Commons Sitting of 6 August 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Birkenhead Corporation Water Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified). Bill
1806
read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
City of London (Union of Parishes) Bill [Lords] (by order). As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords].—read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to.—Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland) Bill, Swansea Harbour Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to. —Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill [Lords], Portishead District Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented—of Colonial Report, No. 533 (Weihaiwei, Report for 1906) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHIPPING CASUALTIES (1905–6).
  Copy presented—of Abstract of the Returns of Shipping Casualties which occurred on or near the Coasts or in Rivers and Harbours of the United Kingdom from the 1st July, 1905, to 30th June, 1906, and of the Returns of Shipping Casualties to British Vessels elsewhere than on the Coasts of the United Kingdom, and to Foreign Vessels on or near the Coasts, or in Rivers and Harbours, of British Possessions Abroad, &c., with Charts and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Reduction of the Coastguard Service.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any stations of the Coastguard are short of men; and, if so, which are they, how long have they been short of their complement, and when will they be filled up.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.)In some cases the complements of the stations have been found to be in excess of present requirements, and are being gradually reduced in accordance with the policy initiated by the late Board and continued by the present Board.

  Observance of Saints Days at Ditton School, Ilminster.
  MR. MONTGOMERY: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that at Ditton Street school, Ilminster, it has been the custom for years past that, on certain days of the Church of England, the children whose parents belong to that Church should attend service thereat instead of having their scripture lesson in school; whether this is in accordance with the regulations of the Board of Education; and whether May Day and Empire Day are properly described as days exclusively set apart for religious observance by the Church of England.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Matters of school attendance are primarily the concern of the local education authority, and I am not aware of any complaint having been made to the authority in this case. The by-laws of the local education authority in this instance, as approved by the Board of Education, seem to be in no way irregular. From the information in the Question I am unable to say that there has been a breach of any regulations of the Board of Education in the incidents referred to. In reply to the concluding paragraph, I cannot pretend to be an authoritative exponent of what the views of the Church of England are as to whether May Day and Empire Day are days to be "exclusively set apart for religious observance," but I am not aware that those are the grounds upon which the children of the school in question were absent from the school on the days named, nor, so far as I hare observed, does the ordinary practice bear out that view.

  Painting of Letter Boxes.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the recommendation of the Select Committee that letter boxes should be provided by
  1808
  the Department, it is now incumbent upon the sub-postmasters to pay for the painting of the same.
  )Answered By Mr. Sydney Buxton.) No change has yet been made in the rules regarding the provision of letter boxes. In considering the recommendations of the Committee the point mentioned by the hon. Member will be borne in mind.

  Police Commission—Case of Ex-constable George Deed.
  MR. BYLES: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings of the Royal Commission on the Metropolitan Police, when an ex-police constable named George Deed confessed upon oath that, at the previous sitting of the Commission, he had deliberately perjured himself; whether this witness was severely reprimanded by the Chairman, who told him that he had placed himself in a very serious position indeed, and that it would be the duty of the Commission to consider whether any action ought or ought not to be taken against him; and whether he proposes, in the interests of the police force, to prosecute this man.
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) I have no information upon this subject. The matter is one for the consideration of the Commissioners of Police, who may be relied upon to take nyy necessary steps in the interests of the police force.

  Irish. Teachers' Pensions.
  Mr. MURPHY,: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of teachers admitted to A (1) pensions from 1879 to 1889, 1889 to 1899, and 1898 to 1907, respectively; if he can give the number who, having reached the age for retirement, are now awaiting admission; and if they will be allowed to continue to serve until admitted to the pension rights of their class.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) On the foundation of the pension fund in 1879 the number of teachers admitted to the pension establishment of the first division of the first class was 230. The number admitted from 1880 to 1888, inclusive, was 145; from 1889 to 1897, inclusive, 195; and from 1898 to 1906, inclusive, 131.

  1809
  No teachers who have reached the age for compulsory retirement are awaiting admission to the pension establishment in question. There is no provision in the pension rules for admitting teachers to such pension establishment after they have reached the age for compulsory retirement.

  Payment of Dockyard Labourers doing Skilled Work.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS. To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that smart labourers are employed at painting and doing other skilled work; and, as these men have become proficient in the lesser-skilled part of painting, he can see his way clear to pay them the trade union rates of wages, as paid by private firms for such employment.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the Question, the policy of the Admiralty was defined by me in the debate on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Chatham on 1st March, 1906. No change is contemplated.

  Assessments in Scotland.
  SIR J. JARDINE: To ask the Lord Advocate whether the superior is rated to any of the public burdens arising in his superiority upon the amount received from his vassals as casualties of composition upon singular successions; and whether such amount is in any way a subject of taxation either as a separate subject or as a part of the composite land value of the heritage.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) No, Sir, casualties are not rated for local public burdens.

  Beautifying Trafalgar Square.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the possibility of beautifying the open asphalt spaces in Trafalgar Square by placing therein a few large boxes or tubs containing ornamental shrubs or flowers; whether he is aware that such boxes might be placed upon wheels and removed in case of public meetings, following the example of certain Continental cities; and that no
  1810
  opposition would then be offered by those who wish to preserve the right of free speech which at present exists.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) I find there would be considerable objections even to removable boxes.

  Orders for Lee-Enfield Rifles at Enfield Small Arms Factory.
  MR. BRANCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War what orders for Lee-Enfield barrels and bodies combined have been placed with the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, during the last three years; what have been the separate numbers of each order and whom from; whether from India, Home, or the Colonies; and the date of each order so placed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I would remind the hon. Member that a minimum establishment has now been fixed for Enfield, viz., 1,900 to 2,000 (slightly less than the number now employed there) and the work will be so arranged that this number is kept in constant employment, unaffected by the date and amount of foreign orders. I trust that in these circumstances my hon. friend will dispense with the figures referred to in his Question, which cover a great deal of space and are most inconvenient to print.

  Audit Department — Promotion of Examiners.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the claims to promotion of certain members of the old examiner class in the Exchequer and Audit Department who, about 1st November, 1905, were called on to retire on pension are now considered when superior vacancies arise, he will explain how the interests of these men were consulted by thus calling on them to retire on pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The officers referred to were not called upon to retire, but were afforded an opportunity of doing so. This course was considered to be desirable in the interests of the officers themselves as well as of the Department.

  Promotion in the Colonial Audit Department.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether three clerks in

  1811
  the Colonial Audit Branch, who never passed Civil Service examinations for their positions and who were on a scale of salary £ 70–£ 5–£ l00, precisely the same as the Second Division scale, were, with less than six years service in the case of one, and with less than two years service in the case of the other two, promoted to £100 per annum as from 1st July, 1906; and, if so, seeing that there were four acting examiners in this branch with less than £100 per annum, and with four to five years service, who passed Civil Service examinations and who were doing precisely the same kind of work as their more favoured colleagues, will he explain why these acting examiners were not promoted to £100 per annum on 1st July, 1906, and why the other three were so promoted.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) On the amalgamation of the Colonial Audit Branch with the Exchequer and Audit Department the three clerks in question were already members of the Colonial Audit Branch staff, and, on selection for the post of examiners, became entitled to the initial scale of the post, namely, £100 a year. The four other clerks referred to were clerks of the Second Division temporarily lent from the main office, and are not eligible for appointment as examiners until after the completion of eight years service.

  Promotion in Audit Department.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that civil servants must look for promotion principally in the Departments to which they are assigned, that before the Treasury could entertain a proposal to promote an assistant clerk in one Department, on the ground of special merit, to the Second Division, with a view to his assignment to another Department, it would be necessary that the heads of the two Departments should concur in an application to the Treasury to this end, that no such case of transfer on promotion has ever arisen, that no provision has been made in the reorganisation of the Exchequer and Audit Department for the promotion of deserving abstractors according to their conditions of service, that many of these abstractors in the Exchequer and Audit Department are now doing work which was but recently
  1812
  done by Second Division clerks, that they are now in receipt of only 25s. a week, or less salary than that given to nominated messengers in this Department, while three clerks of only five or six years service are in receipt of nearly £400 per annum each, he will explain whether the Comptrollor and Auditor-General, in introducing these abstractors into his Department, never contemplated the promotion of any of them, no matter what merit may be shown by them; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) As I have already informed the bon. Member, none of the abstractors in question have completed the minimum service requisite before their claims to promotion can be considered.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that there are three clerks in the Exchequer and Audit Department, two of whom entered the service in October, 1902, and the third in October, 1900, in receipt of £365 per annum each; that the highest salary received by any other clerk in the Department with the same length of service is £100 per annum; that each of these three clerks, on the recent reorganisation of the Department on 1st November, 1905, received an addition to their salaries of £155, £155, and £125, respectively; and, seeing that all the Second Division clerks in the Department with eight years service and upwards were promoted to the Higher Division and were not granted any immediate increase of salary, will he say why these three clerks with such short service, who are now senior and superior to 140 men, about three-fourths of the whole staff', who entered the Department before them and many of whom have six or seven times their service, were not placed on the seniority list according to their annual rates of pay intead of having their salaries nearly doubled.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) No change has been made in the relative seniority of the three officers referred to, who, previous to the reorganisation of 1st November, 1905, were clerks of the First Division and members of the directing staff, and, as such, senior to the whole of the Second Division establishment. Being

  1813
  thus already in a senior position in the office they naturally had priority in selection to fill vacancies in the newly-constituted grade of chief examiners on a scale of pay £350–£15–£500. The Second Division clerks who were similarly selected received the same scale of pay.

  Income of London Non-Provided Schools.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the President of the Board of Education what was the total income for maintenance of the London non-provided elementary schools in the year 1902, received respectively from voluntary subscriptions and from endowments, distinguishing, if possible, between the different religious denominations.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Income of Non-Provided Elementary Schools from Voluntary Contributions and Endowments in year 1901–2 (Statistical year ending 31st July, 1902).

  London.

  Denomination.

  Voluntary Contributions

  Endowments.

  £

  £

  Church of England

  54,260

  14,648

  Wesleyan

  1,544

  Nil

  Roman Catholic

  13,932

  1,037

  Undenominational and other denominations

  16,472

  13,747

  Total

  86,208

  29,432

  The above figures are complete so far as is shown by the information in the possession of the Board, but the Board cannot guarantee their accuracy.

  Drainage of Buildings —Control of Local Government Board.
  Mr. LUTTRELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Local Government Board have no jurisdiction with regard to the enforcement of bylaws with respect to the drainage of buildings; and, if so, whether he would take steps to give the Local Government Board such control.
  1814
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Local Government Board have no power to enforce the observance of by-laws made by local authorities, and I doubt whether it would be practicable for them to exercise such powers if they possessed them.

  Discharges of Labourers by the Hampstead Borough Council.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board could he say how many labourers have been discharged by the Hampstead Borough Council within the past twelve months; and could he say what amount, if any, has been saved to the ratepayers by such discharges.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The only information I have on the subject is to the effect that, as from the end of March, the staff of workmen employed by the borough council was reduced by the discharge of twenty-four men, and that the wages of those men amounted to £34 per week.

  Assistance to the Blind in London.
  MR. A. ALLEN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, according to the census of 1901, there were in London 3,556 blind persons, and to the further fact that under 250 blind persons are employed in workshops in London; and whether, seeing that numbers of blind persons are dependent on assistance from the rates or from charitable sources, and that charitable organisation has completely failed to provide adequate workshop accommodation, he can hold out any hopes of reconsidering his decision as to State assistance in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am sorry that I cannot add anything to the Answer which I gave to my hon. friend in reply to his Question of the 1st. inst†

  Evicted Tenants—Application of Denis Healy.
  MR. JOHN MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have yet come to any decision in reference to
  † See (4) Debates, clxxix., 1198.

  1815
  the application of Denis Healy to be re instated in his farm at Knockanes, county Kerry.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have been unable to effect the reinstatement of Denis Healy in the farm which was formerly held by him, and which is now occupied by his brother-in-law. The Commissioners, however, will consider Denis Healy's application in connection with the distribution of any untenanted land which they may acquire.

  Sale of Untenanted Land on the Blacker-Douglas Estate.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the untenanted land on the Blacker-Douglas estate, at Tulli-hinal, North Kerry, which was offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners to enlarge uneconomic holdings and reinstate evicted tenants, has been inspected; and, if so, whether he can state with what result; what is the price asked by the landlord; and what is the price offered by the Estates Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have had an inspection made of the untenanted land on this estate and have directed their inspector to furnish further information on the subject, on the receipt of which the Commissioners will consider what amount they could advance for the purchase of the land under the Act of 1903. The owner has not named a price for the land.

  Suggested Railway from Listowel to Tarbert.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a Resolution, passed unanimously by the Kerry County Council on 16th May, 1907, in favour of a short line of railway from Listowel to Tarbert via Newtowndill on and Bally longford; whether he is aware that Mr. Bryce, late Chief Secretary for Ireland, expressed himself in favour of the project; and whether the Chief Secretary will, at a convenient time during the Autumn Recess, visit the district in order to inquire into the necessity and urgency of this work.
  1816
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have received a copy of the Resolution referred to. I am not aware that my predecessor ever expressed himself in favour of the projected railway; on the contrary, I find that Mr. Bryce recorded his opinion that the proposed line could never come near paying its way, and that, if public money should become available for railway schemes, there were many other schemes which would have a prior claim. There is obviously no prospect that assistance from public funds can be given to the project at an early date, if at all, and in the circumstances there would be no object in my visiting the district.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  German Navy Bill.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what increase of expenditure since 1904–5 the present German Navy estimates represent; whether he can state the further increase for next year sanctioned under the German Navy Bill, 1906; and whether these sums allow for the further recent enlargement of the German programme for the purpose of increasing the dimensions and armaments of the German cruisers.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY, (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): The hon. Member has himself indicated the sources from which alone the desired information can be obtained.

  Cost of Refitting Battleships.
  MR. HOLT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state what is the time usually occupied by the annual refit of a first-class battleship; what is the nature of the work then executed; and whether, for the better information of Members, he will exhibit a detailed statement of the work executed and the expense incurred in a recent normal annual refit.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The time usually occupied in carrying out the annual refit of a battleship is from five to eight weeks. The work executed is docking, cleaning and coating bottom

  1817
  with composition, examination of underwater fittings, making good defects of hull, engines, boilers, auxiliary machinery, boats, gun, torpedo and electrical fittings, and canvas gear. The cost varies from £4,000 to £7,000.

  Birching in the Navy.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to Cd. 3628, Return of Punishments in the Royal Navy during 1906, what were the offences and sentences in each case of the twelve men sentenced to penal servitude, and the offences and sentences of each individual in the seven cases who suffered corporal punishment with birch, the date on which each birching took place, where it occurred, and why was this form of punishment inflicted, having in view the statement he made to the House on the 21st February, 1906†
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The information asked for in this Question can best be given in the form of a Return which will be granted if the hon. Member moves for it. The birching was inflicted in all cases before the Admiralty orders of the 30th January, 1906, had been promulgated to the Fleet.

  Ayrshire Foundry Castings.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will furnish the names of His Majesty's ships at present on the active list containing castings supplied by the Ayrshire Foundry Company prior to the delivery of the rudder for the "King Edward VII.," and in each case specify against each ship what castings were supplied, giving full particulars of each casting; and whether the Admiralty have any guarantee, beyond Admiralty inspectors' reports, that any such castings were not tampered with in a similar manner to the "King Edward VII." rudder, with special reference to castings supplied to H.M.S. "Argyle."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: To furnish the information asked for would involve a great amount of labour which, in the opinion of the Admiralty, would not be justified by the results. With regard to the second Question, the castings have stood the test of actual service for some years without exhibiting defects.
  † See (4) Debates, clii., 362, 363, 370.

  Raunds Boot Dispute.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been directed to the fact that in January last Mr. Askwith, who had acted as arbitrator in the matter of the Raunds boot dispute and made certain awards, wrote to the War Office directing attention to certain evasions of the price statement which he had arranged; whether he is aware that Mr. Askwith has not yet received any reply to his letter; and whether he can explain the neglect of the War Office in this matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. HALDANE, Haddingtonshire): The company in question went into liquidation and it was not practicable to deal with the points raised in the letter. This is the reason why the reply which would otherwise have been sent was not sent to Mr. Askwith. But the matter, so far from being overlooked, was fully gone into.

  War Office Surveyors.
  MR. RIDSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if any surveyorsor assistant surveyors are acting as division officers, what extra remuneration they are receiving; and whether extra duty pay has been granted to some who are so acting, but not to all, and if so, why.
  MR. HALDANE: Surveyors and assistant surveyors are liable, under the Regulations, to be employed without extra remuneration for short periods as division officers during the temporary absence of the latter or for other causes. In exceptional cases of prolonged employment as division officer, extra duty pay has occasionally been granted, each case being considered on its merits and determined according to the length of employment as division officer.

  Army Contracts in Wales.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state in what counties in Wales and with what firms the contracts for £23,000 were placed last year.
  MR. HALDANE: The contracts were placed mainly in Glamorganshire as the articles bought were tin plates, nickel, foundry coke, etc. It is not considered expedient to publish the names of the firms in question.

  Victoria Barracks, Windsor.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the inconvenience and expense caused to married soldiers of the 3rd Grenadier Guards now quartered at Windsor owing to delays in certain alterations to Victoria Barracks being carried out under the Director of Barracks Construction; and if he will say how many married families are being paid lodging allowance, and over what period it is anticipated such allowance will be granted; why the work should have been entirely stopped for fourteen weeks, and, if through the contractor's bankruptcy, why the work was not proceeded with under the usual terms of War Department contracts; and what will be the total cost to the public of lodging allowance and other expenses connected with the delay.
  MR. HALDANE: Twenty-five married families are in receipt of lodging allowance. The delay in the work of remodelling the married quarters was due to the bankruptcy of the contractors in April. Steps were immediately taken under the terms of the contract for the completion of the service but further delays arose pending the settlement of certain claims put forward by the official receiver to the plant and materials on the site and to monies alleged to be due to the late contractors' estate. It is anticipated that the whole of the work will be completed by the early part of September.

  Carrickfergus Ordnance Depot.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the circumstances under which a foreman in the Army Ordnance Department, Dublin District, was promoted to be principal foreman at the Ordnance depot at Carrickfergus over the heads of senior and competent men with greater length of service, both military and civilian; had the foreman promoted any military experience at all; and were the men passed over men with the highest testimonials as to character and efficiency.
  MR. HALDANE: Principal foreman T. Kelly, having one of his children, seriously ill at Dublin and being advised by the medical man attending her that she must not return to Carrickfergus, applied for and obtained sanction to exchange places with foreman W. Booth, on the understanding that no expense to the public would be involved. The latter had no military service, but the exchange was recommended by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, who doubtless considered this foreman the most suitable.

  Lanmadaw Evictions.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received a memorial from above 700 persons living in the-part of Rangoon called Lanmadaw; whether it is likely that these persons will be evicted from their homes unless they consent to the new conditions of tenure offered by the Government of Burma; and whether there is any civil court in that province, with jurisdiction to try the question of title as between them and the Government or to accept a plaint if presented by them.
  THE SECRETARY OK STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY, Montrose Burghs): I considered in Council the memorial and decided that there was no sufficient ground for interference. The memorialists, if they do not accept the terms on which leases for ninety years have been offered to them, will be required to vacate the land, but compensation, as provided by the Lower Burma Town and Village Lands Act, will be given. Under that Act the civil courts have no jurisdiction.
  *MR. SMEATONasked whether, although the people were being evicted from their homes on this land ostensibly for public purposes, the real reason was that the local Government intended, after raising the level of the sites, to sell them by auction to the highest bidder and make a handsome profit out of the transaction; and whether steps could not be taken, as in the case of the Irish evicted tenants of which the I House had lately heard so much, to enable these unfortunate Burmese residents of Lanmadaw to get back their holdings on reasonable terms?
  MR. MORLEYsaid he was not prepared to accept the suggested difference between the real and the ostensible reason, but if the hon. Member would speak to him privately he would see if anything more could be done.

  Young Indians in England.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that friendless young Indians arriving in England frequently, and not wholly by accident, fall into undesirable hands; and whether he will, so far as may be feasible, make arrangements whereby such young Indians can obtain the advice and assistance of which they stand in need.
  MR. MORLEY: This Question, together with others relating to the well-being of young Indians in this country, is now being considered by a special Committee which I have appointed for the purpose.

  Arrests of Indian Editors.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the sentences of five years imprisonment passed upon the editors of the vernacular papers, India and Hindustan; whether he can state if the editors were summarily arrested after the issue of their papers, or summoned to appear on a stated charge before the Courts; and whether he can state under what law or regulations they were so arrested or summoned to appear before the Courts.
  MR. MORLEY: The editors were dealt with under Sections 124A and 131 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence is one for which a warrant is ordinarily issued in the first instance.
  MR. O'GRADY: Is it usual to handcuff persons when arrested under the Code?
  MR. MORLEY: I am not aware that they were. I will inquire.
  MR O'GRADY: They were in this case.

  Lahore Rioters' Sentences.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his
  1822
  attention has been called to the sentences of eighteen months imprisonment passed upon six men as a result of the riots at Lahore, also to one of nine months on another man and one of Hogging of thirty stripes on a youth, both involved in the same riots; whether he has power to intervene and order revision of the sentences of imprisonment: and whether he can, and will, in future give instructions that no sentences of floggings shall be given where it is obvious that imprisonment will meet the case.
  MR. MORLEY: I have seen reports of the cases referred to. I see no reason to intervene. The question whether imprisonment will meet any particular case is for the authority that tries the case to decide; but I am about to address the Government of India on the general subject of flogging. I may add that in the case to which my hon. friend refers the sentence has not been carried out, as the youth has been certified medically to be unfit to undergo the punishment.
  MR. O'GRADY: Then in that case the sentence of flogging will not be carried out?
  MR. MORLEY: Certainly not.

  Bengal Police Libel Actions.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Government of Bengal gave leave to six police officers to institute a civil action for libel against three papers on a criticism of mismanagement of the prosecution of the Sova Bazar murder case, the action being eventually heard against the Indian Daily News; whether the Government privately guaranteed the cost of the action in the event of the policemen winning; and whether it is to be understood in future that any officials criticised by any paper are free to sue for damages at the public expense.
  MR. MORLEY: The rules regulating the conduct of Government servants prohibit a Government servant from having recourse, without the previous sanction of the Government, to any Court for the vindication of his public acts or character from defamatory attacks. In granting such sanction the Government must in each case decide whether it will itself

  1823
  bear the costs, or whether the Government servant shall institute the proceedings at his own expense, and, if so, whether, in the event of a decision in his favour, the Government shall reimburse him to the extent of the whole or any part of the costs. It was in accordance with these rules that the Government of Bengal acted in the case referred to. The judge held that there had been a serious libel; and I need not remind my hon. friend of the difference between fair criticism and defamation.
  MR. HAROLD COX: What would have happened had the newspaper won the case? Would the Government have paid the costs?
  MR. MORLEY: I am afraid I cannot say.

  Panama Canal Labour.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if the Government of Jamaica have refused to allow labourers to be indentured in that island for services on the Panama Canal; and if Papers can be laid dealing with the negotiations between the Government of the island and the Commissioners of the Isthmian Canal.
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): It is not correct to say that the Government of Jamaica have refused to allow labourers to be indentured in that Colony for service on the canal; but the representatives of the canal authorities failed to come to an agreement with the local government as to the terms on which recruiting should be permitted. The Secretary of State sees no sufficient reason for laying Papers on the subject of the negotiations.

  Customs Rebates on South African War Supplies.
  MR. HOLT: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies have admitted any part, and, if so, how much, of the claims made against them for customs and railway rebates on over sea supplies purchased on behalf of the Army since January, 1903.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has no cognisance of the claims mentioned by the hon. Member.

  MR. CHURCHILL'S AFRICAN TOUR
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether during his approaching visit to Africa he can arrange to spare a short time for the adjacent Protectorate of British Central Africa, wherein his presence would be much appreciated and would be productive of much benefit.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I should greatly desire to visit Nyassaland, but I am afraid that such an extension of my journey would interfere with my duties to the House.

  Uganda Railway Annuities.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the instalment of annuity of £319,112 to be paid to the National Debt Commisssioners for the Uganda Railway will be payable in full each year until the debt for the construction of that railway is extinguished, or will the annuity be reduced by the amount of any annual profits which may be earned by the railway: and to whom will the railway belong when the debt is paid off.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The annuity will be payable in full for the present as it is considered that the interests both of the British taxpayer and of the East African and Uganda Protectorates will be better served by applying the annual profits to the development and extension of the railway with a view to increasing still further the profits derived from it. If the present arrangements are continued, the railway will belong to the Imperial Government when the debt is paid off.

  Chambers of Commerce and the Brussels Convention.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations have been received from chambers of commerce in this country with regard to the attitude of the Government towards the Brussels Convention.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Representations on the subject referred to by the hon.

  1825
  Member have been addressed to the Colonial Office by the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, the West India Association of Glasgow, and the Greenock Chamber of Commerce and Manufactures.

  Congo Free State Consuls.
  MR. BRAMSDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government of the Congo Free State has consular representatives in this country; and, in that case, who those consular representatives are.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (SIR EDWARD GREY,): Mr. Jules Houdret and Mr. L. T. Grein have respectively been appointed Consul-General and Consul in London for the Congo Free State. Mr. Charles Sarolea, Sir Alfred Jones, and Mr. L. A. Gallé were appointed Consuls of the State at Edinburgh, Liverpool, and Manchester respectively. I have not heard of any of these appointments having been cancelled or given up.

  Denmark and Iceland.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that the King of Denmark has issued a decree empowing the Danish Islands Commission to take the necessary steps for granting complete autonomy to Iceland, allowing the inhabitants to retain their civic rights as Danish subjects, and abandoning the power hitherto vested in the king of nominating one-sixth of the legislative body as well as the Minister who was at the head of the administration; and, if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government have received no official information to the above effect. If such a decree has been published by the Danish Government, I shall be glad to obtain it.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Will it be laid on the Table?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I will first lot the hon. Member see a copy, and he can then judge if it is of sufficient importance to lay it.

  New Barracks at Cairo.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the cost of new barracks to be erected for the Army of Occupation at Cairo is to be shared between the British and Egyptian Governments; and, in that case, whether he can state in whom the ownership of the barracks will vest.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to the first part of the bon. Member's Question is in the negative. The existing barracks are Egyptian Government property (except a small part built by British War Office funds), and are held by the Army of Occupation so long as required for military purposes. The new barracks will also be the property of the Egyptian Government, and held on the same terms.

  Egyptian Army of Occupation—Cost of Moving Troops.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the sum of £50,000, officially announced in May last as voted by the Egyptian Ministry of Finances to meet the costs of movements of troops of the Army of Occupation in 1906, is in addition to the sum of £200,000 agreed upon to be paid by the Egyptian Government towards the costs of the Army of Occupation and in addition to the sum recently voted for the construction of new barracks at Cairo for the Army of Occupation.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information as to the £200,000 referred to in the Question. The sum payable by the Egyptian Government to meet the extra cost of maintaining the British forces in Egypt since 1st April last is £150,000 a year. Prior to that date it was £100,000 a year. In addition to the £100,000 paid for the financial year 1906-7, a sum of £52,000 was paid in respect of the increase of troops in 1906. The arrangements as to the construction of new barracks at Cairo are outside these figures.

  Egyptian Company Laws.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that under Article 258

  1827
  of the Japanese Commercial Code, which enacts that a foreign company which sets up a principal office in Japan, or which makes it its principal object to do business in Japan, must, even though it is formed in a foreign country, comply with the same provisions as though it were formed in Japan, a British company, whose head office is at Hong Hong, has lately been fined at Tokio for non-compliance with the Japanese company law; and whether, in view of recent financial scandals in Egypt, he will recommend the Egyptian Government to adopt the above-cited provision of the Japanese law.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: As, under the existing system of capitulations, the assent of fifteen Powers is necessary before legislation applicable to a foreign company could be enacted in Egypt, it would be impracticable to make the proposed recommendation.

  British Representatives Abroad—Pensions and Emoluments.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the emoluments of the representatives of this country abroad are usually made up to a large extent of various allowances which are not taken into account for the purpose of the calculation of their pensions on retirement; and, if so, whether, as a result of such a system, a pension is often out of proportion to the total emoluments; and whether he can see his way to place the matter on a better footing.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's representatives abroad receive pensions under the Diplomatic Pensions Act, 1869. Their salaries and allowances are assessed in proportion to the positions which they occupy at foreign capitals, but such emoluments cannot be taken as a basis for the calculation of pensions. The amount of their pensions is, therefore, regulated by the rank which they have held in the diplomatic service.

  Congo Free State Rubber Traffic—Subsidy to the African Steamship Company.
  MR. BRAMSDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any subsidy is paid to the African Steamship Company by the British Government; and, if so, whether any steps were taken to ascertain whether
  1828
  this company were directly benefiting by the Congo Free State's rubbers traffic before such subsidy was granted, having in view the disapproval which His Majesty's Government have frequently expressed with regard to the method by which the Congo State is being exploited.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this on behalf of the Postmaster-General. Payments are made to the company for the conveyance of mails, but not in the form of a subsidy. The Answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

  Newfoundland Fisheries Dispute.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present position of affairs as regards the fisheries question on the shores of Newfoundland and the American claims regarding it; when further Papers upon the matter will be laid upon the Table; and if His Majesty's Government are acting in the question in strict consonance with the advice of the Government of the premier British Colony.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer returned to the hon. Member for Gravesend on the 1st of August.† His Majesty's Government can give no promise that they will lay further Papers on the subject of the Newfoundland fisheries in the present stage of the negotiations. They are in communication with the Newfoundland I Government.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will Papers be eventually laid, and will the House have an opportunity of considering the matter?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot say when the negotiations will come to an end.

  Price of Consols—Savings Bank Depositors.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, he can name any time within the life of the present generation at which Consols have fallen to so low a level as at the present time; and what steps he proposes to take to restore the national
  † See (4) Debates, clxxix., 1211.

  1829
  credit, and to save the depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank who have been induced to invest the product of their thrift in Consols from the losses attending the realisation of their little capital.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (MR. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): With 2½per Cent. Consols at 82½, the cost of an annuity of £3 is £99. In 1885 a similar annuity from Consols (then a 3 per cent. stock) could he purchased for £94 7s. 6d., while at no time between 1864 and 1878 would it have cost more than £98 10s. In 1866 it fell as low as £84. With regard to the rest of the lion, and gallant Member's Question, I do not think I can usefully add anything to my recent statements in this House in reply to similar questions and upon other occasions.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Could not notice be issued to Post Office Savings Bank depositors, warning them that they may lose—as some have already done— £30 per £100 by these investments?
  MR. ASQUITH: Depositors are carefully warned in the regulations that the Government cannot guarantee them against loss.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to complete the statement given in the Finance Accounts of the contingent liabilities of the State, he can state the amounts by which the funds now held by the National Debt Commissioners are insufficient to meet the possible claims of depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank, the trustees of trustee savings banks, and the trustees of friendly societies respectively.
  MR. ASQUITH: It was the practice until recently to include in the statement given in the Finance Accounts an estimate of the contingent liability of the Consolidated Fund in respect of the funds in question. The estimate was arrived at by valuing the securities held for the funds at their current market price. But the Select Committee on the Savings Banks Funds in 1902 condemned such valuations as misleading in the case of these funds. Accordingly, since the passing of the Savings Banks Act, 1904, which carried out the recommendation of
  1830
  the Committee, the estimate of possible liability has been omitted, and has been replaced by a general statement that the Consolidated Fund is liable to make good any amount by which the several funds may prove deficient

  Income Tax Rebates.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the delay which takes place in repaying to income-tax payers with an income entitling them to an abatement or remission of tax the amount of such abatement or remission, which has been deducted from their income before it reaches their hands; and whether, in view of the hardship that this delay inflicts on those often very poor men who are entitled to remission or abatement, he will take steps to put an end to such delay.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am aware that, owing to the immense accumulation of claims within a few months of the year mid to the close investigation necessary to ensure the Department against paying away money to which the claimant's title has not been conclusively proved, there is during the summer months a considerable delay in the settlement of claims. Every effort, however, is made by the Board of Inland Revenue to minimise this delay, both by the adoption of the most expeditious methods of dealing with the work and by the employment of the staff on long and continuous overtime. Much as I regret the inconvenience thus caused to the public, I fear that it is impossible, consistently with the due security of the Revenue, to devise any method of reducing it further.
  LORD R. CECIL: Is it not rather hard on the person entitled to repayment that he should not be paid interest on the money while it is withheld from him?
  MR. ASQUITH'Sreply was inaudible.

  Exeter Income Tax Distraint.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to recent distraints levied on

  1831
  tradesmen for non-payment of income-tax, and especially to one levied on the goods of Mr. Harry Hems, of Exeter; whether any complaints have reached the Inland Revenue Commissioners as regards the assessment of tradesmen in that city; and whether he will make inquiries with a view to taking steps to avoid such distraints in future.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have no information regarding recent distraints upon Exeter tradesmen, nor have the Board of Inland Revenue received any complaints as to the assessment of tradesmen generally in that city. My attention has not been called to the particular case mentioned by my hon. friend, but I will cause inquiry to be made with regard to it. The necessity for distraint appears to me to arise rather from the inaction of the taxpayer than the action of the Revenue authorities, but my hon. friend may be assured that everything which can be done will be done to secure the punctual payment of the tax without resort to extreme measures.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: Why were these distraints delayed so long in Exeter when tradesmen in Edinburgh had to pay so long ago as 26th February last?
  MR. ASQUITH: I know nothing as to the facts.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: If I give the right hon. Gentleman details will he consider the case?
  MR. ASQUITH: Certainly.

  Mines Commission and the North Wales Quarries.
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will undertake that some Welsh- speaking representative of the quarry-men shall be a member of the Mines Commission when such Commission deals with the question of the working of open slate quarries in North Wales.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): The Royal Commission will not reach that part of their inquiry which deals with quarries
  1832
  for some time yet. When they do so I will consider my hon. friend's suggestion.

  Shirley Poor Law Schools.
  DR. COOPER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the weekly cost per child of the children in the Shirley Poor Law Schools; how much of this is expended on maintenance, administrative charges, loan, and sinking fund; whether the weekly charge is less this year than last; whether any, and, if any, how many, of the boys are required to work on the farm and girls on housework as half-timers; and whether he can state the percentage of children passing the sixth standard before leaving the school.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): The average weekly cost per child in the year ending Michaelmas, 1906, was 20s. 6½d. Of this, the sum of 5s. 9½d. represented the average cost of maintenance, 8s. 8½d. the average cost in respect of the staff and miscellaneous expenditure, and 6s. 0½d. the charges in respect of loans. The average weekly cost per child in the year ended Michaelmas, 1905, was 21s. 7¼d. I understand that there are no half-timers in the school, I am not informed as to the percentage of children who have passed the sixth standard before leaving.
  MR. HAROLD COX: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for the previous year?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes; the figures for the last three years are; 1904, 29s.; 1905, 21s. 7¼.: 1906, 20s. 6½d.

  Coffee Adulteration.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that proceedings were instituted last month against a vendor of a mixture as coffee, of which 70 per cent. was chicory, and that the magistrates dismissed the case, though 1s. per per pound was paid; and, if the case be as stated, whether he will take action to protect the producers and consumers of coffee.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have seen a report of the case to which I presume my hon. friend refers. The facts would appear to be as stated, but I would point out that the magistrates seem to have been satisfied that the vendor had given notice by a label written on the bag that the article sold was coffee and chicory, and also that there was no intention on the part of the vendor to defraud. On the general question of the sale of mixtures of coffee and chicory I do not think I can add anything to the Answers I gave to the Questions which my hon. friend put to me on the 20th June last. †

  Grant for the Distressed.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to allot the same amount of money, viz., £200,000, this year for the purpose of assisting distress committees under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, as was allocated last year; and, having in view the action of the President of the Local Government Board in returning to the Exchequer £80,000 of that sum, and that no opportunity has been afforded of discussing that matter on the President's salary, can he give the House an assurance that this year it will all be spent in the alleviation of misery, suffering, and want, brought about through lack of employment.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this Question. The same amount has been voted this year as last, viz., £200,000, for contributions in aid of expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905. As regards payments out of last year's Grant to particular local bodies under the Act, I was only concerned with such payments so far as they related to England and Wales. I made payment in all cases in which the local bodies showed that there was exceptional need for assistance in meeting the cost of providing or contributing to the provision of temporary work, and a scheme of work was proposed of which I could approve. I also gave some assistance towards the expenses of emigration when undertaken by these bodies. More than this I could not properly do, and as the whole of the Grant was not required for the purpose in view, there was of
  † (4) Debates, clxxvi., 616–7.
  1834
  necessity a balance which had to be returned into the Exchequer. The amount to be expended out of the grant just voted must depend on what are found to be the requirements of next winter. I could not give any assurance that the whole sum voted will be spent.
  MR. LEA: Is it not a fact that in consequence of the action of the right hon. Gentleman, women's workshops have been closed all over the place, and, in particular, in my constituency?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: There are only three workwomen's rooms in London.
  MR. LEA: I have got one of them in my constituency.

  Secondary School Regulations.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he asked the opinion of the Consulative Committee as to the recent changes in the regulations for secondary schools; and, if so, what was the nature of the advice given.
  I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the recent changes in the regulations for secondary schools were the outcome of advice he received from educational bodies; and. if so, will he state their names and the nature of the advice they tendered.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (MR. LOUGH, Islington, W.): I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. friend has had no lack of advice as to the framing of regulations for secondary schools and indeed for every kind of school, but he does not think it would be either usual or desirable for him to name the persons or bodies whom he may have consulted before taking action for which he, as Minister, is responsible. I may say, however, that the matter was not referred to the Consultative Committee.

  Swansea Voluntary School Teachers.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the dispute as to the salaries of the teachers in the voluntary schools at Swansea has yet been settled; and, if not, what position it is now in.
  MR. LOUGH: The Answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. My right hon. friend received a deputation from the managers last month and is awaiting a reply from the local education authority to a communication he sent to them on this subject.
  LORD R. CECIL: What was the date of the communication?
  MR. LOUGH: I do not know; I will inquire.

  International Congress on School Hygiene.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Board informed the representatives of the International Congress on School Hygiene that they would neither send delegates to the congress themselves nor move the Foreign Office to issue invitations to foreign Governments to appoint delegates; whether the Board has now reversed that decision; and, if so, whether he can state the reason for the change of policy.
  MR. LOUGH: No, Sir, the Board of Education informed the organisers of the congress from the outset that they would be glad to send official representatives to the congress and they have since done so. As regards foreign Governments, the Board of Education and the Government were obviously unable themselves to invite foreign Governments to send representatives to a congress which was not a Government congress but organised privately; but it was, from the beginning, arranged that the invitations to the congress should be sent to the foreign Governments through the medium of the Foreign Office, though not, of course, as being an invitation from the Government. This was done, and is the course that was adopted in the case of the first congress in 1904. I am obliged to my hon. friend for giving me this opportunity of saying that there has been no change of policy or attitude or decision towards the congress on the part of the Board of Education, who have from the outset been glad to assist the congress.
  SIR G. KEKEWICHwas understood to ask if the Board of Education had sent delegates to the congress; if invitations had been issued to foreign countries through the Foreign Office, and if any
  1836
  pressure was put on the Board of Education to get invitations issued.
  MR. LOUGH: Subject to there being no mysterious meaning in the word "delegates" I may say the Board of Education has sent delegates. The remainder of the Question I have already answered.

  Board of Education Statistics.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider if it is practicable to publish the statistics of the Board of Education in three separate volumes for public elementary, secondary, and technical schools, respectively, instead of in one large volume, as last year, so that the statistics for each class of schools may be more cheaply obtained by the teachers interested in them.
  MR. LOUGH: The statistics relating to the various branches of the Board's work were recently brought together in one volume, both for convenience of reference and also to emphasise the essential unity of all branches of education, and I am inclined to think that, at present at any rate, the balance of advantage is in favour of this system; but, apart from the merits of my hon. friend's suggestion, it is hardly feasible to publish the statistics of the Board in the three separate volumes suggested by him, because, amongst other reasons, the education given in the institutions with which the Board are concerned does not, in some cases, fall entirely within any one of the three heads named.

  Crown Prosecutions in Ireland.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he will state the number of cases in which he and the Solicitor-General for Ireland have personally prosecuted for the Crown since 1st April, 1907; and what has been the result in each case.
  THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange): Since the date named, the law officers of the Crown in Ireland have prosecuted in person in six cases. In one case there was an acquittal; in two cases the jury disagreed; and in the remaining three cases the trials have been postponed with a view to moving for a change of venue.

  Edwards Estate, Monasterevan.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Sectary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Hawkins, sub-Commissioner, when fixing a second term rent upon the holding of Mr. Peter Dempsey, Coolnaferra, Monasterevan, Edwards estate, produced a map with Dempsey's farm marked in red ink by the agent when he came to inspect the land, and accused the tenant of being an advanced Nationalist and a member of the United Irish League; can he say if Dempsey received a reduction of only 8d. in the pound while other rents on the same property were reduced from 17 to 35 per cent.; and whether he proposes to recommend the reappointment of Mr. Hawkins when his term of office expires.
  MR. CHERRY (for Mr. BIRRELL): The Land Commission have referred this Question to Mr. Hawkins, who states that there is absolutely no foundation for the suggestion that he accused the tenant of being an advanced Nationalist and a member of the United Irish League. When Mr. Hawkins first visited the farm the landlord was represented by the estate bailiff who produced the estate map. A dispute arose between the bailiff and the tenant as to the boundaries of the holding, and the inspection was therefore adjourned. Subsequently the parties agreed as to the boundaries of the holding, and Mr. Hawkins then visited the farm a second time and inspected it. The map used by him was the official map on record in the case, which shows the boundaries of the holding as pointed out to him by the tenant and eventually agreed to on behalf of the landlord. The Commissioners inform me that Mr. Hawkins is a gentleman in whose discretion and impartiality they have every confidence. I may add that if either party is aggrieved by the order of the sub-Commission he can apply to have the case reheard in the manner provided by Statute.

  Sir Antony MacDonnell.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Sir Antony MacDonnell is visiting the West of Ireland in his official capacity; and, if so, with what object.
  MR. CHERRY: The Under-Secretary visited the West of Ireland as a member of the Congested Districts Board authorised by the Board to consider with the Board's Chief Land Inspector, Mr. Doran, the question of the purchase, on a large scale, of grass lands for the Board's purposes. The results of Sir Antony MacDonnell's visit will be discussed at the next meeting of the Board on the 9th instant.

  Insanitary Houses at Kilrush.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board will make inquiry into the condition of the houses on the property of the late Thomas Peacocke, in Kilrush; whether the Board is aware that the local sanitary inspector, Dr. R. Counihan, Mr. Morissy, the engineer, and Sir Achison M'Cullagh have reported that the majority of them are not fit for human habitation; and will the Local Government Board take action in the matter before sickness breaks out in those houses and spreads through the town.
  MR. CHERRY: The officers named in the Question have made reports as to the insanitary condition of some houses in the Kilrush Urban District, but the Local Government Board have no information as to the ownership of these houses. It rests with the local authority to take action in the matter under the powers conferred upon them for that purpose by the Housing of the Working Classes Acts and the Public Health Acts.

  Administration of the Labourers Acts.
  MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the number of improvement schemes under the Labourers Acts which have been received by the Local Government Board, and whether the present inspectorial staff is able to meet the work in the time allowed by the Labourers Act of 1906; and, if not, will he see his way to appoint some additional inspectors from the district council service of Ireland.
  MR. CHERRY: There are at present under the consideration of the Local

  1839
  Government Board schemes from twenty-seven rural districts embracing 6,049 plots. The Board anticipate that the staff now at their disposal will be able to cope with the work under the Labourers Acts.

  Irish Poor Law Medical Service.
  MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the suggestions of Mr. O'Carroll with reference to the Poor Law medical service; and whether, seeing the universality of feeling in favour of the findings of the Viceregal Commission on Poor Law Reform, he will consider the advisability of having the Commissioners' attention drawn to the suggestions and to the feasibility of adopting the plan suggested by Mr. O'Carroll.
  MR. CHERRY: My right hon. friend's attention has been called to Mr. O'Carroll's suggestions on this subject. The Viceregal Commission on Poor Law Reform has concluded its inquiry and presented its Report, and I regret to say say that it would now be impossible to submit further suggestions to the Commission.

  Kilmallock Evicted Tenant.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord- Lieutenant of Ireland how matters stand at present as to the reinstatement to his evicted holding of Joseph O'Rourke, of Clogher East, electoral division of Dromin, Kilmallock, county Limerick, who over sixteen years ago was evicted by his then landlord, Lord Langford, of Summerhill, county Meath; is he aware that subsequently the farm passed into the hands of the late Mr. John Gubbins, of Bruree, and is now in the hands of his successor, Mr. John Norris Browning, of the said place, Bruree, in county Limerick, who would, it is represented, if he got any fair compensation, restore Mr. O'Rourke to his farm; and will the Estates Commissioners exert themselves to bring the matter to that desirable end.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that O'Rourke's application for reinstatement will be duly considered by them when they are dealing with the estate on which the
  1840
  evicted farm is situate. The Commissioners will also consider the application in connection with the distribution of any untenanted land which they may acquire.

  Ballinamona, Hospital, Lands, Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that negotiations for sale and purchase have been for some time in progress between the representatives of the late Rev. George Vandeleur and his tenants on the lands of Ballinamona, Hospital, county Limerick; is he aware that four of the most influential tenants, comprising about 25 per cent. of the whole in number and rental, have refused to sign the agreements, fearing lest they hereafter would be unable to meet their yearly instalments through the facts that their rents are unusually high, the number of years' purchase on the rental equally so, and their lands being subject to periodic floods; and will he request the Estates Commissioners to send an inspector on the lands to see fair play done on both sides.
  MR. CHERRY: Proceedings for the sale of the estate in question have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners. The estate will be inspected when it reaches its turn to be dealt with in order of priority, and the inspector will then make due inquiry into the cases of those tenants who may not have entered into agreements to purchase.

  Kilcoleman Patrickswell Evicted Tenant.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say what has been the result of the application to the Estates Commissioners made over a year ago by Mr. O'Farrel, of Kilcoleman Patrickswell, county Limerick, to be restored to his holding there from which he was evicted by his landlord, Mr. T. W. Ponsonby, of Thurles, county Tipperary.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have fully considered the application in question, and have decided that they can take no action in the matter.

  Knocklong Evicted Tenant.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant

  1841
  of Ireland if he can say how matters stand at present as to the sale and purchase of their kinds in and around Knock-long, county Limerick, between the Misses Cooper and their tenants; have John McGrath and Thomas Barry, evicted tenants thereon, been as yet restored to their farms; and will he ask the Estates Commissioners to treat on their behalf with the agents of the property, Messrs. Robert and Charles Sanders, Charleville. with a view to the restoration of McGarth and Barry.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that, with the assent of the landlord, they propose to arrange for an early inspection of the farms referred to, and that they will then consider the question of the restoration of the evicted tenants.

  Manister Evicted Tenant.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether Edmond Hartigan, of Bettyville, Manister, county Limerick, who was restored to his evicted farm about last May, has as yet received any grant from the Estates Commissioners wherewith to repair the buildings and stock the lands.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they cannot see their way to make a grant to Edmond Hartigan.

  Erasmus Smith Estate.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that negotiations for sale and purchase have been commenced between the governors of the Erasmus Smith property around Pallasgrean and Doon, and the tenants thereon; and will he ask the Estates Commissioners to put themselves into communication with the Messrs. Sanders, of Charleville, county Cork, agents to the estate, with a view to the restoration of the evicted tenants thereon, viz., John Harty, Lisheen, Timothy Burke, of Gurranebeg, and Joseph Ryan, of Knockderk.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners understand that negotiations are in progress for the sale of this estate under the Act of 1903. When the matter conies before the Commissioners
  1842
  the applications of the persons named in the Question will be duly considered.

  Delmege Estate.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have put themselves in communication with the Messrs. Sanders, of Charleville, county Cork, agents for the Delmege property, around Garry-spillane and Glenbrohane, now being sold to the tenants, with the view of obtaining about 200 acres (Irish) on the estate, supposed to be untenanted, for the benefit of the poorer farmers' sons and the labourers; and will the Estates Commissioners allow the sale to proceed if one man, reputed to have taken 145 acres of this untenanted land since January, 1901, is allowed to retain it to the detriment of the farmers and labourers who have no land.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners are in communication with the vendor's solicitors in reference to the untenanted land on the Delmege estate. The Commissioners will carefully consider all the circumstances of the estate before sanctioning the advances applied for, but at this stage of the proceedings they cannot say what their decision may be.

  Post Office and the Irish Land Stock.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will direct the attention of the proper official to the necessity for prescribing the manner in which purchasers under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, may avail themselves of the benefit of Section 2 of that Act by transferring through the Post Office Savings Bank Guaranteed Land Stock in payment of one-fourth of their annuities; is he aware that at the current price of the stock purchasers would gain about 3s. in the pound by paying instalments in that mode of payment instead of in cash.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the amount of Guaranteed Land Stock under The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, at present outstanding; is the whole of the outstanding stock, or how much of it, registered at and transferable at the Bank of Ireland; is the stock regularly

  1843
  quoted and dealt in on the Dublin Stock Exchange; and what was the number of transfers registered in 190C at the Bank of Ireland.
  I beg further to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the provisions of Section 2 of The Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1891. and particularly to that part of the section which provides that one-fourth of the tenant purchasers' annuity instalments may be discharged by transfer to the National Debt Commissioners of an equal nominal amount of Guaranteed Land Stock, and that such transfer may be made through the medium of a Post Office Savings Bank in the prescribed manner; has the manner of such transfer been prescribed by any rules; whose duty is it to make such rules; and why has the duty imposed by the section not been fulfilled.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: As regards the main subject of this Question, to which my right hon. friend has asked me to reply, and of those which the hon. Member has addressed to me, I have nothing to add to the answers which I have already given. As I have pointed out in answer to a previous Question, the tenant purchaser who benefited by paying the one-quarter of his annuity in stock would obtain that benefit at the expense of other tenant purchasers who paid in cash. The amount of stock obtainable is too small to enable all tenant purchasers to pay the one quarter in stock, and it would not be fair to allow the advantage to only a few. I have ascertained that the amount of Guaranteed Land Stock at present existing is £12,698,231. Of this £12,684,491 is inscribed in the books of the Bank of Ireland, and the balance £13,740 in those of the Bank of England. I understand that the stock is quoted daily on the Dublin Stock Exchange, and that during 1900 the number of transfers in the books of the Bank of Ireland was 1,767.

  Private Members' Bills.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can give facilities for the passing of the final stage of the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, in view of the amount of discussion
  1844
  that it has received both in the House and in Committee.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY' (SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): Early next week I hope to be able to say what the Government intend to do as to starring Bills. These will not be numerous.

  Lord d'Auverquerque's Pension.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to page 55 of the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom, what was the service rendered, either to the Crown or to the public, which was rewarded by an annual pension of £375 16s. under letters patent, 9th June, 1694, and now payable to Henry de Nassan, Lord d'Auverquerque; who is this individual; is he an alien; and what steps does he propose taking to put an end to this and other similar drains on the British public.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This pension, which amounted originally to £2,000 a year gross, was granted by letters patent in the sixth year of William and Mary to Lord d'Averquerque and his heirs and assigns for ever in consideration of his many and faithful services. The hon. Member will find a description of those services in the; Dictionary of National Biography. The annual sum of £375 16s. is all that is now payable, the bulk of the pension having been commuted in 1853. There is no power to effect commutation except on terms acceptable to the present recipient. The pension has passed from hand to hand and was more than ten years ago purchased by the Bank of England.

  Civil List Pensions.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury why the retired allowances, &c., to members of Her late Majesty's household, granted under 1 Edw. 7,c. 4, amounting to £18,184 7s. 6d., are all shown en bloc on page 53 of the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom for the year ended 31st March, 1907, and not specified as in the case of pensions granted under 1 and 2 Vic, c. 95, to persons formerly on the Civil List of George IV. and William IV.; and will he give the names and ages of each pensioner, stating also what was the office formerly

  1845
  hold by each, its duties, and their length of service to the late Queen.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The pensions which still survive from the Civil Lists of King George IV. and King William IV. are shown in detail in the Finance Accounts, I believe, because they are few in number and possess a certain historic interest,. But the pensions payable to members of Her late Majesty's Household are about 240 in number. They are mostly small sums payable to persons who held very subordinate positions. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by publishing the details asked for, which are not all in the possession of the Treasury. But I may refer the hon. Member to Section 7 of the Civil List Act, 1901, which provides for these pensions being charged on the Consolidated Fund.
  MR. LEA: May I ask what steps the Treasury have taken to ascertain the ages of these pensioners and the services they rendered to William IV. and George IV? Are the pensioners the persons who rendered the original services?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I think the ages are known. As is usual in such cases they are very great.

  William IV. Civil List Pensions.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to page 53 of the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom for the year ended 31st March, 1907, wherein it is stated that Charlotte Paley, Sophia M. Poussett, and Maria R. and George T. S. Winthrop are drawing pensions of £200, £25, and £-200, respectively, under 1 and 2 Vic., c 95, on the ground that these pensions were formerly on the Civil List of William IV.; and, considering the latter died in 1837, will he give the present ages of these pensioners and state what was the office formerly held by each, its duties, and their length of service to the deceased monarch.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: These are pensions which were granted by King William IV. to the children or grandchildren of persons whose services the Crown desired to recognise The
  1846
  present ages of three of the recipients are recorded as seventy-seven, eighty-five, and eighty-eight. In the other ease there is no record. For particulars of the services rendered in these cases the hon. Member may like to refer to the Report of the Select Committee on Pensions in 1838.

  George IV. Civil List Pensions.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to page 52 of the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom for the year ended 31st March, 1907, wherein it is stated that Elizabeth Brooksbank and Eliza Clutterbuck are drawing pensions of £300 and £28 per annum respectively under 1 and 2 Vic, c. 95, on the ground that these pensions were formerly on the Civil List of George IV.; and, considering the latter died in 1830, will he give the present ages of these two pensioners, and state what was the office each formerly held, its duties, and their length of service to the deceased monarch.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Both ladies were daughters of civil servants and were granted pensions for life in respect of their father's services. According to particulars published by the Select Committee which inquired into these pensions in 1838, Miss Brooks-bank should now be eighty-six, and Miss Clutterbuck, who died a few months ago, had reached the age of ninety-one. It is the invariable practice of such annuitants to live long.

  Absent Ministers.
  Several Ministers, to whom Questions were addressed, were not present at the moment these were reached.
  LORD R. CECILinquired what remedy the House had when Ministers failed to attend to answer Questions.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked if there was any remedy against the absence of private Members having Questions on the Paper.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that in the case of a Minister being absent a private Member got a second shot at him, but in the case of the private Member being

  1847
  absent there was not necessarily a second barrel.

  The Belfast Labour Dispute.
  MR. CURRANasked the Attorney-General for Ireland, in the absence of the Chief Secretary, whether in view of the complete breakdown of the negotiations to bring about an amicable settlement of the Belfast labour disputes, the Government would, in the interests of industrial peace, bring pressure to bear on the employers to accept the arbitration of the Board of Trade, and would take steps to prevent the military and police being used in the interest of the employers to the detriment of the men.
  MR. CHERRYsuggested that the question should be deferred till the return of the Chief Secretary, who would be in his place, certainly next Thursday.
  MR. MYER: Was any action taken on the report of the Committee of Inquiry of 1901 with reference to the condition of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  MR. CHERRY: I cannot answer that without notice.
  MR. CROOKS: Will not the Prime Minister use his influence to bring about arbitration?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. CURRANinquired if the military and the police in Belfast were not being used in the capacity of private workmen, thus tending to irritate the men involved in the disputed
  MR. CHERRYreplied that that was not the case. The military were being used merely to preserve order and the police to protect carters passing through the city.
  MR. CURRAN: Will the Government consider the advisability of withdrawing the troops?
  MR. CHERRY: The troops were not sent by the Government. They were
  1848
  requisitioned by the Lord Mayor of Belfast under the common law, and the Government have nothing to do with the matter.
  MR. LUNDONasked if it was not the case that there was disorder amongst the police themselves.
  MR. CHERRYreplied that there had been slight disorder in the police force in Belfast, but fortunately that bad entirely calmed down now.
  MR. FLYNN: Did not ex-I Constable Barrett publicly say that, while acting as a constable, he practically did the work of a van driver in Belfast?
  MR. CHERRY: One should not attach too much importance to the statement of of a dismissed constable.
  MR. SLOANasked if it were not the fact that all the police in Belfast prior to the outbreak of the labour dispute were being transferred to other parts of Ireland.
  MR. CHERRYasked for notice.
  MR. CROOKS: You say the Lord Mayor of Belfast requisitioned the troops. Have they Home Rule there?
  MR. CHERRY: The powers of the civil authorities are exactly the same as in England.
  MR. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of publishing the report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the state of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Belfast, which report has been kept secret?
  MR. CHERRY: That question should be addressed to the Chief Secretary.
  MR. SLOAN: Is it not the fact that many constables in Belfast who have taken no part in the dispute are under order to leave the city, and to leave their wives and families behind?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to be contributing a statement rather than asking a question.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (added in respect of the Land Values (Scotland) and of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bills)—Mr. Charles Craig; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Land Values (Scotland) and of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bills) —Mr. William Moore.
Report to lie upon the Table.

EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 288.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.[No. 288.]
Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 302.]

PRIZE COURTS BILL [LORDS.]
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 304.]
RULE COMMITTEE BILL [LORDS.]
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 305.]

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP BILL.
Copy ordered, "of Explanatory Statement of the Factory and Workshop Bill." —(Mr. Samuel Herbert.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 289.]

NEW BILL.

  MOTOR CAR (COLLISIONS AND ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  To define the liability of the owners or persons in charge of motor cars in cases
  1850
  of collision or accident, presented by Mr. Bertram, supported by Mr. Buckmaster, Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Mr. T. L. Corbett, Mr. Rogers, and Viscount Helmsley; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 303].

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
  MR. WALTER LONGmoved the following Clause:—
  "Nothing contained in this Act or done in pursuance thereof shall prejudice, affect, or interfere with the sole exercise by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries of all powers and duties under the provisions and for the purposes of the Diseases of Animals Acts." He said that as the Bill stood, powers were taken to alter the administration of the various Acts which had been passed from time to time by Parliament for the purpose of checking and stamping out diseases among animals. He did not know whether hon. Members interested in agricultural pursuits realised the magnitude of the question to the community as a whole. He remembered that it fell to his lot during the administration of the late Government to amend the Acts dealing with certain diseases. So strong was the view taken at the time of his methods by hon. Members opposite that they went so far as to predict if he (Mr. Long) were successful in carrying his amendments, there would be a large interference with the food supply of the people and prices would rise to famine rates. His amendments had been long ago carried and their objects successfully fulfilled. The protection of the health of the cattle in this country was of vital importance to the stock owning Community. Such protection involved not only the difference between the health and unsoundness of our cattle but that of cattle of other countries, who at present came to us to buy animals for stock raising purposes because they knew they ran the minimum risk of disease. The Opposition had been frequently challenged that they were only enforcing restrictions with regard to Canadian cattle upon protective grounds. One of the main arguments, however, which had guided the Board of Agriculture, and which guided them

  1851
  at the present time, in the views they held upon this question was that, whatever might be the condition of the health of Canadian cattle, the position of that country, owing to her artificial boundary, rendered her liable to the invasion of disease from the United States and therefore made it necessary that restrictions should be enforced. In this country we had been singularly successful in repressing cattle disease The country was at one time full of disease, and the loss it caused in capital to the stockowners was simply enormous, whilst the interference with ordinary agricultural operations was of a most serious character. It was impossible to conceive a more effective check to the progress of agriculture than that caused by disease rampant among cattle. This state of things, however, had been altered by the application of rules and regulations which had enabled the Government to draw a ring round the islands, thereby making invasion by disease impossible. With regard to that terrible disease hydrophobia, not only would he have been unable, but he would not have attempted, to have stamped it out had he not been able to enforce the same regulations throughout Scotland and England. The Irish authorities, however, refused to come into line and agree to carry out these regulations, with the result that they had to be treated as a foreign country and the importation of all dogs from Ireland was prohibited. It would, however, be absolutely impossible to carry out such a policy if there were a different administration in Edinburgh, because the boundary between Scotland and England was only an artificial one and could be crossed at any moment by dog owners and their dogs. As the Bill stood, this proposed change in the administration of the law was to be dependant upon the discretion of the Secretary for Scotland.
  AN HON. MEMBER: And the Treasury.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the Treasury was only to be responsible for the finance; the provision was only inserted in order to see that no undue expenditure was incurred, therefore it had no bearing upon his arguments. As he had said, the change in the administration was solely dependant upon the discretion of the Secretary
  1852
  for Scotland and he did not think that was wise. At present the powers were vested in the Board of Agriculture. He would like to know what view was taken by the Minister for Agriculture in regard to this treatment of his Department and the enforced transfer of powers—whether that Gentleman thought such change to be in the interests of good government and the successful administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts? He would like to know also whether this action had been taken with the concurrence of the Board of Agriculture? He believed rather than that, that it had been done in spite of the Board of Agriculture. The change proposed by the Bill was perfectly unnecessary. By setting up a new Department in Scotland they were proposing to do a most foolish thing in the interests of agriculture. It was far better that one man should represent the agricultural interests of Great Britain as a whole in that House and in the Cabinet Again, the change had really nothing to do with the objects of the Bill. The Bill proposed to set up small holdings and to apply the Crofters Acts throughout Scotland. It also proposed to establish Agricultural Commissioners for that country who should deal with the question of security of tenure, agricultural matters, the general policy in regard to agriculture, and experimental work. There was no earthly reason why in addition to this, the Government, under the Bill, should seek to interfere with the present administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts. They would probably be told that there was no prospect of the Scottish Department differing from the views of the English Department in its administration of the Acts. He greatly doubted this. He remembered with regard to the introduction of cattle from abroad how the view taken by the Scottish Members differed from that of the majority of the House and how those Members tried to bring pressure to bear upon the Government in the interests of a particular class of cattle owners. Such pressure might be brought again, and ho thought he was perfectly justified in saying that the policy of the Department in Scotland would probably differ from that of the English Department. It was quite impossible to exaggerate the importance of such a

  1853
  change as that which had been dragged by the heels into the Bill. If the Government would accept his new clause, it would not affect the Bill in any material degree, nor would it affect the Status of the Commissioners. Instead they would be acting as the Government ought to act in the administration of these laws. By carrying out such a change they were running the risk of inflicting a grievous injury upon stock-owners and agriculturists. The two countries should be treated as an island, and there should be no artificial boundary which might be crossed at any minute. He appealed to the Government not to deal lightly with the matter; unless they could put forward some very solid reason for making such a change they ought to accept his new clause.
  New clause proposed—
  "Nothing continued in this Act or done in pursuance thereof shall prejudice, affect, or interfere with the sole exercise by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries of all powers, and duties under the provisions and for the purposes of the Diseases of Animals Acts."— (Mr. Walter Long.)
  Brought up, and read the first time. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chaise be read a second time."
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (MR. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire)said that this question was discussed on the Committee. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] The subject dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman had been an integral part of the proposals of the Government ever since the Bill was first drafted and they looked upon it as essential. The case for this new clause had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman as well as it possibly could be, because he had an intimate knowledge of the Departments over which he presided for so many years. What were the proposals in the Bill? They were that the new Agricultural Commissioners for Scotland might be endowed with powers at the instance of the Secretary for Scotland to carry out the duties now exercised by the Board of Agriculture. Every precaution was taken in the Bill, and no transfer of those powers was likely to take place except upon the responsibility of the Government. Two
  1854
  Departments would be concerned in any such transfer, which would have to be the subject of a Cabinet decision. The powers exercised by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries were miscellaneous and included powers under the Tithes Acts, the Enclosure Acts and others, but none of those powers were of more importance than those which the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to exempt. The function of the Board of Agriculture was administrative and executive, and consisted in the discharge of statutory powers which to the farmers and owners of flocks and herds in Scotland were a most important part of the work of the Board. It was essentially work requiring local knowledge and prompt local executive action. He did not over look the work of the Agricultural Board in regard to other parts of its administration, but the least successful part of its work was the administration of its duties under the Diseases of Animals Acts, and frequently there had been friction. He only needed to mention in this connection the sheep dipping order. Last year under the Agricultural Holdings Act power was given in Clause 1 to the Board of Agriculture to substitute a single arbiter in place of the old system, and it was a significant thing that in spite of the rally of the farmers to the Board of Agriculture against the proposals of this Bill they had not complete confidence in that Board in regard to the selection of a single arbiter. The records of the last few years showed instance after instance where the Board of Agriculture, not from any want of zeal or knowledge, but from the difficulty of acquainting themselves with local knowledge and adapting themselves to local conditions, had failed fully to appreciate what was required by this or that particular branch of farming in Scotland. To give to the new Commissioners the powers in regard to improvements in flocks and herd; and in the conditions of farming and to withdraw from them the right to defend the health of those flocks and herds would be a most illogical proceeding. They took every precaution to defend health and sanitation in regard to individuals and why should they neglect health and sanitation in regard to the flocks and

  1855
  herds of the country? The right hon. Gentleman said that the proposals of the Bill could not be carried out with safety, but it was impossible to maintain that position in argument or to show that the two Departments concerned would not be able to work in perfect harmony one with the other. The right hon. Gentleman had said that unity of control had been a great thing and that many reforms which he had in his mind could not have been carried out unless he had been master of the situation throughout the length and breadth of these islands. In carrying out some of those reforms it occurred to him that sufficient weight had not been paid to Scottish public opinion. If it was admitted, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite had admitted, that it was possible for the two Departments concerned to work in harmony and co-operate in carrying out the same legislative policy, a strong case was at once made out for a separate Department in Scotland to give full expression to the needs and wishes of Scotland in this matter. Scottish administration in all its Departments was in no way behind similar Departments in English administration. They had a Scottish Education Department and a Scottish Local Government Department, and their administration was not in any way behind the English Departments.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I should say that the Local Government Board is.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid they would see whether that was so or not when the next Report was issued. He saw nothing but advantage to Scotland in the establishment of a Scottish Department of this kind. Fears had been expressed that this proposal might prove detrimental to flocks and herds, but he assured the House that that would not be the effect, and they would still cross the border. Scottish mutton would still come to the English market, because Englishmen wished to purchase it and Scotsmen would take care that nothing should take its place in the English market. The proposal made by the Government would help them to improve their place in the English markets and improve their
  1856
  flocks as well, and consequently it would be beneficial to both countries and to all parties concerned. In his opinion, to divide the powers of the Board of Agriculture as suggested would simply be to divide the responsibility and cause friction, which would lead to a weakening of the administration. At present they had only a subordinate Department in Scotland. The proposal of the Bill had been carefully considered and would be carefully carried out, and everything, would be done to protect Scottish and English interests. It was no part of his-case to criticise adversely the administration of the Board of Agriculture, and he had simply related the facts. That Board had been zealous and energetic, and they were grateful for its administration, but with its centre in London it was inevitable that its policy would be dominated to a much larger degree by English interests, and this proposal enabled Scotsmen to look after Scottish interests. The right hon. Gentleman was evidently influenced, and quite naturally, by the consideration of the usefulness of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and its status. He made no complaint of that, but he claimed, that it was their duty to protect Scottish interests, and he had not been at all impressed by the Scottish opinion which had been quoted in favour of the view held by the right hon. Gentleman, which largely centred round the Chamber of Agriculture in Scotland. They were told that the opinion of the public bodies in Scotland deserved to be respected. His first impulse was to ask which opinion. A conference of the Chamber of Agriculture was held in October last year, three months after the Bill was introduced last session, and not a word was then said adverse to the proposals to which some of its members were now opposed. Some of the speakers who were now the loudest in condemnation of the Government proposals, for the past ten years had frequently given expression to opinions in favour of a separate Board of Agriculture. This agitation was one which had arisen on second thoughts. He asked the House to face the larger issues in the Bill before them. The Government were endeavouring to deal with evils which on all hands were admitted and were as great in

  1857
  Scotland as in any other part of the United Kingdom. In order to stop the decay of rural life and physical deterioration they ought to make greater efforts to stay the progress of these evils, and to achieve this they required every opportunity which the Government could place in the hands of the people. They wanted the Board of Agriculture to help small holdings. He had argued that this was the main work of the Board of Agriculture, and therefore to take away this work from the, Board would be to paralyse the organisation which the Government wished to set up in Scotland. The work of the Agricultural Commissioners would not be confined to the creation of small holdings; they were charged with the general duty of supervising agriculture in Scotland, and it was essential that they should have the powers which the right hon. Gentleman proposed should be withdrawn from them.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he and his Scottish colleagues desired to protect the interests of Scotland. He (Mr. Lane-Fox) and his friends were there to protect the interests of England. He was an Englishman from the North of England and these matters affected agriculturists in that quarter considerably. There were strong reasons why they should wish to see the Board of Agriculture maintained as it was at present and that the change contemplated by the Bill should not be made. The Amendment only referred to the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken as if it affected the whole foundations of the question of small holdings in Scotland. Did he really think that the prosperity of the people who were going to become small holders depended entirely on the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts? It seemed to Englishmen near the border that it was absolutely essential for the broad and proper administration of the Acts that the whole island should be included. It was obvious that there might be considerable danger to the herds in the North of England if some serious form of cattle plague were to break out in Scotland, where for reasons affecting the interests and convenience of Scotland
  1858
  the Board of Agriculture in that country, considering only themselves and disregarding the effect which their policy had in relation to English stock, pursued less stringent methods in the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts. The interests of one part of the United Kingdom should not, for obvious reasons, he considered apart from the interests of the whole. There were a great many cases in which sheep and dogs came from Scotland to England. Regulations which might suit Scotland might be prejudicial to the interests of England. It would be said that the English Board of Agriculture could take steps to protect England, but still he thought it was desirable that the administration of the Acts should be effected by one body acting for the whole of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken in a derogatory manner of the action of the Board of Agriculture in relation to Scotland. He had referred to the friction which had resulted from the administration of the sheep dipping orders and other matters. He would point out that what the right hon. Gentleman had said applied not merely to Scotland, but to parts of England. There had been considerable friction in Yorkshire over the sheep dipping orders. It was absurd to suppose that every part of the United Kingdom was satisfied when the Board of Agriculture put regulations into force. There must be a burden on those to whom the restrictions were applied. If Scotland had a serious grievance against the Board of Agriculture it was obviously the duty of the Scottish Members to bring it before this House and to see that it was fairly dealt with. But to cut up the Board in the way proposed and to cripple its power would be, he was certain, a retrograde step. He believed if the right hon. Gentleman considered the effect of the proposal he would be ready to accept the new clause.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that the question under discussion affected English agriculture, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the position which he had taken up. The Board of Agriculture

  1859
  had been doing enormous good throughout the United Kingdom, and he was afraid the proposal now made by the Government would weaken it. The cattle brought from Scotland and sold in the markets of Carlisle and Berwick-on-Tweed would be under the regulations of the Scottish Board of Agriculture. If those regulations were to be different from those of the English Board there would be great trouble not only to Scottish farmers but to English salesmen. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had stated any good reason for taking the power in this matter out of the hands of the Board of Agriculture. He had stated that it might be unpopular in Scotland, but the enforcement of these regulations was sure to be followed by unpopularity anywhere. In the case of swine fever, for instance, there were certain districts where the regulations in regard to that disease were very unpopular, but they were carried out in spite of their unpopularity. The Sheep Dipping Order was unpopular in Scotland, but if it had not been carried out by a body ruling over a large area there would have been a deadlock, and the enormous good which had resulted to sheep breeders would have been lost. The regulations as to diseases of cattle were always unpopular in certain areas, and therefore the larger the area under the control of the central body the better would be the administration of the Acts. A central body was not so likely to be moved from its purpose in the general interest by attacks from this or that part of the country. He hoped the powers under the Diseases of Animals half of the clause which gave these Acts would be retained by the central body.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid the Secretary for Scotland had stated that this subject had been freely discussed in the Standing Committee. His recollection was that that was not so. When exceptional powers to the Commissioners had been discussed, the rest of the clause was closured without any discussion at all. There was a conflict of opinion on this particular point, and to say that there had been adequate discussion was beside the mark. The attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman on this matter was
  1860
  thoroughly unsatisfactory. There would be serious danger if the existing restrictions on the importation of cattle were removed. The re-introduction of cattle plague would be a disastrous thing to British agriculturists. That being so, could there be any object in weakening the position of the Board of Agriculture If there were separate boards representing England and Scotland, the Minister representing one might urge the Cabinet to adopt one course, while the Minister representing the other might advocate another course. They all knew that there was a considerable body of Scottish opinion in favour of removing the restrictions which at present existed in regard to Canadian cattle coming into this country. The Prime Minister had stated that he was in favour of these restrictions being removed. A good many feeders in Scotland were in favour of the restrictions being done away with. If the Board of Agriculture in Scotland removed the-restrictions, it was obvious that the results might be most disastrous to English agriculturists. If the restrictions were removed in Scotland and not in England a gigantic system of supervision, by inspectors along the border would be needed. Was it to be supposed that the agriculturists in the north of England were going to allow cattle to come from Scotland involving risk of contamination of the herds in England by cattle imported from Canada or elsewhere? Would rabies have been stamped out if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had paid attention to the complaints which were written to him against the muzzling order by all the old women in the country who owned pet dogs? The more restrictions were enforced the more likely they were to stamp out the diseases against which they were aimed. The right hon. Gentleman had argued as if,the Board of Agriculture in Scotland would in some way be insulted if this particular part of its duty were taken away from it, and left in the hands of the English Agricultural Department. The Scottish Board would have plenty of other things to do—the whole supervision of small holdings, and the granting of advice and assistance to small holders; but it would not have the power to prevent the flocks and herds of this country from being contaminated by imported disease in

  1861
  the absence of the strict regulations now enforced by the English Agricultural Board. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that it was absurd that the people of Scotland could be entrusted to look after the health of individuals and not after the health of flocks and herds. Could any one imagine a less complete analogy? It was preposterous that the same regulations or the same system of administration could in any way be applied to the health of individuals and the health of flocks and herds. He could not imagine, after all the pressure that had been put on the Government both outside and inside the House that they would be so short-sighted as not to accept the clause moved by the right hon. Gentleman, which was necessary if a Board of Agriculture was to be set up in Scotland without doing great injury to the English Agricultural Board.
  *MR. EVERETTsaid that as an agricultural Member, a supporter of the Government, and of the general objects which they had in view in introducing this Rill, he hoped that the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment. The United Kingdom had the advantage of being an island in which Scotland was included, and it was obvious that they would be in a far butter petition to deal with disease coming from abroad if the island was treated as a whole and effectual regulations were made to combat with any possible invasion of disease. The objects for which the new Agricultural Commissioners were to be appointed for Scotland would not be hindered if the matter of coping with cattle diseases were left out of the Bill. He hoped that the new clause proposed with so much force and supported by so many strong reasons would be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that he was filled with apprehension at the proposal of the Secretary for Scotland, and all the more so that from beginning to end of his observations he had never once touched or approached the argument of his right hon. friend the Member for South Dublin. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman had
  1862
  never tried to meet the case presented for the Amendment. Wait was the proposal? It was that —
  "Nothing contained in this Act or done in. pursuance thereof shall prejudice, affect, or interfere with the sole exercise by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries of all powers and duties under the, provisions and for the purposes of the Diseases of Animals Acts."
  His right hon. friend had pointed our that the administration of the Disease; of Animals Acts under dual control might lead to serious consequences. The Secretary for Scotland thought he had met that argument by challenging his right hon. friend to say that it was not possible for the two boards to work-in perfect harmony. He maintained that it was possible that they would not work in perfect harmony. And supposing that they did not, it might be possible for the Secretary for Scotland to admit animals from abroad contrary to the regulations that existed at the present time.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid that the admission of Canadian cattle to Scotland had been already alluded to; but there would be no change in that regard until Parliament had so determined.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Yes, but if the agricultural authority in Scotland on the one hand and the head of the English Agricultural Department on the other were in dispute, and if that dispute were submitted to a Cabinet presided over by the present Prime Minister, who before the last election strongly argued for the readmission of Canadian cattle into this country, what would be the position? A Bill would be introduced to carry out the Premier's views. That was what he was afraid of; and it would be done under a total misapprehension of the circumstances of the case. His right hon. friend had pointed out the great danger there was of the introduction of pleuro-pneumonia into this country by Canadian cattle. He did not refer to cattle plague; he knew that there was no cattle plague in Canada. But he defied anyone to show that Canada, with its enormous extent of territory, its long frontier and its vast number of cattle, was free from pleuro-pneumonia at the present time. No inspection

  1863
  could guard against its readmission into this country. There was only one safeguard: the slaughter of the cattle at the port of entry. And for this reason; that pleuro-pneumonia was a disease that could not be detected in the living animal. It might lie dormant for months and years. These facts were known, and supposing that Canadian cattle were readmitted, nothing was more certain than that two or three years afterwards they would be confronted with an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia and the whole work of extirpation would have to be undertaken again. But granting that Canada was at present free from the disease, it was known to exist in the United States; and how was it possible, with a frontier of 6,000 miles, to prove that cattle suffering from pleuro-pneumonia did not cross the frontier from the United States into Canada? He could not think of anything more disastrous than that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman should become law. He believed that there was a small section of farmers in some parts of Scotland and a few farmers in one or two counties in England who desired the introduction of Canadian cattle, but these men were simply feeders of stock, whereas the people that should be encouraged and receive exceptional treatment were the breeders. Having in view the manifest dangers from the introduction of disease into this country raid the enormous amount of time, labour, and money which had been spent a few years ago in getting rid of all disease amongst our flocks and herds, he trusted that the House would induce the Government to accept the Amendment of his right hon. friend. It would not interfere with the Board of Agriculture in Scotland in promoting the extension of small holdings or other matters but it would prevent the alteration of the laws and regulations as to cattle disease, which were of vital concern to the agricultural interest as a whole.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that there was no question that the farmers of Scotland were practically unanimous in support of the new clause moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin. And the
  1864
  opinion of the farmers of Scotland upon this matter ought to be considered, because the great bulk of their capital was locked up in stock. It was only through their stock that they could hope to pursue their calling with success. There was no money in grain. He believed that with different regulations for Scotland and England, and two separate Boards of Agriculture, there would be a certain amount of trouble at the border, particularly at Dumfries, Carlisle, and Berwick-on-Tweed. The real reason that impelled the Scottish farmers to desire the continuance of the administration of the British Board of Agriculture in respect of cattle disease was to have security for the health of their flocks and herds, and there was no such security under the Bill. The new Scottish Board of Agriculture would cost between £25,000 and £30,000 a year. What was wanted in Scotland was a Board which would be subordinate to the British Board, but charged especially with the supervision of certain interests in Scotland. He did not think that any Scottish agriculturist would be prepared to accept a new Scottish Board up a two-pair back in Edinburgh in place of the Board in Whitehall.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that as a Scottish Member he would like to join in the support which had been given to this clause. He could not quite understand the sequence of the right hon. Gentleman's logic which would place power in the hands of two Boards instead of one, and increase the burdens on the small agriculturists. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this was a question of administration on which Scotland had a right to have an opinion, and Scotland, no doubt, had a right to have her interests consulted. They were not afraid that Scottish Members would fail to see that the interests of their country were protected in that House without a Scottish Board in Scotland. The analogy set before them was that of education, but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that the laws as to education in Scotland were 300 years older than the education laws in England. Again, hon. Gentlemen seemed to forget

  1865
  that there was more or less distinction between the transit of individual citizens from one part of the country to another and the transit of oxen and pigs. The duties of the Board of Agriculture were to prevent the dissemination of the diseases of animials from one part of the country to another, and this was an important point to safeguard. He did not see how these Commissioners were to take over these duties from the Board of Agriculture. The Commissioners, it appeared, were to be in effect independent of the Secretary for Scotland.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid that in the discharge of their duties the Agricultural Commissioners would comply with such instructions as might be issued by the Secretary for Scotland.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKinquired if the right hon. Gentleman thought he was going to lay down rules under which he would keep these Commissioners in leading strings. He would find that they were susceptible of pressure from other Members of Parliament and from without, and that neither he nor his successors would be able to hold them in check. He thought they were entitled to some expression of opinion from the representative of the Board of Agriculture as to the views of his Department. There had been a correspondence with the Board of Agriculture, and the vast majority of the correspondents expressed their opinion that the Board of Agriculture was in touch with Scottish farmers. An immense majority, something like five-sixths, were in favour of the continuance of the authority of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, and he hoped the hon. Baronet would not allow his Department to be stripped of the important authority which had worked well both for England and Scotland. This transfer of authorities was an excrescence, and without it he was sure the Bill might be carried through with advantage to Scotland.
  *SIR J. DEWARsaid that if the idea was to make the administration of Scotland more efficient he could not believe that the establishment of two Boards, one working partially and
  1866
  the other wholly in Scotland, would tend to efficiency. If the power to regulate the working of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts was in the hands of a Scottish Agricultural Department, the work, so far as the local arrangements were concerned, was bound to be more efficient. He thought it would he better to leave this matter in the hands of the Scottish Board of Agriculture than to have it managed from London. It would be a misfortune if the two Departments did not work amicably together, but being managed by sensible men having the same objects in view he saw no reason to believe that the most amicable relations would not exist.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Secretary for Scotland was mistaken in thinking any discourtesy had been intended by interruptions from that bench. Their desire was simply that he should deal with the Amendment, which he had refrained from doing. Not one syllable which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman touched the substance and nerve of the argument advanced by the mover of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had asked why Scotland could not deal with cattle diseases, seeing that she had the responsibility of dealing with human diseases. They might properly leave to one part of the kingdom the regulation of public health—questions of sewers and sanitary regulations—because the interests of another partner in the United Kingdom were not involved. But responsibility in this matter could not be shared with the British Board of Agriculture without affecting profoundly the interests of English as well as Scottish agriculturists. There could not be a. greater exposure of the fallacy that this was a Scottish and not an English Bill than the fact that they had had Members from both sides of the House debating it from the English point of view, seeing that England was profoundly interested in the cattle regulations. Moreover, if there was a difference of opinion, and disease was allowed to come into Scotland which England tried to keep out, Scotland would be isolated by regulations which would be ruinous to and destructive of Scottish agriculture. It had been suggested that two Ministers of common sense would not be likely to disagree in the matter.

  1867
  As a matter of fact, common-sense men very often did disagree. In regard to rabies, they had seen the Irish Government establishing one set of regulations and the British Government another. The British Administration accordingly interposed a Customs barrier, as it were, to keep out Irish dogs, and Irish sportsmen who desired to bring over their dogs for sporting purposes were very bitter indeed. If the question were one not of sporting dogs, but of agricultural trade, the injury to agriculture on both sides of the border would be incalculable. Perhaps it would be said that the injury England could do Scotland by setting up this barrier was so great that in case of a difference of opinion the English Minister could coerce his Scottish brother into subservience. Would not that be a deplorable state of things? Scotland would possess independence in name. She would have it in reality, so far as friction and embarrassment mere concerned. But the one real advantage which was sought—that Scotland should be wholly independent of England in this matter—would not be attained. He appealed to the House on the broadest and plainest grounds of public policy. There was no case he knew of in which a common interest was administered by two different departments, and the exclusion of disease from these islands was a common interest. Let Scotland manage the many things which were purely local. The transmission of disease from the north to the south of the Tweed was not a Scottish question. It was common to England and Scotland. Microbes knew nothing of these national distinctions. They were profoundly indifferent to the artificial line which divided Great, Britain into two parts. The question was one which the action of nature had made common to the whole of the island, and if was mere folly not to deal with it through one Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken as if the Agricultural Commissioners could not carry out their work efficiently in connection with small holdings unless they performed this additional task. For his own part he could not see the connection between the two subjects.
  *MR. MOLTENOhoped the Government would adhere to their pro-
  1868
  posal. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that disease was a common danger coming from outside, and that a common interest ought to be dealt with by a common authority. But judging of the present state of things by that argument, what did they find? They found that England had a Local Government Board and that Scotland had a Local. Government Board, who had as a matter of fact been perfectly able to deal separately with cholera and plague that had threatened our doors for years past. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman had very much exaggerated this question of disease. In fact there seemed to lurk in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite the idea that Scotland was a very backward country, and that they would not be able to guard against this danger of disease. But Scotland had as varied an agriculture as England; she had a large number of breeders of cattle, and her interest in keeping free from disease was as great as that of England, indeed it was greater because she exported cattle. It was a very interesting fact that while in Great Britain we had been unable to stamp out swine fever, in Denmark, where they had a very active Government which took a great interest in agriculture, they had been able to stamp it out entirely. He trusted they would be as successful in Scotland. He hoped that hon. Members on his side of the House would not be led away with the idea that in Scotland in a matter of this kind they were unable to look after their own affairs. It they got the powers proposed they would be as capable of discharging the duties thrown upon them as were the authorities in England.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid the hon. Member had pointed out that they had got rid of swine fever in Denmark. To what was that due? It was due to the fact that Denmark was under one comprehensive authority. The hon. Gentleman had also said that they bred as valuable-cattle in Scotland us in England. Would the hon. Member refer him to a single breeder in Scotland who would support him in opposing this Amendment? Out of every 100 breeders of

  1869
  cattle in Scotland, seventy-five were opposed to the Government's proposal. He went further, and said that out of every £1,000 worth of capital invested in Scotland in stock the owners of £750 of it would vote for this Amendment, and against the Government. He thanked the hon. Member for the arguments he had adduced. This question was extremely interesting to those who sat on the Scottish Grand Committee, and the Prime Minister would now recognise, after nearly two hours discussion, that the points which arose under the Bill touched vitally the interests of England, and the right hon. Gentleman would not be quite so surprised as he had been that the measure should have taken such a considerable time to discuss in Committee upstairs. He believed agriculturists in England and Scotland agreed with him in deprecating and regretting the tendency to establish separate authorities for agriculture in the two countries. The agricultural interests of this island were neither English nor Scottish; they were absolutely British; they were absolutely identical, and the endeavour to split the governing power into two was hostile to the interests of both, and, in certain circumstances, absolutely fatal. The hon. Baronet who sat opposite to him, and with whom he had broken a lance or two in Committee, had asked why should they not leave Scotland to take its own precautions against disease. The hon. Baronet must remember that all Scotsmen did not live in Inverness-shire, and that some Scotsmen lived towards the south of that country, some with agricultural interests conducted pretty close on the Border. If there came an outbreak of swine fever, under the existing method of dealing with that disease they must draw a cordon, and in all probability it would have to be drawn on this side of the Border. How would the hon. Member's idea act then? Before they could act they would have to get the consent of the new authority in Scotland, and also the consent of the authority in England, in order that simultaneous measures might be taken to protect both countries. Every one concerned with this industry knew, as he was sorry to say he knew, that rapidity of action in dealing with the disease was essential. If they had the delay of getting the consent of the
  1870
  two authorities the disease would in the meantime be allowed to go rampant, and infinite harm and mischief would be done. He thought the whole of the arguments of those who opposed the Government, as well as of those who professed to support it, ran in one direction, namely, that in this instance the Government was making a blunder, and that it would be well advised in listening, to the great bulk of the agricultural opinion both in Scotland and in England. Of those who had spoken three supporters of the Government who were conversant, with agricultural matters were in favour of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill knew well that if he left this question to a ballot, those concerned with agriculture in Scotland would not give him one vote out of 100. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head. Well, he would say that he would not get more than two out of 100, and the Secretary for Scotland knew quite well that two out of 100 would be the maximum he would obtain; he would be beaten to pieces by the votes of the vast majority of agriculturists in Scotland. By this Bill the right hon. Gentleman would to a certain extent be injuring the confidence of Scottish agriculturists in the safety of their well-bred stock. There was one other point which became subject matter of this Bill. They were trying to set up small holdings, and to encourage the smallholders to breed stock in proportion to their acreage. But once any disease was admitted into that country the smallholder would be ruined, even if it did not ruin the big breeders. The small holder could not afford to risk losing one of his cattle, nor being cut off from the markets, as he would have to be if there were disease. Therefore, by this measure they would endanger at the outset the interests of the smallholders they were attempting to create. The Leader of the Opposition had pointed on how absurd the situation would be when if disease were admitted, a cordon had immediately to be established on the frontier. Hon. Gentlemen found fault with their talking of Scotland as if all the stupidity was on one side and none on the other. But he would put it the other way, that all the stupidity was on the side of England and none on the side

  1871
  of Scotland. How would that add to the security of Scotland from disease? They were going to force upon the agriculturists of Scotland a system which they did not want, and nothing would be more welcome to them than to know that the Government had listened to the arguments urged
  from both sides of the House and had accepted this new clause.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 120; Noes, 176. (Division ListNo. 377.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster. Henry William

  O'Grady, J.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  O'Kellv,James(Roscommon,N.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner. Ernest (Berks. East)

  O'Malley, William

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Glover, Thomas

  Parker,James (Halifax)

  Balfour,RtHn.A.J. (CityLond.)

  Gordon, J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Barnes. G. N.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Barrie. H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rawlinson,John FrederickPeel

  Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hodge, John

  Roberts,S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hudson, Walter

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Butcher. Samuel Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Jenkins, J.

  Shackleton. David James

  Cave, George

  Jowett, F.W.

  Sheffield,Sir Berkeley GeorgeD.

  Cavendish,Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

  Kennaway,Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hn. Col. W.

  Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lambton. Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Snowden. P.

  Cecil,Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R,

  Starkey, John R.

  Chamberlain,RtHn. J. A.(Wore.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staff'sh.

  Chaplin. Rt. Hon. Henry

  Long, RtHnWalter (Dublin, S.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

  Coehrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thorne, William

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Macpherson. J. T.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Walker, Col.W.H. (Lancashire)

  Craik. Sir Henry

  MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Crooks, William

  Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston)

  Wardle, George J.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Mason. James F. (Windsor)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dickson-Poynder. Sir John P.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Wolff. Gustav Wilhelm

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Moore, William

  Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

  Faber. George Denison (York)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Fetherstonhaugh. Godfrey

  Nield, Herbert

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Viscount Valentia.

  Fletcher. J. S.

  O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bethell, Sir J.H.(Essex, Romf'rd

  Churchill. Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Alden, Percy

  Black, Arthur W.

  Clough, William

  Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)

  Brace, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bramsdon T. A.

  Collins, SirW.J.(St.Pancras,W.

  Asquith,Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry

  Branch James

  Cooper, G. J.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Brigg, John

  Corbett,CH (Sussex,E.Grinst'd

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bright, J. A.

  Cory, Clifford John

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Buchanan Thomas Ryburn

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Cox,, Harold

  Barlow. Percy (Redford

  Byles, William Pollard

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Dalziel. James Henry

  Beale, W. P.

  Carr-Gomm. H. W.

  Davies. Ellis William (Eition)

  Bellairs. Carylon

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Bertram, Julius

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Dewar, Sir J. A.'(Inverness-sh

  Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Runciman, Walter

  Duckworth, James

  Lough. Thomas

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

  Lupton, Arnold

  Sears, J. B.

  Elibank, Master of

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Erskine, David C.

  Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Ferens. T. R.

  Macrkarness, Frederic C.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Findlay, Alexander

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  M'Callum, John M.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Crae, George

  Sinclair. Rt. Hon. John

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Kenna,Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Spicer. Sir Albert

  Gladstone,RtHn. Herbert John

  Maddison, Frederick

  Stanger, H Y.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Stanley,Hn. A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Gulland, John W.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Gurdon,RtHn. Sir W.Brampton

  Marnham, E. J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Massie, J.

  Thornas SirA.(Glamorgan,E.)

  Harmsworth, R. L.(Caithn'ss-sh

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Money. L. G. Chiozza

  Ure. Alexander

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Montagu. E. S.

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morrell, Philip

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton. Alpheus Cleophas

  Watt, Henry A.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Myer. Horatio

  Wedgwood. Josiah C.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Napier, T. B.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nicholls, George

  White, George, (Norfolk)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staff's. Leek)

  White. Luke (York, E. R.)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)

  Williams. J. (Glamorgan)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Radford, G. H.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Wilson, John (Durham. Mid.)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scrboro'

  Wilson. P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Rees, J. D.

  Winfrey, R.

  Lambert, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon.

  Lamont, Norman

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras,E

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Leese,SirJoseph F. (Accrington

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Pease.

  Lever,A.Levy (Essex,Harwich)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rowlands, J.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  MR. COCHRANE,in moving an Amendment to secure purchase by agreement, explained that he did so to clear up the point as to whether a small holding was always to remain a small holding, or whether there was any power to renounce the small holding in a similar manner as could be done at the present time. A crofter could now renounce his holding under Section 7 of the Crofters Act, and it then ceased to be a smallholding under Section 34, because the words were "any piece of land held by a crofter." If it was not held by a crofter, it ceased to be a croft. He understood that Section 34 had been repealed. He wished to know whether the landlord who wished to sell his land to the landholder could do so under this
  1874
  Bill. The landlord might let under certain conditions, but there was nothing said about the power to purchase or sell the small holding. In any case it was desirable in the interests of both the landlord and the landholder that the latter should be able to become the possessor of the land by purchase. If words were not put in to enable the landholder to purchase, the landlord, although willing to sell, might not be able to give a proper and clear title to the landholder. It was unnecessary to argue this point at any length. He believed there was a great desire in Scotland to own land, and many of them would not be satisfied with merely paying rent. That desire existed and he wanted it made clear that it could be met.

  1875
  New clause—
  "When the landlord of a holding has agreed to sell such holding to the landholder in occupation thereof, it shall be lawful for the landlord or the landholder to apply to the Land Court to register the sale of such holding, and the Land Court shall thereafter determine and by order declare such holding to have ceased to be a holding within the meaning of this Act."—(Mr. Cochrane)
  Brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid that when the hon. Member raised this question in Committee he made a promise that it should be considered. There was not the slightest desire to stand in the way of a sale to the landholder, and he agreed that facilities should be given and no obstacles should be placed in the way of such a sale. It was evident in the Committee that a fear existed that this was not provided for. He had considered the point with such assistance as his learned friend had been able to give him, and they had concluded that there was no obstacle in the Bill against the sale to a landholder of his holding. If the hon. Member would refer to page 50 of the Amendment Paper he would see that the Government had put down an Amendment to Clause 16 as follows—
  "In line 14. at end, to insert the words ' but nothing in this proviso contained shall apply to the case of a holding ceasing to be held by a landholder by reason of resumption by the landlord or by reason of the sale of the holding to the landholder.' "
  He was advised that it was not necessary to put in anything more to affirm the point raised by the hon. Member.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid that no doubt the right hon. Gentleman had been well advised, and if he was satisfied that the point he had raised was covered he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. YOUNGER,in moving a new clause referring to forfeiture of tenancy on failure of bequest or non-acceptance by legatee, said he did not propose to make a speech. He
  1876
  simply wished to know what the right hon. Gentleman's view was in regard to accepting it. He begged to move.
  New clause—
  "Where, owing to the failure of the landholder to bequeath his tenancy or of the legatee to accept the bequest, the right of the tenancy devolves upon the heir-at-law of the landholder, the landlord may give notice in writing to such heir requiring him to state whether or not he elects to accept the tenancy, and in case such heir shall not, within six weeks after the receipt of such notice, declare, that he elects to accept the tenancy the tenancy shall be forfeited provided that if such heir be furth of the United Kingdom the Land Court may grant such extension of the period hereinbefore specified as may seem to them to be reasonable."—(Mr. Younger.)
  Brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid this clause stood in the same category as the one which was discussed in Committee and which the Government promised to consider. There was some reason to think that this clause would be a bad one for the landlord The words in line 7, were "the tenancy shall be forfeited." The Government could not accept those words and the proposal would have to be modified in some way. Apart from that consideration, it seemed to him that this was rather a bad clause for the landlord. It rather tied his hands. He thought a little more, consideration should be given to the clause by the hon. Member before he pressed it. It was open to serious objection, because it suggested more rigid procedure than was necessary. As at present advised he was unable to accept the clause on behalf of the Government.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the general opinion when this clause was discussed in Committee was that it was necessary. If the heir-at-law was unknown a certain period might elapse before he could be discovered. When discovered it might be found that" he was a tradesman who did not want to take the farm, but if he thought there was some profit to be made out of it he might refuse to

  1877
  say what he was going to do. In the meantime the land would be going to ruin. There was no provision in the Bill for the cultivation of the holding while the heir-at-law was being found. The new clause provided that the landlord might find out who the heir-at-law was, ask him to say at once whether he was going to take the holding or not, and, in the event of his refusing, come in and take possession of the holding. He failed to see how the new clause would hinder the creation of small holders. He thought his hon. friend should press this matter to a division unless the Solicitor-General for Scotland could show that the case he had put to the House was not likely to occur.
  MR. YOUNGERexpressed regret that the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to accept the clause. The clause had been carefully drafted and had received the greatest consideration from a very competent authority. It was purely permissive, and he did not think it would tie the landlords' hands in the way the right him. Gentleman had suggested. If the right hon. Gentleman thought the penalty of forfeiture was too severe, other words might be introduced.
  MR. SINCLAIRsuggested that in substitution for the words "the tenancy shall be. forfeited" the wards "his rights in the tenancy shall pass to the next heir, and the same procedure shall apply."
  MR. YOUNGERsaid that that was better than nothing, but there were so many possible heirs in a Scottish glen that it might be difficult to find the next heir.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid he was not at all anxious to accept the clause in that form. He only made the suggestion for the purpose of facilitating business.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the suggestion of the Secretary for Scotland was better than nothing, and he would advise his hon. friend to accept it., It would be quite, just to cast upon the next heir the obligation of coming forward and claiming his property within
  1878
  a reasonable time. Six weeks had been suggested, but it might be desirable to extend that period. If there were a. variety of possible heirs in the Scottish glens this Bill might afford the possibility of settling the difficulty as in days gone by. The policy of the Government might serve to revive some of those interesting scenes which they thought were ended for ever.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause—
  "In Hue 7 to leave out the words 'the tenancy shall be forfeited' and insert the words ' his rights in the tenancy shall pass to the next heir, and the same procedure shall apply.' "—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  New clause—
  "If a landholder either renounces or is removed from his holding while owing any arrears of rent to the, landlord, the landlord shall been titled to set off such arrears of rent, and also the rent of the outgoing; crop, against any sum found to be due to the landholder or to the Agricultural Commissioners for improvements made on the holding."—(Sir Henry Craik.)
  Brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the clause be read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR - GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (MR. URE, Linlithgowshire):said the Government would accept the clause.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Clause 1:—
  MR. WALTER LONGmoved to leave out the words "and shall have effect throughout Scotland." He said the clause sought to apply the Crofters Acts generally throughout Scotland. In dealing with the question of small holdings, the Government in their wisdom had decided to take the Crofters Acts as their foundation. The question of applying

  1879
  these Acts generally was dismissed at great length in the Standing Committee. The Secretary for Scotland told the Committee that the Acts had been an unqualified success, and that their success was the reason why the Government had adopted this procedure. On the other hand it had been argued that their success had been only partial, and that they were not in themselves suitable for application throughout Scot-and. There was one great objection to the application of the Crofters Acts outside a special area. The Crofters Acts had had the effect of giving the crofting tenants certain advantages in regard to tenure which were no doubt justified in their case. But none the less it was obvious that the policy which the Government had adopted would unquestionably extend the principle of dual ownership in those districts where there was not the same foundation for it as in the, crofting areas, and where the operation of that system would be impossible. Experience had shown that they were compelled ultimately to buy out the landlord, and so get rid of that party whose interest had become the smallest in the property. It was admitted that the crofters were unwilling to become owners of their crofts, but that was because the alterations in the local charges fell upon the crofting owner. Under the Crofters Act they had to provide machinery suitable to the needs of the crofters and recognising their just demands; there fore the crofters did not want to be turned from occupiers to owners. But that could not be said of the districts to which they were going to apply this Bill. Legislation which had been successful in a particular district under certain conditions could not be successful in an area where the conditions were totally different. It was impossible to avoid a passing reference to the fact that it was proposed by the Government to deal with the same subject in totally different ways in two different parts of the same country. There was no difference, between the conditions of tenancy of small holdings in Scotland and in England. They found the same class of men, carrying on their industry in the same way and under conditions exactly similar. The conditions of the English small holder were entirely ignored
  1880
  by the Government who sought to-apply a hard and fast rule to a new class of tenants in Scotland, which he and those who agreed with him believed would break down. It had been said that as. the Crofters Act had been so successful in the Highlands it would be equally successful in other parts of the country. That was the argument of the master of Dotheboys Hall in administering physic-As one kind of physic had been found to be useful in the case of one boy it was administered all round whether it was suitable to their little stomachs or not. What the Government were doing was to apply to the whole of Scotland principles and practice which had been a success in districts where very different conditions prevailed. It was in order to raise this question at the earliest possible moment that he had put down this Amendment. He admitted that if the Amendment were accepted it would be necessary to provide machinery to work it. He trusted that they would hear from the Government a rather fuller justification for Clause 1 than they had heard upstairs, and that after time and reflection had been given them they had come to the conclusion to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words ' and shall have effect throughout Scotland.' "—(Mr. Long.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the-Bill."
  MR. URE: said that the right hon. Gentleman could scarcely expect the Government to accept this Amendment, because it struck at the very root of the measure. The proposal of the-Bill was that the principle of the Crofters Act should be applied to existing holdings in all the counties of Scotland. What was the essence of the Crofters Act? It was to confer security of tenure-on the crofters. A fair rent court was absolutely essential if they were to have security of tenure. They all knew what would happen without security of tenure and the fixing of a fair rent. If a landlord desired to get rid of a tenant who-had become obnoxious to him, he had only to raise the rent of that undesirable

  1881
  tenant to an amount which it was impossible for the tenant to pay. The Bill did nothing more for existing holdings than give the small holder security of tenure. It thus destroyed the landlord's power of arbitrary eviction. That was the whole length to which the Bill went. The right hon. Gentleman had insisted that the Government should give a full explanation as to the extent of the benefit which would be conferred on small holders in the south of Scotland if the Crofters Acts were extended to them. But it would be in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that this matter was discussed for the best part of three days in Committee upstairs, and it constituted the gist of his speech on the Second Reading. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Leith moved in Committee did not touch the question of new holdings, and it was an Amendment on which the two sides of the House had joined issue. The right hon. Gentleman had said that a land system adapted for the Highlands would not be suitable to all parts of Scotland. He had never heard a single argument from any hon. Member opposite in support of the view that if security of tenure was desirable in the Highlands it would be a misfortune in the Lowlands. The right hon. Gentleman had said that in one particular only had the Crofters Act been successful and that that had been the result of the willingness on the part of the crofters to continue as tenants and not as owners. He agreed. And why? It was because of the question of rates. The right hon. Gentleman knew well that when a crofter became the owner of his croft he was rated at once not only on the value of his land but on the value of the buildings on the land. But as long as he remained a tenant, both he and the landlord were only rated on the value of the land. Nobody had said why security of tenure was not desirable to the man who had not made his own improvements. If he had not erected the buildings he paid a rent to the landlord who had. The Government believed that security of tenure would be for the benefit of agriculture whether in the Highlands or the Lowlands, and that was their justification for this Bill and their reason for resisting the Amendment.
  MR. MUNRO-FERGUSONsaid they had heard some arguments in support of this clause, but he would be the last to say that those arguments could not be answered, and as reasons were originally given for the Crofters Act and for restricting it to the crofter area some reasons should now be given for the reversal of that policy and for the extension of the crofter provisions to the whole of Scotland. He thought that some of the reasons which had been given afforded an excellent ground for confining the operation of the Act to the crofting districts. The distinction which the Solicitor-General for Scotland could not see between the property invested in land and the property invested in equipment was, he thought, extremely obvious. Let them take a case in which a landlord appropriated the amount which the tenant invested in equipment: it amounted to misappropriation, because the only right the owner had was to the land and the use of it by means of his capital, but the only ultimate security an owner had for the investment of capital in the holding was in the right to select the man who had the use of that capital. Of that security he was absolutely deprived by the Bill. The Solicitor-General for Scotland has shown a marvellous verbal dexterity in dealing with this measure, but he had not convinced anyone who had anything to do with practical agriculture. Divided ownership was not an inducement to invest capital in the equipment of holdings, and the deterioration of agricultural equipment was assured under the Bill. It had been said that it would be all right if the occupier found the equipment; but he did not do so, and what he thought was that the existing sitting tenant occupiers would look to the Government to find money to equip their holdings in exactly the same way as the new holders were to have their holdings equipped by advances from the State. This would land the State into the equipment of land which was at present farmed without any cost to the State. There was nothing in this clause to provide for the increased prosperity of the small farmers of Scotland, and if they reduced the necessity for agricultural equipment by the landlords they would reduce the number of

  1883
  small farmers. They were told by the Secretary for Scotland that the mind of the country was behind this Bill. He would like to know on what that opinion was based, because it appeared to be founded on absolutely no inquiry and was in the teeth of the Reports of the Housing Committee, of the Small Holdings Committee, and of agricultural experts. The agricultural agents in Scotland were practically unanimous against the Bill and against the extension proposed by this clause, and he believed the extension of the Crofters Act to the whole of Scot land would be disastrous to the agricultural interests of Scotland. At all events they must not take it that this extension of the Crofters Act was in any way supported by a majority in Scotland. One of the disadvantages of the system was that there was no clear line of demarcation between the men who made their own improvements and set up their own fixtures and who had a claim for reduction of rent in consequence and those who did not. That was in his opinion a. clear dividing line which ought to be adopted. Under this Bill, however, they might have a holding of 500 or even up to 2,000 acres in the district, but they could not make a distinction between a 52 acre dairy farm on the one side and those farms on the other. In that way they would block the path of progress in the future and the division of land into small farms for intensive cultivation. The Solicitor-General for Scotland had dealt with this question from a wholly wrong point of view. If they extended the Act to Scotland generally the injustice created would be rendered much more acute than by anything that had occurred up to the present time. They had not heard any reason why the Crofters Act should be extended to the whole of Scotland. They thought it would be disastrous to the agricultural interests of Scotland and therefore he cordially sup ported the proposal that it should not be so extended.
  MR. A. DEWARsaid the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs had described the Crofters Act as a colossal failure.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid the hon. Member for South Edinburgh was in
  1884
  the habit of putting very strong expressions into his mouth. In the Committee the hon. Gentleman had put into his mouth the word "criminal" and now he put into his mouth the word "colossal," a word which he had not used. What he said was that it had been a qualified success.
  MR. A. DEWARsaid he did not accuse the hon. Member of using the word "colossal," he used the word himself. The hon. Member now said the Crofters Act was a qualified success. He would start from that point, and his first observation was that he had read with great care the debate which took place in this House in 1886, and the predictions then made by the front Opposition bench were that the Act would prove a dismal failure. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite were now prepared to admit that it had been a qualified success. Those who knew the condition of Scotland in 1885 and who travelled through it and saw the condition now would see how great a change had taken place. The Highlands of Scotland in 1885 were in a state of incipient rebellion, and the Government were obliged to do something to mitigate the evils then existing, and they introduced the Crofters Act. That Act gave, in the first place, fixity of tenure so that the homes of these people might be for ever their own; it gave, in the second place, fair rent. That was all the Act did and the incipient rebellion faded out. The Highlands of Scotland were now the most peaceful part of the country. The people there were not now in a state of starvation, they were prosperous through agriculture. They had not now the miserable buildings they had in 1885. Some, it was true, might be there yet, because everything could not be done at once, but everyone who knew the country would admit that the face of the Highlands had altogether changed in this respect. There had not been a copper of the money of the landlords spent upon those buildings. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs spoke of the deterioration of the buildings, but admitted that the buildings in the Highlands had been improved. They had been improved out of the pockets of the people themselves. The Crofters Act had done an immense amount of good even as a

  1885
  comparative success, why could it not do the same in the Lowlands? Were fixity of tenure, a good home, and a fair rent more valuable in the north than in the south? Were they to have one law for the hills and another for the plains? [An HON. MEMBER: And England?] England was not so far advanced in this matter as Scotland and demanded a different measure. If England would not come abreast of Scotland, Scotland was not compelled to bring her. Scotland had been testing the thing for twenty-six years and knew exactly where she was. He had made a very diligent search through Hansard for the year 1886 and found some very interesting information. The general opinion of the Opposition then was that the Crofters Bill might do well in the Lowlands, where the soil was good, but that it would never do in the Highlands owing to the poverty of the soil and the inclement weather. The mover of the Opposition Resolution on that occasion said the right hon. Gentleman had shrunk from introducing a measure of this nature for the whole of Scotland; that if it was a good measure there was a strong reason for applying it to the whole of Scotland, and that he could not see on what ground it could be refused. He had numbers of extracts, but perhaps the best was that from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who now represented Wimbledon, who said that if such systems were to be tried let them in God's name be tried where they had some prospect of success and not in parts of the country where miserable and starving people already existed, where the soil was sterile and the climate inhospitable. That was the argument of those who now were against the extension of these provisions to the Lowlands. It was then said that the crofters had to live there and contend with inclement skies and a hungry soil. But they were living there now under far better conditions than ever before, and he attributed it to the Crofters Act. [A Voice: To spade labour.] To spade labour in parts and to some extent to fishing. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion went on to say that while these people had not capital for their present holdings how much less would they have for the holdings it was proposed to
  1886
  confer upon them. They had round the capital and their buildings were in a far better condition than before. The right hon. Gentleman went on to state that whatever else the Bill would do it would dry up every source of prosperity, from that time forward the money would no longer be forthcoming and the stream from which it came would be dried up. That was the prophecy of twenty-one years ago. It looked particularly foolish at this date. Surely they might trust absolutely a Liberal Government, which was able to see so much farther and so much more clearly than hon. Gentlemen opposite, to know what Scotland felt in this matter. What was the difference between men north of the Grampians and men south of the Grampians? He had listened very carefully to try and discover that, but had not succeeded. He asked English Members who were not familiar with the Crofters Act to take it from him that that Act had been a success and that the crofters were looking and longing for this measure. The crofters were sore afraid that the landlords would throw out the Bill, but Scotland wanted it. If anyone asked for evidence of that it was to be found in the Scottish Members who supported the Government. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs stood alone among Scottish Liberal Members in opposing the Bill. He agreed that chambers of agriculture and the large farmers were likely to be against the Bill, but everybody else in Scotland, the small holders and the labourers, were not only in its favour, but were anxiously and earnestly awaiting it. He hoped they were not going to be disappointed, as it would be a serious blow to Scotland if they were. Eighty or 100 years ago land tenure was changed in Denmark, and the change was followed by prosperity. [Cries of "Purchase."] His point was that in the Highlands of Scotland they were getting security without the necessity for purchase, and they were getting that security with fairness to the landlords, because the landlords in the Highlands of Scotland were satisfied. He apologised for the digression, and thanked the House for the patience with which they had listened to him. He hoped English Members would support the Government.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had listened to the hon. Gentleman, who had made a serious attempt to defend the position of the Bill, and in so doing he greatly differed from the only member of the Government who had as yet spoken on the Amendment. In the first place, he appeared to have forgotten, and in this he faithfully followed the Front Bench, all the principles that had animated the Government which originally brought in the Crofters Aft. He appeared to have forgotten all the principles on which Mr. Gladstone founded his land legislation of 1882, or on which the Crofters Act of 1886 was based. It seemed to him that the Solicitor-General for Scotland thought it obvious that, if by this system of land tenure under the Crofters Act prosperity was given to the Highlands, they were justified by the mere fact of its success in the area where it prevailed in extending it, and that no further argument was required. That kind of statement must have been made in absolute ignorance or oblivion of the whole basis on which Mr. Gladstone had proceeded in dealing with Irish and with Highland land. Their ground was that in those countries they could hardly avoid inequity, or only avoid it, at all events, with the good will of the landlord, unless they established dual ownership, because in fact moral dual ownership existed already. They had said, not once but over and over again, that if the occupier of the soil was a man who had not merely put into it manure, not merely the things for which the occupier in England or the Lowlands paid, but had erected the permanent buildings, and made the permanent improvements, he at all events had an interest in the soil as great and as permanent as, perhaps greater, and in a sense almost more permanent than, had the owner of the soil himself. That was the argument with which they had to deal—they had to make the law a reflection of the facts, and they endeavoured to do so by establishing in the Highlands of Scotland and in Ireland a system of dual ownership, the evils of which were universally recognised until the present Government came into office eighteen months ago. The evils of dual ownership were recognised, but the evils of single ownership in the landlord were the basis of difficulty in the High-
  1888
  lands. Mr. Gladstone tried to cure that by saying— "If there is dual ownership in fact, let us give it in law." The result of dual ownership in Ireland, irrespective of party, was that everyone wanted single ownership in the place of dual ownership, but it was to be the single ownership, not of the landlord, but of the tenant, the man who had made the permanent improvements of the soil; and it was to that ideal that all men were now struggling in the sister island. Deaf to experience, blind to the plainest experiments going on before their eyes, oblivious of what was taking place on the Continent, hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to extend the system of dual ownership from parts where there was an equitable basis to parts of the country I where there was no equitable basis. Instead of trying to create a body of small holders such as existed in Denmark and France, they wished to multipy these hybrid crofters, who were neither landlords nor tenants, who were carrying on a system which had neither all the advantages of the landlord system, because capital was not supplied by the landlord, nor all the advantages of the tenant system, because under the tenant system a man could deal with his holding with a far smaller capital than he could with a farm of which he had the advantage of ownership. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the system in the Highlands had all the advantages of ownership, because it conveyed security of tenure, which was the essence of ownership. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong. He did not at all deny that security of tenure was one of the great elements of ownership, at all events until the Government began to interfere with certain forms of ownership in the high-handed manner with which they were becoming familiar. But it was really not the case that human beings were so constituted that they regarded land of which they were only the tenants precisely in the same light as they would look upon that same land were they the absolute owners. That was not the way human nature was constituted, and if it weretrue—as it was true—that in the Highlands of Scotland there was not the same desire to purchase the holding as existed in Ireland, it was because they had got

  1889
  in those parts of the Highlands a system of rating so preposterous and absurd that it would be very difficult to explain it to English Members in a speech made on an occasion such as the present. But the result was that in the Highlands they threw the whole of the new burden on the purchasers, which the purchasers were not willing to undertake. They would deprive them of any wish for ownership, and, wherever that was done, they lost one of the greatest motives, one of the strongest springs of action which could animate the human mind to make great sacrifices in improving that plot of land which was one's own. It was from that feeling, and from the existing system which they wished to destroy, that they extracted from the landowners of Scotland about £2,000,000 a year, or whatever the sum might be, which the landowners in Scotland, like the small landlords in Denmark, felt a pride in expending, were the holding five acres, 5,000 acres or 50,000 acres. They felt a pride in the estates which they possessed, and they were prepared to invest money, they were prepared to make sacrifices, in order that the properties for which they were responsible should be properties of which the most was made. It was as everybody knew, this motive which animated not merely whole communities, but all men who owned agricultural land, whether the quantity owned was small or big. By the system the Government were proposing they were going to deprive these people of that which was one of the greatest and most effective motives which could induce people, in these days of keen and increasing foreign competition, still to go on investing vast sums of money in preventing the rural districts from falling out of cultivation. He thought it was a most unwise and suicidal course. They were told that the Crofters Acts had been a success in the Highlands. Let him remind the House of what he took to be the real meaning of that part of the problem. Undoubtedly, in so far as they had given security of tenure to these small holders who had made their own improvements, they had done a certain amount of good, and, in some parts of the country, he thought a great deal of good; but when they were told, as they had been told
  1890
  by the Solicitor-General, that, in all the regions where the Crofters Act was in force, there they found flourishing buildings, a flourishing peasantry, rapidly growing prosperity, and absolute obedience to the law, that was not the account he got from Lewis and the Western Highlands. He believed there were parts of the country where they could not enforce the law, and he believed there were parts of the country where the crofters had seized land to which they had not the smallest right.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW, Hawick Burghs): I ask the right hon. Gentleman to specify those parts of the country.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has not the slightest right to interrupt me in that sort of way.
  Mr. THOMAS SHAW: I am exceedingly sorry.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to interrupt except to make some explanation. If the Leader of the Opposition gives way, the right hon. Gentleman is then entitled to intervene in the debate, but the right hon. Gentleman who is in possession of the House is not obliged to give way except on a point of order being raised.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I meant no discourtesy. I was slightly embarrassed for the moment by the fact that the Minister for whom my observations were intended was absent, and that I was interrupted in the course of my speech by the right hon. Gentleman to whom I was not addressing my observations. If the right hon. Gentleman has an answer to what I state, however, I gladly give way.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He will understand the very responsible-position I occupy. It rests with me to maintain order in Scotland, and when the right hon. Gentleman makes a serious statement of that kind in regard to my country, that there is non-obedience to the law, I respectfully submit

  1891
  to him that he should furnish me with some information.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not object to do that, but he was not a Minister of the Crown, furnished with information; he could only speak from hearsay. Were there no difficulties in Barra?
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: So far as the enforcement of the law goes there are no difficulties whatever.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think it would be better to follow the usual course and allow the right hon. Gentleman to complete his observations.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was informed that the crofters or inhabitants had occupied lands to which they were not entitled, that it was practically impossible for the owner of the land to resume possession, and that there was no legal machinery available for carrying out that object. If the right hon. Gentleman was able to give full and satisfactory information on that point he supposed he would do so. The Solicitor-General had quoted from a speech of his delivered in 1886, in which he pointed out that, if these people were really in the wretched position which was represented, they could not in a climate like the Highland West of Scotland become prosperous merely by giving them security of tenure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that that prophecy had been disproved by the fact that houses had been built. Whether the houses in the extreme West of Scotland were good or not he did not know. But this was quite certain, that if these people really had built out of their resources since 1886 new farm buildings and new houses, and re-equipped the whole place, the system of tenure under which they lived before 1886 was one which permitted them to accumulate money. That was an unanswerable proposition. The mere waving of a legislative wand would not create capital where it did not exist before. Where the Crofters Act had been a success it had called out on the part of the tenant, with or without external assistance, a
  1892
  vast expenditure in the shape of permanent improvements which would not otherwise have been made. The landlord was not in the habit of making them, and the tenants could not make them if they were too poor, and would not make them if they had capital in the absence of fixity of tenure. We gave them fixity of tenure, and the capital was expended. The only result of extending the system from the Highlands to the Lowlands would be to dry up a great source of the expenditure which now went on. Was it not to the advantage of Scotland that the landowning interest outside the Highlands regarded it as a duty to equip the farms on their estates? By that means the sum of between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000 was annually invested in the land in Scotland, where it was well known that the equipment of farms was far in advance of what was to be found in England. This practice the Government were going to stop, at all events so far as small holdings were concerned. Why should Parliament put on the shoulders of the taxpayers a duty which the landlords were prepared to carry? How could they avoid that? By a subsequent clause in the Bill they were going to provide a very inadequate sum for equipping the new small holdings. Did they think that the tenants on the old small holdings were going to see the duty of equipping them placed upon their shoulders while the new holders were to be equipped at the cost of the State? The Bill was merely a transition measure by which they would transfer a large part of the burden of equipping the small holders in the non-Highland parts of Scotland from the shoulders of the owners who were at present ready to bear it to the shoulders of the general taxpayer. That was perfect folly. He quite sympathised with those who desired to substitute for the big landowners of this country a large number of small holders. That he could understand; but when they found a system which extracted from the landowners large sums of money for the equipment of their holdings he could not understand why they should deliberately throw away those advantages and transfer those burdens directly or indirectly to the shoulders of the general taxpayer.

  1893
  He thought that was very stupid, and he questioned whether it was not also immoral. Mr. Gladstone, in dealing with Ireland, was so convinced of the inequity of applying the system of dual ownership, fixity of tenure, and fair rents to land where the owner provided all the capital that he drew a distinction between ordinary Irish tenancies and English managed estates. He believed that was the theory which underlay the rather confused utterances by which the Crofters Act was defended. In introducing the Crofters Act, Sir George Trevelyan said—
  "The crofters' holdings in Scotland were not like those in England; they were not equipped by the landlord with all that made them lit for cultivation. The improvements in their holdings had been made by the crofters themselves and there was nothing but a sense of duty to prevent the landlords getting rid of his tenants and appropriating his improvements."
  That was one of the great justifications of the Crofters Act. It was now proposed to extend that Act from the part of the country where it was justified by special circumstances to other parts of the country where not a single condition was identical. The Solicitor-General had asked whether security for a house was less valuable in the Lowlands than in the Highland. Was security for a house less valuable in England than in Scotland? England, it had been said, was not prepared for this Bill, and Scotland was. Was that the view of the Government? Was it the view of the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the English Bill? From whatever point of view one looked at the extension of the Crofters Act to the Lowlands of Scotland, it was indefensible. He supported the Amendment with a wholehearted agreement. He believed that the subsection was fundamentally bad. and he awaited with interest something in the nature of a serious attempt to make a defence of the proposition now being contested.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid there had teen events in Scotland over which he would gladly have had the veil of comparative secrecy still rest, but that veil had unfortunately been drawn back by the right hon. Gentleman who had attacked the administration of the office which he himself had the honour to
  1894
  hold. He thought, therefore, it was due to the House that he should state exactly the position of matters. In the whole of the jurisdiction over which his rule as Lord Advocate extended there had been absolute peace except in one small portion of the Highlands, the Island of Barra, owned by one proprietor who was unfortunate in his relations with the tenantry. What the tenants of Barra longed for was land with security of tenure, and more land where their plots were too small. In fact they wanted new holdings carved out, and the small holdings a little enlarged. These poor tenants of Barra stepped across to the Island of Water say and on the shore they planted a few potatoes, hoping to return in the spring to reap what little crop there was. To the best of his recollection that was the terrible offence which was committed. They were interfering with no human soul; they were treating that land as practically barren waste. He was appealed to and asked to treat this conduct on the part of the people of Barra as an offence against the criminal law of Scotland, and thereby to repeat the sad history of the events which preceded the Crofters Act of 1886. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would, he was sure, not minimise the gravity of what he was now saying. If he had acceded to that demand, and if in a question of disputed civic possession—for these people claimed that they had rights on this barren shore— he had sent military, or made a request to the Admiralty for the service of gun-boats, in the part of the Highlands, he would have been doing a thing which would have been the very best leverage to assist in the passing of a drastic measure, but which from the national point of view would have been nothing less than a public disaster. He thought that having held the scales of justice fairly between the proprietors and the tenants in the state of the law, and having asked both of them to find their remedy in the civil courts, and the public peace having been kept, and, in so far as it was infringed, the infringement having been on the most slender scale—having preserved the public peace at a time when any ill-advised action of his might have produced a public calamity,

  1895
  he did say that it was too bad that any man should bring that up as an accusation against him as the holder of his high office. The accusation came in this way. It had been said by his hon. friend who supported the extension of the Crofters Acts all over Scotland that these Acts were preceded by a time of great public trouble. No doubt it was so, and the public trouble had since been allayed, and all through the Highlands, the Hebrides, and the mainland there was now peace and tranquillity which before 1886 was not known. He thought it was a poor retort that because the Crofters Act was defective in one respect, the portion of the statute which affected the acquisition by the new holders of land which in many cases was waste, and that it still continued to produce fragmentary irritation, the defect should be used as an argument against extending the benefits of the main measure of 1886. That was the position in which he stood, and having explained the circumstances he asked the judgment of the House on what he had done. Having stated to the satisfaction of both sides of the House the peaceful course which he counselled and which he had himself pursued, he would say with regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that he thought it was almost unfitting, after the very able speeches of his hon. friends the Solicitor-General and the Member for East Edinburgh, that he should pursue this argument further. He found that the right hon. Gentleman always introduced some change of venue. The right hon. Gentleman had been confronted with the enormous success of this legislation in the crofter districts; and thereupon he took the case of Ireland and denounced the Irish system of fixing fair rents and establishing dual ownership as a colossal failure. It was nothing of the kind. It had been stated by the highest authority with regard to Ireland, Mr. Bailey, that it would have been impossible to reach the stage of purchase in Ireland unless first there had been fair rents and fixity of tenure.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Has Mr. Bailey the permission of his official chief to send letters on this subject to be quoted in the House of Commons?
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I wrote to Mr. Bailey to obtain this testimony as to Ireland from him.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He is a civil servant.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he cared not; and besides, letters from other people to Mr. Bailey had been quoted in the House. Mr. Bailey's testimony, being that of a civil servant, would have great weight. Mr. Bailey said—
  "The power that the Fair Rent Acts gave the Irish tenants of getting a fair rent fixed by a Government tribunal, and the knowledge that they could not be disturbed in the occupation of their holdings as long as they paid their rents, resulted in the people getting courage and self respect. They got into the habit of paying their rents regularly, and steadily and gradually took an interest in the improvement of their holdings."
  Why civil servants should not write historical facts of that kind to anybody in the world he did not know.
  MR. MACVEAGHasked whether it was not the ease that the late Government appealed to Mr. Bailey to write a report on the subject and that the late Government published it as a Parliamentary Paper.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: said that he remembered something of the kind taking place. But why had there been any defect in the administration of the Irish Act? The defect in the Irish Act had pandered to what he called the national passion for litigation. The expenses of litigation in fixing fair rents in Ireland were positively stupendous. A small holder had a fair rent fixed, then there was an appeal, and there was a still further appeal before he got any alteration in the rent originally fixed. A sum of £105 had to be expended for every £1 of alteration on a fair rent. That was only an illustration of how the Irish Act was administered. In Scotland, on the other hand, there was immediate inspection, a final determination, and the fixing of a fair rent at a cost of not more than Is. 6d. for a period of seven years. Therefore, the system of fixity of tenure had had a fair chance in Scotland which it had never had before. The Government in providing the machinery for the

  1897
  working of this Bill took the example nearest home. The system set up by the Crofters Act had had a fair chance, and they proposed to extend it. It had been said, that there were confused utterances in 1886. There must indeed have been confused utterances then. In 1886 the right hon. Gentleman opposite declared that the distinction between the Highlands and Lowlands was shadowy and indefensible. His predecessor, the present Lord Justice Clerk, said—
  "What is the exceptional position of the crofter in the Highlands as regards the arable part of his croft, either historically or on present fact, that will make his case different from that of any other person to whom a landlord has given a piece of land in any other part of the United Kingdom?"
  That was testimony which could not be put under the category of "confused utterances." He himself thought that it would have been well that the Crofters Act had begun in the whole of Scotland, but having begun in certain districts of the Highlands and having produced those magnificent results they desired that it should be extended. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not aware of those numerous improvements which had taken place in the Highlands of Scotland. He would make no mistake this time, and would not cite a letter from Sir David Grant, but the Report of the Royal Commission on the Highlands and Islands presented in the year 1892. In that Report the Commissioners unanimously gave this testimony —
  "Our opinion is that, speaking generally, the Act has had a beneficial effect, and particularly in the following directions. In the first place the fixing of a fair rent has to a large extent removed from the minds of crofters the sense of hardship arising from the belief that they were made to pay rent on their own improvements, or otherwise made to pay at an excessive rate for soil of a poor quality. In the second place, combination of a fair rent with statutory security of tenure has not only taken away or allayed causes of discontent, but has imparted a new spirit to crofters, and imbued them with fresh energy."
  And then followed this remarkable passage—
  "The abiding sense produced that the permanent improvements which a crofter makes upon his holding will, if he complies with certain reasonable statutory conditions, accrue either to himself or to his family successor, will not be taxable by the landlord in the form of increased rent, and, moreover, will have a money value under a claim for compensation on renunciation
  1898
  of tenancy or removal from his holding, has led to vigorous efforts towards improvement by crofters in many quarters. For instance, we found that more attention is being paid to cultivation, to rotation of crops, to reclamation of outruns, to fencing, and to the formation or I repair of township roads; but most conspicuous of all effects perceptible is that upon buildings including both dwelling-houses and steadings. In a considerable number of localities we found new and improved houses and steadings erected by the crofters themselves since the passing of the Act. In the third place, while the enlargement sections of the Act have not proved so effectively operative as was intended or anticipated, we did not fail to observe, in the various cases of enlargement of holdings which came under our eye, that the enlargements granted had been, as far as they went, of great benefit to the holdings enlarged. And, in the fourth place, the percentage of arrears cancelled has terminated liabilities which could never have been met."
  In 1886 right hon. Gentleman opposite declared that the distinction between the Highlands and the Lowlands was shadowy and indefensible. All that the present Bill did was to extend the principle which had been made applicable to the Highlands with so much success to other parts of Scotland where the small holders and agricultural labourers were more responsive than those in the Highlands to the inducements for making a good livelihood. Therefore it was that the Government viewed with great hope the extension of the Act to the rest of Scotland. He must say that one of the satisfactory features of all the agitation was that there had been no selfish desire on the part of the Highlanders to confine the benefits of the Act to their own districts, and that there had been exhibited an admirable solidarity of feeling between the people in the Highlands and the Lowlands in Scotland.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid that the three speeches which they had just listened to had dealt with the Crofters Act and the land tenure of Ireland. That of the right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Lord Advocate was an example of the argument used before the Committee upstairs. Not a single reference had been made to the question of the land tenure in the Lowlands, and not a single argument had been advanced to justify the extension of the provisions of the Crofters Act to the Lowlands. The hon. and learned

  1899
  Member for South Edinburgh had told them that the Crofters Act had been a great success, and that therefore it should be extended to the Lowlands. Further the hon. and learned Member stated that in 1886 the Highlands were in a state of incipient rebellion. He would like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if he thought that the Lowlands were at this time in a state of incipient rebellion? The Solicitor-General for Scotland, who had exhibited considerable reticence in speaking in Committee upstairs, had told them that security of tenure was all that was given under this Bill and that fair rents should be fixed in order to ensure that the tenant should not be rented on his own improvements. Of course, where a tenant had effected his own improvements, he had a right to security of tenure, but that system did not exist in the Lowlands; there was hardly any instance in which that custom held good. When the Solicitor-General asked why they should object to give security of tenure, he answered in the first place that the landlord spent vast sums of money on his land and he objected to having a tenant foisted upon him with security of tenure by which half the landlord's profit was taken away. He would like to ask the Lord Advocate why it was that the small holders within burgh boundaries and tenants of Crown lands were excluded from the benefits of the Bill? They had as good a right to those benefits as other tenants. He believed that the reason was based on the system of rating which obtained in the Highlands; the crofters would not purchase their land because their rates would be largely increased. Then in Committee they had been told that some of the buildings which had been erected by the crofters had cost £30. He asked whether any agricultural labourer in the Lowlands of Scotland would be content to live in such a house. A cottage for an agricultural labourer in the Lowlands cost at least £250, and that was erected at the expense of the landlord. The conditions which existed in the congested districts and in other parts of the Highlands were absolutely inapplicable to the Lowlands, where all the improvements and the equipments of the farm were made by the landlord.
  1900
  He maintained that under this Bill a large part of the property of the landlord would be confiscated. What was the reason for extending the system to Roxburghshire and Berwickshire and not extending it to Northumberland? They were going to consider the English Land Bill next week, and the conditions in that measure were absolutely different from those contained in this Bill. All that they asked for was that the Prime Minister should extend to the Lowlands of Scotland the provisions contained in the English Bill. What was good enough for Northumberland should be good enough for Roxburghshire and Berwickshire. There might be no objection to extend the crofting system to districts in Scotland where the conditions were similar to those in the Highlands. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would give some answer to the arguments used by the Leader of the Opposition.
  *SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsaid that they had heard in Committee times without number that the success of the Crofters Act in the Highlands was a justification for applying the system to the rest of Scotland. It was almost remarkable to think the exact knowledge which some hon. Members representing the Lowlands had of the crofting areas. The hon. and learned Member for South Edinburgh had gone back to the year 1885, before the Crofters Act was passed, and compared the condition of the Highlands then with their condition at the present time. The hon. Member had attributed the prosperous state of the Highlands to the working of the Crofters Act, but he thought that if the hon. Member visited the crofting districts in the Western Highlands of Scotland he would not dare to say that the crofters were prospering solely by agriculture. In those parts it was quite impossible for a man to live entirely by agriculture, and he subsisted by doth making and fishing, without which he would not be able to secure a livelihood. Every man who at the present time paid a rent of £2 or £3 a year would come under this Bill compulsorily. He wished to point out that a large number of crofters did not want to come under the Bill; many of

  1901
  them contracted out of the Crofters Act by taking leases, because they objected to doing their own improvements. Taking the case of four crofters, three contracted out, with the result in the case of the three, that the landlord came down and made improvements while the fourth man, who declined to contract out, had to make his own improvements and had in consequence to live in a small hut. That was just the sort of thing which one might expect to happen. The hon. Member had said that not a copper was spent by the landlord on improvements in these districts. That was absolutely untrue, and on very many estates it would be found that the landlords had built the cottages and other structures largely at their own expense. The crofter did not depend on agriculture for his livelihood and just grew enough for his own consumption. Men were very often employed as gillies on an estate, made cloth or fished when they lived on the coast—an entirely different condition from that existing in the Lowlands where they did not depend upon subsidiary industries. There was another point. It was said that the people had built their houses owing to the operation of the Crofters Act, but that was not so. On his own estate there were places which ten years ago were in an exceedingly bad condition, but if the hon. Baronet would go there now he would see a very remarkable improvement. The improvement in these houses was not due to the efforts of the landlords, but was largely the result of the money sent over by people who had emigrated to Canada and elsewhere. He therefore, asked hon. Members not to be led away by the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for South Edinburgh and other hon. Members opposite who showed a profound ignorance of the actual facts of the case. If hon. Members would visit the Highlands and Islands they would, he thought, know a little more about the facts of the case.
  MR. ABEL SMITHsaid that however partial or limited the result of the Crofters Act might be in the Highlands of Scotland, he ventured to assert that its operation had very little to do with the Bill now
  1902
  under consideration. This Bill had been introduced by His Majesty's Government, and under it the Crofters Act was to be extended to the whole of Scotland. The argument of the Solicitor-General for Scotland in its favour, however, was a most remarkable one, and more remarkable for what it omitted than for what it stated. The Solicitor-General said that the Crofters Act had been applied to a part of Scotland and had overcome economic difficulties; why not therefore apply it to the whole of Scotland? He thought, however, that even by hon. Members on the Liberal side it would be admitted that this legislation was of a very exceptional kind and that only exceptional circumstances would justify Parliament in passing measures of this sort which interfered with the ordinary relations of landlord and tenant and did away with their freedom to contract with each other. The question they had to consider was whether these exceptional circumstances which, undoubtedly, did prevail in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and which did exist in Ireland when Mr. Gladstone introduced his legislation in regard to that country, now existed in the Lowlands of Scotland. For his own part, he ventured to say that nothing had been stated and no facts had been brought forward which justified the extension of these exceptional provisions to the Lowlands of Scotland. One hon. Member had said, "Why not have the same advantages which were enjoyed by the Highlands of Scotland extended to the plains." But what they on that side of the House said was that the same circumstances did not prevail. Anyone who would look at the debates upon the Bill passed in the year 1886 would see that the whole basis of that Bill was that the situation in the Highlands and the Lowlands was totally different. The Government had never proved that the provisions of the Crofters Act were applicable to that part of Scotland to which at present it did not apply. Taking the Highlands of Scotland as a whole, the condition of land tenure there was entirely different from that which prevailed in the Lowlands, which was essentially the same as in England. All through these debates, both in this House and in the Committee, he had noticed that the Lord

  1903
  Advocate and the other supporters of the Bill had taken the whole of their arguments from the crofting country. They had dilated on the improvements in the condition of the people there, but they had never undertaken to show that the proposals of this Bill were in any way applicable to the Lowlands, and had given no real reasons for extending these provisions. If there was a demand for small holdings in the Lowlands that demand ought to be met by other methods than those in this clause, which made so sweeping a change in the system of land tenure of holdings up to £50 in value. The clause extended at one fell swoop the whole of the provisions of the Crofters Act, and he contended that the Government would have been far wiser if they had followed the report of Lord Onslow's Committee and proceeded on entirely different lines. The question was not whether they were benefitting the occupiers of small farms in the Lowlands, or whether they were likely to confer a benefit on the community as a whole by increasing the number of these holdings. The real question was whether the Government was justified in imposing these exceptional provisions. The only question was where to draw the line, and his contention was that the Government had drawn it in the wrong place. They ought to draw the line between the Highlands of Scotland, where it had been to a large extent the custom of the occupiers to reclaim the land they occupied and to put up the buildings, and the Lowlands, where the occupiers occupied the land, the buildings on which had been erected at great expense by the landowner or his predecessors. He could not help thinking that if the Government had adopted the same policy for Scotland as they had adopted for England they would have done a great deal more to promote the increase of small holdings than they would do by trying to force such a revolutionary measure as this through both Houses of Parliament.
  *SIR J. DEWARsaid there had been some confusion in comparing the arguments in support of this Bill and those in favour of the Act of 1886. The objects were entirely different. The Crofters Act of 1886 was necessary in order to give the crofters fixity of tenure and a fair rent,
  1904
  but this was a Bill to encourage the creation of small agricultural holdings, and the question they had to consider was whether the proposals of the Government were likely to encourage the formation of small holdings. He thought they were. He believed that the application of the principles of fixity of tenure and fair rent would immediately result in many small economic holdings being created in the South of Scotland, and he warmly supported the Bill. The Crofters Act had been an absolute success where land was available for the extension of these holdings, and it had been unsuccessful where land had been withheld by the proprietors or where there was no land to be had. He had heard no reason why the proposals of the. Bill should not be excluded to the South of Scotland. It had been said it would have the effect of drying up the sources from which the improvements were made. The landlords at present carried out the improvements because they found it paid them to do so. They usually got a fair percentage for the expenditure they made upon the holdings and if they had done so in the past why should they not do so in the future? If the source was dried up another source would be opened which might prove more fruitful. The alternatives to the proposals of the Government were purchase and the creation of small holdings through the county councils. He did not think the latter was possible in Scotland. In four parishes in Inverness-shire there were 1,200 applications for small holdings and the county council had not succeeded in securing a single holding for one of these 1,200 applicants. The other alternative was purchase; but he much preferred the proposals of the Bill because in his opinion they would work with less disturbance to the present social order. Were they to be told that the crofting landlords were only rent chargers so far as the crofts were concerned, but so far as the large farms were concerned they were landlords in every respect? The landlords in the crofting country took just as lively an interest in the small as they did in the large holdings.
  MR. JOWETTcalled attention to the fact that forty Members were not present.
  House counted; and forty Members being found present —
  *SIR J. DEWARsubmitted that under the proposal of the Government the landlords were secured against financial loss, while a large number of good new tenants would be obtained, a result which would be of benefit not only to the community but also of advantage to the landlords as well as the tenants.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid during the discussions in Committee he had moved an Amendment which was slightly different from that now before the House, to confine the operation of the Crofters Act to localities which were in the nature of crofting districts, and which were under crofting conditions. The Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman below him was practically to the same effect. What defence had they heard of the proposal to create small holdings by the extension of the Crofters Act? The hon. Member who had just sat down had given them some arguments in favour of the Crofters Act, but he confessed that his laudation of that measure was something like damning with faint praise. Another hon. Member had made an elaborate panegyric of the Act, but he must say that as he listened to it he failed to see any good ground for the laudation. He had told them that from 1886 to the present time immense improvement had been made in the Highlands. That was very true, but had there not been many other causes operating besides the Crofters Act? The Crofters Commission was the result of the attention that had been drawn to several great economic evils in the Highlands, which other people besides legislators were attempting to cure and remove. An immense amount of benevolent and charitable effort was spent about that time in the Highlands, and there was no doubt that a great deal of good was done. Besides which, the operation of the Act of 1872 was penetrating by that time into the Highlands, and in the districts where the Crofters Act was operative it was especially beneficial, not from an educational point of view only, but from a financial point of view. After all, they might have run rather too hard in their praise of the Crofters Act. He quite admitted the circumstances of the population with which they had to deal, and the very
  1906
  peculiar position of the Highlanders of Scotland, who were under very remarkable conditions to which the Crofters Act was to some extent suitable, and did some good. But he for one, whatever his fellow Members might say, felt bound to state that he did not intend to advance the view that the position created by the Crofters Act for many of his fellow countrymen was an ideal position, or one which he wished to continue. He wished that the right hon. Gentleman knew, as he did, some of the places where the crofters were fixed now, among the east bays of Harris and the east seaboard of Lewis, and he would then see whether theirs was an ideal position which he would wish for his fellow countrymen. The Crofters Act had been beneficial and had done much to secure to the people places they loved so much, but he was not sorry to think that many of the children of these crofters had shown that energy of their fathers which had done so much good to Scotland, and were helping to colonise different parts of the Empire, instead of staying at home. The career of the crofter was not one in which any great ambition could be satisfied. They had passed the Crofters Act for a peculiar population, and had done so in obedience to a very long and very romantic history. The feeling inborn in the Highlanders came from their land system, and it existed to this day. They had a land hunger which did not exist in many other parts of Scotland. They wished to cling not only to the land but to the bit of land which had been held by their fathers; they were attached to it, and preferred to cling to it rather than seek better economic conditions elsewhere. They had satisfied that hunger by an abundant charity which was wholly justified, and which he was not going to deny, or wished to withdraw. But he must remind hon. and right hon. Gentlemen that they could not create an economic state of things, nor would a large society ever flourish very long, on what were essentially uneconomic conditions. They met for a time the traditions of these Highlanders, with their separate language, their separate racial peculiarities and their interesting and romantic attachment to the soil of their fathers, but they did not establish anything like conditions which could be

  1907
  defended by any proposition of political economy. What were they going to do now? They were going to extend a system which no doubt had worked fairly well in the peculiar circumstances which justified its application to a small proportion of the Scottish population —a portion who, from their traditions and instincts, had no great desire to work under the pressure and strain of modern economic conditions. He was perfectly certain that whoever studied the conditions of Scotland would agree with him in thinking that to be the case. They were now going to establish these strange and unusual conditions for a population which, above all things, had a keen commercial instinct, which had never exhibited any special kind of attachment for a particular spot, but which moved about with peculiar readiness from one part of the country to another, as prompted by commercial prospects. They carried on their business just as would any Scotsmen in cities, in the sense that they were not likely to be very much overpowered by romantic notions in regard to the land which they cultivated, but worked in the same way and just as hard as any commercial firm. They were attempting to impose these conditions upon a section of agriculturists who, out of all the agriculturists in the country, were perhaps the most keenly commercial, and the most determined to advance by successive steps to prosperity, and who had by that means perhaps the most advanced system of agriculture in the whole country —he spoke of Midlothian and East Lothian, which were well-known specimens of advanced agriculture. The Solicitor-General had said that there was another very strong reason, not for merely extending small holdings to the Lowlands of Scotland, but for extending them on precisely the system of the Crofters Act. What was that reason? It was, the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the crofters were exempt from rating upon their buildings and improvements; extend the Crofters Act, and then there would be a very much stronger motive for ten ants remaining as they were at present because they would pay a much lower rent than they would otherwise do. But die the hon. and learned Gentleman think that if the rates were not paid by one man
  1908
  they were to drop like manna from the heavens? If the whole of those small holders who were to be created by the Bill were to be exempted from rates, precisely as under the Crofters Act, would their neighbours not be unjustly rated? Let them take a concrete case. This Bill was restricted to tenancies of 50 acres or £50. Where market gardens were cultivated with success a new landholder might be established on an estate holding about 50 acres, and probably paying a rental of £250 because such land was often worth about £5 an acre. This landholder would not be charged rates upon his buildings or improvements although he might have admirable and expensive equipment, whereas his fellow landholder ten or fifteen miles away at the foot of the Lammermoor Hills would have to pay high rates. Was that fair or reasonable? When they were dealing with the Crofters Act Parliament was legislating in a charitable spirit with men who were not being dealt with according to the full rigour of the law. The crofters were exempted from rates, and he wondered whether hon. Members opposite were aware of the effect of that. The result of exempting them at the time was that almost all the parishes in the West Highlands and in some of the mainland crofting districts became bankrupt within two years of the passing of the Crofters Act, That was a fact which did not appear to he present to the minds of many hon. Members who were supporting this Bill. He was specially concerned in the matter because in 1888 they had laid before them deliverances from every school board in that wide district to the effect that they had given notice to the teachers to close their schools on the ground that unless the Education Department gave them assistance they could not raise the amount required by any rate even at 20s. in the £, because so many of the inhabitant escaped rates under the Act. Lord Goschen, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave them ample means, they took the local management into their own hands, and tided the school boards through the period when they were almost bankrupt. They did all this at the cost of the Imperial Exchequer and the situation was saved.

  1909
  The amount was £7,000 or £8,000 to begin with, and it rapidly diminished, but that would not have been the sum required if the system had spread all over Scotland. There would be a vast number of new landholders under this Bill, and they would be exempted from rates altogether. That would inevitably be the result, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman could not deny that. Did the right hon. Gentleman forget that he had only a limited sum at his disposal? This Bill was not going to be worked like the English measure through the rates of the county councils but through the Imperial Exchequer. The more they extended the Crofters Act to the Lowlands of Scotland, and the more charitable generosity they showed to those districts which had no need of their generosity, the more they would deprive the needy population of the crofting districts of their proper share of help from the Imperial Exchequer. If the Government persisted in this vicious process the more would they deprive the poorer districts of that special gift Parliament meant for them, and the more would they, spread that gift over the prosperous commercial Lowland farming districts where the fanners were perfectly well able to take care of themselves. For those reasons he cordially supported this Amendment, and he earnestly trusted that the Government would see their way to modify the determination they had shown to proceed in this way.
  MR. J. F. MASONsaid he wished to draw attention to the compulsory powers 'under the Bill, because they obliged every small farmer who came within the scope of the Bill to become nolens volens a crofter. The Solicitor-General had stated that he had never heard before that it could be considered a misfortune to have fixity of tenure, but he ventured to say that even that proposition was open to some criticism. In England they found that farmers preferred yearly tenancies rather than a more definite form of tenure. There were small farmers in Scotland who had shown a distinct fear of coming within the four corners of this Bill. There was the definite case of a small farmer in Inverness-shire who was
  1910
  paying under the £50 limit, and he asked his landlord to raise his rent to £50 in order that he night escape coming under the Crofters Act. Why did some of the tenants object to become crofters? Simply because they knew that so long as they remained small farmers they were in the position in which the. landlord did the repairs and provided the equipment. The moment a man became a crofter that condition of things would necessarily cease. The Solicitor-General said he saw no reason why, after security of tenure had been given, the landlord should not continue to do the repairs as before. He also stated that the essence of this Bill was security of tenure, and that a fair rent was necessary, because otherwise the landlord had it in his power by raising the rent to get rid of an undesirable tenant. When the landlord's money was used for repairs and equipment what other weapon did the landlord need? Surely by refusing to do the repairs and not doing anything for the tenant he could use that weapon with as much readiness as raising the rent. He thought it was quite unnecessary to make it compulsory that all small farmers of less than 50 acres or paying under £50 should become crofters, and they ought to be allowed to refuse to become crofters if they chose.
  MR. URE: They may refuse.
  MR. J. F. MASONsaid that in that case he had misunderstood the Bill. It was quite true that ownership was not desired by the crofters, but that was on account of the rating which would necessarily follow. Dual ownership might be successful in crofting districts, but that system would not afford a final settlement of the question which would in the end be satisfactory to the whole of Scotland. If they were to have dual ownership the only satisfactory system was that which was known as the Evesham custom under which the tenant had to find a successor if he wished to get rid of his holding, and under which the landlord could not disturb him without compensation.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid there were only five Radical Members present in the House and he would put forward some arguments in the hope that some of

  1911
  them might be converted. The hon. Member for Invernesshire said he was against the Amendment because the Crofters Act had been a success in the crofting districts of Scotland. That was not a sufficient argument for the extension of the Act unless they went further and said that the same conditions which applied in the crofting areas applied also in the other areas of Scotland. The only argument adduced by the hon. Baronet to show that the Crofters Act had been a success was that in a place which he knew there were formerly only three slated houses —the laird's house, the manse, and a kennel, and that, soon after the Crofters Act became law, there were many slated cottages. As had been pointed out, the wave of a legislative wand did not produce money, so that the money required to erect the cottages must have been earned under the conditions which existed before the passing of the Act. The conditions in the Lowlands were entirely different from those in the Highlands. The question of rating had been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. It seemed to him that that was a very simple question. He was rather glad that it existed, for he was certain of one thing, namely, that nothing was more likely to give a damaging blow to the Radical Party. He would not be sorry if such a thing should take place. It was evident that if the proposed system of rating was applied to the rich districts of Scotland, say in districts where market gardening was carried on, it would produce dissatisfaction. The last thing which a Scotsman wanted to do was to pay what his neighbour ought to pay. He thought the rating clause alone would give the Scottish ratepayers cause to curse the day they voted for the great Radical Party. He could not congratulate the Solicitor-General on the arguments which he had brought forward in answer to his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition His chief argument was that it was impossible to distinguish between a man who had made improvements on his farm and a man who had not, and that it was equally important to both tenants that there should be security of tenure. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he had never heard any argument advanced
  1912
  which would induce him to alter his opinion. Might he point out that during the whole history of the Liberal and Radical Party the arguments advanced I in connection with land legislation had been in favour of a distinction being made? The land legislation for Ireland proposed by Mr. Gladstone in 1870 was founded on the difference between the man who had made improvements and the man who had not. Mr. Gladstone found the justification of the Land Act of that year in the fact that the landlord did not find the capital necessary for the improvement of the soil, whereas I he did in Scotland. Therefore he claimed that the greatest apostle of the Liberal and Radical Party during the past forty I years had put forward the argument which the learned Solicitor-General said he could not understand. It was the only argument on which legislation of this sort ought to be based. This question had been discussed over and over again in Committee, and now that there had been a discussion in the House the public would understand the reasons why the Opposition objected so much to this clause. If the Radical Members would look into the Amendment they would see that its acceptance would not interfere with the creation of small holdings. The Solicitor-General would admit that the crofting Members on the Committee upstairs had continuously and vociferously declared that the great mistake of the Bill was the attempt to foist the crofting system on parts of the country where the conditions were entirely different. He recollected speeches made by the hon. Members for Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty, and Orkney complaining that a Radical Government was engrafting on this Bill crofting legislation. He was sure that nothing would please them more than the acceptation of the Amendment of his right hon. friend. He was surprised at the absence from the House of those hon. Members, but no doubt influences were at work to make it undesirable that they should be present. He hoped that the Amendment would be adopted.
  MR. C. E. PRICEsaid it had been stated that no one in the Lowlands was keenly interested in this measure. He could say that at a meeting

  1913
  held in his own division in Edinburgh to consider the matter the chairman and other speakers were men who had been brought up on the land. The result of the meeting was that a resolution was passed that the crofting legislation should be extended to the whole of Scotland.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: What did the meeting consist of?
  MR. C. E. PRICEsaid that it was a meeting of the Executive of the Liberal Association in the division. [Ironical OPPOSITION cheers.] Seeing that he had been returned by a very large majority at the general election, he did not see why he did not represent the views of his constituents. The remarkable thing about the resolution passed at that meeting was that it expressly approved the fact that under this Bill the smallholders would get. security of tenure and fair rents without the necessity of purchase. He knew the whole of Scotland as well as any Member in the House, and he could say in behalf of many of the farming districts that the Bill was demanded by the people. It was quite true that the landlords and a great many of the large fanners were opposed to the Bill. No class was more anxious to keep smallholders out of their district, because if these were introduced there would be a scarcity of agricultural labourers. They did not want competition for those agricultural labourers. The Bill would be the best means of enabling the labouring class in the agricultural districts to acquire; small holdings until they had gained experience which would entitle them to take larger farms. In regard to the Highlands, he had visited every district where the crofters had been evicted in the old time, and had repeatedly visited them since the Crofters Act was passed, and he could testify from what he had seen to the enormous improvement which had been made in those parts. He thought that the money which had been spent by the crofters since they had acquired security of tenure and fixed rents compared very favourably with what the landlords had done. He contended that it was important that the tenants should spend their money on their holdings, for that was a security that they would remain on the land.
  1914
  The landlords seemed to be very much afraid of the Crofters Commission, but it had been admitted that the Crofters Act had been of immense advantage to both the tenants and the landlords. There was now a happy and truly friendly relationship between landlords and tenants which did not exist before. No charge could be made against the Crofters Commission of dealing unfairly with the landlords and what right had anyone to assume that the new Commission would deal otherwise with them. He knew of a case where a landlord had divided two large farms into small holdings, but did not spend a single copper on the thirty-two small holdings so created. Seven years afterwards the tenants applied to the Crofters Commission to get fair rents fixed, and in thirty-one out of the thirty-two small holdings created the Crofters Commission fixed exactly the same rent as had been agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant. He altogether denied that there was no demand for this Bill in the Lowlands. It was all very well to say that it was necessary to bring in land purchase in Ireland because of the failure of dual ownership; but the great trouble in Ireland was that under the Act of 1881 the rents were fixed for a period of fifteen years, and everybody knew that during that period the price of farm produce had fallen very considerably. To his mind there would be no justification in refusing to extend by this Bill to the Lowlands of Scotland the crofter legislation which had been of inestimable advantage to the development and improvement of the Highland district.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid that when the hon. Member asked the House to believe that there was a great feeling in favour of this Bill in the Lowlands of Scotland he only supported that by a reference to a small party meeting in Edinburgh. He had been told in Committee that there had been an enthusiastic meeting somewhere at which nearly all the agricultural labourers had expressed themselves as most cordially in support of the Bill, but it was found afterwards that those who were present at that meeting had come away more full of cake than of conviction as to the merits of the measure. He did not think it meant anything at all that there were urban

  1915
  populations in favour of the Bill. He wondered whether those people took their opinions from the Bill itself or from the laudatory views expressed to them by their Members who wished to put the Bill in an agreeable light from the party point of view. There was not the least difference of opinion that there had been an exodus from the country districts to the urban districts which led to overcrowding, and that the attempts to arrest the decrease of the rural population had been a failure; but because one held those views it was not necessary to ride off at a tangent and say that this Bill would accomplish all that they had in view. He could not quite see the relevance of some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh as to the application of the Crofters Act to the whole of Scotland. He had never yet heard any valid reason advanced why the Crofters Act should be extended to the Lowlands, and there was also no valid reason why the benefits of the measure should be extended to tenants with £50 annual value. If there was any reason for this why should it not be extended to all tenants in Scotland and to tenants in the United Kingdom generally? An hon. Gentleman had told them that afternoon that opinion was more advanced in Scotland than in England, and that England was not prepared for such a measure. He would prefer to put it the other way about, and say that the people of England were more aware of the crux of the situation, while they might be prepared to make an experiment in corpore vile on the unfortunate agriculturists of Scotland. Of course, he had no doubt that if one went to the majority of tenants and asked if they wanted security of tenure they would say "Yes," but that was a sort of claptrap which was likely to carry people away. What they were giving to one man they were taking away from someone else. Were they justified in taking capital out of one man's pocket and putting it into the pocket of another? He was surprised that the Lord Advocate should say that it was a misfortune to listen to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, because he agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, that
  1916
  whereas in Ireland dual ownership already existed, in Scotland it did not. In this case they were giving away something which did not belong to the State and which it had no right to give away and which did not belong to the tenant to whom they were giving it. He quite agreed that they should give the tenant security for the capital which he had invested in the land, and that they ought to prevent the landlord raising the rent on his improvements. But those objects were secured by the Agricultural Holdings Acts which had been passed from time to time to regulate the customs of the country in some cases, and in others to introduce new customs. In some cases the custom of the country had been more in favour of the tenant than the Agricultural Holdings Acts, and the tenants capital was protected either by custom or legislation. But then hon. Members came along and said the tenant wanted more, and in order to protect the tenant he must have fixity of tenure. Surely there was only one corollary to that, and that was to adopt a system of purchase. He held, however, that it would be better that the tenant should not have security of tenure but have the benefit of the landlord's capital. He thought that the middle course, to leave him as tenant and give him some rights of ownership, was a fraudulent one, although, of course, it was easy to gain support for it from the farmers. If, I moreover, fixity of tenure was given, why should not the right of free sale of that tenure be given? The right of free sale had been most disastrous wherever it had been tried. If they gave a man a right which he had never had before why should they not give him the power to dispose of it to the best advantage? On a former occasion the Lord Advocate told them that if there was any defect in Irish Land Acts it was clue to the right of free sale, but now they were told it was due to the passion for litigation. Now, however, the time had come when a Radical Government would put forward a programme of fixity of tenure, fair rent, and free sale. Free sale seemed to him to be the inevitable accompaniment of fixity of tenure unless purchase was resorted to. As to dual ownership

  1917
  there was a good deal of difference of opinion between the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate which had never been cleared up. He would like to ask any member of the Government if he could point to anything outside the Crofters Act where dual ownership had been a success. He alluded to the Crofters Act because the crofters had been in a peculiar position. They were not inclined to move from one croft to another, but the rights of the parties would become quite different if this Bill became law. He had a great fear that the Bill would draw capital from the land. Whatever might be the experience of the Crofters Act, and however good-natured landlords might have been in the crofting districts, he did not see how the tenants or the. Government could count upon such good nature in future in regard to a large measure such as this. He feared that the result of the Bill would be that buildings would fall into disrepair, and pointed to the fact that in the crofting districts the custom had always been for the crofters to look after the repair of the house, which they or their predecessors had built. It might be said they were conferring a benefit on the landlord by taking away from him the duty of keeping the buildings in repair, but then the Land Court would come along and fix the rent, and he supposed would take that into consideration, and would say that under the circumstances the landlord was not entitled to the same rent as he had been getting, and the rent would be reduced. But the amount by which it was reduced would be the amount of the robbery committed against the landlord by this Bill. If it was necessary in the opinion of the Government that security of tenure should be introduced into agriculture, and if they were quite persuaded that agriculture was not prosperous in this country for that reason alone, there was only one honest course for them to pursue, viz., to bring in a Land Purchase Bill which would give the tenant absolute security of tenure. He was of opinion that the existing state of affairs should remain, believing that if the provisions of this Bill were extended to the whole of Scotland it could only end in disaster.
  *MR. MOLTENOsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down was the only speaker who had not admitted that the condition of the rural districts was unsatisfactory and that it was desirable that some remedy should be found for the existing state of things. Hon. Members opposite did not apparently appreciate the condition to which the rural districts had been reduced. He regretted the strong language used by the Leader of the Opposition, and was glad the Member for South Dublin who knew the Bill had never used such language. The Leader of the Opposition had spoken of the immorality of taking a man's capital and handing it over to someone else, in perpetuity, the suggestion being that the capital was handed over without any compensation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not mean that there was crude spoliation. What he said was that to take away a man's capital and give it to somebody else whom he did not himself choose to manage it, and give him the interest they thought proper, was preposterous.
  *MR. MOLTENOwas obliged for the explanation. The right hon. Gentleman's previous condemnations seemed to him to be unqualified. The Bill did not take away property without compensation. The property was used in the same way as the landlord used it. He received a fair rent for it. Therefore, he thought the right hon. Gentleman's language was hardly correct.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was just as if it took away one of the hon. Gentleman's steamers.
  *MR. MOLTENOsaid there was no analogy between a steamer and the land. Every year this House was legislating with regard to the land of this country.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURsaid they had legislated for steamers as well.
  *MR. MOLTENOsaid that laud in this country had been taken compulsorily for the purposes of public health, locomotion, defence, and other public purposes. Land had never been dealt with on the same footing as other property; and when the right hon. Gentleman spoke

  1919
  of its being in perpetuity he lost sight of the powers of resumption in the Bill, and the mineral, timber, and sporting rights which were reserved. Therefore, the whole and absolute right was not taken from the landlord in any sense. All this Bill said was that while the land was agricultural land it should be so used as to maintain a larger number of people on it. They had been asked for evidence of the desire of the Lowlands for this extension. The evidence was that the Lowlands sent Members to the House to ask for it. The Lowlands were suffering from enormous depopulation and the Government believed that that was due wholly and solely to the land laws of the country. The Leader of the Opposition said it was due to free trade, but he would point out that the introduction of free trade had not reduced prices. Until the year 1879 prices rose. Rents of land in this country rose from 1846 to 1875 by 21 per cent. Rural depopulation began in 1861; between 1861–1901 the prices were highest and the rural population in Scotland declined by 38 per cent. The bulk of the rural depopulation took place in Scotland between 1861 and 1879, therefore it could not be contended that free trade had anything to do with it. If the towns had largely increased in size there was all the more reason why agriculture should have improved, because the large towns were the greatest, purchasers of produce in the world and were the greatest supporters of agriculture. Yet while our towns had increased in size our agriculture had declined. Other countries which had been wise enough to revise their land laws had been doing exceedingly well since 1879. Our land laws had led to an enormous decrease of all those who were connected with the land. It was notorious that Scotland was held by a small number of owners in a way in which no other civilised country was held. Tenant farmers were I decreasing. The whole of Scotland could only produce 53,000 tenant farmers as, against the 6,000,000 who cultivated land in France, and 5,000,000 in Germany. There was no country in the whole of Europe where so little land was cultivated by the owners. It was all cultivated by tenants and landless labourers.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: This Bill will not alter that.
  *MR. MOLTENOsaid lie believed that it would alter it. But in addition to this our land laws were sending down the value of land.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: No, it is your legislation.
  *MR. MOLTENOsaid that since. 1881, 2,000,000 acres had gone out of cultivation. While Denmark had added 1,250,000 acres and Germany had added 750,000 acres to its cultivated land, we had declined to the extent above mentioned. The great trouble was that a man interested in agriculture looked forward for promotion to having his own land which he could cultivate. [OPPOSITION cheers.] He knew what that cheer meant; it meant a system of purchase. If it was suggested they should go from the present system to a system of purchase, that could not be done. It was a counsel of perfection, to offer land for purchase to the land-le s labourers of Great Britain. It could not be done. It had been tried in Ireland, and had broken down enormous losses had been incurred, and the whole arrangement must be changed. If they ever attempted to do the same thing in Great Britain they knew that it would absolutely break down If they offered a man security of tenure they offered him something which he could accept; he could use his money to stock the holding, and did not need to sink his capital in purchase. A man without accumulated capital could not possibly do that sort of thing. The Bill proposed to increase the number of holdings. In the first place it took the holdings which existed and gave them the protection of the law; it gave security of tenure at a fair rent, and it gave security for improvements. The small holdings which did exist were stereotyped and protected, and the tenants felt secure in investing their labour and their little capital in those holdings. And then the Bill provided additional machinery. Where there was a demand for holdings and where it was quite clear that the demand ought to be met, they had Commissioners who were ready to facilitate the demands and in that way they

  1921
  opposed the destruction of small holdings, which, unless they were protected by legislation, gradually became absorbed in the larger holdings. Therefore, they had the means of increasing those holdings, and they Relieved in this way they were going to offer a career to a largo number who would be trained to cultivate the soil. They wanted to reform the land laws. Every country had done it except ourselves. We had done it to some extent in Ireland, no doubt, but it was high time that we did it here. What was happening to the people of this country? They might say that they were only poor people, and not worth considering. [An HON. MEMBER: Who says that?] He said it might be stated. They saw what was happening. They were being driven from their homes by hundreds and thousands. In his own county 1,200 men had been driven out in the last twenty years. [An HON. MEMBER: Why driven out?] In one parish alone in his constituency they had pulled down 167 houses —so many homes destroyed in the last forty years. There could be no more serious matter for which the legislature was responsible, because it was by law this was caused, and it was for Parliament to alter that state of things, to stop the process that was going on, and if possible to restore some people to the land while preventing others from being driven away.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid in Committee it had been always a matter of great interest to hear the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, and they had the same satisfaction in listening to him in the House. He would not follow the hon. Gentleman into his excursions into tariff reform, though he agreed with a great many of the remarks which he had made. He had said very truly that free trade when introduced raised prices. He asked hon. Gentlemen who sat on the same benches as the hon. Member to take note of that remark. [Cries of "He did not say so."] He had certainly said so, and further the hon. Member had concluded his remarks by saying that he did not wish to see men driven from their homes.
  *MR. MOLTENOsaid he had stated that prices rose after the introduction
  1922
  of free trade, but he had not said that free trade was the cause of the rise in prices.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid the hon. Member had stated the fact and it was for others to draw their own inference. Towards the end of his speech the hon. Member had deplored the fact that hundreds and thousands had been driven from their homes and obliged to seek their subsistence in foreign countries where they had a fiscal system which did not exist in this country. The hon. Member had talked about the depopulation of the Highlands and had tried to make out that that was in no sense due to free trade. He would refer him to the Report of the Commission which sat about the year 1845, when a deplorable state of things had been brought about in the kelp industry by our system of free trade. The kelp trade, since the duty was taken off glass, had failed utterly. The unfortunate people engaged in it were no longer able to make a living, and efforts were successfully made to enable them to emigrate. Many of the Colonies which they formed were still in existence in Canada and elsewhere. That was the only reference which he would make to the hon. Member's observations, but it would be seen that the greatest instance of depopulation in the Highlands was due to the failure of the kelp trade. The hon. Member talked about the land laws, but were they not similar then, when the acres of this country bore a teeming population, to what they were now? Was it due to the land laws that depopulation had taken place? He ventured to say that it had far more to do with economic causes and had nothing at all to do with legislation. Legislation had been all in our favour.
  *MR. MOLTENO: There were the Enclosures Acts.
  MR. COCHRANEasked what were the powers previously held? There was a quantity of waste land in the country to which no owner claimed the right or title, and power was taken to enclose this land and to bring it into cultivation for the benefit of the agricultural population.
  *MR. MOLTENOsaid he referred to the enclosures by which the common field system was destroyed.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid he really did not know to what Acts the hon. Member was referring, but he would not be led into a discussion one very Act that had been passed; the hon. Member would see that no discourtesy was intended, but he was not prepared to follow him into the fields which he had entered. What did this Bill propose to do? His right hon. friend who had moved an Amendment desired to restrict the Bill to those parts of Scotland in which he said that similar legislation had been a success. The objects of this Bill were fixity of tenure and the establishment of a Land Court for the Lowlands of Scotland. What benefit to any human being would result? Fixity of tenure in the Lowlands, where there was a system of leasehold, he ventured to say was not wanted. Throughout the Lowlands the practically universal system was a lease of nineteen years. Nobody in the House would say that a nineteen years lease did not give as much fixity of tenure as any tenant in the Lowlands desired to have. What was to be the operation of the Land Court? The small holdings which I they proposed to set up were from an acre up to 50 acres, and in place of the negotiations between landlord and tenant, they were going to put into operation an expensive method of acquiring holdings. A Land Court was to be set up to perform between landlord and tenant what was now done by a simple procedure between them without trouble. They were going to put in operation the expensive machinery of the Land Court and to take away that system of bargaining between landlord and tenant in which he ventured to say that the tenant was often the better and more skilled bargainer. What demand was there for the Bill in the Lowlands? His hon. friend the Member for Durham had alluded to the speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Aberdeenshire in the Grand Committee. The hon. Member said that in his constituency at any rate there was one class that demanded this Bill —the labourers. The hon. Member opposite stated that there
  1924
  had been a meeting in his constituency at which a resolution was unanimously passed in favour of the Bill. He understood that at the end of the meeting those who attended were entertained to a sumptuous repast of Scottish broth and roast beef. When the hon. Member claimed that those people were unanimously in favour of the Bill he thought he was quite justified in drawing a perfectly different inference. He had information which showed a different state of things and there was no Scottish broth or roast beef in the case. A petition which he would present to-morrow had been signed by the following persons in Aberdeenshire, Kincardine, and Banff-shire against this Bill: Farmers, 2,573; crofters, 853; farm servants, 1,095; merchants and tradesmen, 569; miscellaneous, 1,104; making a total of 6,194 persons in those counties who desired the House not to pass the Bill into law. What would be the result of the measure upon the labourers? Let them look at the question from the point of view of the labourers. In the first place, if in the Lowlands of Scotland they wanted to get suitable land they would have to carve it out from the larger farms which were now fully equipped with a staff of farm labourers. By placing small holders on those large farms they would displace the farm labourers, who were the right persons to till the soil, and they would put in their places shopkeepers and others who laboured under the hallucination that any man was good enough to make a farmer. Consequently the labourers would be cut out. Throughout Scotland at the present time there were some 60,000 smallholders who would come under this Bill. One of the provisions was that the tenure of those holdings not only should be fixed to the individual who was in possession at the present time, but that it should descend to his heirs and successors. As for placing agricultural labourers on the soil, every one of those small holdings would be absolutely closed to the labourer and thirled to the occupiers. With the £65,000 which had been mentioned they were to carry out a number of other things to assist agriculture. They were going to set up a Board of Agriculture of their own, assist forestry and

  1925
  sylviculture and he did not know how many other things. He felt sure that when the labourers really understood their true position under the Bill they would prefer to be labourers on a farm earning good wages to the uncertainty of being turned out of their present employment on the off-chance of getting a small holding. His right hon. friend had proposed that the scheme should be confined to the crofting parishes. All Scottish Members must have noticed as being very significant the absence of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty from their debates on this question. Why was that? Nobody had taken more interest in the question than the hon. Member, and he knew perfectly well that the conditions of the crofting parishes were diametrically opposite to the conditions in the Lowlands. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty was not silent in the Committee, because there he strongly expressed the view that the Bill should have been confined absolutely to the crofting parishes, and in that contention he had the support of those thoughtful persons who had considered this question. In 1895 Sir George Trevelyan pointed out how the claims of the crofters for legislation were on an entirely different footing from the claims of any other class in Scotland. He said —
  "The crofter had no security of tenure. In the house he had built and the farm he had improved he had no property whatever recognised by law."
  What was now proposed was to take cot the property, not the house which the crofter or the small landholder had built, but the farm buildings and equipments provided by the landlord and hand them over to the crofter. The Leader of the Opposition had described that as immoral. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh had said that sanctity of contracts was now an exploded theory.
  MR. McCRAEsaid if the hon. Member wished to quote him lie hoped he would do so accurately.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid that if he had misquoted the hon. Member he would apologise and withdraw, but he was assured that the hon. Member not only said that but repeated it, and when
  1926
  he was challenged on the spot he did not deny it. If the hon. Member said he was not quoting him correctly he would withdraw and apologise.
  MR. McCRAEsaid the statement he made was something very different.
  MR. COCHRANE: What did you say?
  MR. McCRAEreplied that what he said was that the contract was dependent upon whether the parties to the contract were free agents.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid he frankly withdrew if the hon. Member said he had not been quoted correctly. He remembered that at the time he twitted the hon. Member in regard to his theory, and asked him if he would extend it in other directions. If he was going to set up up small farmers at the cost of the landlords, why should he not set up small shopkeepers at the cost of the larger ones? Hon. Members opposite attacked landowners, and because they possessed one form of property they were to be liable to spoliation, but the owners of other forms of property were to be free from attack. He had not heard from any hon. Gentleman opposite any argument for the proposal on the ground of justice or necessity. He bid heard appeals to sentiment on the ground of arresting depopulation. What the Bill suggested would not cure that evil. Out of 28,000 crofters in Scotland, only 15,000 had had their rents fixed by the Court, and many of these had subsequently renounced their tenancies. That was not an argument why the remedy of the Crofters Acts should be extended further.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW,by way of personal explanation, stated that since he had spoken he had obtained further information to the effect that, in addition to the operations he described in his speech, there was the importation of a few cattle and the erection of some huts or small houses.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he would like to point out to the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, who lamented rural depopulation, that

  1927
  this was not the only country where rural depopulation was going on. The same thing was happening in France. Hon. Members on that side of the House regretted rural depopulation as much as the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, but they differed from him as to the efficacy of the remedy he had suggested. The hon. Member had also said that spoliation was the wrong word to use in connection with this Bill, and he instanced previous Acts in which compulsory powers had been granted by the State. Quite so. but the hon. Member. forgot that this was not compulsory purchase. This was compulsory borrowing, which was a very different thing. The Lord Advocate had devoted half of his speech to pointing out that, after twenty-one years of the Crofters Act, the condition of some of the outlying islands was in a deplorable state, while the other half was a defence of the Irish Land Act of 1881. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made one statement which ho was sure he would not repeat in his calmer moments. He said that the cost of the operations under the Irish Land Act had been so great that for every £1 of rent reduced there was a cost of £105 in legal expense?
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid the statement he made had reference to the cost of appeals in connection with the alteration of rents. He said that £105 was the mount incurred for legal expenses in connection with appeals in respect of every £1 altered. It was only fair that that should be made clear.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid it was only fair to the House to say that that statement as amended by the right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to be received by the House with a certain amount of incredulity. The right hon. Gentleman had also read a letter from Mr. Bailey. He was not going into the right hon. Gentleman's correspondence, but he had made a speech at Inverness last autumn in which he quoted Mr. Bailey's letter. By the way, Mr. Bailey's letter referred, not to this Bill, but to the Bill which was the forerunner of the present. The reason why Mr. Bailey approved of that Bill was because it contained dual ownership as it had existed in Ireland.
  1928
  The Lord Advocate defended the Bill on the ground that it contained dual ownership, and the Solicitor-General said that he did not. The Lord Advocate had also referred with unqualified praise to the working of the Act of 1886.
  MR. A. DEWAR: Have any of the crofting landlords objected to it?
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid that that did not touch the question as to whether the Act had arrested the depopulation of the Highlands. A Return presented to another place a few weeks ago stated that in 1881 the population of the crofting parishes was 342,000, and in 1901 324,000, or a decrease of 18,000. It might be said that these figures did not apply to the parishes where the Congested Districts Act was in operation. The, Chamberlain of the Duke of Argyll had made an interesting return as to the population of the parishes under the Congested Districts Board. In 1871 the population was 158,000, in 1881 it was 155,000, in 1891 148,000, and in 1901 142,000. Hon. Members would see that whatever the Crofters Act had done, it had failed to check rural depopulation. The right hon. Gentleman had founded his arguments on an opinion expressed by Sheriff Brand, Chairman of the Crofters Commission, given in 1892. Sometimes the right hon. Gentleman went rather far back for his authority. In the Report of a Departmental Committee which sat last year, the Secretary of the Crofters Commission was examined. He was asked: "You cannot say that the crofting system has altogether stopped migration from the country into the town?" The answer was: "No, it has not." The same witness afterwards said that statistics showed that the depopulation of the Highlands had been quite as large since the passing of the Crofters Act as before it. But successful or not he altogether denied that the conditions under which the Crofters Act operated in the Highlands existed in other parts of Scotland. The view held by those who framed the Crofters Act, and the Lord Advocate of the day, was that this special legislation had been passed under special circumstances, and for a special purpose. The hon. and.

  1929
  learned Member for South Edinburgh had contended that the Crofters Act was necessary in districts where not a copper was spent by the landlords on improvements; but it was no reason why it should be extended to parts of the country where the landlord did spend money on improvements. The Report of the Departmental Committee stated that experience had proved that the system of dual ownership could not be maintained under economic conditions, that it was fatal and harmful to the relations between landlord and tenant; and that the experiment might be suitable where crofting conditions prevailed, but not suitable where the ordinary conditions between landlord and tenant existed. It was said that there was a strong demand for the Bill in the Lowlands. He had seen none of it. It was opposed by the Highland and Agricultural Society and other public bodies. A meeting —what was
  called a great demonstration —was held at Perth on the 1st of July. It was carefully got together by a very select party who wished to get a resolution passed in favour of the provisions of this Bill. But at that meeting there was one gentleman who gave vent to an expression of his own opinion. He said that the Government had "raised against the Bill an almost solid mass of expert agricultural opinion in Scotland." If that was the foundation on which this Bill had been raised, then their labours were in vain.
  And, it being half-past: Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 5th August, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
  The House divided: —Ayes, 263; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 378)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Glover, Thomas

  Alden, Percy

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

  Collins, Sir W. J.(S.Pancras,W.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cooper, G. J.

  Grey, Rt, Hon. Sir Edward

  Asquith. Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry

  Corbett, C.H(Suasex,E.Grinst'd

  Gulland, John W.

  Astbury. John -Meir

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gurdon, RtHn.SirW.Brampton

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Halpin, J.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Crooks, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harwood, George

  Beale, W. P.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Bell, Richard

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets, S.Geo.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Henry, Charles S.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.(Esscx,Romf rd

  Duckworth, James

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hodge, John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Brace, William

  Elibank, Master of

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Erskine. David C.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Branch, James

  Essex, R. W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Brigg, John

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hudson, Walter

  Bright, J. A.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes.,Leigh)

  Ferens, T. R,

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Findlay, Alexander

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Byles, William Pollard

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Jenkins, J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R,

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Gill, A. H.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Clough. William

  Gladstone. Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Jowett, F.W.

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Stanger, H. V.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Myer, Horatio

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Napier, T. B.

  Streadman. W C.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Nicholls, George

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Nolan. Joseph

  Strachey. Sir Edward

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Strauss. E. A. (Abingdon)

  Lambert, George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Taylor. John W. (Durham)

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Taylor. Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil(St.Pancras,E.)

  O'Donnell, C. T. (Walworth)

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Parker. James (Halifax)

  Thorne. William

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Torrance. Sir A. M.

  Lever, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Trevelyan. Charles Philips

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Ure, Alexander

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pearson. W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Verney. F. W.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Philipps. Owen. C. (Pembroke)

  Vivian. Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Pickersgill. Edward Hare

  Walker. H. De R. (Leicester)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Pollard, Dr.

  Walsh. Stephen

  Luttrell. Hugh Fownes

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh.Central)

  Walters. John Tudor

  Macdonald. J. R. (Leicester)

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford.E.)

  Walton. SirJohn L. (Leeds, S.)

  Macdonald. J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Walton. Joseph (Barnsley)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Raphael. Herbert H.

  Ward. John(Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Maclean, Donald

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wardle. George J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rea. Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Waring, Walter

  Macpherson J. T.

  Richards,T.F.(Wolverhampton

  Wason. John Cathcart(Orkney)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Waterlow, D. S.

  MacVeigh. Charles (Donegal. E.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Watt. Henry A.

  M'Callum. John M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wedgwood. Josiah C.

  M'Crae. George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Weir, James Galloway

  M'Kenna. Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, John H. (Denbigrhs)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  White. J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  White. Luke (York, E. R.)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Robinson, S.

  White. Patrick (Meath. North)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whitley. John Henry (Halifax

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Whittaker. Sir Thomas Palmer

  Markham. Arthur Basil

  Rowlands, J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Marks. G. Croydon (Launccston

  Runciman, Walter

  Williams, Llewelyn'Carmarth'n

  Marnham, F. J.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wilson, Hon. C.H.W.(Hull,W.)

  Massie, J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson. Henry J. (York, W.)

  Masterman. C. F. G.

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton underLyne)

  Wilson. John (Durham. Mid.)

  Micklem. Nathaniel

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Molteno. Percy Alport

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Wilson. P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Shackleton. David James

  Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Shaw. Rt. Hon. T. (Hawiek B.)

  Winfrey. R.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Sherwell. Arthur James

  Wodehouse. Lord

  Mooney, J. J.

  Shipman. Dr. John G.

  Wood. T. M'Kinnon

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Silcock. Thomas Ball

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Morgan, J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Simon. John Allsebrook

  Morley, Bt. Hon. John

  Sinclair. Rt. Hon. John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Morrell. Philip

  Smeaton. Donald Mackenzie

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Snowden, P.

  NOES.

  Anson. Sir William Reynell

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Anstruther-Grav, Major

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ashley. W. W.

  Chamberlain,RtHnJ.A. (Wore.

  Helmsley. Viscount

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Hill. Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Balfour. RtHn A.J.(CityLond.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hunt. Rowland

  Banbury. Sir Frederick George

  Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

  Kennaway. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Barlow,Percy (Bedford)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kenyon-Slaney.RtHn.Col.W.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  C'raik, Sir Henry

  Keswick. William

  Beckett, Hon. Cervase

  Doughty. Sir George

  Lambton. Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. Akers-

  Lane-Fox. G. R.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Law. Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Faber. George Denison (York)

  Lonsdale John Brownlee

  Brotherton. Edward Allen

  Fell. Arthur

  Mason. James F. (Windsor)

  Bull. Sir William James

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Meysey-Thompson, E.C.

  Butcher. Samuel Henry

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mildmay. Francis Bingham

  Campbell. Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Moore. William

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cave. George

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Nicholson. Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Cavendish,RtHn.Victor C.W.

  Gordon, J.

  Nield. Herbert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Paulton, James Mellor

  1932

  1933

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Starkey, John R.

  Wilson,A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Stiff'sh.

  Wolff. Gustav Wilhelm

  Rawlinson, John FrederickPeel

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Roberts,S.(Sheffield Ecclesall)

  Talbot, LordE. (Chichester)

  Younger, George

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  TELLEBS FOR THE NOES —.Sir

  Scott. Sir S. (.Marylebone, W.)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Sheffield,SirBerkeley George D.

  Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)

  Smith,Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Mr. SPEAKERthen proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.
  Amendments proposed —
  "In page 1, line 14, to leave out the words the date of.' "—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  "In page 1, line 19. to leave out the words the date of.' "—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed —
  "In page 1, line 21, to leave out the word and, 'and insert the words 'or within two miles from the holding, and by himself or his family' "—(Mr. Sinclair) —instead thereof.
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided: —Ayes, 268; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 379.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

  Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh

  Alden, Percy

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Allen,A.Acland(Christchurch)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harwood, George

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Asquith,Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry

  Crooks, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Henderson,Arthur (Durham)J

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Barlow,Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hodge, John

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Beale, W. P.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Beauchamp, E.

  Duckworth, James

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hudson, Walter

  Bell, Richard

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camhorne)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dunne,MajorE.Martin(Walsall

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.

  Elibank, Master of

  Illingworth, Percy H

  Berridge. T. H. D.

  Erskine, David C.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Bethell,Sir J. H. (Essex,Romf 'rd

  Essex, R. W.

  Jacoby, Sir James Altred

  Bethell. T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jenkins, J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Brace, William

  Ferens, T. R.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Branch, James

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Brigg, John

  Foster Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Jowett, F. W.

  Bright, J. A.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Brunner,J.F. L.(Lanes.,Leigh)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gibb. James (Harrow)

  Lamb,Edmund G.(Leominster)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gill, A. H.

  Lambert, George

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

  Lamont, Norman

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Glover, Thomas

  Lea,HughCecil(St. Pancras.E.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Goddard. Daniel Ford

  Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lever,A.Levy(Essex, Harwich)

  Clough, William

  Gulland, John W.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gurdon,RtHn.SirW.Brampton

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Collins, SirWm.J.(S.Paneras,W.

  Hallpin, J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Corbett,C.H(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)

  Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Thorne, William

  Maclean, Donald

  Pollard, Dr.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Price,C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.)

  Ure, Alexander

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down S.)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Verney, F. W.

  MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal.E.)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Vivian, Henry

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  M'Crae, George

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Walsh, Stephen

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rees, J. D.

  Walters, John Tudor

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Ward,John(Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wardle, George J.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Waring, Walter

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Warner. Thomas Conrtenay T.

  Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston)

  Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

  Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Waterlow. D S.

  Massie, J.

  Robinson, S.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wedgwood. Josiah C.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Weir, James Galloway

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rowlands, J.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Runciman, Walter

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  White, Luke (York. E.R.)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Sears, J. E.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Morrell, Philip

  Shackleton, David James

  Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T.(Hawick B.)

  Wilson,Hon. C. H. W.(Hull,W.)

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Myer, Horatio

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Napier, T. B.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Nicholls, George

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Winfrey. R.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Snowden, P.

  Wodehouse. Lord

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Steadman. W. C.

  Partington, Oswald

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES —Mr.

  Pearce,Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse

  Strauss,E. A. (Abingdon)

  Pease.

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood,Rt,Hn.Sir Alex.F.

  Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.A.(Worc

  Keswick, William

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Long,Rt. H n. Walter(Dublin.S.)

  Balfour,Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond.

  Courthope. G. Loyd

  Lonsdale. John Brownlee

  Banbury. Sir Frederick Georga

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

  Doughty, Sir George

  Meysey-Thompson. E. C.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mildmay. Francis Bingham

  Bowles. G. Stewart

  Du Cros. Harvey

  Moore. William

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson,Wm. G. (Peterstield)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Nield. Herbert

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Powell. Sir Francis Sharp

  Burdett-Couts, W.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Gordon, J.

  Rawlinson,JohnFrederick Peel

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. H. M.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rutherford. John (Lancashire)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Salter. Arthur Clavell

  Cave, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cavendish,Rt. Hon. Victor C.W

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kennaway, Rt.Hn. Sir John H.

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staff'sh)

  1936

  1937

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

  Talbot. Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)

  Viscount Valentia and Mr

  Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Forster.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Younger, George

  Amendment proposed —
  "In page 2, line 2, to leave out the words the date of.' "—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed —
  "In page 2, line 4, to leave out the word 'and,' and insert the words ' or within two miles from
  the holding, and by himself or his family' "— (Mr. Sinclair) —instead thereof.
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided: —Ayes, 268; Noes, 83. (Division List No. 380.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Alden, Percy

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Asquith,Rt.Hon. HerbertHenry

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Astbury, John Meir

  Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Isaccs, Rufus Daniel

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Duckworth. James

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Barlow, Sir John K. (Somerset)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jenkins, J.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dunne. Major E.Martin(Walsall

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Eli bank, Master of

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)

  Erskine, David C.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Beale, W. P.

  Essex. R. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Beauchamp. E.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jowett, F. W.

  Beaumont. Hon. Hubert

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bell. Richard

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bellairs, Carl von

  Ferens, T. R.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsforrl)

  Benn,W.(T'W''rHamlets,S.Geo.)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Bethell,Sir.J.H.(Essex,Romfrd

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lambert, George

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lamont, Norman

  Black, Arthur W.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lea, HughCecil (St. Pancras,E.)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fuller. John Michael F.

  Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington.

  Brace, William

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lever, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)

  Branch,.James

  Gill, A. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Brigs, John

  Gladstone,RtHnHerbert John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bright, J. A.

  Glover. Thomas

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Brunner, J. F. L.(Lanes., Leigh)

  Goddard. Daniel Ford

  Lough, Thomas

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Greenwood. G. (Peterborough)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Grey. Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gull mid. John W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gurdon, RtHn.SirW.Brampton

  Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Haldane. Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Halpin, J.

  Maclean, Donald

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cherry. Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, CS.

  Clough, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Harwood, George

  M'Callum, John M.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  M'Crae, George

  Collins, Sir WmJ.(S.Pancras,W

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hazleton, Richard

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Corbett, CH (Sussex.E.Grinst'd

  Hedges, A. Paget

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Mallet. Charles E.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Crooks, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hodge, John

  Marnham, F. J.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Massie, J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Vivian, Henry

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Walters, John Tudor

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robinson, S.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wardle, George J.

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Rowlands, J.

  Waring, Walter

  Morrell, Philip

  Runciman, Walter

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Myer, Horatio

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

  Watt, Henry A.

  Napier, T. B.

  Sears, J. E.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Nicholls, George

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Nolan, Joseph

  Shackleton; David James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Partington, Oswald

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Snowden, P.

  Wilson, Hon. C.H.W.(Hull,W.)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Cent.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Priestley, W. E. B.(Badford, E.)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Winfrey, R.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wood, T. M Kinnon

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Thorne, William

  Rees, J. D.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES —Mr.

  Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ure, Alexander

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Verney, F. W.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Doughty, Sir George

  Nicholson. Wm. G.(Potersfield)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nield, Herbert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balfour, RtHn. A. J. (City Lond.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Rawlinson, John FrederickPeel

  Beach, Hn.MichaelHughHicks

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Rutherford. John (Lancashire)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Forster, Henry William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gordon, J.

  Sheffield, Sir BerkeleySGeorgeD.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Starkey, John R.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hay. Hon. Claude George

  Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Butcher. Samuel Henry

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Thomson,W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cave, George

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn.Col.W.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Cavendish, Rt Hn. Victor C. W.

  Keswick, William

  Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York,E.R.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ.A.(Worc.)

  Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin,S.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Younger, George

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

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Moore, William

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 2, line 8, to leave out from the word 'leaseholder,' to end of line 14."
  "In page 2, lines 22 and 23, to leave out the words 'their respective statutory successors,' and insert the words 'the successors of every such person in the holding, being his heirs or legatees.'"
  "In page 3, line 18, to leave out the words 'immediately before,' and insert the word 'at.' "—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (CHARGES, &c.) BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed [23rd July], on Consideration of the Bill, as amended.
  Which Amendment was—
  "In page 2, to leave out lines 24 and 25."— (Dr. Cooper.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. BURDETT-COUTTSmoved an Amendment to Clause fl, to reduce the limit of houses not charged with inhabited house duty, and receiving a rebate on water, from £800 to £200. He stated that his object was to extend the benefit of the rebate offered in the Bill to a large class of shopkeepers and business men who, in his opinion, needed it more than those to whom it was at present granted. He reminded the House that formerly some of the water companies did grant on houses assessed under £200 a rebate of 30 per cent. This Bill did nothing for the £200 householder. The benefit was confined to the £300 householder, and gave him only 20 and in certain circumstances 30 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman stated on a former occasion that, under this Bill people
  1942
  were going to get water cheaper. The Bill would certainly not confer that benefit on shopkeepers and business men who used very little water, and whose premises were closed at night. It lowered the rebate, and raised the rental limit to which the rebate applied. It was proved in evidence that each clerk in an office used on an average five gallons of water a day. For 300 days this took 1,500 gallons which, at 8:1. per 1,000 gallons, cost the Water Board Is. An office or shop assessed at £200, and having ten employees, therefore used 10s. worth of water a year, and under this Bill paid £10 for it. He would have liked to see the abolition of the limit to which the rebate applied, so that all householders not paving inhabited house duty would have got the benefit. He could not see how in common justice this material benefit was to be restricted to the class who were better off than those who were not to get it. The proposal seemed to contradict all the professions of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. This rebate was very general in the provinces, and there was no limit. It covered all the people who did not pay inhabited house duty and whose business places were locked up at night. There was all the more reason why the rebate should be granted in London, where rents and rates were high, where assessments were regularly raised, and where competition was keen. He begged to move.
  MR. RAWLINSON: in seconding the Amendment, said the section to which it referred was one which gave a rebate of 20 to 30 per cent. on the water rate to the owners of premises used only for business purposes. In the case of offices or other business premises very little water was used, and, therefore, it was exceedingly unfair that in respect of such premises the full water rate should be charged. He did not understand why an exemption should be given in the case of business offices rented at more than £300, thereby exempting from benefit the very class who ought to have it. That was an exemption which was recognised even by this Bill, but he submitted that the Bill was illogical in stopping at £300. If exemption

  1943
  was to be given to anybody, it should be those who occupied premises at less than £300. The charge for water rates under the Bill would bear hardly upon the small tradesman and professional man who ought to come with in the rebate rather than those who were now included.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 5, line 8, to leave out the word 'three,' and insert the word 'two'"—(Mr. Burdett-Coutts)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. BARNARDsaid it appeared to him that the idea of this Bill was not at all well understood. The position was that the Board had £3,000,000 to carry on the whole water business of London. It was quite immaterial to the Water Board how that money was collected. The Board had also to pay large interest on £50,000,000 as well as the expenses of the business. This particular clause arose in this way. It had been the custom of the New River Company to give a rebate within the City of London, while it was contended that uniformity of rating should be applied to the whole of the Water Board area. Accordingly, they included a class of property which was rated at £300. For his part he would give the water for nothing, but financially it was impossible for the Board to give more than they were giving. The recommendation in the Bill had been adopted after full debate before the Lords and Commons Committees.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that he did not think that the hon. Member for Kidderminster had met the argument of the hon. Member for Westminster, that it was not fair to fix the limit at £300. AH that the hon. Gentleman said was that the Water Board could not afford to make a lower limit, because they had a certain amount of money to raise irrespective of whether the payment was fair or not. The hon. Gentleman had said he would be glad to give the water for nothing, but he did not want that; they only wanted to pay what was fair, and if there was a deficit the Board could make a rate in aid which
  1944
  would be spread over the whole of the Metropolis. The only reason why the Board did not like a rate in aid was that they were afraid the ratepayers would say that their administration had been extravagant.
  *MR. MORTONsaid that to his mind it was something more than amusing to find the hon. baronet the Member for the City of London, who had assisted in forcing on London this iniquitous Act, condemning the unfair terms of the Water Board's proposal and trying to get the rates reduced. Undoubtedly unfair charges were made for water to those engaged in business, and it was proposed by this Bill to continue and increase them. The whole difficulty had arisen from the late Government passing an Act to buy up the water companies at an unfair price. There ought to be some endeavour as soon as possible to make a fair charge all round for the water. Of course, the Fire Brigade paid nothing for the water they used. The difficulty was that if they reduced the price so as to compel the Water Board to go on the rates, they would be making the poor people pay for the water which the rich people used. [Opposition cries of "Sit down!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not like to be reminded of the evil doings of the late Government.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. JOHN BURNS, Battersea)trusted that he would be able by what he was going to say to assist the hon. Gentleman in forming an opinion. If the Amendment were passed the poorer consumers would have to pay more than they did now, and if the deficiency could not be met in that way, a rate in aid would have to be incurred. If the Amendment were passed it would go right in the teeth of what the Committee had considered, and what the Water Board, after serious consideration of this matter, had determined to be fair and equitable to everybody.
  MR. COURTHOPEthought the right hon. Gentleman had mistaken the reading of the clause. The effect of the Amendment was exactly contrary to that stated by the

  1945
  President of the Local Government Board. Its effect would be to give the poorer as well as the richer the benefit of the rebate.
  MR. WATERLOWsaid it appeared to him that the President of the Local Government Board was entirely on the wrong tack. The object of the Amendment was to benefit the poorer against the richer. The rebate was a rebate to people who occupied houses of a rental of £300, and the Amendment was that it should be a rebate to people who lived in £200 houses; therefore it was a rebate in favour of the poorer people. But the main argument against this particular Amendment was that if it wore carried there might have to be a rate in aid. That argument was a fallacious argument, because the estimates for the financial year 1906–7 showed that the Water Board had made a profit of £49,493, which was a goodly sure in it self. Moreover, there was an
  annual growth in the revenue of the Water Board of 2 per cent., which gave them an ample margin to play with. He therefore supported the Amendment.
  *MR. LUKE WHITE (Yorkshire, E. R., Buckrose),as a Member of the Commutes, said that when they found this limit of £300 confined to London, they desired to continue it, but this being a Bill to secure uniformity, they were compelled in order to secure the continuation of that rebate which was confined to London, to extend it over the whole area. The Committee came to the conclusion that it was desirable to continue it in the City of London, and this was the only way in which it could be done. He trusted that the House in its conclusion would support the Committee in this matter.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 184; Noes, 24. (Division List No 381).

  AYES.

  Alden, Percy

  Elibank, Master of

  Johnson, John (Gates head) '

  Allen.A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jones,William(Carnarvonshire)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jowett, F. W.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Beale, W. P.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Beauchamp, E.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lamont, Norman

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lea,HughCecil(St.Pancras, E.)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lever, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)

  Branch, James

  Gill, A. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Brigs;, John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bruner,J.F.L. (Lanes..Leigh)

  Glover, Thomas

  Lough, Thomas

  Bull, Sir William James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lupton, Arnold

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gordon, J.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Byles, William Pollard

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gulland, John W.

  Maclean, Donald

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Halpin, J.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Clough, William

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down.S.)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

  MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal.E.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Crae, George

  Collins,Sir W. J.(S.Pancras,W.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cooper, G. J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Corbett,C. H. (SussexE.Grinst'd

  Hazleton, Richard

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Crooks, William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Higham, John Sharp

  Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hodge, John

  Marnham, F. J.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Minklem, Nathaniel

  Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pa.neras,N.

  Hudson, Walter

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Moonsy, J. J.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Dunne MajorE. Martin (Walsall

  Jenkins, J.

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Verney. F.W

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent).

  Nicholls, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Waring; Walter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd

  Warner. Thomas Courtenay T.

  Norton, ('apt. Cecil William

  Robinson. S.

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wedgwood. Josiah C.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rowlands, J.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  O'Grady. J.

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Shackleton, David James

  Whiteley, George (York. W.R.)>

  Partington, Oswald

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Whitley. John Henry (Halifax)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Williams. Llewelyn(Carmarth').

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wilson, Hon. ('. H. W. (Hull,W.)

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wilson. John (Durham, Mid.)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wilson, J. H. (Middles brough)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Smith,Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Wilson. P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)-

  Pollard, Dr.

  Snowden. P.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Price,C.E. (Edinburgh.Central)

  Stanger. H. Y.

  Winfrey. R.

  Priestley,W.E.B. (Bradford, E.

  Straehey, Sir Edward

  Wood, T. M Kinnon

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Tennant,SirEdward(Salisbury)

  Barnard and Sir John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thorne. William

  Bethell.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.>'

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Talbot, Lord K. (Chichester)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Water low. l). S.

  Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

  Harrison-Broadley. H. B.

  Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hunt, Rowland

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Keswick, William

  Burdett-Coutts and Mr. Rawlinson.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Nield, Herbert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Rees, J. D.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  SIR F. BANBURYmoved, in Clause 9, to leave out "twenty per centum, or more than." The New River Company when it, was in existence, in the case of offices in the City did not take the full charges allowed to them by their Act of Parliament. In the case of offices, rented at £700, £800 or £1,000 a year, where the water was only used by the clerks for washing their hands, etc., the company did not feel justified in making the full charge, and they made a reduction of 30 per cent. Then came the Water Board, and they also made a reduction of 30 per cent., but now they came to the House with a proposal for the alteration of these charges so that the remission should only be 20 per cent. What it amounted to was that they asked to make a charge of 5 per cent. on the rate able value where the New River Company had only charged about 3 per cent. This was an enormous increase, and he thought matters should remain as they were before. He begged to move.
  MR. COURTHOPEseconded the-Amendment, and said that by means of this proposal the cost of water in City offices would be increased from 3 to 5 per cent. on the rateable value, which meant that the amount payable was assessed upon £300 instead of £200. This proposal would inflict a large amount of hardship in the City of London. Many hon. Members seemed to think that the burden would fall upon the shoulders of the plutocrats who were well able to afford it, but tint was not the case. It was said that that class would pay most of the water rate, but over 60 per cent. of the house property in the City of London was either owned or occupied by limited companies, and the burden would fall not only on the plutocrats but on the small investor. He thought it only fair to warn the Water Board that they would defeat their own purposes by taking measures of this kind, because he had been informed that in consequence of these proposals private

  1949
  companies were thinking of sinking wells for themselves. He thought that the Amendment would go a long way to relieve the injustice which undoubtedly would be done if the Rill was passed in its present form.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 5, line 12, to leave out the words ' twenty per centum, or more than.' "— (Sir F. Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. LUKE WHITEsaid the reason why the Committee had placed this clause in the Bill, giving a minimum rebate of 20 per cent. and a maximum of 30 per cent., was on the ground that it was absolutely necessary, in order to secure an income to the Water Board, that the 30 per cent. should not be allowed throughout the whole area. The Committee had come to the conclusion that in order to secure uniformity they should allow not less than 20 per cent., or more than 30 per cent., on this class of property, and they had to apply that to even-class of property which came within the description in the whole area. Therefore, he asked the House to support the Committee. It was not a clause put in the Bill by the Water Board; it was a clause unanimously agreed upon by the Joint Committee after hearing the whole of the evidence; and, bearing in mind the instructions of the Committee and of the Water Board, that this Bill was to secure uniformity throughout the limits supplied, the Joint Committee
  were bound to take the course which they did when they found that in the City the water rate was 3 per cent. in some parts and in other parts it was 3 per cent. in some parts and in other parts it was 7½ per cent They had increased the rate in some portion of the water area in order to secure uniformity of charge. In other portions of the area the people would, of course, receive great benefit. They could not get uniformity in such conditions as obtained without some districts paying more and other districts paying less.
  MR. BARNARDsaid that this Amendment struck at the root of the Bill, and he desired to associate himself with what the Member for the Buckrose division had said.
  *MR. MORTON,in reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, denied that he had said that the water companies had extorted money; he had made no such statement. What he had said was that they had made unjust and unfair charges, and that they had been purchased on that basis. But now he would like to tell the hon. Baronet that the companies had extorted money illegally for years in the City of London and elsewhere.
  *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Member ought to have answered the hon. Baronet before, when he had the opportunity.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 173; Noes, 20. (Division List No. 382.)

  AYES.

  Alden, Percy

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dunne, Major E.Martin(Walsall)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Elibank, Master of

  Raring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Clough, William

  Emmott, Alfred

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Esslemont. George Birnie

  Beale, W P.

  Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.

  Everett, H. Lacey

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cooper, G.J.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Beaumont. Hon. Hubert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Benn,W.(Tw'rHamlet.s,S.Geo.)

  Cotton, Sir H.J.S.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crooks, William

  Findlay, Alexander

  Branch, James

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Brigg, John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Brunner, J.F.U (Lanes., Leigh)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eilion)

  Gill, A. H.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Gladstom*,Rt.Hn.Herbert John.

  Burns, Kt. Hon.John

  Dickinson, W.H.(St.Panoras.N.

  Glover, Thomas

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duncan,C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Gordon, J.

  M'Crae, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rowlands, J.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Shackleton, David James

  Halpin, J.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Hardy. George A. (Suffolk)

  Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Money, L. G.Chiozza

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Hazleton. Richard

  Mooney, J. J.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford.East)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morley,Rt. Hon.John

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Taylor, Theodore C (Radcliffe)

  Hodge, John

  Nicholls, George

  Tennant,Sir Edward(Salisbury)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thorne, William

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Connor. John (Kildare,N.)

  Ure, Alexander

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Grady, J.

  Waring, Walter

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Partington, Oswald

  Water low, D. S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Jowett,F. W.

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Kearley, Hudson K.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pickersgill. Edward Hare

  Whiteley. George (York, W.R.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Pollard, Dr.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Lever,A.Levy (Essex,Harwich)

  Price, O.E. (Edinburgh.Central

  Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford,E.)

  Wilson,Hon.C.H.W.(Hull, W.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Rees, J.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Winfrey, R.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts,Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

  Robertson,Sir G. Scott(Bradford

  Barnard and Sir John Bethell.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Robinson, S.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood,RtHn.SirAlex.F.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Rawlinson,JohnFrederickPeel

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Forster, Henry William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Cecil, Lord'R. (Marylebone,E.)

  Keswick, William

  Frederick Banbury and Mr.

  Corbett.CH(Sussex,E.Grinst' d)

  Nield, Herbert

  Courthope.

  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," put, and agreed to.

  Dr. COOPERsaid that he brought forward this Amendment, purely as a matter of principle, add he would state his views very shortly, as he recognised the apathy of the House concerning the question. The Amendment sought to do for the consumer who took water by meter exactly what the Bill had done for those who received a domestic supply. It sought to give every man who took water by meter a fixed price of 8d. per 1,000 gallons, which was the sum of
  1952
  money that it cost the Water Board to obtain and supply water. There was neither any profit nor any loss occasioned to the ratepayer by selling water at that price. The scale inserted in the Bill sold water to certain people—borough councils, Royal parks, Government Departments, railway companies, and all the large traders—at a sum considerably below cost price. Practically speaking, the ratepayers of London were asked to subsidise the larger traders to the extent of £20,000 a year, the borough councils to

  1953
  the extent of £11,000 a year, the Royal parks to the extent of some thousands of pounds a year, and it also subsidised all the Government Departments which insisted upon having water at that cheap rate. It was perfectly true that the trading companies had a scale which gave preferential charges to various people, but they were trading companies, and as such they had a right to make what charge they liked. The Water Board, however, was a public authority giving practically a municipal supply, and the case therefore was entirely different from that of the trading companies. He maintained that a municipal authority had no right to make any differential charge between one consumer and another. Therefore, when he found the Government of the day backing up the Water Board in giving these subsidies at the expense of the general body of London ratepayers he felt he could not do otherwise than enter his protest against their action. Roughly speaking, it might be said that two-thirds of the water given to London was used for domestic purposes and one-third only for trade purposes. It had always been said that the trader had been charged excessively in order to reduce the rates for the domestic supply, but the statistics of the Water Board proved that statement to be an absolute fallacy. They proved, as a matter of fact, that the consumer who used water for purely domestic purposes paid 8d. per 1,000 gallons, whereas the trader only paid 7 14d. The effect was that practically all through the traders of London had received a heavysubsidy out of the pockets of the people who used the water for domestic purposes alone, and he could not but believe that the Government was ill-advised in forcing the proposed scale upon London. The small trader would be sacrificed to the big trader; he would have the scale of charges for the water he used considerably increased. In the past the highest charge he had had to pay had been 9d., but according to this Bill he would have to pay from 8½d. to Is. per 1,000 gallons. It was a grossly unjust and unfair scale to be proposed in any Bill submitted to Parliament in the interests of the people. A municipal supply ought on no account to allow differential charges between various
  1954
  people in its own area, and it was because it did so in the present case that he felt it his duty to move this Amendment.
  *Mr. MORTONseconded the Amendment. He thought that they ought to have an answer to the speech made by the mover. There was no doubt at all that the proper way of charging for water was by meter. It was unfair that a higher charge should be made for the domestic supply in order to make up for the loss that was apparently going to occur somewhere else. If any defence was possible of the proposal that a preference should be shown, and that one person should get water cheaper than another, perhaps the representative of the Government, who was in charge of the Bill now, would tell the House what it was. This was a great question, affecting four, five, or six millions of people, and although they were forced by the Government to discuss it at that late hour that was not a reason why matters should not be properly gone into. and considered. He trusted that the Government would give the House some explanation as to why there should be a difference of charge between the domestic supply and the trade supply.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 8, to leave out lines 8, 9, 10 and 11, and to insert the words 'The charge for any supply furnished by the Board under the last preceding subsection of this section shall, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, be the fixed rate of eight pence per thousand gallons.' "—(Dr. Cooper.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to,
  Mr. WATERLOWsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper as follows—
  "In page 8, line 11, to leave out from the word ' say,' to end of line 27, and to insert the words ' When the quarterly consumption of water does not exceed fifty thousand gallons, nine pence; when exceeding fifty thousand and not exceeding one hundred, thousand gallons, eight pence; when exceeding one hundred thousand and not exceeding two hundred thousand gallons, seven pence; when exceeding two hundred thousand gallons, six pence.' "
  He understood, however, that an assurance had been given by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill that an Amendment

  1955
  by the hon. Member for Limehouse would he accepted, and he would not therefore proceed further with his own Amendment.
  Mr. BARNARDsaid it would perhaps he, convenient to say on behalf of the Water Board that, acting on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, who had taken a great deal of interest in the matter, the Board had decided not to offer any opposition to the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Lime house.
  Mr. W. PEARCEsaid lie was happy to say, as the representative of the Water Board had just told the House, that through the good offices of the. President of the Local Government Board these Amendments were to be accepted. They effected modification, though only a partial one, of a new scale of charges which would cast a very heavy burden on the manufacturers of London. He could not say that he felt fully satisfied with the result, but, having failed to persuade the Water Board to accept the traders' case, it was thought to be the wisest course by the traders to agree to the compromise that was offered. There were many natural disadvantages which j London could not escape from, and for many reasons it was very difficult to carry on extensive industrial operations in the metropolis. The cost of fuel was higher in London than in almost any other part of the country. There were also the high rates and many other disadvantages. The traders of London, j therefore, viewed even the partial increase ' which the modified scale would impose on them with great distrust. They j thought that the Water Board would have shown much more worldly wisdom if they had avoided throwing any portion of the extra charge on the traders of London, who already had sufficient disadvantages to contend with.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 8. line 13, to leave out the word twenty-five,' and to insert the word 'fifty.'"
  "In page 8, line 13, to leave out the words 'one shilling,' and to insert the words ' eleven pence.'"
  "In page 8, to leave out lines 14 and 15."
  1956
  "In page to 8, leave out lines 25, 26 and 27, and to insert: 'When exceeding one million gallons and not exceeding three million gallons, eight pence; when exceeding three million gallons and not exceeding five million gallons, seven pence; when exceeding five million gallons, six pence and one-eighth of a penny.'"
  "In page 8, line 29, to leave out the words 'twenty-five shillings.' and to insert the words 'twenty-two shillings and eleven pence.'"— (Mr. W. Pearce.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  *Mr. NIELDsaid there was no doubt at all that a settlement had been arrived at between the traders and the Water Board. The traders had agreed to the compromise, being the best terms they could get under the present circumstances; but the great body of ratepayers were dissatisfied with the arrangement. The President of the Local Government Board, speaking on the Motion to recommit the Bill, admitted that these charges were the maximum charges, and said he hoped that in the future the Water Board would be able to see their way to reduce them. The Amendment he desired to move was not before the Committee, and it could not be said to be already prejudged. The Amendment recognised that if the authorise! charges were high, an I pressed unduly upon the payers of the rate, there should be a revision at the expiration of five years if upon a, prima facie case being made out by any county or local authority within the area of supply the Local Government Board should think fit to authorise an inquiry. He was careful in proposing it in the terms he did. It was on behalf of urban areas largely occupied by the working classes. In his own division of Middlesex, though it was supposed to be one of the better-class -divisions, so far as the type of house was concerned, he might say for the information of Members below the gangway, there were thousands of houses which would be affected by the Bill: he was informed there were no less than 1,700 whose assessments were £30 and under. That was speaking from the point of view of the domestic supply in one part of Middlesex. There were other divisions poorer where the operation of the Act would have a still harder effect. All that he desired to do was to say that, at the

  1957
  expiration of five years, the Local Government Board might, upon representations made to them by a country or local authority affected by the Bill, if they were of opinion that the authority had made out a case to their satisfaction, direct an inquiry to be held, at which the Water Board would be represented, and should show cause why they should not reduce their rate. The Amendment might have the effect of correcting what was now thought to be a great injustice. The Water Board now claimed to stand a loss of income of £21,000 a year by equalisation of rate. That decrease of £21,000 was arrived at in this way. London would suffer to the extent of £17,000, and Middle sex to the extent of nearly £5,000. Essex and Surrey, by reason of their present heavy charges, would benefit to the extent of £43,000. The Water Board said it was necessary to have the. difference made up, and they proposed to equalise the rates in this way. They had taken no account of the ever-increasing areas which were taking water supply. They were paying not the least attention to the wonderful increase in suburban districts in the counties which bordered on the County of London. At the expiration of five years there was every reason to believe that, if the rate of building went on in anything like the same proportion, tremendous areas would be added to the Board's sphere, and become rateable on increased incomes. Factories were rapidly moving into the suburbs also, and they would add to the revenue by the additional water which they would take. Such considerations had apparently not been taken into account, and it was therefore only reasonable to suggest that; at the expiration of five years from now! the necessity for a revision might, in view of the additional income which would arise in the ordinary course of business, be considered. The Board declared that they did not want to make profits, and admittedly they had every reason to expect an enormous increase in the number of consumers both by measure and for domestic purposes. If therefore from all parts of the House they accepted i the Bill as being required by the present needs of the Water Board, he could not for the life of him see why, after the admission of the President of the Local
  1958
  Government Board that these were maximum charges, there should not be a provision enabling any one of the county councils at the end of five years, if they thought they could make a good case, to come to the Local Government Board, and ask for an inquiry with a view to having their charges revised, and the burden which he thought might prove onerous, and which at that time they might show had proved onerous, relieved. It might after five years be shown that by reason of the additional areas of supply the Board were not only able to pay their way by reason of their additional income, but to make a reduction on the high charges. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 9, line 32, at the end, to insert the words: '(5) Provided always that, if at any time after the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act the council of any administrative county which, or any part of which, is within the limits of supply, or the local authority of any borough or district which, or any part of which, is within the limits of supply shall make a representation to the Local Government Board that the prices authorised by this Act to be charged for a supply of water for domestic purposes or by measure ought to be altered the Local Government Board, after such inquiry as they may think fit, may make an order varying the prices which the Board may charge for a supply of water for domestic purposes or by measure, or substituting other prices in lieu thereof, and the prices so varied or substituted shall have effect on and after such day as may be mentioned in the order as if they had been stated in this Act, and the prices for the time being in force may be altered in like manner at any time after the expiration of any or every period of five years after they were last altered.' "—(Mr. Nield.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  *Mr. JOHN BURNSsaid that practically the hon. Member in his Amendment proposed that at the expiration of five years the Local Government Board might be appealed to to hold an inquiry as to the reasonableness of the Water Board charges. It was an exceptional form of suggestion. There was no precedent for it. The Local Government Board did not want it. If it were adopted he thought it would be accepted as a precedent for other water concerns and other municipal undertakings which would look to the Board to be

  1959
  appointed as the tribunal to judge between them and their constituents. He did not think the Amendment was necessary. The hon. Gentleman forgot that the Water Board was a public authority, that it was not to its interest to impose unreasonable charges upon that section of consumers which was least able to bear it. He also forgot that if there was anyone who would be influenced and perhaps warned by that debate it was the Water Board itself, and he might rely upon it that that Board had already taken the necessary lesson from the suggestions that had been made and the criticisms that had been offered. The hon. Member might rely upon this also that if the revenue of the Board was larger than it apprehended, the Board would from the increased revenue do what every municipal authority did under similar circumstances. They would relieve the condition of the worst first and they would do their best to make their supply as popular and as attractive as was consistent with their making a small margin of profit. Towards the carrying of that out the hon. Member might rely upon it the Local Government Board, without instruction from that House and without that Amendment, would exercise what reasonable pressure it could upon the Water Board. The Local Government Board did not need any cast iron Amendment for such a purpose, and as President of the Board which was to be used, and which ought not to be used as the Amendment proposed, he asked the House to reject the Amendment.
  *Mr. MORTONsaid he was extremely sorry the President objected to the Amendment. He said there was no precedent for it; but if he (Mr. Morton) remembered rightly, in most of the electric light undertakings there was a right of appeal to the Board of Trade to get the price charged altered. That applied, he thought, to undertakings by municipal authorities as well as companies, and he could not understand why the President did not accept that precedent. There might be many reasons why at the end of five years an inquiry should be wanted. The Water Board, which as he had understood the right hon. Gentleman never had much faith in,
  1960
  might be wasting their income. They might be extravagant with salaries and in many other ways and an inquiry, which generally they understood the right hon. Gentleman did not object to, would expose matters. No undertaking—not even the Local Government Board—was always right. He hoped the right hon. Gentle-man would reconsider his decision and do for the water companies what the Government and Parliament had done with regard to the electric light undertakings.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Mr. BOWLESmoved in page 9, line 37, to leave out the words 'Board so determine they may,' and to insert the words, 'builder shall in writing so require the-Board shall.' "He moved with some diffidence because he thoroughly recognised and agreed that a Bill of that kind was not quite in the position of an ordinary public Bill, and they ought to show great respect for the decisions of the Committee which had considered the matter and to any conclusions at which they might have arrived. Having heard all the evidence the Committee were in a better position than they could be, but he had some reason to believe, and hon. Gentlemen who were-on the Committee and who spoke for it would contradict him if he was wrong, that really this clause as it now stood did not represent what was the- intention of the Committee upon this important point. The point was simple. For a, long time builders in London had been, treated upon lines which they considered rather hard, and they represented this before the Committee. The Committee, he understood, took the view quite clearly that something at any rate-ought to be done to meet the grievance-of which the builders complained. The clause was introduced, as he was informed, in order to put the builder in the same position as, in no other position than, any other trader in London in regard to water. He submitted that the first part of it would amply carry out all that had ever been suggested. In other words, as far as that was concerned, the builder-was put in the same position as the occupier, and was entitled to have his-water by meter. That was perfectly

  1961
  satisfactory, but the clause went on to make that provision meaningless and ridiculous, for it went on to provide that though the builder was to be permitted to have his water by meter, if the Board otherwise determined they could insist on supplying him at a rate not exceeding 7s. per 100,000 gallons. In other words they might put him back in the position which he had held heretofore, of which he had complained, and which complaint the Committee desired to do away with. The House would see there was a serious case for that Amendment, and he hoped it would be considered. The intention merely was to put the builder into the position occupied by every other trader. Under that Bill every other trader throughout London was entitled to pay by measure for such water as he used, according to the amount he did use. To apply to the builder the first part of the clause, and to withdraw that first part from him by the second part was so palpably and openly contradictory that it must have been due to some mistake on the part of the Committee which the House should be asked to set right. It was a perfectly reasonable position that he had taken up. It was fair that the builder should pay for what he had, but it was unfair that he should be forced to pay for more than he had, and at a different rate from other traders in the City. He hoped that both the House and the hon. Members who served on the Committee would on consideration not object to the Amendment.
  Mr. RAWLINSONseconded.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 9, line 37, to leave out the words 'Board so determine they may,' and insert the words 'builder shall in writing so require the Board shall'— (Mr. Bowles) — instead thereof."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part, of the Bill."
  *MR. LUKE WHITEsaid the Joint Committee took a considerable amount of evidence from the Master Builders Association, and also heard counsel on the question of the supply of water, and found that up to the present time
  1962
  builders had no right whatever to ask the Water Board for a supply of water. Builders, therefore, had been obliged to pay whatever demands had been made by the Water Board to a very large extent. The Committee was agreed that the Builders Association had a ground for complaint, and that they ought to be put in a position in which if they required a supply of water they should be put in the same position as any other traders and be entitled to demand that supply. Up to the present time the charge for water supply for building purposes had been a percentage of the amount of the contract, and after hearing the evidence and the counsel for the Water Board and counsel for the Builders Association, the Committee came to the conclusion that the Water Board should be entitled to charge a percentage, or, with the alternative, should charge according to the scale for supply by measure. He thought that that was a fair compromise. The builders were in a much better position now, for they were in a position to demand water and to know exactly what they were going to pay for it. In entering into a contract if they paid for the supply of water on the percentage in that clause they would know the exact amount they would be made to pay for the water they obtained, and they would know also that they might arrange with the Water Board to take their supply by measure in the same way that any other trader could. No mistake had been made, neither had there been any difference of opinion on the Joint Committee with regard to the point that had been raised. They were of opinion that that was a reasonable clause which the builders ought to accept.
  Amendment negatived.
  Dr. COOPERmoved an Amendment which sought to make it compulsory on the Water Board to rate the owner of all weekly and monthly property instead of the tenant. The Amendment affected the greater portion of property in London. Almost everybody in weekly and monthly property paid the water rate with the rent, but he had known a good many instances where the tenant had paid his water rate through his rent

  1963
  for a long period, yet the owner had not paid the water company. The consequence had been that the water of the house had been cut off, or a distraint had been levied on the tenant, though as a matter of fact he had practically paid his water rate through his rent during the whole of the period. He had no desire to leave it to the discretion of the Water Board to allow that condition of things to be continued. He wished to make it compulsory that the Water Board should rate the owner of weekly or monthly property and not the tenant.
  Amendment not seconded.
  MR. WATERLOWmoved, on Clause 29, "to leave out the words' Royal parks or gardens,' and to insert the words 'parks, gardens or open spaces of all kinds and descriptions belonging to public authorities.'" He thought parks, gar dens or open spaces belonging to public authorities should all be placed on the same terms. It seemed to him that that was only fair and reasonable, and he hoped the promoters of the Hill and the House would accept the Amendment, for there seemed no just reason why Royal parks should have an advantage over other open spaces and parks.
  Mr. MORTONseconded.
  Mr. BARNARDsaid he wished to explain in one word how the position arose. The Water Board were not in any way voluntary movers in that direction but were prompted by the Treasury. They received a letter from the Treasury which caused them to put the provision in the Bill. As far as the Water Board was concerned they left it entirely to the discretion of the House to do what they thought to be the best in the matter.
  *Mr. JOHN BURNSsaid that whatever the Water Board might be inclined to do in the matter there was one Government Department, the Treasury, which had a right to be heard. The Treasury would take strong exception to any proposal which would affect the operation of the section so far as the Royal parks were concerned and he thought their views ought to be considered.
  *Mr. BURDETT-COUTTSthought it would have been showing more consideration towards the House if the President of the Local Government Board had told them why the Treasury took exception to the proposal. He hid listened to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member who represented the Water Board as they opposed Amendment after Amendment on the ground that they wished to establish uniformity of charges in the Bill, but, as he had himself shown on other occasions, the Bill reeked with inequality. It charged a man in the country £3, and a man in London £5, for the same quantity of water to the same class of house: it gave a rebate to the man who paid £300, but not to the man who paid £200; and it made concessions to the Royal parks, and it made them to other parks. He cordially supported the Amendment.
  Dr. COOPERsaid the Royal parks were maintained out of the taxes of the country, and he could see no reason why the Government should claim that those parks should be exempt from paying the proper charge for water. He believed that the Water Board had strongly resisted that clause, and that they had only given way under compulsion. The Treasury had asked and demanded that the water for the Royal parks should be delivered at fid. per 1,000 gallons, or at a rate which was 2d. cheaper than that paid by other consumers. He believed The hon. Member for Kidderminster had a letter in his pocket, which he could lead to the House, in which the Treasury had informed the Water Board that unless they consented to that iniquitous charge they would withhold, or cause to be withheld, the Royal assent. He challenged the hon. Member for Kidderminster to reed the letter so that the House might see the kind of pressure put on the Water Board, not only by the Treasury, but by the Local Government Board and by the President of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. WOODsaid the Amendment which had been proposed would not in the slightest degree interfere with the position taken up by the Treasury. If the Water Board could

  1965
  afford to supply the Royal parks with water at 6d. per 1,000 gallons it could afford to supply the County Conned parks and other parks belonging to public authorities at the same price. That was a matter, which ho understood the Water Board was prepared to leave to the House. It was not an unreasonable proposal they were making, for large manufacturers were to be supplied at 6⅛d., and if that was so, why should not the parks belonging to the municipalities of London be supplied at 6d? This was one of the difficulties caused by the divorce of the Water Board from the municipal authority. The case they were discussing would not have arise i but for that divorce. If they did not obtain the security which that Amendment would give them they would be left entirely at the mercy of the Water Board, who could charge them exactly what they pleased.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Macnamara, Camber-well, N.)said he did not think there was any need at that late hour to go into the question of the constitution of the Water Board. The question they had to settle was whether the word "Royal" should stand hi Clause 29. A letter had been received from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the effect that water should be supplied to the Royal parks at 6d. per 1,000 gallons. As far as he was concerned, it seemed to him that if the House of Commons liked to extend the arrangement to all other parks and public gardens in the metropolis, the Treasury would still be secure. If the Royalparks had their supply at 6d. per 1,000 gallons, ho thought it was in the public interest that all parks and gardens should have it at the same rate.
  Mr. RAWLINSONsaid that various references had been made to a letter from the Treasury to the hon. Member who was in charge of the Bill. Those who wished to amend the Bill had been met in the case of every other Amendment by a statement from the hon. Member in charge to the effect that the
  1966
  Water Board could not make any Amendment in the charges fixed under the Bill j because the finances of the Board would not allow of its being done. The House had been told that the cost of the water to the Water Board and its distribution amounted, to at least 8d. per1,000 gallons, and yet they had here j a clause which suggested that there I should be preferential treatment for the Royal parks which would result in providing them with a supply of water under cost price. The public were to pay for that preferential treatment. They were told by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill that the clause was not put in with his sanction or at his instigation, but in consequence of a letter from the Treasury to the Water Board containing statements the nature; of which had not been divulged to the House. No one had said anything in favour of the Amendment, except the hon. Members who moved and seconded it and the hon. Member who had just spoken. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board said that as long as the Treasury were secured he had no objection to that preferential treatment being extended to the, other London parks and gardens as well. They were, however, supposed to be dealing in this matter as a business assembly, and he wished to ask whether the House really thought they were justified in voting away public money at that hour of the night in the way they were asked to do under this clause. He ventured to say without fear of contradiction that if any private company had. brought such a clause before the House at that time of the night they would not have received the support of the House for one instant. He hoped the House would not agree to the proposal that a large supply of water should be given below cost price when the promoters of the Bill at the same time found it absolutely impossible to make any other concession, however desirable it might be.
  Mr. BARNARDasked permission to offer a word of personal explanation. He did not mean his remark to apply to anything except the Royal parks, and it would not apply beyond those parks.
  Question "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put. and negatived.
  *Mr. JOHN BURNSmoved, "In page 15, line 9, at end, to add the words provided that notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the water supply shall not be cut off from any market gardener's premises without giving seven days' previous notice.'"
  Amendment agreed to.
  DR. COOPERmoved to leave out Clause 33. This clause, he said, gave increased power to the Water Board to recover its rent over and above any power which was given to the private companies. The water companies had the power of cutting off the water and of levying a distraint, and the Water Board was now seeking additional power to enable them to take a ratepayer into court and imprison him if a distraint was not satisfied. He was sorry to see the Water Board trying to get a clause passed continuing to deal with civil debt by imprisonment, and as he was strongly opposed to such a proceeding he had moved the omission of the clause.
  MR. MORTONseconded.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "in page 15, line 10, to leave out Clause 33." — (Dr. Cooper.)
  *Mr. NIELDsaid he should like it to be put on record that he was prepared, if he had been called upon, to move his Amendment to the Amendment submitted by the President of the Local Government Board as follows: "After the word 'premises' to insert the words or from premises used as a laundry and receiving a supply for other than domestic purposes.'" He regretted that owing to the misunderstanding the Amendment had been pass over.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  COUNCIL OF INDIA BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1: —
  *Mr. C. J. O'DONNELLsaid that this Bill was read a second time at about one o'clock on the previous" morning,, and as Amendments could not be put down until after the Second Reading, it was impossible for them to appear on the Paper in time for the present discussion, which was a great disadvantage. He did not hand his Amendments in then, but he believed that other hon. Members had done so. The Committee was in the position of knowing that a number of Amendments were to be moved and yet they had not a shadow of idea what those Amendments were. He ventured to say that that was entirely contrary to the ordinary practice of the House,, and that the members of the Committee had a perfect right to know what the business was which would be laid before, them for consideration. The Council of India Bill was the only Indian Bill of the year, and he considered that it had been dealt with very inadequately owing to the hour at which it was brought on for discussion. On the ground that the Amendments which were to be moved were not before the Committee, he begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Sir F. BANBURY Sir F. BANBURY seconded.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That the Chancellor do report Progress and ask leave to sit again." — (Mr. O'Donnell.)
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Morley, Montrose Burghs)said that it had been understood, he thought, on both sides of the House that they should if possible take the Council of India Bill in Committee that night. He would remind his hon. friend that it was perfectly usual at a late period of the session such as that to proceed somewhat rapidly from stage to stage in a Bill, and that, was his only excuse for pressing the: Committee to proceed with the Bill

  1969
  that night. The Amendments, so far as he had seen them, were certainly worth considering, but he thought those that were in order could be discussed in a very moderate quantity of time. Having regard to all the circumstances, he hoped that his hon. friend would not persevere with the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
  *Mr. MORTONsaid he really thought that they ought to have the Amendments on the Paper. It was only on the previous night that the Government had to give way because they had not got a Bill reprinted, and this was another instance where Members of the House were entitled to have their wishes respected. If Members were willing to stay and do the business properly after seeing the Amendments on the Paper in the ordinary way, then the Government ought to be quite willing to accept the Motion and let the Amendments be printed. Members ought to have a fair and honest chance to do the business of the House properly by being given an opportunity of seeing and considering the nature of the Amendments proposed.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  *Mr. C. J. O'DONNELLmoved to leave out from the words consist of' to the end of the clause, and to insert the words fifteen members of whom not more than eight shall have held salaried appointments under the Government of India in the civil or military services, of the Crown.'" The reason he moved was that under the original Act of 1858 the number of members of Council was "fifteen, of whom it was intended that eight should be men who had experience in India, the remaining seven being independents who were not entirely chained down by the effects of official service. His desire was to secure for the Secretary of State what he might call an independent Council. At present the Council was made up of ex-officials. There were two independent members—the Commercial member and the Financial member. These were simply towers of strength to the Secretary of State. They came into the Council unbiassed, while the other members of the body, distinguished men— none more distinguished in many re-
  1970
  spects—had all the peculiarities of officials who had spent thirty, forty, or more years of their life in the same groove and who were driving the Secretary of State into that groove at the present minute. He moved the Amendment with the intention of saving the Secretary of State from being the victim of a mere official coterie, that he might have seven advisers who were independents in the right sense of the word.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 5, to leave out from the words ' consist of' to the end, and to insert the words ' fifteen members of whom not more than eight shall have held salaried appointments under the Government of India in the civil or military services of the Crown.'"
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  Mr. MORLEYsaid he was afraid he must persist in being the victim of those gentlemen who, unlike the hon. Gentleman, were ready to sacrifice all their faculties of independence. They had had full justice done to them in a tolerably caustic and effective way by the Member for Montgomery Burghs. He did not know that an ex-official was not a fit person to be put on the Council of India. That was what his hon. friend's contention amounted to.
  Mr. O'DONNELLsaid he desired the Secretary of State should have eight of the fifteen members officials.
  Mr. MORLEYsaid his hon. friend really left out of sight the considerations which were in the mind of Parliament when the Council of India was created. He was not going to labour the matter at that time, but he would remind the House that the object of setting up the Council of India was to surround the Secretary of State with advisers who were men of great experience in the actual administration of India and in the conditions of Indian society. To limit the element of experienced men was, in his view, to frustrate the very objects for which the Council of India existed. He therefore opposed the Amendment.
  *Mr. SMEATONregretted the inconsiderate way in which the Government had treated the Bill. It was a most important Bill, dealing with constitutional questions, and he did not think it was right that it should be relegated to an exhausted House sitting at an hour when every Member was tired both in body and in mind.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will please confine himself to the Amendment.
  Mr. SMEATONsaid he supported the Amendment most heartily. His first remark was that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be under a misapprehension with regard to his own Council. In 1858, the Council was constituted in the proportion of eight to seven—eight being members appointed by the Queen, and seven by the Board of Directors. The seven members appointed by the Board of Directors were non-officials. The eight appointed by the Queen in Council were officials. The Council so composed proved amply useful, and had the best results for the time it lasted—until 1869, when it was reconstituted. Apart altogether from the question of the Amendment being a reversion to the previous constitution, he would like to point out that the old Council had the cardinal virtue of containing a strong, stalwart, independent, non-official minority, and they all knew what a powerful influence such a minority could exert, particularly in the case of the right hon. Gentleman himself, who was not personally acquainted with India, and had to rely on his advisers. The right hon. Gentleman always heard the voice and opinions of officials; rarely had he the chance of hearing the views of others. He was too much advised by officials who were, from their habit of mind— a habit of mind acquired by twenty-five years of subservience to superiors—unable, however willing they might be, to appreciate the non-official, outside view of things. They had been taught to do what they were told, and had no soul or mind of their own, except to do exactly what they were bid. When, they came home it was very unlikely j they could altogether get rid of this particular characteristic, and the chances were they would go on in the same way
  1972
  that they had done in India. The virtue of the non-official element was that it introduced into the Council the quality of independence: and one point of importance to which he would like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention was that under the Act of 1858, which was not at the present time repealed, a majority of the votes of the Council could influence powerfully the financial administration of India; and it was to that particular branch of administration in India that he thought the earnest attention of the House should be drawn. Practically everything in India, as his right hon. friend well knew, depended on finance. It was the finance of India that had brought India into the condition in which it was. It was the excessive extravagance and the excessive taxation that had brought into India at the present moment the unrest which existed, and he thought any measure which could give the Secretary for India, so to speak, a strong locus in the financial administration of India— a powerful informing and checking agency at his elbow—would be of immense value-to him. He pointed out that there were three clauses in the Act of 1858 under which a strong unofficial minority would be able to be of immense help to the Secretary of State. Clause 41 was as follows—
  "The expenditure of the revenues of India in India and elsewhere shall be subject to the control of the Secretary of State mid no appropriation or grunt of such revenues shall be made without the concurrence of a majority of votes at a meeting of the Council.'"
  If there was a strong substantial minority of seven well-informed independent men, the chances were that the Secretary of State, if his attention was drawn to anything like excessive taxation or extravagance in administration, or to wildcat projects of an arrogant Viceroy, like the invasion of Tibet—the chances were that the Secretary of State would be much more likely to cast his vote with that independent minority than with the official majority which would go along the old bureaucratic lines. The next matter in regard to which the minority would have great power was contained in Section 49—
  "All powers of borrowing are to be exercised with the concurrence of a majority of votes at n meeting of the Council."

  1973
  Exactly the same result would follow. The Secretary of State would probably be very much influenced by the opinion of independent men of finance. These men would understand the local position because they must by law have had a residence of at least ten years in India, and they would be able to give the Secretary advice and strengthen him in his desire to check the extravagant borrowing that had been going on for years in India. Last of all, he would draw their attention to the words of Section 55—
  "Except in preventing or repelling invasion the revenues of India shall not be used to defray the expense of military operations beyond the external frontiers of India."
  If there was one crime more than another of which the Government of India and the late Conservative Administration in this country had bean guilty in recent years it was the crime of the invasion of Thibet. That was a moral offence, a political offence, and a financial offence, and he maintained that if the Secretary for India had had, in his Council, seven men of independent views, courage, and local Indian experience, who understood the exact political condition of India, that invasion would never have been sanctioned, and the enormous expenditure to which it gave rise would never have been incurred. He therefore said that on every ground, moral, political and financial, this Amendment to give to the Secretary of State a strong and independent, minority, not bound by official traditions, not men who had been all their lives taught merely to do as they were told, ought to be supported. He had himself been taught, not always successfully perhaps, to do what he was told in the same way, and he had had some difficulty in getting rid of the idea. He found sometimes even the Whips in this House acted on the Indian doctrine that an official should have no mind of his own. He maintained that a strong body of men of the kind he had described, who, as the law required that they should have at least ten years experience in India, would have local experience, local knowledge, and knowledge of politics and finance in India, would strengthen the hands of the right hon. Gentleman in doing what he considered, and what the right hon. Gentleman considered, to be his duty to India.
  *Mr. REESsaid any Member of the House who had been an official in India was the best judge of the condition of mind in which he left that service. It was not for him to speak of the condition of mind of his hon. friend, who had himself explained his own condition of mind. He sympathised with him that, having been chastised with official whips in India, he had come home from what he described as semi-servile conditions to be driven by Government Whips—he would not call thorn scorpions—at home. For his own part he did not at all recognise the picture drawn of submission amounting to servility on the part of the public servants in India. But really the Amendment, if accepted, would not make any great alteration in the Bill, for if a minority of six was not sufficient to prevent crimes, such as the invasion of Thibet, to accept for the moment the hon. Member's picturesque nomenclature, a minority of seven would not do it. He really could not see that the net result of making the minority seven instead of six would be other than that the taxpayers of India would have to provide an extra £1,000 a year for the extra man in the minority. That was the only effect the Amendment would have. He hoped hon. Members who had heard his hon. friend talk about the finances of India in terms which he altogether refused to accept as bearing any resemblance to the facts, would remember what Sir M. Hicks Beach said, some three years ago, to the effect that the finances of India were far better managed, and in a far better condition than the finances of England. The question they had to consider was whether the Amendment would only have the effect of making the taxpayers of India pay more. It was no use bringing in Lord Curzon—his name like King Charles's head seemed to come into every speech by the Indian Members and he and all his works were always condemned. He (Mr. Rees) had always dissociated himself from these too comprehensive and ready condemnations, but the merits of Lord Curzon's administration in no way affected the question they were considering. He deprecated raising personal matters like the success or otherwise of Lord Curzon which were not in the slightest degree relevant, and indeed the denial of all merit to that distinguished Viceroy did,

  1975
  not argue a very dispassionate or discriminating survey of the situation.
  *Sir J. JARDINEsaid there were other considerations than those to which hon. Members had Already adverted. India was made up of great provinces with varied languages, different customs, and immense areas, with numbers of officers working there on different lines. If the Secretary of State was to be properly advised he must have representatives of the great provinces to help him, one at least for each great province to represent the affairs of 50,000,000 60,000,000, or 80,000,000? Where better than in the Civil Service would he find the men competent to give advice. It was, therefore, he thought, a good custom that civil servants from those parts should be found at the end of their career helping the Secretary of State with their advice at Westminster. After all it was those officials who travelled all over the districts of the provinces, who served from low offices to high ones, and got experience. He admitted the great value of outsiders, gentlemen engaged in trade and commerce, who brought a special kind of knowledge into the great work, but, after all, they had not been brought into such wide contact with the people in those broad areas, nor as a general rule had they done as much in the way of learning the languages and customs of the people. That was one reason why they should not lightly interfere with the present construction of the council at Westminster. On the question of the official mind he would like to say something, having had for many years a good deal to do with officials. He need not apologise, having been an official him self. He would admit that officials, like any other class, got a peculiar intellectural bias. A friend once said to him, talking about the difference between Judge and jury, that a Judge, however qualified, could not get away from himself, and if he were to be constantly a judge of fact, he would be judging with that peculiar bias which he must acquire as he went on, but which he could not see though his friends saw it. He admitted that officials might have their views influenced by official
  1976
  training, might be inclined sometimes to red tape, but these defects were quite different from what was mean by want of independence, and he claimed for the public services in India a great deal of regard and sympathy for the natives. It was quite true that many of them had had to work under a system of executive subordination, but the very large areas over which they had to exercise their own judgment prevented anything like a slavish tendency of mind. There were many officials in India who were not under influence or orders from the Government, or anyone else, like the learned Judges who were charged by Parliament with the impartial administration of justice between the Crown and the people. No one would contend that such lofty duties tended to make the mind servile to the powers that be, From, the ranks of that high and learned judiciary, the Council of the Secretary of State had often been recruited. Besides those again there were the military men, so the Council was a most varied collection of public servants. He did not undervalue the special qualities of the non-official members brought in, their familiar knowledge of business, of trade, of commerce, and of banking, which no public servant could have. That class came into close touch with the commercial classes of the people with whom the officials had less to do, and in this way the fluctuations of trade, the relations of capital to the industries of India, and such like things, got fair discussion in Council. They ought to get on the Council as much varied ability as they possibly could, and if the Secretary of State really meant to bring in natives of India to help him with their practical knowledge, they would have a still more valuable quality introduced into the Council, and one which they had not there yet. However much a man, whether British or native, might know one part of India he could not know all parts. In the world of natives there were immense depths, too deep for us to sound, but far more familiar to the natives, and it was in that respect that the Council at Westminster ought to be strengthened with a native member or two. They must leave a great

  1977
  deal to the responsible Minister of the Crown, and not tie him down with restrictions on the exercise of this important patronage.
  *Mr. LUPTON,in supporting the Amendment, said that he had not one word to say in criticism or disparagement of the Council of India. No doubt they were men of independence of action, of experience and knowledge, but for all that the result was bad. There could be little doubt that India was the worst governed country in the world. That was the result he had come to after trying to learn during the last few years what the conditions really were, and that result was supported by a great deal of literature. He had tried to elicit information in contradiction of what he had read on the subject, but had not succeeded. He had tried to get information from the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs. He had tried to get the hon. Member to contradict what he had read about India, but he did not, and instead he admitted that the average income of the people of India was between ½d. and 1d. a day.
  The CHAIRMANasked the hon. Member in supporting the Amendment to confine his observations to it.
  *Mr. MORTON:said he would not detain the House long, but he did not think that anyone ought to complain if they spent a few minutes in considering a matter which was of the greatest importance, bearing in mind their responsibilities towards the three hundred million or so people in India. It was unfortunate that that Bill was not brought forward earlier in the session so that they might have had more and reasonable time to consider it. He entirely disagreed with the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs. He did not believe the hon. Member thoroughly understood the matter. Hon. Members j did not seem to be astonished on hearing him say that. He entirely agreed with i the hon. Member for Stirlingshire when he suggested, not that they could undo the errors that had been committed, ' but, that they might, by wisely appointing proper persons on the Council, in future avoid them. That
  1978
  was what was proposed. He knew the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs did not understand that. He would be glad to know that his right hon. friend was going to have charge of India for all time, but that was impossible, and they had to provide for he state of things when the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to give up office. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, excuse them for endeavouring to take an interest not only in the present government, but in the future government of India, and to bear in mind our responsibilities to so many millions of people. He thought the suggestion in the Amendment was a good one. Personally he would like to see a majority of independent and non official men on the Council. Most of those hon. Members who had had anything to do with official men knew that they were always biassed and that they could not take an independent and straightforward view of anything except an increase of their salaries or the securing of a longer holiday. That was not the case with business men. In business affairs the business man was accustomed to take a fair and intelligent view of human affairs. Such men were much more likely to do what was right and fair towards the people of India than were official men. He was sorry therefore that his right hon. friend could not see his way to accept the Amendment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman was not refusing it on the ground that it was not an Amendment which came from himself or his official advisers. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had resisted the Amendment, but he was glad to see that he took a much fairer and a more enlightened view of the Government of India in the future than his predecessors had done in the past.
  Mr. LAIDLAWmoved to insert: "That of the members of the Council two shall be natives of India and two others of not less than ten years' residence in India who have not been in the service of the Government."

  1979
  He desired to see his proposal embodied in the Bill because the right hon. Gentleman had already announced that it was his pleasure to nominate to the Indian Council two Indian gentlemen. He wished to see that provision put in the Bill, because it was just possible that when the term of seven years' service of those gentlemen came to an end there might have been a change of Government and someone might be occupying the position of Secretary of State for India who had not such advanced views as his right hon. friend. He would like to make sure there fore, as regarded the policy of giving the natives of India a place on the Council that there would be no retrograde step taken in after years. With regard to the other part of his suggestion, that there should be on the Council two gentlemen of not less than ten years' residence in India, who had not been in the service of the Government, that, he might point out, only conformed to the present practice. For a good many years past there had been at least one member of the Council of this description and recently there had been two. In adopting this part of the Amendment, therefore, his right hon. friend would only be conforming to the present conditions, and as it was a very moderate proposition he trusted that the Secretary of State would see no objection to accepting it.
  Mr. MORLEYsaid he was not at all sorry that his hon. friend had referred to his intention as Secretary of State for India, an intention which he had already announced to Parliament, to appoint two Indian gentlemen to be members of the Council of India. That was a very important object, and, if an apology were needed, he thought that this matter alone was so essential that it justified him in keeping the House sitting at that untimely hour in order, to get the Bill through. At the same time, he was afraid that he could not accept the Amendment, and he would briefly explain why. The Amendment proposed to do the very thing that all wise statesmanship forbade them to do, namely, to set up racial standards. There ought to be no statutory recognition of the differences between European and Indian members of that Council. If
  1980
  he accepted his hon. friend's Amendment it would be putting into a Statute a recognition of fundamental differences of race, whereas all our civilising processes depended upon softening those; differences so far as they could do. On that ground he was unwilling to recognise in a Statute such a word as "racial." Though he could not accept the Amendment he hoped the House would expedite the discussion of the Bill, remembering that it was not the mere small details that they were discussing. They were discussing the policy of admitting native gentlemen to the Council of India, and anybody who reflected on what a change that marked would agree that they ought not to cavil over small differences of opinion, but to keep well in view the great object of policy to which he had referred.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *Mr. C. J. O'DONNELLmoved to add the words, "Provided that any native of India appointed to such Council shall have been an elected member of the Viceroy's Legislative Council or of one of the provincial legislative councils at some time during the five years preceding his appointment." He said that he regarded this as the most important of his Amendments to the Bill, and he again had to express his regret that the discussion had been started without hon. Members having any knowledge of what was coming before them. The Secretary of State desired to have two natives of India on the Council, and the object of the Amendment was to ensure that they should be men of authority. It was of the highest importance in the interests of India as a whole that these native members of the Council should be men who were looked up to in India, and he therefore proposed that they should be men who had already been selected by their fellow countrymen as fit persons to represent them on a legislative assembly. He was quite sure that such a thing was impossible under the administration of the present Secretary of State for India, but there was the utmost danger that at some time or another these native gentlemen might be selected not for their intellectual distinction but because of the certainty that they

  1981
  would always do exactly what they were told. That state of things existed to a surprising extent at one time in India. Hon. Members who had lived in India knew that there was not a legislative assembly or even a municipal council on which there were not numbers of native gentlemen who always slid in regard to every matter, "As your honour wishes." In course of time it cams to be regarded as an intolerable state of things that the people of India should be represented by men who never gave an opinion of their own, but who always voted with the official chairman. Therefore a system of election was introduced and most members of the district boards were now elected. Things had gone even further than that, however, because on the Legislative Councils also a certain number of native members were elected and a better class of men were in that way secured. These gentlemen were selected practically by vote, and his desire was to secure that persons of that type should come to assist the Secretary of State. There was no shadow of doubt that the time would come when men would be appointed not on account of their independence but on the certainty that they would support the Government of India. For that reason he desired to pass the Amendment.
  Mr. MORLEYresisted the Amendment. His objection could be stated, he said, in a single sentence. The Amendment restricted the area of choice of the Secretary of State. That must surely be a piece of mischief. The wider the area the more likely was the Secretary to be surrounded by competent men. If they wanted independence, knowledge and experience it was a mistake to put a check on the Secretary's choice.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. George Whiteley, Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)asked leave of the House to appeal to his lion, friends who were taking part in that debate. He was extremely sorry it should have happened that that Bill was brought on at such a time, but as possibly the House was aware the Government had private business next day, and also next week, and it was absolutely essential
  1982
  that the Bill should be brought on after eleven o'clock at night, and after private business. The private business that night, unfortunately, had taken some time, but that was not the fault of the Government. The India Bill had been putdown first in the list. His point was that if they wished to finish their work in three weeks, or rather fifteen Parliamentary days, they must try to make some progress. If hon. Members would look at the state of the Order Paper, they would see there were some sixty stages of Bills, and they must take four or five each day to get through. The Government were doing the best they could to get the Bills on the Order Paper through, and there were one or two others desired practically by all parts of the House which would have to be starred. If the Government were not able to make progress they would have to abandon some of the Bills which were really so necessary.
  *Mr. C. J. O'DONNELLsaid in consequence of that appeal, because of his great regard for the Secretary for India, and as he was desirous to meet the Government as far as possible, he did not intend to proceed with any of the other Amendments in his name, but he hoped the House would forgive him in making the most absolute protest against that way of dealing with a Bill which concerned a population of 300,000,000. The interests of that population were of the most varied kind, and there was no more sacred duty resting on that House than to see that the Government of India as a good and satisfactory one. With these few words he begged leave to withdraw his Amendments.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2: —
  Mr. MOONEYmoved to I leave out the word 'five,' and to insert the word 'twelve.'" On the previous night he asked when the Bill was under discussion one or two questions of the Secretary of State, who did not give him a reply, probably owing to the ' fact that he had exhausted his right under the rules of the House. The question he wished to put was this.

  1983
  Clause 2 provided that no person should be appointed to the Council of India who had been out of India for a longer period than five years. The case he desired to raise was the case of a person who was temporarily lent from the Council of India. When the famous Wyndham—MacDonnell correspondence was published it was distinctly stated by Sir Antony MacDonnell that he had been offered and had accepted a seat on the India Council, and that if he were to go to Ireland some arrangement would have to be made whereby he could retain his position on the India Council and go back to it when he had fulfilled the temporary position he was going to take in Ireland. The question he asked was whether Sir Antony Mac Donnell was a member of the India Council.
  MR. MORLEY: No.
  Mr. MOONEY: If not, when did he cease to be a member of the Council?
  Mr. MORLEYsaid it was a very intricate question. There was a doubt whether Sir Antony MacDonnell ever technically resigned. What was certain was that he never took his seat on the Council, that he never drew any emoluments as a member of the Council, and that at that moment he certainly was not a member of the Council. It was equally true that if that Bill passed Sir Antony MacDonnell could not be a member of the Council.
  Mr. MOONEYsaid he understood a promise was made to Sir Antony MacDonnell by the Government of the day in 1902. It was understood he was temporarily lent to the Government of Ireland.
  Mr. MORLEY: May I remind my j hon. friend that I am no# in any way I responsible for, or even cognisant of, bargains made, perfectly legitimate bargains no doubt, between the Government of the day and Sir Antony MacDonnell.
  Mr. MOONEYsaid he always understood that a pledge publicly given by a Minister of the Crown to a member of the Civil Service of the Empire should
  1984
  be carried out by his successors in office unless there were very strong reasons, and these reasons should be stated, why the pledge should be broken. The Government of the day in this case through a responsible Minister promised that a certain thing would be done and he was rather astonished to learn that that promise was not binding on the successor of the Minister. In 1902 Sir Antony MacDonnell wrote to Mr. Wyndham: —
  "I told you I had been offered and had accepted nomination to a seat on the India Council and that it would be necessary for me to consult Lord George Hamilton before anything was settled regarding the Irish appointment. I have now seen Lord George Hamilton and I understand from him that there would probably be no difficulty in allowing me to retain a lien on the India Council and lending my services to the Irish Government."
  Mr. Wyndham's answer was as follows: —
  "I ciphered the purport of your letter to the Prime Minister and received his concurrence by telegram yesterday and by letter this morning. It is understood you accept a scat on the India Council and are to be transferred when the vacancy occurs. I will ask Lord George Hamilton to see that the Press understands and insists on your great administrative achievements in India."
  That was the undertaking given on the authority of the Prime Minister of the day that Sir Antony was to get a seat on the India Council—then to be lent to the Irish. As he understood the right hon. Gentleman now he seemed to have some doubt as to whether Sir Antony MacDonnell did become a member of the Council or had ever resigned. He had in his hand a publication issued by the- right hon. Gentleman —
  *Sir JOHN JARDINE: Is this discussion in order?
  The CHAIRMAN: We have nothing to do with the question whether Sir Antony MacDonnell is a member of the India Council, but the Amendment is to extend five years to twelve, and that-allows the hon. Member to put his point.
  Mr. MOONEYsubmitted he was perfectly in order. He wanted to show that Sir Antony MacDonnell was not at the present moment acting on the India Council and that he would be debarred from going back, which would upset a

  1985
  promise and an undertaking given to a Civil Servant of the Crown in that House. He found in the India Office list that Sir Antony MacDonnell was described as having been a member of the Council, being appointed on 17th January, 1903. Then came this curious note, "Resigned January, 1905. Did not act, having held appointment of Under-Secretary for Ireland concurrently." What he wanted to know was, did Sir Antony resign by a written document, because otherwise he did not see how this could be?
  The CHAIRMAN: I really do not think we have to deal with the question whether Sir Antony MacDonnell resigned by written document. All we are concerned with is whether the period in the clause is to be extended so that he could in future be appointed.
  Mr. MOONBYsaid the India List said that Sir Antony MacDonnell resigned in January, 1905. If he resigned then, did he resign in such a manner that, in the event of his expressing a desire to go back to the India Council, he could be appointed by the Secretary of State in the ordinary way; and if that was so, would he not in the course of a year or two under the section they were discussing be debarred from doing that which it was distinctly understood he would be entitled to do when he went to Ireland.
  Mr. MORLEYsaid a member of the India Council who resigned could not be reappointed. If any gentleman had resigned he could not be reappointed. As to the Amendment before the House he must object to it.
  Ms. MOONEYasked if he was to understand that the entry in the India Office List was correct and that Sir Antony MacDonnell handed in his resignation.
  Mr. MORLEYsaid he could not say whether the list was correct or not. All those transactions took place before he took office. He had always understood there was no effective appointment, and that there could therefore be no technical resignation. As a matter of fact it was quite clear that Sir Antony MacDonnell
  1986
  never took his seat on the council and never received the emoluments.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *Sir J. JARDINEsaid he wished to move an Amendment which dealt with a question of law and policy. As he understood it, references in the Bill to the Government of India Act 1858. left, unchanged the qualification of future nominees to the council to people who had served and resided in India, but the word India was defined in the Act of 1858 as being what they now called British India. The words used in that Amendment were taken from a later Act of Parliament, the Interpretation Act of 1889, and would enable the Secretary of State if he so chose to appoint persons who had resided in the territories of the native princes of India. His Amendment was—
  "In page 1, line 10, at the end to insert the words: '' and the word India shall, as regards any appointment made after the passing of this Act, mean British India together with the territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of His Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India or through any Governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India."
  Our policy had been to extend privileges to persons under those native chiefs or princes, and the Amendment he had moved would help that policy to be carried out. It would also help the Secretary of State to choose not only native Judges of the High Courts or other experienced natives whose time had been spent in British India, but also Ministers of the native States, some of which were governed with great ability. Some of these men had done great service to the British Government in times of peril; most of them had full acquaintance with native ways, and it would be well to include them in the definition.
  Mr. MORLEYsaid he did not think he could accept the Amendment. It was not really necessary, and it did not really greatly extend the area from which the Secretary of State could choose. He could not accept it.
  *Sir J. JARDINE: The Amendment will include 70,000,000 people.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time and passed.

  WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) EXPENSES.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred by the Fishery Board for Scotland in pursuance of any Act of the present session to regulate Whale Fisheries in Scotland."
  *MR. MORTONasked the Secretary for Scotland what the expenses amounted to, and what they were for. He did not want to detain the House, but he thought that he had a right to ask the question. and to get that information.
  Lord R. CECILsaid he thought they were entitled to have an answer to the question. If the Minister who was in charge of a measure was not able to be present, the measure should not be taken. Unless somebody replied to the question that had been put, he would feel bound to move that the Committee should report progress.
  Mr. WHITELEYsaid he hoped the noble Lord would not press his Motion. The business would be purely formal, and there would be other stages of the j Bill when it could be discussed.
  *Mr. MORTONasked leave to say in answer to his hon. friend that the very object of taking the Committee stage on financial proposals was that they should have an opportunity of receiving j an explanation as to what the money was wanted for, and what the amount was. If that was not so there would be no j need for the Committee stage at all. He hoped his hon. friend would not try to lead the House to do anything which would injure its full control over the finances of the country.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid the matter was surely one of great importance. The
  1988
  question of finance was one which the 1House of Commons kept in its own hands. In a case of that kind where they had a financial Resolution taken separately from the Bill, if the Secretary of State could not be there they ought to have somebody present to give [them an explanation. If the Government was unable properly to arrange the business of the country, and wanted to rush matters, that was no reason why they who were prepared to sit up should be persuaded by the hon. Member in charge of business to let a Bill pass through without discussion. The hon. Member told them that if they did not do that therwould be unable to get through the remaining stages of the Bill in the next fortnight. They ought not as a business assembly to be expected to get through so many stages of the Bill, and that was no excuse for them as a business assembly in skirking their duty though it happened to be late at night. They ought not to allow important matters to go through the House in the way in which they had been doing that night. They were being told continually that the work of that House was being checked in another place, and they were told that the wishes of the people were not being properly regarded; but if they turned their business out badly they had no proper argument against the other House. He protested against the manner in which business was being conducted, and asked the House to see that the work was properly done even if it involved sitting up late.
  Mr. J. A. PEASEsaid that as an individual connected with the Treasury he might, perhaps, be allowed to say a few words. It had been arranged between the two sides of the House that that stage should be taken that night practically without discussion. Opportunities for discussing the Bill would arise on other stages. The Bill was one in connection with the expenses in regard to whale fisheries, and it was necessary that that formal stage should be taken in order that the Bill might be proceeded with and discussed. The expense, he believed, would not be considerable. Apparently under Clause 4 of the Bill some expense would be necessary in order

  1989
  to provide for the inspection of factories or stations where persons were employed by the holders of licences.
  Mr. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid the hon. Gentleman had stated that an arrangement had been made to take certain things that night. His understanding of the arrangement was that certain business should not be proceeded with. When it was arranged that certain business should not be taken that could not be held to mean that the business which was taken should not be properly explained. They were entitled to an explanation. They were perfectly prepared to sit up and see that the business of the country was properly done. They were also prepared to sit later in the session, and no threats that if they could not get through the business by a certain date they would have to sit later, would avail with them.
  Mr. WHITELEYsaid he never made any threat.
  Mr. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he understood the threat had been used that a certain number of stages had to be carried before the end of the session, and that if they did not^ dispose of the business that night, they would have to take it up later in the session. So far as he and his friends were concerned, they were prepared to discuss the measures properly, whether they took a longer or shorter number of days. All they wanted was that if certain Bills had to be taken, and they had to sit up for them, the Minister in charge of the Bill, or some Minister who understood the Bill, should be there to give them some explanation That was not an unreasonable thing to expect.
  *Mr. MORTONsaid that he did not propose to go further in the discussion of this matter now that a junior Lord of the Treasury had endeavoured to give the Committee some explanation. He used the word "endeavoured" advisedly, because it was perfectly evident that the hon. Gentleman did not know very much about the subject on which
  he tried to enlighten them. What he wished to say was that if a number of Members of the House of Commons were willing to stay there at that time of the night and to help the Government to get its business through surely a paid Member of the Government ought to find no difficulty in staying. He protested against the statement of the Junior Lord of the Treasury not only that a bargain had been made between the two front Benches, but that it had been agreed that the Bill should be taken without discussion. That was a scandalous thing and it ought not to be tolerated for a moment in a Free Parliament
  Lord R. CECILmoved to report progress. He had listened to the explanation which the Junior Lord of the Treasury gave the Committee without enlightenment. The hon. Gentleman simply looked through the Bill till he found the portion printed in italics and then he said, "Those are the expenses which are required." That was the best the hon. Gentleman could do. There were three Gentlemen representing Scotland who had places on the Treasury Bench—the Secretary for Scotland, the Lord Advocate, and the-Solicitor-General for Scotland. These Gentlemen were bound owing to their official duties to know what was in the Bill and as a matter of fact, the names of two of them were on the back of the Bill. He thought that one of the trio ought out of courtesy to the Committee to have been there in order to explain to the Committee any points which might be raised. From a business point of view also the attendance of one of these representatives of Scotland was necessary. They were bound to take cognisance of the absence of these Ministers, and the only way in which they could do so was by reporting progress.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Lord It. Cecil.)
  The Committee divided: —Ayes, 13; Noes, 100. (Division List No. 383.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood.RtHn.SirAlex.F.

  Corbott, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Corbett, T. L. (Down North)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Forster, Henry William

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gordon, J.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lord Robert Cecil and Mr.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rawlinson.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  NOES.

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Hudson, Walter

  Rees, J. D.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mph)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Beauchamp, E.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes.,Leigh)

  King,AlfredJohnfKnutsford

  Robinson, S.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rowlands, J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Lamont, Norman

  Samuel,HerbertL. (Cleveland)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex,Harwich)

  Scott,A.H.(Aston under Lyne)

  Clough, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Shackleton, David James

  Collins SirWm. J.(S.Pancras.W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Corbett,CH(Sussex,E. Grinst'd

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Craig,HerbertJ. (Tynemouth)

  Maepherson, J. T.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Dickinson, W.H.(St.Paneras,N.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down,S.)

  Stanger, H. V.

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal,E.)

  Straehey. Sir Edward

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Elibank, Master of

  Maddison, Frederick

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fenwick, Charles

  Marnham, F. J.

  Waring, Walter

  Ferens, T. R.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Waterlow. D S.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Watt, Henry A.

  Gill, A. H.

  Nicholls, George

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Gulland, John W.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

  Hamsworth, Cecil B.(Wore'r)

  O'Grady. J.

  Wilson, Hon.C.H.W.(Hull,W.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Henderson Arthur (Durham)

  Pickersgill. Edward Hare

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Price,C.E.'(Edinb'gh,Central)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Hodge. John

  Priestley,W. E. B.(Bradford, E.

  Pease.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Main question put, and agreed to.

  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Wednesday.)

  EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN BILL [Lords.]
  Considered in Committee, and reported; read the third time and passed, without Amendment.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP BILL [Lords.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone, Leeds, W.)said he was loth to trouble the House with any lengthy remarks at that hour of the night. He would not have ventured to move the Second Reading of the Bill at that
  1992
  stage of the session had it not been within the knowledge of many hon. Members that this question had been before the public for the last twelve or fifteen years, and that attempts to deal with it had been made by successive Governments. Hon. Members were fully aware of the subject with which they proposed to deal, and for that reason he felt it to be unnecessary that he should enter into any lengthy explanation. Undoubtedly, however, the main question with which the Bill dealt was one of very considerable difficulty for reasons known to all hon. Members. His right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer endeavoured to deal with it in the Factory Bill of 1895. In 1900, Sir Matthew White Ridley endeavoured to treat the subject in a different manner, and give the Secretary of State power to apply the provisions of the Factory Act to laundries by Order. In 1901 Mr.

  1993
  Ritchie put a clause into the Factory and Workshop Bill of that year dealing with the question, but not in anyway in the full manner proposed in the present Bill. At any rate Mr. Ritchie made a more or less gallant attempt to deal with the matter in that Bill, but owing to dissensions on certain points he decided to drop the clause. His right hon. friend opposite in 1905, announced that the last Government were still favourable to the proposals of the Bill of 1901. Every Government since 1892 had had the same view that that question ought to be dealt with and had made more or less strenuous efforts to deal with it. As hon. Members were aware, there were great numbers of laundries which were altogether outside the operations of the present Act—institution laundries, domestic laundries, laundries not carried on for gain, laundries connected with hospitals, and so forth. With regard to those that were under the Act, the present law was in a most unsatisfactory state. Provided the maximum of fourteen hours per day and sixty hours per week was not exceeded in the case of adults any employer could by merely putting up a notice early in the morning change his weekly hours as he pleased. The result was the factory inspector could not know when to visit in order to check the hours of work, and inspection was consequently largely evaded. In addition to that the laundries were exempt at present from the provisions with regard to certificates, and the regulations as to dangerous trades—fencing of machinery and so forth. Therefore, as he said, the law was in a most unsatisfactory condition. The Government proposed to bring under the law all laundries where persons were employed for wages or which were carried on for the purpose of trade or gain, and, in the second place, they proposed to subject to the provisions of the Act all industries, including laundries, which were attached to institutions, reformatory or charitable, which were not already under Government inspection. There were other provisions, such as the proposal to make available the services of factory inspectors for those institutions which were already under public inspection—prisons, workhouses, reformatories or industrial schools
  1994
  —and which might desire to have the services of a specially trained factory inspector. He had alluded to the difficulties which had hitherto stood in the way of the question being dealt with. There were trade interests to consider and the usual trade opposition. There were also religious susceptibilities which had proved, perhaps, the most formidable of all the difficulties which had to be met. There was a third reason, and that was that there was no solid active movement pushing on legislation on the subject. It was not altogether creditable either to the country or to the House of Commons that this was so. Excepting certain individuals who took a great interest in these matters there did not seem to be any definite public opinion or movement such as a Minister could generally rely upon to overcome the special difficulties which might interfere with the settlement of a question. So far as he was concerned, from the moment he introduced the Bill he had received hardly any representations on the subject. Nobody seemed particularly interested in the Bill, in the public or in the Press. At the same time he would point out to the House that the non-settlement of the matter was nothing less than a public scandal. They had many thousands of laundries in the country employing a great army of workwomen, something like 200,000 strong, under the most unsatisfactory conditions. He did not pretend to say "the Bill was in every way perfect, but the Government were ready to consider any points in regard to which improvement could be made so long as the safety of the Bill was not endangered. He maintained that the Bill, as it was, was worth having. In the first place it enabled them to apply to laundries generally stricter supervision and a better system of hours. Although they might be leaving something still to be done yet, if once the first obstacle were overcome they could bring in subsequently remedies or improvements which might be found necessary. The first thing was to overcome the initial difficulty of legislation, and that was why he asked the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. There had been strong opposition from some quarters to that Bill, but he would tell the House frankly

  1995
  that the Government had met the objections raised in these quarters. In order to meet the objections to which he referred they had agreed that, as regarded reformatory institutions where it was desired, private interrogations by inspectors of inmates should be excluded except on the authority of the Secretary of State. If it was objected that that might hamper the operation of the Act, his answer was that that might be so. It might be, perhaps, that in making that arrangement the Government had fallen short of a perfect system of inspection, and were introducing a certain anomaly. But it was a choice between that and not getting the Bill, and if they did not get the Bill that session, he must frankly say to hon. Members that he saw very little chance of getting any Bill dealing with the subject, through that House during the present Parliament. They were making a small concession in regard to something less than 230 institutions all told. The main object of the Bill was to deal with the thousands of commercial laundries throughout the country. He urged hon. Members who thought that the concession the Government were proposing was against the spirit of legislation to remember that it was the only chance by which they could pass the Bill that session, and that otherwise they would have to wait many years before it was put on the Statute-book. The Bill would effect a great improvement on the existing law. It was badly wanted throughout the country, and he asked the House to give it a Second Reading and send it to a Standing Committee which would consider any points which would not prove fatal to it this session.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he would not at that hour detain the House. The right hon. Gentleman had explained the purpose of the Bill. It was to amend the Factory and Workshops Act in respect of laundries, and to extend the Act to certain religious and charitable institutions where laundry work was done which at present escaped inspection. He entirely agreed as to the desirability
  1996
  of amending the law. There might be some hon. Gentlemen in the House who might think the Government ought to have gone farther in this matter, but the right hon. Gentleman pointed out the great difficulties which lay in his path. He pointed out how these difficulties had prevented his predecessors dealing as fully with the matter as they would have wished. At the present moment the Factories and Workshops Act only applied to laundries which were carried on by way of trade and for the purposes of gain. Domestic laundries attached to religious and charitable institutions were expressly excluded from the operations of the Act. In these institutions neither I the law as to hours of labour nor the Jaw as to sanitation applied. The Bill, at I any rate, carried the law a very great deal farther than at present, and would, he thought, be a very great boon to those employed in laundries. When some years ago he (Mr. Akers-Douglas) occupied the position the right hon. Gentleman now occupied he gave some instructions that a measure should be drafted for the purpose of the Bill before he left office. He therefore entirely agreed in the necessity to deal with the question. He had tried when he found that his predecessor had been unable, owing to that great difficulty of getting over a certain opposition in that House, to deal with the question as fully as the Home Office wished, a system of voluntary inspection, and a large number of charitable institutions, about half the total, were regularly inspected at their own wish by the factory inspectors. But he was certain that anybody who had read last year's Factories Report must have been persuaded that voluntary inspection was not at all satisfactory. He found when he was at the Home Office that the various institutions connected in England with the Church of England were not only ready to be inspected but welcomed inspection, and that a large number of Roman Catholic institutions in this country were also anxious to have such inspection. He did not find that the same welcome was given to inspection in Ireland. However that might be, the Report to which he had alluded made it perfectly clear that nowhere was a measure of that kind more needed than in Ireland. He would

  1997
  be anxious to see when they came to the Committee stage what words the right hon. Gentleman would insert to satisfy hon. Gentlemen from Ireland. All he wanted to see was that factories and laundries were properly inspected without putting religious institutions to any great trouble. He recognised that it was impossible to have the same powers of inspection in those institutions as in ordinary factories, but he trusted that the inspection to be given would be as thorough as the circumstances merited. He was quite certain that the measure which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced was far better than anything which they had hitherto had, and it was likely to receive the sanction of all Members of the House. For that reason he welcomed it, though there might be some points which he would have to criticise, when they came to the Committee stage.
  MR. GILLsaid he had no intention of opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, but he wished to state that there, were one or two matters in Clause 2 which ought to be improved. He quite agreed with the Home Secretary that it was absolutely necessary that they should have an improvement in the inspection of factories and laundries, but he objected entirely to women and girls being called on to work five days a week from nine o'clock in the morning till nine o'clock in the evening, as was provided for in the Bill. He thought that it was unnecessary for any woman or girl to be called on to work till nine o'clock at night. Some of the women were married and could not look after their families if they were working till that time. With regard to overtime, which was provided for by allowing them to work from six o'clock in the morning till seven o'clock at night on certain days in the week, he thought that ought to be prohibited if it was possible to do so. The law ought to be worked as it was in the textile factories. The worst clause was one in regard to holidays. That clause provided that on any other day in the week but Saturday a half-holiday could be taken in the forenoon. There was no single industry where such a practice was followed. Everybody knew that where a half-holiday was
  1998
  taken it should be taken after twelve o'clock. He gave notice that at a future stage he would move Amendments dealing with that question and with the question of long hours.
  Lord EDMUND TALBOTsaid the question was one which had excited the interest of his co-religionists in this country. He had attended a deputation which waited on the Home Secretary in reference to the measure, and that deputation was made up not only of his coreligionists but also of members of Church of England. In fact the majority consisted not only of his co-religionists but of members of the Church of England, and Jews and Wesleyans were also represented. He would like to speak of the extreme courtesy with which they were received by the right hon. Gentleman. He was strongly in favour of the measure, and would certainly support the Second Reading. The reason why the feelings of many of his coreligionists towards the measure were changed was, he believed, because his right hon. friend behind him when he was Home Secretary had started a system of voluntary inspection. It was natural that religious institutions should be frightened at the idea of inspection, but a system of voluntary inspection had familiarised them with the principles of it, and they had found it to be of great assistance in enabling them to appreciate and learn to use up-to-date machinery, while it had also taught them some things i in regard to sanitation. The measure, in the form in which he understood that it was being brought in, would have his support.
  Mr. T. L. CORBETTsaid the Bill was one which had been long promised to the House. It was promised early in the year that it would be presented before Easter, but as a matter of fact it now came before the House at a time of the session and an hour of the night when the right hon. Gentleman knew that it would be impossible to discuss it in full detail. He must say, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's assurances that the Bill was worth having, that he believed that on the whole it was a

  1999
  denial of all their hopes. So far as he had read it, the Bill was scarcely worth the paper it was printed on. Clause 5, Section 2, would, he thought, if hon. Members took the trouble to study the Bill, exempt, in the most insidious way, all religious institutions from inspection of any kind whatever. He would remind the House that for every one of those institutions fifty years ago there were twenty now, and they were competing most unfairly with other laundries, in wages and hours of labour, and free from all control whatever. He thought that on further consideration of the Bill hon. Members would come to the conclusion that it was a very serious matter that those laundries should go on, without any regulations as to hours of labour, and without any inspection whatever as to sanitary conditions, in competing with, other laundries. He only made that short protest, for he did not want to keep the House sitting at that late hour of the night. It was not their fault, but the fault of the Government and of the right hon. Gentleman, that that should be so, for they had promised to introduce the Bill before Easter.
  *Mr. GLADSTONEsaid the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid that had been an evasion of the promise to bring in the Bill early. To bring in the Bill late in August, and to suppose that any full discussion could then be taken, was placing an almost hopless problem before the House. He believed the wording of Section 2 of Clause 5 really evaded the promise given by the Government that there would be a thorough inspection of every laundry, whether it belonged to
  2000
  a religious institution or not. He believed that it was owing to the insidious wording of that clause that they had the silent acquiesence of hon. Members below the gangway in the Bill being read a second time. They would never have agreed to that if the inspection had been really meant to be as thorough in the case of those laundries as in the case of all other laundries. Having made that protest, he would allow the Bill to proceed.
  Mr. A. C. CORBETTsaid the Home Secretary had alluded to the Bill as not having a great amount of enthusiasm behind it. He never remembered any introducer of a Bill making such a remark before. The reason for that want of enthusiasm was not far to seek. Not long ago he introduced a Bill on that subject and there was great enthusiasm for that Bill. The enthusiasm was conspicuous and marked throughout the working classes in the country. The reason for the enthusiasm for that Bill was that it was thorough in its character and that it really did bring all laundries under proper inspection. If the Home Secretary had had the courage to get rid once and for all of that serious omission in his Bill he would find no want of enthusiasm for it among the working classes of the country.
  Question put, and agreed to. Bill committed to a Standing Committee.
  Whereupon Mr. Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 26th day of July last, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at one minute before Three o'clock a.m.