CLASS VII. (Hansard, 14 June 1892)

§ (4.30.) MR. MORTON
I must ask for some explanation with regard to this amount. There is a strong feeling 1064 among merchants and traders that we are not doing all we ought to do in order to have this country properly represented at the Chicago Exhibition. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us what is being done under the increased grant, and whether the exhibitors from this country are satisfied with the way in which they are being treated. We ought to be properly represented at the Exhibition, in order to show our American kinsfolk what we can do in this country, and what we are prepared to do.

§ *(4.32.) THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,) Chatham
This Supplementary Estimate is brought in in consequence of the general desire that was expressed that more money should be spent in connection with English exhibits at the Chicago Exhibition. It was particularly impressed upon the Government that the charge which it was intended to make for space should be done away with, so that every inducement might be given to exhibit the manufactures and industries of this country. Of course, the sum that would have been received from the exhibitors for space would have been taken into account by the Commission as part of the assets, without which they would be unable to carry out the duties which devolved upon them. The Government decided to take notice of the strongly-expressed desire on the subject, and to increase the grant to £60,000, with the view of enabling the Commission to do without charges for space. Therefore, space will be allotted at the Exhibition to those who will undertake to properly represent the manufactures and industries of this country, and I have every reason to believe that this outlay will enable the Commission to secure good results.

§ (4.35.) MR. MORTON
I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the statement he has made, and I hope that the Government will do everything in their power to have the manufactures and industries of this country properly represented at the Chicago Exhibition.

§ (4.38.) DR. CLARK
I beg to move, as an Amendment, the reduction of this Vote by £2,741 12s. 9d., the amount of the loans under the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886. I am not prepared to agree to the granting of this money in consequence of the action of the Scotch Office. I say that the amount should come out of the savings of that Office.

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY,) Cornwall, Bodmin
How can these remarks apply to the present Vote?

§ DR. CLARK
They want to make good the loss incurred by the Scotch Office in connection with this matter.

§ *SIR JOHN GORST
No; these are repayments which ought to be made under the Act of 1887.

§ DR. CLARK
I say that this money should come out of the savings of the Scotch Office, and I object to Parliament granting it.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! That argument is not at all relevant to this Vote.

§ DR. CLARK
Then I will raise the question on the Appropriation Account. It is a matter of comparatively little importance when it is raised, as long as it is raised.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
It cannot be raised now.

§ (4.42.) MR. MORTON
We ought to have some information before we vote this money. There is a loan of £2,198 14s. 1d. for land improvements in Ireland, another of £1,950 8s. for arterial drainage works in Ireland, and a third of £11,868 for the reclamation of waste lands in Ireland. I should be glad to know where this money has gone to. Has it been advanced to landlords and not been repaid, and is it, therefore, what is called "bad debts"? We are told in the daily and weekly papers, from which we have to get most of our information—we cannot get it from the Government—that the tenants in Ireland pay back the money they borrow, but that the landlords do not do so, as a rule.

§ *(4.44.) SIR JOHN GORST
Under the Statute the Government are bound to make provision for repaying to the Local Loans Fund loans which 1066 are irretrievably lost, so as to keep that fund solvent. The items in question are hopelessly lost, the security being exhausted, and there being no means of making it good.

§ MR. MORTON
Who are the borrowers?

§ *SIR JOHN GORST
The borrowers are both landlords and tenants; but these losses were incurred in consequence of legal decisions which were given in the Court of Appeal some time ago, and which have deprived the Public Works Commissioners of sums which they had every reason to expect they would recover. Those amounts, therefore, have to be made good. The smaller debts have been provided for; but the Commissioners sustained a serious loss of £100,000 in connection with a scheme of land reclamation which was undertaken in Ireland many years ago. If the attempt had proved successful it would have recouped the Public Works Commissioners the sum that was invested in the undertaking. Unfortunately, in the middle of last year the high tides of the river and a very violent thunderstorm caused a gap to be made in the embankment, and the whole of the land which was to be reclaimed was overflowed. That occurred, not owing to any engineering mistake, but through extraordinary circumstances which could not be foreseen or controlled. The question then arose whether the embankment should be re-constructed and another attempt made to reclaim the land, or whether it would be better to write off the loss and make good the money expended. After consideration, and taking the best advice, the Government came to the conclusion that they would not ask the Commissioners to enter into such a hazardous and speculative enterprise as the re-construction of the embankment and the attempt to reclaim the land, but that it would be better to sell the whole undertaking for what it would fetch, Rightly or wrongly — and I think rightly — that course was taken, and the undertaking sold about a month ago by auction for about £2,000. The speculation may prove a great profit to the purchaser, or a great loss; but the Commissioners have 1067 written off £100,000 as bad debts in connection with the undertaking. The present Parliament is not solely responsible for the investment, several Governments having been concerned in it. No doubt, experience has shown that it has been a very disastrous affair; but I think the Committee will be of opinion that the present Administration has made the best of it, and that they have adopted the course which, under the circumstances, was the best to adopt.

§ (4.49.) MR. MORTON
I am sorry that the Government have been so unsuccessful in regard to the undertaking; but I understand now that it is the result of a misfortune. I want to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer why these amounts appear at all. If there has been a profit sufficient to make good the bad debts, why does the right hon. Gentleman come to the country for this Vote?—that is, unless the profits go to the benefit of the Exchequer.

§ (4.51.) MR. GOSCHEN
That is so. I should explain that these losses were formerly incurred without the attention of Parliament having been called to them. We therefore thought it right that Parliament should now be informed of them, and that it should be asked to vote the money that was lost in the undertaking.

§ MR. MORTON
But all the profits are accounted for?

§ MR. GOSCHEN
Yes.

§ (4.53.) MR. MORTON
I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have given some explanation with regard to this £10,000. The only statement we have at present with regard to it is that contained in the footnote at the bottom of the page, which says— Further amount required, in addition to the amount to be recovered as salvage, to provide compensation to owners of animals slaughtered, for employment of Veterinary Inspectors and temporary travelling Inspectors, valuers, and other necessary expenses. That means anything and everything. I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he wants the money at all, and how it is to be expended?

§ (4.55.) THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,) Lincolnshire, Sleaford
I think I can explain. The Committee will remember that in the first instance I asked Parliament for a grant of £15,000 for the purpose of dealing with the outbreak some months ago. Nearly the whole of that amount has been exhausted, and I am able to say that, although the disease had spread through a great number of the counties in England, and also in Scotland, it has now been reduced within limits so narrow that, if I were not afraid of speaking prematurely, I should have said we had nearly stamped it out altogether. That being so, and seeing that last time it cost no less than £3,000,000 to stamp it out, I think that the £15,000 has been well laid out. I am therefore most anxious, as the House is soon to be dissolved, that the Board of Agriculture should not be left in such a position that if, by any misfortune, there should be a recurrence of the outbreak, all the good work that has been done should be lost for want of funds. Although there is no immediate necessity for money, I thought it right to ask for this sum, and I hope that under the circumstances it will be granted.

§ (4.57.) DR. CLARK
Before we discuss this Vote, I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it has been introduced? There was an understanding that no really controversial question should be raised at this stage of the Session; but this is a very important question, which is exciting a good deal of feeling in Scotland, and which will require to be discussed. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be wiser to withdraw this Vote from the Estimates and to postpone its consideration?

§ *(4.58.) MR. GOSCHEN
lam somewhat surprised that the point has been raised by the hon. Member, as we were asked some time ago for the money.

§ DR. CLARK
By a Commission.

§ *MR. GOSCHEN
My recollection is that it was by a Member of Parliament. This is part of the policy of the Government, and I hope the Vote will not be opposed. The hon. Member will remember that the Committee on Colonisation recommended further progress in order to meet the difficulties that existed

§ *(4.59.) MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND (Sutherland)
As this is the Government's policy as opposed to that of the Highland people themselves, I hope that the Vote will be opposed. We object to any scheme to induce people to emigrate when there is land in their own country which is open to colonisation. We would like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money the Government are going to devote for the purpose of promoting a policy of emigration from the Highlands? £12,000 has been already spent, and we are now asked for £7,500 more. If emigration is to be carried out, why is it not promoted in the congested districts of the large towns, instead of in the Highlands, where there is not such a necessity for it? I do not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for I have no doubt that he is bound to carry out the policy which is advocated by the Scotch Office; but the fact remains that, as regards relieving the congestion of the Highlands, the Government's policy has done nothing in that respect. On that ground, and upon many others I might mention if I were not anxious to save the time of the Committee, I think the Government's policy has been very undesirable. We were told that we were not to be asked for any more of these annual doles, and we were told also that the holdings which were left should be added to the holdings of those who remained. There has been no such addition made, and therefore the scheme of emigration is of no avail whatever.

§ *MR. GOSCHEN
I would just say in reply that it can scarcely be said that the £150,000 of public money is 1070 given out of the pockets of the taxpayers for this purpose, because the Colony is perfectly solvent, and gives a guarantee that every shilling of the £150,000 shall be repaid by the Colony itself. I would point out that the families have left because they believe that they will improve their position, that they will be more prosperous in their new homes; and if no more land has been added to the other holdings by the departure of these families, at all events the process must tend to arrest the process of sub-division which is so extremely hurtful to the general interests of the districts. As the Colonies are anxious to have these families, and as these families believe that it is for their interest that they should emigrate, I deprecate attempts at discussion. This policy has not been forced upon the Government by any Members of this House. In Glasgow—where funds were subscribed—and elsewhere, considerable interest was taken in the movement, and a Committee of this House took action in the matter, and practically endorsed their policy.

§ *MR. SUTHERLAND
I fully understand that there was nothing more than a guarantee of expense in this matter; but my point is that the same guarantee and security for the return of the money could exist if the same arrangements were made at home. Then, with regard to the point that it prevents sub-division, I would point out that sub-division is already prohibited by the Crofters Act. So that argument has no virtue. And as to the fact that a certain amount of money was subscribed in Glasgow, I was told by an hon. Member of this House that he would do nothing of the kind again, and that he was led to subscribe in the first instance by false pretences. Then I must take exception to the composition of the Board of which the Secretary for Scotland is a member. I have a strong opinion regarding the propriety of an executive officer of the Government being a member of such a Board. The other representatives, the gentlemen from Canada, are the representatives of the land companies and the landlord class, and therefore are vitally interested in this proposal. Therefore 1071 on that ground alone we have a perfect right to scrutinise every penny of the money that is to be so devoted.

§ DR. CLARK
Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us whether a proportion of this grant is to be subscribed locally—whether this £2,500 is to be so subscribed in order to make up the £10,000?

§ MR. GOSCHEN
I think not, Sir.

§ DR. CLARK
That is a point raised by my hon. Friend. This Committee was appointed upon the theory that a large amount of local money was to be subscribed—I think £2,000 of the £10,000—and on that ground they were to have control of it. Now, although they are not going to subscribe anything, they are still to have control. It seems to be another form of the jobbery the Scotch Office is endeavouring to perpetrate just at the close of Parliament. I have no confidence in the men who have been conducting the experiment in colonisation. On the two occasions they sent out emigrants to North America they sent them out at the worst possible time. There has been no application of brains in the carrying out of this work. If an important work had had to be determined, then, perhaps, that undertaking costing millions of pounds would have been spoiled in consequence of their folly, inability, ignorance, and the stupid manner in which they went about their work in sending people out at a time when the land could not be prepared for use. When the last grant was made we heard very conflicting accounts as to the condition in which the people who had been sent out were, and as to whether large numbers of them had not left their farms and holdings. The whole of one settlement of fourteen families in Manitoba were so dissatisfied with their treatment in going out, and with the holdings they received on arrival, that they left and got employment in the lumber trade. Thus there was a considerable loss, because money had been spent in procuring them waggons, cattle, and houses. We could not get anything like accurate information from the then Lord Advocate, and I put myself to the trouble of going over this North-Western Territory to look at these people and to come to a personal 1072 conclusion as to what had taken place. The result was that I gave evidence before the Colonisation Committee, to the effect that the men we appointed in voting this money had wasted; it that the people were sent out at a period which did not allow an important experiment to be associated with conditions that were conducive to success; and that we were consequently precluded from indications as to whether money could be devoted to such works or not. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he has got the support of the Colonisation Committee. Yes, but that Committee recommended home colonisation as well as foreign colonisation. If our policy had been adopted these people would have been more prosperous and happy at home, and in time would have added to the trade of the country. They would have been a market for the produce of our towns. Instead of that they are away in Manitoba, while we have hundreds of thousands of acres lying waste. Instead of promoting thrifty colonisation at home, and so adding to the national wealth, you are sending it away, and the probability is that the same stupidity which marked the sending of the last batch will be renewed. The most important question the Committee had to consider was the congestion in all our large towns, and in that case it is not seven thousand pounds nor seven millions, but, according to the recommendation of the Committee, it is seventy or eighty millions that you require. This can only be an experiment, as the last one did not have a fair chance owing to the stupidity, of the mode in which it was carried out. I have no confidence that those in charge will do any better now, because they are very much like the Bourbons. They never learn, and experience does not teach them. What you want in relation to this subject is not a paltry seven or ten thousand pounds, but a well-matured scheme, one that the Government will be responsible for, and one introduced at a period of the Session when there is full opportunity for discussion. At this late juncture we cannot discuss the subject, but have to rush it through. I object to the money being spent, because I can see no earthly reason 1073 why it should be spent. I do not know what is the relative amount you are going to allot. The sum previously voted was not sufficient to give families a fair chance, and I think the Committee recommended that you should give a much larger sum. Is your present theory based upon £120, £140, or £180? How much per head have you estimated for? How many do you intend sending out? We have had no information from the Government as to the reason for asking for this small sum. How is it to be spent, and what do you expect to derive from it? Perhaps the Lord Advocate will give us some information, in order that the people who will be induced to go away may know that they will have a fair start in another country. Are you making preparations for the building of the houses before the people get there; are you going to carry out your scheme in a more rational manner than before; and where are you going to send the people—to Australia, Canada, or South Africa, or where? I think the House ought to have some information as to what you are going to do.

§ *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,) Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities
I can assure the hon. Member that the Government have been using this money very much, though not perhaps exactly, on the lines on which the previous experiments were made. The hon. Member asked how much per head was to be allowed. I think it has been found that the figure hitherto fixed per family was wanting in elasticity, because families differ very much in size, and therefore it is proposed to allow a sum considerably more elastic than the amount hitherto proposed for families going out. For example, if a family consists to some extent of grown-up sons, that fact, instead of being a reason for more is an argument for less money, because these sons are capable of contributing to the earnings. Some of the families which have gone out are getting on quite well on £100. On the other hand, I think the average is to be considerably more than £100—I think £150 or £157. With reference to the time and mode of sending out, I think the hon. Member will give the 1074 Government credit for endeavouring to send the families out at the best time. There are seasons when it is impossible to send colonists to Canada. At the same time, it is right that the money should be in the hands of the Colonisation Committee, in order that they may not be hampered when they see opportunity of carrying out the scheme. I think this is the first time I have heard anything of a proposal to colonise South Africa from the Highlands, and I think, therefore, the hon. Gentleman who suggested that was going rather beyond the sphere hitherto marked out. In the first instance, the colonists were sent to the North-West of Canada, and I think the success of the colonists who have gone there justifies us in adhering to it. It is quite true that in some cases families have found that they could do better elsewhere; that was only to be expected; but it is not in every case a loss of money to the Government, for there is increased security in the enhanced value of the holdings.

§ *MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND
It must, in reference to what the Lord Advocate has said, be remembered that it was not choice that led the Scotch Office to Canada. There was a deliberate and systematic attempt made to try every Colony and every country in the world, and it was only when every other Colony refused to have anything to do with them that it was decided to send the colonists to America, so that what my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) said has not been answered by the speech of the Lord Advocate.

MR. MCDONALD CAMERON (, &c.) Wick
Under the circumstances, it is right that the Vote should not be passed without some strong protest. I consider that this question should be met by migrating people from one place to another at home, and by purchasing land for the purpose of settlement. The Crofters Act did not go so far as that, but you have not even given expression to the clauses of the Crofters Act. My hon. Friend's (Dr. Clark) reference to South Africa was justified, for I believe that there was not a single part of Australia, or any other part of 1075 the Colonies, in regard to which investigation was not made.

§ DR. CLARK
I do not think the Lord Advocate will get more than a small portion of the money devoted to the holdings which have been left. If you held these holdings until the districts developed you would get more. In the case of the large families with grown-up sons the Lord Advocate has referred to, he did not state that a large portion of the expenses is represented by the outfit of these sons, their passage across, the cost of the railway journey of 2,000 miles to the scene of their destination, and their maintenance there until they are in a self-supporting position. A scheme of this sort should come before us earlier in the Session, and then we could consider it. In its present form it is objectionable, and we ought, therefore, to oppose it.