CLASS VII. (Hansard, 8 June 1903)

§ MR. CALDWELL
said he wished to draw attention to the item of £431 for the Colonisation Board. This was a Board which was first appointed about seventeen years ago, when a grant of £17,000 was made to send out certain crofters from the Highlands of Scotland to places called Saltcoats and Killarney, in Canada. This Board was appointed to look after these crofters, and the cost of it had been £6,000, although the advances made to them for the purpose of obtaining implements, stock, and starting them in business only amounted to £10,000. In a footnote to the Estimate it was stated that annual Reports were rendered to 302 Parliament by the Board. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury when any such Report was rendered, for he had not been able to discover one, or what the Board had been doing, except expending every year £430. The matter was brought before the Committee in Supply in 1897, when Mr. Hanbury, who was then Secretary to the Treasury, promised that the proceedings of the Board would be brought to an end. The whole scheme of the Settlements at Saltcoats and Killarney had fallen through; it was a perfect failure; and the whole of the money had been practically lost, and yet they were spending £430 a year in continuing to look after the lost money! One gentleman was paid £100 a year as Secretary to the Board, and another gentleman in Canada received £250 a year, and £75 a year for travelling expenses, in looking after what and whom? In 1891, Dr. Clarke went out to Canada to see for himself what was being done, and he stated that so far as the Saltcoats Settlement was concerned every one of the crofters had sold up, and gone elsewhere. They were hopelessly bankrupt in 1891; and yet ever since then the Government had been paying hundreds of pounds every year. He wanted to know what the men who received that money did. According to a note in the Estimate they had to render annual Reports to Parliament. Where were those annual Reports? He had searched for them, but 303 could not find any Report later than 1897. How much money had they recovered? Of course the Secretary to the Treasury would get up in this case also and express his sympathy. But they wanted facts. They wanted to know what the Commission was doing, and if they had recovered a penny of money. What was the use of saying that annual Reports were to be presented to Parliament when they were not presented. It was bad enough that the money which had been advanced should be lost; but why should they go on year after year paying more money in the vain attempt to recover it?

§ *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,) Buteshire
said that perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow him to reply, as he was more familiar with the matter than his hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury. The question was an old one; though it was perhaps not amiliar to some hon. Members. The colonisation scheme in Canada was on the whole, no doubt, not successful. He was glad that the hon. Member had reminded the Committee of Dr. Clarke, because if anything was calculated to conduce to the failure of the experiment, it was the visit of Dr. Clarke and the speeches he made. He need not say anything more about that, as they all knew what Dr. Clarke's speeches were like. The hon. Gentleman would remember that a Commission was sent out to Canada under Professor Rankine to report on the state of affairs there. That Commission reported, and he was sure the hon. Gentleman read the Report. If not, he was charmed to find one Blue-book with which the hon. Gentleman was not familiar. He was speaking from memory, 304 but he thought the Report was presented to Parliament about three or four years ago, and he was sure that the hon. Gentleman's reading was not so far behind as that. The experiment was actually closed, in the technical sense of the word, as far as the Government was concerned; but certain people were left in the position of tenants. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that there was no use in throwing good money after bad; but, at the same time, it would be utterly foolish not to collect the rents. The expenses in Canada were strictly limited, and were devoted to what he might call winding up the concern. The Government hoped that in two or throe years the experiment would cease altogether.

§ MR. CALDWELL
said the Lord Advocate had given precisely the answer which he had expected from the Secretary to the Treasury. What he wanted to know was why Reports had not been presented to Parliament, although it was stated in the Estimates that an Annual Report was presented. He also wished to know what was the value of the property, and what amount of rent was collected? Were they paying £420 a year to collect £50? It was no use saying that the affair would be wound up in two or three years. In 1897, the late Mr. Hanbury said it ought to be wound up at once. Surely, if the Lord Advocate remembered the contents of the Report so well, he would be able to tell the Committee what was the value of the property. He did not find fault with the Lord Advocate, as the matter was sprung on him, and he could not be expected to know all the details. But they did expect that the Secretary to the Treasury, when he asked money for a 305 Commission, should be able to tell the Committee what that Commission was doing, and what value they were getting for the expenditure. They had received no information whatever on the subject, and he would move the reduction of the Vote by £100.

§ MR. DALZIEL
said he thought the Committee was much indebted to his hon. friend for directing attention to a matter which, in his judgment, required the consideration of the Government. A note in the Estimates stated that Annual Reports were presented to Parliament; but Parliament had not received Annual Reports; and the Government were unable to give the Committee any information with reference to the present state of affairs. It was perhaps a small point, but it served to show how the Government regarded more important matters. He did not suppose that any Government ever had so many special inquiries on hand as the present Government, which ought to be known as the Government of temporary Commissions and permanent omissions. Whenever they got into trouble they forthwith appointed a Commission, which went on inquiring year after year. He wished to put a few questions to the Secretary to the Treasury. At what stage was the Historical Manuscripts Commission at the present time? What particular work had it been doing during the last year or two? The Sewage Disposal Commission was at work for a large 306 number of years; could the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee when there was a prospect of that inquiry coming to an end? The public did not seem to take any very great interest in it. Then as to the Commission on the South African War. While the war was in progress they were assured that it was unpatriotic to ask any questions about the huge and admitted blunders which had been committed. They were told that when the war was over there would be a full and complete inquiry; and that responsibility for blunders would be placed on the proper shoulders. They had some difficulty in getting the inquiry appointed at all; and when they got it they found it was only to deal with certain portions of the war; and that the Commission was debarred from inquiring into many matters in which the country was interested. Therefore, the Commission could not be regarded as of a satisfactory character. Another complaint in regard to it was that it was in a position to practically cook the reports of the evidence. It might be that where the honour and capacity of some of the leading British generals were concerned, that all the evidence should not be published; but it was quite a different matter to keep back evidence with reference to salient points of the investigation. The inquiry had been conducted with closed doors. The representatives of newspapers had not been admitted, but had been supplied with reports cooked to suit the chairman and certain members of the Commission. Even when the Report was presented to Parliament, this House would not be in a position to judge of its value, as it would not have the evidence before it. Could the hon. 307 Gentleman tell the Committee the exact stage which this inquiry had reached? Had it completed its evidence; and how soon might they reasonably expect its report?

§ *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY
said he had now in his hand the Report for last year of the Commission to which the hon. Member for Mid Lanark had referred.

§ MR. BRIGG
said he thought that one item on page 504, namely, repayments to the Local Loans Fund, was misleading. The amount was £19,359; but a small note stated that that sum had been written off. The meaning of it was that bad debts had been contracted by the Government, and had now been wiped off as of no value. He should like to know how many more bad debts the Government had.

§ MR. SOARES
said he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman if he could inform the Committee as to the present position of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis. Many thousands of people were waiting to know whether tuberculosis could be conveyed to human beings through milk. The Commission had been sitting for nearly two years; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to say that he expected its Report very shortly.

§ MR. ELLIOT
said he thought that the remarks of the hon. Member for the Keighley Division should rather be addressed to the Local Loans Fund Board. With reference to the South African Commission he knew, as a 308 matter of fact, that the evidence had been completed, and that the Commission was now considering its Report. As to when that Report would be presented, the Commission was entirely master of its own time and proceedings. With reference to the Tuberculosis Commission, he was not in a position to give any information as so when its Report would be presented. It was not a matter within his control.

§ MR. CALDWELL
said that apart from the question whether hon. Members found Reports in the library or not, they expected that when the Government asked for money, that they should explain to the Committee what it was wanted for. He did not consider it was the duty of every hon. Member to ferret out such information for himself. He had now seen the Report mentioned by the Lord Advocate. It stated that of eleven settlers nine had discharged their debts in full, and that the other two estates were in progress of changing hands. Were they to continue to pay £431 a year while those two estates were changing hands? He was very much indebted to the Lord Advocate for obtaining the Report. They were now to spend £431 a year for the purpose of recovering—