Commons Sitting of 19 June 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  PRESTON CORPORATION BILL,
    SCARBOROUGH TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    LONGWOOD GAS BILL [LORDS].
    Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL,
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL,
    OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERY PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.
    ROTHESAY TRAMWAYS (EXTENSION) ORDER CONFIRMATION.
    Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Rothesay Tramways, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate,
    ROTHESAY TRAMWAYS (EXTENSION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    "To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland Act 1899, relating to Rothesay Tramways, presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 3rd July, and to be printed. [Bill 243.]

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to—
    South Metropolitan Gas Bill.
    Belfast Corporation Bill.
    Bedford Corporation Water Bill, with Amendments.
    Amendments to—Swansea Corporation Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Buckie Burgh Extension and Buckie (Craigenroan) Harbour." [Buckie Burgh Extension and Buckie (Craigenroan) Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
    Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Urban District Council of Felixtowe and Walton, in the county of Suffolk, to construct a sea wall and other works; to purchase Hamilton Terrace Cliffs and certain other lands; and to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, local government, and finance of the district; and for other purposes." [Felixtowe and Walton Improvement Bill [Lords.]
    And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time for the completion of certain railways of and for the purchase of certain lands by the Barry Railway Company; and for other purposes." [Barry Railway Bill [Lords.]

FELIXTOWE AND WALTON IMPROVEMENT BILL [LORDS],
  BARRY RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  BUCKIE BURGH EXTENSION AND BUCKIE (CRAIGENROAN) HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 3rd July, and to be printed. [Bill 248.]
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Dent; Plaistow; Rochester; Birstall; Cawston; Aylsham; Brandistone; Manchester; Northampton; and Dundee; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Bradford, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Loughton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 12th June, 1902, declaring that Elizabeth Falconer, housekeeper, General Board of Lunacy, Scotland, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of her department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  Copies presented, of Orders made by the various County and County Borough Councils in England and Wales under Section 57 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
  Copy presented, of Return of all loans raised in India, chargeable on the revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ending 31st March, 1902, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. No. 223.]
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GENERAL REPORTS).
  Copy presented, of General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Western Division of Scotland, for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHTHOUSES, ETC. (LOCAL INSPECTIONS).
  Copies presented, of Reports to the Board of Trade by the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, the Commissioners of Northern lighthouses, and the Commissioners of Irish lights of their inspection of local lighthouses, buoys, and beacons (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 275, of Session 1901) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 224.]
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (CREAMERIES).
  Copy presented, of Order, dated 9th June, 1902, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 42 of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, granting special exceptions as regards the hours of employment of women and young persons in creameries [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  NAVAL TRAINING SHIPS.
  Return ordered, "showing the total amount expended annually in maintaining the naval training ships, the number of boys so trained, and the average cost per boy."—(Mr. Charles M'Arthur.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Telegraph Officials—Risk Allowances.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a counter clerk and telegraphist, who temporarily performs the duties of an overseer and senior telegraphist, suffers during the period of such employment a reduction of 3s. per week in his total salary and emoluments; and whether the Postmaster General will give instructions that, while duty pay is

  1101
  not conceded, risk allowances shall not be forfeited during such temporary employment.
  (Answer.) The risk allowances which are attached to certain duties are not intended to be a source of emolument: and when an officer who has been performing one of these duties ceases to perform it, he ceases to draw the risk allowance. The Postmaster General sees no reason for altering this rule.—(Post Office.)

  Postal Service—Retirements.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state the special qualifications which necessitate the retention in the postal service of the assistant superintendent, Mr. Napper, and the inspector, Mr. Gahan, at the West Central District Office, after reaching sixty years of age; and if the probable date of their retirement can be given.
  (Answer.) The two officers referred to are efficient, and the Postmaster General saw no reason when their cases were last under consideration to call on either of them to retire at present. He understands, however, that one of them has announced his intention to retire.—(Post Office.)

  Telegraph Officials—Annual Leave.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: TO ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the annual leave arrangements for counter clerks and telegraphists in the western district have been suspended at a week's notice owing to anticipated pressure during the Coronation festivities; whether they were assured whilst signing the holiday sheet that the Coronation would not interfere with the dates selected; why a longer notice of this suspension was not given; and whether, in view of the fact that the periods were sanctioned in the early part of the year, and arrangements having been made for holidays by the clerks concerned, the Department proposes to recoup them for any expenses incurred by the cancellation of these arrangements.
  (Answer.) Owing to the rapid increase of work last month it became evident
  1102
  that great difficulty would arise in meeting the still greater increase anticipated during the Coronation season, and it was considered necessary therefore to intimate to the counter clerks and telegraphists in the Western District that it would be necessary to defer the annual leave of those whose services might be required at that period. The Postmaster General cannot rind that any assurance, such as the hon. Member describes, was given to the officers when signing the annual leave lists. These lists were prepared in the end of last year, and the present difficulty would not then be foreseen. It must be borne in mind that the grant of annual leave at any particular time of the year is always subject to the exigencies of the service.—(Post Office.)

  Glenmuckle (Cork) Postal Arrangements.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Secretary to the. Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, having regard to the fact that for several years past there has been a daily delivery of letters in the Glenmuckle district of Newmarket postal district (county Cork), he can now state why there is only a weekly delivery at present in this locality.
  (Answer.) Inquiry is being made as to the arrangements for the delivery of letters in the Glenmuckle district, county Cork, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as possible.—(Treasury.)

  Central Telegraph Office—Afternoon Leave.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the staff at the Central Telegraph Office have been informed that on Saturdays, the 21st and 28th June, the usual monthly early afternoon turns will be suspended; and, seeing that this is due to the giving of facilities to members of the staff who are Volunteers to attend reviews, the Postmaster General will arrange that the telegraph staff who are not Volunteers shall not be called upon to work extra time in order that this may be done.
  (Answer.) The suspension of the privilege of leaving early in the Central Telegraph Office on Saturday next and

  1103
  the following Saturday is due almost entirely to the great increase of work connected with the Coronation season. The absence for part of the day on Saturday next of certain Volunteers is a comparatively small consideration, and it is not expected that any Volunteers will be absent on the following Saturday,—(Post Office.)

  H.M.S. "Britannia"—Beagling.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in future, the grant of money out of which beagling is maintained for the sport of cadets of H.M.S. "Britannia" will be made conditional on beagling being discontinued and the drag hunt substituted.
  (Answer.) It is not proposed to make any change in the conditions under which hunting with the "Britannia" beagles is now carried out.—(Admiralty.)

  Shetland Coast Lights.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government can now give their decision to the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners with reference to the erection of minor lights on the Shetland coast at the northern entrance to Lerwick.
  (Answer.) The Board of Trade have given their sanction to the scheme submitted by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses for the establishment of four beacon lights on the East Coast of Shetland.—(Board of Trade.)

  British Somali Protectorate.
  MR. ALFRED PEASE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to the statements made in Mr. Keyser's Consular Report on Zaila, as to the effect on the trade of the British Somali Protectorate that must result from the completion of the French railway from Djibouti; whether he is aware that the trade of Zaila and of Aden has steadily declined of late, and that the export trade of Djibouti, which amounted to 693,013 francs in 1900, rose to 2,679,300 francs in 1901; and whether
  1104
  His Majesty's Government would consider favourably the question of guaranteeing interest on a railway or tramway line from Berbera to the Abyssinian frontier or the neighbourhood of Harrar.
  (Answer.) We are aware of the state of things to which attention is called by the hon. Member. The subject has for some time past been receiving the careful attention of His Majesty's Government.—(Foreign Office.)

  Waima Arbitration.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state when the decision on the Waima arbitration will be delivered.
  (Answer.) Under the terms of the Arbitration Convention, the arbitrator should give his decision by the 17th of next month. His Majesty's Government have no reason to doubt that this condition will be fulfilled.—(Foreign Office.)

  Coronation—Millbank Street Barrier.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether pedestrians presenting at the Millbank Street barrier on 26th or 27th June tickets for places on the House of Commons stands will be permitted to proceed through that barrier to their places.
  (Answer.) I am informed by the police that arrangements have been made to carry out this suggestion.—(Home Office.)

  Customs Import Duties on Corn.
  MR. LAMBERT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will grant a revised Return of Customs Import Duties on Corn (No. 173).
  (Answer.) I do not think a revised Return is necessary. The only alterations have been the remission of the duty on locust beans, and of half the duty on offals and maize. The probable effect of them is obvious from the Return already given.—(Treasury.)

  Belfast Tramways.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is

  1105
  aware that all the tramways authorised by the Belfast Corporation's Act of 1899 have been completed with the exception of that to Greencastle and Whitehouse; whether he is aware that the requisite consent of the Belfast Street Tramways Company to the making of this extension has been refused; and, in view of the results of these powers having been placed in the hands of the Tramway Company, will the Government introduce a short Bill to eliminate the necessity for the company's consent to extend the time for completing this line.
  (Answer.) The Government has no information whether the company has withheld its consent to the extension of the line in question, or whether the other lines have been completed. The matter is one between the corporation and the company, and does not call for any intervention on the part of the Government. The reply to the concluding inquiry is, therefore, in the negative.—(Irish Office.)

  Ulster Schools—Roman Catholic Managers.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state what decisions have been arrived at by the Board of National Education in Ireland with reference to the further representations made by the Roman Catholic school managers of Ulster.
  (Answer.) Owing to the financial effect of the changes suggested by the managers, the Commissioners have felt themselves unable to recommend the proposals to the Irish Government.—(Irish Office.)

  33rd Company Imperial Yeomanry.
  MR. JOHN HOWARD: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will say why the pay list of the 33rd Company Imperial Yeomanry, which company went out to South Africa in the Spring of 1900 and returned to England a year ago, has not yet been settled up and closed.
  (Answer.) This Company seems to have failed to remit its account. The absence of the Commanding Officer abroad caused further delay, and his statements have necessitated reference to South Africa. The men of the Company have been settled with.—(War Office.)

  South Africa—Sale of Boer Farms.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to the fact that Boer burghers while in captivity have sold or mortgaged their farms; and whether steps will be considered by which such sales or mortgages may be set aside on repayment of actual money advanced with 5 per cent. interest.
  (Answer.) I am not aware that this is the case. An application made by a syndicate to be allowed to negotiate with prisoners of war in Ceylon for the purchase of their farms has not been acceded to. (Colonial Office.)

  Church Discipline.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the expense attending the prosecution by private persons of offences against ecclesiastical law, His Majesty's Government will in proper cases direct the institution at public expense of proceedings on behalf of the Crown or at the suit of persons entitled to commence proceedings; and whether His Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of introducing legislation to provide for the expenses of prosecutions of offences against ecclesiastical law, in the same manner as the cost of prosecutions of other offences is provided for.
  (Answer.) There are evident objections to a system which throws upon bishops or other persons entitled to commence proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts the consequent costs, which are often extremely heavy—so heavy, indeed, as to be prohibitive. But the suggestion of my hon. and learned friend would seem to involve the further proposal that there should be a Director of Prosecutions for offences against the ecclesiastical law in the same way as there is a Director of Public Prosecutions for offences against the criminal law. Very difficult and delicate questions are raised by the proposal made by my hon. and learned friend, and I am certainly not in a position at the present moment to promise legislation.—(Treasury.)

  Coronation Estimate.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will explain why an Estimate of £100,000 has been placed on the Table of the House as the probable expense of the approaching Coronation, whereas the expense of the Coronation of William IV. only amounted to £45,000, and of Queen Victoria to £70,000; and whether, in accordance with the precedents on the occasions of the Coronations of George IV. and William IV., the assent of the House of Commons will be invited to this Estimate before the expense will be incurred.
  (Answer.) The Estimate of £100,000 was based partly on the cost of Queen Victoria's Coronation, and partly on the expenses incurred on the occasion of the Jubilee of 1897. It is evident that the circumstances attending the present Coronation are widely different from those attending the last Coronation; the arrangements for the entertainment of foreign and colonial guests being on a totally different scale. The amounts provided for the Coronations of George IV. and of William IV. appear to have been voted before the actual ceremonies took place, but this was not the case in 1838. The precedent of Queen Victoria will be followed on the present occasion, as the hon. Member will have expected from my reply yesterday.

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South Africa—Compensation for Loyalists' War Losses.
  MR. SETON-KARR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any provision is being made for compensation to the loyalists of Cape Colony and Natal for injury suffered by them, in the course and in consequence of the war, to their farms, stock, and property; if so, to what amount, and from what sources, such compensation is to be provided; and whether any portion of the £3,000,000 mentioned in the terms of surrender is to be used for this purpose.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J CHAMBERLAIN,): Provision was made
  1108
  by the Cape and Natal Governments, who appointed commissions to assess damages after the invasion which took place at the beginning of the war. Seventy-five per cent. of the sum assessed has been advanced to claimants by the Natal Government and 50 per cent. by the Cape Government. The compensation will be provided from Transvaal funds out of the first loan which is raised except in respect of damage done in the Cape Colony by rebels or natives which falls on the Cape Government. The total amount of compensation in the two Colonies is estimated to be over £2,000,000. The grant to which the Question refers is not applicable to losses in the Cape Colony and Natal.

  Chartered Company Directors—Dr. Jameson and Mr. Beit.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the re-appointment of Dr. Jameson, C.B., to a directorship of the South African Chartered Company has been made with the sanction of the Colonial Office, and what communications have passed between the Colonial Office and the South African Chartered. Company with reference to the appointment of Dr. Jameson; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the charter of the South African Chartered Company is held at the pleasure of the Crown, have any, and, if so, what representations been made to that Company with reference to the appointment on its Board four months ago of Mr. Beit, who supplied the funds of the Jameson Raid, and last week of Dr. Jameson, who led that Raid.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I informed the hon. Member on 14th May that the appointment of British directors of the British South Africa Company is not subject to my approval. No communications have passed and no representations have been made.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I ask whether, having regard to the fact that this is a Chartered Company, and the charter can be revoked at the pleasure of the Crown, the right hon. Gentleman will represent to the company the inadvisability of having two of the Raid conspirators on the directorship.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is misinformed. The charter does not give absolute power to the Crown to revoke it. The Crown can only revoke the charter if its terms are not properly and substantially observed, and the terms have not been violated by the appointment of directors by the shareholders. I do not consider that the Government has any concern in the matter, and I certainly shall not take any steps.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then may I ask—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Question on the Paper has been answered.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: This arises out of the Question on the Paper.
  MR. SPEAKER: No. The Question was what communications had passed with reference to the appointment of two directors. That has been answered, and if the hon. Member wishes to put a further question he must give notice.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Very well. I will keep it up for the Government.

  Additional War Decoration.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of recommending that a King's medal, dating from July, 1901, shall be granted to all troops who have served through the last year of the operations in South Africa; and whether any steps will be taken to specially recognise the services of Reservists who have served throughout the war.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): His Majesty the King has been graciously pleased to grant a second decoration for troops now serving, who have completed eighteen months in South Africa, the details for which are under consideration.

  Gratuities to Wounded Officers.
  MR. ALLHUSEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a gratuity, proportionate to the severity of his wound, is
  1110
  allowed to every officer who is severely wounded on active service; and, if so, whether he will state what was the total sum so allowed during the recent war in South Africa.
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir. Such gratuities are granted to all officers who have been very severely wounded. 855 gratuities have been paid to officers, amounting to £110,000, and 202 of these officers have been awarded wound pensions of the yearly value of £14,140 in the aggregate. Claims to such gratuities and pensions are still coming in.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: And how much has been spent on gratuities to wounded men of the rank and file?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that Question.

  After Effects of Disease—Officers' Compensation.
  MR. ALLHUSEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that officers sent home from South Africa as convalescent after disease contracted on active service, have since been seriously ill, owing to the after effects of such disease, and have had either to meet the expenses of their illness out of their own pay and income, or to accept the assistance of strangers; and whether, seeing that these officers, after twelve or eighteen months of illness and consequent expenditure, are placed upon half-pay until they are well enough to return to duty, he will consider the possibility of at once granting some pecuniary assistance to those officers whose illness has been of such a character.
  MR. BRODRICK: Various concessions in regard to the medical treatment of officers were granted under Army Order 216 of 1901. It is difficult to fix general rules as to compensating officers for the after-effects of disease, but any cases of the kind to which my hon. friend refers would be specially considered.

  Reported Massacre of Boers by Zulus.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War,

  1111
  whether he can give any information as to the circumstances under which upwards of fifty Boers are alleged to have been massacred by Zulus, with circumstances of barbarity, on 6th May last.
  MR. BRODRICK: Lord Kitchener reported on the 7th May as follows:—
  "The Boers in the Vryheid District have been driving off native cattle for some time. Yesterday they attacked natives and killed and wounded a considerable number. The natives report they killed twenty-three Boers, including Commandant Potgieter, and recaptured a considerable quantity of cattle."
  I have no further information.

  Boer Prisoners.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will permit Boer prisoners, at present confined in places outside South Africa, to go to Europe at their own expense, on complying with the conditions of the amnesty, and giving an undertaking that they will not seek to return to South Africa until the other prisoners shall have returned.
  MR. BRODRICK: This question will be considered, with other pending questions as to Boer prisoners, when the surrenders are complete.

  Small Arms Committee.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is now able to make any statement concerning the decision and the action of the Small Arms Committee.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not yet able to make a statement on this subject.

  Trooper Freer's Case.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now give the names and professions of the jurors who acted at the inquest on the late Trooper C. V. Freer, who died at Kimberley Hospital on 14th April last; and can he say why the War Office authorities informed the friends of the deceased that he died from enteric fever, although it subsequently transpired that he succumbed to an overdose of chloroform.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no information as regards the jurors. The information of his death as due to enteric was telegraphed from South Africa and duly communicated to the Press. It is regretted that the proper cause of death was not correctly reported from South Africa.
  MR. DELANY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to the jurors?
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not think it is possible to do that.

  Coronation Seats for War Office Officials.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether an official of the War Office was requested to vacate his room and remove his papers during Coronation Day that it might be placed at the disposal of spectators; whether he declined to do so, and was then told that, under those circumstances he must pay a sum of money for the use of his own room; whether a sum of money was accordingly paid; and, if so, what sum, and to what purpose was it devoted.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware of such a case, but the treatment of all rooms in the War Office, to whomsoever assigned, has been the same.
  MR. NORMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say what that treatment was?
  MR. BRODRICK: All the rooms have been thrown into a common pool, and have been assigned to those who have paid for tickets.
  MR. NORMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in any case the officials have been asked to pay for the use of their own room?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is obvious that some of the rooms overlook the streets, and some do not. Therefore all the rooms and all the available space have been placed in the same category, and everybody who desired to take tickets have had to pay for them.

  War Office—Intelligence Division.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether

  1113
  he has recently recommended that an increased number of officers should be appointed to the staff of the Intelligence Division of the War Office; and, if so, whether this recommendation has been refused on financial grounds.
  MR. BRODRICK: The strength of the Intelligence Department is decided by the Government, and the present number of officers has been fixed accordingly.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: And a very poor Department too.

  1st Battalion, Royal Iniskilling Fusiliers.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: On behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now say whether it is the intention of the War Office to bring the 1st battalion Royal Iniskilling Fusiliers home before its next term of Colonial service commences.
  Mr. BRODRICK: The answer is in the affirmative.

  Roman Catholic Chaplains for the Navy.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to a Resolution unanimously adopted by the Council of the County Borough of Cork on 6th June, requesting the Government to appoint a Roman Catholic chaplain to each of the Navy Squadrons; and can he state if it is the intention of the Admiralty to accede to the representations which have reached them on this subject.
  The following Question also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Council of the Borough of Cork has sent a copy of a Resolution to the First Lord of the Admiralty requesting the Government to appoint a Roman Catholic chaplain to each of the Naval Squadrons belonging to the Government; and whether, in view of the fact that two Roman Catholic sailors who were victims of the
  1114
  accident in the "Mars" might have required the ministration of the chaplain, he will take steps to give effect to this Resolution.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The Resolution referred to by the hon. Member has been received at the Admiralty, but I have nothing to add to the answers I gave on the 5th inst. and on the 28th May to the effect that it is not proposed to make any change in the existing arrangements with regard to the embarkation of chaplains on His Majesty's ships.
  MR. GILHOOLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two Catholic sailors who were victims of the "Mars" accident, were in agony all night and might have died without the administration of the last rites.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is not the Question on the Paper.
  MR. GILHOOLY: But it is what occurred.
  MR. SHEEHAN: And you gave the House to understand that this matter would be considered by you!

  Indian Administrative Charges.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether one of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary has yet been selected to act as arbitrator in the case of difference of opinion between the Imperial and Indian Governments as to the division of administrative charges, as contemplated in the letter from the India Office to the Treasury, No. F. 7225, January 22nd, 1902.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON;): The position of arbitrator in the case of a difference of opinion between the Imperial and Indian Governments as to the division of administrative charges, has been accepted for three years by the Lord Chief Justice of England.

  Outrages in Armenia.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to alleged plundering and burning of houses in the Armenian village of Norschen, near Mush, by Kurds and Turkish troops, and also of maltreatment of men and outraging of women on the same occasion; whether he has any information showing that outrages of a similar character are threatened in Sasun; and will he inquire and state what steps he proposes to take.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): According to reports from His Majesty's Vice Consul at Bitlis in January last a party of Armenian revolutionists who had taken refuge in the village of Norschen were attacked by Turkish troops and Kurds. The revolutionists managed to escape after killing one officer and wounding another. The troops and Kurds are said to have afterwards plundered the village and ill-treated the inhabitants, but the report has not been verified. His Majesty's Government have no information leading them to believe that disturbances are imminent in the Sasun district, but inquiry shall be made.

  Scottish Coal Mine Inspectors.
  MR. JOHN HOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the total number of coal mines in Scotland and the number of mine inspectors appointed to supervise them; further, will he state in what mining districts the inspectors are residential.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): The total number of coal mines in Scotland is 495. There are six inspectors, two chief inspectors and four assistants. The country is divided into two mining districts—East and West—with a chief inspector and two assistants attached to each. The inspectors for West Scotland all reside in Glasgow, those for East Scotland in Edinburgh except that one lives in Glasgow for the greater convenience of reaching part of the district.

  Fatal Fire in the City.
  MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes that his Department should be represented at the inquest on the bodies of the victims of the fire in Queen Victoria Street.
  Mr. RITCHIE: I have written to the coroner to say that, though the Home Office has no statutory locus standi in the case, the services of the factory inspector for the district are at his disposal if he desires his attendance at the inquest.

  Registration of Workshops—"Fullers v. Squire."
  MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Fullers v. Squire, 1901, 2 K.B. 209, 70 L.J.K.B. 689, in which it was held that the process of packing sweetmeats in cardboard boxes is within the words adapting for sale, section 149 (1), 1 Edw. 7, chap. 22; and whether he adheres to his intention of taking no proceedings against the General Electrical Company for failure to register as a workshop premises in which parts of electric lampholders were being put together.
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes, sir; the case quoted was fully in my mind when I was considering the question whether the premises of the General Electrical Company at 67 Queen Victoria Street was a workshop. I would observe that in that case the process carried on was not mere packing, and the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice sets out clearly the details of the process which led to his decision that the premises in question could be held to be a workshop. As the hon. Member will recognise, the line in such matters is necessarily a narrow one. The sweetmeat case fell on one side of it, but I adhere to my opinion that the putting together of the parts of electric-lamp holders falls on the other, and I am not prepared to take proceedings against the Company.
  MR. TENNANT: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the law officers of the Crown on the subject?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; but I have consulted the officials connected with the Factory Department.

  Post-Office Administration—Dual Working.
  MR. SCHWANNI beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as represanting the Postmaster General, whether the Committee appointed to con-the question of dual working has yet sent in its Report; and if he can say when the Report will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Committee has not yet sent in its Report, There is no intention of laying the report on the Table of the House.

  Kingstown Postmastership.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the position of postmaster at Kingstown, county Dublin, has recently been filled by the appointment of a former assistant superintendent from Plymouth; and that in Cork, Derry, and Limerick the office of postmaster has in each case been filled by Englishmen; and if the necessity for these importations is not caused by the inefficiency of Irish postal officials, will he state on what grounds such appointments are made, and promotion retarded.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The vacancy for a postmaster at Kingstown was advertised in the Post Office Circular in the usual way, and the Postmaster General selected from the candidates who applied the officer whom he considered the best qualified, having regard to rank and seniority as well as efficiency. The postmasters of Cork, Londonderry, and Limerick were also appointed on the ground that they were in each case the best qualified for the office to be filled. The Postmaster General has usually no knowledge of the nationality of candidates, and in filling vacancies he considers only the qualifications of the candidates without reference to nationality.
  MR. MOONEY: Is it not the fact that all the four postmasters referred to served their time in an English office?
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Were there no local men qualified for the positions?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not the question.

  North Kerry Mail.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that public inconvenience is caused throughout North Kerry and the adjoining districts owing I to the way in which the mails are at present carried and delivered; and whether any action is being taken by the Government to remedy the present mail arrangements.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General regrets the inconvenience caused by the recent alterations in the mail service to and from places on the Limerick and Kerry railway; but, as stated in the reply to the Question asked by the hon. Member for West Limerick on the 16th instant, the answer of the Railway Company to his last offer for the maintenance of the former day mail service was such as to give him no hope that they would accept any terms which he would be justified in agreeing to.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is this one of the benefits conferred on Ireland by British rule?

  Irish Land Bill.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes to take any steps to convene a conference of those interested in the land question, with a view to their considering the steps which ought to be taken to render the Land Purchase Acts (Ireland) Amendment Bill non-contentious, whether, assuming an understanding to be reached, he will be prepared to commit the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, or to a special Committee consisting of the Irish representatives, and such other Members as might be agreed upon; and whether, in view of the great interest taken in the fate of the Bill in Ireland, he will now state what course the Government intend to pursue in regard to it.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I took the only step in my power on June 9th, when, in reply to a Question asked by the hon. Member for the Ossory Division, I stated my own readiness to confer. So far the only response has been a meeting of the Irish Unionist Members of this House, at which it was unanimously resolved that it was desirable to pass the Bill this year.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: That shows what the Bill is worth to the tenantry.
  MR. WINDHAM: I gather that they do not object to the Government's dropping clauses deemed to be obviously contentious, with a view to that object. That I am ready to do, but only as part of any general arrangement for aiming at such a measure of agreement on essential provisions as would warrant the expectation of the Bill passing. I have no power to convene hon. Members of this House. Indeed, after the clear pronouncement made yesterday by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, he might justifiably resent any importunity of invitation on my part. The assumption of an understanding remains, therefore, hypothetical at the best. If by good fortune it were reached, I have to say in reply to the second paragraph that any form of Committee would probably prove in itself equally expeditious. But a Select Committee to which the hon. Member presumably refers would be additional and prior to a Committee of the Whole House. A Grand Committee would obviate the necessity for that stage. I still think that the best, and a Committee of the Whole House the second best plan, provided always that the prospects of agreement on essentials had previously been gauged.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I be allowed to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the statement he has made for the first time today, as to his willingness to drop the contentious clauses, at all events removes my notice on the Second Reading from the Paper?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I think that is an obvious and legitimate inference from what I stated the other day.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I want it to be perfectly understood that this is the first time the right hon. Gentleman has given us the slightest notice of his intention.

  United Irish League—Civil Action against Leaders.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the hon. Member for North Leitrim, the hon. Member for North Mayo, the hon. Member for South Mayo, the hon. Member for North Longford, Mr. David Sheehy, formerly a Member of this House, Mr. John Fitzgibbon, and others have been served with civil writs in connection with proceedings for which they have already been sentenced to terms of imprisonment; whether this action has the sanction of the law advisers of the Crown; and whether it is intended to release those defendants at present, in order that they may be enabled to prepare their defence.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have seen a newspaper report to the effect that civil proceedings have been instituted against the gentleman named. What the precise nature of the action is, I cannot say. The proceedings not having been initiated by or on behalf of the Crown, do not require the sanction of the law officers. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the negative. Every facility will be given to such of the defendants as may be in custody, to prepare their defence, in accordance with the Prison Rules.
  MR. MACVEAGH: What facilities will be given?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Rule 72 (6) of the Prison Rules recently presented to Parliament, provides as follows—
  "(6) A barrister or solicitor conducting any legal proceedings, civil or criminal, in which a prisoner is a party, or bonâ fide acting as a legal adviser to the prisoner in any legal business, will be allowed to see the prisoner with reference to such business, in the sight but not in the hearing of an officer."

  Arrest of Mr. P. A. M'Hugh, M.P.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  1121
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. P. A. M'Hugh, M.P. for North Leitrim, was arrested in Dublin at 1.30 a.m. on the 16th instant, on a warrant signed by two resident magistrates; whether he is aware that the hon. Member was journeying to Sligo for the purpose of attending his trial under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act when arrested; and, if so, will he state why Mr. M'Hugh was not permitted to reach Sligo before having the warrant put in execution.
  MR. WYNDHAM: On the 19th May a summons was issued against the hon. Member for North Leitrim requiring him to attend at Sligo petty sessions on the 6th June instant. The summons was served on the 22nd May. Failing to attend the petty sessions, a warrant was issued for his arrest. The warrant was executed early on the morning of the 15th instant. The police had no reason whatever to believe, at the time of the arrest, that the hon. Member had the intention attributed to him of proceeding to Sligo to stand his trial.
  MR. DILLON: Is it not a fact that in many of these cases the trial has been proceeded with in the absence of the individual summoned when he is legally represented?
  MR. WYNDHAM: In this case the hon. Member was not represented, neither did he put in an appearance.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the night when Mr. M'Hugh was arrested he was fulfilling an engagement in his capacity as President of the Institute of Journalists in Ireland?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not see what bearing that has. The Government had no intimation of his presence in Ireland.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been directed to the time when Mr. M'Hugh was arrested—half-past one in the morning?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a matter of comment and argument.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it was
  1122
  announced in the Freeman's Journal several days beforehand that Mr. M'Hugh was to visit Ireland?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  Subsequently.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you have received any official communication informing you of the committal to prison of a Member of the House yesterday by certain magistrates in Ireland?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have not as yet received any such communication. As soon as I do, I will communicate it to the House.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: In view of the fact that this committal is within my own knowledge, would it be within my right to raise the question before you, Sir, receive the official communication?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think it would be very undesirable to do so. Much might depend on what was the Court and what was the offence; and I think it would be desirable that the House should have all the facts before it.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: In these circumstances I will not press at the moment what, apparently, is my right to raise the question. I will wait until tomorrow, but not later; and if no communication has then been received by Mr. Speaker, I will raise the question of the imprisonment of a Member of the House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will you, Mr. Speaker, communicate to the House any letter which you may receive by the evening post?
  MR. SPEAKER: If I receive the letter before the beginning of the evening sitting, I will then communicate it to the House, and if it comes later I should be quite ready to communicate it on my return at midnight, though it would probably not be desirable to bring the question on then.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps it may be to the convenience of the House if I repeat what I have said before—that

  1123
  when the communication is received, and if it is of the character which I understand it is, it will be my duty, in accordance with unbroken precedent, to move for a Committee to examine into the circumstances of the case. I shall feel it my duty to make a Motion of that character.

  Darcy Estate, East Mayo.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Darcy Estate, situated in the barony of Costello, East Mayo, now about to be sold to the tenants under the 40th section of the Act of 1896, contains some waste farms for which offers from persons other than tenants have been made; and whether, seeing that this estate forms portion of one of the most congested districts in Ireland, steps will be taken to have the waste lands comprised within its area utilised for the enlargement of the tenants' buildings.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There are 143 acres of this estate in the hands of the receiver. No offers to purchase these have been made by any persons. The Land Commissioners have suggested to the Land Judge that some ten acres of this land should be sold to tenants of adjoining holdings. The suggestion will probably be adopted. In respect of the remaining 133 acres, consisting of bog land, the Court in such cases usually sells an allotment of bog to each tenant or vests the entire in trustees for the purchasing tenants. Offers to purchase have been made to the Court, by persons other than the tenants, in respect to 217 acres of the estate.

  Irish Midwives' Salaries.
  Mr. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the recent decisions in the King's Bench, he will introduce into the Local Government Amendment Act a clause providing for the recoupment to Boards of Guardians in Ireland of one-half the salaries of qualified midwives.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot at present give an undertaking that the Government will introduce into the Bill a provision of this character. The suggestion, however, is under consideration.

  Deportation of Irish Insane.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that in England and Scotland the practice exists of deporting to Ireland persons of Irish birth on becoming insane, as in the case of a soldier recently sent to the Omagh Lunatic Asylum from Netley Hospital, while Irish authorities have no power to send across the Channel persons thus afflicted of English or Scotch birth; and will he take steps to amend the law so as to establish equality of treatment in this respect.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The case of soldiers is specially dealt with by the 91st Section of the Army Act, 1881, and it would appear that the Secretary of State for War has the same power of ordering the removal from Ireland of soldiers who are insane on discharge from the Army, as he has of ordering of such soldiers to Ireland. The full cost of maintenance of soldiers deported to a district asylum in Ireland is now paid out of Imperial funds under the provisions of the Act of last year.

  Prosecutions under the Crimes Act.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the Return of Prosecutions under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act will be in the hands of Members.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Return will be laid on the Table next Tuesday, I hope.

  Irish Landlords and the United Irish League.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the landlords of Ireland have formed a combination with the object of defeating the efforts of the tenant farmers to obtain compulsory sale and fair rents; and whether, in view of the fact that the tenants are being prosecuted on charges of conspiracy, it is intended to take any, and, if so, what steps against the landlords.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir, I have heard nothing of such a combination.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the statement of the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh that a conspiracy has been formed and will be carried out?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have not read the speech.
  MR. M'GOVERN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the landlords are asking for subscriptions for the purpose?
  MR. MACVEAGH: In the event of the right hon. Gentleman satisfying himself that this conspiracy exists, will he prosecute the offenders?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must give notice of that Question.

  Mr Sheehy's Conviction.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the County Court Judge of Tipperary, in giving judgment on the appeal of Mr. David Sheehy in a case under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, stated that if Mr. Sheehy would agree to go under a rule of bail he would reverse the sentence, and whether, in view of this statement, it is intended to direct Mr. Sheehy's release.
  MR. WYNDHAM: As far as I can ascertain, what took place was this: The County Court Judge decided that the conviction was, in his opinion, good and should be affirmed, but suggested to Mr. Sheehy that if he entered into recognizances to keep the peace and be of good behaviour so as to bind him not to repeat the offence he, the Judge, might be able to take that into consideration with a view to the mitigation of punishment. This Mr. Sheehy declined to do, whereupon the Judge confirmed the order of the Magistrates in omnibus.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that account differs absolutely from the reports published in every newspaper in Ireland?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Evening Class Grants in Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the grants to teachers for evening classes in Queen's County have not yet been paid, although in most instances the six months course terminated before the middle of May; and whether he can say when the Commissioners propose making those payments.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There are five such classes in respect of which payment has not yet been made. In the case of two of these classes the inspection has been unavoidably delayed by the illness of the inspector. In the remaining three cases the returns required to be furnished by the Managers are incomplete. Payment will be made in all these cases without unnecessary delay.

  Crimes Act Prisoners at Roscrea.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been drawn to the treatment of the prisoners convicted under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act at Roscrea, on the 14th May last; whether he is aware that these prisoners Were handcuffed, and driven on open cars in the rain to Ballytrophy, a distance of twelve miles; that they were refused permission to send for overcoats; and that, while wet, these men were taken by night train to Clonmel Gaol; and whether he can give any reason for this procedure, seeing that the prisoners could have been carried to gaol by rail all the way.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The police had reason to believe that it was intended to hold a demonstration in Roscrea, if the prisoners had been conveyed from the railway station in the town, and they anticipated that a breach of the peace would ensue, in consequence. In order to avoid any such disturbance, and in the interests of the peace of the town, the prisoners were driven by car to Ballybrophy, the nearest station on the line, some ten miles distant from Roscrea. Two of the prisoners had overcoats, and two of the remaining three had sent their

  1127
  coats home. The three without overcoats were not refused permission to send for them. The fact that they were driven to Ballybrophy did not retard their arrival at Clonmel. It was not possible to avoid sending the prisoners away by night as there was no legal place of detention for them at Roscrea.
  MR. DILLON: Is it not the fact that these men were driven ten miles through a drenching rain, and then while wet to the skin bad to go by train to Clonmel Gaol?
  MR. WYNDHAM: As I have said, the police deemed it necessary to take this route as they anticipated a disturbance.
  MR. DILLON: But surely the right hon. Gentleman might take some precautions against an occurrence which might have cost these men their lives. Is there any truth in the statement that they were handcuffed?
  MR. WYNDHAM: On that point I have no information, but I will inquire. I think there was good reason for the action taken by the police under the circumstances. A hot meal was provided for the prisoners before the start, and tea was given them at Ballybrophy, and also at Limerick Junction.
  MR. DILLON: But why was not some effort made to give them shelter of some kind when driving ten miles in a drenching rain?
  MR. SHEEHANrose to put a further Question.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice must be given of any further Question.

  Education Bill—New Financial Proposals.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will say when and in what form it is proposed to inform the House of the new financial proposals as to the Education Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not in a position to place an Amendment on the Paper to-morrow. I shall endeavour to find some opportunity, perhaps by leave
  1128
  of the House at Question time, or otherwise, on Monday, to state to the House what our proposals are.

  London Water Bill.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I desire to ask an important question on a point of order arising under the new Rules. There is down for the Evening Sitting, under the head of Private Business, the London Water Purchase Bill, which is really a public Bill, although it is considered necessary to deal with it as a private Bill. Under the order of the House of May 1 it is provided that private business set down for the afternoon sitting and not disposed of at a quarter past two o'clock shall be postponed until the evening sitting of such a day as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine. But it is also stipulated that on one of the allotted days for Supply—and this is an allotted day—no business other than the business of Supply shall be taken before midnight. I submit that this precludes the Chairman of Ways and Means from setting private business down for one of the allotted days the evening of which may otherwise be wholly diverted from the consideration of Supply.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask whether it was not the distinct understanding when we passed this Rule that the Chairman of Committees should allocate private business as evenly as might be among the evening sittings, subject only to the exception of the day of the week which, between Easter and. Whitsuntide, is allotted to private Members?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think there is no doubt that the origin of these words—"on an allotted day no business other than the business of Supply shall be taken before midnight"—was this:—On an allotted clay the business of Supply must be the first Order of the day; and the intention was that the Government should not be able on such a day to break off the consideration of Supply, in order to bring on other business on the Paper. I agree that there is a certain amount of ambiguity when this Order and others are read together; but I take the meaning to be that no business other than the business of Supply can be taken except such as is ordered by the other Standing Orders. There is one Order which says that when

  1129
  the adjournment of the House, is moved—and it may be moved on an allotted day as well as on others—the debate shall be taken at the evening sitting. That, therefore, is clearly an exception from the words on which the hon. Member for King's Lynn relies; and in the same way, inasmuch as the Standing Order relating to private business says that the Chairman shall allocate such business between the evening sittings, and he has allocated it to an allotted day, that case is also an exception to the words. I quite agree that there is a certain difficulty in construing the words; but I think that in what I have said I have construed them in accordance with the intentions of the House.

SELECTION (STANDING) COMMITTEES.
MR. HALSEYreported; from the Committee of Selection; that they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including agriculture and fishing), shipping and manufactures—Mr. Runciman, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Goulding, Sir James Woodhouse, Mr. Gretton, and Mr. Loder; and had appointed in substitution—Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tully, Mr. Macartney, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Laird, and Mr. Garfit.
Mr. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee: That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including agriculture and fishing), shipping, and manufactures, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Moat Marking (Ireland) Bill:—Mr. Archdale, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Condon, Captain Donelan, Mr., Field, Sir James Haslett, Mr. Hill, Mr. William Johnstone, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Lonsdale, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Mr. O'Mara, Mr. Moore, Mr. Soamos, and Mr. Spear.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Fisheries (Ireland) Acts, 1842 to 1901," presented by Mr. Wyndham, under Standing Order 31; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 244]
  BANKERS (IRELAND) ACT REPEAL BILL.
  "To repeal an Act passed in Ireland in 1759, relating to Bankers," presented by Mr. Wyndham, under Standing Order, 31; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 245.]
  AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  "To provide for the payment of certain moneys to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland," presented by Mr. Wyndham, under Standing Order 31; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 246.]
  MERCHANDISEMARKS (PROSECUTIONS) (IRELAND) BILL.
  "For enabling the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland to undertake Prosecutions in certain, cases under The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Wyndham, under Standing Order 31; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 247.]

SUPPLY [12TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Mr. JEFFREYSin the Chair.

SUPPLY [12TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES 1902–3.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,819, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Office, Expenses under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, and Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, including a Grant in Aid of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Fund."
    MR. JOHN DEWARdesired to offer a few criticisms in

    1131
    regard to the operations of the Congested Districts Board in Scotland during the past year. He realised the difficulty of the problem the Congested Districts Board had to solve, and was, of course, aware that the Board were most anxious to relieve the condition of grinding poverty in which the people of the Western Highlands lived. But what he had to complain of was that so little was done, and so little real progress was being made in relieving the congestion of the Western Highlands. There was a want of enterprise and a want of courage on the part of the Board in dealing with this pressing problem. As a ground for this opinion, he would point out that, notwithstanding the urgency of the case, and the condition, almost of starvation, in which many of the crofters and cottars on the western coast of Scotland were, the Board had not spent the very modest sum placed at their disposal by the Government. They had no less than £70,000 in hand unused, and last year, even including £11,000 of loans, the Board did not spend within £10,000 of their income. Now this surely pointed to some want of initiative and enterprise, and, indeed, want of information on the part of the Board. He believed that if they had fully realised the pressing necessities of the case, they would have spent the entire sum at their disposal, and would have come to the Government for more. In this they would have the hearty support of every Member on either side of the House who knew the condition of affairs in the highlands of Scotland. He could not help thinking that perhaps this want of enterprise on the part of the Board was due to the fact that they did not realise that the important thing for them to do was to give these landless cottars, as well as crofters, with patches of land too small for them, a chance of improving their own condition by securing for them land to till and occupy. These crofters did not ask a gift of the land; they did not wish to become paupers; they were willing to pay full value for the land; they were simply "begging leave to toil"; and surely the best and the most statesmanlike thing to do was to give these independent citizens an opportunity to improve their own condition, rather than to make them special grants to eke out a miserable existence without any prospect of permanent social improvement. He was led to make this
    1132
    observation from what the Lord Advocate said in his, on the whole, very sympathetic speech last year. He said that, in view of the resources and opportunities of the Board, on this side we unduly magnified the importance of settling the people on the land. He did not think that could be unduly magnified, but in their judgment of the Board, keeping in view the Board's resources and opportunities, he thought they were justified in saying that the Board had not fully used their resources, nor had they taken full advantage of their opportunities in those directions. He did not think the importance of settling the people on the land could be unduly magnified. He wanted to show that it was really the only way whereby they might hope to bring permanent improvement to the condition of these people. He thought this fact was impressing itself on the Board, for he could not help noticing how very much larger a place the question of holdings on various estates occupied in this report than it did in any of the three previous reports. There was much work being excellently done by the Board, and they should get every credit for that work, which he knew the crofters appreciated. So far as it concerned the improvement of stock and agriculture, he had no criticism to offer. From what he had been able to see, this work had been, on the whole, wisely and judiciously done. Of course, mistakes had been made, but he believed this part of the Board's work would give good results. In regard to public works, there was also much good being done, particularly in making roads and footpaths in places where no such civilising agencies existed before, and they were sure to have the very best effect, as was also the erection of suitable and convenient piers and boat slips, but he did not know that he could be quite so congratulatory on the way in which these works had been carried out.
    Last year he pointed out one instance of carelessness and neglect, and, while he did not desire to dwell on this unnecessarily, he felt that more efficiency would attend the execution of these public works if the organisation of the Congested Districts Board was on a more efficient footing. He could not help thinking that the Board was too large. The members were scattered all over Great

    1133
    Britain, and it was impossible for them to meet as often as was necessary, or, indeed, for them all to meet together at all. It was certainly impossible for them to meet in the congested districts. One effect of the present constitution of the Congested Districts Board was that the work was largely thrown upon the Chairman. He certainly did not complain of that so long as the present Secretary for Scotland was Chairman, as under him the work did not suffer, but he could quite well imagine circumstances when the result might be very unsatisfactory. It seemed to him that a smaller body, who could visit the districts and give more personal attention to the cases, would be much more efficient than the present system of inspectors, inspections, and reports. Indeed, he would suggest that such a body at present existed, and was available, and had many claims to recommend it for the work—he meant the Crofters' Commission. The Crofters' Commission always had been a most efficient body; it had secured the respect and confidence of both crofters and landlords; it had an intimate knowledge, gained by personal visitation, of the whole crofting counties; and, now that its work was so very much less onerous than it was, he thought they might very well undertake the duties at present discharged by the Congested Districts Board. The visit of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the Chairman of the Board, to the Western Highlands had had an excellent effect. In the Report of this year there was a reference to one of the most glaring cases of mismanagement in that branch of the board's operations dealing with public works. He referred to the pier at Petersport, in Benbecula. This pier was completed in 1896 at a cost of £3,000, but, up to now, it had never been used by any steamer, because the approach to the pier was dangerous, as the rocks at the entrance to the harbour had never been properly marked by buoys or beacons. He spoke on this subject from personal experience of the place, and it seemed to him to be a case of gross mismanagement and neglect that £3,000 was spent six years ago, and that this expenditure had yielded absolutely no return to the district, because the work had not been completed by the expenditure of an
    1134
    additional sum of £300. He believed it would be a very good pier, and, when this improvement was carried out, it would be of great service to the district. But it was a great pity the Board should have delayed this additional work so long.
    Now, coming to deal with the condition of some of those crofters in the Western Highlands, and the absolute necessity of the Board meeting their demand for land, that they might till in order to live, if there was any difference of opinion between the two sides of the House—and he did not see why there should be any difference—it was that Members on the opposite side looked for a satisfactory and permanent remedy for the congestion and discontent in the settlement of the people on the land; while on the other side this was apparently considered of minor importance. Everybody was anxious to stop the rush to the towns. Here were a people who were anxious to remain on the land, a Board appointed to see thorn properly settled—and yet so little had been done. The Board was apparently awakening to the necessity of action, but it had not yet done enough, nor fully realised the importance of the subject. Last year the Committee discussed the condition of the crofters on the island of Barra. They were living under perfectly disgraceful conditions, and had been refused land even on which to build decent dwellings. They had used every means to induce the management of the estate to listen to their most reasonable request. They had even tried to get the County Council to put the provisions of the Allotments Act in force, before the Congested Districts Board came to their assistance; and, in the Report of this year, there was an account of the settlement of some land the Congested Districts Board had been able to buy for at least some of the people, He should, however, like some further information from the Lord Advocate as to the conditions of that purchase. In the account presented details were not given, and it would be interesting to know what price was paid for that land, and bow it compared with the price which the Government were asking from the crofters. From the reports that were current, he rather

    1135
    thought that the Congested Districts Board had not made a very good bargain. He was informed—and perhaps the Lord Advocate would be able to confirm this report or deny it—that the price which had been paid for that land was twenty-eight years purchase of the gross rental, and, as the rates were about 10s. per £, this represented an unheard-of return to the proprietrix—a price at which no man, as a purchaser or a tenant, however willing, could make a living, and he should be glad to know how much the Board had dropped between that price and the price they were receiving from the crofters, and why the Board should have paid a price like this for land at positively the most western point of the Hebrides. He knew it would be out of order to discuss the question of new legislation, but it seemed to him that there was something wrong with the law of the land if it compelled the nation to give twenty-eight years purchase of the gross rental of land which it acquired for a public purpose. But, apart altogether from the price, he did not think that the quality of the land bought was the best, or the most suitable. No doubt, with the powers he possessed, the Secretary for Scotland did the best he could. He had no power to compel the proprietrix to sell, and the purchase was complicated by the fact that a farmer tenant would not surrender his lease unless he got a chance of buying part of the property himself. Under these circumstances, and dealing with a sharp Edinburgh lawyer, even the Secretary for Scotland was at some disadvantage. He visited the land and saw the place for himself, and it seemed to him from casual observation that the farmer had secured the best of the bargain. He had got the land at the sea shore, the most fertile and the best land; and the crofters had been sent, as usual, to the rocks. Now it might be quite out of order for him to make the observation, but he thought that the head of a great Government Department, representing the State, in dealing with a question of this kind, in buying land for a public purpose, should be empowered to say what part of the land he wanted for the maintenance and sustenance of the inhabitants, and that
    1136
    he should have power to take it on paying a fair price for it. He did not believe that any satisfactory settlement of the agitation in the crofter counties would take place until he did receive that power. However, in the meantime, he should like the Lord Advocate to give details of the transaction, showing what price had been paid for this land, and what relation the price to be received from the crofters bore to the cost. This land was bought under the disadvantageous circumstances which he had mentioned, but the difficulty of buying land from an unwilling seller should surely waken the Congested Districts Board to the advantage of buying all the suitable land that was offered in the market. But this had not, by any means, always been done. Notwithstanding the representations and the pressure brought to bear on the Board, both by the crofters themselves and by their representatives, the Board allowed an estate which was offered in the open market in Uist last year to slip through their fingers. He referred to the estate of Vallay. Great delay took place in getting a report on the land, and, although the estate was for a considerable time in the market, the Board took no steps to secure it. They, indeed, had a report from someone who said it was not suitable for crofter settlements—a manifestly absurd statement in the view of anyone who knew the place. But, additional agitation and pressure being brought to bear on them, the Board got a second report from another reporter, who, he understood, recommended that, under certain conditions, it might be made available for crofter settlements, but, in the meantime, the estate had been bought by an outsider, and it was lost to the crofters in consequence. He was informed that there was land in the neighbourhood available on the estate of a landlord who was, in every respect, a sympathetic and good landlord, and, if the Board turned their attention in this direction, he believed they would be able to make up, to some extent, for the disappointment which ensued last year at the settlement on the Vallay estate slipping out of their hands.
    The present condition of the crofters in South Uist demanded the immediate and most serious attention of the Board,

    1137
    especially on one estate, where there was a great deal of congestion and poverty and discomfort. He referred especially to the South Uist part of Lady Gordon Cathcart's property. The people in that district were living in the very greatest poverty and destitution. In one particular district there were 341 crofters, and there were no fewer than 100 cottars living with their families and sharing the miserable returns with the crofters. About fifty were receiving parochial relief. They had, up to now, added a little to their income by the kelp industry, but that had ceased, and they were face to face with a very serious condition of affairs. A steady constitutional agitation had been going on in this district for over twenty years, asking that additional land might be allotted to enable them to get a decent subsistence. It had been going on at the same time and in the same way as the Barra agitation. Their applications had been ignored by the proprietrix and her agents, although, he was informed, there was land in the district which might be made available. On the passing of the Allotments Act, which gave the County-Council power to take land compulsorily for allotments, these crofters and cottars, through the Parish Council, made application to the County Council under the Act. He did not say that the Allotments Act was meant for a case of this kind, or that it was the best solution of the difficulty for them; but, if the provisions of that Act had been put into operation, it would, at least, have awakened the management of the estate to the necessities of the situation. Nothing was done, however, and these poor people were realising that "hope deferred maketh the heart sick." He could not understand the unwillingness of some landlords to let land to crofters for small holdings; he could not understand the management of an estate which permitted such a condition of affairs to continue; and he did not believe that such a condition of affairs would be permitted to exist on any estate which was under public observation and more subject to public opinion. Something, however must, be done. The Congested Districts Board had been petitioned again and again by these people, and he had done it also on
    1138
    their behalf, but nothing had been done to meet their request. Perhaps nothing could be done as the law at present stood. If that was so, he should like to hoar from the Lord Advocate how he proposed to relieve the crofters and cottars from a position which had become intolerable, and for which they were in no sense to blame. Lord Balfour had been good enough to write him a letter on the subject, which was printed as an Appendix to the Report. He had had many communications from crofters and cottars in regard to this letter, and they one and all spoke with dismay of the reference in the last paragraph of the letter which seemed to indicate that, before anything could be done for South Uist, they must wait until they saw whether the experiment in Barra was to be a success or a failure. He did not believe that they could wait until the experiment at Barra had been proved to be a success. He believed that affairs were so bad in the districts he had mentioned that something must be done immediately. Poverty was rapidly increasing, and now that the earnings from the kelp industry, which formerly averaged about £5 a family, were cut off, it was easy to see that things would become rapidly worse. The rates at present were 10s. 7d. in the £1, and, estimating that there were 440 families in the district, the withdrawal of £2,000 would be a very serious matter indeed. But why should this Board, with the resources at their disposal, limit the experiment to Barra? The South Uist people were just as necessitous, just as badly off, and just as deserving of relief as the others. Even if both were included in the experiment it would be a small affair.
    A bolder policy in regard to this question might very well be adopted, and when they learned of the large sums which were being expended in Ireland for exactly similar purposes, under exactly similar conditions, with almost exactly the same type of population and with such excellent results, one was inclined to think the excessive caution of the Board was surely a mistake. They had the benefit of the experiments in Ireland; let them adopt a bolder policy in the Western Highlands. He had been told that about two and a half millions would

    1139
    buy up all the land necessary to settle this question in the whole Highlands of Scotland and, if this was all that was involved, the Board might, with advantage, broaden their view in regard to their duty. He had said that he believed the providing of suitable holdings was the only way of permanently improving the condition of these cottars and crofters and in proof of this, he should like to draw the Lord Advocate's attention to the fact that of all the pauperism in this district, no less than 90 per cent. was from the landless class—the cottar and the farm labourer class—and that only 10 per cent. was from the class that had the opportunity of making a living on the land. He had no doubt whatever that pauperism would at once decrease if the native population were given the opportunity to till the land which was available for them. He thought it was a most instructive study to compare the different conditions of affairs upon similar and adjoining properties in the Highlands of Scotland. On the one property, there was a contented and a comparatively prosperous people; on the other, there was poverty and discontent and destitution. There were many intelligently and sympathetically managed estates in the Highlands. Indeed, the good landlords were in an enormous majority. Take, for instance, the estates in Inverness-shire of Sir Arthur Orde, Lord Dunmore, MacLeod of MacLeod and many others. These landlords were ready at all times to consider reasonable applications for crofter settlements and the result was seen in such a letter as that of Lord Dunmore, quoted in the Report of the Congested Districts Board. Now, what caused the difference in the condition of affairs there and on the adjoining properties? It was similar land, with a similar climate, and the social conditions were the same. Nor could it be due to a difference in the inhabitants themselves, as they were all of the same type. It must be due to the difference in the management of the estate. Could nothing be done to save the tenants from bad landlords and bad factors? He believed that the Congested Districts Board had not the power necessary to deal with such landlords and with such managers. The Board in their Report suggested that they required additional powers. He heartily
    1140
    agreed. He most sincerely hoped that the additional powers they desired would be powers to protect crofters and cottars on badly managed estates.
    As an instance of the sort of thing that went on in those places which were far away from effective public opinion, he would tell the Committee what happened this year at Barra. For several years, the crofters at Castlebay, Barra, rented from the farmer on the farm at Vatersay, on a neighbouring island, some potato patches, and the crofters had regularly got from the Congested Districts Board a supply of seed to plant there. This year they received the seed as usual, but, on going to prepare the land, the farmer, without any rhyme or reason, refused them permission to plant their seed, or put a spade in the ground. He did not know what happened to the seed, but it seemed to him an extraordinary condition of affairs and one that demanded immediate attention, if not from the Congested Districts Board, then from the Government, that a great Department of the State, having provided seed for the crofters to plant, being satisfied that they ought to assist to this extent, should be frustrated in their efforts to help those crofters by the caprice of an unreasonable farmer. He would like to hear from the Lord Advocate what the Board proposed to do in this case. It was evident that there could be no fair play given to these crofters who were so under the control of the landlords and the factors and the larger tenants, until the strong arm of the law intervened to protect them. He had offered these observations in no unfriendly spirit. All he wanted to do was to impress upon the Congested Districts Board and upon the Committee the absolute necessity of doing something, and at once, to give the crofters of the Western Highlands a chance to live in their own land. They were a people worth preserving; physically and morally, they were a fine race. We were introducing pauper and criminal aliens by the hundreds and thousands into London and the other ports, and we were permitting, perhaps, the finest peasantry in the world to be starved and evicted and exiled from the Scottish Highlands. He thought that the

    1141
    appointment of a new member to the Crofters' Commission was a subject relevant to the present discussion. That new member was Mr. Forsyth, against whom, personally, there was not a word to say. That gentleman was a most excellent member, but he wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Crofters' Commission was a body which arbitrated between the crofters and the landlords. That Commission now consisted of a lawyer, the Chairman, Mr. Sheriff Brand, a factor, while Mr. Forsyth was a landlord. The crofters were, therefore, not represented. He thought it was a pity that the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland had not taken the opportunity of appointing on the Commission a representative of the crofters. There were plenty of intelligent men amongst them who could have represented the interests of their class.
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid the hon. Member for Inverness-shireseemed to draw some distinction between the opinions of Members on either side of the House in regard to the settlement of the people on the land; but he was sure that all the Members representing the crofting districts were practically of one mind in regard to that matter. Those of them who witnessed the manner in which the crofters struggled to obtain a living could not help feeling an intense admiration for them. He agreed with the hon. Member that the Congested Districts Board ought to have the absolute power of purchasing land anywhere. He knew that there were many bankrupt estates on which the people had not a single soul to look after them, and it would be impossible to relieve them unless the Congested Districts Board had power to buy up the land and divide it amongst the crofters. The Allotments Act had been a dead letter in Scotland. He knew of one case in which the people had applied to the County Council for allotments and were made perfect fools of. They were offered land on the top of a hill or in the wet bottom of a valley. He should like to draw attention to the condition of the people in the Island of Muckle Rooe in Shetland, separated from another island by a small arm
    1142
    of the sea, and on a stormy day there was no means of communication between the two. In that island there was no church or churchyard, and no doctor, and the expenditure of a few hundred pounds for the erection of a bridge would enable the inhabitants to take their cattle to market and bury their dead. In the Island of Swona further south, an earthquake wave, two and a half years ago, tilted up their little harbour and the poor people could not get their fish to market except in the very calmest weather. The Congested Districts Board ought to have power in their own hands to get rid of the red-tapeism which was strangling their best efforts to ameliorate the condition of a large number of people who were absolutely barred from earning their living. The Congested Districts Board had come forward and expressed their willingness to do this work, but they were unable, through the officialism and red tapeism, to take this matter in hand. Although the money was there for the purpose, they could not come forward and say the work should now be done, owing to the difficulties put before them. In a case of that kind he really thought something should be done to enable the Congested Districts Board to undertake the work.
    Another point he desired to draw attention to was the position in which the crofters found themselves owing to a recent interpretation of the law relating to crofts. Up to a few years ago the Crofters Act had worked fairly well, but some years ago an action was brought against a man for carrying on an industry other than agriculture upon his croft, which was decided against him. The result was that no crofter could carry on any other industry besides agriculture on his croft; they could not trade with each other; and it was only with the forbearance of their landlords that these men could live at all. They were precluded from carrying on a little carpenter's shop; they could not keep a little grocery store on which the whole turnover would not be more than £100 a year; they could not even carry on a little blacksmith's business. What the Government had done was to say the landlords had not done their duty in the past, and they had taken the place of

    1143
    the landlords, and he submitted that they should look into the facts and deal with these matters, A crofter ought to be allowed to carry on his ordinary agricultural avocation and those other occupations which were so mixed up with his agricultural pursuit that it was difficult to say where the one ended and the other began.
    SIR JOHN LENGasked would the hon. Gentleman state at whose instance this action was taken.
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid the action was heard at the Court of Sessions, and was taken by a Mr. Gilmore against a Mr. Peterson; but he did not wish to go into the merits of that case. He was speaking of what had arisen in consequence of the decision. It was now by law in the power of the landlord to prevent a crofter's child knitting a stocking and selling it off' the croft. The Scotch Members of the House were a very small body, and being quiet, retiring men, were not able to bring the grievances of their constituents forward as other hon. Members did. In the Highlands and islands of Scotland there was one very great grievance, with reference to the power of the Parish Councils to dismiss the parish doctor without any notice whatever. This was a grievance which existed nowhere but in Scotland, and Scotchmen were not accustomed to take a back seat unless good reason could be shown for their doing so.
    THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! This subject should come under the Vote for the Local Government Board, and not under this Vote.
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid in that case he would take a full opportunity on that occasion to bring this matter forward.
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid he had not the honour to represent a crofter constituency, but some of his constituents were practically living under the same conditions as crofters, and therefore it might happen, when some such legislation as had been advocated by Sir George Trevelyan was at some
    1144
    future time brought forward, that he might be able to join with his hon. friend in the proposals he had made today. Nothing in the way of legislation had been more gratifying than the absolute success of the Crofters Act, and anybody visiting the Highlands now and seeing what they were now as compared with what they were a few years ago must be struck with the difference. He was glad to pay his tribute of respect to the crofter for his desire to stay upon his croft, because the great endeavour on all sides of the House at the present time was to keep the rural population on the land instead of allowing it to congest the towns; and the extension of crofts was a very beneficial way of carrying that policy out. He could not go so far as his hon. friend had gone with regard to the work of the Congested Districts Board, but the Board had undoubtedly done good work. The great drawback, so far as the crofters were concerned, at present was that they could not get enough land to keep them going. Anyone who knew anything about agriculture would know that no one could get a living out of a farm of less than 30 acres, and the trouble was that the crofters had not enough land to go on with, and consequently had to spend a good deal of time in idleness. The crofters were a fine, energetic people, and anybody who visited the districts would be surprised at what they did get out of these small patches of soil. He thought the Congested Districts. Board should have power to put on the screw and compel owners to sell some of the sheep farms, so that these crofts might be extended. Of course, there were difficulties in the way; one difficulty lay in the valuation of the sheep, and another lay in the tenants themselves. They would not migrate; they would not go from one part to another. If a man had a small farm on one island and was offered a larger and a better farm on another, he frequently would not go to it. That was a very great difficulty. The Congested Districts Board were doing good work; they were suggesting the growing of new crops, such as turnips, for instance, which was a crop which he had never seen grown in these districts; they also suggested going in for small cultivation and the keeping of

    1145
    pigs and poultry, which in the hands of small occupiers were known to bring in a good deal of money. He was glad to see that the crofters had taken up so cordially the new method of spraying potatoes. The result of the use of the spray had been that it was not only a germicide, destroying all the spores of the disease, but it also fertilised the land and produced better and heavier crops. He agreed that the Congested Districts Board should have the wider scope for which they asked in one section of the report for spending their money. Of course, it might be said that under the new Acts and regulations local authorities had power to do all that was required. That was so, no doubt, but local authorities usually had funds; these people were so poor that it was necessary to supplement the local funds with a good grant. He certainly thought the crofters were men who deserved better treatment than they received.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSSexpressed his sympathy with the speeches which had been made with regard to the condition of the crofters, but; said the immediate object of his rising was to call attention to the condition of the tenants in the great cities, whose position required the attention of the Government just as much as did that of the crofters. There was a system in Scotland in the great cities on which the tenancy was regulated which was old and eminently unsuited to the present requirements. In February of each year the landlord called upon the tenant and presented him with what was called a missive, which had to be signed and returned, which missive when returned amounted to a letting to the tenant for another twelve months from the following May.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid this Vote had only to do with the administration of the law, and if it would require new legislation to alter it, the hon. Member would not be in order in proposing it.
    MR. CALDWELLcalled attention to the accounts of the Congested Districts Board. He admitted that the form
    1146
    in which the account was presented by the Congested Districts Board was that which was approved by the Government, but complained that it was impossible to obtain from accounts in that form a proper view of the work the Commissioners were doing. For instance, the Committee would like to know how much money had been lent out to the crofters, how much had to be repaid, and how much had been repaid up to the present time. There was no material in the account to show how the business was progressing. The Committee ought to know the way matters were going on. So far as he could see, greater power should be given to the Board and more money should be spent. He thought £5,000 was far too limited an amount. Nobody would suggest that so far as the crofters were concerned there was not an opportunity given of spending all the money on crofters' holdings. The number of these holdings had been slightly increased, but after all, only a small number of crofters benefited, and if any progress was to be made in this matter £10,000 a year should he spent. There was always a willingness on the part of landlords in the Highlands to spend money on roads. A road benefited the users to a certain extent, but its main advantage was that it developed the property, so that landlords would go in for as much expenditure on roads as was desired. The same remark applied to piers and lighthouses. But there was one point in connection with lighthouses to which he wished to call attention. There was an item of £750 a year for the upkeep of lighthouses. The maintenance of lighthouses was not within the purview of the functions for which the Congested Districts Board was established. While it might be quite proper for the Board to make a grant to aid the building of a lighthouse, it would be a very different thing to undertake the maintenance of it, and this £750 a year for a purpose which was not within the duty of the Board was a sum which ought not to be paid It would be well if such an amount were given quite separately, but it ought not to be included in the Vote of the Commissioners. He admitted that otherwise the Board had done much useful work, but they had not done as much as they ought to have done

    1147
    in the way of increasing the holdings, and they would never be able satisfactorily to discharge that duty until they had compulsory powers. At present the Commissioners could get these estates only when men were willing to sell, and at the price they asked. With ordinary compulsory powers they would be able to secure land by paying only the fair and reasonable price, and he did not see why such powers should not be given for the purpose of extending crofters, holdings, where necessary, as were possessed by railway companies, because the obtaining of land to enable people to live was certainly as important as the, Obtaining of land for a railway.
    MR. HARMSWORTHdesired to associate himself with the remarks which had been made as to the good work done by the Congested Districts Board. As the representative of a poor agricultural constituency, he felt bound to say that the work was of a most admirable quality, but the powers of the Board were limited. Without pointing out all the directions in which those powers might be extended, he would certainly support the suggestion as to the desirability of the Board possessing compulsory powers for the extension of the holdings of crofters. One of the things which struck him most forcibly when he first visited his constituency was the small amount of land upon which families had to subsist, and he was not at all surprised to find that the chief desire of the people was that their holdings should be extended. This was a question of more than local interest. The census returns for several decades past indicated a rapid depopulation of the Highlands. That depopulation was due to various causes—amongst others to the extension of deer forests in the Highlands—but it was primarily due to the fact that people desirous of living on the land were not able to get the land to live upon. In his own constituency the decrease of population between 1890 and 1900 was no less than 10 per cent., and he thought they had every reason to ask the Lord Advocate for a clear statement as to how he intended to deal with this matter.
    MR. BIGNOLDthought the Committee were under an obligation
    1148
    to the hon. Member for Caithness shire for having mentioned the subject of deer, because it could do no harm, and might do much good, if Members familiarised themselves with the conditions under which land was held in the Highlands at the present time. He represented a district in which there were deer forests. When he went to that part of the country twenty-seven years ago, he found bankrupt farmers and shepherds living in houses not equal to cattle kraals, and sheep which had to be deported to Dumfries and elsewhere every year to save their lives. Now, owing to the deer forests, the condition of affairs there was that for a stretch of sixteen miles there was not a single poor family or bad house, and the population had increased by 20 per cent. They had had a Select Committee of twenty-one Members, including the best agricultural intelligence in the House, and the finding of that Committee was unanimously to the effect that deer forests in Scotland were a distinct advantage, and so far from decreasing the number of inhabitants they had raised the amount of temporary employment to a considerable extent, as well as sustained the amount of permanent employment. Subsequently a Royal Commission confirmed that Report, but the House was not satisfied with that, and in 1891 a second Royal Commission confirmed the Report of the Committee and also the finding of the first Royal Commission. The second Commission reported that there were 1,700,000 acres of land in Scotland capable of supporting crofters, but he would remind the Committee that in Yorkshire there were 3,400,000 acres of land capable of giving suitable employment to those engaged in agriculture. But there happened to be in both cases the same obstacle in the way, and that was that the land happened to be private property. He could not understand why they could not address themselves to the deer forest question upon the lines of the greatest good to the greatest number. If forests were no more than a luxury of the rich and injury to the community he should discourage deer forests by every means in his power, but if they were a benefit to the community then he saw no reason why there should be special legislation against them.
    Every Scotch Member was acquainted with the fact that these high grounds could

    1149
    be used practically only for two purposes—deer forests and sheep farming. It required four acres of fine land to support one sheep, and eight to ten acres of rough land for each sheep. Applying those figures to the deer forests, if they removed every deer and substituted sheep, they would only get 650,000 sheep. Sheep were not converted into mutton under three years, therefore the change suggested would only add about 230,000 sheep annually to the food supply of this country. How many sheep were there today in Great Britain? Why, something between 31,000,000 and 32,000,000. Consequently, the difference was so homeopathic, so to speak, that it was practically of little use. It should be remembered that by assigning the hillside to sheep they would be losing the possibility of employment by planting. Wherever they had these deer forests they provided employment for the people. Putting all these things together, whether on the ground of planting, or food, or bringing rich people from the south to the north, deer forests were beneficial. He hoped the Committee would not imagine that he found no fault with the present condition of the deer forests, for he should not be content until he found the crofters more firmly established on the land, and more land coming into the possession of the crofters. That could not happen so long as they had those large sheep farms. If they passed an enactment by which all land less than 500 feet above the level of the sea should be devoted to crofter's holdings they would at once get a large tract of land in the lowlands suitable for crofters. With regard to deer forests, the Committee reported that there had been but a single case of eviction for the creation of a forest during the thirty years antecedent to 1873, and it would be a black day for Scotland when they legislated the red stag out of existence.
    MR. WEIRsaid he had never heard a more contradictory speech than that to which they had just listened. He was afraid the hon. Member knew precious little about doer forests in the Highlands of Scotland. The hon. Member forgot to tell the Committee that prior to twenty-five years ago large numbers of crofters and cottars lived on much of the land now reserved for deer. The crofters and cottars had been cleared off to make room for sheep farms, and
    1150
    in the course of time these sheep farms were converted into deer forests. The hon. Member had stated that not a single person had been evicted from the deer forests for the last twenty years. What he desired was that crofters should be put again on the lands which were at one time in the occupation of the people who were evicted to make room for large sheep farms. Who wanted the land on the heights? Let the deer go there, and let the lowlands be appropriated to the uses of the people. Only a few days ago he asked a question in the House about Strathconon, which was owned by the First Lord of the Treasury and sold by him prior to the passing of the Crofters Act. At that place a large sheep farm was about to be converted into a deer forest, although up to this 500 human beings lived on that land as crofters and cottars. Where were those crofters today? They had been driven out of that beautiful Strathconon where they ought to have still been getting their living. They had been told that no crofters had been evicted for a good many years. Of course not, because there were none left to evict. They wanted those people put back upon the land.
    MR. BIGNOLDsaid the thing was practically impossible, for he could say, living as he did under the shadow of Strathconon, that there had not been a house on the north side of the estate for fifty years.
    MR. WEIRsaid his contention was that these people were cleared out to create sheep farms before the hon. Member bought his estate. They wished to keep the Highlands populated with a strong, sturdy, and steady race. They were told by the hon. Member that the deer forests brought rich men from the south. But where did the money go? It went into the pockets of the landlords, who spent it in London, or Paris, or even at Monte Carlo, where in the season they were to be found in pretty large numbers. That money did not benefit the people of the Highlands. It benefited the railway companies, the hotel keepers, the livery stable keepers, and a few ghillies, but the people generally

    1151
    would be a precious sight better without these rich men from the south. He was sorry to find the hon. Member for the Northern Burghs making such a hash of things today. He wished the hon. Member would read the Napier Commission Report and the Report of the Highlands and Islands Commission, 1892. He would find that the latter reported that there were nearly 2,000,000 acres of land which might be applied to crofting. The Commission was a greater authority on the subject than the hon. Member for the Northern Burgbs. How much of that land has been given to the crofters? Why does not the Secretary for Scotland see to the matter? When questions in regard to the Highlands were brought forward in this House—where the Secretary for Scotland ought to be—they were frequently told that there was no official information. The Secretary for Scotland was at the head of too many Boards, and he evidently forgot that he was responsible for the conduct of these Boards. He had no doubt that the Lord Advocate was a clever lawyer, but he knew little about the Highlands of Scotland. In India Lord Curzon visits districts and personally inquires into the condition of the people. Why is not the Secretary for Scotland up and doing, and why does he not go through the Highland crofting counties and inquire into the conditions under which the people live. He was glad that since the Crofters Act was passed the crofters' houses had been vastly improved. If there was an ecclesiastical function in Edinburgh, they would find the Secretary for Scotland there, but the material welfare of the people ought to be considered as well as their spiritual welfare. The Secretary for Scotland too often took his information, in regard to the Highlands, from landlords and factors, and landlords' agents and lawyers in Edinburgh. These were not the sources from which he ought to draw his information; it ought to be obtained by personal inquiry. If legislation were required to rectify the matters to which he had referred, the Secretary for Scotland ought to introduce legislation. It was his business to see to matters affecting the Highlands. He begged to move that the salary of the Secretary of Scotland be reduced by £100.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Weir.)
    MR. BIGNOLDsaid he had read the Report of the Napier Commission. He thought the crofting area should be extended, and that more crofters ought to be put on the ground.
    MR. LEVESON-GOWERcalled attention to the regulation which required that the sanction of the Board of Trade should be obtained for the erection of piers and harbours, and said that cases might arise where localities would be prevented from getting the accommodation needed in this way, by sanction being refused. He instanced the case of Droman Bay, where a landing-stage was desired by the people, but the Board of Trade refused to give their sanction to its being constructed, because, in their opinion, the pier would not give absolute safety. The consequence was that the fishermen would go on using the bay without having a pier. He could not see why they should not be allowed to have a small landing-stage erected. He suggested that the Congested Districts Board should have the power to carry out a small matter of this kind on its own responsibility. He should like to know from the Lord Advocate whether it was possible to have the matter attended to in this way.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said he had never had to complain in the past, and he did not complain on the present occasion of the general spirit of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Inverness-shire on the work of the Congested Districts Board, and on the work of his noble friend the Secretary for Scotland, in relation to the Highlands. The hon. Member might feel assured that the noble Lord was perfectly alive first of all to the inherent and real difficulties of the crofters; and, secondly, that his noble friend had the best intentions in the matter. If he had been passing a panegyric on the work of the Congested Districts Board, as shown in their Report, he certainly could not have found a more hearty word of encouragement than the speech of the hon. Member

    1153
    when he described what he saw of their operations both in respect of agriculture and the furtherance of the breeding of stock. The hon. Member was also complimentary as to the good work done in the matter of material works, although he tempered his praise there by saying that he thought in some instances the work had not on the whole been very well carried out. When he came to the particulars he did not think there was really so much to complain of—he meant so far as the Congested Districts Board was concerned. The hon. Member specially instanced the case of the pier at Petersport. In regard to that case, the Report of the Board stated:—
    "On 30th October, 1894, the County Council of Inverness applied to the Secretary for Scotland for a grant towards the construction of this pier, which they proposed to erect according to plan and specification prepared by the promoters' Engineer on a site selected by the promoters. The pier was completed in 1896, but soon after complaints were made that the pier and its approaches were dangerous to steamers. The Secretary for Scotland obtained from the Admiralty a detailed report on the pier, in which certain details were recommended as necessary to render the pier serviceable. The Board made a grant of £300 to the County Council to provide such moorings, buoys, fender piling, etc., as—we are advised—would make it safe for steamers of 180 feet length and 12 feet draught to approach and leave the pier by day, and to remain alongside it at neap-tide from 2 hours flood to 4 hours ebb."
    Now, really, he asked the Committee what more the Congested Districts Board could have done. This was not a scheme of their own, but a scheme of the County Council of Inverness. The County Council came to the Board and said—"Here we have a scheme which we consider to be a good one; will you give us a grant? "The Board said," Certainly, we will give you a grant." The pier was crected, and after that complaints were made that it was not safe. Then the Congested Districts Board was asked to help again. The Board got a special Report from the Admiralty which said that the pier was not safe at present, but if such and such a thing were done it would make it safe. Then the Congested Districts Board said to the County Council if they did that a grant would be given. He really did not see
    1154
    what more could have been done. If there was any blame in the matter it rested on the shoulders of the engineer who originally advised the County Council of Inverness and the local promoters. He did not think that if this specific case was looked at fairly there was any just ground for criticism of the Congested Districts Board. But, of course, the greatest portion of the hon. Gentleman's speech was on a matter in which he was truly interested. It was not so much that the hon. Gentleman did not approve of all that the Congested Districts Board had done. He believed the hon. Gentleman approved very highly of what the Board had done, but what he thought was that the Board might have done more for what lie considered was the main object of their existence. The hon. Gentleman had quoted a sentence from the remarks he had made when this Vote came before the Committee last year, in which he had stated that he thought hon. Members on the other side of the House unduly magnified that portion of the work of the Congested Districts Board in trying to put the people on the land at all. He did not remember the exact words that he used, but what he wanted to make plain was that he was very far from representing, as the attitude of the Government, that they did not think that the business of giving facilities for men who had not got land at present to get land, was not one of the most important objects for which the Board was created. But what had been the one idea of his noble friend the Secretary for Scotland in this matter was that, in the first place, he had always kept in view that recommendation of the Deer Forest Commissioners, who said that though there was a great deal of land suitable for settlement, it was only suitable for such persons as had the capacity and the means to make good use of that land when they got it. And there was the further recommendation that in a matter of this sort they must go gradually, and must not be in too much of a hurry. If ever there was a case in which the saying festina lente was applicable it was a case of this sort. The hon. Member had admitted quite frankly that if the report of the Congested Districts Board for this year was compared with that of last year, it would be found how very much this question of migration bulked in the former. No doubt there were a great many matters of detail, to

    1155
    some of which he might refer later on. But the hon. Member pointed to a balance of £71,000. If, however, he would turn to the account, he would find that that balance of £71,000 was not all, in one sense, available. He meant it could not have been spent, because if the hon. Member turned to Appendix 8, he would find that the amount of grants which had been actually voted by the Congested Districts Board for various works amounted in total to £66,191 6s. 1d. Of that sum at 31st March, only £39,04119s. 3d. had been paid. That meant that there was a balance of £27,149, 6s. 10d., which was money they could not spend but which was promised, and if they took £27,149,6s. 10. from the balance of £71,000 they got practically a balance of £44,850. He was sure the hon. Member for Inverness-shire would not press him to give names, but he could tell him that at this very moment there was another land transaction which they were in great hopes was going to come to a satisfactory conclusion. If it did go through, it meant an expenditure of £40,000, so that, honestly speaking, the Board were not very far from the end of their tether at this moment. They were not in a position of having accumulated a very large sum with which they had done nothing. When they came to the particulars, of course, he thought everybody would admit that there had been a most satisfactory partial solution of the problem in Barra. The experiment had turned out, on the whole, most successfully. The hon. Member had asked a question about the number of years purchase paid for the land in Barra by the crofters and to the landlords. So far the crofters were concerned it appeared from the Report that the purchase price, in the very first case mentioned, was £67,107, and the annual payment for fifty years required to repay the price was £2,107.
    MR. JOHN DEWARsaid he did not mean the purchase at the present rental, but at the old rental.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he was not in a position to say precisely what number of years purchase was paid to the landlord in the case of Barra, because he did not know. As a matter they could
    1156
    not arrive at the number of years purchase, for this reason. The ground that had been taken was ground on a sheep farm. Hon. Members would know, even if they had only the modified experience of the hon. Member for Inverness, that first, they had to break the lease if they wanted to get immediate possession of the land; and second, they had that dreadful question of taking over the sheep stock to take into consideration. It would be absolutely impossible to saddle the crofters with the sheep stock in the same way in which they saddled an incoming tenant who was taking the sheep stock over at a valuation, or the landlord who was taking over his outgoing tenant's sheep stock. In either of these cases the price paid represented much above the real value of the sheep stock. Part of the way in which some of the money of the Congested Districts Board had been expended was really in dropping a certain amount of money, which represented the difference between the value of the stock so handed over to the crofter—the real market price—and the price they had to pay under the sheep stock valuation. As he understood it, the view of the hon. Member was that there was to be twenty-eight years purchase to the landlord by the Congested Districts Board. He would be perfectly frank with the Committee, and say that he did not, as a matter of fact, know the actual amount paid to the landlord; but he quite understood now that what the hon. Member referred to was what was paid to the landlord for the naked land. He really would put it to the hon. Member whether it would be a good thing, even if he knew, that he should state the amount to the Committee. If the hon. Member himself wanted to know, he would, of course, be very glad to tell him. More than that, if the Committee insisted on knowing, he did not know that he should have any right to withhold the information; but he was perfectly certain that in that matter the Committee had the real object of the Congested Districts Board and their operation at heart, and there was no more unfortunate thing, than to let the price out in a settlement of that sort; because it became practically the minimum price in any other settlement afterwards.
    MR. CALDWELLasked if the price was not mentioned in the conveyance, and if the conveyance had not to be registered.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that that might or might not be.
    MR. CALDWELLasked if it was not bound to be.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that it was a very different style of advertisement to have to search out a conveyance in a register, and to give out the price in the House of Commons. He could not imagine the hon. Member; if he had any experience of the business of buying and selling land, not knowing that what he said was true. He should have thought, for instance, that the hon. Member for Mid. Lanark knew well enough, that as regarded any persons who had to buy compulsorily, the last thing in the world they wished was that the price should be circulated. He could not give the Committe the price at present. After all, it was money spent by a public body, and there was nothing in the world that that Board wanted to conceal or was ashamed of. He hoped, however, that before the demand was put in such a way that it could not be refused, hon. Members would think once, twice and thrice as to whether they were really doing the Congested Districts Board any good, or whether they would be only helping people in various places to open their mouths too wide.
    The hon. Member next spoke about South Uist. He need not enter fully into the facts of the matter, because a great deal was disclosed in the letter which had been printed at length, and in the letter written by his noble friend to the hon. Member himself. The hon. Member seemed to be inclined to be rather apprehensive, because of the concluding paragraph in that letter, which indicated, as he thought, that it would be a mistake to attempt the experiment in South Uist, so soon after the work
    1158
    which had been done in the neighbouring island of Barra. He did not think his hon. friend need be too apprehensive, because he did not think that they would have to wait for thirty or forty years to see whether the work turned out to be successful, although they might have to wait a few years. The hon. Member should remember, in view of what he had told him about the amount of money at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board, and the fact that they had other large transactions in hand, and they could not, of course, distribute all their favours at once and in one exact proportion. But the hon. Member should be in good spirits. His own constituency was a wide one, and contained many congested districts; and there was, therefore, a good chance of some of the other transactions being in that constituency. There was another matter which he wished to deal with very lightly, but, merely, by way of comparison. There was he thought a little too much in South Uist of threats. Now, if there was a bad way of helping the operations of the Congested Districts Board it was by threatening to break the law. Those remarks, he hoped, the hon. Member would understand had no reference to him. On the contrary, the hon. Member had always been of great service to his noble friend; and he was very glad to give public testimony to the fact that the hon. Gentleman had tried to persuade the people to take an exactly opposite course. But in spite of that, sometimes other people had not been quite so successful. He would take a very good instance of what might be done by passing to the next item to which the hon. Member referred. The hon. Member asked him to tell him what was being done in reference to potato patches in South Uist. Nothing could be done this year, but as the hon. Member knew, there again the people at one time were threatening to take the land forcibly, and they only desisted on getting a telegram which was sent personally by his noble friend persuading them to desist, and assuring them that was the best way to succeed. He was glad to say the people took his noble friend's advice, and they sent a telegram saying that in consequence of that personal telegram from the Secretary

    1159
    for Scotland, they had given up the idea of forcibly taking the land. Since then; through negotiations with the proprietor, he was in a position to state that they hoped to be able, by certain powers the proprietor had, to provide those people with potato patches next year. That would be done in time for them to put in their potatoes after they came back from fishing at the end of the year, and there was no further reason for putting their threats into force.
    Then as to the hon. Gentleman's general view, the hon. Gentleman really put his Question in order to call attention to a matter they had often argued before, namely, the fact that the Congested Districts Board did not have compulsory powers. He did not think that it at all followed that if they had compulsory powers they would get land any cheaper. The hon. Member seemed to think that land should be bought at less than twenty-eight years purchase; but the complaint had often been heard in this House and elsewhere that when a body had compulsory powers they had to pay through the nose. It might be possible, of course, by some form of clause to exclude a compulsory allowance altogether, but Parliament had never done it yet in the case of taking private property. The only case was where there was an investment with a security, and where it was proposed to give a better security, and there, of course, there was no particular reason for a compulsory allowance. Obviously, the whole consideration on which compulsory allowances were based on the purchase of land depended on other considerations. The hon. Member went on to say that he thought an improvement might be made in the constitution of the Board; and he not obscurely indicated that he thought it would be a good plan if they were to transfer the work of the Congested Districts Board to the Crofters' Commission. He would like the hon. Member to consider what that really meant. What was the Crofters' Commission? He was not saying anything against its personnel. The chairman was a lawyer. He thought it would be difficult to get a better chairman; and it would be agreed that the chairman should be
    1160
    a lawyer. He thought it would not be possible, seeing the large powers of the Commission, and the amount of interpretation that was required, to run the Crofters' Commission without a lawyer. The other two gentlemen were what he might call call crack agriculturists.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is a Vote for the Crofters' Commission.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he was not going to discuss the Crofters' Commission. If the hon. Member had been called to order, he would not have followed him; but the hon. Member suggested that the work of the Congested Districts Board would be better done by the Crofters' Commission.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was going into the details of the Crofters' Commission.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he only wished to point out that the members of the Crofters' Commission were necessarily, so to speak, paid servants. The Congested Districts Board was a body for which his noble friend was directly responsible; and if the hon. Gentleman were as long in the House as some of them, he would remember the objections which were constantly brought against the number of Scottish Boards, without any Parliamentary heads, and, therefore, a law unto themselves to a great extent. That was greatly altered by the doing away of the Board of Supervision, and the creation of the Local Government Board, with the Secretary for Scotland, as its Parliamentary head. By that means hon. Members got the power of criticism they were now now exercising. If they had the Crofters' Commission, however, they would be almost a law unto themselves; and he could not see how their policy could be very well controlled. At present, it was a perfectly different thing, as they were merely a judicial body with no policy to control; but he thought hon. Members would see that probably if the powers of

    1161
    the Congested Districts Board were transferred to a body of that sort, they would have less Parliamentary control than at present. He understood that the hon. Gentleman was not objecting at all to the personnel of the Congested Districts Board. At present the modus operandi was to get a local report from a local reporter, which was sent to the Board to be decided. The work could only be done in that way, or by appointing a highly paid secretary, who would not confine himself to secretarial work, but would be really an inspector also. If the latter course were taken, the secretary, or whatever he might be called, would dominate the whole concern, and, there again, he could not help thinking that there would be, in the long run, far less of that control which the Committee wanted than under the present system. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland had complained that the work of the Congested Districts Board was a great deal trammelled by red tapeism and officialism. He should have bought no Board had less red tapeism about it than this. When the hon. Gentleman came to particulars, his complaint was that the Congested Districts Board would not erect certain works unless maintenance was provided. The particular instance the hon. Gentleman had taken, the case of these two small islands which wanted a bridge, might be a hard case in itself, and very likely was, but in this matter, there was a general principle which could not be avoided.
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he made no remark with regard to the erection of any bridge. He complained of the case of a small bay, the entrance to which had been blocked by an earthquake wave. It was not a thing that was likely to occur again, and he thought: that was a case where the work of clearing the bay might be undertaken with-out the question of maintenance arising.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid if the particular thing which had happened was of a kind which would probably never recur, the Board might take measures to put the matter right. If it was clearly a case of that kind, he would
    1162
    be very glad to forward any recommendations the hon. Gentleman would make upon the subject. But, generally speaking, it was impossible for the Congested Districts Board to put up any works, unless maintenance was provided by the locality. The other complaint of the hon. Member had reference to the decision as to what might and what might not be done by the crofter. In his opinion the hon. Gentleman had read that decision a great deal further than it was intended to go. He himself did not look at the decision as relating to the crofter at, all. It related more to the law of landlord and tenant. It had long been settled in the law of Scotland, and he believed in the law of England also, that a holding could not be converted. A man could not take a farm and turn it into a distillery or put up a factory upon it. The matter of which the hon. Member complained was put into a sentence in the decision. The judgment said "he was not entitled to turn his croft into a fish-curing station." That, of course, was absolutely converting the holding, and that was held not to be legal, but to draw from that the terrible conclusions which the hon. Member had drawn, that the Act would prevent a crofter's daughter knitting a stocking, and selling it off the croft, was really carrying that decision a good deal further than it was ever intended to go. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire had drawn attention to no special point, but had appeared to advocate the extension of crofter holdings in other parts of Scotland. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark had called attention to the form of the Congested Districts Board's accounts, admitting that they were in the form approved by the Treasury, and that there was nothing, therefore, to complain of. With regard to giving the particulars asked for by the hon. Member, he wonld call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the appendices, and particularly to appendix 8, which did give a great deal of the information asked for, which was a general review of what engagements the Congested Districts Board was under, and how the money was being paid. He thought the same kind of information as the hon. Gentleman required was given on page xv of the report, Roman numerals; there under the heading "Works" was stated

    1163
    further the general grants made during the three years. He could only say that with his noble friend the Secretary for Scotland, he would consider the suggestion that had been made by the hon. Member. He quite saw what the hon. Member wanted. Though the accounts were in the proper form approved of the Treasury, the hon. Member thought there should be more information given as to the precise way in which the money was coming in and how it was spent. In fact, an account showing the general progress of business so to speak. He would certainly bring the matter to the notice of the Congested Districts Board and see what could be done. The hon. Member for Caithness had confined his remarks to the compulsory powers which he had already dealt with. Then came the hon. Members for Wick Burghs and Ross-shire. Then the quiet afternoon was suddenly enlivened by the tumult of a great controversy which was so admirably dealt with on both sides that he did not feel inclined to risk his skin by embarking in the discussion upon deer forests. But the hon. Member for Ross-shire went on to say one or two other things. In particular he had ventilated the old grievance of the Lord Advocate standing at the Box, instead of the Secretary for Scotland. He was afraid he was getting a little case hardened with regard to this grievance although the hon. Member had invented a few new epithets on this occasion. When he listened to the hon. Member he was forcibly reminded of the musician in the American Far West who were a placard over his head which said, "Do not shoot the musician he is trying to do his best." Had the hon. Member been in the House earlier in the evening, however, he would have heard the hon. Member for Inverness-shire compliment the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland upon the satisfaction which his visit to the West had given. He had now, he believed, dealt with all the points which had been drawn to his attention, except that of the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire who spoke of the pauperising tendency of the interference of the Board of Trade. It was impossible to dispense with the interference of the Board of Trade, because of the powers which had been given to it
    1164
    in the interests of trade all round the coast, and it was impossible to make harbours without consulting them. But if the hon. Member thought there was a place where some latitude should be given and where a harbour should be made he would bring the hon. Member's views before the Board if he would state them on paper.
    MR. THOMAS SHAWjoined in complaining of the secrecy observed by the Congested Districts Board with regard to its transactions, and he protested against the doctrine set up by the right hon. Gentleman. It was the duty of the Committee to ascertain, and ascertain in a public fashion, what were the terms and conditions on which land was bought in Scotland with public money. A suggestion had been made that the portion of land referred to had been bought at twenty-eight years purchase of the gross rental. He could hardly credit that suggestion, because the land in this unfortunate part of Scotland was taxed at no less than 10s. in the £. The result would be that the landlord would have secured out of public funds from the Congested Districts Board an amount equivalent to fifty-six years purchase at the net rental for the croft. The hon. Member for Inverness-shire had very properly brought this matter forward, and the Committee was indebted to him for so doing. The very fact that such a rumour existed and that it should be met by the excuse for the continuance of secrecy in these transactions was unfortunate. It was very desirable that in any further report issued by the Congested Districts Board there should be a complete and perfectly honest statement of the whole facts of the position. Then there was the question of what the Board was doing with its money. Year after year it came before Parliament and confessed that it was only spending a certain portion of its income. That income amounted to £35,000 a year, and yet notwithstanding the short period of its existence it had actually in pocket £71,000. These figures showed that it was moving very slowly indeed, and the Highland population were entitled to ask to have infused into the action of the Board a little more energy, especially in the direction without which all its efforts would be in vain, viz.,

    1165
    that of acquiring for a reasonable price more land for the people. When he contrasted the operations of the Crofters' Commission, its business aptitude, its visitation of the localities, and its complete knowledge of the population, with those of the Congested Districts Board—a Board not resident together, which apparently acted together only by minute, whose place of meeting was as convenient in London as anywhere else, it seemed to him that the Board might very well make its exit from public life, and transer its functions, assets, and duties to the Crofters Commission. The Lord Advocate appeared to think it a good thing that it appointed a man to visit the spot. It would be a much better thing if it visited the spot itself. A curious confirmation of the view that the Crofters' Commission would be a proper body to which to transfer these duties was supplied by the fact that the Congested Districts Board had itself again and again made remits for the guidance of the Crofters' Commission asking that body to visit the locality and furnish a report. Only last year an elaborate report was furnished by the Crofters' Commission for the information of the Congested Districts Board, in order that the latter might apply its mind to that upon which the former body had reported. The process was very circuitous, and any suggestions of "red tape" were perfectly justified. South Uist afforded an instance of how the Board dealt with a a matter. The poverty of the population was appalling, the kelp industry had gone, and the rates were 10s. 7d. in the £. The hon. Member for Inverness-shire had approached the Board and suggested that that was a case in which activity might be shown and something done to enable these people to appease the land hunger which was natural in their breast, and which, if appeased, would produce a means of independent existence. In reply, the Secretary for Scotland had written a most admirable letter, but one in which he seemed to commit himself to a proposition of serious importance to the whole of the West Highlands. The noble lord said they were making an experiment in Barra—which he looked upon as an enormous business, though it was nothing of the sort, being merely an investment of £5,000 in land—and they must wait until they saw how that experiment turned out before they did anything for South Uist. It was out of the question that they
    1166
    should vote £35,000 a year to a Board which, having to face a situation so crucial, would not actively address themselves to it on its own merits without considering the result of a somewhat unfortunate speculation in another quarter of Scotland.
    He could pay every possible compliment to the Board with regard to the minor departments of their administration, but all that work went for nothing in the face of the big question of how to get these people on to the land. There were various remedies to be suggested. He quite admitted that the Board was trammelled by the conditions of its appointment, but the Lord Advocate would not deny that even before its creation, it was stated as strongly as possible that the Board would be of no substantial value to Scotland unless it had compulsory powers to acquire land. But what compulsory powers were required? When the Crofters Act was passed in 1886, power was given to carve out of adjacent land additions to the holdings of existing crofters. That power was subject to considerable restrictions, and the Crofters Commission had not proceeded a couple of years before they discovered that the conditions in the Act of 1886 were rendered absolutely nugatory by the proviso that land should not be deemed available for the purposes of the Act unless it lay contiguous or near to land already in the occupancy of the crofter. There were also other conditions, so that it was impossible to get more land for the crofters. When it was found that the condition as to deer forests prevented land being secured, a Commission was appointed to meet the argument that there was no such land in Scotland. The Commission discovered that there were nearly 2,000,000 acres of land available for additions to crofts. After that, the case for taking compulsorily land which proved to be suitable and available for this purpose became absolutely conclusive, and yet the Government formed this Board, set it up with all its machinery, without giving it this elementary power. There was something absolutely pitiable in the state of the crofter in view of this long-delayed alleviation of his lot. He had profited immensely by the Crofters Act of 1886; he had transformed large parts of Scotland from wilderness into gardens. Now when they found other places where these splendid effects were not being

    1167
    produced, they wished to enable them to be produced by removing the restriction to which he had referred. What was required? First and foremost, compulsory power to deal with territory—deer forests and the like—and to declare that these deer forest owners or the tenants should be dispossessed. He knew of no better purpose to which the accumulated funds in the hands of the Congested Districts Board could be applied than that of paying existing tenants for any loss of interest in their holdings or the deer forest owners for any damage to their forest, so that they could cut and carve that part of Scotland in such a way that it would be possible to make from a congested district a contented land-owning class of the best kind. This question had been raised in rather an acute form by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. He had referred to the decision in the case of a crofter's holding. He would tell the Committee what was the situation of the crofter under that decision. It was that the crofter might cultivate his land, and he might build a sty, a barn, or the like upon it, but if any of his children were found fishing in the sea he and they, under the law, would be liable to lose their status as crofters if they put up a fisherman's hut. If a blacksmith, having been a crofter, put up a smithy upon his holding he was a crofter no longer. If a little merchant put an annex to a grocer's shop he was a grocer and a crofter no longer. He should like to know what would become of all their little Highland villages under this law. These people must help each other by following such small industries as fishing and that of blacksmiths, and why should they be lowered in their status by a legal decision of this kind. He accepted the decision, and he supposed it was law, but why did the Government not alter it? It seemed to him to be a very simple case for introducing a little measure which would remove this absurdity.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that it will not be in order to discuss fresh legislation.
    MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he would not pursue that matter further. Among
    1168
    the conditions for transferring land there was one in regard to the man to whom the land was to be transferred under the Congested Districts Board, and who was on the way to become a peasant proprietor, to the effect that his heir was to be selected for him by the Congested Districts Board, and if they did not like the man suggested as heir they would have another. Those were the kind of red tape restrictions in the administration of this Board. There was only one remedy. He saw great difficulty in enabling whole districts to combine as was suggested in the report. The great secret of this difficulty was to carve up broad territories of suitable land and so provide that there would be a migration not of people in joint ownership but of individuals who would be able on their own little crofts to work out their livelihood. He could conceive of no greater ambition than that of alleviating the lot of these people whose character was of the best. These men had served the State well by land and by sea, and they had rendered the country the highest service that could be measured. During the recent war they had always been found at the forefront, and why they should be left in this state of chronic misery simply because this strong Government would not apply the spur to the Commission, he could not understand. That was a deplorable state of things, and he hoped that in future they would have a fuller report every year of every transaction in regard to purchase of land.
    MR. WILLIAM ALLANsaid he should like to say a word for his native country. He had heard this debate in connection with what had been said of the condition of the dwellers in the West Highlands. He knew the Highlands pretty well, for he had travelled many miles on the West Coast and in the Midlands, and he had seen the misery of these people. He had seen them living on shell fish gathered from the beach, and had witnessed their poverty. He was surprised to see a Scotsman representing the Government, who ought to be proud of his country, standing up in such a weak fashion and defending the poverty-stricken position of these people. The whole of this

    1169
    debate appeared to turn on one point. The Congested Districts Board were voted every year money for the amelioration of the condition of these poor in the West of Scotland, and the question which the Lord Advocate had got to answer was, "Why was that money not spent for this purpose?" Could the right hon. Gentleman point to one single case in which the Congested Districts Board had rightly and fairly relieved the condition of the people in the West Highlands? In certain parts of Scotland the people cried out for a bit more land, and why did they not give it to them.
    When they saw the miserable condition of these poor people, who were the descendants of the men who in the past had fought our battles in the Highland regiments, no wonder they could not get Highlanders to join their regiments. The other day, on the Thames Embankment, he saw a man in the kilt, and his heart leapt out to him. He cried, "Whaur are ye frae?" The man looked at him in astonishment, and said, "Wot d'ye sye, sir?" A second "Whaur are ye frae," eliciting no answer, he asked, "Where are you from?" "Oh," said the man, "I am from Wapping." He replied, "Then what do you want with a kilt on? Such were the men we were getting now, because we did not do our duty by the poor Highlanders, and stood by while they were forced to go to the Glasgow slums for work. Why did they allow those poor people to live in that miserable condition? Money was voted to alter this, and why did the Government not do it? Simply because there were no compulsory powers. He thought the old couplet—
    "Remember this is freedem's token,
    Good laws are based on bad laws broken "
    —was appropriate in this connection. He had seen the hut of a widow, four yards by five, the rent of which was £1 a year, and the hut had been built by her husband. He considered that it was absolute tyranny to take £1 a year for a hut like that. He called upon the Lord Advocate to tell the Committee why he allowed his countrymen in the West Highlands of Scotland to live a life of starvation untold, when he had got the money to alleviate their condition.
    MR. WEIRsaid that he wished to protest most strongly against the Congested Districts Board having such large sums of money unexpended. Last year the unexpended balance was £61,000 and this year the amount was £71,700, and he wished to know why that money had not been expended. The Lord Advocate had told them that there was some project in view to spend £40,000, but they had been told every year almost that such projects were in view. They ought to spend the money and get rid of it for the purposes for which it was intended, namely to extend the holdings of crofters and to encourage the migration of crofters and cottars from the congested areas. It was very hard that this large sum of money should be lying idle. The amount had been increased by £10,000 since last year, and this, in face of the fact that many of the people were in a state of starvation. The line fishing industry had been ruined, and although the Government promised to do so much, they had done precious little. It was no settlement of this question simply to make the crofters leaseholders. There was a good deal of sham about the Congested Districts Board, and it was not doing the work which it was intended to do. It was the duty of the Government to realise what the people needed and to legislate accordingly, and they ought to take such steps as would give the people no excuse for taking the law into their own hands. In past years there had been no legislation on the land question until the law was broken. It was not creditable to any Government that such a course should be encouraged. This Government encouraged that sort of thing by their laxity and by holding this large sum of money in their possession instead of spending it in a way which would prevent discontent. His complaint was that although the Act was passed to assist the migration of crofters and cottars, the money voted by Parliament had been applied to other purposes. The sooner the composition of the Congested Districts Board was altered the better it would be for the people of the Highlands. It would be infinitely better if this matter were left in the hands of the Crofter Commission. They had visited the districts to see the state of things for

    1171
    themselves and they knew what was required. He sincerely trusted the Lord Advocate would consult the Secretary for Scotland and endeavour to get this money disposed of for the purposes for which it was intended.
    MR. TENNANTsaid there seemed to him to be good reasons for pressing the right hon. Gentleman to give some explanation why this £71,000 voted by Parliament remained unexpended. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to give any adequate reason for spending this very large sum of money, and he resented voting so large a sum year by year unless something was going to be done with it. They had this large sum of money on the one hand, and a considerable population of poor people anxious to be settled on the land upon the other hand. Apparently they had got every facility for improving the condition of these poor people, and yet nothing was done. It was a great pity that there should be this outcry against the deer forests, but it was due simply to the fact that little or nothing had been done for these poor crofters. He thought this outcry against sport and against deer forests would soon subside if this large sum of money was devoted to extending the holdings of these poor people. There were many thousand acres of land in Scotland which might very well be used for the purpose of settling crofters upon it. He could not help thinking that this money should be utilised for the purpose of settling crofters on the land; and unless they got a better answer from the Lord Advocate than they had yet received, he felt inclined to vote against this Vote.
    MR. CAMERONsaid he had often felt in the House as if he had not the courage to stand up and speak when he ought to have spoken. On this occasion, however, he could not restrain himself, because he was a Highlander. The first twenty years of his life he had spent in the Highlands, and he ought to know the Highlanders, seeing that his father was a Cameron, and his mother a MacGregor, and perhaps he was the only Member in the House who spoke the
    1172
    Gaelic tongue. He honoured and respected the Lord Advocate highly, because he was industrious, energetic, and fair; but his Lordship belonged to a party, and was a representative of the class in the Highlands which had been the cause of all the misery of the Highland people. That might appear a very strong expression but they must remember that after the battle of Culloden the economic condition of the Highlands was entirely changed, Instead of the old patriarchal government of the clans by the chiefs, who governed their clansmen as a father governed his children, there was introduced the Feudal system. That, he considered, was the most disastrous thing that had ever happened to the Highlands. He admitted that there had been overcrowding in some parts, and that emigration was necessary, but he denied that there was a moral right to evict the peasants at the will of the landlord, because the latter wanted deer forests and grouse preserves. It was perfectly clear that the reason for that was that the landlord found it more profitable to have deer forests and grouse preserves than to have sheep farms or crofts. The landlords could easily collect the rents of the deer forests and grouse moors from the new class of sportsmen who came into the Highlands, while sheep farmers and crofters were sometimes burdensome to him. He was as on of a minister of the Gospel who had been practically evicted and all his people had been sent to Canada, while he himself came to England. It was sometimes said that it was a good thing that the Highlanders had been sent out of the Highlands. To a certain extent that was true. He had met one of them in Canada who said to him—
    "I thank God I was driven away from my native Highlands by a certain Lord for breaking the game laws."
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that hon. Gentleman must connect his remarks with the Vote before the Committee.
    MR. CAMERONsaid he wished to show why there were congested districts, and the necessity for a Congested Districts Board. This man he referred to had been a companion of his own; he knew his history; and he could not help contrasting his present condition with that when he

    1173
    resided in a cot in the Highlands. His friend said—
    "I now have a farm of my own of 200 acres. I could not get that in the old country. I worked it out of the forest, and my holding is now worth £2,000. I have no landlord, for the land is my own, and we have no game laws."
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid the game laws could not be discussed under this Vote.
    MR. CAMERONsaid he respected the ruling of the Deputy Chairman, but he hoped that he might have a little latitude, for he felt very strongly on this question. He knew how poor the people were in these congested districts. The houses in which they lived were so wretched that many hon. Gentlemen in the House would not keep their dogs in them. They consisted of a little "but and ben," with a wooden division which separated the occupants from the cattle, with miserable furnishing. The income of these poor people was miserably small, and it was strange how they endured the life they were compelled to live. He often thought that the Highlanders had lost their old spirit, and he wished that they had a force behind them in this House, and that every Scotsman in the House would combine to do them some justice. Why did they not bring their grievances oftener before the House as the Irish Members did? He was amazed when he thought of what these Highlanders were in the past and what they were now. He remembered perfectly well that fifty years ago they were a line peasantry, honest, religious, speaking their own Gaelic tongue, loving their mountains and their lakes, and having a passion for their native glens. It seemed to him strange that they could not keep that splendid population amongst their own mountains. They had heard that the Highland regiments were not now composed of Highlanders, and it was asked why it was that the Highlanders did not now enlist. That question had been raised by the Duke of Argyll at a meeting lately, and he had got up and said, perhaps too warmly—
    "There are no Highlanders now, because you have driven them away, and the few that are left are not looked after; you prefer large deer forests to men, and the few that are left are allowed to starve."
    He felt that England and the great British Empire should consider these
    1174
    people. Who had been so famous in the army, who had done such gallant deeds to maintain the Empire when India was in rebellion, as the Highlanders? Where there was a desperate retreat to cover, or a forlorn hope to lead, the Highlanders were called upon, and they responded with heroic alacrity. Now they had been evicted from their homes, or neglected and allowed to starve. As a Highlander he could tell of the sorrowful condition and the poverty of the people in the congested districts. If good landlords could be guaranteed their might be prosperity; but if that could not be guaranteed, then the next best thing would be for the State to buy out the landlords and establish the people on the land. There should be compulsory purchase; and in time there would be once again in the Highlands a great and hardy population, providing the army with soldiers of the same stamp as had won such glory in the Peninsula, in India, and in the Crimea.
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid that in some parts of the Highlands the humblest operations could not be carried on, such as blacksmithing and carpentering. He knew of a croft where carpentering had been carried on for sixty years by three generations of the same family. The crofter was threatened by the landlord with an interdict if he did not shut up the carpenter's shop which his father and grandfather had carried on before him. The Lord Advocate had said that the landlords had only exercised their rights at Common Law; but the Legislature had altered the Common Law before now, and possibly it might be induced to do so again.
    MR. BRYCEsaid they had all listened with interest and sympathy to the touching and impassioned speech made by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring. He was sure many of them would agree with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that it was a great misfortune that in the early part of last century, and even before that time, the law allowed the landlord to exercise their powers of evicting tyrannically and with disastrous results. If it was too late to remedy what had been done then, at any rate they ought to

    1175
    make the best they could of the remedial legislation passed in our own day. He repeated the request put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Hawick Burghs that fuller information should be given to the Committee in regard to what the Congested' Districts Board had done in the way of purchase of estates, with a view of selling them to crofters in fair-sized holdings. The figures contained in the Report did not enable them to understand the prices which were being paid for the estates. There was an interesting letter in the Report which referred to the experiment made in the island of Barra. Until they had the figures they could not say whether this experiment had been conducted on proper lines; they did not know whether the rents charged were right, or whether the purchases were proper purchases. This report did not show. He thought the Lord Advocate should give further particulars, and that, without asking them to wait for the next report, a supplementary Paper might be issued.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he really did not think the last request of the right hon. Gentleman was one which demanded the consideration which had been asked for it. He had promised he would give consideration to the request for the publication of all the accounts and particulars, but the promise could only be made with a view to the account included in the Vote in another year. Although the debate began at a very low level it had risen to the heights of rhetoric and fervour. The hon. Member spoke of the circumstances under which his own family had parted from the land, but that departure had not been due to the deer forests. He felt bound to put in one little protest against too much rhetoric in this matter, because after all, although it was very easy to say things in praise of the Highlander, who was beloved of every one, that did not solve the question of living in what was a very poor country. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if legislation had been passed early in the last century these farms would never have been cleared, and that there would have been a happy population upon land which had long since not known a house
    1176
    upon it. Was the right hon. Gentleman sure of that? If he was not he had no right to make such a statement. One place spoken about was Lewis. That was the one place where there had been no restrictions and no evictions for deer forests, where the proprietor had been too kind. The proprietor there had never prevented the endless sub-division, squatting and building on small holdings in utter disregard of economic conditions. Therefore, with all the admiration for Highlanders, and with all that view of a nation's pride which came so easily to any one who was making a speech, it might be taken for granted that it would not have been better for the economic condition of Scotland to have prevented the emigration which took place early in the century. The question into which the Committee was inquiring today was whether the Congested Districts Board had done its work properly. The hon. Member for Gateshead had rather poetically inquired why the Highlanders had been allowed to starve while the Board had so much money in its pockets. Had the hon. Member read the Congested Districts Board Report? If he had not he was about as much entitled to express an opinion as he (Mr. Graham Murray) would be to express an opinion upon the merits of watertube boilers. The £71,000 to which he had referred was really not £71,000, because £36,000 had already been disposed of, and what was left was not more than would actually meet the purchases now in contemplation. He had never known a commission in whose pockets money burnt so furiously. The national characteristic of Scotland seemed to have been entirely forgotten. He reminded the Committee that there were various other aspects of the Vote for the Secretary for Scotland which hon. Members were anxious to discuss, and he therefore hoped a division would now be taken.
    MR. WEIRsaid although in the Island of Lewis there had been no evictions for the purpose of creating deer forests, there had been wholesale evictions for the purposes, of creating large sheep farms, which were afterwards converted into deer forests.
    (6.41.) Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 110; Noes, 190. (Division List No. 241.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Humphreys Owen, Arthur C.

    Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Asher, Alexander

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Atherley Jones, L.

    Joyce, Michael

    Price, Robert John

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Labouchere, Henry

    Reddy, M.

    Boland, John

    Leamy, Edmund

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

    Redmond, William (Clate)

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Leng, Sir John

    Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Lough, Thomas

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Burt, Thomas

    Lundon, W.

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Caldwell, James

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Roche, John

    Cameron, Robert

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    M'Govern, T.

    Sheebau, Daniel Daniel

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    M'Kean, John

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Craig, Robert Hunter

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Crean, Eugene

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Tennant, Harold John

    Cremer, William Randal

    Markham, Althur Basil

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Crombie, John William

    Moooney, John J.

    Thomas, J A (Glam'rgan, Gower

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Delany, William

    Moss, Samuel

    Wallace, Robert

    Dillon, John

    Murnaghan, George

    Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Murphy, John

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Doogan, P. C.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Edwards, Frank

    Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway. N.)

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Ffrench, Peter

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Young, Samuel

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Weir and Mr. John Dewar.

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

    O'Dowd, John

    Harmsworth, R. (Leicester)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    O'Malley, William

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    O'Mara, James

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

    Butcher, John George

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Aird, Sir John

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Fardell, Sir. T. George

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Finch, George H.

    Arrol, Sir William

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Austin, Sir John

    Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton)

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Chapman, Edward

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Charrington, Spencer

    Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Balcarres, Lord

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Flower, Ernest

    Balfour, Rt. Hon A. J. (Manchr'r

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Gardner, Ernest

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich'l Hicks

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Gretton, John

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Groves, James Grimble

    Bignold, Arthur

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G (Midd'x

    Bigwood, James

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon Rbt. William

    Bill, Charles

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Helder, Augustus

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Henderson, Alexander

    1178

    1179

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Mount, William Arthur

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Spear, John Ward

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)

    Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

    Myers, William Henry

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Stock, James Henry

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Parker, Gilbert

    Talbot, Rt Hn J G (Oxf'd Univ.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

    Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington

    Thornton, Percy M.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Lawson, John Grant

    Percy, Earl

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Pilkington, Lieut-Col. Richard

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u'r-Lyne

    Lowe, Francis William

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Burn

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Purvis, Robert

    Wills, Sir Frederick

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Randles, John S.

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

    Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W

    Renwick, George

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

    Round, James

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Russell, T. W.

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

    Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Morgan, David J (W'lth'mstow

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    Morrell, Gaorge Herbert

    Smith, H C (N'rth'mb. Tyneside

    Original Question again proposed.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIRcalled attention to the fact that the report of the Congested Districts Board of Ireland gave most or all of the details asked for by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, and suggested that the accounts of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland should be dealt with in the same way.
    MR. CALDWELLcalled attention to the position of private Bill procedure in Scotland, and expressed the opinion that there should be some report with regard to what was going on in Scotland at the present time, because the Committee really had very little knowledge of what was going on. He found under the Provisional Order procedure, the burghs of Scotland were all obtaining any number of Provisional Orders. Under the Scotch Burgh Police Act, every burgh seemed to have a new set of clauses for itself, according to the trend of opinion in that particular burgh. He wished to know what provision was made to insure that there should be some uniformity in these matters. It should not be in the power
    1180
    of individual local authorities to come forward with Provisional Orders making any alterations they pleased in such an Act as the Burgh Police Act. He would suggest that a Joint Committee should be appointed with a view of considering whether uniformity could not be arrived at.
    MR. PARKER SMITHagreed with the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. In Scotland they had a good many petty offences already, and he did not think any useful purpose was served by allowing every local authority to have its own police laws. Ten years ago a general police law was passed, and now it was found that that Bill was not adequate. A Bill had been introduced by an hon. Gentleman opposite to amend it—but although he supported the Bill he did not think an amending Bill would be sufficient. He thought a Committee should go over the entire ground again, and try to make a better Police Act. No doubt, there were different matters considered in different districts, but he thought there was far too much in the way of allowing every burgh to be a

    1181
    law unto itself. There was too much independent action by these small burghs, and it was time the Lord Advocate looked into the matter.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he was glad that this subject had been raised by both hon. Members, because a difficulty was confronting the Scottish Office at the present moment, in regard to which they would almost in any case have had to beg the assistance of the House. The Scottish Office, of course, did not want to be put into constant friction with promoters. They must necessarily, both on their own account and as the medium of communication with other great Departments, make more or less frequent use of the pruning knife upon the Bills promoted, but they did not wish to come into conflict more than was absolutely necessary. In order to avoid that, it was necessary that the House should come to some idea of its own as to how far every burgh should be a law unto itself. This was particularly brought to their notice at the present moment by the promotion of two Orders for Govan and Leith, which certainly proposed a perfectly startling innovation upon the general law. He was clearly of opinion that those Bills should not be allowed to go on until the House had had an opportunity of settling the question of how far a burgh should be able to depart from the general law. He would give the Committee one illustration to show what he meant. Members would recollect the discussions upstairs on the Public Health Bill, and how keenly the Milk Clauses were contested. He did not say which was right or which was wrong, but there certainly were two very divergent sets of opinion. But now these burghs came in and tabled a perfectly new Milk Clause, settling in the way they wished it settled a matter which Parliament had settled before. He contended that it was not fair to throw on the Scottish Office this work of telling the promoters that they must not proceed with their Clause; they ought to have the support of Parliament in the matter, because, after all, it was one in which Parliament had given a decision. In the same way reference had been made to the startling number of police offences. He recommended hon. Members to read the Report of the Prison Commission of Scotland
    1182
    this year. It disclosed a most startling increase in the number of commitments to prison, duo in no serious sense to serious crimes, but almost entirely to these police offences. He would give one illustration. The Glasgow police in the year 1901 made strong efforts to check the use of obscene language in the streets, and apprehended 12,000 for this offence alone. He did not wish to enter into a discussion as to whether the Glasgow authorities were right or wrong on this particular matter. The term "obscene language" covered language which was not ordinarily called obscene; it included profane language as well. The general law made it an offence to use obscene or profane language, to the annoyance of any other person—an obviously proper provision—but the Glasgow people in their private Bill put out the words "to the annoyance of any other person." Whether that was right or wrong, one could easily see how much easier it was in the circumstances to get 12,000 convictions, because practically, if a policeman in the street heard a man use a word beginning with "d" he could take him before the magistrates, though the man need not have annoyed any one but himself. That was a very good illustration of how necessary it was to watch and scrutinise these small things in private Bills, because otherwise they might lead to an enormous number of Convictions for small offences. Another illustration of the effects of the existing variation in the law was the fact that as many children were convicted in Scotland last year as there were in England, although the population of the two countries was as one to six. That was very startling, and showed that police offences were treated in a perfectly different way. All these police offences were the creation of the Police Bills be ginning with the year 1862. He was not sure that it was a good thing that each place should decide on these matters for itself; it seemed rather a matter upon which the decision of Parliament as a whole should be taken. He agreed with pleasure to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the possibility of laying down rules to decide how far the public law ought to be departed from in particular cases. In the old days that was done to a great extent by the Police Committee, but that could not be done

    1183
    under the present procedure. Accordingly, something in the way of a general guide was required to help the Office, and to strengthen their hands in resisting the sometimes exceedingly extravagant demands made in the Bills. As the Committee had been reminded, there was at present before Parliament a Bill for amending the Burgh Police Act. It was obviously out of the question that that Bill should be passed this season, but his Department had given an undertaking that during the autumn they would go carefully through the Bill with representatives of the authorities concerned and clear out of the way most of the debateable matters. The way would then be prepared for a Committee of the House to take the matter up, and when the Measure was reintroduced next year, every facility would be granted to give it a Second Reading.
    SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he remembered an occasion when an hon. Member occupied a considerable portion of the time of the House in analysing and bringing under their notice the extraordinary changes in the general law of the land proposed in private Bills initiated by local people. He also recalled a Scotch Bill, with which they had subsequently to deal upstairs, which, if passed, would have made the well-known city with which it dealt an intolerable place for any human being to live in, and the Committee actually knocked out upwards of 100 clauses and offences. What was done then—and he was glad the Lord Advocate was disposed to follow the example—was to appoint a Committee to deal with the whole case, to report to the House any deviation from the general police and sanitary law proposed by the Bill, and to state their reasons for sanctioning, or refusing to sanction, the proposals. The procedure was now accompanied by a report from the Home Office so far as police matters were concerned, and by a report from the Local Government Board so far as sanitary matters were concerned, and it was really the settled practice of Committees of the House that where the Home Office or the Local Government Board objected to a clause that clause should not be inserted. It was intolerable that there should be two codes of
    1184
    criminal law in one country. It was a monstrous thing that a man, going to Scotland, should find that if he did a certain thing in Edinburgh he would not be punished, while if he did the same thing in Leith he would be guilty of a criminal offence. If there was a criminal law at all, it should, at all events, be applied over a large area. He quite admitted that there should be a classification of burghs, and he suggested that some code should be established under the supervision of the Scottish Office under which clauses departing from the general law would not be allowed except on the line of model clauses accepted by the Department. The same principle should apply to sanitary legislation. The procedure at the Scottish Office would break down if it were allowed to be made the instrument of widely extending local legislation to carry out the individual fads of individual men. Parliament was the only authority to settle any interference with the criminal law of the land, and new criminal offences ought not to be created unless they had directly or indirectly the sanction of the. House.
    MR. TENNANTasked what was proposed to be done, pending the sitting of the Committee promised by the right hon. Gentleman, with the Provisional Order Bills at present lying on the Table of the House. The curious thing in the present state of the law was that a certain thing might be done in Leith which could not be done in Edinburgh. One might bet in the streets of Leith, but not in the streets of Edinburgh, and the result was that the whole betting fraternity had crossed the line of demarcation and gone to Leith. The practice of betting in the streets was not only a nuisance to the passer by, but injurious to the morality of the community. He asked the Lord Advocate to state what he would do, pending the sitting of the Committee, with the Bills now on the Table. He did not wish to put an obstacle in the way of the Committee sitting on this particular Bill, but he considered it would be a wise thing to allow such portion of it as was unobjectionable to go through it in the ordinary way.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid everyone would be quite agreed in the matter of

    1185
    betting, but after all, that was only one very small point. It was obvious that they could not pass a Provisional Order with one clause in it. It should be understood that these Bills might be laid before the Committee, and that they would not be proceeded with unless the Committee reported that they were in a fit state to be proceeded with.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYdid not think that the matter of betting could be quite so pressing as the hon. Member had represented, because Clause 393 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, provided for the prosecution and punishment of persons guilty of that offence. Of course he was quite willing to accept what the hon. Member had said with regard to what was occurring. Probably Edinburgh was in possession of a still more drastic clause than that in the general Act to which he had referred; still it was not as if there was no restriction on betting at all. He was bound to say that at this period of the session it would be very doubtful whether, if they had an inquiry by a Committee, there would afterwards be time to pass the Bill. He was of opinion that it would be very much better not to proceed with these Bills in view of the promise which had been given to look through the Bill amending the General Police Act, with the view to allowing it to be introduced early next session. He should hope that they might have that Bill passed in the early part of next session.
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he was extremely glad that the Lord Advocate had taken the opportunity of bringing under the notice of the House the exaggerated number of petty offences which had been created by Statute in the last few years. The result was that, in proportion to the population, an enormously larger number of persons were sent to prison in Scotland than in England. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was very innocent if he thought criminal offences were the same in all the burghs of Scotland. Such an offence as spitting in the street was unpleasant, but he did not think a man should be sent to prison for a week for committing it. In the Bill of one burgh a clause was inserted by which if a man tore up a piece of paper and threw it on the ground, he was liable to be sent to prison for a week. That clause he had
    1186
    had struck out, but it was for such trivial offences as those that a large number of persons were every year sent to prison in Scotland.
    Question put and agreed to.

    CLASS III.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £54,287, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the salaries and expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other law charges, and the salaries and expenses of the courts of law and justice in Scotland."
    MR. PARKER SMITHcalled attention to the position of the Procurator Fiscals of Glasgow and the Lower Ward of Lanarkshire. The population of Glasgow and the Lower Ward included more than a fifth of the whole population of Scotland, and the amount of serious crime there, was about a half of that which occurred in the whole country. He wished to bring to the attention of the Lord Advocate that the office of the Procurator Fiscal in Glasgow was very much undermanned and was not able to overtake the work which with the enormous increase of the population in the last twenty years had been thrown upon it. An increase of staff was absolutely required, because the number of investigations which had now to be made in consequence of the increase of the population had nearly doubled. Applications had been made for additional staff with the support of the sheriff of the county who was responsible in these matters, but these applications had not as yet been complied with.
    MR. WEIRcalled attention to an item for the salaries of clerks in the Lord Advocate's office. He hoped there was no sweating going on in the Lord Advocate's department. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to explain fully how the money was distributed. There were other charges in the accounts which to his mind were not satisfactory. He instanced the charge of five guineas a day for the expenses of legal gentlemen

    1187
    who came to London. Scotch lawyers were hardly likely to refuse a trip to London with five guineas a day to the good. Referring to the salaries of Sheriffs and Sheriffs Substitute, he said he understood that they were paid at an extremely low rate. He urged that they ought to receive adequate remuneration for their services.
    It being half-past Seven of the clock, the Deputy Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee also Report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  IMPRISONMENT OF MR. P. A. M'HUGH, M.P.
  MR. SPEAKERinformed the House that he had received the following Letter relating to the Imprisonment of a Member—
  Sligo,
  June 18, 1902.
  Sir,
  I have the honour to inform you that at a Court held here today under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, at which Mr. Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh, M.P. for North Leitrim, appeared as defendant, Mr. M'Hugh was committed to Sligo Gaol by me and Mr. Harrel, resident magistrate, for a period of three months on his refusal to enter into recognizances to be of good behaviour, he having grossly insulted the Court.
  I have the honour to be,
  Your obedient servant,
  ROBERT L. BROWN, K.M.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I paused for a moment when you had read the communication, Mr. Speaker, in order to enable the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House, to take the course which as far as I understand, as far as I have been able to gather from reading precedents of the past, which has invariably taken on occasions of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman in alluding to this matter earlier in the day, stated that he intended to take action upon this matter when this letter was read. Therefore the silence of the right hon. Gentleman to me is absolutely inexplicable. As far as I know there has been no instance in the history of the House of Commons for the last one hundred years
  1188
  where in a case of this kind the responsible representative of the Government has allowed a communication of this kind to be read to the House without advising the House and proposing that a certain action be taken. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary for me to go at any length into precedents in this case, it may be sufficient for me to allude to them shortly. During the course of the nineteenth century there were four distinct cases when it was reported to Mr. Speaker that a Member of this House had been committed to prison for contempt of Court. They were the cases in the first instance of Mr. Wellsby in 1831, secondly of Mr. Charlton in 1837, thirdly of Mr. Worley in the year 1874, and the fourth of Mr. Gray in the year 1882. In each one of these cases the Leader of the House moved at once, upon the letter being read by Mr. Speaker, that a Committee be appointed to enquire into the circumstances of the case with the object of enabling the House to have a report before it, as to whether the circumstances constituted any reason why the House should take further action. Even in cases which were on exactly similar lines to the case at present under consideration if we are to judge the merits of that case from the terms of the letter which you have just read. Never before, as far as I can make out, has the Government refrained from putting a Motion before the House. [Mr. Balfour made a remark which was inaudible in the Press gallery.] I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has any right to interrupt me. I think the right hon. Gentleman should in this instance have followed the invariable practice adopted by every predecessor of his on the Bench. It is now apparently left for me to make a Motion which in every case in the past has been made by the Leader of the House.
  I will deal in a moment with the case as to whether this was really a case of contempt of Court or not, but in the first place let me deal with it on the lines of the letter which has just been read. The letter states that Mr. M'Hugh has been committed to prison by these justices because he refused to give the bail for good behaviour which they asked for. The last occasion of

  1189
  that kind which was before the House, was I think the case of Mr. Healy which took place in the year 1883. In that case Mr. Speaker read a letter addressed to him announcing that Mr. Healy, one of the Members for the county of Wicklow—(that is a mistake; he was Member for Wexford)—had refused to enter into recognizances to be of good behaviour and had been committed to prison. That is a case exactly analogous to the case as stated in the present letter. Instantly the letter had been read, the Marquess of Hartington, who is now the Duke of Devonshire, rose on behalf of the Government and submitted a Motion to this effect, "That the letter of the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench do lie on the Table." The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is purely a formal Motion, but it is a Motion which invites discussion, and it is a Motion which was in pursuance of a practice unbroken through many generations, and I believe I would be right in saying centuries in this I House. I want to know if this is to be regarded as a case not of contempt of court but as a case of imprisonment in consequence of a refusal to give bail for good behaviour? I want to know why the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of this House and of the Conservative Party, which is supposed to be anxious to conserve all its traditions, has set an example unknown in the history of Parliament, and has refrained from submitting any Motion on this question for the consideration of the House of Commons. I want to know why he has left a private Member like myself to introduce a Motion in order to have a discussion. In making the Motion in 1883, the then Marquess of Hartington pointed out that there were distinct cases of imprisonment of Members which might come under the consideration of the House. In the first place, imprisonment on civil process; secondly, for contempt of court, and, thirdly, for crime. He went on to show the view the House had always taken of the first branch of offence.
  "Every Member of Parliament is protected from arrest in respect of civil process, and the House has always ordered, and will, no doubt, insist upon, the discharge of a Member so arrested, holding that the presence in the
  1190
  House of a Member of Parliament is of more importance than the discharge of pecuniary obligations."
  Then as to the second class of case, that of contempt of court. The Marquess of Hartington went on to say that that was a class of case which the House had always jealously scrutinised, and always appointed a Committee to inquire into. With regard to the third class of offence, that is, offences which come into the category of crime, he stated that in this instance the House of Commons had not been in the habit of ordering any special inquiry. If this is to be judged as a case not of contempt of court but of refusal to give bail to be of good behaviour, I think no Member will say it is fair to regard that as coming within the category of crime. It would be an abuse of terms to suggest anything of the kind.
  The first point I desire to make is this, that an explanation is called for from the Leader of the House as to his reason for deviating from the invariable practice of this House. As far as I have been able to judge from private communications which I have received myself, and from the reports which have appeared in the public newspapers, this case of Mr. M'Hugh is clearly a case of contempt of court. Mr. M'Hugh refused to express regret for the expression he had used and which the Bench regarded as an offensive expression. Mr. Brown, the presiding magistrate, then said: "We call upon you to find bail in £100, and two sureties of £50 each." Mr. M'Hugh then said: "What for?" Mr. Brown said: "Contempt of court." It was clearly a case of contempt of court, because it was an offence committed against the supposed dignity of the tribunal. The magistrates sitting in petty sessions in Ireland have only limited powers of dealing with offences of contempt of court. Their power of commitment is limited by statute to seven days. But what happened in this case? The hon. Member having been guilty of an offence of contempt of Court, and the magistrates apparently not thinking that their powers of dealing with contempt of Court were sufficient, fell back upon an old statute, that of Edward the Third, and sentenced the hon. Member to three

  1191
  months imprisonment. I say that that is a gross abuse of their powers—an abuse which could not take place in this country. I would respectfully challenge any Gentleman of this House, on either side of the House, especially those Members who are experienced in the administration of law in England, to give a single instance within the last hundred years in this country where anything of the kind has taken place. There are special tribunals in Ireland that have absolutely no parallel in England, and therefore we feel bound to bring to the attention of the House of Commons every instance of this character. It may be said that my friend, Mr. McHugh, used very violent and unjustifiable language. It is no business of mine to enter into that question. The question is whether this tribunal, by invoking the aid of an old and obsolete statute, have exercised jurisdiction in excess of their statutory powers under the Petty Sessions Act. For my part, I have no hesitation in saying that if my hon. friend the Member for North Leitrim had the idea and intention to throw ridicule and contempt upon the tribunal before whom he was brought, I sympathise with that intention with my whole heart. It is a question, of course, whether he took the best way to do that or not; possibly many people may think he did not. Let the House bear in mind the circumstances. Here is a public man, a Member of this House; an honoured journalist in Ireland, the President of the Journalists' Association in Ireland, a body made up of men of all political opinions; a man four times elected mayor of his native city; this man is charged with criminal conspiracy, one of the gravest criminal charges that can be brought against any man, and instead of being brought before the tribunal of a jury, such a tribunal as he would be entitled to be brought before in England, in Scotland, or in Wales, he is brought before a specially created tribunal consisting of two paid agents of Dublin Castle—two men who are supposed to constitute both judge and jury, and who as judges are not independent of the Executive, and as jurors have not a proper discrimination between the Crown and the prisoners. These tribunals do not deserve, and
  1192
  will not receive, the respect of the people of Ireland. If they were constituted in this country, they would be swept away in one month by the indignation of the people of England. Most of these magistrates are promoted from the police, and others are broken down half-pay officers. It was reasonable for any man to ask for the names of the jurors who were going to try his case, in order to find out whether they had the qualifications required by Act of Parliament. Mr. M'Hugh's request for those names was refused, and he was told that it was an attempt to obstruct the proceedings of the Court, and then, with very natural and as I think proper indignation, the hon. Member retorted upon the Bench. I want no distinction between his imprisonment for refusing bail, and his imprisonment for contempt of Court. I ask the House of Commons to follow the precedents I have mentioned, and I therefore beg to move a Resolution which is a copy word for word of the Resolution which has been passed in other cases for the last one hundred years.
  Motion made and Question proposed—That the Letter of Mr. Robert L. Brown, U.M., of the 18th June, 1902, informing the House of the imprisonment of Mr. M'Hugh, a Member of this House, be referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of inquiring into all the matters connected with the proceedings referred to therein, and of reporting whether they demand the further attention of the House.—(Mr. John Redmond.)
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is it conceivable, Sir, that the Leader of the House has nothing to say to the House on a question of this kind? What were the words used by the right hon. Gentleman today when reference was made to the probability of this occurrence at this time? He said it would be his duty to move the appointment of a Committee to examine into the circumstances of the case. These, I think, were the words used, but when the Speaker read the letter he had received, the right hon. Gentleman—as I understand, for I was not in the House at the time—made no sign, and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford

  1193
  proceeded to address the House in the speech to which we have just listened. He concluded his speech with a motion for a Committee, and even then the right hon. Gentleman has no advice to give, no opinion to offer to the House. Putting aside the question of the constitution of the Court, of whether this unusual Court is deserving of the confidence of the Irish people or not, we have on the case before us, as it is stated to us, that this Member of the House of Commons has, on account of contempt of Court, been sent to gaol. [Conversation on the Treasury Bench here elicited cries of "Order" from the Nationalist benches.] If the Whip of the Party opposite will allow me to conclude—perhaps he has not got enough of his supporters gathered together, but even in that ease, if I continue my speech it might so far assist him. This Member of the House has been committed for a contempt of Court to a period of imprisonment, which, under the ordinary law, is not within the competence of the Court, and recourse is had to an old and fusty and rusty weapon, to an Act of some decayed Parliament long since gone, which is held to apply to such a case. Surely that additional complication makes it the more necessary, in defence of the interests and privileges of every Member of this House, that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the case. Yet the right hon. Gentleman showed an extraordinary want of alacrity in rising to give that advice to the House which we naturally expect. We await that advice with patience and curiosity.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The right hon. Gentleman speaks of patience. If it is patience that he has been showing, it is the most extraordinary that I have ever come across. But, if he is so anxious to hear what I have to say upon this subject, I have no hesitation in gratifying him, although personally I should not have been at all averse to hear what other persons of experience had to say on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted very accurately some words which fell from me this afternoon, and had he thought it worth while to go back to
  1194
  a former debate within the last few weeks, he would have found that on a similar subject I made use of very much the same expression. He would have found that I referred to a simple case of committal for contempt of a Court of law; and I need hardly tell the House that in that case I should have followed the practice and precedent of the House, which I believe are invariable, of moving for a Committee to consider the circumstances very much in the language which I believe the hon. Gentleman has borrowed from the latest case on record—that of Edward Dwyer Gray.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am founding my Motion on the case of Mr. Healy in 1883.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, I think the hon. Gentleman would have done better to have gone back to the case of Edward Dwyer Gray, the last case of actual contempt dealt with. That would have been the Motion I should myself have made, had it been obvious on the face of the warrant that this was a case of committal by a Court for contempt of Court. The real difficulty arises from the fact that this is not a simple case. [An HON. MEMBER: It is an Irish case.] The very fact that the hon. Gentleman quoted the case of Mr. Healy in 1883 shows that he has not truly appreciated the bearings of the case on our practice, or the true precedents which ought to guide us. The case in 1883 of the hon. Member for North Louth, who was then Member for Wexford, is really not a case in point at all. It was not a case of contempt of Court; it was not a case arising out of the action of the magistrates in Ireland, and whether or not the then Leader of the House was justified in pursuing the course he took, and in saying that the letter should be allowed to lie on the Table of the House. I do not presume to judge at the present time, and in any case it is not relevant to the question we are now considering. If I have been rightly informed, but I have not had an opportunity of consulting Hansard on the subject, the Motion was made, not as the hon. Gentleman would have us suppose, as a kind of preliminary to the appointment of a Committee to look into the case, but as an alternative suggestion that a

  1195
  Committee should be appointed, hon. Gentlemen who sat in that quarter of the House at that time actually moved that a Committee should be appointed. Lord Hartington's was a counter Motion.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: If the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I will state what occurred. He says he has not had the opportunity of looking into the matter, but some of us have had the time and opportunity to do so. The Marquess of Hartington, the Leader of the House at that time, opened the proceedings by moving that the letter should lie upon the Table of the House, and in doing that he said he moved it in accordance with invariable practice. The Motion for a Committee was an Amendment to the Marquess of Hartington's Motion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I take the historical statement of the hon. Member as perfectly accurate, but the difference between him and me is irrelevant to the particular point I was endeavouring to bring before the House. The point I am bringing before the House is this—from those Benches in the Member of Louth's case in 1883 an attempt was made to obtain a Committee to investigate it, and then the Leader of the House the Marquess of Hartington moved his Amendment. [An HON. MEMBER: No] He resisted that, and adhered to the original Motion that the letter should lie on the Table of the House. His view in connection with Mr. Healy's case was that it was not a fit case for a Committee, and, although the Motion that the letter lie on the Table of the House gave a case for debate, he resisted successfully the case for investigation. So much for Mr. Healy's case. But there is a much more relevant case to the present issue which the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned, and that is the case of Dr. Tanner, which is absolutely on all fours with the present case, so far as I know. I am not aware from such investigations as I have been able to give that there is the slightest difference between the case of Dr. Tanner and the case now under the consideration of the House. In both instances an Irish Member was brought
  1196
  before the resident magistrates for an alleged breach of the law; in both cases the accused insulted the Bench, and in both cases the magistrates adopted the course of binding them over to good behaviour under the statute of Edward III. I am not going to argue whether that is right or wrong. I will only point out that the right hon. Gentleman opposite describes this as something outside the ordinary law. It is the ordinary law. (An HON. MEMBER: "In Ireland.") It may be a good law or a bad law (An HON. MEMBER: "Balfour law," and cries of "Order.") At all events, it is not a new law, and therefore it does not come under the description which apparently the right hon. Gentleman thinks appropriate, and it cannot be referred to as part of the Crimes Act legislation which this House has passed in recent years. In both these cases a Member of Parliament insulted the Bench; in both cases the Bench proceeded against the Member by binding him over to good behaviour, and in both cases the Member of Parliament need not have gone to prison had he found sureties. In both cases the hon. Member preferred not to find sureties and to go to prison. That is the story, and I think the House will see that I am accurate in saying that the two cases are absolutely on all fours. What happened in the case of Dr. Tanner is a precedent, and what happened in the case of the hon. Member for North Louth is not a precedent to this case. In the case of Dr. Tanner there was a warm debate in this House on the subject immediately after the arrest took place. That is not specially relevant to the present case. There was a power to bring the action of the resident magistrates before the superior Court on certiorari in order to see whether they had or had not exceeded their power. That procedure was adopted in the case of Dr. Tanner, and Chief Baron Palles delivered an elaborate judgment upon it. What was the conclusion and the general substance of that decision? Chief Baron Palles relied entirely on English precedents, and said that it was within the competence of the Court to proceed in the way in which these resident magistrates had proceeded. He showed that

  1197
  there were English precedents that persons could be committed for contempt of Court in consequence of action taken outside for the obstruction of justice, and that the Court could bind over those guilty of this offence to be of good behaviour, and he asked with unanswerable force whether there could be a distinction between using this procedure against persons obstructing the course of justice outside the Court when you are going to take similar procedure against persons obstructing the course of justice inside the Court. Chief, Baron Palles came to the conclusion that the magistrates had acted entirely within their jurisdiction. In an appeal of that character the question whether or not the magistrates behaved with discretion was not the point. He did say, and that with an authority which I think in this House no one will attempt to minimise or criticise, that the magistrates had been acting within their jurisdiction in taking this procedure and in binding the person over to good behaviour.
  It seems to me to be a now practice to have to examine into a case of this kind. Remember what the House did, or rather, I ought perhaps to say, omitted to do, in the case of Dr. Tanner. Dr. Tanner in 1889 did precisely what the hon. Member whose case we are considering has done in 1902. In 1889 the House took cognisance of what had occurred in an Irish Court. Mr. Sexton, then a Member of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, a distinguished Member of the Opposition Bench, the then Attorney General for Ireland, and myself took part in the debate, but never was it suggested in the heated discussion that the proper procedure of this House was to have a Committee of inquiry into the question of a committal for contempt of Court. I think the House will admit that I have shown a conclusive case, at all events on behalf of my own attitude, that it is not simply a case of moving for a Committee, that it is not simply the case of a committal for contempt of Court, and that to move for a Committee is not in accordance with precedent. To move for a Committee is not to go with the precedents in their most formal aspects, but to go against
  1198
  them, altogether against precedent. There fore it is for that reason, and for that reason alone, that I was anxious to hear what arguments could be advanced, or ought to be advanced, in favour of one course or the other. The hon. Gentleman who initiated the debate argued for some length, though I think with an imperfect recollection of the precedents. I cannot say that the Leader of the Opposition threw any light on the subject.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not profess to throw any light on the subject.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the whole, Sir, having given the best consideration I can to the matter in the short time that has elapsed since the facts have been before me, I am rather inclined to think though there is some doubt, that a committee ought to be granted. The reasons against the Committee are that, though there have been committees in the past, I am not very anxious to extend the practice of Parliamentary Committees on all occasions where any Member of the House copies into collison with the law of the land. No doubt this is an extension, because there is no precedent, so far as I know, for the granting of a committee in this case—for, as I have shown, the case of Dr. Tanner fails as a precedent. Therefore, while admitting that this is a slight extension of the existing practice, and that so far it is to be deprecated, I think there is some force in what has been said. It may, I think, be urged with great force that the Irish magistrates had two courses open to them in dealing with any person accused before them. They might have followed the course which is suggested by the statute—they might have committed for a week. They might also, as Chief Baron Palles laid down, have pursued the course which the magistrates pursued in the case of Dr. Tanner, and which was pursued in the case now before us—which is that of binding the person charged over to good behaviour. Both courses are perfectly legitimate that have been laid down. But I think there is a certain paradox in attempting to sustain the argument that when the magistrates took one of those courses there ought to be a Committee granted, and that if they took the other course there ought not to be a Committee granted. It may be said that

  1199
  in one case they have used the machinery of the law, which is more in the nature of criminal procedure than in the other, but, on the whole, I suppose, we ought not to raise too much and too fine distinctions—that we ought in this case to ignore precedent, or the absence of precedent, which took place in the case of Dr. Tanner, and that we should rather rely upon the unbroken course of precedents followed at all events since 1830 in regard to direct and simple committals for contempt of Court. As I think on the whole we ought not to rely too much upon the difference of procedure where the offences are the same, and when the punishment is closely allied, on the whole I am not disposed to resist the Committee which the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I do not at all regret the course I have taken in not having myself nominated the Committee. I am not anxious to initiate any extension of the practice of appointing Committees in the case of those who come within the criminal law; and yet, on the other hand, as the proposal has been made, I do not think that the House would be well advised in relying too much on a distinction as to precedents, a distinction which is rather technical in its nature and does not partake of a fundamental character.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the decision which he has just announced to the House. I am surprised, I confess greatly surprised, that the right hon. Gentleman had not in view all the considerations he has now so reasonably brought before us.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURmade a remark in reply.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I will not go into the right hon. Gentleman's doubts. I wish he had not even interjected that interruption. I should have been glad to think that for the sake of his position in this House he now recognises that this is a case which requires special consideration. I think it is to be regretted for his own sake that he required my right hon. friend who sits near me to draw him into this concession [An HON. MEMBER:
  1200
  "No."] Well, it seems to me to be so. I do not pay the slighest attention to the arguments used by my hon. and learned friend the Member for Water-ford as to the constitution of the Court. That Court was a Statutory Court. I have a pretty strong opinion as to these Courts, but that is not now the question. The question is a very simple and plain one, and I would observe we are agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that we are really very ill informed as to what actually and specifically took place. We have newspaper telegrams to go upon, which are a most unsafe foundation. But what is to me clear from the words closing the letter which Mr. Speaker read to the House as to the foundation of the proceedings against Mr. M'Hugh, the Member for North Leitrim, is that he very grossly insulted the Bench. If the newspaper reports are to be relied on—I do not know whether they are or not—it is beyond all doubt or question that the Bench was grossly insulted, and that the Bench would have been greatly wanting in self-respect if they had permitted such conduct to pass without punishment. With that, I think, we must all agree; but surely the House will see that this is a very serious thing indeed, and that no such thing could have happened in England or Scotland. Here is a man, whether a Member of Parliament or not, who has committed a gross contempt of Court. He is liable, therefore, to such punishment as the law empowers the Court to inflict. What does that Court do? I am not going to argue the case—I am only pointing out why this is a special case. This Court, finding that it has not, under the Petty Sessions Act, power to punish as they think adequately such a gross contempt, falls back on the Statute, which I have fallen back on myself before now—the Act of Edward III.—in order to make up for what they considered their own defective power; they fall back on this extremely stringent and strenuous Statute, which ought never to be used, except in the case of the greatest social emergency.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The Coronation year!
  Mr. JOHN MORLEY: Can any Gentle man opposite, or on this side of the House

  1201
  believe for one moment that this was a case of social emergency. It would be quite wrong and out of order for me to argue the case now; but I repeat that we may congratulate the House that we will escape from what I think a rather ignoble position—that we should allow a Bench in Ireland to withdraw a Member from the service of the House, and, further than that, to withdraw the consideration of the arguments and the law which justified the withdrawal from the consideration of the House. That was the position taken up in one part, I thought, of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman; that, because Mr. M'Hugh had been sent to prison under the Statute of Edward III., we were debarred from considering the case in the ordinary way. If this contention were to be upheld it would put in the power of one of these Special Courts to take one, or two, or more Members out of the service of the House and cut off from the House the consideration of the circumstances in which the withdrawal had taken place. I think the case is a very clear one, and that the right hon. Gentleman has come to a very sound conclusion.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to say a very few words to bring the debate to a conclusion, because the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman relieves us of the duty of debating it at any considerable length. I cannot understand how there could exist any doubt in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, and it was that doubt which caused the consumption of time which has taken place this evening. This was a case which would fall under the proceedings governing the contempt of Court. I hold in my hand a report of what happened in the Court, and it states that when Mr. Brown called upon Mr. M'Hugh to find bail and to enter into his own recognisance for £100, Mr. M'Hugh said "For what?" Mr. Brown said "For contempt of Court." Was it to be maintained for a moment that, because these magistrates, actuated, I am sorry to say, by spite and a desire to punish the hon. Member for contempt of Court with a longer and more vigorous punishment than the Statute gave them power to do, could resort to an old and unprecedented method under the Statute
  1202
  of Edward III. in order to inflict a punishment twelve times greater than the Petty Sessions Act gives them power to inflict. I challenge any hon. Member, with the collective experience of all the lawyers in England, Ireland, and Scotland, to produce a single instance in which that statute has been used for such a purpose in the administration of the law. This is a course of procedure which the people of England and Scotland would not tolerate for an hour. We, in Ireland, are treated as common tramps and pick-pockets. This Statute was devised, even in the days of Edward III., for common tramps who could not give an account of their way of living; and yet that is the Statute which is had recourse to in Ireland in order to imprison respectable and honest men, representatives of the people on local boards and in this House. I say it is an outrage. I am extremely glad that at last an opportunity has been offered to bring under the consideration of a Committee of this House the scandalous, infamous, and intolerable conduct of magistrates in Ireland in applying an Act originally passed for dealing with people of low character to respected citizens and representatives of the people of Ireland in this Parliament.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): I rise to say a few words in reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite. He has spoken as if this method of procedure was one peculiar to Ireland. If he will look into "Stone's Justices' Manual," he will find it reported that it has been laid down that if anyone insults a Bench of Justices in England the proper procedure for them to take is to bind him over to be of good behaviour under this very Statute. I was surprised to hear it stated that it was a monstrous hardship that a man should be punished, not for insulting the Bench, but for refusing to undertake not to repeat the offence.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid he was astonished at the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement of the law. In Ireland there was a Statute which limited the power of a Petty Sessions Court to inflict punishment for contempt of Court to seven days. This

  1203
  was a case, if ever there was one, in which the House should protect the privileges of its Members. Was the House to be deprived of its jurisdiction and discretion, and its right to inquire into the circumstances in which a Member was committed for contempt of Court, because a magistrate who was aggrieved at a rash and hasty exclamation chose to remove from this House the discretion it could exercise by sentencing him under the Statute of Edward III? He challenged the Attorney General to produce any case, except two of a political character, in which any bench of magistrates attempted to impose more than seven days imprisonment for contempt of Court.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the letter of Mr. Robert L. Brown, K.M., of the 18th June, 1902, informing the House of the imprisonment of Mr. M'Hugh, a Member of this House, be referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of inquiring into all the matters connected with the proceedings re erred to therein, and of reporting whether they demand the further attention of the House.—(Mr. John Redmond.)

SUPPLY.
[TWELFTH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1902–3.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £10,097, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the salaries and expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland and for grants in aid of piers or quays."
    MR. WEIRsaid he wished to urge the importance of checking the invasion of steam trawlers within the three-mile limit on the coasts of the Highlands of Scotland. Many of the fishermen in the villages round the coast of Scotland were in a very bad condition on account of the destruction which the trawlers caused by coming within the three-mile limit. The result was that many of these fishing villages were becoming depopulated. He could not understand why the Government did not see that it was of the utmost importance to maintain the line fishermen in their villages, because it was from them that a largo supply of men for the Royal Navy might be drawn. In the Report of the Fishery Board it was stated that owing to the success of the trawling industry several new companies had been incorporated last year in Aberdeen, from which port no fewer than thirty additional steam trawlers went to sea last year. The Scottish office ought to make an effort to secure mere fishery cruisers to prevent illegal trawling. He was not opposed to the trawlers, but they should get out to sea, and if they were found within the three-mile limit they should be prosecuted. The right hon. Gentleman tried to throw the whole onus of these prosecutions upon the fishermen, but how could they go out in the dead of night or indeed at any time to catch the trawlers? If care was taken to see that the cruisers at the disposal of the Fishery Board performed their duties the fisherman would be placed in a better position. More severe punishments should be meted out to illegal trawlers. No doubt the Lord Advocate would tell them that the Fishery Board cruisers had captured so many trawlers, but they expected them to make captures. There ought to be more energy displayed.
    With regard to the question of fishing in the Moray Firth, it was said that an international conference was being arranged, and that the Fishery Board of Scotland would be represented. They had been told that this country was going to contribute £42,000 for this purpose, but they had not been told how much other countries were going to contribute. The Secretary for Scotland had refused to allow the question of the extension of the three mile limit to be dealt

    1205
    with at this conference by the gentlemen who would represent this country. For years he had called the attention of the Committee to this question, but dust had been thrown in their eyes and no communications have been made to the signatories to the North Sea Convention in the interests of the line fishermen. He also wished to state that he thought it was part of the duty of the Fishery Board to see that the small fishing harbours were put into a proper condition for the convenience of fishermen. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bring under the notice of the Fishery Board the necessity for making some arrangements for the clearing away of the sand which had accumulated in some of the harbours. In conclusion, he said that as it was the practice of right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to remain silent if no Motion was made, he thought he had better protect himself by moving a reduction of the Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,997, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Weir.)
    COLONEL DENNYsaid he was sorry to differ from the hon. Member who had just sat down in regard to the line fishermen, because the greatest possible consideration had always been meted out to them. The particular case, however, to which he wished to refer had been dealt with in a most sympathetic way by the Lord Advocate, and he believed that if he could present a good case, the right hon. Gentleman would continue his sympathetic treatment. The case was a rather complicated one, but it would be understood at any rate by all the Scotch Members present. The case he wished to raise was in reference to the lease of some very valuable fishing rights in the Firth of Clyde. By this lease certain number of poor fishermen had been deprived of a right which they had hitherto exercised of collecting mussels for bait from the scalps in the Firth of Clyde. These scalps had been worked by a number of fishermen in very poor circumstances, to whom this privilege meant a good deal. It was true that a
    1206
    complaint was made that they were impoverishing the mussel beds by this practice, but this was open to question. Some time ago, for the ostensible purpose of preserving and improving these mussel beds, a lease was given to an individual, against whom he (Col. Denny) had not a word to say personally, but the circumstances of granting the lease formed a matter of grave dispute, and ultimately was brought before the Scottish Courts, who gave a decision which deprived these men of this means of livelihood. He did not wish in any way to impugn the impartiality of any Court, but he thought it would be much more satisfactory to get some of the very large questions involved settled for good and all in the House of Lords, and so these men wished to carry an appeal to the House of Lords. He wished to impress upon the Committee the fact that these men were among the very poorest in the community, and they were in great straits to find the means to defend themselves in Court. For an appeal there appeared to be an Order in the House of Lords whereby a deposit of £200 required to be made by the appellants before proceedings could be commenced. It would be just as reasonable to ask these men for £2,000, because they could not find the money, and he would ask the Lord Advocate whether it were not possible to have the matter so adjusted that the men might be heard and the case thoroughly argued. He did not know whether the Lord Advocate was in a position himself to grant the concession, but he hoped his right hon. friend would give him some leading as to how the case could be heard with the least possible delay, and the minimum of expense, because it was a matter of the greatest importance to a considerable number of poor men. No stone had been left unturned to find out whether the Fishery Board had acted ultra vires, or had been within their rights in taking away from those men an occupation, they had followed for years and letting the beds to one individual. He repeated that against that individual he had nothing personally to say. He was an expert on fisheries and fishing questions, and must be assumed to have a knowledge necessary for improving the scalps. But whether he were qualified or not, that did not appeal to the minds of men who had been put out of their occupation at the will of a Board whose action and

    1207
    whose powers they question. He would ask the Lord Advocate if he would, in any way he could, facilitate the appeal to the House of Lords in order that the matter might be set at rest once and for all.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid that in the Vote before the Committee there was a reduction of £2,000 in connection with the scientific investigation hitherto carried on by the Fishery Board of Scotland for some years. The discontinuance of that grant was, as the Committee were aware from what fell from the President of the Board of Trade the other day, connected with the larger undertaking now entered into by this country, in combination with other North Sea Powers, to carry out a scheme of investigation in the North Sea. He should like to point out that any international investigation of the North Sea need not necessarily conflict with the work hitherto carried on by the Fishery Board of Scotland. Everyone connected with the fisheries of Scotland, and of the United Kingdom generally, must welcome the inception of that enterprise which was due to the Stockholm and other conferences, and to which this country had agreed to contribute, for three years, a sum of £16,000. They welcomed that, because it would lead not only to further knowledge, but also to further co-operation as to the fish food supplies of the countries bordering on the North Sea. He thought, however, that it was to be deeply regretted that the work carried on hitherto by the Fishery Board of Scotland should be discontinued in that summary fashion. The grant had been discontinued, but no information had been vouchsafed as to what that continuance actually meant; or whether it was now actually too late to consider if it were advisable or not. It was only too much to be feared that the scientific work of the Fishery Board had already been discontinued. That seemed to him to be a very serious matter. In the first place, they did not spend too much money in this country on scientific investigation—that was not a fault they had—and secondly, they had interrupted the good work which had been proceeding for a
    1208
    number of years. Hon. Members representing English constituencies might remember the various monographs which had appeared on various fishing subjects—there was a remarkable one on the salmon—and which were all the work of the Fishery Board of Scotland. Not only was the discontinuance of that work a loss to scientific work generally, but it was in direct contradiction to the recommendations of the last Committee of this House which inquired into these matters. Three years ago, a Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, considered a Bill introduced by the Board of Trade, and the result was that that Bill was dropped, and in the Report of the Committee would be found the following words—
    "The Scotch Fishery Board had accumulated some valuable statistics, but their investigations have been hampered by inadequate means. They have no more money at their disposal, and the vessel which they have for scientific investigation is undoubtedly too small. Yet such as they are, they are the only investigations made by any department in the Kingdom devoted to that subject only."
    Then the Committee went on to say that no effort ought to be spared to provide for the adequate equipment of a Government department in charge of the subject so that they might effectively pursue scientific investigation. The competency of the work of the Fishery Board had never been questioned, the only complaint being that they had not an adequate equipment to carry it on. Their vessel, as was known to all Scottish Members interested in the subject, was never able to go to sea far from the coast, and had never been properly equipped for scientific investigation; yet in spite of these deficiencies, their work had been most valuable. What he wished to put before the right hon. Gentleman was that there was room for local scientific investigation as well as for international scientific investigation. At present they knew nothing as to the scheme of the North Sea investigation, but it must be obvious to all that an examination of the currents, the sand banks, and the breeding grounds of the North Sea would be most valuable to this country, but it should not conflict with the scientific work which had hitherto been carried on in the creeks, estuaries, and inlets of Scotland, Everyone knew that the great

    1209
    increase in trawling had led to a diminution in the demand for mussels and other bait; but it had always appeared to him that mussels could be cultivated, not only for bait, but also for food. There was not the slightest reason why mussels and other shell fish, valuable for food, should not be welcomed by the humbler classes; and he was not without hope that scientific investigation would enable them to cope with the supply of that form of food. He by no means wished to discourage the larger effort which was to be carried out in the North Sea. He himself pleaded for it, and joined in recommending it; but he hoped to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that it would not be allowed to interrupt or interfere with the work of the Fishery Board. That Board was the only Government department which had been carrying on this particular kind of work, and it would be a great loss to the country if it were discontinued. Of course, they would have to remember the year they lived in, and the answer which would be given to all who pleaded for extra expense; but there was a distinction in the case he was now pleading. He did not plead for an expense which had not hitherto been incurred, but for a Vote which was about to be discontinued. The importance of the herring fishery was peculiarly grave in Scotland, and on Scotch grounds alone he maintained that there ought to have been more deliberation before the work of the Fishery Board had been given up. He wished further to know what steps would be necessary to discontinue that work. Had the Board still got their ship; was it too late to remedy what seemed to him to be a great mistake; and what precautions had been taken that the country should not be at a loss by the discontinuance of the work? He put these questions on behalf of several of his hon. friends; and it seemed to him that it would be a matter of very great regret if the work of the Board were to be discontinued.
    MR. ORR-EWINGsaid he cordially agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that it would be a great pity if the funds of the Fishery Board of Scotland were reduced in any way on account of the North Sea investigation. That
    1210
    investigation, no doubt, would lead to some agreement being arrived at in connection with fishing beyond the three-mile limit; but there was great scope for inquiry within the three-mile limit. The hon. Member for Ross and other hon. Members had often mentioned that line-fishing had greatly deteriorated in the last few years, and the blame had always been placed on the trawlers coming within the three-mile limit. No doubt they came within that limit very often, and it was almost impossible to protect certain parts of the coast; but, at the same time, he thought the question depended almost more on the breeding of the fish than on the depredations of the trawlers. Everyone would agree that fish must breed somewhere, and if their breeding-grounds were destroyed, then, naturally, the fish diminished. The harm the trawlers did was in destroying the banks. The Fishery Board had been blamed very often, but he thought they had taken a step in the right direction in regard to the Ballantrae banks, off the coast of Ayrshire. These banks had been ruined, to a very great extent, in late years, not by trawlers within the limit, but by seine-net trawlers, and also trammel-net fishing; and the result was that the fishing all along the coast had suffered. The Fishery Board had now prohibited seine-net trawling in certain months, but they still allowed trammel-net fishing. The banks outside the three-mile limit had also been ruined, and, therefore, it was all the more important that the banks inside the three-mile limit should be protected. Seine-net trawling undoubtedly did very great harm to the banks, because the spawn was destroyed. On the other hand, trammel-net fishing also did a great deal of harm, as, when the net was hauled up, a great many dead fish fell out, and the banks for breeding purposes were destroyed by the dead fish being allowed to lie on them. He had mentioned the matter to the Fishery Board, and they informed him that they found in Loch Fyne that several dead fish came up in the net, but that, in spite of that, the herring returned to the lough every year. The case was, however, different from that of the Ballantrae banks. Everybody who knew Loch Fyne knew that it varied in depth from

    1211
    thirty to eighty fathoms, the tides were very strong, and the dead fish were swept away. On the Ballantrae banks the water, however, was only eight or nine fathoms deep, and the tides were very slack, with the result that the dead fish remained on the banks, and undoubtedly did a very great deal of harm. What he wished to impress upon the Committee was the necessity of prohibiting fishing on these banks during the spawning season, and, further, that the Fishery Board should do everything it could to encourage the breeding of fish within the three mile limit. That would not only be a benefit to the locality concerned, but would improve the fishing all round the coast.
    MR. ASHERsaid he wished to bring before his right hon. and learned friend, the Lord Advocate, the fact that there prevailed in all parts of Scotland interested in fishing a great deal of anxiety in regard to the alteration in the estimate for the Fishery Board of Scotland. The amount for scientific investigation had been reduced from £3,000 to something like £700. At first sight, that undoubtedly appeared to be rather a serious matter. Twenty years ago the Fishery Board were given a Vote for the purposes of scientific investigation. Those connected with fishery matters knew quite well that that investigation would necessarily extend over a long period of time, and it was hoped that it would result in the accumulation of such an amount of precise knowledge with regard to fishery matters as would probably lead to an international arrangement with regard to the fisheries in the North Sea. The alteration in the amount of the Vote had, however, changed that policy. No doubt, his right hon. and learned friend would say that the reduction of the Vote was due to the international arrangement made last year at Christiania for a simultaneous investigation by all the Powers bordering on the North Sea. No one, of course, objected to that, or desired any inquiry to be duplicated, but there was a very general feeling that it was by no means certain that the international arrangement would necessarily lead to the same matters being investigated as had hitherto been investigated by the
    1212
    Fishery Board. There was manifestly the greatest diversity of interests among the various powers bordering on the North Sea in regard to fishery matters, and he did not believe that this international arrangement had been entered into from the same point of view by this country and the other countries concerned. He had no doubt that important facts of a hydrographical and meteorological character would be ascertained as the result of the international investigation, but they would not cover the same ground as the scientific investigations of the Scottish Fishery Board. He always understood that the great object of the Scottish Fishery Board was to thoroughly investigate the habits of the food fishes frequenting our coasts, to follow up their life history and movements from the inshore to the offshore waters, with a view to those fishery regulations being adopted which would be best calculated to produce a large supply of fish for the market, and not unduly interfere with the development of the fisheries around the coast. Could his right hon. and learned friend satisfy the Committee that the nvestigation which would be carried on under the international arrangement would cover the same ground as had hitherto been covered by the Scottish Fishery Board? The general opinion was that, having regard to the extremely limited resources of the Board, they had done admirable work; and he believed that it was the universal feeling of Scottish Members that the Board should have their resources increased rather than diminished. It seemed to him that it was the duty of the Government to show good cause why the resources of the Board should be further limited. If the international investigation covered the same ground, then he was very far from saying that they should object; but unless the Government could satisfy the Committee on that point, he did not think they would be justified in limiting the resources of the Board. The Board had hitherto carried on their investigations under great difficulties. It was melancholy to read in their Reports year after year of the inadequacy of the means at their disposal. A vessel was

    1213
    placed at their disposal for scientific investigation, but in consequence of her unseaworthiness and the necessity for frequent repairs she was obliged to remain in harbour for the greater part of the year. Notwithstanding these disadvantages, their work for the past twenty years undoubtedly formed a most valuable record; and it seemed to him to be a very serious matter indeed if that work were to be stopped. He hoped his right hon. and learned friend would be able to satisfy the Committee that the investigation which was to be carried on under the international arrangement would cover the same ground, that the same inquiries would be prosecuted, and the same results ascertained, in order that such knowledge, with regard to the fisheries of Scotland and other countries, might be obtained as would enable them to demand from other countries an international convention for the regulation of the North Sea fisheries, which were now in a very unsatisfactory condition.
    MR. POWERsaid he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. They had read a great deal about the harm done by trawlers on the Scottish coasts, but he believed that the Scottish Fishery Board patrolled their own coasts so well that the trawlers which used to ply their trade there came over to Ireland. He asked the right hon. Gentleman two years ago what steps had been taken to protect the fisheries off the Scottish coast, and the right hon. Gentleman then said that the Admiralty placed at the disposal of the Fishery Board two small boats, and that the Board supplied two themselves. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would be kind enough to inform the Committee how many boats were at present used for the protection of Scottish fisheries, and how many were supplied by the Admiralty.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that the hon. Member for Ross began his observations by referring to the number of complaints which were received from different parts of the coast as to the
    1214
    evils of trawling, and especially of drawnets. He should like to draw the hon. Member's attention to what was stated on page 48 of the Report of the Fishery Board of Scotland this year. The Report stated—
    "Complaints have reached the Board of encroachments by trawlers, and some idea of the extent of the work involved in their investigation may be obtained from a perusal of the following list of places visited."
    Two pages of places followed, and then the Report proceeded—
    "It is a noteworthy fact that in the investigation of complaints recorded above, only four trawlers were detected working in closed waters."
    Without in the slightest degree impugning the bonâ fide character of the complaints, still it was a fact that in a great many instances complaints were made which were not well founded. They had a record of what all the vessels did, and the entries very often were that the complaints had been exaggerated. It was impossible properly to patrol a sea line like that of Scotland, but a great deal was done. In answer to the hon Member for East Waterford, he might say that the cruisers at the disposal of the Fishery Board during the last year were the "Jackal," the "Daisy," the "Vigilant," the "Brenda," the "Nora," and the "Mina," besides which they had occasional assistance from the Admiralty,
    MR. POWERasked whether the six vessels referred to were supplied by the Fishery Board without any assistance from the Admiralty.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid they were in the continuous service of the Fishery Board, but, in addition, they had occasional assistance from the Admiralty.
    MR. POWER: Who built the vessels?
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the "Brenda" and the "Mina" were built by the Fishery Board under the new arrangement; the others were old vessels,
    MR. POWER: Were the others the property of the Admiralty?
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Yes, but they were put at the disposal of the Fishery Board. The hon. Member must understand, however, that over and above their own fleet, the Board, had the occasional services of Admiralty cruisers. The hon. Member for Ross had drawn a sorry picture of the plight the line fishermen were in owing to the depredations of trawlers. He thought the hon. Member would admit that, so far as it was possible for one to take a side on this matter, he had always been a good friend to the line fishermen, and he would be very sorry to see any development of modern methods which put an end to their industry. At the same time, the question was full of difficulty. He commended to the Committee generally a perusal of the last Report of the Fishery Board, because he had been greatly struck by the somewhat different results brought out by that Report as compared with the figures that were before the Committee to which the hon. Member for Forfarshire had alluded. Last year was a good fishing year altogether, and there was no doubt that the taking of the line fishermen was a good deal up. So far as the figures of last year went, there was not that diminution in the catch of the line fishermen or of flat fish generally to which no doubt the figures of two years ago pointed. Whether or not that was merely a momentary improvement time, of course, would show. It was not a matter into which he could go in detail, but Members would really be well repaid if they would read that Report. With regard to Port of Ness, there had been a difficulty about the harbour there owing to the contractors. The harbour had now been transferred to the Congested Districts Board, and no doubt any representations addressed by the
    1216
    hon. Member to that Board would receive attention, although he could not promise that the Board would carry out what the hon. Member desired. As to the Fishery Board premises, the hon. Member had been more unfortunate than he (the right hon. Gentleman) had been, because whenever he had been there the policy had been that which no doubt the hon. Member had been pursuing in the East, viz., that of the open door.
    The hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs had raised a question which had more than once been pressed upon the Fishery Board, viz., the great necessity of trying to cultivate the bait supply. But it had several times been pointed out that there had been great profligacy in the disposal of their own resources. The Fishery Board had been egged on by the House to take proper means for preserving and cultivating mussels. They found that in the Clyde there was a very valuable mussel scalp which was being really ruined by indiscriminate collection. He did not mean that he had no sympathy with the constituents of the hon. Member who were poor men and had been in the habit of taking there mussels, but from the wider point of view, of the bait supply of Scotland, mussels ought not to be taken indiscriminately. A proceeding taken in pursuance of the policy of the Fishery Board was objected to by the hon. Member's constituents, with the result that matters could not be arranged amicably and an action had to be brought in the Courts. The Court of Session—and he did not see why they should take a biassed view of the case the one way or the other—had held that the property of the scalps was in the Crown, and that they were properly dealt with by the

    1217
    Fishery Board. The hon. Member now said his constituents desired to go to the House of Lords, and that a deposit of £200 was required. That was a matter in which he had no concern; it was required by the Standing Orders of the House of Lords; but if they could not make the deposit it was open to them to appear in formâ pauperis. He assured the hon. Member that it really did not depend upon him, but upon the Standing Orders of the House of Lords, over which he had no control.
    That brought him to the most interesting point which had been raised, viz., the diminution of £2000 in the Vote for scientific investigations. The reason was simple enough. As a result of the Christiania Conference an agreement had been come to that there should be an international investigation, hydrographical and otherwise, in the North Sea. Those who sat on the Committee of two years ago would remember that the real question with regard to flat fish was whether there had been any diminution, and whether that diminution had been checked by certain alterations in the places in which trawling and so on was permitted in the North Sea. The views on the point were not at all unanimous. It was obvious that the investigation must be a thorough and expensive one, and the scientific investigations of the Scottish Fishery Board were all in that direction. He could not say that the investigations would be absolutely the same, but according to a letter written when this matter was arranged, it appeared that the attention of the Conference was particularly directed to the fact that—
    "in the practical development of the scheme, primary attention should be given to the probable effect on flat fish, in which alone, it appeared from statistics and evidence, any
    1218
    serious diminution in the North Sea could be traced."
    That, he thought, was what they wanted to get at, so that the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs might assume that the investigations of the Conference would be directed to the really practical part of the scientific investigations conducted by the Scottish Fishery Board. The question then arose whether Great Britain should go into the scheme with the other Powers. Everybody would agree that it should. But it involved an expenditure of £35,000 or £40,000 over five years, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not feel justified in agreeing to that expenditure without stipulating that he should not have the same thing going on at home. An arrangement was therefore come to between the Board of Trade, the Scottish Office, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it was made a distinct part of the bargain on the part of the Scottish Office, that the grant should be dropped only during the time these investigations were going on, and that the moment the investigations were over, the Board should have the same claim to a proper subsidy for scientific investigations as before. He hoped that statement would satisfy hon. Members. If money were unlimited one would like to do both, but under the circumstances he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not be expected to continue this grant as well as bear the cost of the international investigation.
    MR. BRYCEthought the policy of the Government in dropping the allowance of the Scotch Fishery Board for their investigation was exceedingly penny-wise. The value of those investigations was that they had been continuous. Exceedingly little had been

    1219
    known about the habits of these fish, and the Lord Advocate himself had admitted that the, results disclosed in the last Report had been a surprise to him, although he had carefully followed the matter all through. It was of the utmost importance that the investigations should be kept up from year to year. He was certain that the value of the investigations which had taken place, and of those which had been promised in the future would be greatly diminished if an interruption took place for two or three years while the International Conference was conducting its investigations. Surely a more short-sighted policy than that of dropping these investigations for the insignificant saving of £2000 a year could not be conceived. Continuity was everything in scientific investigations. It could not be expected that the scientific staff engaged by the International Conference would give the same attention to the local coasts as the Scottish Fishery Board had given. Take the case of the Moray Firth. He did not wish to pre-judge that question, but it might turn out that it was right to close it, or it might turn out that nothing was gained by closing it. But that was a problem for local investigation, and the International Conference could not be expected to give the necessary attention to it. The same would apply to the Ballantrae banks; there, too, there might be need for local investigation. On putting these facts together, he was driven to the conclusion that a more unwise, undesirable, and unsuitable economy than had been effected in this matter was not to be found in the annals of our financial policy.
    MR. MACONOCHIEsupported the Vote, and said the
    1220
    board had undoubtedly done very good work in recent years. At the same time, speaking with some experience, he did not see and reason why they should try to teach their neighbours how to compete with them. He remembered how some years ago the Peterhead curers very kindly taught the Norwegians everything they knew, with the result that in a few years the Norwegians became then-keenest competitors for the German trade. As to the question of flat fish generally, it should have been known to practical men for the last fifteen years, that the only method by which a better supply could be secured, was that of restricting the landing of under sized fish. Last year a practical proof of what a close time meant was afforded by the strike which caused the large Grimsby fleet to be confined to harbour. When those boats were again able to get out they found a better supply and quality of fish than they had had for a very long time. With regard to the Fishery Board he thought it was not treated at all fairly. The funds at its disposal were so small that it could not secure the results it ought, or would otherwise do. By helping the Board to develop the fisheries a very good investment would be made, because it would be enabled to secure a better supply, and that meant a cheaper article of food for the public at large. Only recently, even with the small means at its command, the Board had agreed to supply young shell fish—crabs and lobster—to certain parts of the coasts, as a trial to see what could be done. The Crab and Lobster Act, by restricting the size, was now admitted, even by the men who at first most strongly opposed it, to have done more to improve the industry than anything else had done. As to harbours, it

    1221
    was often forgotten that Fraserburgh held a unique position. There was no town of equal size, as far as he knew, which had borrowed and repaid so much for the building of harbours for the development of fisheries, and in his opinion it was justly entitled to exceptional treatment. Fraserburgh supplied more fees to the Fishery Board than any other town in Scotland, and was fairly entitled to some assistance in the upkeep of its harbour.
    MR. HALDANEsaid that if anything had emerged clearly from the discussion, it was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had successfully raided the somewhat attenuated provision made for scientific investigation under the Scottish Fishery Board. It would have been all very well if the same ground was to have been covered, but nobody pretended that the investigations in connection with the International Conference had anything to do with the fresh water fisheries of Scotland. The truth was that, put it as they liked, there was no answer to the case made by his hon. friend. The hon. Member for Forfarshire had pointed out that the two investigations were wholly different and covered different ground, but unfortunately they were in the position of not being able to resist the hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which had been laid heavily upon the Scottish policy of investigation. He could not look upon this as otherwise than a matter of national concern, for the information published in the special reports in regard to the work done by the officials of the Scottish Fishery Board was very valuable. Upon that ground alone, he for one, would go to a division as a protest against
    1222
    the action of the Government. Upon other matters he was glad to say that the statement made by the Lord Advocate and the report of the Board were most satisfactory. The provision now made for policing the seas contrasted very favourably with the condition of things which prevailed ten years ago. He was glad to see that out of twenty-six prosecutions twenty-four had been successful, and as a result the policy of enforcing the law within the three-mile limit had been fairly successful. He could not sympathise with the hon. Member for Dumbarton in regard to those men who lived by gathering mussel scalps, for he thought the mussel beds ought to be energetically protected. He thought the Fishery Board was a competent one as far as the resources put at its disposal would permit. He had always found that the Chairman and Secretary to the Board were most ready and willing to assist in promoting any enlightened policy which was suggested to them, and to their merit in this respect he wished to add his testimony. But it was impossible for any Board to do its work properly if it felt that at any time its funds might be raided in the way that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raided them upon this occasion.
    MR. DOUGHTYsaid that the scientific research which had taken place under the Fishery Board of Scotland and the information which they had been in the habit of publishing from time to time had been of great service to fishermen. Therefore he thought it was a great pity that this work should be stopped by the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He understood that this had been done in order to assist some kind of an international research which was about to take

    1223
    place. He did not view with any great favour international inquiry. An international inquiry generally continued for a number of years, and, in his opinion, such an inquiry would end with very little general advantage to the fishermen of this country and what was likely to be done would be in the direction of educating foreign fishermen and instructing them in the few advantages which our fishermen possessed at the present time. He was very pleased with the very high testimony which had been paid to the British trawler by the Lord Advocate in his speech, and he was very glad to hear that there had only been four convictions of trawlers fishing within the three-mile limit. He thought that showed that the trawlers themselves were doing their best to carry out the law. He thought, however, that it would have been more to the general advantage if the sum devoted to police trawling had been reduced rather than the sum of money devoted to scientific research along the coast of Scotland. With regard to the Moray Firth he did not think there was a greater scandal than that which went on every day there. A number of hon. Members seemed very desirous of defending the rights of the line fishermen in that particular constituency, and it was a very unfortunate thing that line fishing was a failing industry. This was not the fault of the trawlers, but it was due to the effect of general conditions. A much superior instrument had been produced for the purpose of catching fish and it supplied the general market, and the consequence was that the ordinary line fishermen suffered in their income and their industry. That was the real cause of the grievance
    1224
    of the line fishermen, because superior catching instruments were now supplying the market which used to be supplied by the line fishermen. The Moray Firth had been closed against British trawlers with the idea that the line fishermen would derive an advantage, but the question was, had they effectually closed Moray Firth against trawlers? Certainly it had been closed against English and Scotch trawlers, but it had been left open to German, French, Swedish, and Norwegian trawlers, and foreign trawlers were taking advantage of the law which excluded British fishermen from fishing in the Moray Firth. When this law was passed it prevented the selling of any fish caught in the Moray Firth in any of the markets in Scotland, and the consequence was that the fish was brought down to Hull and Grimsby to be sold there. There could be nothing more absurd than to exclude British fishermen, and at the same time give the whole advantage to the foreigner. If this injustice were continued a little longer there would be as many trawlers as were required, and the English gentlemen who had invested their money in Swedish and Norwegian companies would get all the advantage out of fishing in that very large arm of the sea. This restriction closing the Moray Firth ought to be withdrawn and the regulation prohibiting trawling within the three-mile limit ought to be maintained there as it was maintained along other parts of the coast of Great Britain.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEcalled attention to the claims of the fishermen interested in the Clyde mussel beds. He said that it should be borne in mind that the fishermen engaged

    1225
    in mussel gathering at Port Glasgow had been so occupied practically from time immemorial. It had been said that the mussel beds were being ruined because they were being robbed by fishermen taking away the mussel scalps. That was a very serious charge, because the livelihood of a great many fishermen depended upon the mussel beds being maintained in a good condition, and the men were not likely to be guilty of destroying the means by which they obtained their livelihood. In 1878 these mussel beds produced 1,142 tons, but this total rose to 3,246 tons in 1897. That did not seem to indicate that the supply had been exhausted. These fisheries had been used freely by these men without let or hindrance for hundreds of years, but a year or two ago a change was made. The Fishery Board had leased the fishing rights in those beds to a scientific adviser of the Board. In that capacity this gentleman visited Port Glasgow and got the confidence of the fishermen and the fish merchants, and a few months after that visit he obtained from the Fishery Board a twenty-one years lease of those mussel beds at a nominal rental of £1 a year. The scandal of it was that in 1857, when a similar lease was granted to a contractor, the rental was £34 a year. The same fishing beds were now let for £1 a year to a Government official, who was in a position to obtain undue advantages over other competitors for the beds. Naturally the fishermen refused to be ousted in this way, and they continued to fish there. They were prosecuted at the police court, but the action against the fishermen failed. Finally, the
    Lord Advocate appeared upon the scene in the capacity of prosecutor, and he obtained from the Court of Session, in the absence of the fishermen, an interdict to prohibit them from exercising their rights as fishermen. These men desired at the least possible expense to find out what were their rights in the matter, and they applied to the Lord Advocate, through their counsel, to state a case upon which a decision could be given at the least cost, but the Lord Advocate refused to adopt this line of procedure, and had it not been for a few well-to-do people in the neighbourhood, the decision would have gone by default. The men now desired to obtain a verdict from the House of Lords. It had been held that oyster beds were common property, and that the Crown had no more right over them than any other individual. The contention of these men was that the mussel beds were in the same position and were common property. He asked that the Lord Advocate, instead of applying the resources of the nation to crush these poor men should make it as easy as possible for them to have the case taken to the House of Lords by agreeing to have a case stated for counsel's opinion. Why should the Crown put these hard working men, to the indignity of requiring them to sue as paupers before they could obtain their rights. He thought the Crown officials were acting very harshly in not agreeing to this claim put forward by the fishermen.
    (11.57.) Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 61, Noes, 110. (Division List No. 242.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

    Caldwell, James

    Delany, William

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Dillon, John

    Asher, Alexander

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Doogan, P. C.

    Boland, John

    Crean, Eugene

    Ffrench, Peter

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Crombie, John William

    Flavin Michael Joseph

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Mooney, John J.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Gilhooly, James

    Moss, Samuel

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Murnaghan, George

    Reddy, M.

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Murphy John

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Leamy, Edmund

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Leng, Sir John

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry W.)

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    O'Dowd, John

    Lundon, W.

    O'Malley, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Weir and Mr. Harmsworth.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    O'Mara, James

    M'Govern, T.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    M'Kean, John

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex, F.

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Finch, George H.

    Morgan, David J. (Walth'st'w

    Arrol, Sir William

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Mount, William Arthur

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.

    Gordon, Hn. J. F. (Elgin & Nairn

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

    Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Purvis, Robert

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Groves, James Grimble

    Randles, John S.

    Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Bignold, Arthur

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Renwick, George

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Brassey, Albert

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Bredrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Henderson, Alexander

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight.

    Butcher, John George

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

    Spear, John Ward

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

    Law, Andrew Bonar

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Chapman Edward

    Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Lawson, John Grant

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S.

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Cranborne, Viscoumt

    Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Denny, Colonel

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

    Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Doughty, George

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Original Question again proposed.
    It being after Midnight the objection being taken to further proceeding, the Deputy Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To morrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ordered, that the Select Committee on Private Business have power to send for persons, Papers, and records.
Ordered, that three be the quorum.—(Sir William Walrond.)
Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.