Commons Sitting of 29 March 1886

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Sir William Cunliffe Brooks, baronet, for Chester County (Altrincham Division).
SELECT COMMITTEE—Ventilation of the House, Mr. Tatton Egerton and Mr. Cyril Flower added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Companies Acts Amendment* [158].
Ordered—First Reading—Prison Officers' Superannuation* [154]; Poor Relief (Ireland)*

81
[155]; International and Colonial Copyright* [156]; Intoxicating Liquors (Sale to Children) * [157].
Second Reading—Marriages (Attendance of Registrars) [121], debate adjourned.
Select Committee—Hyde Park Corner (New Streets) * [103], nominated.
Committee—Crofters (Scotland) (No. 2) [118] [First Night]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Army Annual * [150]; Public Health Acts (Improvement Expenses) [7–153].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Compensation for Damages* [120]; Marriages (Hours of Solemnisation) [62], and passed.
Third Reading—Labourers (Ireland) Acts Amendment* [10], and passed.
Withdrawn—Common juries Remuneration [95].

NEW WRIT (BARROW IN FURNESS).
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY): I beg to move—
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Barrow in Furness, in the room of David Duncan, Esq., whose election has been declared void."
MR. LEWIS: I wish to call the attention of the House to a Standing or Sessional Order which was in existence during the last Parliament, and which provided that whenever an election was declared void on the ground of corrupt practices, no new writ should be moved until after three days' notice had been given. Now, considering the character of this election, I think it is highly inexpedient for the House in this early stage of its existence to sot the bad precedent of issuing a new writ for the election of a Member to serve in Parliament in the place of a person whose seat has been declared void, on the ground of corrupt practices, until we have had an opportunity of seeing the evidence adduced on the trial of the Petition. I entertain no doubt as to the extreme purity of the Liberal Party, and I entertain still less doubt as to the extreme purity of individual Members of the Government opposite in passing the Corrupt Practices Act; but I think we ought to know a little more about the circumstances of this case before we consent to the issue of a new writ. At present I have no knowledge of those circumstances except what I have derived from the newspapers—namely, that a Member of this House has been deprived of his seat on the ground of
82
bribery and corrupt practices, although I do not know the nature or extent of the bribery committed. Then I think that the House ought to do what it has repeatedly done before. When there has not been sufficient evidence to justify the issue of a Royal Commission, the House has for months, aye, and even for Sessions—as occurred in the case of the Wigan Election—abstained from issuing a now writ; and I do not think that we ought to commence the labours of this new Parliament by establishing the really bad precedent which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury asks us to set. In order to give time for the further consideration of the matter, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Lewis.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): I had received no intimation from the hon. Gentleman that he intended to raise this question.
MR. LEWIS: I had no idea that the Motion for the issue of the writ was going to be made.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think I am correct in stating that the Report of the Election Judges was received by the Speaker, as appears from the record of our proceedings, on the 24th or 25th of March. The Standing or Sessional Order to which the hon. Member has referred is not, in fact, now in force. I do not at all dispute the fact that that does not dispose of the matter, and give a complete answer to the objection of the hon. Member, if there is reason to suppose that there was in this case any bribery or any kind of general corruption. If the hon. and learned Member will look to the Report of the Election Judges, and to the information which is within the knowledge of every Member of the House, he will see that this is a case in which there was no charge of anything like the existence of corrupt practices at all, and that the late Member for Barrow in Furness, Mr. Duncan, was unseated not on account of corrupt practices, but on the ground of an illegal practice. The illegal practice in question was, that on the day of election, after taking advice,

83
Mr. Duncan ordered some refreshment, very moderate in amount, to be given to certain persons who had been actually working for him, and that has been held by the judges to be an illegal practice within the meaning of the Statute. I will read what the Election Judges say about it. They say—
"And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we report that at the conclusion of the said Trial we determined that the said David Duncan, being the Member whose Election and return were complained of in the said Petition, was not duly elected and returned, by reason of illegal practices, within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, having been committed by or with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent, in reference to the said Election, and also by the Election Agent of the Respondent (with the like knowledge and consent), and we do certify in writing such our determination to you.
And whereas charges were made in the said Petition of corrupt and illegal practices having been committed at the said Election, we, in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:—
That no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any Candidate at such Election.
That the following persons were proved at the Trial guilty of illegal practices, namely, illegal employment, to both of whom we have furnished Certificates of Indemnity:—
David Duncan, the Respondent;
Abraham Langhorn Garnett, the Respondent's Election Agent.
We further report that there is no reason to believe that either corrupt or illegal practices have extensively prevailed at the Parliamentary Election for the Borough of Barrow in Furness, in the County of Lancaster, to which the said Petition relates."
SIR JOHN GORST: The hon. and learned Attorney General has not replied to the objection of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). The objection of my hon. Friend was, that although there may not be a Standing Order, it has always been the determination of the House whenever an hon. Member had been unseated by an existing tribunal, and that tribunal has reported that he had been unseated in consequence of the Commission of Corrupt Practices by anybody, there should be a few days' notice before a Motion was made for the issue of a new writ, so that every Member might have an opportunity of examining the Report of the Judges who tried the Petition. In those days there was no such thing as an "illegal practice;" but it pleased the House, by an Act passed about a year before the termination of the last
84
Parliament, to institute a new electoral offence, called "an illegal practice," and the question now is whether the same rule should not be applied to illegal practices as has been wisely applied to corrupt practices. If it is considered that an illegal practice is an offence of so venal a character that it should not necessitate any action on the part of the House, then it may be quite right that a writ of this kind should be moved; but if the House is desirous to make the Act of 1884 a reality, and not a sham, I think it would be wise for the House to apply to illegal practices exactly the same rule as has been applied to corrupt practices. If that is done, it would follow that whenever a man is unseated for the commission of an illegal practice, there ought to be three days' notice before a Motion is made for the issue of a new writ, so that hon. Members may have an opportunity of examining the Report of the Election Judges, in order to see whether there is any objection to the issue of the writ, or whether it ought to be issued as a matter of course. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry intended, and I do not think that what the hon. and learned Attorney General said in reply has at all answered that objection.
Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the election of a Member to serve in this Present Parliament for the Borough of Barrow in Furness, in the room of David Duncan, Esq., whose election has been declared void."

QUESTIONS.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)—SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION—CROACHIE OF DAVIOT, INVERNESS-SHIRE.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Secretary for Scotland, Whether his attention has been called to a defect in school accommodation for the Presbyterian children in and about Croachie of Daviot, in Inverness-shire; and, whether he will order that steps be taken to remove the grievance?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.)(who replied) said: In answer to this Question,

  85
  I have to state that the Department are now in communication with the School Board on the subject, and await a proposal from the Board, with whom the primary responsibility for the school supply rests.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND)— PAYMENT OF RATES IN THE HIGHLANDS.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Secretary for Scotland, If his attention has been directed to a printed statement lately issued by the proprietrix of South Uist, where it is alleged that the crofters and others to a large extent decline to pay their share of the parochial rates and assessments; whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the truth of the above allegation; and, whether the arrears of rates in South Uist, if greater than the average, has any connection with the prevalent distress in the locality?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.)(who replied) said: Attention was directed to this printed statement, and the serious results likely to ensue from the non-payment of rates in various island parishes in Inverness-shire were brought under the notice of the Government by communications from the Board of Supervision and other persons. Directions were consequently given, under which a special inquiry is now being made into the whole circumstances connected with the arrears of rates and the distress alleged to exist in certain parishes in Skye. When the Report has been received it will be the duty of the Government to consider whether the inquiry should be extended to other districts, including South Uist.

  CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND)—OUTRAGES ON LADY GORDON CATHCART.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been directed to a printed statement, lately issued by the proprietrix of South Uist, where it is alleged that outrages were committed by paraffin being put in her Church pew, by telegraph lines being cut, and the terrorism prevailing was such that the perpetrators of these crimes could not be discovered by the authorities, although
  86
  well known in the district; whether the Procurator Fiscal at Lochinaddy investigated the circumstances; and, whether there is any information in possession of the criminal authorities to warrant the charge made that the outrages were committed by members of the South Uist Land Law Reform League, or by any of the crofters and cottars on the estate of South Uist?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.): My attention has been called to this statement. In consequence of information which reached me in the autumn of 1881 regarding various outrages alleged to have been committed in South Uist, I caused an inquiry to be made by the Procurator Fiscal, the result of which as regards the specific acts mentioned in the Question was that it was ascertained that the parish church had been entered between Saturday night and Sunday morning, and that paraffin oil had been spread over certain pews, books, &c., in the church; but it was not established that oil had been placed in the pew of the proprietrix. It was also ascertained that a telegraph wire had been cut and certain other illegal acts done; but it could not be ascertained who the perpetrators of the offences were.

  THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE— ATTENDANCE OF OFFICIALS.
  MR. H. CAMPBELLasked Mr. Attorney General, Who is responsible for the punctual and regular attendance of the officers of the Royal Courts of Justice; is it the fact that there is great irregularity in the attendance, some officials arriving about 11.30, and leaving before 3, and, in consequence, much loss of time to the public and suitors generally; and, is there any time or attendance book for signature by the various officers and clerks, and who has the supervision of it?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): In answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to say that this matter has been brought before the Lord Chancellor, and I have received a letter from the Lord Chief Justice, who is now presiding over a Committee to which this very matter was referred. I will, therefore, ask the hon. Member not to press the Question further until a Report can be presented on the subject.

  THE LAND COMMISSION (IRELAND)— FAIR RENTS—CASE OF HUGH REILLY AND PATRICK REEHILL, CLINCOOHY, CO. FERMANAGH.
  MR. H. CAMPBELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it the fact that Hugh Reilly and Patrick Reehill, of Clincoohy, barony of Knockninny, county Fermanagh, served the necessary notices upon their landlord, the Rev. J. Massy Beresford, to have a fair rent fixed; whether these cases were heard at Lisnaskea on 15th October 1883, four Commissioners being present; did the fair rent fixed in both cases correspond with the old rent; is it true that the Commissioners never inspected the farms of these men; if so, was the course pursued regular; and, will the cases be reheard?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): These cases were heard by the Commissioners on the date mentioned. The fair rent fixed in both cases was the old rent, which was below the Poor Law valuation. The Commissioners heard the evidence of valuers; but they did not inspect the farms themselves. That, I understand, was a matter within their discretion. No appeal was lodged against the decision, although it was open to the tenants to do so. The time allotted for this purpose has long since passed.

  CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT—OUTPORT CLERKS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What steps the Treasury intend taking to provide for the principal clerks at present stationed at Bristol, Hull, Newcastle, Dublin, Belfast, and Leith, in view of the fact that, whereas seven principal clerks were provided for in last year's Estimates, only one principal clerk at the Customs Out-ports is provided for in the Estimates for the present year?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The offices of principal clerks having at the recent revision been struck off the establishment of the ports of Bristol, Hull, Newcastle, Dublin, Belfast, and Leith, it was not possible to provide salaries for the holders of those offices under the name
  88
  of principal clerks. Their pay has, therefore, been provided with, and included in, that estimated for clerks of the first class, they being, in fact, supernumerary principal clerks employed in vacancies of first-class clerk, but paid at their old salaries. No individual lately holding the office of a principal clerk, and now redundant as such, will sustain pecuniary injury through the revision.

  THE BRITISH WEST INDIES—CONVENTION WITH THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the draft Conventions for facilitating trade between the British West Indies and the United States of America, as propounded by the Government of the United States, contained treaty proposals conferring upon those British Colonies the status and privileges of the most favoured nation; and, whether the Government of the United States have, ever since, expressed to Her Majesty's Government their unwillingness to enter into a treaty engagement to accord the most favoured nation treatment to the British West Indies; and, if so, when and under what circumstances such expression of unwillingness was made?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The only Draft Convention proposed by the Government of the United States for facilitating trade between that country and the British West Indies will be found at page 11 of the Parliamentary Paper No. 4 Committee of 1885. The 11th Article contains a qualified and conditional Most Favoured Nation Clause. The reasons for which Her Majesty's Government were unable to agree to that Draft are given in Earl Granville's despatch of the 12th of February, 1885, in the same Paper. The Government of the United States have not since then expressed unwillingness to grant most favoured nation treatment to the British West India Colonies; but, in such correspondence as has subsequently passed, they have not given any definite answer to Earl Granville's despatch.

  EGYPT—ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS— SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF'S REPORTS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.)asked the Under Secretary

  89
  of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received, or expect soon to receive, any Report from Sir Henry Drummond Wolff on the state of Egypt; whether they propose soon to lay upon the Table that and other Papers throwing light on the internal Administration of Egypt, and especially showing the fate of the self-governing institutions recommended by Lord Dufferin, and decreed by the Khedive; showing whether there has been any real progress towards a Native Administration that can stand by itself, and a Native Army that can protect the Country, and also showing whether the Country is contented, peaceful, and fairly free from violent crime, or whether brigandage and violent crime are common; whether the administration of justice is satisfactory, and the state of the gaols creditable, or the justice is scandalously bad, and the gaols full of persons arbitrarily detained without trial, as represented by Mr. Justice West; what are the irrigation works in progress; whether any relief has been given to the cultivators of Upper Egypt, always over-taxed, and now affected by the fall in prices; whether the revenue survey is more effective, or is still as bad as represented by Lord Dufferin; whether the Crown domains are as mismanaged as has been represented; whether forced labour has been abolished, or is still actively enforced; and, whether, in regard to Mokabileh and Pension claims, and other financial questions, the Natives have had the same measure of justice as Europeans?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): Her Majesty's Government are receiving from Sir H. Drummond Wolff Reports on the various branches of the Egyptian Question, and it is probable that these Reports will be in due course laid upon the Table of the House; but, pending the continuance of Sir H. Drummond Wolff's Mission, it is not possible to find a date for their publication. With regard to the seven other Questions which my hon. Friend puts to me, he must, of course, be aware that I could not reply to them in a manner which would give to the House any information not already in its possession without far exceeding the limits which it allows to the answer to a Question. He will find ample materials for informing
  90
  himself on the topics to which he calls attention in the Papers already laid, and hereafter to be laid, before Parliament.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he wished to explain. His hon. Friend had misunderstood his Question. He did not ask for information on the points set out in it, but whether any Papers would be laid on the Table in regard to them all.
  MR. HANBURYasked whether Mr. Justice West's Report had been received.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, the Report had been received, and was now under consideration. As to the observation of his hon. Friend, he could only say that his answer was suggested by the series of seven Questions put to him. Information on these points would doubtless be found in the Papers about to be presented, but he could not say when.

  STATE OF IRELAND—INFLAMMATORY PLACARDS—CASE OF ALEXANDER STEEN, CLOGER, CO. TYRONE.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is now prepared to state what course the Government intend to take in the case of Alexander Steen, stamp distributor and registrar of marriages at Clogher, county Tyrone, in reference to the evidence submitted to him as to Mr. Steen's part in issuing an inflammatory placard summoning an Orange counter-demonstration, and subsequently publishing a black list distinguishing the Orange from the Nationalist traders of Clogher by name?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say hat I made inquiry and sent an Inspector—or an official—down to make an inquiry into this matter. The information which I have obtained in response to that inquiry does not legally connect Alexander Steen with the issue of the placard referred to. The hon. Member will perceive that a particular name being affixed to a placard is not itself legal evidence against that person. I am advised that neither the placard nor the notice could be the subject of a prosecution. In the absence of any persons to come forward to give evidence in public we cannot carry the matter further.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked whether there was any other Alexander Steen in the district, and whether he had been asked if he was the author of these placards?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Subject to legal correction I will state that I believe we have no right to go to him on the subject. I may point out that the mere fact of his name appearing on the circular in no way connects him with it.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN(who on rising was received with cries of "Order!") said, he was perfectly in Order. He would ask whether this gentleman had ever disowned these placards, seeing that they had upon several occasions been the subject of discussion in that House and elsewhere?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: We cannot press him to own or disown them.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I will then be obliged on Friday next to put down a Motion upon this matter.

  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS —LEGISLATION.
  SIR JAMES CORRYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Government intends introducing a Bill this Session dealing with the claims urged by the National School Teachers in Ireland for improved position and increased salaries?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am sorry to say that I am not in a position to give any undertaking that this subject will be dealt with in the present Session.

  THE CHANNEL ISLANDS—JERSEY GAOL.
  MR. DAVID SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that in Her Majesty's prison in Jersey prisoners are shut up during the winter season from dusk till seven in the morning without the cells being warmed, without lights, and without any means of communication with a warder; and, whether he will send an Inspector to examine the prison, and report to him thereon, or to take such steps as he may think right to ameliorate the condition of the prisoners?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir. The fact is as stated
  92
  in the Question of the hon. Member. I have called the attention of the Governor of the Island to the matter, and he has asked me that an Inspector of English prisons may be sent over to report on the state of the prison there. I have accordingly given instructions that this may be arranged at once. I would remind the hon. Member that the prison administration in Jersey is vested in a Prisons Board, composed of the leading officials of the Island, and not in the Secretary of State in the sense that the administration of English prisons is under the Act of 1877.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— THE TRANSIT OF VENUS.
  MR. BRODRICKasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the final Report of the Expeditions to observe the Transit of Venus in 1882, subsidised by the British Government to the extent of £14,689, has been presented; and, if not, when it will be presented?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER), in reply, said, that it was hoped that the final Report of the Expeditions would be presented in June.

  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (IRELAND)—THE COLLECTOR GENERAL OF RATES FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the opinion given by the late Attorney General for Ireland, that the Collector General of Rates for the city of Dublin was entitled to make in the rate books of the city the alteration which he has made in the rate books for the current year, by adding a column for occupiers not liable for payment of rates, Under what circumstances the opinion of the late Attorney General was sought for, and whether it was given by him in his capacity as a Law Officer of the Crown; whether the present Attorney General for Ireland has been consulted on this question, and whether his opinion agrees with that attributed to the late Attorney General; whether portions of the English Rates Act of 1869, and of the English Registration Act of 1878, incorporated with "The Representation of the People Act, 1884," direct that occupiers, whether liable for payment of the rates or not, be returned

  93
  for every qualification dependent upon rating; whether at the current revision of the lists of Poor Law voters in Dublin, the Revising Barrister, notwithstanding the provisions cited, is excluding from the Poor Law franchise occupiers not liable for payment of rates; and, what steps will be taken to prevent the disfranchisement of thousands of occupiers in Dublin, and to execute the purpose expressed in the Franchise Act?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The opinion of the late Attorney General was obtained from him in his capacity as Law Officer. As I mentioned before, on that particular matter, both he and the present Solicitor General, and Mr. Carton, Q.C., have given an opinion in accordance with that given by several other eminent counsel, that the Franchise Act of 1884 does not apply to the Poor Law franchise. The matter can only be solved by a legal decision, which can be readily obtained in the Courts of Law.

  INDIA—ANNEXATION OF UPPER BURMAH—THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS, BOMBAY.
  MR. HUNTERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the following resolution passed at the Indian National Congress held in Bombay on the 28th, 29th, and 30th December 1885:—
  "That this Congress deprecates the annexation of Upper Burmah, and considers that, if the Government unfortunately decide on annexation, the entire Country of Burmah should be separated from the Indian Viceroyalty, and constituted a Crown Colony, as distinct in all matters from the Government of this Country as is Ceylon;"
  whether the Rangoon Chamber of Commerce, in May 1885, expressed its desire that "Burmah may be constituted a Colony unattached to the Indian Peninsular;" and, whether, having regard to those indications of opinion from India and from Burmah in favour of the separation of the two Countries, the Government will take the question into their consideration?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH): The Secretary of State is aware of the Resolution passed at the Indian National
  94
  Congress held in Bombay in December last, and also of the opinion of the Rangoon Chamber of Commerce expressed in May, that Burmah should be constituted a Crown Colony; but it is not, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, necessary to consider the question of separating Burmah from the Indian Empire.

  INLAND REVENUE—THE SALE OF STAMPS.
  MR. BERNARD KELLYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If a Company are prepared to pay the Government their full price for penny stamps, and if they, without fraud, are prepared to re-sell them to the public through stationers who hold licences to sell stamps at a halfpenny each, if the Government would interfere with the said stationers selling same?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The proposal in question is now under the consideration of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; but no decision has yet been been arrived at as to whether the scheme should be sanctioned or not.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—APPOINTMENT OF WORKHOUSE MEDICAL OFFICER AND DISPENSARY MEDICAL OFFICER.
  MR. HARRIS(for Mr. FOLEY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, in Ballinrobe, Castlebar, Ballina, and other Irish dispensary districts, the offices of Workhouse Medical Officer and Dispensary Medical Officer are held by different persons; whether the dispensary district of Clifden, extending sixteen miles north and south of the town of that name, and having a population of 9,593, is more extensive and more populous than any of the districts named; whether the last two occupants of the combined office of Workhouse and Dispensary Medical Officer in the Clifden District died in consequence of the pressure of overwork upon them; and, whether the Local Government Board have considered a series of Resolutions, adopted on the 17th instant by a public meeting at Clifden, setting forth the necessity, owing to the extent and population of the district, and the number of recent

  95
  deaths in consequence of the want of adequate medical assistance, that two Medical Officers instead of one should be appointed; and whether this course will be taken?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Sir, the fact is as stated in the first paragraph of this Question. In Clifden, which is not so populous or so extensive as any of the other three districts named, and in about half the Unions in Ireland, the offices in question are held by the same person, as it is found that in places where the opportunities of private practice are few the combined salaries enable the Guardians to secure the services of persons of higher qualification than if they could only offer the salary appertaining to one post. The combined salaries in Clifden only amount to £180 a-year. The Local Government Board have no information as to the cause of death of the last two occupants of the office beyond a statement made in a Resolution passed at the meeting referred to; and having regard to the extreme poverty of the Union, and to the fact that the existing arrangement has been in force for 34 years, they do not feel they would be justified in interfering with the discretion of the Guardians and Dispensary Committee, or in compelling them to incur more expense.

  INLAND REVENUE—INCOME TAX— THE ASSESSMENTS.
  MR. GIBBasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he was rightly reported to have said that any of the Government officials, such as surveyors of taxes, connected with the assessment of Income Tax are paid either wholly or partly by commission, so as to give them an interest in raising assessments; and, whether payment by poundage or commission is not confined to collectors of taxes who are local officers?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): There was some misapprehension as to the answer I gave the other day. The Question was put with reference to "supervisors" of taxes, and I supposed it to refer to the local officials. As suggested in the Question, the local officers are alone paid by commission. The officers of the Government are paid by salary.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) ACT, 1878.
  MR. THEODORE FRYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, during the present Session of Parliament, to bring in a Bill similar to that mentioned in the Queen's Speech opening the Session of 1884, and subsequently introduced by the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, making the Irish Sunday Closing Act of 1878 permanent, and extending its provisions to the five cities and towns exempted from its full operations.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): It is too early in the Session to answer positively; but we hope pretty confidently to bring in a measure similar to that which my right hon. Friend introduced in 1884.

  IRISH CHURCH ACT, 1869—THE GLEBE PURCHASERS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government, in dealing with the case of the Irish glebe purchasers, will have regard to the condition of tenants who held their farms on terminable leases, and purchased them under the Church Act, by paying one - fourth of the purchase money, and giving an instalment mortgage for the remaining three-fourths; and, if the Government will consider whether such tenants should be admitted to participate in the relief provided by section twenty-three of "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885," and whether some relief should be afforded to such tenants and all yearly tenants who similarly purchased, in respect of the one-fourth of the purchase money paid down, and the excess of the price paid over the true value?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I have obtained a good many replies to inquiries on the subject mentioned in the hon. Member's Question, and there will be great difficulty, probably insuperable difficulty, in the way of reducing the principal money agreed to be paid by the tenants. I am also informed that such a course would seriously affect the financial position of the Commissioners. I have consulted with my

  97
  hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury as to the relaxation under the 23rd section of the Purchase Act, with a view to making provision for the relief of purchasers who have not paid their instalments. For that relaxation I will co-operate with my hon. Friend.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)— SYSTEM OF CONTRACTS.
  MR. PETER M'DONALDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the several contracts by the Board of Works in Ireland, especially in regard to the supply of stores, furniture, &c., to the Public Departments are open to general competition after due notice by advertisement in the leading Dublin and provincial papers; or, whether a preferential intimation is merely given to a limited number of traders to whom thereby such contracts are in consequence confined?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER), in reply, said, that the means adopted to procure articles required by contract was based upon public competition, except in cases where a supply of one or two articles, which were obtained direct from certain quarters, which were found most suitable. The supplies were obtained by public, open competition, except for some very small or special purposes, where, as in the City of Dublin, it was found that large firms would not compete. On this account circulars were sent round to certain persons.
  MR. BARRYasked, would the hon. Gentleman give the names of the firms thus invited to compete?
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I am unable to do so without Notice.
  MR. BARRYsaid, he would put a further Question on the subject.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— KINGSTOWN EAST PIER.
  MR. PETER M'DONALDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Kingstown Township Commissioners can obtain the charge of the footway of the East Pier, in view of the fact that, until so taken in charge by them, no expenditure out of the local rates could be made for its improvement; and, whether, if such charge cannot be given to the Town Commissioners, the
  98
  Treasury will re-consider the matter, and include in the Estimates a sum sufficient to put the promenade portion in suitable condition, the same as has been done at Dover and elsewhere?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER), in reply, said, that under the Harbours Act the Commissioners of Public Works were unable to act in the manner suggested. They would offer no objection to the extension of the works from other than public funds.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPRESSION—CULTIVATION OF TOBACCO IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, with the view of testing the practicability of tobacco culture, he will allow experiments to be made, under proper supervision, in various parts of the United Kingdom?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): Yes, Sir. Under proper supervision I think this might be done.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE RECENT WEXFORD MAIDEN ASSIZE.
  MR. BARRYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the Wexford Spring Assizes, where, according to a report in The Times of 26th March,
  "Mr. Justice Johnson congratulated the Grand Jury on the fact that there were no prisoners for trial, notwithstanding the fact that eight months had elapsed since a Judge had last sat in Wexford;"
  and, whether he is aware that county Wexford, for its size, contains more branches of the National League than any other county in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): It is quite true that there was a maiden Assize at Wexford this spring. The information in the possession of the Government does not enable them to decide whether the County Wexford occupies the prominent position stated by the hon. Member.
  MR. BARRYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that there had since been another maiden Assize at Wexford?
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he was unaware of this fact.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked, if it was not the case that the Orange Society had ramifications in Wexford?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I cannot say.

  MOROCCO—SLAVERY AT TANJIER— CASE OF FATTAH.
  MR. ALFRED PEASEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that considerable laxity exists in allowing persons, under the name of "servants," to enter the port of Tanjier in British steamers, and also to be carried from that place for sale in the Red Sea ports; and, whether he will give such instructions to the British Minister at Tanjier to make representations to the Moorish Government, so as to induce it to take such steps as will arrest this form of the slave trade?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): No such information has reached Her Majesty's Government; but they will be glad, if the hon. Member will furnish the information on which his Question is based, to instruct Her Majesty's Minister at Tangier to make all proper inquiries, and, if necessary, to address a representation to the Moorish Government on the subject.
  MR. ALFRED PEASEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a case, which has been noticed by the London press, of Fattah, a negro who it is stated had been working at the port of Tanjier for the last two years, and was seized on Sunday evening the 7th March (instant), and thrown into the Tanjier dungeon by the Governor, on the plea that a former master (Hddj Hamu El-Lulisheri, now a state prisoner at Fey), from whose cruelty he escaped in 1878, claimed him as part of his estate; whether he is aware that this negro was purchased ten years ago in Constantinople, carried to Gibraltar on board a British steamer, and thence transhipped to Morocco, when he fell into the hands of Hddj Hamu El-Lulisheri, the man now lying in Fey prison; whether he is aware that, although repeated and earnest representations were made, both to the Portuguese Minister, and by the Correspondent of British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society to the British Minister, Sir John Hay,
  100
  and, in spite of the fact that such an arrest was contrary to Moslem law, the Moorish authorities sent Fattahoff to Fey, manacled, and with a heavy iron chain round his neck; and, whether he will communicate with Sir John Hay, and secure, if possible, the immediate release and restoration to freedom of this man?
  MR. BRYCE: The attention of the Foreign Office has not been called to the case. If my hon. Friend will state the source of his information, inquiry will be made forthwith.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— ATHY AND CLONMEL MODEL SCHOOLS.
  MAJOR SAUNDERSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have ordered that some of their smaller model schools should be amalgamated and the head mistresses in them reduced to the rank and salary of assistants; whether the Commissioners have complied with the Petition of the Roman Catholic priests and people of Clonmel, on behalf of the head mistress of the girls' department of the model school in that town, who is a Roman Catholic; whether petitions signed by the Protestants of all denominations in the town and vicinity of Athy had been forwarded to the Board of National Education, in behalf of the head mistress of the combined girls' and infants' department of the Athy Model School, who is a member of the Church of Ireland; whether only a very small proportion of the children attending the girls' department of the Clonmel Model School are Roman Catholics, while two-thirds of those in the girls' and infants' departments of the Athy Model School are members of the Church of Ireland; whether, during the four years that the present head mistress has been in charge of the Athy Model School, over 96 per cent. of her pupils have succeeded in passing at the annual results' examinations; whether the head mistresses in model schools are appointed by open competitive examination; and, whether Her Majesty's Government would advise the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to comply with the petitions from Athy and to leave their reforms in abeyance until they can

  101
  be carried out without interfering with the vested interests of the teachers?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): It appears that until recently there were two model schools in Athy, one for boys and the other for girls and infants. The attendance at the former having fallen below the standard, it was resolved to? amalgamate the two schools; and as there could not be two principals, it was thought advisable to make the master, who is resident in the school house, the principal of the new school, the mistress remaining as assistant there until an opening could be found for her as principal in some other model school. No question of religion arose, as both were Protestants. I am informed that the Commissioners have now before them a proposal under which it may be possible to revert to the old arrangement of having two schools. What happened with regard to Clonmel was this. There was a Petition, not of the Catholic priest and people, for no priest signed it, but of the Mayor and other persons, and its prayer exactly tallied with the course resolved upon by the Board.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— INTIMIDATION AT DROMORE, CO. CLARE.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact of notices, of which the following is an extract, having been lately posted in the neighbourhood of Dromore, County Clare——
  "Now for the sake of liberty, country, and nationality, we call upon you to avoid all dealings with that mongrel and rotten sloggard, lame Tommy Crowe, of Dromore, let no one buy or sell with him, let no one work for him in any way, the man that does shall meet a sudden and untimely death; this is sworn by Him that Rules above.
  "By order of the Committee,
  "C. Moonlight;"
  whether three-fourths of Mr. Crowe's labourers, on the appearance of this notice, at once left their employment; and, whether the Irish Executive are unable to cope with tyranny of this description?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Notices containing the sentence quoted were found to have been posted in the
  102
  locality in which Mr. Crowe resides; and several of his labourers have left his employment, alleging the notice as the reason for doing so. The police at once took steps to trace the printer or publisher of the notice, which so far have not been successful. They also made arrangements for Mr. Crowe's personal protection, with which he has pronounced himself satisfied. The Government would have readily supported these men in resistance to this intimidation should they have resolved upon that course; but we have no power to compel them to resume work, or to take any steps in cases of the kind beyond those which I have mentioned.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this configurated notice was not put up until a number of labourers had actually left this gentleman's employment?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am not aware of that.

  IRELAND—ANTI-HOME RULE PETITIONS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with respect to the charge of procuring by intimidation signatures to Anti-Home Rule petitions in Ireland Whether the police have inquired into the foundation of the statement in The Drogheda Independent of the 13th inst., that in different parts of Meath and Louth, and in the neighbourhoods of Duleek and Bohermeen, the labouring men on the different estates are compelled to sign Anti-Home Rule Petitions, under threats of disemployment and in fear of starvation; and, whether inquiry has been made, as to a resolution adopted by the Keles Branch of the National League, declaring—
  "That we condemn as heartless and tyrannical the action of those magnates who are coercing their labourers and servants to sign an Anti-Home Rule Memorial, in the hope that they will thereby impose on Mr. Gladstone and his Government?"
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The police have made inquiries, and they report that no intimidation is being practised to procure signatures to anti-Home Rule Petitions, as is alleged in the newspaper statement and resolution referred to in the Question.

  EGYPT—THE EGYPTIAN EXILES.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in view of the facts that two Egyptian exiles in Ceylon pleaded guilty of a charge which involved the confiscation of their property, by the advice of Her Majesty's Representative in Egypt, on the distinct assurance that they should receive pensions adequate for their requirements during their exile, and that the Governor of Ceylon reported in a despatch to the Colonial Secretary, which was laid before the last Parliament, that their pensions are not adequate, Her Majesty's Government will see that they are increased; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will use their good offices with the Egyptian Government to bring the exile of these gentlemen from their native country to a speedy close?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): Her Majesty's Government are not aware that the Egyptian exiles received any such assurance as stated in my hon. Friend's Question. The Papers presented to Parliament show the contrary to be the case—see Egypt. No. 8, 1883, page 3. In consequence of the representations received from the Governor of Ceylon, Her Majesty's Acting Agent at Cairo was instructed in September last to recommend to the Egyptian Government an increase of the allowances to the exiles, so as to put each of them in receipt of £435 a-year, except Arabi Pasha, who receives £600 a-year, and who has refused to share his extra allowance with his companions. Sir Evelyn Baring's attention has recently been called to the matter, and it is intended to desire him officially to again communicate with the Egyptian Government on the subject. Considering the causes which led to the deportation of these exiles, and the results which might follow their return to Egypt, Her Majesty's Government can hold out no hope that they will use their good offices in the way suggested.

  CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS AND CLERKS.
  MR. MORGAN HOWARDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any decision has
  104
  yet been arrived at with respect to the claims of the Civil Service writers and clerks; and, if not, when such decision is likely to take place?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I hope very shortly to be in a position to announce the decision on the questions raised by the lower division clerks and the writers employed in the Government Departments.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND)—POLLING PLACES— LEGISLATION.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he intends to bring in a Bill dealing with the question of the cost of Polling Places in Scotland?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would also inform the House whether the Return which his Predecessor had promised would shortly be in the hands of hon. Members?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.): I am not in a position to answer that Question at the moment. The Returning Officers' Bill is in course of preparation; but we have had to communicate in Scotland with persons who are concerned in the administration of the law there, with a view to ascertaining what minimum charges can be inserted in the Schedule of the Bill.

  THE CROFTERS BILL—TRAMWAYS (SCOTLAND).
  MR. MARK STEWARTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government will consent to the facilities for the formation and working of tramways, given by "The Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1883," being extended to those parts of Scotland included in the Crofters Bill of the Government now before Parliament?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) (who replied) said: The question of extending the provisions of the Tramways Act to the Highlands of Scotland has not been considered, because the Government have been doing what is regarded as much more material—largely improving the steamer communication amongst the Islands and on the coasts of the Highlands

  105
  with very great and immediate advantage.

  GREENWICH AGE PENSIONS.
  SIR JOHN GORSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty will withdraw the regulation by which the amount of Greenwich Pension is limited, to such amount as raises the total received, as pension, to 2s. 6d. per diem?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. W. DUFF)(who replied) said: The Admiralty have already withdrawn the limit as to 2s. 6d. in such cases as they deem fit.
  SIR JOHN GORSTasked, how much the change would cost?
  MR. R. W. DUFF: It will cost the Charity about £500 a-year.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— BOGUS OUTRAGE AT CASTLECAULFIELD, CO. TYRONE—CASE OF ROBERT CUDDY.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Was it reported to the police, that, on the night of 21st December last, a man disguised and with his face blackened visited the houses of John Armstrong, Jonathan Colbert, Thomas Armstrong, Samuel Somerville, John Macwhinny, and William M'Kenna, near Castlecaulfield, county Tyrone; is it the fact that the man had a book with him, from which he pretended to read, and in which he seemed to make entries; that he asked who lived in each house, and for whom he had voted at the late election; said he was from Dublin and had other boys with him; that he told them to pay no rent, or, if they did, they would not have long to live; whether, when he came to the house of M'Kenna, he said, "All right, you are a Nationalist," and, pointing to a schoolhouse, which had been an Orange Lodge, said, "That must be removed;" was he hunted down and captured by two men named Bunnes and Armstrong, and did it transpire that he was an Orangeman named Robert Cuddy, junior; is it true that Cuddy and his father were brought by the police before a local justice, Colonel Burgess, and discharged without a prosecution; and, was the case reported, to the resident magistrate, and have any steps been taken to punish the author
  106
  of this outrage; and, if not, who is responsible?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): In connection with this case I have received from Colonel Burgess a repudiation of his having acted with any spirit of partizanship in the matter. I have also received from the Inspector General a Report which puts the affair in a rather serious light; and I have accordingly laid the papers before the Attorney General for his decision as to whether a prosecution should be instituted against Robert Cuddy, jun. I shall then consider what further action the circumstances of the case call for.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to submit the action of Colonel Burgess to the Lord Chancellor?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I have no doubt that what Colonel Burgess did will at the same time come within the purview of the inquiry.

  TRANSFER OF LAND AND HOUSE PROPERTY—LEGISLATION.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, during the present Session, to introduce a Bill for the purpose of cheapening the transfer of land and house property?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE)in reply, said, that the question was receiving the full consideration of his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, but it was impossible to give an answer in regard to it at present The Question was not so simple as it looked, or as one unacquainted with the subject might imagine, as it involved rather a large consideration of the manner in which land under entail or settlement is dealt with.

  PROVISION FOR THE ROYAL FAMILY.
  MR. HOWARD SPENSLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in accordance with the assurance given in the last Parliament, he contemplates the appointment of a Committee to consider the question of grants of money to the Royal Family?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE):

  107
  It is quite accurate that an intention was expressed in the course of last Session by the Government then in Office, consisting in great part of Members of the present Government, to move for the appointment of a Committee to consider the question of grants of money to the Royal Family, and that intention is still retained. But with regard to the precise time for asking the House to appoint that Committee, we are doubtful whether the present time would be convenient when questions of great and absorbing interest and difficulty are in immediate prospect. I therefore cannot say at what specific moment it may be considered convenient to submit the proposal to the House.

  PROCEDURE—UNOPPOSED RETURNS.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Under what circumstances the Return No. 11 (Universities Oxford and Cambridge) moved for by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Thorold Rogers) has been assented to by the Home Office as an unopposed Return? The Return itself is of a very comprehensive and inquisitorial character; it has only appeared on the Paper to-day; and no intimation that the hon. Member intended to move for it was previously given to the Representatives of either Oxford or Cambridge University.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): I am not quite sure that the term "inquisitorial," which has been used by the right hon. Gentleman, is strictly regular; but however that may be, I am very happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman all I can with reference to the Return. The application for this Return was made by my hon. Friend below the Gangway some weeks ago, and when he made it I placed myself in communication with the Vice Chancellors of the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The communications lasted for some time, and ultimately the character of the Return was considerably modified. After I had obtained the concurrence of the two Vice Chancellors, I was not aware that it was my duty to do more than consent to the Return as an unopposed Return. If I had known that it was the custom to consult the Members for the two Universities as
  108
  well as the officers of the Universities, I would have been happy to do so; but I have no recollection of any previous occasion in which that was thought necessary. In my opinion, the Return itself will be an extremely useful one.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERS: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has stated, I asked for the Return some time ago, and I stated certain facts in connection with it. I was unaware that it was necessary to consult the Representatives of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, or I certainly should have done so, if only as a matter of common courtesy. I know that the form of the Return was submitted to the Vice Chancellors of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and that they made some emendations in it; and, under those circumstances, I moved for the Return as an unopposed Return at five minutes past 4 to-day. All I can say is, that I asked you, Sir, when I should make the Motion, and you were good enough to say that it ought to be made after the Private Business. As a dutiful Member of the House I obeyed your ruling.
  MR. RAIKES: As to the form of this Return I will say nothing; but I will ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, Whether his attention has been called to the serious interference with the privileges of the House that may arise from the course pursued in the present case, if an hon. Member is allowed to put down a Notice one day of his intention to move for a Return, and is then, on the next Parliamentary day, to move for it as an unopposed Return, with the consent of the Department concerned? I must say that in such a case the jurisdiction of the House is altogether ousted, and the judgment of the House is precluded from being taken. I, therefore, ask my right hon. Friend whether he will not lay it down, on behalf of the Government, as a general principle, that in granting unopposed Returns, the Home Office will stipulate that a certain time must elapse, so that hon. Members who may object to them may have an opportunity of expressing their opinion?
  MR. CHILDERS: I think the suggestion of my right hon. Friend is not an unfair one, in the case of a complicated Return like the present one;

  109
  but I do not think it would be necessary, as a rule, to insist on its adoption in all cases. Of course, there are many simple Returns which it may be convenient to move for at once. I may add that, although I consented to this Return, I did not know that it was to be moved for to-day.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. B. GLADSTONE): I wish to say, with regard to the course of Business, that if the Committee on the Crofters Bill should not be closed this evening we shall proceed with it on Thursday. But if, as I hope is possible, it should be closed this evening, we should propose to proceed with Supply as the first Order on Thursday; and as the Report on the Crofters Bill would probably not take much time we should leave off Supply at an early hour to take that Report, and after that redeem the pledge we have given on the Sunday Closing Bill. On a former evening I said that I would give to-day the terms of the Motion with regard to Ireland. They will be for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the provisions for the future government of Ireland. That will be on the 8th. On the 12th, so far as depends on the Government, I will give further information, if I can, as to the course of Business; but on that day my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to produce the Budget; and on the 15th I shall propose to ask leave to bring in a Bill to make amended provision for the sale and purchase of land in Ireland.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  (Mr. Trevelyan, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
  CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.

    [BILL 118.] COMMITTEE.
    MR. M'LAREN, in rising to move—
    "That it be an Instruction to the said Committee that they have power to extend the provisions of the Bill to other parts of Scotland,"
    said, he was sure every Member interested
    110
    in this Bill would agree with him in regretting that the right hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) would no longer have the official conduct of the measure. Every Member in that House knew that the right hon. Gentleman took a sincere and a great interest in the crofters; and he was sure there was no Member of the Government who could have striven more conscientiously to make the Bill a thorough-going and useful measure. Though they would no longer have the advantage of his assistance in the Government, they would hope to have his powerful assistance as an independent Member, and he trusted that Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman could not have supported as Secretary for Scotland, he might be able to support as a private Member. The Bill was limited to five counties named in the Bill, and several Members had given Notice of Amendments to extend that provision. He understood that unless the Committee had an Instruction to extend the provision of the Bill it would not be competent for any hon. Member to move any such Amendment in Committee. The only object of this Instruction was that the Committee should have power to entertain these Amendments and to judge them on their merits. He should like to have a definite ruling from the Chair on this subject; and he therefore asked the Speaker whether it would be competent for the Committee to entertain any Amendment which would bring other counties within the scope of the measure unless some such Instruction as this was carried?
    MR. SPEAKER: On looking at the Bill, I am clearly of opinion that an Instruction of the nature proposed to be moved for by the hon. Member would be distinctly necessary to empower the Committee to do what otherwise they would not be competent to do.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, that being the case, he hoped that the Government, on the understanding that this Instruction was moved only for the purpose of admitting certain Amendments for discussion, would be able to accede to his Motion. He did not ask the Government to commit themselves to any particular Amendment. He only asked them to give power to the Committee to take the Amendments into consideration. The Bill at present did not proceed

    111
    on a logical principle. The House was not accustomed to entertain measures for altering the law with respect to particular counties. It had been of late attempted to pass Sunday Closing measures for Durham and Cornwall; but they had never been received with favour by the House. The principle which the House had always gone upon was not to pass measures for particular geographical districts, but to pass measures relating to special conditions of society wherever these conditions might exist; and he asked the House to consider whether it would not be a more logical application of this principle of legislation to say that this Bill should apply to all those districts in Scotland where crofting conditions existed. If this were done, it would render the Bill a much more useful, more satisfactory, and more complete measure. Aberdeen and Perthshire formed as important a part of the Highlands as Inverness, and why should they be excluded from the benefits of the Bill? Why was an unfortunate farmer in one district to be excluded from advantages which a farmer in another was allowed to enjoy? If it was said that the Commissioners only visited certain counties, and only reported on certain counties, then he thought that would be taking advantage of a technicality which would be unworthy of Her Majesty's Government. The Commissioners had power to go into any district they chose, the scope of their Reference being the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. He thought the more the Government would consider this point the more they would see the justice and the expediency of allowing the Committee to be unhampered when deciding on the details of the Bill. The tenure this Bill proposed to establish was beneficial; but some persons doubted whether crofters could really live on their holdings without the aid of some other occupation, like fishing. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcudbrightshire had an Amendment which would deal with the fishery question, and it would be good to give to all crofters, who could earn some money by fishing, the privileges of this Bill. Now, in some of the counties to which he had alluded, particularly in Bute, there was every opportunity for allowing a crofter to hold a little land, and also to do a little fishing; and if the whole question was to have a
    112
    fair trial the House ought, as far as possible, to extend the principle to districts in which it was most probable that the crofting system would succeed. The crofters that would be benefited under this Bill would form a very small class indeed; and it was a very dangerous and invidious thing to create, as this Bill did, a small peasant aristocracy, having privileges that were withheld from all others of their class throughout Scotland—an aristocracy which, by reason of the smallness of their numbers and of the restrictions with which this Bill was hampered, would inevitably die out unless the Bill were extended. He humbly suggested that the only true statesmanlike principle on which the Bill could be carried out would be to say that anyone who could say "I fulfil the conditions of this Bill," might have a right to avail himself of its provisions. He hoped the Instruction would be accepted by the Government; and in Committee hon. Members who had already Notices of Amendments would be able to give ample reasons for asking that the provisions of the Bill should be extended.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it be an Instruction to the said Committee that they have power to extend the provisions of the Bill to other parts of Scotland."—(Mr. M'Laren.)
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he gathered from the hon. Gentleman's observations that his object was to get the Government to allow this Instruction to pass, practically without argument, for the purpose of allowing certain Amendments to be moved in Committee, which Mr. Speaker had ruled could not be moved without such an Instruction. He thought that would be a very inconvenient and very unsatisfactory course, because it would be practically pledging this House in Committee to consider a perfectly new matter; one which had never been suggested in debate before in this House, and which had never been discussed in any way throughout the country as a practical question. He thought he was justified in stating broadly and frankly that this idea of dealing with this question as a general question affecting all Scotland was one which had never been discussed by the community, and that there had

    113
    never been any facts laid before this House, by Report or otherwise, to guide them in the matter. It was an entirely new idea, neither coming from the people in the other districts of Scotland themselves nor suggested by the Report of the Royal Commission. The sole ground for the Commissioners' inquiries, the sole matter with which the Commission after its inquiries dealt, was narrowed down to the consideration of the condition of certain places and districts in the West Highlands and Islands of Scotland, where it was alleged that in consequence of the conditions of the population in the crofter townships there was distress existing. The hon. Gentleman opposite had not suggested—and he would have been surprised if he or anyone who knew anything about Scotland had suggested it—that throughout the districts of Scotland, not embraced in this Bill, there was distress among any population similar to that in the West Highlands and Islands which should call in any way for the intervention of Parliament; and if there was no ground for considering the condition of the people in the West Highlands and Islands as different from that of the people of a similar class in life in other parts of Scotland, then there was no call for proceeding to legislation on the subject at all. He ventured to submit that the only ground for this legislation was that there had been something anomalous in the history of the West Highlands and Islands which led to the distress that now called for Parliamentary interference; and it would need a strong case in a Bill brought in expressly to meet and to carry out a Report of the Royal Commission to justify Parliament in not limiting itself to the somewhat limited, confined, and peculiar areas to which the inquiries of the Commission had been limited, and to extend it practically to the whole of Scotland. He thought the House would demand to know whether, when such proposal was made, there was any ground in the Report or the evidence of the Royal Commission to show that there were other parts of Scotland which were practically in the same position as the West Highlands and Islands? The proposal was a very extraordinary one to come from people who had been parties to the issuing of a Royal Commission, and to the confining of that Commission, to the districts
    114
    with which it dealt. He presumed they had not learned anything since the Commission was issued which would lead them to the conclusion that they had then been ill-informed as to the general state of Scotland, and that they should have asked for an inquiry with reference to the whole of Scotland. But if they did now think that this matter could not be dealt with finally without dealing with it on the footing that the whole of Scotland should be included, then the proper course would be to move for another inquiry. Instead of that, however, they were asked, on the ipse dixit of the hon. Member for Stafford and some other Members, to proceed on the footing that although there had been no inquiry made or suggested into the state of matters in the rest of Scotland they should proceed now to extend the scope of the operation of the Bill, solely and only because the hon. Member and certain other Gentlemen said that they believed there was other places in which the general historical observations, it might be, or the general features of the country and population resembled to some extent those in the West Highlands and Islands. That would be a very extraordinary instruction to give to the Committee. They were at present dealing with a Bill based on the idea of carrying out the Report of the Royal Commissions. But he was not, as a matter of fact, surprised that some were anxious to go outside the scope of the Bill; because, in his own judgment, the Government had taken an extraordinary course in selecting one isolated item in the Report of the Royal Commission, and proposing to carry it out in one way, and now by an Amendment they had on the Paper proposing to carry it out in an entirely different way. The recommendations and opinions of the Commissioners as to what was required to meet the distress in the Highlands were absolutely ignored by the Government; and not only so, but the main recommendations upon which the Commission declared any legislation that followed would have any real and permanent beneficial effect upon the population of the Highlands had also been ignored down to the present time. It was suggested in the Motion that the Bill should apply in any part of Scotland where it could be ascertained that similar circumstances prevailed to those in

    115
    the Highlands and Islands. How were these facts to be ascertained? There was only one way, and that was to appoint somebody, after the Bill was passed, to ascertain to what areas of the country it should apply. That would be a strange proceeding. They had always been led to expect in all land legislation that they were reaching a definite point and dealing with exceptional cases; yet whenever one particular case was disposed of—in this instance even before the particular case was disposed of—they discovered that, so far from being exceptional, it was after all general. In this case they had a Motion proposing that all idea of dealing with an exceptional case was out of the question, and that the legislation begun as dealing with an exceptional condition of things was to be extended until it absorbed the whole circuit of the three Kingdoms. In a former debate the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) said that the Bill ought to be extended to the East of Scotland. He wanted to know from Her Majesty's Government how they were going to proceed with this case. Did they mean to stick by the Bill for dealing with the West Highlands and Islands, or not? He was sure a great many Members would not have allowed the second reading to pass without a division if it had been thought a movement was to be made in Committee to turn it into a Bill having general application. The hon. Member for Stafford said he thought there would be great danger in establishing a small privileged aristocracy in the Highlands and Islands; but was there such a danger in the case of Islands? If that was to be the effect of the Bill, there might be great danger in it. Legislation of this kind was already complete in Ireland. Did the hon. Member consider that great injury had been done in Ireland by establishing there a privileged aristocracy who could turn out their landlords at any time, but who could never be turned out themselves?
    MR. M'LAREN: What I suggested was that it was dangerous to establish a limited peasant aristocracy in certain limited areas in Scotland. My opinion is that all the persons of that class who fulfilled certain statutory conditions should have the benefit of the legislation just as they had in Ireland.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD, resuming, said, that he so understood the hon. Gentleman, and that raised the difficulty in his mind. It was now said that the inhabitants of the Highlands and Islands were not in an exceptional position, and it was proposed by the Bill to place them in one. He differed from that view, and believed that those inhabitants were, to some extent, in an exceptional position. If he had not believed that, he would not have allowed the second reading of the Bill without a division. It was only because the Report of the Royal Commission brought out clearly the distinction to be drawn between these people and the people of other parts of Scotland that legislation was thought desirable and was recommended. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill said that it was one dealing with an exceptional case, and that he did certain things because there was historic proof of the necessity, and refused to do other things because there was no such proof. Were they now to enter upon a vast scheme for dealing with the whole of Scotland? They ought to have a distinct statement from the Government in order that they might know what course to take. Surely it would not be reasonable or right that the scope of the Bill should be extended by a side-wind in the way recommended by the hon. Member.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.)said, he could only interpret the Motion of the hon. Member for Stafford as the expression of a desire that it ought to be in the power of the Committee to extend the Bill to places other than the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; not places other than the enumerated counties, but to places other than the Highlands and Islands. The Bill, as the title declared, was "a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Tenure of Land by Crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland;" and he would ask the Speaker's ruling, for the information of the House, as to whether it would not be competent under that title, and without any such Instruction as was proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford, for any hon. Member to say, when Clause 16 was reached—"Here is a place which falls within the category of Highlands and Islands," and to move the addition to that place without any formal

    117
    Motion? He believed it would be competent; and, therefore, he could only interpret the Motion as wishing to extend the Bill to parts of Scotland other than the Highlands and Islands. In a Bill with such a title, brought in upon the Report of a Commission directed to inquire into the condition of the crofters and cottars of the Highlands and Islands, it would not be right to go further, and the Government would strongly resist any proposal to do so.
    MR. SPEAKER: The question asked me by the hon. Member for Stafford was whether I should think an Instruction was necessary if the scope of a Bill, the title of which implied that it was limited to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, were proposed to be extended to the whole of Scotland? I said I had no doubt that, in that case, an Instruction would be necessary. I do not think, however, that it would be necessary for the House to give an Instruction to empower the Committee to include adjoining Highland counties in the Bill.
    MR. ESSLEMONTsaid, that Aberdeenshire had a larger interest in this Bill than any other county in Scotland. It had nearly 12,000 agricultural holdings, or one-sixth part of the agricultural holdings of Scotland, and a larger number of holdings of the sizes enumerated in the Schedule of the Bill than any other county. Accepting, however, the Speaker's ruling, he hoped he and his hon. Friend (Dr. Farquharson) would be able to show the Committee that there were good reasons for including Aberdeenshire in the Bill.
    SIR DONALD CURRIEsaid, he had intended to second the Motion; but after the statement of the Lord Advocate he would ask the hon. Member for Stafford to withdraw it. In Committee they would be able to discuss whether neighbouring counties and islands, such as Arran, should be included in the scope of the measure.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he could not agree with the request of the hon. Member. On the contrary, he thought the House should express an opinion on this subject. Although he apprehended that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) did not know much about the feelings of the crofters, yet other Members
    118
    had definite information on the subject; and he could assure the House that there was a strong desire on the part of the crofter farmers throughout Scotland to have the provisions of the Bill extended to the whole of that country. The claims which the crofters had in other parts of Scotland were no less strong than in the Highlands. The crofters in the Lowlands had done much more to improve their holdings than the crofters in the Western Islands and Highlands. Large tracts of land had been reclaimed entirely at the expense and with the labour of the Lowland crofters, who now occupied it. Many of these crofters had settled on a piece of moorland which they had obtained at a nominal rent, but still a higher rent than it brought in previously. After occupying that piece of land for, probably, a term of 19 years, the rent was raised to the actual value, and in many cases more than the value, of the holdings, the increase of rent being due to the improvements carried out by the tenants. That was a case which demanded the serious and earnest consideration of the House. Considering the fall in agricultural produce in the last two or three years, the condition of these crofters was very pitiable indeed. The tenants agreed, under pressure of necessity, to pay exorbitant rents for their holdings—rents which, even with the greatest industry, and with prices much higher than they were at present, they were barely able to pay. But now that the prices of agricultural produce had fallen so much they were actually being deprived of what little they had saved. The condition of many parts of Scotland was, therefore, very serious indeed. He appealed to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to look back to the legislation of the last few years, and ask themselves whether the great trouble and difficulty which had arisen in Ireland, and also in the Western Highlands of Scotland, was not because Parliament had not dealt soon enough with the question of the land? As he had heard it well expressed, Parliament had always refused to do anything so long as people were quiet. It was not until the people of Ireland had created some disturbance that Parliament listened to their demands; and now, again, it was not until the crofters of Scotland had become troublesome that their demands

    119
    were, to some extent, being acceded to. But the urgency for dealing with smaller tenants throughout the other parts of Scotland was not less great than the case of the Western Highlands. He, therefore, asked the House, as earnestly as he possibly could, to deal with this question while there was time, and before more serious difficulty arose? Anyone who considered the subject required little further evidence. Within the past two or three years the prices of agricultural produce had fallen by more than the amount of the rent. The consequence was that if a tenant now paid his rent he had to pay it out of his capital. If some steps were immediately taken to secure to the tenant a fair rent and security of tenure, he thought it would stimulate the tenants throughout Scotland very much to renewed exertions, and perhaps enable them to make the rent out of the land even in the face of all the difficulties under which they now laboured. For these reasons, he hoped the House would consent to the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for Stafford. He thought it would be a wise and prudent measure to extend the provisions of this Bill to the whole of Scotland. He assured the House that there was the greatest possible necessity and urgency for it, and that the farmers of Scotland really expected some practical measure from this Parliament. That was the hope held out to them during the last General Election; and he was sure that extreme disappointment would be felt if the proposal of the hon. Member for Stafford was not adopted by the House. He submitted that it was the duty of every hon. Gentleman in the House representing a Scotch agricultural constituency to support the Motion.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Stafford not to press his Motion. He was as anxious as anyone that all persons who could reasonably be brought within the scope of the measure should derive the benefit of this legislation. He was afraid, however, that the hon. Member, and those who supported him, were asking the House to take on board a small boat more passengers than it was capable of carrying, and there was a danger of the craft being swamped. If the Motion were adopted, it was very likely that, instead of a certain amount of relief being granted to the crofters of
    120
    the Islands and Highlands of Scotland, between the two stools they would fall to the ground and get nothing. The proposed Instruction would so enlarge the scope of the measure that it would be impossible to pass the Bill with ease and rapidity.
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he thought the Government might have accepted this Motion, deferring the discussion of its scope until they reached Committee. There was a strong and earnest desire on the part of many agriculturists in different parts of Scotland to be included in the Bill. His own constituency included a very large number of small holders under exactly the same conditions as the crofters in the West of Scotland, and they were all naturally very desirous to come within the scope of the Bill. The House had been told that there was practically no distress in other parts of Scotland. He begged emphatically to contradict that statement, because everyone knew perfectly well that there did exist distress of a very deep and serious character. That distress had been quietly borne. Those who endured it were an industrious and long-suffering people, carrying out their obligations willingly and manfully, and paying their rents up to the very last moment. Surely, then, the provisions of the Bill should be extended to them. At any rate, he hoped the discussions which might take place later on would result in placing Aberdeenshire within the scope of the Bill.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT, while admitting that distress prevailed amongst the agricultural population of Scotland generally, still he felt bound to say he never saw a Bill which was less suited to mitigate or improve the condition of the agricultural classes in what he might call the farming parts of Scotland. Liberals had for years been urging the necessity of what had been called free trade in land, and that was what he believed they were determined in a great measure to stick to. There was this great difference between the land with which the Bill dealt and that with which English Members and Scottish Members were familiar—within the more flourishing parts of Scotland, in these parts the dealing with land was a trade. People went into it in a business way, and made bargains. Then there was the other state of things with which

    121
    they became very familiar in dealing with Ireland—the case of squatters, who were not on the land by virtue of any bargain at all, but whose ancestors had been there time out of mind—mere squatters on the land, hardly to be dignified with the name of farmers. He was certain that persons of that sort would not, in his part of Scotland, be called farmers. This Bill was intended to deal with the conditions of a limited population—about 40,000—in the West Highlands and Islands of Scotland. This legislation was accordingly proposed simply to mitigate the distress and the difficulties under which those 40,000 families were labouring. To propose that it would be politic, or useful, or beneficial, in any degree whatever, to extend to the whole of Scotland certain provisions intended to meet the difficulties of the 40,000 was to make a very grave mistake. He protested against anything of the kind being done, and was very glad the Lord Advocate had shown his determination not to apply the provisions of a Bill which they hoped would do good, where they could be properly applied, to cases which could never have entered into the calculations of those who had advocated the measure.
    MR. M'CULLOCH, in supporting the Motion, said, he could point to a county in the South of Scotland—Wigtownshire, to which the Bill might be appropriately extended—where there were crofters in precisely the same condition as those described by the hon. Member for Forfarshire. In that county there were three groups of crofters, one of which was considered so important that, some years ago, The Scotsman sent down a special commission to inquire into their condition. These people had improved their land, and done their best with it; yet they were in a very destitute condition indeed.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 287: Majority 196.—(Div. List, No. 47.)
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.), in rising to move—
    122
    "That no Bill will suffice to amend the tenure of land in the Highlands and Islands which does not afford some pecuniary assistance towards that object in certain parts of the Country,"
    said, that he was one of the last men in the House to make great demands upon the Treasury, or to ask the Government to be extravagant; but this was a peculiar case. It was his own belief, and that of nearly all who knew the country, that the condition of the inhabitants of the more impoverished parts of Scotland could not really be improved without the expenditure of money. That was the reason why he, a purist in financial matters, ventured to propose this Motion. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was appalled at the proposals which were made in connection with this Bill, it showed that the right hon. Gentleman was a very young and innocent Chancellor of the Exchequer; because there was really no need to be appalled at the very moderate demands which were made on behalf of the crofters, especially when they considered what had been done for Ireland. No later than the end of last Session a sum of £5,000,000 was voted by Parliament to improve the condition of the Irish land tenants; and he contended that this was a case in which it was right and proper that the Government should give, in some shape, pecuniary assistance. He was glad to know that the Government proposed to give an advance of money towards the improvement of the fishing industry on the West Coast of Scotland; but he could not help feeling that if the Government limited these advances to the fishing industry, they were not fulfilling the objects of the Bill. The main object of the Bill was to improve the tenure of land in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; and he hoped the Government were prepared to do something to promote that object by means of pecuniary assistance. It was the evictor's cry to drive the crofter to the sea; and the Bill would play into the evictor's hand, by making loans to fishermen, and not to crofters, for the improvement of their farms. The poverty of the people proposed to be benefited by the Bill was notorious. They were not small farmers, but a congested, impoverished, squeezed-out race. He did not advocate emigration; but he was convinced that the object of the Bill

    123
    could never be effected without a considerable amount of migration. If they wanted to benefit these people, they must do something to migrate them to those parts of Scotland from which their ancestors were expelled; and, for that purpose, it was absolutely necessary that some pecuniary assistance should be given to them. He also asked that the Government would consent to make an advance of money to the Highland landlords, on terms at least as favourable as those on which they had advanced money to the Irish landlords—namely, at 3¼ per cent. He believed, if sufficient encouragement was given to the landlords in the way of advances, that many of them would avail themselves of these advances to settle the crofters on the land under more improved conditions than those they now occupied. He could not understand the reason of this excessive stinginess on the part of the Government. They spent millions of money on unnecessary expeditions to foreign countries, and yet they grudged a few thousands for the benefit of their people at home. If the people only happened to be black, the Government did not care how much money they expended upon them, as in the case of the Bechuanas they had voted last year £100,000 to prevent their eviction by the Boers, and this year £100,000 was again on the Estimates for the same purpose. The Bechuanas numbered about 30,000 people, and the people in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland numbered something like 300,000; yet the Government refused to grant them any money which would add to their prosperity. He thought the crofters were worth quite as much as the Bechuanas. He could not understand why the Government should pour out so much money on these distant objects, and refuse to give any money to keep alive the magnificent race of people in the Highlands and Islands. At the present moment Scotland, owing to the large tax on whisky, was contributing to the national Exchequer £1,800,000 a-year more taxation than was its fair share; and he only asked that something should be returned to Scotland in this special and necessary case, in order to preserve these people in the Highlands and Islands. Unless something was done in the direction he had indicated, he believed the Bill would really be impracticable. Unless the
    124
    Government were prepared to make some further concession, the Bill was almost an imposture.
    MR. MACFARLANEseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no Bill will suffice to amend the tenure of land in the Highlands and Islands which does not afford some pecuniary assistance towards that object in certain parts of the Country,"—(Sir George Campbell,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he thought there could be little doubt that the more this Bill was examined and discussed the less favourable was the opinion entertained regarding it. He did not think that night's discussion, or that on a former occasion, was calculated to satisfy any one section of the House. They had heard a great deal against the Bill from various quarters, notably from the other side; and now they had an Amendment asking the Government to grant more pecuniary assistance to the crofter populations. He thought that, unless they did give more pecuniary assistance in various ways, this Bill, although it had high-sounding phrases, such as fixity of tenure and fair rents—terms which had hitherto been unknown on the Scottish Statute Book—would do little to satisfy the people interested in it. They had had, practically, a great deal of fixity of tenure for many years, and it was not the case that Highland landlords had wantonly evicted tenants; and when he moved for certain Returns the other day, and which were not granted, owing to the time it would take to collect them, he did so, believing that they would throw light on the subject, and would discover that the leniency and the good treatment evinced by Scottish landlords generally, were, on the whole, of the most satisfactory description, and reflected most favourably on those in the more northerly Highlands and Islands, who certainly had not too much of this world's wealth in their pockets. Now, in his opinion, the only satisfactory conclusion was to afford some aid towards the development of those natural resources which they found on the Western

    125
    Coast of Scotland, and the most important of these was the fishing industry. He was aware that the late Secretary for Scotland had inserted clauses, giving the Fishery Board certain powers in order to spend money on those populations, and enable them to equip vessels; but the Bill entirely ignored that; and, remembering how very strong were the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the point, he thought it was strange that those recommendations had been left out, and this pecuniary assistance refused. Again, he found there was nothing in the way of assisting these populations to better harbours. That, no doubt, was a wider question. The Royal Commission had also laid great stress on the necessity for increased postal and telegraphic communication, without which the people in the Western Highlands found it impossible to get information regarding the markets in good time. He thought the Government might spend some money in endeavouring to give better internal communication, both as to railway and postal and telegraphic communication. In that way thousands and tens of thousands of tons of fish might be brought to a given point, and be upon the Southern markets in the course of a very few hours. He believed that, if a project which he would have liked to bring before the House, but which had been ruled by Mr. Speaker not to be in Order, could have been brought forward and inserted in the Bill it would have been the making of thousands of industrious people who, not having enough land to cultivate profitably, would have fished to a much larger extent than at present; and would have had the very best market in which to dispose of their produce. On the East Coast large sums had been given, and had led to great prosperity among the fishing population. On the West Coast they had had very little assistance. On the East Coast there was an enormous fishing population, 27,000 men being employed in the industry, while there were comparatively few on the West. On the East Coast they had boats and gear belonging to fishermen amounting in value to £1,111,000. On the West Coast, where they had no means of communication, and were stinted for want of money in developing the natural resources, they had only £118,600 worth of boats, gear, and tackle. They had
    126
    2,000 miles of coast on the West, and it was admitted that the fisheries on the West were practically undeveloped. So important, then, would it be for the crofting and seafaring population there to have the assistance now asked. It would help them to eke out their livelihood by gaining a bonus in fishing. At present they went West, East, North, and South to the fishing. They need not go East, North, and South if they had facilities given them at home. Unless they gave such facilities, what would be the value to them of this Bill—a Bill which gave them a few acres without money to stock them, and with only the assurance that they would have them for 15 years at a fair rent, if they paid that rent? What was wanted was to give them profitable employment, and to assist that employment in the best possible way. The land was naturally poor, but the sea was rich. They required better harbours, especially in the Lews, and better communication between the Islands and the mainland; and if the House would assent to this Motion, they would at once see the great advantages of promoting works of that kind. The Railway Companies themselves would find it a profitable thing to carry the fish over their lines, and the whole population would be benefited by increased supplies of fish. He hoped that the House would give a favourable answer to the Motion of the hon. Member, and that it would also consider the further suggestions he had ventured to submit.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)said, he hoped they might be allowed to go on with the Bill, and that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy would not press a Motion to a division, which, if carried, would be fatal to the Bill. ["No, no!"] But yes. If the Motion was carried the Bill could not go on that night, nor any other night, unless the Government proposed to introduce money clauses into the Bill. He asked, whether the hon. Gentleman who desired to see this Bill passed were prepared to take such a course? The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy was like a good many Free Traders; they believed in Free Trade for everything, except the particular one in which they were interested. The hon. Gentleman was an economist upon all subjects, except those which concerned

    127
    the particular interests which touched himself. He asked his hon. Friend to consider what would be the result if every Member in the House made demands of this character upon the Government, and the Government were to yield to them all in turn? The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mark Stewart) said money was to be given for the development of the resources of the country, which was poor in its soil, and to provide employment for the people—rather a large order, not confined in its principle to the West Coast of Scotland or the crofters. There might be something said on that subject in every part of the United Kingdom. Amongst the other objects they were asked to build harbours, give better communication, and to subsidize Railway Companies, for the purpose, as he understood, of their going into remote parts of the West Highlands. What would be the consequence to the taxpayer of this country of adopting principles of that description—of accepting the principles that they were to develop the resources of bad land, to find profitable employment for the people, to subsidize Railway Companies, and to improve communication, for the purpose of finding better markets for commodities of all descriptions? Those were the sort of proposals which would ruin the finances of the country, which made all economy impossible—proposals made at a time when the expenditure was increasing without limit. If the House were to accept a general principle of that character, there was no hope for the finances, or the solvency of the country at all. It was perfectly impossible to apply this principle to one part of the country, and refuse it to another. He knew that the late Lord Advocate, and he supposed other Scottish Members, would like to see money spent in Scotland. When the Royal Commission was appointed—for which he was responsible—he had no idea they were to undertake the duty of financial recommendation. If he had had such an idea—although he was not Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, but Home Secretary—he would have taken very good care, as they generally did on Royal Commissions, to put somebody to look after the interests of the taxpayers of the Kingdom. What happened? That Commission, which consisted of very able and very patriotic
    128
    Scotsmen, who differed upon every other subject, agreed to make unlimited demands upon the English Exchequer. That was the one point on which they were unanimous, and having once begun that operation, they were most bountiful. Their imagination was freed of all restraint, as the English Exchequer was to pay. He thought the Commission which recommended that great trunk lines should be made at the expense of the country into most of the lochs on the West Coast——
    MR. BUCHANANreminded the right hon. Gentleman that Scotland contributed to the Exchequer as well as England.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that was true; but he would ask the House to consider what would be the proportion of each £1 which the English taxpayer would pay, and what would be the proportion which the Scotch taxpayer would pay? He was bound to consider those matters, and to tell the House that there was not the money to do this; and that to adopt a Motion of this kind was not a reasonable proposal. It was really playing at the Business of the House. It would not be doing what was practicable, because there were no means to carry out proposals of this character. Therefore, he most sincerely hoped his hon. Friend would not press a Motion of that character, which would only have the effect of standing in the way of a measure which they all sincerely desired, and with which he trusted the House would now allow them to proceed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken always acted up to the top of any part which might happen to be entrusted to him. Last year he was Home Secretary, when he had charge of the Crofters Bill; now he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it appeared that this country was to be bankrupt, and we would be unable to meet our engagements if the smallest amount of public money was expended on behalf of those unfortunate people for whose benefit they were going to upset the existing condition of things.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I made no proposals about money last year. [The LORD ADVOCATE: Hear, hear!]
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Do I understand the Lord Advocate assents to that interpretation?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.): The only proposal was to lend on the security of the land.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Was there a proposal in this Bill to lend on the security of the land? He did not know what were the views of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment; but he believed the hon. Gentleman's views might be largely met if the Government consented to lend on the security of the land. That was the species of proposal which the hon. Gentleman had in view, and which the hon. Gentleman near him advocated.
    SIR. WILLIAM HARCOURT: Subsidizing Railway Companies.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: How was it that any money proposals were now to have such tragic consequences when the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government which proposed them only last year?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to notice the fact that £4,000,000 had been added to the expenditure since then.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman assented to the proposal that money ought to be given; but as a good deal of money had been spent by the Government lately the crofters must wait. That was not the view advocated in his speech, nor was it a view which would find much favour with the starving population in the West Highlands. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to his Friends not to imperil what he called the success of the Bill by voting for the Amendment. He apprehended what they had to think of was, not whether the Bill would pass to-night or to-morrow, but whether, apart from the Amendment, it was likely to effect the object it had in view. That was the only species of success. What fatal consequences would follow if the Amendment were passed? The only consequence would be that they need not continue the discussion that night. The Government would have three days to renew their proposals about loans on the security of the land, and they could go on with the Bill on Thursday. He overheard the right hon. Gentleman say—"Let them throw out the Bill." They had no intention whatever to throw out the Bill.
    130
    If that had been their intention, they would have done so on the second reading. He had never heard that it was supposed to indicate hostility to a Bill to pass an Amendment of this kind, which, if passed, was not necessarily fatal to the progress of the measure. Was their object to benefit the crofters, or were they simply to be content to disintegrate the land system of the country? If the former, it was vain and futile to imagine one single crofter would be in the least benefited by this barren manipulation of the Land Laws of the country. The crofter had fixity of tenure. He had been in undisputed possession for at least 40 years. No crofter had been in fear of arbitrary eviction for a long period. What those people was in fear of was, not arbitrary eviction, but poverty. That was the cause of their misfortunes. How was the Bill, apart from the Amendment, likely to cure that poverty? How could they stock their lands without capital? Was it not the vainest and most barren thing to say to those poor people they would give them more land; but nothing would induce them to risk one sixpence of public money in order to enable them to make use of the additional land? This was legislation which might injure the landlord; but it could not by any possibility benefit the tenants. The poverty which had been chronic for generations would not be mitigated in the least, do what they would with the Land Laws, unless they were prepared in no ungenerous spirit to carry out some such recommendations as that of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.
    MR. MACFARLANErose to address the House, when——
    SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked whether the hon. Gentleman, having seconded the Motion, had not exhausted his right of speaking?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that it was a well-understood Rule that if an hon. Member seconded a Motion by simply raising his hat he was not precluded from subsequently taking a part in the debate.
    MR. MACFARLANEagreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour) that the utility of this Bill depended on the carrying in some shape of the Motion of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George

    131
    Campbell). He was amazed at the vehemence, the indignation, and the anger of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who spoke of this proposal as if they were asking him for a gift. No such word had been used in relation to the proposal. This was to be a loan upon what he (Mr. Macfarlane) believed to be very good security, and he would make the right hon. Gentleman an offer. He would accept from him for the Highland people a commission of 5 per cent on the amount he was prepared to give to the Irish people by a Bill which he (Mr. Macfarlane) should probably vote for; but the indignation of the right hon. Gentleman knew no bounds, whatever the security might be. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had said the chief misfortune of these people was poverty. No doubt about that; but how was it brought about? It was brought about by rack-renting, and by a system of clearances which was a scandal and a shame to the country, and it was that scandal which they were trying to redress. His hon. Friend behind him had said this was a shabby Bill. He quite agreed with the description. It was a shabby Bill. It had been drawn by the hand of a miser, and was animated with the spirit of the laird and the factor. It was not such a Bill as he should have expected from the Government, and he was quite sure his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan), who was lately in charge of it, would have made a better one if he had had the power. He was sure his right hon. Friend's spirit was willing, but his flesh was unfortunately weak, in resisting the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This was a landlord's Bill. He was not surprised that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should support it, and if he were a crofter he should not be glad to see it pass, and if he were a landlord he should pray night and day that it should pass without delay, because this question was advancing, and every year passed would render it more difficult to settle.
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, he could not support the Amendment. In the first place, it was too vague, and would lead to expectations which could never be realized. He did not like it either, because it seemed to him to invite the crofters and any poor population in this Kingdom always to fly to the State rather than to depend upon themselves
    132
    whenever they were in difficulties. Everybody who knew that part of the country to which this Bill was now confined knew quite well that if the crofter was to have more land he must look to his gains from the sea to stock that land; and it was in that direction he should be taught to look, and not to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was glad to see some Amendments on the Paper which were to be moved by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) for the purpose of assisting in developing the fishing industry in the West of Scotland. That was the real harvest which these people could reap. It was idle to divide the land unless they developed their gains from the sea. He hoped these Amendments would be met in no niggard spirit; and he thought they were also entitled to press on the Government in regard to those services it now undertook, not to deal with them in too parsimonious a spirit—he referred principally to the service of the telegraph. It was a mistaken parsimony to make the number of messages the only rule upon which they should extend the telegraph system. There were hundreds and thousands of people who were interested in one and the same message. The fish came into the bays and lochs at uncertain times and in uncertain numbers; and the telegraph was necessary to obtain salt, barrels, staves, and a steamer to carry the fish to the market. Having regard to this, and the difficulty of properly securing the rich harvest when it appeared and despatching it to market, he asked the Government to consider the amount of public benefit which was to arise from a single message. If they did that, he thought they would no longer bind themselves to the hard-and-fast rule of requiring the people to guarantee the expense of the telegraph before they would extend it. Another important point in connection with the development of this fishing industry was that of mussel bait. On many parts of the West Coast this was being destroyed; and he asked whether some general regulation could not be made to prevent the wanton destruction of this useful article, without which it was impossible for the Highlander and the crofter to continue, particularly, their winter fishing? They wanted to develop not only the herring fishing, but the winter fishing.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that the Bill did not give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners. In regard to what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Commissioners were extremely guarded in their proposals as to advances of public money, and they distinctly pointed to the fishing industry as the most profitable direction in which assistance might go. That recommendation was confirmed by the experience of Lady Gordon Cathcart, who had been able to achieve little if any good by a large expenditure on crofts, but whose expenditure on harbours and boats had been productive of the greatest good. For instance, six large boats were fitted out at a cost of £1,500, and in six weeks these boats actually realized 50 per cent on their cost, while they had paid the whole cost before the fishing season ended. The recommendation of the Commission also pointed to the expenditure of money upon harbours, fitting out fishing boats, and the extension of tramways and telegraphs. He thought it would be a great mistake if they were, as was asked by this Motion, to press on the Government to advance the public money in a direction where there was little hope of its being advantageously employed, which, in his opinion, would be tempting the people to turn from that upon which they could profitably expend their efforts to that which would be attended with little success. The Motion before them, therefore, was not, in his opinion, in the real interest of these people, and it would be extremely dangerous if the public money were so spent. He would, therefore, suggest that the Amendment should be altered by leaving out after the words "pecuniary assistance towards that object," and inserting the words "and the objects recommended by the Royal Commissioners."
    MR. RAMSAY (&c.)said, the language of the Motion might be vague, but its object was quite transparent, and everyone could understand what his hon. Friend meant. He did not understand how the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a Minister of a Government which had granted so much money to Ireland for emigration and other matters, could object to this Motion. He could not see that the suffering and destitute Scotsmen were less
    134
    entitled to a grant from the Imperial Treasury than the Irish farmer in similar circumstances. There were 26,000 small occupiers within the counties to which the Bill applied. Of that number there were 11,000 representing a population of between 40,000 and 50,000, who each occupied land of less than £4 annual value. How could it be expected that tenants occupying land of that value could obtain a subsistence for their families from the land? He did not think that any person acquainted with agriculture would say that such a thing was possible. Something, therefore, should be done; and he did not think it would be at all inappropriate for the Government to accept the Motion of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. Such legislation as the Crofters Bill led the people to expect something; and he thought that that expectation, under the circumstances, should be met. Much as he was opposed to grants being made from the Imperial Treasury, he thought that this was a case in which the proposal of his hon. Friend should be agreed to.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORDsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper which made a certain demand upon the Exchequer, but the competency of which he was told was somewhat doubtful; and he must, therefore, be allowed to say a few words on this Motion. The objection which had been urged against the Motion had mainly been based upon the assumption that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy made a gratuitous demand for assistance from the Treasury. The hon. Member for Bedford had pointed out that it was much more desirable that money should be spent on objects of a reproductive character, with regard to which the State would not be a loser. He thought the Motion entirely covered objects of that character, and that it might very easily be accepted on the understanding that it was to exclude all objects of a purely eleemosynary character. He was surprised at the strenuous and vehement manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had rejected the proposal, because he was entirely mistaken as to the policy of this, or indeed, of any Liberal Government, if objects of this kind were to be regarded as beyond the purview of their policy. He objected to the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking as if this were a case of Scottish Members

    135
    knocking at the door of the English Exchequer and asking for money. They asked this money solely for reproductive and for public purposes, and they hoped that the National Exchequer would not lose a sixpence by granting it. He suggested that the Government should accede to the first of two clauses which he had ventured to put upon the Table for insertion in the Bill. That clause was embodied in the Bill of the Government last year, and would go very far to meet the views of his hon. Friend. The object of the clauses was to enable advances to be given on moderate terms to the landowner himself on the security of the land. It would place him in a position to assist his poorer neighbours, and to give them some advantages so as to enable them to stock their farms.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy whether he would remove from his Motion the words in regard to the improvement of land, and he would support it?
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: No.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, that being the case, he could not support the Motion, the object of which was to encourage what he thought was a fruitless undertaking. Agriculture was in no part of the Kingdom a very prosperous occupation, and still less was it so in the remote and sterile regions to which the Bill applied. Hon. Members had before them the experience of those private individuals who had already undertaken to advance money upon the three schemes open to the inhabitants of this part of the country—namely, agriculture, fishing, and emigration. Of these three schemes the first had proved a total failure; the other two had, so far as they had been carried out, proved a signal success. With the experience they had with reference to fishing and emigration, they would be justified in assuming that public money advanced upon these schemes would be advanced with perfect security to the public. If, therefore, the hon. Member would alter his Amendment so as to limit the advance of public money to the encouragement of fisheries and communications, and to the encouragement of emigration, he would support him.
    MR. TREVELYAN (&c.)said, he rose to say a very few words—he might almost call them one word—on the
    136
    practical question as to whether the friends of this Bill should vote for or against this Motion. His hon. Friend had moved an Amendment in very definite terms, which some hon. Members wished him to extend. One of the most ardent supporters of this Amendment was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour); and he must ask the real friends of the Bill who sat around him whether the part of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman which came most directly from his heart was of a nature to commend his advice to those below the Gangway on the Liberal side of the House? The right hon. Gentleman said the endeavour to remedy the evils in the Highlands was one chiefly at the expense of the landlords, and not at the expense of the general taxpayer. Now, he did not believe, if this Bill were passed, it would be found that these evils had been remedied at the expense of the landlord. He held it was in the interest of the landlords quite as much as of the tenants that this Bill should pass, and pass quickly. Now, what did the Amendment mean? It meant that they should assist the crofters through the landlords in one of three ways. The first was that suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. D. Crawford). That was the clause on which the right hon. Member for Manchester was so very ingenious in his reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a good tu quoque argument; but it had very little practical bearing on the case. He maintained that the clause which was in the Bill of last year, and which his hon. Friend proposed to put into the Bill of this year, would be perfectly nugatory. He did not believe any landlord would borrow money for the purpose of stocking his crofts on the security of his land. If this clause were nugatory, what other means were there of spending money? One would be the Irish system of lending five or seven years' rent—he forgot which—to the small crofters. But he never could be a party to recommending the extension of that provision to Scotland. The other method of expending money would be to expend money to enable the crofter to purchase his croft from the landlord. On that point he spoke at some length when he introduced the Bill, and he, as a private

    137
    Member, could not recommend that House to embark upon such a questionable mode of proceeding; and the Government with which he had had the honour to serve could never have embarked upon it. He begged the hon. Members around him, who were friends of the Bill, but in a different sense from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, not to vote for this Amendment of his hon. Friend. He sympathized with the Amendment. He was glad to get as much public money for Scotland as could be well expended in Scotland, and which could certainly be returned to the Treasury; and in everything relating to this question of the Highlands he had endeavoured to expend every penny he could obtain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what would really be of advantage to the Highlands and Islands, and these principles he would be ashamed to abandon on the very day he left the Treasury Bench. The clauses to which his name would be found attached, relating to the loans for fishing boats, would be of a nature that could be defended by experience, that could not be questioned; and his object could be accomplished for a very small expenditure of money, every halfpenny of which could be returned to the Treasury over and over again. He was glad to see that the Post Office and the Treasury between them had, only within the last two months, established, at a small cost, a system of packet boats, which would treble and quadruple the facilities for carrying fish to the mainland, and thence to the great markets of the cities of Scotland inland. It was in this direction that he hoped they would expend every penny they could obtain; and he trusted hon. Members who wished well to the Bill, would vote against this Amendment, which his hon. Friend, he thought, was not very earnest in pressing.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked leave to withdraw his Amendment, and trusted to the moral effect of the discussion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," again proposed.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, or for impeding the progress of the measure; but
    138
    he wished to offer a few remarks before the House went into Committee. He recognized the necessity of dealing with the question with justice, and even with generosity, towards the crofter population of the Highlands. For the last 10 years he had spent annually a considerable period in the North of Scotland, and he had some opportunity of making himself acquainted with the condition of the crofters. It was impossible for anyone who had had a personal experience of this nature not to feel a warm and real sympathy with the condition and lot of these people—a condition which, owing to the circumstances with which they were surrounded, must ever continue to be a hard one in the future His observations would not be dictated by any feeling of hostility to the real and true interests of the crofters. While there were many statements with which he cordially agreed in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill, there were also many to which he objected. He questioned the historical accuracy of part of the case made out for the crofters, while admitting that they had grievances which might be mitigated, though they could not be altogether removed, by legislation, and that the time had arrived when it was the bounden duty of the Government to deal with the question. As to the historical arguments by which the right hon. Gentleman supported the Bill, it was not the case, so far as he had been able to discover, that the great uprooting of the crofters between 1780 and 1820, which had been described that night as a scandal, was made solely for the purpose alleged by the right hon. Gentleman of establishing great sheep farms. He supposed that the clearances in Sutherland were the clearances which attracted more attention at that time than any other. But why were those clearances effected? It was for a twofold purpose. One was the natural purpose of developing the wealth and the resources of the county; but primarily they were effected for the welfare and the benefit of the crofters themselves. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he had had the opportunity of acquiring some information which might not have been accessible to others. The condition of the crofters now was immeasurably better than it was previously. A

    139
    description of the previous condition of the crofters had been written by a gentleman who had exceptional opportunities of obtaining accurate information, and who spent the greater part of his life in trying to improve that condition. Writing particularly of the year 1816–17, Mr. James Loch said:—
    "During the latter period they suffered the extremes of want and of human misery, notwithstanding every aid that could be given to them through the bounty of the landlords. Their wretchedness was so great that, after pawning everything they were possessed of to the fishermen on the coast, such as had not cattle were reduced to come down from the hills in hundreds for the purpose of gathering cockles on the shore. Those who lived in the more remote situations of the country were obliged to subsist upon broth made of nettles, thickened with a little oatmeal. Those who had cattle had recourse to the still more wretched expedient of bleeding them, and mixing the blood with oatmeal, which they afterwards cut into slices and fried. Those who had a little money came down and slept all night upon the beach, in order to watch the boats returning from the fishing, that they might be in time to obtain a part of what had been caught. In order to alleviate this misery every exertion was made by the proprietor. To those who had cattle he advanced money to the amount of above £3,000. To supply those who had no cattle he sent meal into the country to the amount of nearly £9,000."
    Mr. Loch was for many years a well-known and respected Member of that House—not a Conservative, but a Member of the Liberal Party; and the honesty and single-mindedness of that Gentleman had never been questioned. The crofters were removed to the coast with the very best of human motives. They were moved to the sea coast, in the first place, because the land adjacent to it was, generally speaking, the most fertile in the whole county; and, in the second place, because they were able to combine the fishing industry with that of agriculture. He agreed with every word which had been uttered by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread); and he doubted whether, in the course of the debate, anything would be said by any hon. Member more deserving of attention than the advice which the hon. Member gave with regard to the development of the fishing industry in the Highlands. In the third place, the crofters were taken down to the sea coast because they were at all times of the year easily accessible by sea, and it was found possible to transport food to them without the enormous cost and
    140
    trouble previously experienced. It was absolutely incorrect, therefore, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to say that the crofters were now in a very depressed and hopeless condition in consequence of the alterations made in their circumstances many years ago. If any further proof were needed of the improved condition of the crofters at the present time, he would like to ask the House to try their condition by one test alone. He thought the House would agree with him when he said that the house in which a man dwelt was not a bad test of the general prosperity of his condition. What was the character of the houses in which the greater portion of the crofters dwelt as compared with the time of which they were speaking? He wished to call the attention of the House to a few sentences from Mr. Loch's Report regarding this matter. It was an accurate description of the crofters' homes at the time spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman—
    "The huts of the people were of the most miserable description. They were built of turf, dug from the most valuable portions of the mountain side. Their roofs consisted of the same material.…. Under the same roof and entering at the same door were kept all the domestic animals belonging to the establishment.…. The floor was the bare earth, except near the fireplace, where it was rudely paved with rough stone. It was never levelled with much care, and it soon were into every sort of inequality, according to the hardness of the respective soils of which it was composed. Every hollow formed a receptacle for whatever fluid happened to fall near it, where it remained until absorbed by the earth. It was impossible that it should ever be swept; and when the accumulation of filth rendered the place uninhabitable another hut was erected in the vicinity of the old one. The old rafters were used in the construction of the now cottage, and that which was abandoned formed a valuable collection of manure for the next crop."
    This he believed to be a perfectly true description of the character of the dwellings which were inhabited by most, if not by all, of the crofters in the interior of the county from which they were removed. This was the character of the clearances which, according to hon. Gentlemen opposite, were such a scandal and such a shame. He had explained, however, that they were neither in the character of a scandal nor of a shame, but that they were to the benefit of the crofters. He asked the House to contrast their former condition with that of to-day. On the East Coast, and, he be-believed,

    141
    also on the North Coast, and in many instances even on the West Coast, they would now find house after house, almost without exception, in the largest part of the county built of stone and mortar, with slated roofs, with boarded floors; and he thought he was justified in appealing to the character of the dwellings which the crofters inhabited to-day, compared with the dog-holes they inhabited 40 years ago, as some reasonable proof in support of his assertion that it was totally untrue to say that the crofters were in a deplorably depressed state now, and in support of his contention that whatever their condition might have been before it was immeasurably better now than in former times. He had already addressed the House at considerable length, but he was anxious to controvert the historic arguments by which the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, supported his introduction of this Bill; and, secondly, because he was anxious to take the earliest opportunity in his power of raising his voice in protest against any attempt, from whatever quarter of the House it might come, to extend and largely develop this system where it did not exist at present. The case of the existing crofters was one thing, but it was a totally different thing to try and extend that system, which, he believed, owing to the circumstances of the present day, owing to the great foreign competition we had to contend with in the matter of our food supply, owing to the character of the soil, its barren nature, and the inhospitable climate in which the people lived, was foredoomed, whatever legislation might be adopted, to failure and destruction. On the other hand, it was their duty to recognize the fact that they were confronted with a state of things which they ought to try and grapple with. He was not very sanguine of the beneficial effects of any legislation with regard to the crofters; but he recognized, at the same time, that they had some grievances, and he was prepared to go considerable lengths in the attempt to remedy them. It was undoubtedly a grievance on the part of the crofters that they had not at present by law, in a great number of cases, any compensation for the improvements made by them. He thought they ought to have it, and he was prepared to give his cordial support to that portion
    142
    of the Bill which dealt with compensation for improvements. He had always advocated compensation of this nature for many years with regard to tenants in England; and he confessed he could see no reason, in point of justice or of right, why the same principle should not be applied to the crofters of Scotland. As far as he knew anything about the question, he believed that what the crofters most desired at the present time was undoubtedly an extension both of their grazing and arable lands, and he was prepared to admit that it was right they should have it. He should be glad to see them have it where it could be done by fair and legitimate means. He believed it was more important, in the cases where crofters' holdings were exceedingly small, that they should have an addition to their arable land rather than, by the addition proposed to be given in the Bill, with respect to grazing land. The extension of grazing land would often be practically useless, because many of the crofters were so poor that they had not capital to stock it. This objection, however, would not apply to small additions of arable farms, where the capital required was the labour of the crofter and his family. The Bill also gave fair rents and fixity of tenure to the crofter. That was simply an application of what he always considered to be some of the worst principles of the Irish Land Bill to Scotland. His experience, and probably the experience of everyone, as to the results of the application of those principles in Ireland was not very encouraging while engaged in considering their extension to other parts of the Kingdom. It reminded him of the occasion, which he well remembered, when the Prime Minister devoted 25 minutes of a powerful speech to an absolute and complete destruction of the principles of fair rent and fixity of tenure now proposed to be embodied in this Bill. He recollected the right hon. Gentleman certainly proving to his satisfaction, and no doubt to his own satisfaction, that the only possible result of the adoption of that system in Ireland must inevitably be to demoralize the people of that country. He suspected that the Prime Minister, if he ever remembered his former speeches, how unhappily the truth of his prediction had been realized in Ireland; and certainly,

    143
    as far as he (Mr. Chaplin) was concerned, if those principles were to be applied in the North of Scotland in the same circumstances as they were applied in Ireland, nothing on earth would induce him to give his consent to them for a moment. But there was this distinction between the two cases. In Ireland that principle was forced on the landlords of the country, so far as he knew, almost entirely against their will. In the Highlands, on the other hand, so far as he was able to gather, both the landlords and the crofters were equally willing, if not equally anxious, to try it; and, that being the case, he did not feel called upon—certainly he was not prepared—to undertake the responsibility of opposing that part of the measure, however much he might dislike it himself. The Bill contained another principle—a principle which was, as far as he was aware, totally new in English legislation; and that was the principle by which it was proposed to empower the Land Commission to make an order for the compulsory leasing of certain portions of the landlord's estate. He confessed that it was a great strain on the principles of hon. Gentlemen who sat on his side of the House to ask them to consent to a novel and unprecedented proposition of that kind. The very least they could do, however, and the least they could stipulate for if they consented to accept it—he did not give any pledge on that point—was this—that if this principle was to be adopted the landlord, at all events, should have the option of insisting that his land should be bought outright, instead of being compelled to let it on a compulsory lease if he should prefer to sell. Again, he found the Bill interfered with existing leases. As far as he knew, that was an entire and completely novel departure from all recognized principles of English legislation. He acknowledged that it was confined to existing sporting leases, and he was well aware that there was a great feeling of hostility on the part of many persons towards everything connected with the name of deer forests in the Highlands of Scotland. Although that was the case, he was convinced—and he had had opportunities of learning something of this question—that the worst injury that could possibly be done to the crofter
    144
    population of the Highlands, and to the population of the Highlands generally, would be to carry out legislation by which deer forests should be more or less practically abolished. As stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour) on the second reading of the Bill, an enormous amount of money was brought into the Highlands, and a large amount of labour and employment afforded, by the sporting tenancies which existed in such large numbers in the Northern parts of Scotland. In one county in the Highlands with which he was well acquainted one-half of the revenue of that county was derived from sporting tenancies, and the whole revenue of the county was spent among the people. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] It was all very well for hon. Members below the Gangway to jeer; but how did they think the resident population would appreciate legislation the first result of which would be to diminish by one-half a revenue which for the last 50 or 60 years had been entirely spent among them? There was one criticism which he wished to make upon the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, and that was to say that one of his statements was absolutely and entirely inaccurate. He said—
    "Now, the deer forests are spreading fast at the expense of the poor remains of the crofters' holdings."
    For that statement the right hon. Gentleman had not one single shadow or particle of proof; and he should like to know where those deer forests were situate which were spreading at the expense of the remains of the crofters' holdings at the present time? The right hon. Gentleman's statement was in direct contradiction to the Report of the Royal Commission; and before he could accept his statement as accurately representing the state of things with regard to the spread of the deer forests at the present moment, he must call upon the right hon. Gentleman to tell them where and in what part of Scotland the deer forests were situate which were spreading so rapidly and so disastrously at the present time. Upon that part of the Bill which related to fishing he would not dwell, as he had already said he cordially agreed with the hon. Member for Bedford upon that point. Speaking for himself, and expressing, as he

    145
    believed, the views of many hon. Members on that side of the House, he might say that they were ready to go to very considerable lengths, and to do much that they believed might be for the advantage of the crofters, and for crofters' holdings, which were existent at the present time. But he was entirely opposed to even a partial development and extension of that system, because he was certain it must result, not only in loss to the community at large, but in misery and poverty to the unfortunate crofters themselves. The House ought to remember, when propositions were made by statesmen for the perpetuation of that system in the Highlands, that a living derived from land in the Highlands, such as was proposed, must at all times be most precarious, if it were owing to the character of the climate alone. He would give a simple illustration. When he left the Highlands last autumn to come down to England for the General Election, he had the opportunity of seeing many crofters, and with some of them in conversation on their prospects of position. Although it was the end of October, none of the corn of that district was carried home, a great deal was not even cut, and there was no chance of it ripening at all during that season. The universal complaint made to him was that the potatoes were all rotten and destroyed; and, as everyone that was acquainted with that locality knew, those were circumstances which must be expected to occur one year out of every three or four years in the Highlands. How was it possible, under those circumstances, for a population to thrive and flourish upon land in parts of the country where the soil was so unfruitful and the climate so inhospitable? He had little confidence in the success of any system of small holdings in these days, whether tenancies or freeholds, in the face of the foreign competition with which they were confronted at the present time, no matter in what part of the country it might be. But if such systems were to be tried, if hon. Members holding extreme opinions were determined to try it, in God's name let the system be tried where it might have some small prospect of success, and let them not try to establish it in parts of the country where miserable and starving populations already existed, and where, owing to the circumstances of the country,
    146
    they were foredoomed to misery and destitution. He had stated some points in the Bill in which those who acted with him desired amendment. They wished to give a cordial support to Her Majesty's Government in their endeavours to pass the Bill through Committee; and he hoped that the proposals he had made for amendment, and the objections he had raised to the details of the Bill, would receive the fair and candid consideration of the Government. He trusted that they might arrive at a conclusion which would enable them so far to agree with the Party on his side of the House that they should be able, as the measure proceeded, to carry it through to a safe conclusion, and enable them to continue the general support which they desired to give the Bill.
    MR. BRADLAUGH, said, he regretted that, while the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin) had promised to support the Government, he should, nevertheless, have carefully refrained from pledging himself on some of the most vital portions of the Bill. In his picture of the inhospitable climate and sterile soil of Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that the people who were cleared away and their descendants were to be found in a still more inhospitable climate, and on a still more sterile soil. On the North-East Coast of Maine, and in New Brunswick, he would find grey-headed men—he was only speaking from his own experience—who would give him a very different account of the Sutherland clearances, and the burning of their dwellings, in order to dispossess thorn of their homes. Nor was he quite able to understand the advantage to men who had been brought up to agricultural pursuits of being transplanted to the seaside to follow an industry upon the sea to which they were totally unaccustomed, there being no boats, harbours, or other conveniences furnished to them by the great Lords who dispossessed them. He had no means of determining which of the stories was true; but men he had met in Maine and New Brunswick had told him that they believed they and their fathers had been cleared out and their native glens had been made waste and desolate because wool paid better than human beings. The right hon. Gentleman

    147
    (Mr. Chaplin) had spoken of the proposal of compulsory leasing as being novel and unprecedented; but, for himself, he apprehended that in the present and in succeeding Parliaments the landed class would have to listen to many proposals that would be to them novel and unprecedented; because in the past the landed class had made the laws for the protection of the landed interest, while in the future the Representatives of the people would deal with the land as subject to the well-being of the State. He had been astounded at hearing that the rents of the deer forests were spent for the benefit of the people in the districts from which they were derived, because he had understood these rents were often spent on the boulevards of Paris and similar places, and that the crofters obtained but the very scantiest advantage from them.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    I.—Security of Tenure.
    Clause 1 (A crofter shall not be removed except for breach of statutory conditions).
    THE CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment is one which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), who proposes, in line 9, to leave out "crofter," and insert "tenant." As far as I understand the provisions of the Bill, that is an Amendment which is altogether beyond the scope of the measure; and, therefore, I feel called upon to rule that it is out of Order.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I shall be quite ready to explain the scope of the Amendment if the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to allow me to propose it. If, however, he decides that it is out of Order, I should like to ask a question on the point of Order—namely, whether it is possible to extend the scope of the Bill in any direction whatever? The hon. Member will observe that the Preamble of the Bill declares that—
    "It is expedient to amend the Law relating to the Tenure of Land by Crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotlands."
    148
    But there are Amendments standing in the name of the Government by which it is proposed to extend the provisions of the Bill to fishermen as well as crofters. Will the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) be in Order in moving Amendments to that effect?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am aware that there are Amendments on the Paper in the name of the Government, the object of which is to include fishermen. I am not prepared to say that that is not within the scope of the Bill; but the proposal of the hon. Member to extend this clause from crofters to tenants generally is certainly beyond the scope of the Bill.
    MR. MACFARLANE: The next Amendment stands in my name; and I propose in page 1, line 9, to insert after "crofter," the words "or cottar." I may say that I have placed other Amendments on the Paper to the same effect, and I may inform the Government that on the division which takes place upon this point will depend whether a large number of cottars in Scotland are to be deprived of all benefit from the provisions of the Bill. The Bill is limited by its title to the tenure of land by crofters; but, notwithstanding that limitation, the measure itself proposes to confer some of the advantages to be derived by the crofters upon the cottars. I know it is desirable that the Bill should pass through Committee as quickly as possible, and I do not believe that there are more than four or five important questions which will have to be discussed. I myself have at least 20 Amendments to propose on the same verbal point as that involved in the present Amendment, and the fate of this one will probably decide the fate of all the others. As I have said, there are involved in the Bill only four or five principles; and as I wish to limit the discussion as much as possible, with a view of doing that, if the Government decline to accept my Amendment I shall take the opinion of the Committee upon it, and then pass on to some other question. The Royal Commissioners who were appointed to inquire into the condition of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland were specially instructed to inquire into the condition of the crofters and cottars; but I find that in the Bill, as it stands, there is no provision in reference

    149
    to the cottars except the one that I have referred to; and unless my Amendment, or one of the same nature is accepted by the Committee, the Bill will tend to the rapid extermination of the cottars, who have been permitted hitherto to live on sufferance. They only exist by the benevolence of some landlord or other and the public opinion of the neighbourhood, which have hitherto enabled them to live in the miserable buildings they now occupy. If the Bill is passed without my Amendment, that indulgence will no longer be extended to this class of persons, because the landlords will be entitled to say—"Parliament has just legislated on the subject, and has decided that in the public interests we shall be protected if we exterminate this class of occupiers in the Highlands altogether." Now, who are these people? In many instances they are persons who have been imported into the Highlands from England and Ireland, and they have occupied certain pieces of land to which they have no claim. Everybody knows that they are the descendants of crofters, although they are the immediate descendants of evicted tenants. The Bill, as it now stands, proposes that where a remanet of crofters has been left a certain amount of benefit should accrue to them, but where the extermination has been completed, and where there are no crofters at all, that there should be no redress whatever for these persons. What is the proportion of people in the whole Highlands who are affected by the Amendment I now move? I have a Return here in reference to a few of the parishes in the Isle of Skye. In one parish there are 929 persons, comprising 220 families, and 115 of them are described as "cottars and landless." It is the same in half-a-dozen other parishes. I have here a complete list; but I will not trouble the Committee with all the details—I will confine myself to the totals. In the Island of Mull the cottars in one parish amount to 422 persons, and they will all be excluded from redress under the present terms of the Bill. It is stated in a Petition which has been sent to me that the cottars who have been driven off the large farms have been huddled together upon the crofts, notwithstanding the fact that the crofters themselves are unable to give employment, or, indeed, to eke out a subsistence
    150
    for themselves from the crofts. In one instance I am informed that there are 33 cottars and only 27 crofters. One township in the Island of Mull, a few years ago, contained 40 crofters in comfortable circumstances, each of whom had from 5 to 12 cows, and a fair proportion of sheep. But immediately the present proprietor came into possession he cleared out the whole of them, and not a single crofter has been left upon that estate. The effect, however, of this Bill will be that the landlord who has exterminated the crofters will be free from further trouble. It is only, as I said before, the landlord who has some small remnant of humanity left in him who will suffer from this measure. The Royal Commissioners say in their Report that out of 3,226 families there are 825 unaccounted for, but who must be placed among the landless cottars and crofters; and these 825 comprise more than one-fourth of the population. The Commissioners say that—
    "They are without land and without regular access to local wages—most of them, it may be assumed, scattered among the poor occupiers, to whom they are a heavy burden. Side by side with this mingled multitude, so slenderly furnished with the means of life, we find 30 occupiers, forming less than 1 per cent of the whole community, in the occupancy of nearly two-thirds of the land. These 30 include a factor, a few proprietors, and some non-resident tenants. Taking the four parishes together, we believe that the conditions of tenancy which they reveal may be regarded as fairly representative of the state of the seaboard on the mainland, and of all the Islands from Ardnamurchan, in Argyllshire, on the South, to the borders of Caithness, on the North. A similar repartition of tenancy exists in some districts of the Central Highlands, in Ross, and Inverness, and it prevails over nearly the whole of Sutherland. The evils attached to excessive sub-division and consolidation are less felt in the Southern Hebrides, in certain parts of Argyllshire, on the Eastern seaboard generally, and in Orkney, in all of which the small holdings are, as a rule, of greater dimensions, are more graduated, and are associated in some degree with small farms not inaccessible to the crofting class. The examples which we have selected for analysis above are cases in which clearance and congestion may be observed in close proximity, where the local population has been transferred and crowded, but not removed to a distance, in consequence of the formation of large grazing areas; they are cases in which consolidation has not been in any material degree attended by depopulation. There are other places in which the large farms have absorbed the whole area, in which any small farms which may previously have existed have been extinguished, and in which the poorer order of people, occupying land as sub-tenants,

    151
    have been exceedingly reduced in numbers without being benefited in condition. Examples of the consolidation of pastoral areas, accompanied by the removal and dispersion of the humblest classes connected with the land, might be found in various parts of the Central Highlands of rather ancient date, and on the Western Coast belonging to a more recent period, notable examples of which were submitted to us in connection with the districts of Moreverne, in Argyllshire, and Glenelg, in Inverness-shire. We have, however, selected the parish of Bracadale, in Skye, as a typical instance, and, in regard to the reduction of numbers, not of an extreme character."
    The Commissioners then proceed to give further figures with which I will not weary the Committee. I think all hon. Members from Scotland, and most of those from England, will understand the principles involved in this Bill; but I may say that the examples quoted by the Royal Commission may be taken to represent the whole of the country from Caithness to the South of Argyllshire, and that 25 per cent belong to the class for whom I am now pleading. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill (Mr. Trevelyan) indicated that it was the intention of the Government to limit the operation of it to existing circumstances, and he added that in no case would they attempt to redress the past. They would treat existing crofters as worthy of some redress; but persons who have ceased to be crofters and become cottars would be worthy of nothing except the payment of their funeral expenses. Now, I think that the right hon. Gentleman made a great mistake in limiting the provisions of the Bill to one class. The measure will certainly fail to secure contentment in the country unless the scope of the Bill is largely extended. What the right hon. Gentleman and the Government wish to do is to fix upon the land those who are now there. It is something like the story we have heard of the travelling game of chess. The game has been played out, and there are few men left on the board; but by some mechanical arrangement they are fixed in their places. The few places which exist in the Highlands from which the crofters have not been exterminated are like those on this chess board; and they are occupied by the poor cottars I am speaking of. What I want is to have the whole of the men placed on the board, and the machinery arranged for fixing them properly in their places. I
    152
    trust that the Government will accept the proposal I now make to them, and will endeavour to do justice to a class quite as deserving as the crofters—certainly, if suffering gives a claim, even more deserving than the crofters who remain. Although some of them may not be the men who have been evicted, they are, nevertheless, the immediate descendants of evicted tenants. If the Government consent to accept my Amendment, I think they will find that the Bill will slip through Committee much more easily. The principle I am contending for is an exceedingly small one—namely, that the provisions of the measure should be made to contribute to the greatest good of the greatest possible number, instead of, as is now the case, to the least possible good of the least possible number. Under these circumstances, I appeal to the Lord Advocate, who must know the feeling of Scotland on the subject, to yield to this reasonable request.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, after the word "crofter," to insert the words "or cottar."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.): It is quite impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. In the first place, I would ask the Committee to take into view the definition of cottar as given in the Bill. Clause 29 says—
    "That a cottar means the occupier of a house with or without land, who pays no rent to the landlord."
    [An hon. MEMBER: Or to anyone else.] Therefore, how is it possible for us to provide that a cottar shall not be removed from the holding of which he is tenant? It may be desirable to extend the clause to tenants; and we have a provision in regard to sub-tenants. I think the definition of a cottar always has been that he is a man who is living without paying rent. No doubt the lot of the cottar is one which we must all commiserate; and if we could do anything to alleviate his condition, consistently with sound principles, we should be glad to do so. I wish to point out, in the few remarks I shall have to make, that it has been charged against this Bill that it goes beyond the Report of

    153
    the Royal Commission, inasmuch as it proposes to confer the benefits specified in it upon all crofters, however low their rents may be, instead of limiting them, as the Royal Commission did, to crofters paying £6 and upwards, or, in the view of a minority of the Commissioners, to crofters paying not less than £4 of rent, That is a matter which the Committee will have an opportunity of discussing on a later Amendment; but if the Amendment now proposed were carried, it would not be a question of giving benefits to existing tenants, but a question of giving land to persons who have none now, and who never had any. I say that advisedly. The hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) spoke of 25 per cent of the Highland population being cottars. That may be correct. There are a large number, no doubt; but I will venture to say that in other parts of the country there is a much larger proportion of the population who are landless in that sense; and, therefore, if we were to accept the hon. Member's view, we should be driven to the general obligation of giving land to every individual. The hon. Member says that one-fourth of the entire population have no right to land, and he proposes to meet their case by this Amendment. Now, I say that this is a proposal of the very largest scope. It is not a question of the relations between existing landlords and existing crofters, but of assigning portions of land to those who have it not, and who have no historical claim to it. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to read a few lines from the Report of the Royal Commission in order to show what is meant by cottars. It is the case that those persons who are called cottars in the Bill, and who are commonly known as cottars in the Highlands, are, in reality, squatters living on land to which they have no legal right or title. The Royal Commission, in their Report, say as to this matter—
    "The social problem in the Highlands and Islands is complicated by the prevalence of sub-tenancy and squatting. Where this practice is least injurious it takes the form of cottars' holdings, in which the occupiers pay a stipulated rent to the farmer in money or service, and may be regarded as occasional farm servants. A more unhappy case is where the offspring of the recognized occupiers of township holdings remain and multiply on the ground, either sharing the narrow dwelling of the head of
    154
    the family, or putting up habitations in defiance of estate regulations. But the evil assumes its darkest complexion in the Long Island, where in some places, in the waste, there are crowds of squatters who construct hovels, appropriate land, and possess pasture stock, but pay no rent, obey no control, and scarcely recognize any allegiance or authority. These poor people support themselves by casual labour in the country, by the simpler kinds of fishing, and by wandering elsewhere in quest of work. It is needless to say that they are a burden to the crofter and the proprietor, and that they are in a chronic state of poverty, degenerating, in bad seasons, to absolute destitution."—(P. 43.)
    That is the class of persons to whom it is proposed, by a legislative enactment for the first time, to assign the occupancy of land. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) is well founded in the assertion he made, that, to some extent, these cottars are the descendants of evicted crofters; but in many cases they are the descendants of crofters who have not been evicted, but who, instead of going out into the world, as is done by other classes, have remained on the spot, partly, perhaps, owing to the want of means of communication, and partly from the want of knowledge. Anyone who is acquainted with Highland life knows that this is one of the greatest misfortunes, and that, whereas it would never occur that all the children of tenants in the more prosperous and civilized parts of the country would remain on the spot, these unfortunate persons too often never leave the locality in which they have been born, whether there is employment for them there or not. I hope that the establishment of better means of communication and the spread of education will remedy this evil, and that it will not hereafter be the custom, as it has been in the Highlands, for these persons to remain upon one spot where the holdings in the neighbourhood afford no reasonable means of subsistence. I have explained to the Committee the condition of the cottars; and, while I was quite prepared for an attack upon the Government, we have certainly had some attacks this evening which we did not think we should have had. The Government would have no defence if they assigned to every landless person ground which his condition would make it impossible that he could stock or do justice to. Unless the Committee are prepared to accept the view that every landless person

    155
    in the Highlands, and, as far as I can see, in the Lowlands also, is to get a piece of land assigned to him, it is impossible to hold that cottars can be introduced to the benefits of the Bill. Would it be wise or kind to these poor people in the Highlands to continue them upon land where they find it impossible to obtain the means of subsistence? It is not merely a question of being a crofter tenant, or of not being a crofter tenant; but I maintain that it would not be an act of kindness to these people themselves to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. The Report of the Crofters' Commission described the poor cottars as being, in many cases, a burden to the crofter and to the proprietor, and as living in a state of poverty degenerating into destitution in bad seasons. Therefore, I put it to the Committee that the Amendment would not only involve an enormous extension of the principle of the Bill, but that it would introduce a principle which is not contained in the Bill. It is no part of the principle of the measure to assign land to every landless person in the Highlands. Its purpose is to give certain benefits to existing crofters; and if we were to go beyond that, I am afraid we should find ourselves landed in enormous difficulty, and that we should introduce a state of matters which would not be to the benefit, but, on the contrary, to the great disadvantage of the cottars themselves.
    DR. R. MCDONALD: I am sorry to see that at the outset of the consideration of this Bill the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has felt it his duty to meet the Amendment of the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) with such a direct negative. The Bill has been brought forward for the benefit of the Highlands, but one-fourth of the population of the Highlands consist of what are called "cottars;" and the Government now say—"We cannot give to them, in any shape or form, the benefits which we propose to confer upon the crofters." What is it that the Government are giving to us? They are not giving us one-halfpenny of money, and they simply propose to allow us to take land for which we shall be required to pay a fair rent. Is that such a great privilege? Whatever it is, we simply ask that the cottar shall be placed in the
    156
    same position as the crofter. A great many of them are evicted crofters, or the children of evicted crofters. We have heard a good deal about emigration. Why should these poor people emigrate, and vacate the land for those they leave behind them? What they say is—"Why should we emigrate when there are hundreds of thousands of acres of land we can cultivate and render valuable?" They maintain that the land was not made for a few landlords, but for the benefit of the people; and, therefore, they do not feel inclined to move away from the land and leave it in the undisputed possession of the landlords. The landlords themselves can emigrate if they desire; and under these circumstances I do not see why the Committee, for a moment, should accept the views of the Lord Advocate. The Government do not propose to give us much. The Bill simply allows the people to possess the original right to the land to be able to take it at a fair rent. Why should we say to the crofters—"If you want land you can have it, as you have already an acre or two of land;" and then say to the cottar—"You have no land at all, but only half an acre of garden ground. Your position is therefore very different, and we will do nothing for you at all." I certainly hope the Committee will not adopt the view of the Lord Advocate. We have heard the Highlands spoken of as if they were most uncivilized. The Lord Advocate talked of more civilized places in the South. If poverty means want of civilization, then certainly there is a good deal of it in the Highlands; but if acuteness, intelligence, good manners, and good breeding are to count, there is quite as much civilization in the Highlands as there is in the South; indeed, as far as my experience goes, there is a great deal more, and the people of the Highlands will compare favourably with any other class of persons in the Kingdom. The Government say they will be glad to do everything they can to alleviate the condition of these people. What I want them to do is to give to all of them a fair start—cottars, crofters, and everybody else. We do not ask for land without the means of stocking it. If the Government will not help the cottars in that direction their friends may not be able to supply them with funds to stock their small holdings, and they might find that not one-fourth

    157
    of these cottars would ask for land at all. They have no money to stock it with; they would, therefore, not ask for it; and, consequently, the benefit which the Government intend to confer on them by this Bill is not quite so great a benefit as they suppose. I do not see why, for a moment, the Committee should concur with the Lord Advocate in supposing that any great amount of benefit will be conferred by this Bill either upon the crofters or the cottars. All that I ask for both classes is simply that justice should be done to them.
    DR. CAMERON: I would point out that what the Lord Advocate has said is quite evident from the drafting of the Bill, which defines that a—
    "Cottar means the occupier of a house with or without land who pays no rent to the landlord;"
    but, as has also been pointed out from passages in the Report of the Royal Commission, there are many cases in which these cottars do pay rent to tenants, and in other cases render services which are equivalent to rent. Not merely is that the case, but I find that there is a provision in the Bill which I think explains the idea which has been expressed in regard to the cottar as distinguished from the crofter. Clause 9 gives compensation to the cottar for improvements on removal. It provides that—
    "When a cottar is removed from his dwelling and any land or buildings occupied by him in connection therewith, he shall be entitled to compensation for any permanent improvements;"
    and Sub-section (c.) of that clause gives a Proviso that—
    "Such improvements have not been executed in virtue of the stipulations of a lease or in virtue of any agreement or understanding expressed in estate regulations or other writings."
    In other words, they get the ground on which they squat on condition of improving it by putting their labour into it, and yet they are now told that they are not to come under the benefits of the Bill because they do not pay rent. But they pay what is equivalent to rent. I think the case of the cottars illustrates the inconvenience of the Government appealing to the Report of the Royal Commission as if the Bill had been drafted in accordance with the recommendations of the Report of that Commission.
    158
    The Commissioners recommended that certain substantial benefits should be conferred upon the cottars, and made provision not that cottars who had no land should receive a share of it, but that when vacancies occurred in the townships the case of the cottars should be taken into consideration among others, and proposed that they should be given other independent improvements in the shape of permanency of tenure—for instance, such as not being removable with less than a year's notice. Some of these benefits are included in the Bill, but not to the extent recognized in the Report of the Royal Commission. The reference which I have made to Sub-section (c.) of Clause 9 shows that, although direct rent may not be paid to the landlord, what is equivalent to rent is paid as a condition of occupancy, and for that reason I shall vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: This matter has been fully considered by the crofter Members, who are determined to fight it to the last, as, in point of fact, they told the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) the other day. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) has given some statistics in reference to the crofters and cottars; but I should like, although very briefly, to give a little more insight into the condition of the cottars. In one of the Islands in the county of Inverness two-thirds of the land are held in two farms; but there are, nevertheless, 73 cottars upon that Island. Upon South Uist there are 160 cottars who do not own land, while there are 11 tacksmen with gigantic farms. And, in addition to these 160 cottars and 11 tacksmen, there are 36 farm labourers who are anxious to get land. In the Island of Skye there are upwards of 1,200 cottars who have no land. I would ask the Government whether, when they brought in this Bill, they did so with a real intention of endeavouring to settle the question. I am quite sure that it is utterly impossible to do so if the cottars are to be kept out of its benefits. I must say that it was with great regret I found the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate taking up so strong and decided a stand on the subject. I fully concur in the remarks which were made by my hon. Friend

    159
    the Member for Ross (Dr. R. McDonald) that the Crofter Members are prepared to fight out the case of the cottars to the last, and I hope they will have the intelligent support of the House generally.
    MR. SAUNDERS: I understood the Lord Advocate to give two reasons for refusing to accept this Amendment, and thereby give land to the cottars. The first was that they have no land at all; and the second was that they are a burden upon the crofters. I could understand these two reasons if they had been used on the opposite side of the House. Who in the world should land be given to by the Bill but those who have not got it now? It is by acting on the opposite principle that we have got into our present difficulties. It has been the giving of the land to the rich which has brought the country to its present position. We have been reduced to want because the land has been given to the rich. We give the land to those who already have too much of it, and you take it away or give it not to those who really require it. I believe it will be in the recollection of hon. Members that some years ago a number of convicts whose term had expired gave a great deal of trouble to the community. Government were at their wits' end to know what to do with them, and finally they thought it expedient to give each of them 40 acres of land. After that they had no further trouble with them. That, I think, is exactly what would happen in Scotland if the land were fairly distributed among the people. There would be no further difficulty at all. The difficulties which it is found are now quite impossible to get over would be readily surmounted if you will allow the people a fair opportunity of getting the land and working upon it. We are told that the cottars who are now squatting on the land are a burden to the crofters. How can they be otherwise than a burden upon the crofters if they have no land? Land is the natural means by which a working man can get a living, and, if you deprive him, they are obliged to be a burden to somebody. I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate for the facts he has supplied us with; but I do hope that the Committee will apply them in an exactly opposite direction.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY: Before the Committee come to a decision
    160
    upon this Amendment, I think we ought to be agreed as to what a cottar is. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate said, as I understood him, that the meaning of the term "cottar" is that he is the inhabitant of a house without land—that he pays no rent to a landlord or to anybody else. Now, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really suppose that the cottar pays no rent to anyone? Is the middleman in no sense the landlord? I want to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman considers that a man who occupies a house, or holds a garden or a kail-yard, is to be classed as a crofter or a cottar? There are, I think, three distinct classes among the people of the Highlands and Islands—the crofter, who is the tenant of the holding as specified in the Bill; the squatter, whom I understand the Lord Advocate to mean by the word "cottar;" and a class of cottar who is a small tenant paying a small rent, perhaps, to another tenant, partly in kind and partly in money. I want to know which of the last two classes is included in the Bill?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER) (&c.): It is certainly desirable that there should be a clear understanding as to what the meaning of the Amendment is. The principle of the Amendment appears to me to be the giving of the benefits provided by the Bill to a class of persons who are at present not in the occupation of any land at all. The Bill, as it stands, is undoubtedly applicable to all crofters; and a crofter is defined to be the tenant of a holding from year to year who habitually resides on his holding, the annual rent of which does not exceed £30 in money, and which is situated in a crofting parish. The holding itself is defined to be any arable or pasture land, so that any person who is in the occupation of either arable or pasture land is a crofter, and will come within the scope of the Bill. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), certainly a person would not be a crofter under this clause who is merely in the occupation of a house and a garden; but if he is in the occupation of arable land or pasture land which is not merely a garden, then he will come within the scope of the Bill. Now, what is the proposal contained in this Amendment?

    161
    The proposal in the Amendment is to make all the clauses of the Bill applicable to cottars and persons in the occupation of houses without any land. I would ask the Committee to consider for a moment what the effect would be. It is a Bill which gives compensation to tenants for improvements in regard to holdings. The crofters will get the benefit of the compensation for improvements, because the provisions of the Bill are made specially applicable to them. But is it seriously proposed to apply a clause dealing with the enlargement of holdings to persons in the occupation of houses without land at all? I was much surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) speak so strongly in support of this Amendment, because I observe that in the Report of the Royal Commission, in which my hon. Friend concurred, an opinion is expressed that it would be most inexpedient to extend the benefits proposed even to crofters who are in the occupation of premises rented at less than £6 a-year. My hon. Friend, no doubt, objected to that Report; but he appended a Memorandum to the Report, in which he said that crofters whose premises were not rented at more than £4 a-year should not be admitted. Now, it is difficult for me to see that if it is considered inexpedient to apply the recommendations of the Royal Commission to crofters occupying at a less rent than £4, why we should consider it expedient to apply them to persons who occupy no land at all. It would be an aggravation of the present evils which this Bill is intended to remedy if the Committee were to apply the clause for the enlargement of occupation to persons having houses with no land at all. It would necessarily lead to the continuance of the system of sub-division, and would operate against the consolidation of holdings, which is certainly one of the benefits that will, I hope, follow the passing of the Bill.
    MR. MACFARLANE: The Committee have not yet had any express or precise definition of the term "cottar." The Bill states that it is to mean—
    "The occupier of a house with or without land who pays no rent to the landlord."
    There are many occupiers who pay rent to the landlord and also to the superior tenant. Are they included in the benefits
    162
    of the Bill or not? [Mr. J. B. BALFOUR: No.] Then all those who pay rent to the landlord will be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. I am taking the case of the occupier of a house who does pay rent to the landlord.
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: He is not a crofter, and, therefore, in no way entitled to the benefits of the Bill—by which my hon. Friend means, I suppose, the affirmative benefits—namely, fixity of tenure, fair rent, and enlargement of holding. The definition both of a crofter and a cottar is contained in Section 29 of the Bill, which provides that it is to mean—
    "A tenant of a holding from year to year, who habitually resides on his holding, the annual rent of which does not exceed thirty pounds in money, and which is situated in a crofting parish."
    The "holding" means—
    "Any piece of land held by a crofter, consisting of arable or pasture land, or of land partly arable and partly pasture, and which has been occupied and used as arable or pasture land (whether such pasture land is held by the crofter alone or in common with others) for a period of not less than five years prior to the passing of this Act, but does not include garden ground only, appurtenant to a house."
    No person who does not satisfy that condition is entitled to the affirmative benefits of the Bill. We propose to give to the cottar class the benefit of the extension of the principle of compensation, inasmuch as they have been allowed, without objection, to put up premises on land, and we say that they shall not be turned out without being compensated; but I understand that the question my hon. Friend asks now applies to a person without land who pays no rent to the landlord, and he contrasts that with the position of some other person who pays rent to someone who may be a sub-tenant. But a sub-tenant is not entitled, under the Bill, to extend his holding, and we propose to make it a statutory condition to the crofter as long as the holding is sub-let. Sub-letting, I am sorry to say, is the addition of an enormous evil to the squatting power of the cottar. No person who does not affirmatively possess the requisites of the crofter can secure the benefits of the Bill.
    MR. MACFARLANE: I understand the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but there is another

    163
    point which I desire to submit. The definition laid down by the Bill is—
    "The occupier of a house with or without land who pays no rent to the landlord."
    Well, what I want to know is, whether, in the case of the cottar paying some rent, he is to be deprived of his condition of cottar, and is not to come into the benefits of Clause 9? So far as I am able to understand the view of my right hon. and learned Friend, it is that this Bill lays down the Scriptural principle that to him who hath shall be given, while from him who hath nothing shall be taken away even that which he hath. I do not think it is desirable to discuss the question further than to obtain a clear definition of the question I have raised. Clause 9 provides that certain compensation shall be given to the cottar; and Clause 29 defines that a cottar means—
    "The occupier of a house with or without land who pays no rent to the landlord."
    Therefore a cottar who pays 5s. a-year to the landlord must be understood to be deprived of the benefits of this Bill.
    DR. CLARK: This is one of the three points we consider to be vital in the Bill; and if the clause is carried in its present form, and all the other Amendments relating to the cottars are kept out, we shall not consider that the Bill is worth having. In the first place, the clause strikes out one-fourth of the inhabitants of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland from the benefits of the Bill; and it will, undoubtedly, intensify their present condition of distress. There is, however, one class of cottar which has not yet been mentioned, and that is those who have been cleared away from the tenements they formerly occupied, and who are squatting now on waste lands not owned by anybody. A large number of crofters who have been evicted from the townships in order that big farms and deer forests might be made have gone to these waste lands and squatted on them. They have reclaimed a considerable portion of such waste lands, and there they are, owning no landlord. They have as much right to the land as anybody else; and yet this clause of the Bill will keep them out from the benefits of the Act. The Lord Advocate has entirely ignored the economical conditions of the Highlands, as well as the Report of the Royal Commission,
    164
    which was that you should make the township the element you should go upon. I trust that hon. Members will support us on this point—namely, that when there is an extension of the township one-fourth of the population comprised in the cottar class shall get their fair share. In the enlargement of individual holdings the compensation given for making additions, such as fencing pasture land, will be of very little worth unless you give the land to the township and the cottar as well as to the crofter.
    MR. CHANCE: The distinction which has been drawn between the crofter and the cottar is a very false one. In the Bill itself the cottar is defined to be—
    "The occupier of a house with or without land who pays no rent to the landlord."
    But in the Report of the Royal Commission upon the condition of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland there is a definition of the terms "crofter" and "cottar." The Commissioners say—
    "The classes whose condition we have been directed to study are designated as crofters and cottars. By the word 'crofter' is usually understood a small tenant of land with or without a lease, who finds in the cultivation and produce of his holding a material portion of his occupation, earnings, and sustenance, and who pays rent directly to the proprietor. The term 'cottar' commonly imports the occupier of a dwelling with or without some small portion of land, whose main subsistence is by the wages of labour, and whose rent, if any, is paid to a tenant and not to the landlord. The crofter is a small farmer who may live partly by the wages of labour; the cottar is a labourer who may have some share in the soil. But these definitions are deceptive, for there are crofters who are sub-tenants under tacksmen; and there are many cottars who pay rent to the owner. The distinction between the two classes is more easily felt and understood than delineated. Nor is a strict definition necessary. For the purposes of this Inquiry and Report we limit the class of crofters to tenants paying not more than £30 annual rent; but we are unable to fix any point in rental below which the crofter descends into the cottar class."—(P. 3.)
    The Lord Advocate has stated that a sub-tenant ought not to be entitled to any of the benefits of the Bill; but the Report of the Royal Commission says "that there are some cottars who are sub-tenants;" and it says, further, that "there are many cottars who pay rent to the owners." Therefore, they took a course which would exclude some crofters and some cottars, but would, at the same time, admit some of both classes.

    165
    The Report of the Commission further states—
    "Of the terms under which the smaller tenants held their possessions no definite account is presented; but it is assumed that they were entitled to security of tenure, subject to rent and services, as the descendants and successors of those subordinate members or dependants of a family who in former ages won the land for the clan and maintained the fortunes of the chief by their swords. This claim to security of tenure is held to have been in some sort transmitted to existing occupiers."—(P. 5.)
    Further on the Commissioners say—
    "There have been in some districts from an ancient date small tenants holding farms in common, and paying rent direct to the proprietor. Such, undoubtedly, existed in considerable numbers in the latter half of the century. In these cases the small tenants occupying large areas at low money rents, and little vexed by services to the landlord, who was remote or indulgent, no doubt enjoyed a life of tolerable case and abundance, diversified from time to time by the deprivations caused in years of scarcity. Of such a state of existence there are some indications which it is consolatory to identify among the painful records of penury and oppression which form the burden of the contemporary literature devoted to the subject. The larger proportion of the land in the Highlands and Islands was, however, held by tacksmen or leaseholders from the proprietor or chief, and the mass of cultivators lived under their sway as sub-tenants at will, paying rent in money, kind, and service."—(P. 5.)
    This mass of persons, who are really crofters, are to be excluded by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's definition from deriving any benefit from the main provisions of the Bill. And now I come to the real point of the definition. It is stated that the cottar is merely a sort of sub-tenant, with a smaller amount of land and less stock than the crofter. And yet between the two classes, which had originally the same rights, a hard line is to be drawn—one class is to have considerable benefit, but the other is to have none at all. The only distinction seems to be that these are the men who have been the least able to resist the depredations of the landlords.
    SIR JOHN RAMSDEN: I hope the Committee will support the Lord Advocate when we go to a division. I believe there will be found to be on all sides of the House a very general desire to support the Government in their endeavour to settle this question. There are many hon. Members who may think that the Bill of the Government goes too far; but who will, nevertheless,
    166
    vote with Her Majesty's Ministers in support of it, because they are of opinion that the Government have shown an earnest desire to consider the rights of all concerned, and to settle the question in as satisfactory a manner as the case will permit. The object of the Bill, as I understand, is to maintain the crofters in their possessions; but the arguments which we have heard in support of the Amendment go very much beyond that. The object of the Amendment is not to maintain the crofters in their possessions, but to take the land from those to whom it belongs and to give it to those who have no claim to it whatever. For my part, I cannot see, if you are to take land by compulsion and give it to the cottars who do not possess it now, and who never have possessed it, why you should stop there. Why not take the whole land of the country and divide it up? It seems to me that the arguments brought forward in favour of the Amendment really carry you to that extent. I shall certainly vote in support of the Lord Advocate when we come to a division; and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be supported by a large majority of the Committee.
    MR. FINLAY (&c.): I entirely concur in the view which has been expressed by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane)—namely, that the definition of a cottar contained in Clause 29 of the Bill shall mean—
    "The occupier of a house with or without land who pays no rent to the landlord,"
    is ridiculous, if you provide that the cottar shall lose the benefit of the Bill by the fact that he does pay some rent. I would suggest this alteration in the definition—that a cottar shall mean a person, with or without land, not paying rent to a crofter. I am satisfied that when the Definition Clause is reached it will require a considerable amount of overhauling.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe that if an Amendment of this kind were carried the whole benefit which the most sanguine advocate of the Bill can anticipate from it in the Highlands of Scotland would be done away with. I am satisfied that if we were to adopt such an Amendment, we should, by our legislation, inflict upon the soil and upon the population, who cannot now by any possibility extract

    167
    an adequate livelihood from the soil, an absolutely irreparable injury, compared with which all the injury done by the most reckless landlord who has evicted his tenants in order to make sheep-farms would sink into insignificance. One hon. Gentleman who spoke to-night talked of the natural right of every man to rent some of the soil. Another hon. Gentleman—I think the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Saunders)—seemed to regard as a universal panacea for all social ills that every man should be put in the occupation of a holding of 40 acres of land. Now, it matters very little what the Committee declare the natural right of every man to be, because, unfortunately, the law would make short work of his natural right. Whatever may be the natural right of these squatters to rent land which they cannot cultivate or stock, the fact is that there is no land for them to rent; and it matters nothing what a man's natural rights may be if the laws of geometry are altogether against him. I feel very keenly on this point. Hon. Members who take the view of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane) absolutely ignore the very root and origin of the evil from which the people of the Highlands suffer. The root and origin of the evil—and it is recognized by every impartial investigator—is that for the whole population there is not adequate employment; and what advantage can result from rooting on the soil those who at this moment cannot find employment upon it? Now, are you going to deny to others who become discontented in their turn and become squatters, the rights you propose to give to the existing squatters? The existing squatters have come there by no arbitrary Act; but simply because the State regulations were not adequate to keep them off land to which they had no right or title whatever. There can be no doubt that if we pursue this legislation the race of squatters will augment and multiply. What are you going to do with the addition to the race of squatters? Are you going to fix them on the soil, and to carry on the same system ad infinitum? If so, how long will it be before the chronic want of which you now complain will turn into chronic starvation? This is in no sense a landlord's question. It is a question vitally affecting the prosperity not of the landlords, but of the existing crofters,
    168
    and it is in their name, and their name alone, that I most earnestly implore the Committee to support the Government in resisting the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 196: Majority 91.—(Div. List, No. 48.)
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I rise to move to insert, after the word "crofter," the words "or fisherman." If there is in the Western Highlands of Scotland, besides the crofters, a class of people endeavouring to exist upon difficult conditions—if there is one class more than another who require the protection which this legislation is intended to give, it is the class of fishermen. Now, the occupants of houses without gardens are not to be included in the provisions of the Bill at all. By an Amendment on the Paper I understand that the Government are willing to include fishermen in the cottar class. The privilege of the cottar class is that if they are dispossessed they will be compensated for any improvements they have made. Now, what I wish is to have the fisherman secured in his house; I wish to give him fixity of tenure, and secure him also fair rent. I do not wish to give him power to get more land, but to protect him against an arbitrary advance of rent on the part of the landlord. I think it very desirable that there should be an improvement in the harbours in the Western Highlands, and that other advantages should be given for the development of the fisheries; but there is too much reason to fear that if that improvement took place the landlord would come in and increase the fisherman's rent. Now, I propose this Amendment for the purpose of securing to the fisherman fixity of tenure and fair rent, in view of the improvements which I hope to see, even if those improvements are effected at the public expense.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, after the word "crofter," to insert the words "or fisherman."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.): I am afraid that we cannot assent to this

    169
    Amendment. But we have made what we think a reasonable and adequate provision by putting an Amendment on the Paper for the compensation of fishermen. The Amendment provides that a fisherman shall be defined as a person carrying on the occupation of fishing, and living in a house of which he pays the rent, and that he shall not be removed without compensation. To give fixity of tenure to any person simply because he follows a certain occupation would be entirely beyond the intention of the Bill. I am bound to say that the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) stated an argument of a kind which seems to tend in a direction opposite to his Amendment. The hon. Member said, and we are fully alive to the view, that the best way to ameliorate the condition of the fisherman is to give him fixity of tenure. But there are many other trades the members of which would be benefited by fixity of tenure; and if you are to give fixity of tenure to the fisherman you will be required to give it to the blacksmith, carpenter, grocer, postmaster, and others who occupy houses. Whenever you get beyond what we have stated to be the principle of this Bill you come to a class of cases not in the least peculiar to the Highlands and Islands, but to all parts of the country abutting on the sea-shore. Therefore, it is quite impossible for us to accept the Amendment. But, reverting to the Amendment just disposed of, I may say, with reference to statements which have fallen from several hon. Members relative to the state of the cottar, that we will consider as to whether any alteration should be made in the definition of the term.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: There is one consideration I desire to submit to the Lord Advocate, and it is the necessity for the fishermen to occupy sites close to the sea and in localities suitable for hauling up boats, for nets and lines. They are thereby specially exposed to the action of parties who now lay claim to rights over lands needed for fishings. The fishermen cannot evade extortionate demands by a change of residence, as the classes named can do. I have no doubt the payments by fishermen for sites have since my boyhood largely increased. The additions have not been for benefits conferred by the proprietors, but are solely due to the
    170
    enterprize of the fishermen. Indeed, the privileges of this class have been lessened. The rights to the foreshores have been taken away in a form dangerous to the rights now claimed over fishing sites by parties whose titles to the land might, perhaps, be justly questioned.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I think the objection of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate does not hold good with regard to my Amendment. He says that if we give fixity of tenure to the fisherman we shall have to give it to the blacksmith. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to treat the fisherman in an exceptional way by lending money to develop the fishing industry. Now, it is quite easy to do this at the public expense; but, at the same time, he makes no provision for giving the fisherman the benefit of it. I say that if we spend money on nets or harbours, or in establishing improved communication with the Islands, there is the risk that the landlord will deprive the fishermen of the benefit of it by the raising rent. I wish to provide against that by giving the fisherman security of tenure and fair rent.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I wish to say a few words in support of the contention of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). It is not an uncommon thing in the East of Scotland to find certain fishing dues charged by proprietors to fishermen, which, at so much per man amounts, in some cases, to £10 a-year. If the fisherman refuses to pay these charges the landlord may raise his rent upon him, or order him to quit the house at the next term. This man, although he has made the industry for himself, is not protected. Why, I ask, should he be deprived of his house; and why should the proprietor have power to raise the rent? There is no class of the community which more requires the protection of the Legislature with regard to their holdings than fishermen. Their circumstances are exceptional; they have often no alternative but to leave the district or pay these dues; and I hope the Government will give an undertaking that their case shall be dealt with in the way proposed in this Amendment. It is a very hard thing that fishermen, when they have created their industry, should be made to pay, because they have no

    171
    alternative, £50 an acre for land which is not worth more than £1 10 s. an acre.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 219: Majority 111.—(Div. List, No. 49.)
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: Mr. Courtney, I beg to move to insert, after the word "crofter," in page 1, line 9, the words "the annual rent of whose holding in money is four pounds or upwards." The object of this Amendment is to confine the operation of the Bill to those crofters who are not of the poorest class—to those who may be expected to derive real benefit from its provisions—and not extend it to those to whom its provisions would be a snare and no advantage whatever. It will be observed that the clause has reference to tenure: it proposes to give to the crofter something like fixity of tenure under reasonable conditions. Now, there is no doubt that this privilege would be accepted by the crofter as an encouragement to seek his livelihood, to a greater or less extent, in connection with his holding. But such encouragement would be no kindness to the very poor crofter. A man who has a plot of ground the extent or value of which may be measured by the fact that he pays a rent of only £2 or £3, cannot depend in any degree upon the croft for his living; and to lead such a crofter to think of himself as settled upon his land by Act of Parliament would only be to make him less likely to exert himself to improve his position in other ways. From the Report of the Commissioners, and from the experience of all who know the Highlands, we find that the great difficulty of doing good by legislation of this kind is found in the fact that the crofters are so poor. It is proposed by this Bill to give an extension of holdings; but, as has been already said to-night, an extension of his holding is of questionable value to a crofter who has not the capital to stock the croft. In the case, then, of very poor crofters this objection holds with special force. We find that by this Bill itself an extension of holding is only to be given when the Commissioners are satisfied that the crofter is able to work and to stock the increased holding. That, of course, cannot be said to apply in the
    172
    case of a very poor man. Then the question is, have we no sympathy with the very poor crofter? Yes; we have sympathy with him, but we wish our sympathy to be of a practical kind. We feel for the poor crofter, who is in a deplorable condition at present; but our desire is to give him real and effectual assistance. We wish to help him out of his misery, and not to fix him in it. We wish to help him out of his misery by opening up better outlets for his industry and by giving facilities and encouragement for more remunerative employment. To encourage these poor crofters to look for relief in the continued occupation of their small holdings, is only to deceive them. On this subject I will refer to the opinion of the Commissioners. In their Report this point is fully discussed, and, with the permission of the Committee, I will quote a passage from page 39. In the previous part of their Report the Commissioners say that their suggestion refers to crofters who pay a rent of £6 and upwards; and, treating of improving leases, they report of the smaller tenants in the following terms:—
    "It may be objected to the scheme which has been proposed, that the protection and encouragements afforded to the higher class of crofters above the level of the £6 line are withheld from those of an inferior condition, forming in most localities, we regret to say, the vast majority, and who may need such safeguards equally or more. This must be admitted. The poorer sort are here endowed with no formal security against eviction or excessive rents. The inequality of treatment is manifest and may appear unjust. If we allow it we do so not from a want of sympathy for the class excluded—we accept an evil to avoid a greater evil still."
    And they continue—
    "To invest the most humble and helpless class of agricultural tenants with immunities and rights which ought to go hand in hand with the expansive improvement of the dwelling and the soil, would tend to fix them in a condition from which they ought to be resolutely though gently withdrawn."
    These are the words of the Report of the Commissioners, a Report which is signed by all the Commissioners. But in an Appendix to the Report the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) states his objection to the particular figure which is used in the Report—the figure of £6—as the minimum. He says—
    "I do not wish to perpetuate small crofts;" but "the figure of £4 would, in my opinion, be, though high enough, a fair one, and having

    173
    been recognized by the Valuation Act of 1854, has a distinct significance."
    So that the opinion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire is that £4 is the proper limit. I have taken advantage of that suggestion in the Amendment which I now beg to propose for the acceptance of the Committee.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, after the word "crofter," to insert the words "the annual rent of whose holding in money is four pounds or upwards."—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.): This is an Amendment proceeding in an exactly opposite direction to the last two Amendments, and just as we felt it our duty to resist the last two Amendments we feel it our duty to resist this. We think we have hit the proper mean between the two courses. There is no doubt that the Report of the Commissioners does say that in the judgment of those who reported many of the advantages could not be fully enjoyed by persons holding crofts under £6, or, in the judgment of one Commissioner, under £4; but when regard is had to the statistics given by the Commissioners, and to the obvious fact that upon their statistics there would not have been any benefit whatever given to somewhere about nine-tenths of the population, and also to the hope which we cherished of great advantage being derived from the development of the fishing industry, aided, as we propose to aid it, we have thought it right that every crofter should have the benefits of the Bill, even although his rent may be comparatively small. I understand that the objections which are taken resolve themselves substantially to this—It would be an encouragement to very small crofters to remain upon the land. Well, there would be no compulsion upon such persons to remain on the land. I do not suppose any of us wish to see them evicted from the land—turned off the land by force; but even when they get the benefits we propose to confer upon them by this Bill they will be as free to go voluntarily as they ever were. Therefore, it is very difficult to see how there would be any fixing by way of attachment
    174
    to the ground by the carrying of this provision. It is very true, no doubt, that the mere cultivation of a croft of a £6 or a £4, or a less rent, will not be adequate to sustain a family, or even to sustain a crofter without a family; but then it is notorious that a very large number of the inhabitants of the Western Highlands and Islands pursue other callings along with that of the cultivation of the soil—particularly they pursue the calling of fishing. Now, I do not think that the holding of a small croft of the size referred to would at all distract the attention of the crofter from diligently pursuing the business of fishing. He would have a small patch of potato land, he would perhaps have a few beasts on the land—he would be much better off if he had both; and one of the greatest complaints made by those who have been too much restricted as regards their land is that they have no cows, and therefore no milk for their families. In like manner a great complaint has been that they had no potato ground. If it was simply a question between cultivating land or pursuing a more lucrative industry, there might be a great deal in the Amendment; but it is notorious that these men do have the opportunity of doing all they need to do on the croft, and their families do the rest—their families do the rest while they are engaged in fishing. I believe that those who are best acquainted with this matter feel that not only would it be an enormous disappointment to about nine-tenths of the crofter population if they were excluded from the benefits of the Bill, but that the ideas put forward against the extension of the benefits of the Bill to these people have no great amount of foundation. I have not referred on previous occasions to the statistics given as to the relative proportion in which the tenants under £4 or £6 stand to those above; but I have before me, on page 11 of the Crofter Commissioners' Report, the statement that of 420 crofters and cottars in Uig, Lewis, there are five who pay over £10 and under £30, 22 who pay between £6 and £10, and 393 who pay under £6. Now, if the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen (Mr. Campbell) were carried, these 393 crofters and cottars would receive no benefit from the Bill. I believe that the case is not

    175
    materially different in other parts of the country.
    DR. CLARK: Mr. Courtney, I desire to give an illustration of how this Amendment would operate. I will take the county of Sutherland. In that county there are 2,500 crofter holdings; 500 crofter holdings are above the £4 limit and 2,000 are below it, so that by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell) four-fifths of the crofters of Sutherland would be deprived of any benefit under the Bill.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I can perfectly understand its being a strong reason for not making any alteration in the Bill in the direction of the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell) that it would cause great disappointment. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate says that if there was any limit such as is described by the Committee and suggested by this Amendment, it would cause very great disappointment indeed. No doubt, it would, Sir; but I want to know if the right hon. and learned Gentleman means to tell this Committee that he believes that the ultimate result of this Bill will not be disappointment? It is not for the Legislature to pass measures which will merely give present satisfaction and present gratification to the people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman repudiates what is laid down distinctly by those who formed the Royal Commission, and who considered the matter with due care, and under whose advice the Government professed in bringing in this Bill to be acting, when he proceeds to do that which the Commission have practically declared will lead in the near future to an infinitely worse state of things than that which at present exists. It is not the duty of the Legislature and it is not the duty of a Government to evade present disappointment. In legislating, it is the duty of the Government, to act in such a way as shall produce permanent satisfaction. Now, Sir, the Royal Commission have most distinctly and clearly expressed their opinion that no permanent benefit—nay, not even any real benefit for a short time—is to be attained by taking any other course than dealing with the crofters who have very small crofts upon the footing that they shall be firmly but gently withdrawn, and my hon. Friend
    176
    the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh), who, undoubtedly, has taken a deep interest in this question and studied it carefully, is of the same opinion. There is no man who knows more about crofters than the hon. Gentleman. The Crofter Commission takes £6 as the limit; the hon. Member for Inverness-shire was unable to differ with them in their principle; but, feeling that the £6 limit would operate with some harshness in the case of many respectable people who might wish to better their position, he fixed the limit at £4, and that is the limit which is now proposed by this Amendment. This Amendment, therefore, gives effect to the views of the Gentleman upon the Crofter Commission who, probably, knows most about the crofters, and gives effect to the views of the whole Commission, though not to the full extent to which the other Members considered it advisable to do so. Now, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate says—"Oh, but in not putting any limit into our Bill we had in view the possibility of the desirability of a great number of the people who had small crofts continuing to hold them, and by the development of the industry of fishing being able to get on extremely well with their £4 limit." But the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgets that when he drew this Bill and stated no limit in it, there was not a word about fishing in it, from beginning to end, and that it was only the pressure put upon the Government from this side of the House which led to fishing being included at all.
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I would not interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman except upon a distinct matter of fact. I may say, with the most absolute assurance, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite mistaken on this point. It is a fact, and I state it as one who knows the fact, that before this Bill was put upon the Table of the House, it was arranged that there should be a Fishing Clause.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: Exactly, Sir; the Government had not been able, up to the time when this Bill was completely drafted and handed to the Members of the House, to get the Gentlemen who represent the Treasury upon that Bench to allow them to put in clauses relating to fishing. I think that is a perfectly intelligible and correct

    177
    statement of the situation. Again, Sir, the Lord Advocate forgets that in the latter part of his speech he made statements which were to a great extent inconsistent with themselves. In the first place, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said it would be a great advantage that these people who are to develop the fishing industry, should have their small holdings. But does he think, and does any hon. Member of this House think, that if you place crofters who practically may be paying only 25 s. or 30 s. as rent, in the position of getting grazing land, and bring up their crofts to the value of a £15 rent, it would tend to the development of the fishing industry? I venture to think it would do nothing of the kind, and I am sure those Members of the Committee who look at the matter from a common sense point of view will come to the same conclusion as myself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman stated no reason, and has given no explanation whatever, why he differs from the opinion of the Crofter Commission; but, I think we are entitled, before this Amendment is disposed of, to have from the Government some intelligible and intelligent reason why the reasons which were given by the Crofter Commission are to be set aside, and why we are to act in absolute defiance of the opinion expressed by the Commission and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh). If any reasons can be given to satisfy a reasonable mind that the Crofter Commission was wrong and that the opinion which they gave was incorrect, and if the Members of the Government can persuade the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire that he was wrong in the view he took upon the Commission, there would be no occasion whatever to press this Amendment; but to give reasons which do not touch the reasons given by the Crofter Commission, which in no way overcome them, and then to ask this Committee to vote against the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell) is, to say the least, unreasonable on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Give us a reason to show that the Crofter Commission was wrong, and there will be an end of the controversy; but, if that reason is not to be given, I think we ought to divide.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER) (&c.):
    178
    There is no doubt, Sir, that in this particular the Government have deviated from the recommendations of the Royal Commission; but I need scarcely say that it is not the function of a Royal Commission to prescribe to any Government what the particular provisions of any Bill introduced by the Government shall be. The function of a Royal Commission is to investigate and to report, so as to enable the Government to determine on their own responsibility what should be the provisions, in the form of a Bill, which they should submit to the House for adoption. Now, my right hon. and learned Friend the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) says that no reason which is intelligible to an ordinary mind can be given, so far as he can see, for the course which the Government have taken in this matter. If my right hon. and learned Friend will give me his attention for a very few seconds, I will give one or two reasons which ought to satisfy any reasonable mind that the course the Government have chosen to pursue is the proper one. The statistics which have just been quoted, have disclosed to the Committee that the proportion in which the crofters whose holdings are less than £4 a-year stand relatively to those above, is something like 2,000 as against 500. [An hon. MEMBER: No; £6.]
    DR. CLARK: I quoted the figures from the Report of the Royal Commission. In Sutherland there are 1,966 crofters whose holdings are below £4 a-year, and 548 whose holdings are above £4 a-year. Hon. Members can verify the figures by turning to the pages of the Commissioners' Report.
    MR. ASHER: Those figures were quite in accordance with my own examination of the Report, and they have a most important bearing upon the present question. It is a fact that there are about four crofters whose holdings are rented below £4 a-year to every one crofter whose holding is rented above that figure. We cannot get rid of that fact. There the people are, living partly by agriculture and partly by fishing. What is to be done with them? This measure is introduced for the purpose of dealing with the grievances which the people of the Highlands have. The people who are engaged in the industry of agriculture are in the occupation of holdings so small that they are

    179
    not able to make a living for themselves. Are you to pass an Act which is to exclude from its scope four-fifths of the people suffering from the grievances which you are endeavouring to remedy? I quite admit that it is a great misfortune that there should be so many people located there upon such very small holdings; but surely it is not a reasonable proceeding to pass a measure which, amongst other provisions, contains machinery for enlarging holdings, and yet not allow that measure to be applicable to the class of holdings which stands most in need of it. There is a very marked distinction between this proposal and that which was negatived in the last division. What the Government have done by including all crofters has not been to extend the Bill to those who are not at present engaged in the industry of agriculture, but simply to extend it to all persons who are at present engaged in that industry, and who are partly dependent upon it. The reason why the Bill is made applicable to them is that they are really the class who stand most in need of the remedy, and the Government do not see why the remedy should not be made applicable to them.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I will not detain the Committee more than a few minutes. I confess I have never been very greatly enamoured of this Amendment, and certainly the arguments which have been adduced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark)—and his figure, I understand, are admittedly correct—would undoubtedly weigh with me very greatly. On the other hand, I have always been largely influenced by the Report of the Royal Commission—a Report produced by Gentlemen who gave great thought and trouble to the consideration of this question; and I have in my hand at this moment an opinion which was expressed at the time the Report was made by one Member of the Commission, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh). What the hon. Gentleman said is this—
    "The figure of £4 would in my opinion be, though high enough, a fair one, and, having been recognized by the Valuation Act of 1854, has a distinct significance."
    Now, Sir, I think the Committee would be glad to know what is the opinion
    180
    of the hon. Gentleman now. Does he adhere to the opinion he then expressed, and, if not, will he be kind enough to state to the Committee what are the circumstances which have induced him to alter his opinion? I must confess that, after all the consideration the hon. Gentleman has given to the Crofter Question, the opinion which he may express will largely influence me in the vote I give.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: It is quite true that on the Royal Commission I thought the limit of £4 a proper and reasonable one; but that figure referred to an improving lease which the Commission recommended. As that recommendation has not been taken up by the Government, I think myself quite at liberty now to approve, as I do thoroughly, of the proposal of the Government not to set up a limit.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.)hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise, Mr. Courtney, to make a suggestion to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, who must feel that my hon. Friend (Mr. J. A. Campbell), in asking the Committee to consider the suggestion made by that responsible body, the Crofter Commission, has done good service to the discussion of this Bill. I understand the case of the Government to be this. They admit fully that there are districts in the Highlands where it is unfortunate these people, having very small tenements, should be congested; but they point out, on the other hand, which I quite admit, that there are parts of the Highlands where a man with a croft as small as £4, or £3, or £2, may make an adequate and substantial living, either by fishing or some other industry he can pursue in his neighbourhood. Therefore, it would appear, by the confession of the Government, that there are two distinct classes of crofters having holdings below £4, one a class which exists where no adequate employment can be found, and the other a class existing near good fishing, or where adequate employment either exists now or will exist when the fishing provisions proposed by the Government become law; and I would ask the Government whether they could not, between this and Report, consider the possibility of giving to the Land Commission

    181
    some power of drawing a distinction between these two classes, while I should recommend strongly that under no circumstances should the total amount of land in the possession of the crofter community be diminished by one iota, or that one fragment should be added to a sheep farm or deer forest. I think, in the interest of the crofters themselves, crofts should be consolidated in certain parts of the Highlands—surely it would be for the benefit of the crofters that the very small crofts should be gradually diminished in number and the remaining crofts increased in size. Probably my hon. Friend (Mr. J. A. Campbell) will not think it worth while to put the Committee to the trouble of a division on this subject; but I trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will consider between this and Report proposals which, whether practical or not, he will see are founded upon a rational view of the wants and necessities of the Highland people.
    MR. RAMSAY (&c.): I hope that the Government will consider seriously the suggestion that has now been made. The Lord Advocate said that the adoption of a £4 limit would exclude nine-tenths of the crofters from any enjoyment of the benefits of the Bill. Now, he has made a mistake. I have the figures with me, and I find that instead of nine-tenths there are not five-tenths who would be prejudicially affected by the adoption of the present Amendment. The Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. Asher) says that four-fifths of the crofter population would be precluded from sharing in the benefits of the Bill; but he is equally mistaken. If the hon. and learned Gentlemen will look at the Return of the number of occupiers in Scotland, they will find that what I state is quite correct.
    Amendment negatived.
    DR. CLARK: Mr. Courtney, I propose to omit the word "no," in line 12 of this clause, in order to make the line run "but he shall have power to assign his tenancy." The right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan), in introducing the Bill, said there was no historical right in the Highlands of Scotland to free sale, such as existed in Ireland. Now, the Ulster tenant right was originally limited
    182
    to Ulster; but by the Irish Land Act Parliament extended the principle of free sale to the other three Provinces of the country. I think that practically, at the present time, the Ulster tenant right does exist in the Highlands of Scotland, because in a number of counties when a tenant leaves his farm he has a right of sale, and he does receive some payment. The incoming tenant not only pays something for the tenant right, but he takes upon himself the liabilities of his predecessor in the farm as well. I have not heard any argument against granting the right of assignment. Why should a crofter under the new conditions not have the same right that cottiers have in Ireland? Why should they not have the same right as a feuar had in selling his feu? If a crofter and a landlord become partners, the one giving land and the other giving his labour and capital, why should the crofter not have as much right to sell his capital and labour as a landlord has to sell his portion of the partnership? I should like to hear from right hon. Gentlemen something more than the statement that, historically, crofters have no right of sale. As a matter of right, as a matter of usage, the Ulster custom exists in the Highlands at the present time. The great bulk of the crofters, when they leave their farms, have the right to sell their holdings, and they do sell them. Now, the objection to my Amendment is that under the Compensation Clause crofters will have compensation for their improvements. But it seems to me they can receive no adequate or full compensation except they get the market price. Compensation for improvements simply means the getting from the landlord the price that one individual will give for the improvements; full compensation means selling the article and getting its full market value. I do not think a landlord would like to have his right of sale limited, and, if so, why should a crofter's right of sale be limited? It is time that the rights of those who hold personal property should be considered quite as much as the rights of those who hold real property. If men want to prevent the development of Socialism, let them stop the system of confiscating the property of others, and place all property in the same position.

    183
    If they do that, perhaps they may prevent the growth of Socialism; but as long as they keep up the unjust privileges of the great as against the small, they will only aid and abet the development of Socialism.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, to leave out the word "no."—(Dr. Clark.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'no' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. ASHER: This is a very important Amendment; but after the best consideration which the Government have been able to give to it, they have felt it their duty not to accept it, and I shall endeavour to state in a few words the grounds upon which we have come to that determination. There is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) has proposed this Amendment in what he believes to be the interest of the crofters. Well, he will perhaps be surprised to hear that the Government oppose the Amendment in the interest of the crofters; we oppose it because we believe that its operation would be prejudicial instead of favourable to the crofters. This Amendment only takes effect when a crofter is about to leave his holding. It is proposed by the hon. Gentleman that a crofter who intends to surrender his holding in order to leave the locality or to adopt some other industry should have the option of selling his improvements as tenant right, as an alternative to adopting the remedies given him under the Bill. Now, what are the remedies of a crofter who has either to remove or to renounce his tenancy? Under the Bill, as it stands, he is entitled to be compensated for all his permanent improvements, receiving such sum as the Land Commission considers the proper value of the improvements; and the improvements are to be valued upon the principle of what they are worth to the incoming tenant. Now, my hon. Friend (Dr. Clark) must contemplate that the crofter would get something more by the operation of the Amendment he proposes. Now, what is that something more? It is that he should be paid upon leaving his holding something by the crofter who is coming in, something which is in excess of what the Land Commission would consider
    184
    the fair value of the permanent improvements. Now, what would be the effect of that? One of the objects of this Bill is that all persons who are in the position of crofters should occupy their holdings at a fair rent. If a crofter had the right to sell his tenant right, and if by such a sale he got something more for it than the Land Commission considered its fair value, the result would be that the incoming crofter would have to pay for the privilege of getting possession of the croft, not only the fair rent fixed, but a premium for the tenant right. The consequence is that while, on the one hand, you are by this Bill proposing to establish a system, and a perfect system, which will secure that the crofters in the occupation of holdings shall sit at a fair rent; by the adoption of the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Dr. Clark)—an Amendment proposed upon the assumption that the crofter going out will get something more than he gets under the Bill—the incoming tenant would be deprived of some of the benefit which he would have if he came in under the procedure proposed by the Bill. ["No."] I hear someone say "No;" but if this Amendment is not to give the outgoing crofter more than he can get under the Bill, what is the object of it? [Dr. CLARK: It is to prevent the landlord getting it.] The Bill at present secures to the crofter full compensation for all improvements which he is leaving behind him, estimated by the Land Commission on the principle of the value of the improvements to the incoming tenant. If this Amendment is not proposed for the purpose of giving the outgoing crofter something more than the Bill gives, I cannot understand its purpose. And if the outgoing tenant is to get something more he must get it at the expense of the incoming tenant; and, therefore, this Amendment would have the effect of loading the incoming tenant with a disadvantage with which he would not be loaded if the Bill passed in its present form. In short, by the Bill as it at present stands, we give the existing crofter the right of occupation at a fair rent; but by the Amendment we would do much to seriously disturb the fairness of the rent. It is upon these grounds which, upon due consideration, have appeared to us to be important grounds in the interest of the crofter

    185
    community, that we have come to the conclusion that we are not able to accept this Amendment.
    VISCOUNT LYMINGTON: I have an Amendment on the Paper further down; but I confess I had a good deal of diffidence in framing it on the ground, as alleged by the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan), that there is no historical argument in favour of free sale as regards the crofters of Scotland. But that argument has been entirely thrown to the wind by the Government, and they oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) upon precisely the same ground as hon. Members opposite opposed free sale in the Irish Land Act, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. Asher) has practically used precisely the same arguments which were used against the Land Act, though he voted for that Act. It seems to me that the Government are taking up a very illogical position in this matter. They do not say that free sale is unknown in the Highlands; but they themselves profess to be better judges of the advantages to the crofters than some of the hon. Gentlemen who represent the crofters in this House. I must say that that seems to me a presumption which this House is not bound to accept. I still hold, as I held when the Land Act was passing through the House, that there is nothing in free sale which is really unfair to the landlord. I do not express merely my own opinion, but I would refer hon. Members to the evidence given before the Commission upon the Irish Land Question. In that evidence they will find the statement, again and again repeated by such high authorities as Lord Downshire's agent, The O'Conor Don, and Mr. Kavanagh, that free sale would not have the injurious effect the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Asher) supposes it would have. On the other hand, it seems to me that there is a great deal to be said in its favour. In the first place, it gets rid of the Compensation Clause, to which I am bound to say I have a great dislike. What are you going to compensate the crofter for, and how are you going to arrive at a fair estimate of the amount and extent of his improvements? Free sale, to put the matter succintly, appears to have these advantages for the landlord
    186
    —it limits the value of the tenant right to a matter of fact and not to a matter of opinion, it offers a security for the repayment of arrears of rent, the tenant has an interest in keeping and leaving his farm in good order, and, above all, it enables a landlord to get rid without any difficulty, without any friction, of a crofter, and it affords a landlord a natural means of consolidating the holdings. For these reasons, which I have stated before in this House, reasons which at the time I stated thorn prevailed in the minds of the Government, I shall certainly go into the Lobby with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark).
    MR. GREGORY: If I have read the Bill aright, its object is to root to the soil the crofters who at present occupy the land, and to give them not only compensation for their improvements but benefits beyond that—there are contingent rights secured to the crofters. Well, now, by this Amendment it is contemplated that the crofters shall have the benefit not only of selling the rights to their improvements, but of selling the contingent rights which are secured to them by this Bill. I cannot conceive anything which would be more likely to stimulate the sale of crofts and contingent rights than a provision of this kind, because the men would go into the market not only to dispose of the land they occupied, but the contingent rights which are guaranteed by this Bill. But it would have this further operation, as I understand, that not only the crofters, but the assignees of the crofters, would have the privilege of exercising the rights which are guaranteed by the Bill—not only the crofters themselves, not only the persons you contemplate benefiting, but those who have made speculative purchases would have the right to go for the increase of their holdings, and for the other advantages guaranteed under the Bill. Instead, therefore, of securing the crofters in their holdings, you would be inducing them to speculate in their holdings and contingent rights, you would bring in a class of purchasers who are totally unconnected with the crofts of the Highlands, and whom you never wished should profit by the Bill. It seems to me that the adoption of this Amendment would lead to an entire perversion of the Bill, and to the benefit of

    187
    those who are in no way the object of your bounty.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY: Whatever may be said theoretically as to the merits of free sale, I think that, when upon this Bill a proposal is made to introduce the peculiar feature of the Irish land system into the tenure of Scotland, we ought to consider the practical effects of free sale in Ireland. Now, free sale arose from an unfortunate state of affairs in Ulster, by which there was a dual proprietorship of the land. In process of time the tenants of the other parts of Ireland claimed the right of free sale, and it was conceded to them. What has been the effect of free sale in other parts of Ireland? I must, first of all, make this general statement, that a tenant has a right in justice to compensation for all his own improvements; but he has no right to anything else. Well, the result of free sale in Ireland has been that tenant right is sold at such a price to the incoming tenant that he is deprived of all the capital which ought to aid him in stocking the land and raising the condition of agriculture. This is the simple reason why agriculture is more backward in Ireland than in any other country in Europe. You find that tenant right in Ireland means 10, 20, or 30 years' purchase. If a man who, perhaps by legacy, or by his industry in America or some other country, accumulates a little money, buys a wretched holding for the purpose of coming back to his native land, he gives a price for it which renders it absolutely impossible for him to reap any advantage from the purchase; and the end of it all is that we have now, staring us in the face, this Irish Land Question, which is going to rend the Empire asunder. These are simple facts. [Laughter.] I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite look upon this matter with something akin to amusement; but I look upon it with very serious concern. As I have said, agriculture in Ireland is more backward than in any other country in Europe, while rents in Ireland are lower than those in any other country. [Laughter.] By laughing, hon. Members only show their ignorance of the subject. The rent which is paid to the landlord in Ireland is less than that paid in England or Scotland, or upon the Continent; but the amount which is paid by the interest on the money the tenant has expended
    188
    in purchasing out the former holder, raises the rent to such an extent that it is impossible for a man to reap any advantage from his holding. I will be no party to introducing into Scotland that principle of free sale which has been so unfortunate in its results in Ireland. Tenant right worked very well in Ulster for a number of years; but now you see the consequences. In the present depressed times no rent is paid at all, and the argument is that the tenant cannot get his rent out of the land. There is no reason why tenants in Scotland should have any claim for other rights not given under this Bill. The Bill gives the tenant fixity of rent for the statutable period of 15 years, which is given in the Irish Land Act. What right has a tenant to anything more, if he leaves his holding, than the value of his own improvements? Any other capital ought to be carefully preserved to the incoming tenant, that he may stock his holding and work it properly. For these reasons I shall certainly oppose the Amendment.
    MR. M'CULLOCH: I have a very good reason why landlords and factors and Members of this Liberal Government are anxious to retain this clause in a form different from that which it would assume if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) were accepted. It is because in times past these landlords and factors have appropriated tenants' improvements at less than their real worth at the time being, and up till 1883 for nothing at all. I know that this is the case as a practical man. I have had experience of almost all sorts of land tenure and ownership; and I say, from experience, that the reason the landowners want the clause in its present form is that they may get the improvements at less than their worth.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I understood the last speaker but one to urge that free sale hinders land cultivation in Ireland. I have always understood, however, that in Ulster, where free sale has prevailed, the land was in a higher state of cultivation than in any other part of the country.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I would strongly urge this Amendment on the acceptance of the Committee in the interests of the proprietors as well as of the tenants themselves. The hon.

    189
    and learned Gentleman (Mr. Asher), who spoke for the Government in opposition to this clause, no doubt had a very nice theory—that the landlord will pay the outgoing tenant for his improvements, and give the incoming tenant the land at the old rent. Well, I put it to the experience of everyone who knows anything about the matter, whether landlords will not exact as high a rent as they can get from incoming tenants? It is far better for the incoming tenant to receive the farm in good condition, and pay for doing so. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman considered how this is going to work out? You are going to entrust the carrying out of the new arrangements to the Land Commission, and to insist upon Commissioners going, it may be, to the Hebrides, to award compensation to the extent of £4 or £5. It is not the fact, as the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think, that tenants would get more under the system of free sale than they would under this system of compensation. There is all the difference in the world between a man going into the market and getting what he can for his holding, and his submitting to a price fixed by another person. It is very possible that in a great many cases the compensation the tenant would expect from the landlord would be a considerable sum, whilst the benefit to the landlord would be nil. Is the tenant to be compensated for a house that the landlord may desire to pull down as soon as the tenant goes out of it? I maintain that free sale would be quite as much in the interest of the landlord as in the interest of the tenant, and I think there will be a far greater chance of consolidating the holdings under a system of free sale than by the mere giving of compensation for improvements. When a man knows that he has a fair rent, and that he can sell his holding when he likes if he is not able to make a living out of his holding, he has no one to blame—he can only blame the climate or the circumstances of the case. When it is brought home to him that he cannot live on his land, very possibly he will go to a neighbour and ask him if he will give him anything for his holding, and the neighbour, if he sees that he can make more out of two holdings than one, will give him something for it. A little practice in this matter is worth any quantity of
    190
    theory. No one that I have heard, with the single exception, perhaps, of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Mitchell Henry)—who is now no longer politically connected with Ireland—has complained of free sale. I understand that the free sale system has worked satisfactorily to the tenants of Ireland, and until this evening I have not heard that the landlords seriously complain of it. We have a system of compensation in England and Scotland under the Agricultural Holdings Act; but that Act is universally admitted to be a failure. The tenants are not taking advantage of it. There are so many pitfalls about it, and there is so much expense attending upon its operation, that, rather than make claims and provoke counter-claims on the part of the landlords, the tenants are refusing to take advantage of the Act, and the compensation under it is practically a dead letter. After this experience, I appeal to the Committee whether it would not be wiser to be guided by what has taken place in Ireland, where free sale has been successful—where, at least, I have never heard any complaint of it on the part of tenants—than to adopt the system of compensation which has been practised under the Agricultural Holdings Act of England and Scotland, and which has been recognized as a complete failure?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I would interpose but for a few moments on this question. It appears to me that we have not only to think of the sitting tenants, nor only of the landlords, but also of the incoming tenants. We have to consider not only how we are to deal with present undoubted difficulties, but to see that we may not very soon arrive at a similar difficulty afterwards; and, looking at it from that point of view, I think we cannot leave entirely out of sight that free sale means a higher rent and a rack rent to the next tenant. Is that disputed or not? [Mr. J. W. BARCLAY: Yes.] It is disputed. How is it disputed? I say that the sale is made at the highest price that the market will give. The sitting tenant takes his holding and his rights into the market, and he sells at the highest price he can get, and the interest on the price he receives for his holding is added to the rent which the new tenant has to pay, and the two together then form the new rent of the holding, and on

    191
    that hypothesis the new rent is more than the fair rent which, a Judicial Court has said could be properly paid. It seems to me, therefore, that the giving of this free right of sale means that the next tenant is to hold his holding at a rent, which, through the interest upon the capital he has paid to the outgoing tenant, has reached an amount which is beyond what the Court declared was fair; and conceding the right of free sale appears to me simply to be handing over to the existing tenants the opportunity of selling the privileges conferred on them by the Act when it becomes law, while the future race of tenants will be in no better position than the present ones in respect of the high rents which they will have to pay. I would only add one further consideration to what I have urged, and it is this. I understand that the argument which is to induce us to pass this Bill is, in the main, that the crofters are to have restored to them privileges from which they have been ousted in the course of years. It is on historical grounds we are called upon to pass this legislation, which runs counter to the general legislation of the country. It is because there are special circumstances in the case of the crofters, and because they have special rights; but, under these circumstances, I think we ought to stick as closely as possible to those rights which the crofters enjoyed in past times. I understand, if I am rightly informed, that free sale has not been one of the privileges that crofters have in the past enjoyed. [Mr. J. W. BARCLAY: Nor fixity of tenure.] If they have not enjoyed fixity of tenure, it is very questionable now how far we are justified in passing this legislation. We are not, as I understand it—though I may be wrong—thinking what is the best form of tenure which we can invent for the Highlands of Scotland; but we have to deal with a difficult case, and with claims which have arisen from the views the crofters have taken of their historical rights; and, approaching it from that point of, view we are anxious to do them justice, and to put them back into the position in which they were, as far as the changed position of affairs will permit. But that is not an argument for conferring new rights upon the crofters; and if the granting of the free sale is a new right, I doubt whether
    192
    they could claim it according to the general arrangement which will induce us to pass this Bill. But, at the same time, I would rely more strongly upon the argument I urged at the commencement of my observations—that while we shall, no doubt, be conferring an advantage on sitting tenants by giving them certain rights, we shall heighten the difficulty in the future by tempting others to give high prices for the privileges conferred on these people, for such persons will stand in the position of being scarcely able to pay the rent, plus the interest, which will fall upon them.
    MR. CHANCE: The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is strangely illogical. He wishes to prevent the tenants from having the chance of selling their improvements if they can. The landlord is to be the purchaser, at a price fixed by the Land Commission, and pretty certain not to be as high as would be got in open market. But what will happen when the landlord purchases the improvements? The landlord can sell them for any price he likes to the incoming tenant; and I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the future tenant will not have the advantages which it is the main object of this Bill to provide. Besides that, the landlord could get any price he liked to charge and he thought he could get from the incoming tenant. He could subject the incoming tenant to any rent whatsoever. I think the Solicitor General for Scotland is under a misapprehension when he states that the Bill provides that the tenant shall have compensation for his improvements. I say it provides no such thing. Whatever the Land Commission may term "permanent" improvements, he will be compensated for; but those which will only last 10 or 15 years, and therefore will not come under the description "permanent," will be given to the landlord for absolutely nothing. The landlord will be able, as I say, to sell in the highest market to a tenant from whom he can exact any rent he likes.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY: The point now raised is a very important one, being whether future tenants are to have the benefit of the Act. If not, what is to prevent the landlords from rack-renting the tenants just the same as heretofore. There is no reason to expect that the landlord will not rack-rent

    193
    the future tenant. I do not wish to detain the Committee unnecessarily; but there is one important point I should like to refer to. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Asher), who defended the clause as it stands, pointed out that the landlord would let the holding on better terms that if he dealt with the way going tenant; but there is no reason to believe that that would be the case. The question now raised is whether this Bill is going to be applicable to future tenancies, and a fair rent is going to be fixed for them by the Land Commission, or whether they are to be left to the tender mercies of the landlords in the future as in the past? The point, I repeat, is a very important one. We shall get out of the difficulty altogether if we adopt the principle of free sale; otherwise we shall have to make provision in the Bill for future tenants that they, also, shall be entitled to have fair rents from the landlords.
    MR. MACFARLANE: There is a special consideration with reference to this matter of free sale versus compensation which has been overlooked. It is assumed that under this Bill the tenant will get fair compensation for his improvements. But what are the conditions under which he receives it? They are—and they do not appear in the Irish Land Act—that the improvements be executed or paid for by the crofter or his predecessors in the same family for 30 years. Further, it is stipulated that these improvements shall not be made in virtue of any agreement or understanding expressed in estate regulations or other writings. Now, there is nothing under Heaven that a crofter can do which is not stated in the written conditions. Through these restrictions and by these conditions I look upon this Compensation Clause as a perfect delusion. It may be that scarcely any crofter will derive benefit from it. I was surprised to notice the solicitude of the Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. Asher) for the incoming tenant at the expense of the outgoing tenant. He does not wish the outgoing tenant to sell his holding for what it is worth, because it will be too expensive for the incoming tenant—for that is what it amounts to. He will have it valued by the Land Commission for less than it is worth, and then will give it to the landlord, who will sell it for all that it is worth. Then, another
    194
    clause to be put in the Bill is one which recognizes the right of the crofter to some property in his holding, for he is to have the right to bequeath it. The power to make a testamentary disposition means that he has property to bequeath. Well, if I have the right to bequeath my property I ought to have the right to sell it. The difference is this—If I have the right to sell it I can enjoy some of the advantages during life; but if I have only the power to bequeath I must die in order to get the advantage of it. That is a provision in the Bill, and it seems to me a most illogical position for the Government to take up. It is too late for Her Majesty's Government—represented, as they are, by right hon. Gentlemen who, in this House, on the Irish Land Bill, fought for weeks and months for this principle we advocate, though they are now fighting against it—it is too late for them to talk about free sale as if it were a new principle. It is an old principle that is now sought to be applied to a new spot. I do not believe that the adoption of the principle will produce a rupture of the British Empire. The tenant has a right to get a market value for improvements. An Amendment will come on later to test the question as to whether this should be made a family matter or not, and if the hon. Gentleman now goes to a division I shall support him. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to clear up the question as to future tenants. There is nothing in this Bill corresponding to the wording of the Irish Land Act; and there has been nothing to show why the person purchasing a crofter's holding should not be placed in the same position as the crofter as to fixity of tenure.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.): There is nothing of the sort, because the Bill does not recognize such a thing as the purchase of a croft. The whole hypothesis of the Bill is that the tenancy belongs to the crofter and his heirs. By a somewhat beneficent extension of that the Government have proposed to give the power of bequest—that is to say, to select a person from amongst the number of his heirs. But according to the proposal of the Bill we do not give the right beyond the tenant. So that, whatever our demerits may be for resisting

    195
    the proposal, we have not the demerit of being illogical. The two things stand together. With regard to what has been said as to the present proposal not being a novelty, I suppose novelty has some relation to place. It may not have been novel in Ireland; I think it was not, for there it grew out of the Ulster Custom. I remember, however, even in the case of Ireland, hearing a discussion as to how far the custom might be extended to the other Provinces. In Scotland it is absolutely novel. ["No, no!"] Well, I say it is so; and I should have thought that such a statement might have been made here without fear of contradiction. Our firm belief is that we should be doing a thing most damaging to the tenants of Scotland, viewed as a group and as a whole, if we adopted this principle, because the effect of free sale has often been described to be to kill fair rent. They must stand together. I believe that if we gave the right of free sale we should kill the fair rent to all who afterwards came into possession. I am not much at variance with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay); but I think that some prejudice would be caused by this Amendment. I think that while it is quite right that the tenant should get compensation for all that he has done by way of improvement, if you allow him to sell the future prospects, if I may so say—all the future prospects, and contingencies, and chances appertaining to the tenancy—you would be authorizing him to sell something which does not belong to him, but to the landlord. I rather think it is not so much the landlords as the future tenants who are interested in this matter, although, as I have said, the landlord would be prejudiced by giving present tenants this power of sale. Whether, therefore, we view the matter in the light of principle or precedent—by which I mean precedent in the country with which we are dealing—or in the view of advantage to the landlord and tenant, we feel constrained to resist this proposal.
    MR. J. E. O'DOHERTY: I am greatly interested in this matter, although I am not a Scotchman. I am particularly anxious that in this matter the crofters should benefit by the experience we had in Ulster under the old Land Act of 1870, at which time compensation was measured by the
    196
    Courts and was not given in the right of free sale. I can assure the Committee, from my own experience at that time, that the benefits which the Legislature attempted to confer on the Ulster tenants were lost very much because the Act did not give free sale, which the Act of 1881 did. I am speaking now from both professional and personal knowledge. I also know that that which my hon. Friend near me (Mr. Chance) has mentioned as possible to occur really did occur. The compensation awarded by the Court was defeated by the lease given by the landlord to the incoming tenant. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Goschen) seems to be under a mistake with regard to what is actually meant by fair rent in the Land Courts. It is intended to cover only the landlord's interest in a holding. If it means anything, it really means to give the landlord a fair return for his interest in the soil; but I fail to see how it can be rack-renting, or how the incoming tenant is in any way injured, if he finds that the previous tenant has added something which, in his judgment, is something of value. He ceases to be a rack-rented tenant, for he has got something more than his farm.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has not answered my question.
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: The hon. Member did ask me a question, and I had meant to answer it, but forgot to do so. As the hon. Member will see, on reference to the last part of Section 16 on the top of page 8, the Bill has clearly defined the application of the matter. It says—
    "Within the parishes to which this Act is determined to apply as aforesaid, this Act shall apply to every crofter who is the tenant of a holding at the passing of this Act, and to his heirs, in the same manner as if the tenancy were a lease;"
    that is to say, to all existing crofters, and to all who derive their crofts by descent—all those who are in the position of possessing that which we assume will be a historical status. If the hon. Member asks me what is to be the position of future crofters, thereby meaning crofters who after this time make contracts, I say that, undoubtedly, the Bill will not apply to such persons, and for this reason—which we

    197
    shall have a full opportunity of discussing when we come to the clause—that then we shall be dealing with persons who are not in historical status, but who are like anybody else who makes a bargain which may be a good or a bad arrangement.
    DR. CLARK: I must press my Amendment, because the Lord Advocate seems to have answered the Solicitor General for Scotland. The Solicitor General for Scotland told us that we should be rack-renting the future tenants, and now we are told that the future tenants will be rack-rented by the landlords, and that, under Clause 5, the outgoing crofter will have only a portion of his improvements coming under the cognizance of the Court and being recognized, and that then an agreement shall be entered into by the incoming tenant, and the landlord shall exact all the difference between what he pays and a rack-rent. If the hon. and learned Member would so change the clause as to prevent the rack-renting of the incoming tenant I would gladly withdraw my Amendment. I make my proposal in order to prevent the landlord from confiscating a certain portion of the improvements made by the tenant, and also getting the difference between the value of the land to one man and the value of the improvements to the other one. If you could, by a further clause, prevent the rack-renting of the future tenant, then I would withdraw; but as, under this section of the Bill, all now crofters coming in will require to enter into agreements with the landlords, and as future tenants will not have the benefit of the Act, I shall press my Amendment, in order to prevent the crofters' improvements being confiscated, and to prevent legal stealing.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 248; Noes 112: Majority 136.—(Div. List, No. 50.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.): I hope the hon. Member will not persevere with this Motion. I think we have now got
    198
    to a stage at which, after the settlement which has taken place of important questions of principle, considerable progress can be made.
    MR. MACFARLANE: I proposed Progress because there is no other question of importance within a measurable distance. After the work we have done, and considering the hour, I do not think it unreasonable that Progress should be reported.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the best plan will be to go on until we come to some important point, and then, I trust, the Government will agree to report Progress.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MACFARLANE: The next Amendment, which stands in my name, is probably unnecessary after the divisions which have taken place. But the next Amendment is of a different kind. I propose to make it clear that the non-payment of arrears of rent which have accumulated for period exceeding one year before the passing of the Act shall not constitute a breach of the statutory conditions. Am I right in supposing that rent accruing as I have described will not be a breach of the statutory conditions? If I am right in supposing that is the intention of Her Majesty's Government I will not propose the Amendment; but as the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not give me that information I beg to move the Amendment in order to get an explanation.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 14, sub-section (1), at end, insert "but non-payment of arrears of rent accumulated for a period exceeding one year before the passing of this Act shall not be a breach of the statutory conditions."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I must say that the existence of arrears was not considered in strictness to be a breach of statutory conditions. In dealing with the question of arrears, Her Majesty's Government propose to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear), subject to the judgment of the Committee. It is our opinion that there should be some

    199
    provision in the Bill which deals with arrears.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MARK STEWART: The reason for adopting the Amendment I am about to move is obvious. It is only fair that a man who occupies land should have the capital for stocking it; otherwise the land can be of no possible use to him, and it must suffer from a condition of things opposed to good cultivation.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, after sub-section (1), insert—"The crofter shall always keep his holding sufficiently stocked."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I am afraid that this is an Amendment which we cannot accept. It is of the essence of any provisions which are penal, or almost penal, that they should be absolutely clear. It will be noticed that the provisions which we make statutory are of such a character that anyone may know whether or not he is violating them; but the question of sufficient stocking is one of judgment, and there may be differences of opinion, perfectly bonâ fide, on the subject. I point out that the tenure of a crofter, or any other tenant, may be put an end to from other causes if he persists in keeping his land unstocked.
    MAJOR SAUNDERSON: I do not think there is any necessity for a more clear definition of sufficient stocking than we have. I believe that a leading Member of the Liberal Party has decided that one cow is requisite for three acres of land.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 15, to leave out the words "execute any deed purporting to," and insert the words "directly or indirectly."—(Mr. Kimber.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: It seems to me that any clause of this nature should be absolutely clear and unequivocal; and that end would not be gained by inserting the words "directly or indirectly" in place of those now in the clause.
    MR. KIMBER: If one man gives up peaceable possession, and another man gets it, it seems to me that it is about as clear a transfer of possession as can be. There is nothing in the Bill to show that the landlord has the right to resume possession as against a stranger who has been let in; and there is nothing to define the relations between the new tenant and the landlord. Therefore, I submit that there is a case for an amendment of the Bill if you confine the assignment to transfer by deed. I am not well acquainted with the law of Scotland. In England, no doubt, an agreement for tenancy for more than three years would not be binding without a deed; but for a shorter period it can be binding without any deed being executed. I should like to know whether in Scotland the transfer could not be effected without any deed at all?
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: By the law of Scotland the assignment could not be made without writing. The position of the landlord would be very simple—he can get a summary ejectment order against the tenant under the circumstances referred to.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, to leave out the words "without the consent of the landlord in writing,"—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.): I think it is much too strong an interference with the joint act of landlord and tenant to say that even when they are agreed as to a particular thing being done it shall not be done. I may point out it is not merely the question of sub-division which will be affected, but sub-letting the same or any part, or erecting houses or other buildings. Neither of these things could be done, although the two persons interested in the holdings were agreed as to the desirability of its being done. That would be absolutely taking the management of the land out of the hands of both landlord and tenant. The words, "without the consent of the landlord in writing," are in a similar clause of the Irish Land Act.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. M'CULLOCH: I think it is much better that, instead of the consent of the landlord, there should be the consent of the Land Commission. To provide for this, I beg to move to leave out of line 23 the words "of his landlord."
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, to leave out the words "of his landlord."—(Mr. M'Culloch.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. J. B. BALFOURwas understood to oppose the Amendment.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY: Mr. Courtney, this is an important question. One of the great evils in the Highlands is the sub-division of crofts; and I think it would be a source of great disappointment if, while the Land Commission were endeavouring to put matters right in the Highlands, certain landlords should agree for a consideration to sub-divide holdings which it would be very improper to sub-divide. I withdrew the previous Amendment, because I thought it was, perhaps, too strong; but I really do not see in what way the Land Commission could be more usefully employed than in preventing the sub-division of holdings. I urge upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate the consideration of the desirability of leaving this question to the Land Commission. It is very necessary they should exercise their influence in consolidating holdings, instead of sub-dividing them.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. MACFARLANE: I propose to insert after "landlord," in line 23, "or of the Land Commissioners." This is an Amendment rather in an opposite direction to the one just disposed of; it is to prevent a landlord making a sub-division upon his own sole and individual authority. The sub-division must be approved of either by the landlord or the Land Commissioners.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, after the word "landlord," to insert the words "or of the Land Commissioners."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I cannot assent to this Amendment, because it
    202
    gives an alternative course which is not very desirable.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. BAIRD: I have an Amendment to propose in line 25, an Amendment which I think is absolutely in consonance with the spirit of the Bill, and, therefore, will not meet with the opposition of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. We have already heard to-night something of the great evil of sub-division of holdings or squatting; and it is with the intention of strengthening this Bill in its provision against squatting that I propose this Amendment. After the word "thereof," in line 25, I propose to insert—
    "Or allow any building, or land being part of the holding, to be occupied by any other than himself."
    This Amendment is simply to prevent the introduction of that thin end of the wedge which eventuates in squatting.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 25, after the word "thereof," to insert the words, "or allow any building, or land being part of the holding, to be occupied by any other than himself."—(Mr. Baird.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman wishes to reduce the crofter to a most unenviable solitude. It does appear to us that when we have provided that no other dwelling-house is to be erected upon the holding, it would be rather too dictatorial for us to say how many persons the crofter is to have in the dwelling house. This Amendment might prevent him taking a lodger, or establishing other relations. The hon. Member's words are, "or allow any building.… to be occupied by any other than himself." We have prohibited such tenants, and we have prohibited the building of fresh dwelling houses; it, therefore, does seem to me to amount to a great interference with possible legitimate rights to say that a crofter shall not take, for instance, a lodger.
    MR. BAIRD: My Amendment was simply intended to guard against a kind of sub-tenancy which may arise, and which seems not to be altogether covered by the provisions of the Bill. It is quite conceivable that the sons of the crofter, as they grow up, may wish to

    203
    keep up an interest in their father's holding, and that this may lead to sub-division.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERS: I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baird) means by "the thin end of the wedge which eventuates in squatting." It seems to me very like sitting down on a tenpenny nail.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether the words of the Amendment are the best that can be found; but of this I am quite sure—the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baird) has pointed out what every man in the House knows to be a real evil and danger. A crofter's son-in-law, for instance, without being properly a sub-tenant, might live upon the holding, and thereby get a share of the holding. Whether my hon. Friend's words are exactly calculated to meet the difficulty I will not say; but I think the Lord Advocate will not deny that the danger is great. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will promise to consider the matter by Report, I imagine my hon. Friend will be quite satisfied.
    MR. KIMBER: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to suggest words which may meet the difficulty. After the word "thereof," in line 25, I think it would be well to insert the words "or part with possession thereof." Sub-letting is certainly not sufficiently guarded against by the words of the Bill as they at present stand. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take my suggestion into consideration.
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I will consider the matter by Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: I propose to insert after the word "house," in line 26, the words "or offices." We have guarded against a tenant erecting a dwelling house without the consent of the landlord. It seems to me there is the same reason why we should prevent the erection of offices.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, after the word "house," to insert the words "or offices."—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.): It would be a great misfortune if this Amendment were accepted. By prohibiting the erection of any dwelling house we think we have done all that is necessary to prevent the great evil of sub-division, or of sub-tenancy. But, although we wish to prevent the erection of any dwelling house, we do not, in the least, desire to discourage the improvement of the offices which are necessary for the equipment or the cultivation of the holding. This Amendment would prevent a man who is a fisherman erecting a shed in which to dry or store his nets, or it would prevent a crofter erecting a cow house, or any place for his hay. All the reasons which are against the addition of a dwelling house rather go the other way on this question.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MACFARLANE: Half-an-hour ago I understood that when we came to a contentious question we would report Progress. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will not consider the Amendment I now have to propose too serious a one to accept. My Amendment is to leave out Sub-section (5). There is a good deal of unnecessary phraseology about this sub-section which I do not understand; and I beg to move the omission in order to obtain an explanation.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, to leave out sub-section (5).—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
    Question proposed, "That the subsection stand part of the Clause."
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I can only explain that the phraseology of this subsection, translated into plain English, means the committal of an act of bankruptcy. I fancy that there can be no doubt that, in almost every well-drawn lease, there is a provision to this effect; and, besides, that there is a distinctly analogous provision in the Irish Land Act of 1881. I believe the words in the Land Act are "commit an act of bankruptcy;" the meaning, however, is the same.
    MR. MACFARLANE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now consent to report Progress.
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Let us pass the clause.
    MR. MARK STEWART: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 9, after the words "that is to say," insert "for feuing and letting for building, for the granting of allotments for fishermen, and for harbours, boat shelters, or other buildings connected with the fishing industry."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I can hardly think this Amendment is necessary, because the very same thing is provided for by us in the next clause, which we call the clause of resumption. The way in which the landlord would get the land for feuing or other purpose is by exercising the power of resumption. It would hardly be appropriate to provide in this clause that a landlord should go on the land for the purpose of doing these things. This clause defines the purposes for which the landlord may go upon the land while it is in the tenancy of the crofter. Before he can go upon the land for "feuing or letting for building" he must resume the land. If there is anything which is not covered by the clause of resumption we shall be glad to amend the clause accordingly.
    MR. MARK STEWART: It struck me there was no provision for the landlord to enter upon the land under these conditions. I cannot see any objection to the insertion of these words; they only make it clear for what purpose the landlord may go on the land.
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: It does not seem to us appropriate to put the proposed words in this clause. Independently of that, I may point out that it would scarcely be safe, without providing for some recourse to the Land Commission, that, the landlord should have the power of totally annihilating the holding for feuing or letting for building on ground allotments. He might let the whole place to the detriment of the occupying crofter, and the advantage of somebody else. While being fully alive to the fact that it is very desirable to provide for what the hon. Gentleman
    206
    desires, it appears to us that the right way to do it is to give power of resumption for these specified purposes subject to the consent of the Land Commission.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. Blake.)
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I should think that in two minutes we could finish the clause.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not resist the Motion. I think he is under a misapprehension when he says that in two minutes more we shall be able to finish the clause.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  COMMON JURIES REMUNERATION BILL.— [BILL 95.]
  (Mr. Crompton, Mr. Lockwood, Mr. Eugene Wason, Sir John Swinburne, Mr. Johns.)
  COMMON JURIES REMUNERATION BILL.— [BILL 95.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. CROMPTON: Mr. Speaker, by this Bill I hope to remove a great injustice which affects a very deserving class of people. Common jurymen take part in the administration of justice gratuitously. They are not only compelled to give their services gratuitously, but they are obliged to pay whatever travelling expenses it is necessary for them to incur; they have to lose much time, and, in addition, have to pay the expenses they are put to while in attendance at an Assize or a Quarter Sessions Court. When they do attend Courts of Assize or of Quarter Sessions they find that there are no conveniences provided for them as a general rule. Sometimes they may be comparatively fortunate enough to secure a seat in the back row of a close Court; and if they are not as fortunate as that they have to remain in one or other of the passages around the Court, it may be in the midst of a set of the good-for-nothing people who very often hang about the passages of our Courts of Justice. And when the time does come for them to take their seat in the jury-box they certainly are not treated in a way people who give

    207
    their services deserve to be treated. They are kept, perhaps, the whole day investigating very difficult matters, and exercising their minds in a way in which it is very probable they have had no previous experience. And when dinner time comes they are, perhaps, allowed 20 minutes' leave of absence; and if they return, possibly, three or four minutes late they are reprimanded by the Judge, and in some cases fined a sum of money besides. If by any chance they are called upon to try a case of felony and the trial is not finished when the Court rises for the evening they are not allowed to go home, but are locked up, and are not allowed to separate. When the time comes for them to consider their verdict they are locked up, not allowed refreshments, and only allowed the light from a candle. They remain thus locked up for hours sometimes, and many of them are compelled, practically speaking, to give a verdict contrary to their opinion. ["No, no!"] Mr. Speaker, it is necessary that there should be a unanimous verdict; and I believe it constantly happens that the minority give way to the majority. Well, this is the treatment which common jurymen who give their services gratuitously receive. The Bill, the second reading of which I now move, provides that they should have some moderate remuneration for the services they render. Having seen how common jurors are treated in different county towns, I, for my part, would almost prefer to have a week on the treadmill than be compelled to serve for a week as common juryman. Special jurymen are treated in a very different manner. They are placed, whether legally or illegally I need not inquire, upon an entirely separate list, and they have not to try criminal cases, or to mix themselves up with common jurymen—perhaps it would be better for the administration of justice if they had. Now, my Bill only deals with trials at Assizes and Quarter Sessions, and the reason of that is that when men are summoned to attend trials in their own town the hardship of being taken away from their employment is not very great. They can return to their homes at night, and if there is any particular reason why a juror should attend to his work it is more than probable that the presiding officer will give him leave to do so. My Bill, for instance, does not
    208
    apply to Middlesex or to London; but it proposes that each common juryman who is summoned to attend an Assize or Quarter Session should receive 5s. for each day's service, 5s. for each night he is away from home, and a reasonable sum for travelling expenses. The remuneration I suggest may by many be considered rather shabby—in fact, I have seen it stated in some papers that it is a very beggarly offer to make. But it seems to me that the farmer or the shopkeeper will not feel he is out of pocket if, when he is called away from home, he is paid 5s. for each day's service, 5s. for each night, and his reasonable travelling expenses; he will find that he is not being put to any expense, though 10 s. a-day will not really remunerate him for the loss he has sustained in leaving his business, and for the inconvenience and discomfort he has experienced in having to act as a common juryman. Well, now at Assizes common jurymen have to act in two capacities. They have to act in the trial of civil causes, and they have also to act in the trial of criminals. My Bill provides that the parties to common jury causes should themselves provide a sufficient sum of money to pay for the jurymen. I calculate that five or six causes are tried in the course of a day, and my proposal is that each plaintiff and each defendant should contribute 10 s. towards the expenses of the juries. In that way a sufficient sum would be provided for the payment of the jurymen engaged in the trial of civil causes. Then, Mr. Speaker, in order to provide for the payment of jurymen trying criminal cases I propose that a certain amount should be found by the Government. It has been put to me more than once whether it would be advisable that the amount payable to the jurymen should be provided out of the rates or out of the monies of Parliament? I will not be a party to any addition to the rates at the present time, at all events until a proper system of rating is introduced. My Bill, therefore, proposes that the money should, practically speaking, be found by Parliament. It is difficult to calculate how much money it will be necessary for Parliament to vote for this purpose; but as far as I have been able to estimate it will be somewhere about £30,000 a-year. This may seem a large amount, but hon. Gentlemen must remember that this

    209
    £30,000 a-year represents the amount of money which is taken out of the pockets of the common jurymen, the amount you require them to find in order to discharge their duty in connection with the administration of justice. I may call the attention of the House to one rather important and curious fact, and that is that there is provision made for the payment of the daily expenses of Judges when on Circuit. I believe that £7 7s. is given each day to each Judge when on Circuit. Now, if there were two Judges in attendance at an Assize, the amount paid to them for expenses would cover the amount I propose should be paid to the jurymen who try the cases. I think there will be a great deal of sympathy with these common jurors. I hope the House will think that they ought to be remunerated for the time that they give, and be paid the expenses they incur. This Bill provides that justice should be done in this respect, and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Crompton.)
    COLONEL NOLAN: I look upon this as a most extraordinary Bill, because Clause 2 provides that it is not to extend to Ireland or Scotland, and Clause 6 provides that the money for the payment of the English common jurymen is to be granted by Parliament. I should regard it as a most excellent Bill if it were extended to Ireland. In Ireland we are quite willing that the plaintiffs and defendants should pay 10 s. each, in order that the jurymen in the country, who are now shockingly treated, should each get 5s. a-day. The conditions which surround the lot of a common juror are much worse in Ireland than in England, and any Bill to improve these conditions should be made applicable to Ireland first and to England afterwards. I hope the Government, in answering the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Crompton), who made a speech of very great eloquence, will announce that they are quite ready to extend the provisions of the Bill to Ireland. If the measure is so extended I shall be most happy to vote for it; but if not I shall take great interest in it, and endeavour in Committee to amend every line of it.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): At this late hour (1.10) of the night, I shall not follow my hon. Friend (Mr. Crompton) in the interesting account he has given of the physical and mental disabilities to which common jurymen are subjected. The sting of the hon. Gentleman's speech was emphatically in its tail, and I will bring my remarks to bear upon that sting. He has told us that, practically, he proposes to increase the expenditure of the country by £30,000 a-year. Now, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained the other night very clearly what he considered a Constitutional function of the Executive Government—namely, that charges of this sort should be proposed by the responsible Ministers of the Crown and submitted to Parliament in that way. We do not feel disposed to raise a technical objection at this moment—possibly it ought to have been taken at an earlier stage—but I think it is impossible that this Bill can proceed. In the first place, it will be necessary for the House to resolve itself into Committee to pass the required money clause. That cannot be done without the consent of the Government, which consent will certainly not be given. Under these circumstances, I think the hon. Gentleman would do well to withdraw the Bill.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw the Bill?
    MR. CROMPTON: Of course, in this matter I am in the hands of the Government. I do hope that the Government will, at no very distant date, deal with the question of the——
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has no right of reply. Does the hon. Gentleman propose to withdraw the Bill?
    MR. CROMPTON: Yes, Sir.
    Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  MARRIAGES (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS) BILL.— [BILL 121.]
  (Sir Richard Webster, Sir Richard Cross, Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Mr. Baggallay.)
  MARRIAGES (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS) BILL.— [BILL 121.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: If the House will give me their attention for a few minutes I will put before them the main provisions of

    211
    this Bill. I shall do so with considerable confidence, because, judging from the suggestions that have been made to me from a great many quarters, all the objections raised to the Bill can be well dealt with in Committee. Hon. Members are aware that at the present time, except in the case of Jews and Quakers and marriages in the Established Church, the attendance of a Registrar is required at marriages, and that by the Acts of 1836 and 1856 certain words have to be said in the presence of the Registrar. Now, for a great many years complaints have been made by Nonconformist Bodies, who have places of worship which are licensed for the solemnization of marriages, concerning this requirement; and I must say that, from the information that has reached me since the time I began to look into this matter, there does seem to me to be in many cases a substantial grievance. There is no doubt whatever that at times marriages have been obliged to be postponed, and that complaints have been made that Religious Bodies do not desire to have present at their services persons who are not in sympathy with the religious ceremony which is being performed. Under these circumstances, I have had to consider, in bringing in this Bill, what was the best way in which this grievance could be met; and I desire to put very briefly before the House the three courses which might have been adopted, and to show why I have taken the course I have adopted. It was suggested in the year 1880 by a Bill brought in by Mr. Blennerhassett, Mr. Errington, and the present Patronage Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Arnold Morley), that the grievance might be met by making all the ministers who were ministers of the chapels licensed for the solemnization of marriages, practically speaking, Registrars of Marriages; but I ask the House to consider for a moment what that would lead to. It would lead to an enormous multiplication of register book forms in the various towns; it would lead to very great confusion and inconvenience. I think I may say that not one of the Nonconformist Bodies from whom I have received suggestions has suggested that this course should be resorted to. Another course is to allow marriages to be solemnized by any religious minister, provided the sanction of the Superintendent
    212
    Registrar or of the District Registrar has been obtained. That, again, is a course which I could not, so far as I was able to form a judgment, suggest, and for this reason—that it is most important there should be some safeguard that marriages are performed by persons who are responsible. Under these circumstances, it occurred to those who have advised with me in this matter that the proper course should be that there should be present a representative minister recognized as being connected, in some way or other, either with the building in which the ceremony takes place, or with the sect according to whose religious ceremony the marriage is solemnized; and that he should be, to a certain extent, responsible for the return to the Registrar General or to the Superintendent Registrar of the certificate of marriage which he would fill up, and which would be signed by him and the parties present as witnesses. Therefore, I have by this Bill proposed that it shall be lawful for any Governing Body desiring that marriages shall be solemnized in their chapels or in their places of worship without the attendance of the Registrar to nominate a minister who shall be able to solemnize marriage without the attendance of the Registrar, and who shall return to the Superintendent Registrar or District Registrar a certificate of the marriage in the form which is in the Schedule to the Bill. I may say at once that to the general principle which I have ventured to embody in the Bill I have, practically, received no serious objection. But it has been suggested—and these points, I think, can be well dealt with in Committee on the Bill—that the Bill does not give sufficient relief to those Religious Bodies who have no ministers permanently attached to their chapels or places of worship, but whose ministers have the superintendence of more than one place of worship. I fully recognize that that class of the community ought also to be considered, and ought to have the benefits of the Bill. I understand that in the case of every such body there is, practically speaking, a safeguard in the recognition of some Governing Body. I shall be willing to bring up a clause to extend the provisions of the Bill to the ministers of such communities, providing those who understand the matter will only assist me in securing the safeguard

    213
    that we may still have a responsible person present at the marriages. I should have suggested some clause of the kind; but it was a difficult matter for me to deal with, as I, of course, was not thoroughly acquainted with all the rules of the various communities, and I felt such an improvement would be better suggested in Committee by some Member of the House who was well acquainted with the circumstances. It is also suggested that, as I have not provided for the case of vacancies or ministers being absent, I have kept alive the power of the Registrar to attend; but here, again, I am perfectly willing to take care, if I possibly can, that a clause is inserted which will enable a registered minister, though not attached to the chapel, to perform the service in the absence of the particular minister who happens to be registered in respect of the chapel. I think that when the House considers the Bill carefully they will see that, practically, it meets all the objections which may be raised from this point of view. I may add that the Bill will reduce the expenses of marriage at least one-half, and possibly ultimately even still more; and I should also like to mention that a question has been raised as to whether or not I have acted wisely in providing that the forms which I propose should be issued by the Superintendent Registrar—whether it would not be more prudent that they should be issued by the District Registrars of the various places. That is a matter for the decision of those who best understand the working of the matter. Either course will be equally convenient from my point of view, and I shall be only too glad to consider any suggestion made on the subject; if it is thought desirable that it is better that the forms shall be issued by the District Registrar instead of by the Superintendent Registrar I shall be pleased to make the alteration. I am most anxious not to trespass too long on the House at this hour (1.20); and therefore I will only say that I have ventured to move the second reading of this Bill to-night because I do feel, from the support I have received from a large number of recognized representatives of Nonconformist Bodies, there is very little in the principle of the Bill to which anyone can object. I believe every objection can be met in Committee; provisions can be
    214
    inserted to protect every interest it is desirable to protect, and to extend to all Nonconformist Bodies which we desire to recognize the benefits of the Bill. I apologize, in one sense, to the House for having made my statement briefly—I hope I have made it clearly. I trust the House will see fit to pass the Bill, because I do feel we shall thereby do much to remedy a grievance which has been seriously felt in many places, and, at the same time, be able to cheapen marriage without in any way impairing the security which at present attends it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Richard Webster.)
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: It may be thought that this Bill should pass without any comment from this side of the House; but I venture to submit that this is a most important question, affecting the civil position and the religious feelings of an immense number of people in this country. I think, with very great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), that this is a measure which ought to have been in the hands of a responsible Government, who really could have dealt with it at a time when it would have been possible for what passed to have come to the knowledge of those most deeply interested. Now, I ask whether, at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning, it is reasonable to enter upon a discussion of this question? Although the hon. and learned Gentleman has apologized for the length of time he occupied in proposing the second reading, I think he would have been justified in going far more into detail than he did. In the first place, the hon. and learned Gentleman has left us altogether in doubt as to the character of the communications he has received, and as to what Bodies he has received the intimations and suggestions that have come into his hands. Without intending to be in any way disrespectful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I must say I should have thought he was hardly the man to whom the different Nonconformist Bodies would forward statements as to their wants. ["Oh!"] I do not wish to throw, for one moment, any doubt upon the good faith of the hon. and learned Gentleman and those whose names are on the back of the Bill; but

    215
    it is absolutely necessary that I, or some other Member in the same position as myself, should rise and appeal to the House to adjourn the debate upon this subject. It is impossible, Sir, that a discussion of this character can really reach those who are interested. The hon. and learned Gentleman, has not told us how many thousand places of worship this Bill will affect, or how many thousand ministers and marriages per annum will come under the operation of the measure; and therefore I do say that the House has done everything that is necessary to-night in allowing the hon. and learned Gentleman to make his statement in moving the second reading, and that time ought to be allowed for the representations of those who are so deeply interested in the question to reach hon. Members. When such time has been allowed we can enter upon the discussion of the Bill on the second reading, and determine whether the Bill in its present form may be allowed to go forward. Besides, there are other Bills of a similar character either before the House or shortly to be advanced to the second reading stage, and it may be necessary that this and those other Bills should go to a Select Committee. Furthermore, the hon. and learned Gentleman has left the House altogether in the dark as to what is the custom in Scotland and Ireland. It is found there are methods of registration and of conducting marriages in Scotland and Ireland which are more consonant with the feelings of the people than the cumbrous system which prevails in this country. Surely we are entitled to have under consideration the form of marriage prevailing in both Scotland and Ireland; and if the hour were not so late I would venture to take up this very material point. Sir, in my judgment the attention of Parliament and the country requires to be brought back to this one point. By the law as it at present exists Parliament has given to all persons seeking to be married in this country the right to go through a civil ceremony only, without any religious ceremony superadded. All the safeguards that the State requires in the carrying out of this most important engagement are secured under this civil form of marriage. If that be the case, I want to know why Parliament should trouble itself about the religious ceremony, or
    216
    about what is called the solemnization of marriage? I do not wish to cast any slight upon the religious service; no doubt there are persons who attach more importance to marriage when it is accompanied by religious ceremony. There are other points the hon. and learned Gentleman has not explained. In his kindness and consideration in making all registered ministers quasi-servants of the State he has brought them under severe penalties. There is a £10 penalty provided in one clause, and in another clause there is a felony staring in the face ministers who undertake this duty. Why, surely, when there are such pitfalls and such dangers ahead as there are in this Bill, it is not a reasonable thing that the House should be asked to accept the second reading of this measure at this hour of the morning (1.30). I only wish to say, in conclusion, I am sure thousands of ministers and thousands of those who marry at Nonconformist places of worship would think we were failing in our duty in allowing a Bill of this character to pass the second reading stage without adequate time being given for its deliberate consideration. I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Mr. Speaker, I second the Motion, and I do so on a special ground. I wish to make an appeal to the House and the Government that they will allow this Order and the subsequent Orders of the Day to be postponed till another day, because there is a Motion on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Central Division of Edinburgh (Mr. J. Wilson), and this is the very last day, according to the statute, on which it can be considered by the House. It is now half-past 1 o'clock in the morning, and therefore I ask that the House will allow my hon. Friend to bring forward his Motion concerning the Fettes Endowment Scheme. I appeal to the Government to give us their assistance in this matter.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Illingworth.)
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): I am one of those who support the Bill on principle, as it removes a very decided

    217
    objection to the present regulations concerning the solemnization of Nonconformist marriages; it gets rid of the obligation to have a Registrar present. While I think the object is a good one, I am bound to say I think the Bill will require a great deal of amendment in Committee. There are several points to which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Richard Webster) has himself referred which will, in Committee, receive a great deal of consideration. Now, after hearing the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), and having regard to the fact that the Bill must be discussed on the second reading far more than it has been discussed to-night, and that there is a Motion on the Paper with respect to the Fettes Endowment Scheme which must, if it is to be discussed at all, be discussed to-night, this being the last day allowed by statute for its consideration, I think it would be well that the discussion upon the second reading of this Bill be postponed. I shall support the second reading.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I am sorry to hear the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, because the principle of the Bill is exactly what he stated. There is a difficulty as to the attendance of Registrars at Nonconformist chapels. ["Order!"] I am going to say why I think the second reading should not be postponed; Mr. Speaker will call me to Order if I am out of Order. The principle of the Bill is agreed to on all hands; but it is quite clear that when we get into Committee some alterations will be necessary. My hon. and learned Friend (Sir Richard Webster) has pointed out some of them, and I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) will point out more. It will be much better to discuss the measure on going into Committee than to adjourn the debate now and resume it at this point, because when we have passed this point we shall know the Amendments hon. Members propose, for they will be on the Paper. If we are allowed to take the second reading of the Bill simply on the ground that it confirms the principle that the presence of Registrars at Nonconformist chapels during marriage ceremonies shall no longer be necessary, when we get into Committee we can discuss the details. I
    218
    think the Bill should now be read a second time.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I must demur to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the principle of the Bill is accepted on all hands. So far as I am aware, not a single Nonconformist Body has yet expressed an opinion upon it. They have not yet had an opportunity. I have reason to know, however, that arrangements are being made to enable the Nonconformists to take the matter into full consideration. They will be greatly astonished if they learn to-morrow that this House has affirmed the principle of the Bill by reading it a second time. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Richard Webster) will be content with having made his statement; and, if he does not assent to the Motion for Adjournment, I trust the House will take the matter into its own hands and insist on an adjournment.
    MR. SEXTON: If the House intends to discuss the Motion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. J. Wilson) it would be prudent not to continue this discussion further.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Monday next.

  MARRIAGES (HOURS OF SOLEMNIZATION) BILL.— [BILL 62.]
  (Mr. Carvell Williams, Mr. Richard, Mr. Ince.)
  MARRIAGES (HOURS OF SOLEMNIZATION) BILL.— [BILL 62.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I now beg, with the permission of the House, to move that this Bill be read the third time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Carvell Williams.)
    SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I must on this Motion point out the very unreasonable course the hon. Gentleman has taken. He has objected, as also has his hon. Friend behind him the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), to the second reading of the Bill of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Richard Webster), and now he is attempting to press on his own Bill. I do not suppose any opposition will be offered to his Motion, and I merely rise to draw attention to the great difference between the manner in which we meet Bills of hon. Gentlemen

    219
    opposite and hon. Gentlemen opposite meet Bills of ours.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): There is no objection to this Bill in any quarter of the House, and it has passed the second reading stage.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (IMPROVEMENT EXPENSES) BILL.— [BILL 7.]
(Mr. Dodds, Sir Edward Reed, Mr. Arnold Morley, Mr. William Cook, Mr. Bullard.)
PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (IMPROVEMENT EXPENSES) BILL.— [BILL 7.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. DODDS: I will not stand for more than a single moment between the House and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. J. Wilson). I merely wish to move that the Bill go into Committee pro formâ, for the purpose of introducing Amendments. A large number of Amendments have been prepared, and many of them I shall be glad to accept.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 153]; re-committed for Thursday 8th April.

MOTIONS.
  FETTES SCHEME.

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to move the following Resolution:—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent to the Scheme of the Educational Endowment (Scotland) Commission now lying upon the Table of the House for the management of the Fettes Endowments, Edinburgh."
    In a very few words I will explain to the House the reason why I make this Motion. I say, in the first place, I am compelled to do it owing to having received numerous complaints from Edinburgh against the passing of the proposed scheme. These complaints have taken shape more particularly in two Petitions which were recently presented to this House, one from the Lord Provost and Town Council of Edinburgh, and the other from the Convention of Royal and
    220
    Parliamentary Burghs of Scotland—the Town Council of Edinburgh interesting themselves locally, as being the Body representing the town in which the Institution is situated, and the Convention of Royal and Parliamentary Burghs interesting themselves in the matter generally, and showing how extensive is the interest taken in the matter throughout Scotland. I may explain to the House that Sir William Fettes, who was the founder of the Institution, was a native of Edinburgh, and at one time occupied the position of Lord Provost and Master of the Merchant Company. He died in 1836, leaving £166,000 sterling for the purpose of building a hospital—I quote from Sir William Fettes' will—
    "That the residue of my estate shall form an Endowment for the maintenance, education, and outfit of young people whose parents have either died without leaving sufficient funds for that purpose, or who, from innocent misfortune, are unable, during their own lives, to make suitable provision for the education of their children."
    It was thus a purely benevolent Trust and Institution for the benefit of children whose parents were not able to bring them up and educate them, and give them an outfit in life. For the administration of the Trust, Sir William Fettes appointed certain private Trustees, but with power to devolve the whole Trust upon a Public Body at any time they thought fit to do so. They did not, however, take advantage of the alternative named in the will and devolve the Trust upon the Public Bodies specified, but continued by succession to administer it as a private Trust. Nothing was done by the Trustees until 1864, by which time the £166,000 left by Sir William Fettes had accumulated to the sum of £484,000. The Trustees then began to build an hospital or college, or schoolhouse, with adjacent ground. This building cost £227,000, and with the balance they opened the establishment. The establishment was opened with a limited number of foundationers, who were to be educated gratis, but who afterwards were charged a sum of £30 each; and along with this limited number of foundationers there were a large number of children from the upper and middle classes of life admitted, who, of course, paid a much larger sum. Until recently the entire number of children educated on the foundation of that magnificent charity was only 229, and

    221
    that notwithstanding the fact that they paid about £30 each towards the Charity. Not one of them got the outfit and that full maintenance that was designed by the will of Sir William Fettes. Well, it was maintained, I believe, by the private Trustees that it was the intention of Sir William Fettes to endow a purely charitable Institution; but the inhabitants of Edinburgh contend that the founder having been Master of the Merchant Company, under whose control an Institution of the kind already exists, intended to found an hospital very much on the lines of the Merchant Company's School, called George Watson's Institution. But in that, as you will see from what I am saying, the Trustees signally failed. The Institution recently came under the scope of the Endowed Hospital Commissioners, and this scheme was laid on the Table some time ago, and if no interposition of the kind that I indicate takes place that scheme will become law. The scheme, I am free to admit, is an improvement on things as they are. It opens up the Trust and admits certain public officials thereto. Notably, the new Trust will include the Lord Provost of the City of Edinburgh, the Master of the Merchant Company, the Dean of Faculty, a member appointed by the Writers to the Signet, and other representatives of Public Bodies; but it continues the private Trustees. Those for whom I act object to the continuance of these private Trustees. They maintain that Sir William Fettes designed it to be a public Trust; and they say that, owing to the unfortunate fact that it was not so at the beginning, the conduct of the Trust until now has been of a most unsatisfactory kind. They object, also, that, though the scheme is an improvement on the old system, it has not taken sufficient measures for the recognition of the class of children for whom it was originally intended. It still limits too much the number of boys who are in the Institution, and leaves too much access to children of the middle and upper classes. Now, I do not intend, at this late hour of night, to enter into too much detail. It is impossible for us to-night to discuss details. I, therefore, only ask the House to agree to present an Address to Her Majesty, asking that Her Majesty may withhold consent. For the City of Edinburgh we only ask
    222
    further time to discuss the matter locally, to see if some more advantageous scheme—some scheme more adapted to the position of the funds, and more like the original intention of the testator—cannot be agreed to. I do not ask the House to go into any detail whatever. All I ask is that the scheme may be reconsidered in Edinburgh, and breathing time given to allow the parties to discuss it further, and, if possible, devise a scheme more satisfactory.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent to the Scheme of the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Commission now lying upon the Table of the House for the management of the Fettes Endowments, Edinburgh."—(Mr. John Wilson, Edinburgh.)
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYseconded the Motion.
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: At this late hour of the night I will not detain the House longer than is necessary; but this Motion reflects upon the scheme which is now on the Table; and, as one of the Educational Endowment Commissioners who prepared the scheme, I feel called upon to make a few remarks in answer to the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House. The position of the Commissioners when this endowment was brought before them was simply this—that they had not to consider so much what was to be done with Sir William Fettes' Endowment, as what was to be done with the College which had been erected and was maintained by the Trustees of that Endowment. Here was, as the hon. Gentleman has explained, a College erected at a cost of nearly £250,000, equipped in the best manner, and erring only in this, as a building—that it was, perhaps, too beautiful and too grand for almost any purpose. But, beautiful and costly as it is, it is admitted to be admirably adapted for the purposes of a first-class secondary school. The College has been in existence for some years, and has attained a state of considerable prosperity; in fact, it is now one of the best conducted and most successful of our great public schools. Although so much money has been spent upon the buildings, the College has now an income, from the accumulation of Sir William Fettes' bequest, of from £6,000 to £7,000 a-year. The question

    223
    which the Commissioners had to consider principally was, could they do better than continue this school, which was contributing most efficiently to the higher education of Scotland—continue it under improved regulations? We were not unanimous. The Commissioners are seven, and two of our number did not agree with the majority; but five were of opinion that their duty was not to interfere with the school, which has been conducted so well, and which is contributing so efficiently to the higher education of the country, but to see that it is placed under such regulations as shall give the public security for its continued good management in the future, and especially that the funds of the Endowment proper shall be expended exclusively upon those who are in need of assistance for their education. The position which the Trustees had taken was that Sir William Fettes had given them liberty to make regulations regarding his Endowment, and to select that class of young persons requiring assistance for their education who were in the greatest need of such assistance. The Trustees came to the conclusion that for the poorest class of children there was already ample provision made in Edinburgh; but that there was a class of poor—professional men and others—who had fallen in their circumstances, and who, but for their misfortunes, would have been able to give their children a good education—for whose children no provision was made; and they, therefore, decided to apply the funds of the Endowment to the education of boys belonging to that class, and that in doing so they should, at the same time, have a large school with paying pupils, so as to give the foundationers the advantage of being educated among a large number of other boys receiving the same course of training. The regulations which the Commissioners decided upon and have embodied in this scheme may be classed under two heads. The first relates to the Governing Body. The Trustees named by Sir William Fettes were not bound to hand over their charge to another body of Trustees. They were left with an indication of Sir William Fettes' wishes, in the event that they should wish to hand over the fund to another Body. But the Educational Commissioners have appointed by this scheme a Body consisting
    224
    of 11 at present, but which will ultimately consist of nine Governors; and in appointing that Governing Body they have sought to secure a fair representation of the different interests of the country and the neighbourhood, and to make the best provision they can for having this Educational Institution thoroughly well superintended. One of the nine is to be appointed by the magistrates and Town Council of Edinburgh; and it must be borne in mind that, although this Institution was to be in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, there is nothing in Sir William Fettes' will to indicate that he wished its benefits to be confined to Edinburgh. Another of the nine is to be appointed by the University of Edinburgh, another by the Merchant Company of Edinburgh, another by the Dean and Faculty of Advocates, another by the Writers to the Signet, one minister of religion elected by the Governors, one Governor by the Senators of the College of Justice, one elected by the Chamber of Commerce, and another by the Royal College of Physicians. That will give a thoroughly representative Body of Governors for this Institution. The scheme also gives strict regulations as to the future administration of the College; and a point I would especially call attention to is this—that by this scheme there will be a distinct separation of the funds of the Endowment from the revenue from school fees. The revenue from school fees is to be sufficient for the maintenance and education of the boarders, and for paying interest on the cost of the boarding houses. The boarders will receive no pecuniary benefit from the Fettes' Endowment except the use of the school buildings. That is all they will receive. In return they will give the foundationers the benefit of being educated with them in a large secondary school. The funds of the Endowment will be expended exclusively upon the education and maintenance of boys who are of the class designated in the will of Sir William Fettes as—
    "Young people whose parents have either died without leaving sufficient funds to provide for their education, or, from innocent misfortune are unable, during their own lives, to give a suitable education to their children."
    In the first place, there are to be foundationers, who are to be exclusively of that class—50 foundationers, or as many as

    225
    the Governors may find themselves able to appoint—and to each of these foundationers is to be given, not only free education and maintenance, but also an allowance, if he is found to be in circumstances to require it, of £20 a-year. Then there are to be 12 or more Foundation Scholarships, carrying similar benefits, which are restricted to boys whose parents and guardians are not in such circumstances as to enable them to give them a thorough education. There are to be Scholarships of from £20 to £60, also restricted to boys whose parents require assistance for the education of their families. There are to be two Exhibitions, one restricted to foundationers, and another not so restricted. But it is unnecessary to go further into details. The Commissioners had to consider two alternatives. One was to sacrifice this great work that was going on in Fettes' College, and revert to a different kind of Institution altogether; and in doing so they would have had the difficulty of disposing of a building that would have been very unsaleable for any ordinary purpose, and they would have had the responsibility of putting an end to a good work, which I believe is required in Scotland. The other alternative was to continue the good work, and to endeavour to secure that in the future there should be no danger of Fettes' Endowment going to those who were not in circumstances to require it. We think that that has been done by the scheme which has been adopted by five of the seven Commissioners, and which has received the approval of the Scottish Education Department. The point to which I ask specially to call attention is this—that by this scheme there is to be a distinct separation in the accounts of the College between the funds of the Endowment and the revenue from school fees.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Sir, I should consider it a crime to take up more time than is absolutely necessary, at this hour of the night, in speaking on this question. The discussions which have taken place in this House during the last two or three years have shown that wrong has sometimes been done by the diversion of Endowments. This question has come on at so late an hour that it is almost impossible to debate it to the extent it requires. The case seems to me to be, from all the information that
    226
    can be gathered on the subject, that this College has certainly been doing considerable work. It has provided secondary education of a kind which Scotland has not got; and, so far as education is concerned, there is no doubt it would be a shock to all interested in the progress of education in Scotland to see the work of this College suspended. But this is not enough. We have to inquire how far, notwithstanding this good work, it is in harmony with the will of Sir William Fettes which was made in 1836. It would not be sufficient to look merely at the work done, and I cannot allow myself to be influenced in this matter entirely by the work done, unless it can be shown, at the same time, that the scheme itself is fairly within the founder's intentions. I think it is perfectly clear that this Charity was not intended for the working classes. The working classes are indirectly interested in it; but the Charity seems to have been founded for all those who, having been in a somewhat better position, had, by misfortune, become unable to provide suitable education for their children; and it does seem extraordinary that, such being the terms of the will, the College, of which the buildings cost £250,000, should, until a recent date, only have had 50 foundationers altogether. Inquiry has been made, and the Commissioners have made a scheme, which is on the Table of the House; but, with every desire not to impede the educational work which is going on, I cannot reconcile myself to the idea that the new scheme sufficiently carries out the idea of Sir William Fettes, and therefore I am in favour of suspending the scheme, by witholding from it the assent of the Sovereign for a time, in order that it may be further developed and the College be made to confer benefit on a larger number of the class to whom, in my opinion, the Charity was intended to apply.
    MR. J. P. ROBERTSON: Sir, this is a question of great importance, and I think it would be very wrong if any rash decision were arrived at with regard to it, especially after the very brief speech with which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. J. Wilson) introduced the subject. The question before the House is whether the Royal Assent should

    227
    be refused to a scheme which has been most maturely considered and only promulgated after full public inquiry. The Motion involves this—whether an arrest is to be put on an Educational Establishment in Scotland to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Eastern Division of Edinburgh (Mr. Goschen) did no more than justice when he said that it is one of the most successful and elevating educational influences in Scotland. The main question is, whether the application of this Endowment proposed to be made is authorized by the will of Sir William Fettes? Now, Sir, this is more especially a legal question. The will can be read by any layman, and, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, it certainly does not point to the application of the funds to the educational requirements of the labouring classes. On the contrary, there are plain indications that the funds are to be applied to the educational requirements of persons who, having formerly occupied better positions, have, by innocent misfortune, or the death of parents, been less satisfactorily provided for. But even assuming that there was no such indication, no one can for a moment contend that the Trustees had not full discretion to select that class of necessitous persons who most require such an educational endowment. Now, it so happens that there is in Edinburgh, for the operative and labouring classes, an unusually abundant provision of Endowments of this kind; and the Trustees in this case, who fortunately are a body who, by their acquaintance with educational matters, their position, their character, and their abilities, are beyond all suspicion, came to a conclusion that the class of poor people who ought to have this money was the class who, having occupied professional or mercantile positions, had fallen into poverty. That their theory is sound in law is proved by a single proposition, and it is this—there is a section in the Act which enables anyone who holds that there has been a breach of the law of the will, to go before the Court of Session with a case stated; and it is a remarkable fact that that clause was not taken advantage of by those who are represented by the hon. Member for the Central Division of Edinburgh (Mr. J.
    228
    Wilson). If it be a question of law, then, as the right hon. Gentleman has put it, surely a Court of Law would have been the proper place for it, and why it should have been referred to the House of Commons, and on the last day possible for raising the question, and when we are pressed into a corner and speakers in defence of the scheme have to ask the indulgence of the House, is a question which I will leave the House to determine. A great burden of proof lies on those who object to the scheme, because it has been maturely considered and publicly discussed; witnesses have been examined upon it, and it has been adhered to by the Commissioners. And when we remember the names of the Commissioners and their position, who have approved the scheme, I think it comes with such a sanction of authority as should make the House very cautious in pronouncing against it. There is another point which the House ought, in my opinion, fairly to consider. This is not a question to be decided ab ante. We have not now to settle what ought to be the form of the application of these funds. That has been decided for years; and what this House will do, if it affirms this Motion, is to ask that there should be a gigantic waste of money which has been already applied, and which is doing such good work in the country. You have that splendid edifice, which is one of the main points of accusation against the scheme, and what is proposed is that, possibly, it could be sold; and yet, if you were to try to sell it, no purchaser could be found who would offer a sum that would not represent the loss of a large portion of the capital. Now, Sir, considering that the hands of those to whom the management has been entrusted by the whole of Scotland are perfectly clear of any suspicion of bias, is it not rash that the House should, on the mere request of the hon. Member for the Central Division of Edinburgh, who is acting not on his own judgment, but on influences from behind, do anything which would upset an Establishment of the kind? Is it not well known to those who are doing their best for Scottish education that there is nothing in Scotland which has given such a stimulus to education as this Endowment? Is it not the case that it has opened vistas of further

    229
    development of intellectual powers to those who are not affluent in Scotland, which formerly were never dreamed of? And would it not be a monstrous thing if this House were, in the circumstances in which this Motion is pressed, to uproot so valuable an Institution, and put up in its place some scheme of which nothing is known more than that it will be the very opposite of that which exists?
    MR. RAMSAY (&c.): Sir, I think that, as I have probably been very much the cause of this discussion, the House will bear with me for a few minutes. I have not one word to say against the excellency of the education given to boys in Fettes' College, or against the administration up to the time when it came under the control of the Educational Endowments Commissioners; but I do say, and I believe, I that not one of my Colleagues would have done what the Trustees have done had they been the Trustees, instead of being the persons to overhaul the work done by the Trustees. But the chief point which I desire to bring under the notice of the House is this—that by the Educational Endowments Act it is prescribed, as a guide for the Commissioners, that they should, as far as possible, carry out the provisions of the will of the founder of the Endowment. Now, if the will and the intentions of Sir William Fettes is to be preferred, my feeling is that the majority of the Commissioners were wrong in so far approving of the previous action of the Trustees as not only to sanction their proceedings, but perpetuate those proceedings and carry on the work of the Endowment on the same lines as those upon which the Trustees had been conducting it. I having nothing to say against the public school system of England; but I do not believe it possible that Sir William Fettes would have left £166,000 to found an Educational Endowment for the exclusive purpose of providing for the education, maintenance, and outfit of young persons in comparatively destitute circumstances, upon the system adopted in the public schools of England. That he should have left the money for such a purpose, which had never previously been thought or dreamt of in Scotland, I cannot conceive. Sir William Fettes restricted
    230
    the Endowment to £10 per annum in the case of the children of his own relatives under 15 years of age; and I cannot conceive it was his intention to found an Institution in which the mere cost of education should be £50 per annum. My hon. Friend (Mr. J. A. Campbell) has stated, as one of the majority of the Commission, that they felt it was desirable to perpetuate and maintain this Institution; but the scheme which I suggested, in opposition to that of my Colleagues, did provide for the perpetuation and maintenance of the same building, and the work that was to be done in it. My hon. Friend says that there is still £7,000 a-year available for the purpose of carrying out Sir William Fettes' will; but I ask whether anyone can possibly imagine that £140 a-year was to be expended for the education and maintenance of each child upon the foundation in an Institution of that kind? I believe that any impartial person who will look over the will of Sir William Fettes, and read the Memorandum which I addressed to my Colleagues for the purpose of bringing my views under their consideration, will decide that I was right, and that my Friends were wrong.
    MR. TREVELYAN (&c.): Sir, I should be the last man to trespass on the time of the House at this hour. But there has been nothing said from the Government Bench; and this is a very serious matter upon which a very few words must be said from what practically on this occasion is the Government point of view, because I am bound to say that I am speaking up to a certain point the opinions of the Government. But that opinion, now that it is formed—and I am bound to say I think it ought to be accepted by the House—is, to a certain extent, conclusive as against the recommendation that has been made in the other direction. The House is asked to overset a very important scheme, which, indeed, was very carefully drawn up by the Educational Endowments Commission. These gentlemen are doing hard, unpaid work of extreme value, and if one of their most important schemes is to be lightly overset, it will throw into confusion and cast discredit upon a work which is of the greatest importance to Scotland. On what grounds are we asked to overset

    231
    this scheme? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Goschen) is generally out spoken and very clear; but I must own that, having listened to his speech, I did not hear any argument sufficient to induce the House to come to a decision against this scheme. What are the objections to it in its present condition? Everybody admits that the Institution is doing great and good work for Scotland. What are the objections to allowing it to continue that work. The first objection is that the Board of Trustees is not what it ought to be; and, upon that point, I am bound to say that I do to a great extent agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay). But that is not a sufficient reason to take the very grave step of what is called postponing the scheme, but what is in reality making it quite impossible for another eight months at least. The proposals which have been put before the public are such as, I think, the Commission could not have accepted. There is the proposal to turn the College into a vast hospital. Sir, the hospital system is condemned, and it is because the system is condemned that this Commission was instituted; and to turn Fettes College into a hospital would be an unheard of act. On the other hand, it is proposed to take a large portion of the funds and to devote them to sending children to the day secondary schools of Edinburgh; but already Edinburgh is provided, and over-provided, with these opportunities for the education of children. There are, at least, 2,600 boys educated at the secondary schools; and there are, in addition to that number, 1,000 more children educated at the hospitals, or maintained in the schools; and when we come to elementary schools, there are 6,000 children educated in them. Well, Sir, we have this gigantic building; and it is, I agree, a scandal that so large an amount should have been spent on it. I am proud to belong to what we consider the second public school in England—Harrow. There are 2,550 boys there, and these boys have been provided with all the necessities of education for £126,000—that is to say, one-fourth of the sum for which half that number of boys are educated at Edinburgh. But I am willing to admit that, although the school may not be exactly what Sir
    232
    William Fettes meant it to be, that it is a going concern—that it is a flourishing and healthy concern. No one has shown any means by which a great benefit to the community can be secured by diverting any large amount of the funds from that Establishment. The mere fact of having a more representative Board is no sufficient reason for taking a step that would overset the scheme. What has been done, and will be done, is that, in addition to the great and increased advantages which are given to the foundationers under the new system, large economies will most undoubtedly be made, which will enable the number of those charitably educated to be largely increased; and the more I think over it the less I can see that any advantage is to be gained by oversetting this scheme, and attempting to set up another.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Sir, I wish to say a few words after the right. hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, in order to call back the attention of the House to the question really before it. The two speeches we have heard from the Front Benches have entirely drawn the attention of the House from the real issue. The speeches of the hon. Member for Bute (Mr. J. P. Robertson) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) have been devoted to the discussion of a question which is certainly not before the House on the Motion of my hon. Friend (Mr. J. Wilson). What is before the House is, not the discussion of certain proposals which are not before us, and which may have been suggested anonymously in the newspapers; nor is it what the hon. Member for Bute said—that we were bringing forward a kind of factious opposition to a scheme that has been freely and publicly discussed and publicly inquired into. It is very far from that. We are here to-night for the purpose of discharging a statutory duty imposed upon the House of Commons by the Act under which the Commissioners hold their powers. The statutory duty which lies before us is the consideration as to whether we are to give Parliamentary sanction, by our vote to-night, to what the right hon. Gentleman himself allowed, and which nobody who looks into this scheme can fail to allow, to be a very considerable diversion

    233
    of funds from the purpose to which the founder of this Charity intended them to be applied—a diversion from a poorer to a richer class. I do not wish to say one word against the efficiency of the College. We say, if you want to establish a school of that sort, you ought to establish and support it out of your own money, and not out of funds left for a totally different purpose, and for a totally different class. The question which is before this new House of Commons is, Are we to give our sanction to the continuance of this diversion?
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: Sir, I wish to say a single word on this question, for two reasons—in the first place, because I have the honour to represent a constituency which has a good deal to do with education in Edinburgh; and, in the second place, because I am surprised that the hon. Member who has just spoken should express astonishment at anything being sanctioned which is not in accordance with the intentions of the founder. I take it to be one of the objects of the appointment of this Royal Commission, that, in all circumstances where it was thought advisable by the light of modern ideas, they should divert funds from the intentions expressed by founders, and appropriate them in a manner more suitable to the requirements of the present time. The question we have to consider is—"Has the Royal Commission done the best which the circumstances of the time require?" The great mass of educated opinion in Edinburgh, represented by those who stand in the highest position in our educational establishments, and, as I am astonished to find, represented also by the heads of establishments competing with and opposed to the College, are decidedly in favour of the scheme of the Commissioners being carried out.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 61; Noes 82: Majority 21.—(Div. List, No. 51.)

  HYDE PARK CORNER (NEW STREETS) BILL.
  Select Committee to consist of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House, and Two by the Committee of Selection:—Mr. COBB, Lord ALGERNON PERCY, and Mr. LEVESON GOWER nominated Members of the Committee; Three to be the quorum.—(Mr. Leveson Gower.)

  PRISON OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Edward Reed, Bill to amend the Prisons Act of 1887, so far as regards the Superannuation of Prisons Officers, ordered to be brought in by Sir Edward Reed and Mr. Henry H. Fowler.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 154.]

  POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. John Morley, Bill to make temporary provision for the better relief of the destitute poor in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by John Morley and Mr. Henry H. Fowler.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 155.]

  INTERNATIONAL AND COLONIAL COPYRIGHT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Acland, Bill to amend the Law respecting International and Colonial Copyright, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Acland, Mr. Mundella, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Osborne Morgan, and Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 156.]

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SALE TO CHILDREN) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Conybeare, Bill for the protection of children against the Sale to them of Intoxicating Liquors, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Conybeare, Mr. Theodore Fry, Mr. Cossham, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Allison, Mr. O. V. Morgan, and Mr. Channing.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 157.]

  COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Companies Acts of 1862, 1867, 1870, 1877, 1879, 1880, and 1883.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 158.]

  LAMBETH AND OTHER WATER BILLS.
  Select Committee on the Lambeth Water Bill, Southwark and Vauxhall Water Bill, and East London Water Bill to consist of Nine Members, Five to be nominated by the House, and Four by the Committee of Selection:—Mr. WESTLAKE, Mr. O. V. MORGAN, Mr. MORGAN HOWARD, Mr. MURDOCH, and Mr. THOROLD ROGERS nominated Members of the Committee.—(Mr. Thorold Rogers.)
  House adjourned at quarter before Three o'clock.