Member opposite (Sir George Balfour) was under a misapprehension in saying that any Question had ever been addressed to him upon the subject. Neither had he ever had Notice of any such Question.

In

MR. WHITWELL wished to draw attention to the fact that the expenditure on the travelling expenses of the Office of the Registrar General in Scotland amounted to £1,200, while the salaries were only £5,389. Perhaps the hon. GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasaid, that he did not give Notice to the sury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would right hon. and learned Gentleman, as he give some explanation of this, for had communicated with the right hon. although he was not one that judged of Gentleman at the head of the Local Go- the work done by the remuneration, yet vernment Board (Mr. Sclater-Booth), he thought the expenses for travelling who had referred him (Sir George Bal-in Scotland were very excessive. four) to the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate, not being present when that was said, did not answer the Question; but the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had courteously answered him with respect to that country. He expected that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, being informed of the matter, would subsequently have given him the information, but he had not done so. If he had omitted any form in his application for the information, he might say that it was contrary to his intention. He now begged to ask the Lord Advocate for the desired information.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON) said, that not being the head of the Local Government Board, the Question put to him did not come under his observation. He understood the hon. and gallant Member to say that if he (the Lord Advocate) had been in his place, he would have given him Notice, but that he had not done so since. He could not answer the Question, nor could he admit that the Report was in arrear. He understood that the Report of the Registrar General was circulated at the end of April in each year, and he had no reason whatever to doubt that such had also been the case in the present year.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR said, that the President of the Local Government Board had referred the Question to the Lord Advocate, and he assumed that that would be sufficient, without any further Questions being put. If he had not thought so, he would have been in his place to put the Question. He now begged to ask the Question of the Lord Advocate.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON) said, he was not in a position to give any further answer to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member.

The Lord Advocate

England, the travelling expenses only amounted to £970, although there was so much more to do there. He also noticed that the Secretary to the Office received the bulk of his allowance for duties of inspection. He should like to know what duties of inspection those were, and whether the amount received by the Secretary was in excess of his salary?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON was quite aware that the expenditure in travelling allowances in Scotland was much larger than in England. The necessity for that arose from the system of district examination in Scotland, which was peculiar to that country. The district Inspectors in Scotland had large districts to travel over, and that was the reason for the allowances made to them.

Vote agreed to.

(14.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £15,523, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries in course of payment during the year ending on and Expenses of the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, and for Expenses under the Public Health and Vaccination Acts, including Scotland." certain Grants in Aid of Local Taxation in

MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved to reduce the Vote by £2,200, principally for the purpose of calling attention to the great increase of expense in the management of the poor in the last few years. Between 1869 and 1878 the cost of management had risen by £23,000, and he was strongly of opinion that this great additional expense was due to the interference of the Board of Supervision in local management. What had that Board done during the last year? They dismissed one Inspector. They had censured two governers of poor houses, and

the Board of Supervision in the strain he did. He should have thought that anyone acquainted with Scotland would have known the necessity that existed for the Board of Supervision to control the parochial boards throughout the country. He believed, having served upon several local boards, that as between the ratepayers, the parochial boards, and the Inspectors, the functions of the Board of Supervision were most useful. He denied altogether that the Board of Supervision concerned itself in the introduction of Bills into that House. The Bill which the hon. Member had referred to was promoted by Her Majesty's Government, and was almost unanimously supported in Scotland. That Bill provided for an audit taking place of the accounts of the local board, and he was never more surprised in his life than to hear the audit objected to. He thought if the hon. Member had studied the question more carefully, he would not have made the remarks he had done.

had dismissed one, and had censured | Public Health and Vaccination Acts, including one medical officer. That seemed to be certain grants in Aid of Local Taxation in Scotland."(Mr. J. W. Barclay.) the work they had done. The chairman of the Board of Supervision received MR. ORR-EWING said, he was sur£1,200. When three members at-prised that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. tended it, it was called a Board, when J. W. Barclay) should have referred to only two it was called a committee. Practically the management rested in the hands of one gentleman, who controlled those who were well able to manage their own affairs without any interference at all. He found that in one case the Board censured the Guardians because on a particular occasion they gave the paupers a cup of tea instead of porridge. When they could attend to such matters, it showed that they had little to do. It was thought they would see that the poor were not unduly pressed upon by the Guardians. But that was an entire mistake. They urged the application of the poorhouse test, knowing there were many people who would rather die than go to the workhouse. In that way they sought to reduce the rates. It was, he believed, intended still further to increase the burdens by passing a Bill appointing Auditors for the parishes in Scotland. He believed that the interference of the Board of Supervision prevented many gentlemen from acting on parochial boards, because they did not like their interference. Originally, the Board was instituted with the idea that it would look after the poor, and stand between them and the local boards; but there was no necessity for anything of the kind, and the fact was in the result the Board of Supervision had not fulfilled its original intention. It put pressure on the local boards, and, as he had said, urged them in their treatment of the poor to apply the poorhouse test. There were many people in Scotland who would rather die than go to the poorhouse, and no doubt, therefore, the system of the Board was an economical one. The result of the action of the Board of Supervision was an economy in the poor-rates of £26,000, but the whole of that amount was swallowed up in the increased charges of management.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £13,323, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, and for expenses under the

THE CHAIRMAN pointed out, that the Committee would not be in Order in discussing the provisions of a Bill which, he believed, was now waiting for second reading.

MR. JAMES STEWART quite agreed with the statement of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), that it was objectionable to have questions raised as to the proportion of money voted to different portions of the Kingdom. He thought there was no more disagreeable duty to an hon. Member coming from Scotland than to raise such questions; but, at the same time, it could not be doubted that throughout Scotland there was a strong feeling that the amount given for public purposes from the Revenue to Scotland was not in proportion to what might justly be awarded to her, and that was specially the case in regard to the amount granted for medical relief. He observed that £10,000 was put down for medical grants in aid, and in the note it was stated that this money was distributed in sums of from under £1 to £500 and upwards. He observed in England and Ireland

that half the total amount-[Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: A quarter.] was given, and, therefore, he would like to know on what principle the £10,000 was arrived at?

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON hoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) would not be pressed to a Division; for he was quite certain that if it were, very few Scotch Members would vote for it. It was proposed to reduce the Vote by £2,200, the salaries of the chairman and the secretary, and, therefore, to leave the Board in existence without either an official or a head. The hon. Gentleman had not stated the grounds on which he moved the reduction of the Vote, and seemed to forget that the Board of Supervision was created under the Act of 1845, on which the whole Poor Law system of Scotland was based, and the whole system would break down if the Board of Supervision were at once done away with. The proper course would be for the hon. Member to move the repeal of the Act of 1845, which created the system. To take away the chairman and secretary of one of the most important bodies in the Kingdom was certainly most incongruous, and he should, therefore, vote against the Amendment, if the hon. Member proceeded to a Division.

satisfactory manner. Again, the Board undertook a great deal of correspondence, and often gave country boards very useful information as to the working of the Poor Law in other districts. If they did not have this central Board in Edinburgh, they would only find themselves under the control of the central Department in London; and he, for one, had always been strongly opposed to centralization. He did not wish to see more extended powers given to the Board; but he certainly thought something might be done to put it in a position to do greater good. There was another feature in the Board of Supervision that must not be forgotten-namely, that a pauper could appeal from his local board to the Board of Supervision, so that the latter body was a great assistance in getting justice done to the poor in Scotland. The hon. Member had laid great stress on the fact that the whole policy of the Board of Supervision was to make the poorhouse the test of pauperism. No doubt that was in many instances a very useful test, and it was a fair and honest thing that a man who could work and would not work should have that experiment tried on him. The Board was also of great assistance, not so much in reducing as in regulating the poor rate, by giving information about the working of the workhouse tests. He did MR. MARK STEWART said, he not at all wish to see the Board done thought the hon. Member for Forfarshire away with. At the same time, he knew (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had taken what might that the audit was most imperfectly be called the popular view of the ques- made, and if it were more perfect it tion-["No, no!"]-at least as seen would become a very useful instrument in the boroughs and the large centres in effectually carrying out the Poor Law of population. He (Mr. Mark Stewart) system of Scotland. Again, with regard himself, however, had been chairman to the dismissal of Inspectors, they all of a very large board, and had taken a knew very well that, in rural districts very active interest in its working, and especially, jealousies grew up between he could state most emphatically that the Inspector and some of the parmany questions were solved and settled ishioners, not at all on the question of by the Board of Supervision, which his fitness, but on some side issue. Cerotherwise would have involved litiga-tain individuals often had a great dislike tion to a very considerable extent. There to the Inspector, and, therefore, it was was not the least hardship in the powers possessed by the Board; on the contrary, he believed that under its management the affairs of the country were better managed than they were before. There were many very complicated questions of settlement, especially in the rural districts, which would otherwise have to be decided at great cost at the Court of Sessions, which were constantly settled by this Board in a very

Mr. James Stewart

very important that he should be protected in doing his duty honestly and honourably, exposed as he was to very great temptations. He was not saying anything derogatory to the Poor Law Inspectors, who did their work very conscientiously; but if they knew that their dismissal depended on the decision of a body elected by the popular voice, and not on the negative or affirmative of the Board of Supervision, they might

be influenced in their actions by the fear | some central control. The position was of popular opinion. He hoped, after very different in the towns and in hearing these reasons, that the House the country. In the towns there was would have no difficulty in coming to a something like a representative board; decision on this matter. It would cer- whereas in the counties, the constitution tainly, in his opinion, be a great mistake of the board was most anomalous. It to do away with the Board of Supervi- sometimes comprised 500, 1,000, or even sion in Edinburgh, which had done very 1,500 members-all the rate- paying good work, and was still capable of owners, in fact, with half-a-dozen or a doing very good work, because of the dozen of the rate-paying occupiers, some cost of the Board, which, after all, con- representatives of the Magistracy, and sidering all things, was really very little some of the Kirk Sessions. A board indeed. so constituted, often not having even a committee of management, could not be regulated in its action without some benevolent despotism of this kind. Therefore, he felt that if his hon. Friend took a division at the present moment, he would take it on a false issue. Though he quite agreed with him as to its faulty construction, and as to the inadvisability of taking the supervision and management of local affairs out of the hands of the ratepayers, he must say that as long as they had their local affairs in Scotland managed by cumbrous bodies of this sort, he did not think they could get on without some official body to keep matters straight. As to what the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry SelwinIbbetson) had said about medical relief, he trusted this was not another of those long-deferred promises by which the heart of Scotland had been made sick. Ever since the commencement of the present Parliament they had been promised every year that as soon as some Act was passed which would place Scotland in the same position as England as to audit, that they should be placed in the same position also as to medical relief. He would suggest to the hon. Baronet that what was desired might be very easily obtained by insisting upon a proper system of audit, so far as regarded the expenditure in respect of which a Government subsidy was granted, and then placing them on an equal footing with the sister countries, so far as concerned the grant-in-aid. It was quite proper that the Government, before granting one farthing of money for which they would be called on to account, should insist on a most strict and scrutinizing audit. But the proper way to deal with the question was to bring in a Bill relating to that alone, instead of repeatedly promising that at some paulo post future period Scotland should be put in the same position as England and Ireland.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, he believed, from all he had been able to ascertain, that the great majority of the Scotch Members did not coincide with the attack which the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had made upon the Board of Supervision, and upon its working. That being so, after the admirable speech of his hon. Friend (Mr. Mark Stewart), it was not necessary for him to go into details of the work of the Board, for he thought the merits of that work were now fairly submitted to the consideration of the Committee. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Greenock (Mr. James Stewart), as to the medical grants-in-aid, was raised on the Vote on Account, and the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put Scotland in a similar condition as to medical relief with England and Ireland was then spoken of. He need only repeat the statement he then made, that the Treasury were quite prepared, as soon as the Bill now before the House, which placed Scotland in the same position as England and Ireland with regard to medical officers, had passed, to grant the same terms to that country as were enjoyed by other parts of the United Kingdom. The Treasury would then pay half the allowance to the medical officers, and the present grant of £10,000 would cease.

DR. CAMERON hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay) would not divide on this Motion. He agreed entirely with him that the constitution of this Board was altogether anomalous, and that under a proper system of local boards it would be entirely unnecessary; yet he could quite understand the contention of hon. Members opposite that as parochial boards were now constituted it would be quite impossible to get along, at any rate, in the country districts, without