clause it would not have been right to hand over this money to pay for the Royal Society. The Royal Society had been for sixty or eighty years in those buildings, which were largely built for them by the Board of Manufactures. The origin of this money could in no way whatever be credited to science. Science had never paid the Board of Manufactures except their rent. No portion of the accumulated funds, except perhaps an odd thousand or two, could be ascribed to science, although an immense amount could be definitely ascribed to art. The income from accumulated capital was insufficient to buy first-class pictures, and a few hundred pounds spent in the 'forties, 'fifties, and 'sixties well spent would have gone further than as many thousands spent to-day. Therefore, from the point of view of accumulating money for the purchase of works of art, the policy was indefensible; but that was no reason why the money should now be taken away from art and given to science. It was an obligation of the Government to rehouse the Royal Society at their expense, and not at the expense of the Board of Manufactures, out of Scottish money. The right hon. Gentleman had said the Royal Society was to get £600 a year from the Exchequer. The Treasury had been generous towards the Royal Society, but its generosity towards that institution was very much counterbalanced by a marked lack of generosity towards the Board of Manufactures. Up to a very few weeks ago it was quite understood that the Government was going to rehouse the Royal Society. [An Hon. Member: It is.] He did not think they could say that the Government was going to pay for the rehousing of the Society if the actual sum for the purpose was coming out of the Board of Manufactures. Five or six years ago the hoarding of this money by the Board of Manufactures was criticised, and then somewhat suddenly they spent £5,000 or £6,000 on a picture, lout the Royal Society never suggested at that time that any equivalent grant should be paid over to them. It never occurred to them to do so; they did not look upon the accumulated funds of the Board of Manufactures as belonging to themselves in any sense. He would like the legal opinion of the Lord Advocate if he were wrong in saying that the present Board of Manufactures as constituted was entitled to go into Bond-street and spend £35,000 on a picture next week. Legally and technically he believed that would be within their rights. At all events there was a strong prima facie case that this money was, and always had been, regarded as art money. The Treasury had been generous to the Royal Society at the expense of the Board of Manufactures. What he had looked forward to was a strong new Board competent to give expert advice, who, on accession to office, would be able to make a start and purchase works of art for Scotland. There was no public gallery in Europe in which the proportion of pictures presented by private individuals was larger than in the National Gallery of Scotland. Of the pictures 98 per cent. were private donations and only 2 per cent. purchases by the nation. He submitted that the £38,000—apart from the £10,000 for the School of Art—belonged to the nation to be spent in the promotion of art in Scotland.

admitted that according to the point of view from which the noble Lord presented his case there was at first sight a great deal to be said for the arguments he used. In short, the noble Lord had dealt with one side of the account only. The proposal to which the noble Lord really took exception was with regard to the £28,000, which remained after the grant of £10,000 to the School of Art. If the situation were left as it was the result in his view would be to lose an opportunity of benefiting the Royal Society and also of benefiting the cause of art in Scotland. The National Gallery would have been under the old arrangement left under the obligation to pay their own officers out of the £28,000, which, if invested in ordinary quarters, would produce about £1,000 a year. Instead of that his right hon. friend—and he congratulated him on his transaction with the Treasury—had transformed the whole position, and had said, "Let the capital go and in place of the Treasury giving a miserable £1,000 a year let it give a handsome grant." What the Treasury had done was three-fold. In the first place it had agreed to defray all the working costs equal to £2,000 a year, it had consented to buy pictures up to £1,000 a year, and it had made a new grant of £2,000 a year in perpetuity.

All Scottish money.

said the Treasury had put the £2,000 a year which was Scottish money on to the Consolidated Fund. Accordingly there would be now a gross income for the National Gallery of £2,000 to pay the working charges, £1,000 for pictures, and £2,000 out of the Treasury with which sum pictures might also be purchased and other expenses defrayed In the promotion of art. He was not sure that the noble Lord was right in putting the situation of the Royal Society on the low platform he had placed it. He did not think the Royal Society would have been able in a Court of law to establish a legal claim, but after having been accommodated for so many years it would be a Parliamentary outrage to dispossess the Royal Society without giving them somewhere else to go—especially so, as the dispossession resulted in a benefit to art, because they had increased the buildings available for art to the extent to which science had been dispossessed. It was an entire mistake to think that Scottish money had been encroached upon. For what had been utilised for the Royal Society, more than a quid pro quo had been got by an annual revenue on a scale hitherto unknown. Looking all round the subject he thought the transaction had been a fair one, and he thought, upon the whole, seeing what they had been accustomed to from the Treasury for the past ten years, it had been a very happy change for both sides.

said it was a deal no doubt, and to some extent it was probably an improvement on the present position, but he was afraid he could not admit the claim of the Lord Advocate that it was a very great improvement. The Treasury were discharging the whole of their obligations in respect of the School of Art by the £10,000 which was proposed to be taken from the £38,000, leaving £28,000 which of course, would have been left at interest to pay the expenses for which the Treasury were going to assume the responsibility. All that the Treasury, however, was really doing was to give the difference between £1,640 and £2,000. Undoubtedly there was to be an expenditure of £14,000 on the Gallery, but they were going to substitute that for what amounted to £1,640, and they were only going to retain the £1,000 grant and the £2,000 of Scottish annuities.

said the matter was very much stronger than he at first put it if the hon. Member took into account the £14,000, because, assuming the £28,000 was being taken away, at the same time half of that was being spent upon the repair of the buildings, and, in addition, there was the annual cost defrayed on the scale he had mentioned.

said he gave the Lord Advocate credit for the full £14,000, but what he wanted to point out was that, although the Bill was to a certain extent advantageous, it was not so advantageous as the right hon. Gentleman made out in his very able arguments, and it did not discharge the full obligation of the Treasury to Scotland in this matter. He thought the Treasury might have been a little more generous and themselves provided for the Royal Society.

said he did not think the Treasury were doing too much in this matter, although he thought Scotland stood to gain a great deal under the Bill. In future the Treasury would discharge certain obligations by which Scotland would get a clear gain of £2,000 a year. In addition to that they would get £14,000 which the Treasury was going to give towards reconstruction of the National Gallery. He would like to know from the Secretary for Scotland whether, in addition to that sum, there would also come from the Treasury an extra £300 for the Royal Society. That would make an addition of £2,300 a year at least. The noble Lord opposite had raised the question of the proportion, not as between the Treasury and Scotland, but as between art and science, but he appeared to have left out of account the fact that the accumulations which amounted to £38,000 were originally derived from the Board of Manufactures, and from that point of view science had a fair claim to a share of the money. Under the proposed arrangement art as distinguished from science was getting the use of the buildings. They were getting a grant from the Treasury which certainly was better than before, and therefore between science and art he did not think there was any grievance. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was to be complimented on the patience and tact with which he had carried out some very delicate negotiations in regard to this measure, and he thought the Royal Society were to be congratulated because they had come very well out of the negotiations.

said they had not had much time to consider the effect of these proposals, but as far as he could calculate he thought the answer would be "thank you for nothing." Scotland would not get anything out of the arrangement which she had not already got. It was notorious that some millions of money were due to Scotland if she only got her legitimate share. It had been said that the proper way to succeed in this matter was to be always in debt, and then there was some chance of getting assistance from the Treasury; but because they had been economical in Scotland and had saved money it was now proposed to take it away from them. He had listened carefully to the speech of the Lord Advocate, who was an excellent lawyer, but it was a well-known fact that lawyers knew nothing about finance, and he did not see that the arguments he had put forward helped them at all. His brief was badly drawn. He had mentioned the sum of £28,000, but he had forgotten to tell the Committee that that sum was really £38,000, and it was only after they had taken £10,000 away for something else that it was reduced. The Lord Advocate had tried to make a great point as to the transfer of the £2,000 annuity from the Estimates to the Consolidated Fund. There was really no difference, whether the £2,000 came from the Estimates or the Consolidated Fund except that if it remained on the Estimates, this House retained control, whereas if placed on the Consolidated Fund this House lost all control, and that he supposed was the real object of the Scottish Office in making this proposal. The Lord-Advocate had stated that the Board of Manufactures could spend the whole of the £38,000 if they thought proper, but the Secretary for Scotland had already arranged to devote £10,000 to the School of Art, and he was going to take the remaining £28,000 on account of the Royal Society. He agreed that that Society ought to receive consideration, and they had a moral right to occupy the building on the Mound. He understood that they preferred to be left at their present buildings, because they would not be so well off if they were moved even when they got £28,000 for the building and possibly another £600 per annum. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken about some plans, but he had not seen them. Could they not leave it to the Board of Trustees to consider where the new building should be and what should be done with the money? They might consider the question whether there ought to be a new National Gallery upon another site altogether. According to the evidence given before the Committee the present site on the Mound was not considered to be a good one.

I understand that an Amendment will be moved on this particular point, and therefore the hon. Member ought not to discuss it now.

said he was making those remarks with the idea of saving time instead of proposing the Amendment referred to. All he was asking for was that in regard to money Scotland should be treated as well as England or Ireland, and he thought they had a right to demand that under this new arrangement. His right hon. friend ought not to be afraid of the Treasury. Scotland contributed a vast sum of money to the revenue.

The hon. Member is getting very wide of this Amendment, and he is talking about increasing the grant. That is a question upon which no Amendment can be moved.

said he hoped the Secretary for Scotland would not be satisfied until Scotland was treated at least as well as the other parts of the kingdom.

said that in finding a new home for the Royal Society he objected to the Government using money which was ear-marked for other purposes. He thought the Treasury might have been a little more generous in this matter; they had not given that amount of money to Scotland which they naturally expected considering that nine-tenths of the Cabinet were Scottish representatives or Scottish Peers. He regretted the right hon. Gentleman's decision upon this question. He thought it would be a pity to utilise the Institution buildings for purposes for which they were not originally intended. The Royal Society were well housed, and in his opinion they were in a far better position than the one which had been suggested. He wished to protest against robbing art to pay science. He thought it would have been far more generous on the part of the Government if they had found the necessary money to pay for these alterations rather than have appropriated money which had been ear-marked for other purposes and which ought to have been spent for special purposes instead of being hoarded up. He regretted that any portion of this money was to be used for the purpose of rehousing the Royal Society.

said that during the discussions which took place in the Committee there were many difficulties to be encountered, and one of them was what was to be done with the Royal Society. It was held that if the Royal Society had to be moved it could only be moved to suitable quarters, and he ventured to assert that the proposal now made by the Secretary for Scotland had at least solved that difficulty. The Committee ought to remember that this was a difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his colleagues attempted to deal with in the last Parliament, but as the right hon. Gentleman well knew, there was many a slip between the Report of a Committee and the carrying out of their recommendations. By this measure the Secretary for Scotland had succeeded in solving some of those difficulties, although hon. Members might differ in regard to the amount which ought to be paid to the Royal Society. He was prepared to defend that amount. He had been a member of the Royal Society for twenty-five years; it occupied very convenient quarters for its purpose, and it was thought that at any rate that Society He should like to know whether they should be as well housed in the future as it had been in the past. He had considered these proposals very carefully, and he did not think they could honestly say that the Royal Society ought to be content with any sum less than that which was offered them. But even supposing they were paying a few thousand pounds more than the most rigid economist thought the Society was entitled to, surely it was worth the money to get this difficulty out of the way.

said no one grudged the money; what they objected to was the source from which it was taken.

said there was nothing in the Report of the Committee to say that the Royal Society ought not to be housed at the expense of the Board of Manufactures, because that Society was housed in its present quarters at the expense of the accumulated funds of that Board. Provision was made for its accommodation and the whole expense of the Royal Institution buildings were paid for out of the accumulated funds of the Board of Manufactures. There was absolutely no reason why those funds should not boar part, if not the whole, of the necessary expense entailed by the housing of the Royal Society. He earnestly urged the Committee to accept this settlement so as to put the National Gallery of Scotland on a firm foundation, and thereby promote the study and advancement of fine art in that country.

was quite prepared to accept the proposals of the Government, but not as a final settlement of the question. He did not think these proposals satisfied the just claims of Scotland with respect to either art or science. Scotland was greatly in arrears in the matter of grants of public money. It had been stinted for the last twenty years, and when hon. Members made representations in favour of fresh expenditure the late Prime Minister used to remind them that he was a Scotsman, until he himself came to accept that as an intimation that some unparalleled injustice was going to be inflicted on his country. That was their experience of the way in which Scottish claims were met when the Tory Party were in power. He sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Augustine's Division of Kent in his regret that the money was to be drawn from a reservoir which might have been used for another purpose. There were Scotsmen in the late Government, and except in regard to what was done by the noble Lord, who played a conspicuous part in the inquiry, he had never been able to detect that anything was done by the late Government for the advancement of science and art in Scotland. He did not rise for the purpose of indulging in Party recrimination, but he wished to point out, as a matter of fact, that they had these great arrears to make up in Scotland. He looked upon this as the first step, but he thought it was far from a final settlement.

moved as an Amendment to the Secretary for Scotland's Amendment to leave out "prescribed" and insert "decided upon by the Board of Trustees." He wished to get rid of the word "prescribed" which meant prescribed by the Secretary for Scotland. Even after the special pleading of the Lord Advocate he thought a perfectly clear case had been made out by the noble Lord in regard to what was called the general fund. That fund had been in the course of many years raised by savings of money which ought to have been devoted to the purchase of pictures. It was, as the noble Lord had shown, a Scottish Art fund, pure and simple, Although they were told that this Bill had nothing whatever to do with science, here was a proposal to insert words in the clause directing that money which belonged to the art of Scotland was to be allocated to science and art in such sums as the Secretary for Scotland might prescribe. He thought the Board of Trustees ought to be left to decide as to the allocation of the fund. There might be other places in Scotland besides Edinburgh which desired and deserved encouragement in the foundation of art institutes. Why should they not get that encouragement? Edinburgh had not been prominently liberal in the past; it was certainly very inferior to Glasgow. The Board of Trustees would recognise where encouragement to art ought to be given. It seemed to him that the use of the fund ought to be made over entirely to the Board, and that on no account should any portion of the money which ought to have been spent years ago on the purchase of pictures be devoted to the equipment of buildings which had no connection with art. He disputed the right of the Secretary for Scotland thus arbitrarily to apportion to alien purposes money which ought to be devoted to the encouragement and development of Scottish Art.

asked his friend not to press the Amendment. He hoped he was not wrong in interpreting the general sense of the Committee as being in agreement with the proposals of the Bill The history of the Board of Manufactures made it clear that the Royal Society were occupying buildings to which those funds had contributed, and they were doing no more than applying the money to the purpose to which precisely it had hitherto been applied. The scheme of the Bill rested on an agreement between parties which had been arrived at only after considerable consultation with the various interests concerned. He was entirely in accord with what had been said as to its not being a final settlement, but at any rate they had taken the first step. None of these arrangements ever were final, and he hoped that the development of art and science in Scotland might be such as to justify fresh demands on the Treasury. The development of science and art were greatly retarded at present by the conditions under which the Royal Society, the Royal Academy, and the National Gallery carried on their work, and it was in the interest of all the different bodies that the new arrangements which were contemplated should be introduced at the earliest possible moment.

said the Amendment to the Amendment would give the new Board something to do and some control of their own affairs in their own house. What the Secretary for Scotland proposed was that the allocation of the fund should be done in a way hon. Members did not know anything at all about.

The hon. Member is quite mistaken. This clause simply gives authority to carry out arrangements which I have already outlined to the Committee this afternoon.

said his hon. friend's proposal was that the Board of Trustees should have power to say how the money was to be allocated. What the Secretary for Scotland proposed was that the allocation of the fund should be done in the way he prescribed. What he and his friends were endeavouring to do was to get an efficient, independent, and intelligent body to act as Board of Trustees.

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment, expressing the hope that some more equitable distribution of the money might be made.

said he had taken an active part in the negotiations, and he congratulated the Secretary for Scotland on the arrangements he had made for housing the Royal Society. He also congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on securing from the Treasury a grant of £600 a year.

moved that the property held in trust by the Board of Trustees should be applied towards the completion of the national monument on the Carlton Hill to serve as the National Gallery for Scotland. He thought the Carlton Hill would be a magnificent site, and he would be satisfied if he got an assurance that the Board of Trustees would have the right to consider the suggestion. He understood that the corporation of Edinburgh had spent a hundred guineas in circulating a handsome book on this subject, and that showed that they thought the matter worthy of consideration. If that site were selected, he believed there would be no difficulty in getting sufficient money from Scotsmen to supplement the Government grant in order to erect a building which would be worthy of Scotland and of the city of Edinburgh. He understood that the corporation of Edinburgh were willing to give a site on the Carlton hill. That would be a good beginning. He begged to move as a matter of form.

said he could not agree with the Amendment, because he did not think on artistic grounds the National Memorial in Edinburgh suitable for a National Gallery. He was bound to say that he still adhered very strongly to the view of the Departmental Committee that there should, sooner or later, be secured in Edinburgh a National Gallery worthy of the nation. The Committee came to the conclusion that no alteration of the existing buildings would make a proper gallery for Scotland. It was pointed out to them that, situated as the present gallery was on the Mound, with the vibration of trains passing under it, and subject to the influence of smoke which was detrimental to oil paintings, they should hesitate permanently to house art treasures there. The Committee, however, recommended that the gallery might be used for temporary exhibitions of pictures. The Committee came to the conclusion that the scheme as to the Royal Institution—though not an ideal one—might serve for a time: and that if carried out they would still have a crowded gallery and there would be no room for expansion. At any rate, the Treasury must not come to the conclusion that they had settled the question of a National Gallery for Scotland for all time. He only gave his personal view, but he had considerable connections with Scotland and knew Edinburgh well, and from his own observation he had come to the conclusion that the present site of the National Gallery and the Royal Institution was fatally objectionable for any proposed new National Gallery, even if a building suitable for it could be there erected. They ought to get away from the present site with its smoke from the railway, to another site on which a National Gallery could be erected that would be an honour and glory to the city of Edinburgh and worthy of the nation.

said that all the Government put forward for this scheme was that it was practical, that it was suitable for the needs of time, and that it did not stand in the way of any larger development which might come hereafter. He could assure the hon. Member for Sutherland that if he brought forward his scheme at a future date it would by duly considered.

said he was very glad to have had the able assistance of the right hon. Member for St. Augustine's. This was not a political matter. As he understood now, the trustees would have the power at a future time, not necessarily far off, to consider a new building on a new site.

said that no doubt the Board would have full power to consider any proposal for a larger scheme which the hon. Member for Sutherland and his friends might came forward with sufficient funds to carry it out.

said he hoped that the new body of trustees would be more patriotic than the Lord Advocate. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

moved to insert after the word 'works' the words "in the case of the two first mentioned buildings."He wished to make a brief explanation that the fund of £3,000, which had been contributed for the maintenance and repair of the fabric of Dunblane Cathedral would be held by the Board of Trustees and devoted for that purpose just as it was now held by the Board of Manufactures. The Committee might rest assured that there was complete agreement between the Government and the authorities of Dunblane Cathedral.

said he understood that in future whatever money was necessary for maintaining the fabric of the Cathedral beyond this £3,000 would be given by Parliament.

said that the agreement distinctly stated that the Board of Trustees were to be charged with the maintenance and repair of the Cathedral.

said he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the agreement come to with regard to this ancient and historic building.

said he had an Amendment to propose on Clause 7, line 30, to insert after "and" the words "together with any buildings vested in the Commission of Works for the purposes of the Royal Society of Edinburgh."

said that subject to the concurrence of the Treasury he would introduce the Amendment on Report.

said that on that understanding he would withdraw his notice of Amendment.

said he wished to move a new clause providing that the Royal Scottish Geographical Society should, during the pleasure of the Secretary for Scotland, remain in undisturbed possession of the rooms at present occupied by the Society in the National Portrait Gallery, rent free. He very much regretted that in the very interesting and satisfactory review which the Secretary for Scotland had given to the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman had taken no notice of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, his point being that this Bill dealt with art, and not with geographical science. The lease of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society of the present promises expired last year, and they were now asking for some security of tenure. The society had done some excellent work for Scotland and the world; and he questioned whether there was any Geographical Society that had done better work. Its membership numbered 2,000, and it had branches in Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Dundee, and there was a request for a branch to be established in Perth. The society received no grant from the Government, and while the Royal Geographical Society of England received a grant of £500 a year, the Scottish Society was charged £120 a year for rent. The Society had a large number of maps which were always open for inspection. Further, a resolution had recently been passed that the teachers of Scotland should have the privilege of becoming Members of the Society on payment of £1 1s., instead of £2 2s. He hoped that the Secretary for Scotland would give some assurance that the modest request made in the Amendment which he proposed would be acceded to.

seconded the adoption of the new clause, and associated himself with all that the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh had said, he would point out that in the Report of the Departmental Committee of the Board of Education, a hope was expressed that it might be possible to forego this rent of £120 a year. This was a small thing to ask for, when it was remembered that the Royal Geographical Society of England received a grant of £500 a year.

said he might be permitted as one who had taken a prominent part in the negotiations in regard to this Bill to express the hope that the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. He sympathised with the claim of the society to public support, but the Amendment would do the society no good, and would take away the ground for a claim for a grant from the Treasury, while the remission of the rent would simply be the transfer of the amount from one Scottish institution to another.

said that, if this Amendment was carried, a charge of £120 a year would be put on the country, and he did not think that any private Member had a right to make such a Motion. The hon. Member had spoken of the grant of £500 to the Royal Geographical Society of England, but the obligations attached to the grant actually involved a loss to the Society. Everybody knew that the Royal Scottish Geographical Society was a most admirable institution, perhaps the best of its kind in Great Britain; but he strongly objected that the existing rooms which they occupied were suitable to such a society, and he thought that those rooms should be added to the accommodation of the Antiquarian Museum, or the National Portrait Gallery.

said he wished to bear testimony to the excellent work done by the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, but he objected to the clause proposed by the hon. Member on the ground that it would deprive the new Board of Trustees of a part of its income, and fetter the discretion of the Board in giving consideration to any claim that the society might put forward in the ordinary way to the Treasury.

said he had looked into the point raised by the noble Lord the Member for Chorley, and his opinion was that the clause was out of order as it involved the creation of a public charge. It was incompetent for a private Member to move such a Motion.

accepted the decision of the Chairman, but he wished to say that the debate had been eminently satisfactory to Scotland, and it would be most ungracious to press the Amendment to a division. He hoped, however, that the Prime Minister would use his influence to secure that something should be done by way of grant from the Treasury to the Royal Scottish Geographical Society.

said he wished to support his hon. friend, and would move his Amendment omitting from it the last three words viz., "free of rent." That would do something for the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, as it would enable them to remain in undisturbed possession of their present quarters.

in supporting the clause, expressed the hope that the Scottish Geographical Society would receive better treatment than they had received in the past. No society had done more useful work than the Scottish Geographical Society, and no body had been more shamefully treated.

said he had a good deal of sympathy with the present position of the Scottish Geographical Society. The question now before the Committee was whether the Bill should provide that the society should continue in its present offices without disturbance. There was no question of cost. His hon. friend had only asked for an assurance that some consideration should be given to the claim of this society to remain in undisturbed possession of the rooms they now occupied. He would suggest to the Secretary for Scotland whether he could not give an undertaking that in his official capacity he would send a communication to the new authority laying before them the claims of the society.

said he was one of the trustees of the Scottish Geographical Society, and as such he desired to say a word in support of the appeal made by hon. Members opposite. Not only had the society done remarkable work of a national character, but in its rooms was housed a very admirable library, which was consulted by people from all parts of Scotland and by many colonial people also. He believed it would be a real national loss if the society were liable to be summarily ejected from its rooms and to lose the use of that library.

assured his hon. friends that there was not the least reason to think that the transference of the powers of the old Board of Manufactures to the new authority would be in any way hostile to the interests of the Scottish Geographical Society. They were not yet possession of materials which could enable them to pass judgment on the question of whether or not this Society deserved financial support from the Government. He appealed to his hon. friends not to prejudge the matter at present. It was a mere accident that the Scottish Geographical Society now occupied rooms in the National Portrait Gallery, and he did not think it would be a businesslike proceeding to fetter the new authority with any conditions of the kind proposed. They should not confuse the issue raised by the Bill with that of the welfare of the Scottish Geographical Society. The claims of the society could be considered on their merits at the proper time, and he was sure those claim would have much better prospect of favourable consideration at the proper time than they could have at the present moment. He begged the friends of the Scottish Geographical Society to be content to-day with the very emphatic testimony which, had been given to the public appreciation of their work in Scotland.

said he would be willing to fall in with the appeal of the Secretary for Scotland on the distinct understanding that when the society did make a claim for further consideration they would be treated in a different manner from that in which they had been in the past by the Government.

regretted the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to make the small concession asked for.

asked the Secretary for Scotland if he would go so far as to say that, in the event of the Geographical Society being removed from its present promises, he would see that the claims of the society were pressed on the Treasury.

said the Committee had had an interesting discussion, and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman had been received with general good humour. He thought, however, that he showed far too much of that caution which was generally supposed to be a characteristic of the North. He asked for a definite pledge that the claims of the Geographical Society should be borne in mind and that no harm should happen to it.

said he could not conceive anything more likely to prejudice the position of the society than the adoption of the suggestion of his hon. friend the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs. He thought the safest course was to leave the matter where it was. He had strong sympathy with the Geographical Society, but there were other societies, and they had to consider the general interests of the community. He promised to give his most careful consideration to the claims of the Geographical Society when the proper time came.

agreed with the Secretary for Scotland that this was a matter that stood by itself. When the Scottish Estimates came up next session they could raise the whole question and endeavour to get a proper grant for the Scottish Geographical Society.

as a point f order stated that they had been assured that this Bill was not coming on. He moved the adjournment of the debate, which he said had been sprung upon the House, This was a most important Bill of a very far-reaching and revolutionary character. It was not alone the large manufacturers who were called upon to give a return of their production and wages, but it included the lowest and the smallest, and it involved a penalty such as he ventured to say there was not a precedent for in any other Act of Parliament. A man who employed a couple or three men to do little repairs on his premises, in ease he did not give a proper return of the wages or the amount which he had expended on purchasing material, was liable to a penalty.

said the hon. Member was not in order in making a Motion for the adjourment to discuss the Bill. He must confine himself to discussing the Motion for adjournment.

said it was for the purpose of supporting the adjournment that he was referring to the effect of the Bill. Of course he would submit to the ruling of Mr. Deputy Speaker, but he contended that he was perfectly in order in pointing out his reasons for moving the adjournment of the debate. The Bill inflicted a penalty of a magnitude almost equivalent to capital punishment on these small manufacturers and owners of small businesses, and in his opinion the Bill was part and parcel of a scheme of collectivism and possibly socialism.

said the hon. Member must not discuss the Bill in this way. He was entitled to argue that the importance of the Bill was such that it could not now be discussed with advantage, but he must not go into matters of detail as to the provisions of the Bill.

said in that case he would content himself with moving the adjournment of the debate.

seconded the Motion, as he thought they had good grounds for postponing the discussion. No timely notice had been given to the House for the proper consideration of this measure, or for the consideration of the Amendments on the Paper, of which there were no less than forty-eight, many of them of a vital character. Many of thorn, moreover, were not proposed by the Opposition, because eighteen of them had been put down by the Members on the Ministerial side of the House, and in addition six Amendments had been given notice of by the Minister in charge of the Bill. He thought it was too bad at that late hour to bring the Bill forward and call upon the House seriously to consider a measure of this inquisitorial character when everybody expected to get away. The Whip circulated that morning contained no intimation that the consideration of the Bill would be resumed, and he understood that several hon. Members who had Amendments on the Paper had gone away, as some kind of assurance that the Bill would not come on that afternoon had been given. He thought, therefore, they were justified in asking that the Bill should be postponed, and that it should be brought on at a reasonable hour.

trusted that the Motion would not be pressed. It was the second dilatory Motion made from the Ministerial side of the House that day, and the consequence was that a good deal of time had been wasted. He was sure, however, that it was not the intention of his hon. friend to waste the time of the House. His hon. friend sat on the Committee, but he did not recollect that he passed a single criticism on the Bill, and that was an opportunity of which he might have availed himself had he objected to the measure. Although the Amendments were forty-eight in number they were not so formidable as they looked, and most of the Amendments he had put down were agreed to by the opponents of the Bill.

said that if, as stated by an old and respected Member of the House, there had been an understanding that the Bill should not be proceeded with that afternoon, and if in consequence of that hon. Members with Amendments on the Paper had gone away, the proposal to go on with the debate was a serious one.

intimated that if such were the case he could not proceed. But he was not aware of any such understanding.

entered a protest on behalf of the hon. Members on the opposite side of the House who had ventured to disobey the "muzzling order." It was exceedingly hard, he said, on a well-disciplined House like that which the Government led, that when one or two Members ventured to make a protest about particular items in a Bill, they should be treated in a very severe way by the right hon. Gentleman. He made his protest in the name of liberty of debate, and freedom of discussion. Hon. Members on the other side of the House who differed from the

asked leave to withdraw the Motion, as there might be an opportunity of raising the matter on the Third Reading.