Edinburgh, and without a dissentient | The same remark applied, perhaps in a voice they had asked the Government to higher degree, to the Solicitor General withdraw this Bill. There were no fewer of Scotland, and to the Sheriffs of the than 13 pages of Amendments to it, and three great counties of Ross, Perth, and this was a thing almost unprecedented Ayr. The remaining three members in the history of Scotch legislation. He were nominated by the Government. was by no means saying that the Scotch One was the paid chairman, and another, Poor Law was perfect. In many re- Sir William Gibson-Craig, held the spects, he admitted, it might be im- position of Lord Clerk Register, the proved-as, for instance, in the direction onerous duties of which office no doubt indicated by the Amendment of which occupied much of his time. The consehis hon. Friend the Member for Forfar- quence of the constitution of the Board shire (Mr. Barclay) had given Notice-was-as might be expected that the namely, by making the Board of Supervision more representative in its character. Something also might be done to diminish the great expense of the management in Scotland. The Bill of the Government did not, however, propose to make the Board of Supervision more representative, nor did it contain provisions which would diminish the cost of maintenance. He was not aware that any body of persons throughout Scotland had asked for the changes which this Bill would effect. On the contrary, it appeared to him that it was strongly opposed in all parts of the country, and by all classes of the community, and he did feel greatly disappointed that Her Majesty's Government, so far from having dropped it, had given it precedence over other Bills which had been received with favour in Scotland. He wished to take the opinions of Scotch Members on the present Bill, and with this view he begged to move that the House should resolve itself into Committee on that day three months.

MR. W. HOLMS, in seconding the Motion, said, that throughout Scotland a general interest was felt with regard to this Bill, and he had no hesitation in affirming that if it became law it would cause a great amount of dissatisfaction. It was looked upon not as a Bill to improve the administration of the Poor Law of Scotland, but as a Bill to confer greatly extended powers on the Board of Supervision. He would ask hon. Members to consider what this Board of Supervision was. It consisted of nine members, six being ex-officio, of whom two, the Lords Provost of Edinburgh and Glasgow, were gentlemen engaged in business, while at the same time they had to attend to the affairs of the great communities over which they presided, and, therefore, had little or no time to devote to the business of the Board.

Mr. Baxter

attendance of the members was extremely irregular. From a Report which he held in his hand, he found that last year 23 committee meetings were held, and that at none of them more than two members were present. There had been 27 general meetings, and, except on three occasions, however important the business-there was not more than a quorum. A Member of the House of Commons, who had had a seat at the Board of Supervision for three years, had publicly stated that the whole business of the Board was practically done by the Chairman and the paid secretary. Of the nine members forming the Board seven were lawyers. Their business was conducted with closed doors, and no publicity was given to their proceedings except through the annual Report sent to the Home Secretary. So far as the administration of the Poor Law in England was concerned, a Gentleman directly responsible for it had a seat in the House, but there was no such representative with regard to Scotland. Hitherto, the functions of the Board of Supervision had been to supervise the local boards throughout the country, and to protect the interests of the poor. For this purpose the Board had been armed with most ample powers. It had been empowered to examine, by its members or by deputy, into the management of every parish in Scotland. No additional buildings for the accommodation of the poor could be erected without its approval, and rules and regulations drawn up by a Parochial Board could not be enforced until they had been sanctioned by the Board of Supervision. From the year 1845 till now, the operations of the Board had been watched with very great jealousy. Notwithstanding the amount of work it had to perform, an enormous amount of additional work was thrown upon it by the

Public Health Act of 1867, which placed | the Home Secretary; but the 43rd clause under it the practical supervision of the of the present Bill gave the Board power carrying out of that Act throughout to vary or cancel any rules and regulaScotland. The consequence was that in tions which had been made, and there 1874 the Board declared that its secretary was not a word about obtaining the was so overworked that he could no sanction of the Home Secretary to such longer give his time to the performance variations or cancellations. The result of a very important duty-namely, that would be that the Board might pass of acting as arbiter in cases of disputed rules which would receive the sanction settlements. It was now proposed to of the Secretary of State, but as soon as transfer to this small, irresponsible, and they were so sanctioned they might proover-worked Board, a large amount of ceed to alter or cancel them as they executive work which had hitherto chose. He did not believe that such been performed by the Parochial Boards. powers had ever been given to any Under the Bill it would rest with the Board, and he wished to know why they Board of Supervision to judge of the were to be given to the Board of Supercircumstances of a parish, and to decide vision? He thought the Government as to whether additional poorhouse ac- ought to have made some statement commodation should be built or not. about the Bill; but up to the present The Board of Supervision would alone moment no information had been given. have power to remove inspectors, go- He therefore had looked over the last vernors of poorhouses, medical officers, five annual Reports of the Board of and even matrons. Now, he asked Supervision, in order to find, if possible, hon. Members, would it not paralyse what were the reasons which had inthe efforts of local managers if they duced the Government to bring forward were not able to deal with those whom this measure, and from those Reports he he might term under-servants, in the had come to the conclusion that it could event of their disobeying orders? not be alleged that the Bill was rendered Again, it was proposed by this Bill to necessary on account of the want of sufgive the Board of Supervision alone, ficient accommodation for the poor, for power to grant to any pauper out-door it appeared from the Reports of the relief for a longer period than one month. Board of Supervision that the accommoThe Bill also enacted that the Board dation throughout Scotland was at preshould make rules and regulations for sent available for a population of boarding out children. And descending 2,970,000, leaving only 390,000 unproto the minutest details, it further enacted vided for. In other words, accommodathat the Board alone should decide tion was already provided for nine-tenths when a pauper might be allowed to of the population. Again, it could not go from or return to a poorhouse. be said that pauperism was increasing He believed that those provisions would in Scotland, for 10 years ago there prevent any independent man from were 128,000 paupers, whereas last year taking a seat at a Parochial Board. But the number had been reduced to 105,000. the Bill went further, for it provided Moreover, he found that while in Scotthat the Board of Supervision should land, during the last 10 years, the amount send auditors to audit the accounts of of pauperism had been diminished by 18 the Parochial Boards, which, he might per cent, it had been reduced during the observe, were composed of gentlemen same period in England by only 9 per who were themselves ratepayers, or the cent. It could not be said that the burrepresentatives of ratepayers, and who den of taxation had increased, for in consequently were deeply interested in 1865 it was 114d. per pound of the valuthe economical administration of the tion, whereas in 1875 it was only 9&d. affairs of the parish. Moreover, the It could not be alleged that officials had business of the Parochial Boards was been injudiciously appointed, for last carried on in the most open and public year, in 886 parishes, the total number manner. But this was not all. There of complaints against inspectors, goverwas a clause in the Bill of a most dan- nors of poor-houses, and medical officers, gerous character. At present the Board had only been 28. He ventured to think of Supervision had power to make rules that in no other public departmentand regulations, which were of no avail probably, indeed, in scarcely any private until they had received the sanction of business-had there been so few com

plaints in proportion to the number of the people of Scotland. A few weeks employés. It could not be said that ago he had occasion to visit Scotland, Parochial Boards had not done their and came in contact with men of diffeduty to the poor, for during last year rent political views. He found that there from 105,000 paupers there had only was an indignant feeling at the proposed been 244 complaints of inadequate re- interference of the Board of Supervision lief, and of these only 28 had been sus- in parochial matters, and a general tained. As to the question of boarding opinion that men of position and ability out children, regarding which it was would no longer accept seats at Paroproposed to give the central board full chial Boards, the duty of which would power, the Board of Supervision had be simply to obey the Board of Superthemselves stated that not to them, but vision. The result would be that an into the Parochial Boards was the merit ferior class of men would manage parodue of having thought of the system of chial affairs, and that ultimately even boarding out 25 years ago, which they the details of management would. dehad carried out with "kindness, judg- volve on the Board of Supervision, ment, and success." Why, then, make which would be obliged to frame harda change when the present system had and-fast rules and regulations which worked so well? In very few instances, might be quite unsuitable for certain indeed, had the Board of Supervision localities, or they would have to cover complained of the management of the the country with swarms of inspectors poor by Parochial Boards, and he could to give them information. He admitted not find any complaint that in even a that the experience of 30 years showed single instance suggestions made by the the necessity for some legislation on such Board of Supervision had not been acted questions as the constitution of Paroupon. It was, however, a remarkable chial Boards, combination of parishes, fact that while last year the expenditure and area of chargeability, medical relief, on the relief of the poor had been and with regard to the constitution of £25,000 less than it was seven years the Board of Supervision itself; but why ago, the cost of management -over should they not have a Bill dealing with which the Board of Supervision had con- such questions introduced on the basis siderable control-had been increased of the legislation of 1845, leaving the £22,000, and it was worthy of remark local boards to be the initiative and exthat 14 per cent of the whole expendi- ecutive body, and the Board of Superture in Scotland was absorbed for mere vision, as the name implied, to supervise management, while in England the pro- the operations of the local boards? It portion was only 12 per cent. He had was for the Government to show, he examined the Report of the Select Com- contended, that in order to amend the mittee of 1871, and while he was bound Poor Law of Scotland it was necessary to admit that it contained many recom- to make such a sweeping transfer of mendations which had been adopted in power as was now proposed, and also this Bill, and some of which gave addi- that they were not paying too much for tional powers to the Board of Super- such amendment by a system of centralvision, he thought that the general con- ization, which happily was better known clusion at which they arrived was con- to Continental than to British statesmen. tained in the following extract from the He should be wanting in political Report: :courage, if he did not protest against what appeared to him to be a determination on the part of Her Majesty's Government to undermine our local institutions, which had done so much to make the people of this country a self-reliant and law-abiding people. Two years ago, hon. Gentlemen were invited to relieve the local taxpayers as regarded lunatics and police, by a subsidy of £1,250,000 per annum from the Treasury, but the price to be paid was centralization. Again, the other night they were invited by the Home Secretary to accept

66

Suggestions have been made for giving larger powers to the Board of Supervision, and more especially for making it the final arbiter in all cases of settlement, with the view of saving expenses. Your Committee do not think any advantage is likely to arise from the adoption of such a proposal."

The Select Committee were therefore of opinion that no advantage would result from conferring additional powers upon the Board. [No, no!"] The Parochial Boards did not wish for any change, nor was he aware that it was desired by Mr. W. Holms

£390,000 per annum in relief of prison | persons could attend, seeing that they rates, but in this case also the price to lived in different parts of the country. be paid was centralization. And now In fact, from 1966 to 1876 these memthey were asked to submit to a transfer- bers only once attended altogether, and ence of the management of the poor he found that in some years only four from local boards to a central board were present at several meetings. It sitting in Edinburgh. He would remind was thus impossible for the members of hon. Members that one of the greatest the Board to be all intimately acquainted difficulties and dangers with which with what was going on in the deliberaFrance had to contend in her struggle tions of that body. But he could see no with Germany, was that during the siege reason why the Board of Supervision of Paris every city and commune was could not be made more constitutional paralyzed, because they had been accus- and more fairly represented in Parliatomed under the French system of cen- ment than it was. In England they tralization to look to the Imperial Go- had a representative of a Local Government for guidance and direction in vernment Board in the House of Comthe management of their local affairs. mons, and they knew perfectly well in For the reasons which he had given, he Scotland that it was almost impossible felt it to be his duty to offer all the oppo- that a Lord Advocate, especially a Lord sition in his power to a Bill which, if Advocate with a large practice, could carried, he was sure would prove detri- give his whole attention to those more mental to the interests of Scotland, and minute matters of administration. It would be a distinct advance towards was therefore the more important to bureaucratic as opposed to local admi- Scotland to be represented in that House nistration. by some Minister giving his special attention to this and kindred questions. He hoped by any remarks he was making he was not throwing any slight upon the Scotch Representative of the Home Department, for all knew how anxious he was to push on business, and how ably he did so. But it was impos

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," (Mr. Baxter,)—instead thereof.

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

MR. MARK STEWART said, that notwithstanding the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen who had preceded him, he maintained that if some pains were taken to amend this Bill in particular directions in Committee, it would be acceptable to those Gentlemen themselves and to the people of Scotland. There was nothing easier in that House than to find fault with a Government measure, especially a measure dealing with a subject with which so many in that House were conversant. He considered that a strong case was made out for considerable change in the Poor Law system of Scotland. He did not think the Board of Supervision was by any means so bad as it was said to be by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms). True, in the Return that the hon. Gentleman moved for he found it consisted of nine persons, and, humanly speaking, it was impossible that all these nine

VOL. CCXXX, [THIRD SERIES.]

sible the Home Secretary could cope with all the details of Scotch as well as English business at one and the same time. It was very easy to find fault with this Bill; but on consideration it would be seen it contained important principles which could not be thrown aside. There were clauses in which there was much that was good, and much that would be found practicable and useful in carrying out the Scotch Poor Law. The great principle of this Bill was its adoption of a more general system of uniformity. Supposing the Board of Supervision to be constituted in a somewhat different manner, and to exercise the supervising influence which it was originally intended that it should exercise, they would have a good system already at work under which the local boards would carry on the same system that had been carried on since 1845, but considerably strengthened by increased powers given to the Board of Supervision. There were other points in the Bill which would meet approbation. One of them had been the subject of agitation by Scotch deputations and

S

Scotch Representatives since this Parliaments to more than one clause himselfment met. It was a great matter to he would not pledge himself to vote for find that Government had so thoroughly the third reading, and he should be quite given in to the views of Scotch Members prepared to vote against the measure on the question of medical relief, and unless he considered it generally acceptthat they were willing to establish able to the country. equality in this matter. Another question had been agitated by different deputations coming from Scotlandnamely, the superannuation of Poor Law Officers. It always appeared to him a great hardship that under the present Poor Law Act no Parochial Board could make provision for those often most deserving men who had given up the best part of their life's services in the administration in which they were placed. Then, again, there was a valuable provision in this Bill compelling the mother of an illegitimate child to go to the workhouse instead of receiving alimentary aid from the parish. There was a most important clause with respect to boarding out; and another that children should support their parents. There were other clauses stating that no out-door relief should be given in certain circumstances, and that the paupers, and especially the Irish paupers, might appeal against removal. It must not be forgotten that the Government had based this Bill, perhaps too much, on the Reports of that Committee which, he was informed, took two years to its deliberations on this Poor Law question. Almost every proposal in the Bill was founded on that Report. He would only ask hon. Gentlemen to look to the names in that Report. No doubt the House would hear that many hon. Members who served on that Committee had seen after experience that it was wrong in its conclusions. It was strange that these views which they entertained in 1871, were now, when they were on the other side of the House, disapproved of by the same Members. He should be as willing as any Member to assist in Committee in making this Bill a thoroughly satisfactory Bill, not only acceptable to the House but to the people of Scotland, because he was perfectly aware of the utter futility of passing measures through the House which had not the general sanction and approval of those outside the House. It was possible for his side of the House, being the stronger Party, to carry forward this measure; but unless it was amended—and he had AmendMr. Mark Stewart

MR. TREVELYAN said, his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) began his speech by saying it was very seldom that a Bill as important in principle did not receive full discussion on the second reading; and he would go further, and say that he had never known a Bill which proposed to make such sweeping advances in such a novel and questionable direction, which had been laid before the House, and kept before it till it reached this stage, with such a scanty and miserly exposition of the principles on which it was based. The truth was, the Bill had been introduced to the House as lightly as if it were a Highway Bill concerning a single county, with the consent of all parties concerned, and not a measure for abolishing self-government in one of its most important departments, and that not in a single county or isolated town not fit to conduct its own affairs, but in the most self-governing portion of the European nation. Very different reasons must be given before they could consent, on behalf of those who sent them there to represent them, to make such a sweeping and radical change in the nature of the local bodies of Scotland, and in taking from those local bodies, when they had been so manipu- · lated, all that was essential, all that was weighty, all that was dignified in their functions, in order to entrust those functions to a Board whose proceedings were secret, whose authority was autocratic, and whose constitution, as his hon. Friend next him (Mr. Holms) had shown, was anomalous to the very verge of absurdity. When this Bill was first brought forward there was a universal feeling of uneasiness in Scotland. That feeling showed itself in Petitions, circulars, and memorials, and culminated in a grand deputation to the Lord Advocate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman received that deputation with that courtesy which he always extended to every one who approached him from any public or private motive; but he (Mr. Trevelyan) must allow in this case the courtesy was rather an injury than a benefit to those to