Commons Sitting of 25 February 1908

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

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Rills, that, in the case of the following Rills, referred on the First Beading thereof, Standing Order 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Cheshire Lines Committee Bill; Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PUBLIC OFFICES SITES (EXTENSION) BILL (STANDING ORDERS APPLIC ABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 21st day of February, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Public Offices Sites (Extension) Bill.
  Derby Gas Bill; Dover Graving Docks Bill; Louth and East Coast Railway (Transfer) Bill. Finchley Urban District Council Bill (by Order); Leicester Corporation Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
  Standing Orders: Ordered, That Mr. Shackleton be discharged from the Select Committee on Standing Orders; and that Mr. Jenkins be added to the Committee.—(Mr. Ellis.)
  Clyde Navigation (Superannuation) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.] Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Transfer of Training Colleges (Scotland) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND).
  Petition from Kinsale, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petitions for legislation: From East Ardesley; Morley; Much Wenlock; Patrington; and Shoeburyness; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Hurstpierpoint (two); Leicester (two); London; Retford; Sileby; Southwark (two); Wadsley Bridge (two); and West Bromwich; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From Gauldswell; and Perth; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Beckenham; Bournemouth; Hull; Meltham; and Sunderland; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (BOMBAY POLITICAL DEPARTMENT).
  Return [presented 24th February] to be printed. [No. 71.]
  PERSIA, No. 1 (1908).
  Copy presented, of Extract from a Despatch from the Government of India to the Secretary of State for India in Council, dated 21st September, 1899, relating to British Policy in Persia, which was referred to in the debate on the Anglo-Russian Convention which took place in the House of Lords on the 6th and 10th February, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHINA, No. 1 (1908).
  Copy presented, of Correspondence respecting the Opium Question in China (with Map) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CON DITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of Licence granted to Mary Ann Guest, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting her to be at large on condition that she enter the Female Preventive and Reformatory Institution, 35, Eden Grove, Holloway, London [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the County of Anglesey, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops within the parish of Holyhead [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  RAILWAY, ETC., BILLS.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade upon all the Bills and

  1543
  Provisional Orders of Session, 1908 relating to Railways, Canals, Tramways, Harbours, and Tidal Waters, and the supply of Electricity, Gas, and Water [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PUBLIC OFFICES SITE (DUBLIN) ACT, 1903.
  Account presented, showing the Money issued from the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of The Public Offices Site (Dublin) Act, 1903, and of the Expenditure; the Money expended and borrowed and the Securities created under the said Act for the period ended 31st March, 1907, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 72.]
  COLONIAL REPORT (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Report, No. 555 (St. Vincent, Report for 1906–7) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Copy presented, of Memorandum of the Board of Education on the Financial Proposals in connection with the Elementary Education (England and Wales) Bill, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (ECCLESIASTICAL CHARGES).
  Address for "Return of the Charges of Ecclesiastical Establishments in India for the year 1906–7 on account of the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Church of Rome, and other churches; and showing, as far as possible, in the several provinces of British India, what payments are made at stations: (a) Where there are European troops, and (b) where there are no European troops."—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Training of Secondary School Teachers.
  SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether having regard to Article 15, Chapter 2, of the
  1544
  Regulations for Secondary Schools, 1907' he proposes, after 31st July, 1908, to make evidence of training a condition for the appointment of any proportion of the teachers in secondary schools receiving Government grants; and whether the Board are prepared to make grants to private institutions for the training of secondary school teachers, provided that the training is recognised by the Board as efficient.
  (Answered by Mr. Lough.) The article referred to will stand in the next issue of the Regulations; and the Board hope to issue at an early date Regulations prescribing the conditions upon which grants may be made in aid of the training of teachers for secondary schools, but my right hon. friend is not in a position at present to indicate their scope.

  Education Authorities and Provision of Meals.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state how many education authorities have already put into operation the Education (Provision of Meals) Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Lough.) Except in cases where it is desired to spend money from the rates upon the purchase of food, local authorities are not required by the Act to inform the Board of Education of their proceedings under it, and I have, therefore, no complete information as to the authorities who have in one way or another taken advantage of its provisions. Twenty-nine local education authorities in England and five in Wales have been authorised by the Board under Section 3 of the Act to spend money out of the rates upon the purchase of food.

  Complaints against Increased Railway Rates.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade I how many complaints of increased rates have been received at the Board of Trade, under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, during each of the ten years ending 31st December, 1907; and in how many of such cases the increase has been withdrawn or modified in consequence of I action taken by the Board of Trade.

  1545
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The figures for which my hon. friend asks are shown in the following Table, so far as they can be given. The cases dealt with by Mr. Pelham before the year 1899 numbered 1,938. The figures given for 1906 and 1907 are provisional. Too

  Complaints of increased Rates received by the Board of Trade during the nine years 1899–1907, inclusive.

  Year.

  Increases completely with-drawn

  Increases modified.

  Certificates issued to allow the complaint to be taken before the Railway and Canal Commission.

  Complaints not pressed.

  No modification effected.

  Cases still under consideration.

  Total.

  1899

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  5

  1900

  1

  —

  17

  16

  30

  —

  64

  1901

  2

  16

  2

  3

  2

  —

  25

  1902

  —

  5

  2

  4

  2

  —

  13

  1903

  —

  5

  3

  5

  1

  —

  14

  1904

  1

  2

  3

  2

  1

  —

  9

  1905

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  4

  1906

  —

  1

  2

  1

  2

  —

  6

  1907

  1

  1

  2

  5

  2

  2*

  13

  * Counting as one complaint the numerous representations received against the withdrawal by the railway companies of a wastage allowance for coal lost in transit.

  Post Office Savings Bank.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that while the Fiftieth Report of the Postmaster-General, which, in accordance with the provisions of The Savings Banks Act, 1904, omitted a valuation of the securities held by the Post Office Savings Bank Fund, did nevertheless contain a detailed statement of the Terminable Annuities held, subsequent reports do not contain such a detailed statement, but, in lieu thereof, a mere statement of the aggregate amount of annuities operating to replace stock, and annuities operating to replace cash;
  1546
  much stress must not be laid on the totals, as in some cases several complaints related to the same matter, and there are others in which it may be doubtful whether an actual increase of rate in the sense of the Act of 1894 was involved.
  will he explain why the details given in the Fiftieth Report have been omitted from subsequent Reports; and will he consider the question of giving in his forthcoming Report a detailed statement of these annuities.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The statement of the nature and amount of the securities held for the Savings Bank, which is inserted in the Postmaster-General's Report, is, as stated in the Report, an extract from the statutory Return presented to Parliament each year by the Treasury. The Postmaster-General, therefore, is not responsible for settling the form in which the statement is drawn up.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the difference between the amount of withdrawals from the Post Office Savings Bank in the year 1906, estimated by him on 11th April, 1907, as £43,804,500, and the amount stated in the Postmaster-General's Fifty-third Report, viz., £43,763,002; and will he explain how the difference arose, and why, more than three months after the closing of the books, the correct amount of the withdrawals had not been ascertained within £40,000.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The amount of withdrawals stated in the Postmaster-General's Report represents the value of the warrants issued in the course of the year. This figure is not usually made up until all the transactions for each quarter have been finally proved. The estimated figure given in reply to the hon. Member for Finsbury on 11th April, was based, as regards the last quarter of the year, on the withdrawals actually paid by postmasters in that period, a figure which is available immediately. The difference of £40,000 is due to an unusual variation between the value of the warrants issued but not yet presented at the beginning and end of that quarter respectively.

  Vessels struck off Effective List.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many battleships, armoured cruisers, protected cruisers, and torpedo-boats destroyers have been struck off the list of efficient fighting ships in 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The only vessel struck off the effective list in 1907 was the torpedo-boat destroyer "Ariel," sunk off Malta.

  Lancaster County Magistrates.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whether he can state how many of those who were appointed county magistrates for the County of Lancaster during the years 1906 and 1907 were borough magistrates
  1548
  at the time they were appointed county magistrates.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Fowler.) Of the county magistrates appointed in 1906 and 1907 I find that seventeen were borough magistrates at the time of their appointment.

  Board of Education and the Charitable Trusts Act in Wales.
  LORD R. CECIL: To ask the President of the Board of Education, whether the Welsh Department of the Board of Education exercises the powers of the Board under the Charitable Trusts Act with regard to Wales; whether any officer of the Charitable Trusts section of the Board has been transferred to the Welsh Department; and whether there is any lawyer in the Welsh Department trained in Charity Commission work.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The powers of the Board of Education under the Charitable Trusts Acts are exercised by the Board and not by any department of it. The Welsh Department have the advice of the legal branch where legal questions are concerned. The Answer to the last paragraph is in the affirmative.
  LORD R. CECIL: To ask the President of the Board of Education, upon what grounds the decision given in February, 1906, by the Charitable Trusts section of the Board of Education with reference to the Devonald endowment, Narberth, Pembrokeshire, which held the trust to be a denominational one, has been reversed by the Welsh Department of the Board, and a scheme substituted, alienating two-thirds of the endowment to secular purposes; whether an attempt to secularise this charity was made by the county council in 1896; and whether the Charity Commissioners then held the trust to be denominational.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) This endowment was founded by deed of 31st March, 1832, for the maintenance of a free school, the only reference to Church teaching being contained in a recital. The Board of Education have not reversed their decision of February, 1906, to treat the trust as denominational; but, having

  1549
  regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the change in the conditions of public education since the date of the original foundation, and upon consideration of the numerous objections received from the local education authority and numerous other public bodies locally interested, as well as the representations made by the trustees, the Board have come to the conclusion that justice can best be done to all interests by an appointment of the endowment as follows: One-third of the income to be allotted to the rector and churchwardens of Narberth for the purposes of solely religious instruction, with liberty to apply such income to managers' purposes of the Narberth Church of England School, and the remaining two-thirds to be administered by a representative governing body, of which the rector would be an ex-officio member, for the advancement of secular education in the locality by means of exhibitions tenable at institutions of higher education without religious restrictions. The Board cannot find that any opinion as to the denominational character of the trust was expressed by the Charity Commissioners in 1896 or about that time. The foundation was the subject of communication between the Charity Commissioners and persons locally interested in 1895 with a view to a scheme under the Welsh intermediate Education Act, but no

  Year.

  British.

  United States of America and Canadian (Port Killed).

  First quality.

  Second quality

  First quality

  Second quality.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  1904

  52

  6

  47

  6

  49

  0

  44

  0

  1905

  51

  6

  47

  0

  48

  0

  43

  0

  1906

  51

  0

  47

  0

  47

  6

  43

  6

  1907

  53

  0

  49

  0

  51

  0

  47

  0

  Foreign Meat.
  MR. CHAPLIN: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing
  1550
  proposals for a scheme were submitted by the joint education committee under that Act.

  Increase of Wages in Royal Dockyards.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether the Lords of the Admiralty have considered the petitions of the workmen employed in the Royal dockyards, which were forwarded to them early in 1907; and, if so, have any of the trades had an increase of wages granted them; and what is the increase, if any, and to which trades has it been granted.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The petitions have now been considered and the Admiralty hope to be in a position to promulgate the decision some time in March.

  Prices of English, American, and Canadian Beef.
  MR. CHAPLIN: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what are the average prices of English beef and United States and Canadian port-killed beef for each of the years 1903 to 1907, inclusive.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) Prior to 1904 there are no official statistics giving the desired information. The average prices for 1904 to 1907, inclusive are:—
  the President of the Board of Agriculture what proportion of meat sold in Smithfield Market in 1907 was of

  1551
  foreign origin; and how this proportion compares with 1897, 1887, and 1877.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) We will endeavour, as far as possible, to obtain the information asked for, and we are in communication with the clerk of the market on the subject.

  Publication of Annual Report of the Board of Agriculture.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether there are special reasons for the delay in publishing the Report for the year 1906 until the present year of the proceedings under the Sale of Food and other Acts; and whether steps will be taken to publish in future the Annual Report of this Department within a few months of the year to which it refers.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The delay in the publication of the Report to which my hon. friend refers was due partly to the absence on sick leave of the officer responsible for a considerable portion of it and partly to the services of other members of the staff concerned being required for more urgent work. We fully recognise the importance of issuing our various Reports with as little delay as possible, and I hope that the Report in question for the year 1907 will be issued at a much earlier date than was that for 1906.

  Licensing Compensation—Ante-1869 Beerhouses.
  MR. BARNARD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any difference is made in calculating the compensation under the 1904 Licensing Act, between ante-1869 beerhouses and fully-licensed houses, on account of the position occupied by the 1869 houses prior to the passing of the 1904 Act; and, if so, how is it arrived at.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I understand that, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 (1) of the Licensing Act of 1904, as interpreted in the judgment of Kennedy J. in re Ashby's Cobham Brewery Company, the answer
  1552
  to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and that the method of calculating the difference may take the form of allowing a higher number of years in the case of "ante–69" beerhouses for the purpose of capitalisation. The precise details of any such calculation depend on the circumstances of every case.

  Revenue from Duties on Alcohol.
  MR. BARNARD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of revenue collected by the Excise and Customs on alcohol during the last-known financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The net receipt from the Customs and Excise duties on alcohol for 1906–7 was £36,296,988.

  Applications for Labourers Cottages at Strabane.
  MR. C. MACVEIGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the applications of George Devenny and J. J. Kildea to the Strabane (No. 2) Rural District Council for cottages under the Labourers Acts, one on the farm of Mr. Cunningham, Castletown, the other on the farm of Mr. G. Hyndman, Trentagh; can be say why their applications were refused by the Local Government Board inspector; and whether he will take steps to have their cases reconsidered, so that these men, who are living in unsanitary houses, may have cottages provided for them by the rural district council under the Labourers Acts.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) In the case of Devenny, the reason assigned by the inspector for refusing the application was that the applicant had vacated the house examined by the sanitary officer, and had gone to reside in Newton-Hamilton. The applicant Kildea refused to agree to the site selected by the rural district council, and the inspector had therefore no option but to reject the application. As the inspector has completed his order in respect of the scheme, he cannot now reconsider these applications.

  Appointments of Irish Magistrates.
  MR. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he could state the number of appointments to the Commission of the Peace in Ireland from 1st January, 1906, until 31st January, 1907, the number for each province, county, and county borough, respectively, and the number of Catholics appointed in each of these divisions, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) If the hon. Member should think fit to move for a Return in continuation of the Return, Magistrates (Ireland), of 1906 (House of Commons Return 136 of that year), no objection will be offered to granting it. That Return gives particulars of the magistrates appointed for each county, and it shows, among other things, the numbers of each religious denomination appointed.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Stoker Ratings of the Fleet.
  MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the conditions necessary for advancement among the stoker ratings of the Fleet are being voluntarily accepted by the men, or is pressure, owing to the dearth of candidates, being brought to bear upon many who are unwilling.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): Qualifications for advancement is purely voluntary, and I am unaware of any ground for the suggestion that pressure is being brought to bear upon men who are unwilling to qualify.

  Policing the Persian Gulf.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether it is proposed to increase the strength of the China Squadron, and to send a warship, superior to the class of a gunboat, to patrol the Persian Gulf.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The answer to both parts of this Question is in the negative. The Persian Gulf is
  1554
  visited from time to time by the larger ships of the East Indies Squadron.
  MR. REES: What is the size of the largest vessel?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: My hon. friend will find that in the Navy List.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the name of the gunboat detailed for duties in the Persian Gulf; whether any other vessels assist her in the suppression of piracy; and what was the speed at her last full-speed trial.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The gunboats "Redbreast" and "Lapwing" and the Special Service vessel "Sphinx" are told off for duties in Indian waters, principally in the Persian Gulf. These duties, in which they are assisted from time to time by other ships of the East Indies Squadron, include the suppression of piracy. At the latest machinery trials, with authorised natural draught power, the speeds attained were:—"Redbreast," 11·31 knots; "Lapwing," 10·12 knots; "Sphinx," 9·16 knots.

  Privileges of Retiring Volunteers.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a Volunteer (non-commissioned officer or private), now serving, who continues his service by enlistment in the new Territorial Force will, on completion of twenty years efficient service, including that already served as an efficient Volunteer under the old system, be entitled to the Volunteer Service Medal or some reward equivalent to that now enjoyed in the like case by the old Volunteer; and whether such non-commissioned officer or private, on continuing and completing ten years efficient service as a sergeant, including that already served as an efficient Volunteer under the old Act, will be allowed, on completion of the terms of his enlistment, to retire with his rank and uniform with the letter R on his shoulder strap, as enjoyed under the old Volunteer Regulations.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddingtonshire): This question is under consideration, but

  1555
  I hope that it may be found possible to prevent Volunteers who transfer to the Territorial Force from suffering in this respect.

  Advisory Council on Attestation.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War who will be the members of the Advisory Committee of the War Office to whom the new form of attestation for those enlisting in the Territorial Army will be submitted.
  MR. HALDANE: I am afraid I cannot at present state the names of the members, as I have not yet had replies from all the persons whom I have asked to serve on the Advisory Council; but I hope I shall be able to give the names in a few days.
  MR. COURTHOPE: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Committee to commence its sittings?
  MR. HALDANE: It is nearly complete, and I hope it will meet almost immediately.

  Payment of Military Pensions.
  * MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council has reached a decision upon the Report of the Paymaster-General's Committee appointed more than six months ago to consider whether benefit would result from the payment of military pensions in smaller sums and at more frequent intervals than is now the practice; what, if any, is their decision; and why has it not been communicated to the House.
  MR. HALDANE: The Report has been considered. It has not been held to be desirable to adopt all of its recommendations. Arrangements have been made for: (a) the payment monthly of all pensioners who desire to be so paid, or where it is clearly shown that, owing to their thriftless or drunken habits, such payment would be advisable (b) the payment weekly of pensioners in cases where they become chargeable to the guardians and the latter recommend and are willing to undertake the issue in that way; (c) the payment weekly of pensioners by responsible persons who are willing to receive the pension
  1556
  quarterly and dole it out weekly to the pensioner.
  * MR. BYLES: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but may I ask why we were not told this some time ago?
  MR. HALDANE: We have only just been able to come to a final conclusion.
  MR. LEA: Are we to understand that this applies equally to Army Reservists?
  MR. HALDANE: I have spoken only of pensioners, but there is no difference in principle between the two.

  Army Horses.
  MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the increase of motor traction and the consequent gradual decrease in the number of horses in use in this country, the War Office are taking any, and, if so, what steps to secure the maintenance of the supplies of remounts available for His Majesty's Army.
  MR. HALDANE: The whole question of the supply of suitable horses for military purposes is at present being carefully considered by the Board of Agriculture in concert with the War Office.

  Treatment of Invalided Soldiers.
  COLONEL SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take in order to ensure the proper treatment of men invalided from the Army suffering from tuberculosis.
  MR. HALDANE: I must refer my hon. and gallant friend to my Answer given to the hon. Member for Sunderland on the 18th instant. As my hon. and gallant friend is aware, special efforts are made to secure places for the invalids in civil hospitals, and a notification is sent to the medical officer of health of the town in which the soldier intends to reside.
  COLONEL SEELY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the great majority of cases of soldiers suffering

  1557
  from tuberculosis discharged from the Army no such places are found, and that they are discharged to their homes, not only to their great discomfort, but to the peril of the civil population? And are we to understand that no steps are to be taken in this matter?
  MR. HALDANE: As I informed the hon. Member opposite the other day, we are quite aware that the case of the soldier suffering from tuberculosis is a hard case, but so is the case of the sailor, of the Post Office employee, and of other Government employees, and so is the case of the great mass of the civil population. The Government as a whole considered this question, and they came to the conclusion that it would not be permissible to deal with the soldier differentially.
  COLONEL SEELY: Have the right hon. Gentleman and the Government considered that the case of the soldier is quite different from that of others, seeing that he is discharged from the Army at the end of seven years and cannot make provision to go into a civil place as in the case of other Government employees, who are enlisted practically for life.
  MR. HALDANE: The same difficulty arises in other cases, and to deal with the soldier in this fashion would, in the opinion of the Government, be to treat the soldier differentially.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that the Committee were unanimous in their recommendation that some provision should be made, and when the Committee's Report will be laid on the Table of the House?
  MR. HALDANE: It is quite true that the Committee were unanimous, but, as I say, the Government has considered this question as a whole and from a wider point of view than that of the Army merely, and the principle involved is one that is so far-reaching that the Government are not prepared to adopt the recommendation.

  British Cavalry Establishment.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can give
  1558
  the number of cavalry officers and men on the British establishment on 1st January, the number of cavalry horses on the British establishment at the same date, and the number or proportion of those horses considered fit for active service; and whether he can also state the number of officers and men and the number of horses required, apart from drafts, for the cavalry division of four brigades and other regular cavalry of the expeditionary force.
  MR. HALDANE: On 1st January, the strength of the cavalry on what is technically known as the British establishment, i.e., at Home and in the Colonies, amounted to 566 officers and 14,112 men; and there were on the strength 10,217 horses, of which 9,195 may be estimated as fit for service. For the expeditionary force in the field, exclusive of reinforcing drafts, 327 officers, 7,055 men, and 8,043 horses are required.

  Behar Disturbances—The Bloomfield Judgment.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 1907, known as the Bloomfield case, has excited the alarm and apprehension of European planters in Behar living with their families in solitary situations, and whether he can bring the case under the review of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and, if not, whether any steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence of what is regarded as a failure of justice.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY, Montrose Burghs): I am not prepared to express any opinion as to the decision of the High Court of Calcutta to which my hon. friend refers, nor am I aware of the existence of the alarm which he mentions. In any case, I am advised that the decision involves no point of legal principle on which an appeal to the Privy Council could be founded.

  The Rawal Pindi Prosecutions.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that six members of the Indian Bar, of whom three are barristers of the London Inns

  1559
  of Court, were, early in May, 1907, arrested and kept in prison, bail being refused, for five months, and then released within a few days of their being acquitted at Rawal Pindi for complicity in sedition, the evidence tendered against them having been characterised by Mr. Martineau, the Judge before whom they were tried, as improbable and unreliable, false, fabricated, and malicious, the speeches which were the foundation of the charge being made in an agitation against excessive enhancement of the land revenue; and whether, having regard to the fact that these six gentlemen of position and education were kept in gaol for 153 days on a baseless charge, he will state what reparation the Government are prepared to make to them for this unmerited suffering, pecuniary loss, and personal humiliation.
  MR. MORLEY: I am aware of the circumstances set out in the beginning of the Question. Application for bail was refused by the magistrate. An appeal was heard by the Punjab Chief Court, and dismissed by them. Mr. Martineau did not use the epithets in the Question of the evidence as a whole, but in respect of some portions of the evidence of particular witnesses, he described them as unreliable. That he did not regard the charge as baseless, in the sense that it was a charge that did not require to be investigated by a magistrate, is shown by the fact that he did not release the accused on bail, as he had the power to do at any moment, if satisfied that no prima facie case existed. The foundation of the charge, to use the language of the Question, was that the accused instigated and abetted a riot. I do not think that reasons for such reparation as my hon. friend demands are disclosed.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: I should like to ask whether a very different complexion has not been placed on the evidence in question by the judgment of the Chief Court at Lahore, on the appeal against the decision of this magistrate?
  MR. MORLEY: I think the hon. Member is giving information rather than asking a Question.

  Sleeping Sickness in Uganda.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the number of deaths in the Uganda Protectorate from sleeping sickness during the past five years; and if the Government intend to take any action in regard to the prevention of such disease.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): It is impossible to obtain accurate statistics regarding the mortality from sleeping-sickness in Uganda, but in a recent despatch the Governor has estimated the number of deaths at 200,000 during the past seven years. Every effort is being made by the Government to combat the disease by scientific investigation under the direction of the Royal Society, by local administrative measures, and by international co-operation with the other Powers whose possessions in Africa are similarly afflicted.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (St. Andrews Burg's): Can the right hon. Gentleman say if this sleeping sickness is on the increase or decrease?
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is on the decrease in the locality affected, but not by reason of the means of curing it, but because of the exhaustion of the population.

  Norwegian Steam Trawlers.
  MR. A. WILLIAMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total number of steam trawlers registered in Norway.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): The information regarding the total number of steam trawlers registered in Norway is not at present available, but inquiry is being made, and the result will be communicated as soon as the information has been received.

  Bagdad Railway.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the reported activity of a Central European Power in connection with the pushing forward of the Bagdad Railway scheme and of the contingency of the balance of

  1561
  power in Asia Minor being thereby affected, he will consider the desirability of enlightening the public mind by laying some Papers upon the Table of the House.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Bagdad Railway Convention of 1903 has already been published in the Press; the actual progress made by the railway is known, and I do not see what further information could be given to enlighten the public mind.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOONwas understood to ask for an assurance that this country would not be definitely committed in connection with this railway until the House had had an opportunity of discussing the matter.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I can give no such general assurance.

  Piracy in the Persian Gulf.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Foreign Office have received any representations as to the prevalence of piracy in the Persian Gulf and on the China station; and whether there is reason to believe that piracy has increased since 1904.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: As regards the Persian Gulf, the answer to both Questions is in the negative. There was recently a case of piracy in the Persian Gulf, and the offenders were captured by one of His Majesty's gunboats and handed over to the authorities. As regards China, piracy has been prevalent on the Canton and West Rivers during the latter half of 1906, and during 1907; and, in consequence, a patrol of those waters was established in November last by the Commander-in-Chief on the China Station. The British vessels have since been withdrawn on the organisation by the Chinese authorities of what appears likely to be an effective preventive service of their own.

  Egyptian Provincial Councils.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the scheme for extending the power of provincial councils in Egypt which has been issued in Arabic, will also be published in an English translation;
  1562
  whether the expended powers now proposed for the provincial councils are to be other than advisory, and such as can be superseded by the Ministry of the Interior or the Council of Ministers; and whether, in giving the qualification for membership of a provincial council at an animal payment of £50 in taxes on land within the province for which a candidate is elected, this being the qualification appointed form mebership on the legislative council, the measure will deprive the provincial councils of the assistance of many Egyptians otherwise competent to render efficient services as representative of their constituencies.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have not got the information asked for, but I will make inquiries.

  Miners' Nystagmus—Case of Ralph Harrison.
  MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a miner, Ralph Harrison, of Stoke-upon-Trent, who claimed at the local county court compensation under The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, on the ground that he was suffering from a disease called miners' nystagmus; whether this disease has been defined and scheduled as a trade disease by the Home Department under Clause 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): My hon. friend has been good enough to send me a newspaper report of this case from which it appears that the proceedings were taken, not under the provisions of Section 8 which relate to industrial diseases, but under the other provisions of the Act relating to accidents; that the County Court Judge held that the case was not one of an accident, but advised the applicant's solicitor to consider his client's position in regard to Section 8. The provisions of that section were extended to miners' nystagmus by my order of May last, and, if Mr. Harrison was disabled by the disease, it was clearly under Section 8 that his claim should have been made.

  Coal Statistics.
  MR. GLOVER: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of tons of coal raised during 1907, and the number of days per week and hours per day from bank to bank in each of the inspectors of mines districts.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The number of tons of coal raised during 1907 was approximately 267,000,000. The latest information in my possession as to the hours of work in coal mines is that which was obtained for the Departmental Committee on the Eight Hours Day for Miners. I would refer my hon. friend to the appendices of that Report.

  Fatal Accidents in Mines.
  MR. GLOVER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of fatal accidents in and about the mines of the United Kingdom during 1907, the number of hours worked at the time of the fatal accident, and the number of non-fatal accidents during the same period.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The number of fatal accidents in and about mines during 1907 reported to the mines inspectors was for mines under the Coal Mines Acts, 1156, resulting in 1,239 deaths; for mines under the Metalliferous Mines Acts, 33, resulting in 34 deaths. Information as to the hours of the shift in which the accidents occurred is not available in a statistical form. The figures of non-fatal accidents in 1907 are not yet ready.

  Case of Dorothy Downing.
  MR. MONTGOMERY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at Leighton Buzzard Police Court, on Tuesday, 18th February last, a girl of thirteen years of age was sent by the magistrate to a reformatory for five years for stealing; whether he is aware that the theft was more of a childish raid; that the articles stolen were mainly of no use to her and have all since been returned; and whether, under the circumstances, he will take steps to hand over this child to its mother.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the sentence on Dorothy Downing (the only child of her mother), a child of thirteen, who has been sent by the Leighton Buzzard magistrate to a reformatory for robbery; and if he can see his way to reduce the sentence.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have made inquiry into this case, but am not prepared to take the action suggested by my hon. friend. It appears from the proceedings in court that the girl in question was sent away from school for misconduct, including intoxication, and that she has since been running wild and associating with lads of undesirable character. A month ago the girl was found beating her mother, who has informed the police that she is quite unable to control her. When she stole the articles for which she has been convicted she had with her two little boys, aged ten and eleven respectively; she herself is thirteen, and is described as precocious for her age; she appeared to be utterly callous when in court. The bench, which consisted of six justices, considered the question of sending the girl to an industrial school, but were of opinion that in the interests of the other inmates they were not justified in adopting this course. It appears to me that in committing the girl to a reformatory school the magistrates exercised a wise discretion, and that the training and care she will now receive offer the best chance for her future. The letters on this case which have appeared in the newspapers show a total misconception of the reformatory school system. The object of committal to a reformatory is not punishment but reformation, and the result of the work of the schools has been most encouraging.
  * MR. BYLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that last year this House with some labour passed a Probation of Offenders Act and does he not think this is a case in which the child might have been dealt with under the gentle operation of that Act?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The case was very carefully considered by six justices, who no doubt considered whether that was practicable or not.

  Unemployment in Canada.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the present or recent number and percentage of unemployed in the mining and metal industries in Canada.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): My right hon.

  Tables showing the state of employment in the Mining and Metal Engineering and Shipbuilding Industries of Canada during the month of December, 1907. (Extracted from the Canadian Labour Gazette for January, 1908.)

  This Table is based largely on the reports of the correspondents of the Gazette. The terms employed are divided into two groups, the order indicating the degree to which general conditions were favourable or unfavourable, as follows—

  (1) Active, busy, very busy.

  (2) Quiet, dull, very dull.

  City and District of Correspondent.

  Mining.

  Metal, Engineering, Shipbuilding.

  City and District of Correspondent.

  Mining.

  Metal, Engineering, Shipbuilding.

  Nova Scotia:

  Ontario (cont.):

  Sydney

  Very busy

  Active

  Brantford

  Dull

  Quiet

  Westville

  Very busy

  Active

  Guelph

  Dull

  Quiet

  Halifax

  Very busy

  Active

  Berlin

  Dull

  Very dull

  Amherst

  Very busy

  Active

  Woodstock

  Dull

  Quiet

  Stratford

  Dull

  Active

  Prince Edward

  London

  Dull

  Dull

  Island:

  St. Thomas

  Dull

  Quiet

  Charlottetown

  Very busy

  Active

  Chatham

  Dull

  Quiet

  Windsor

  Dull

  Quiet

  New Brunswick:

  Sault St. Marie

  Dull

  Active

  Moncton

  Active

  Active

  St. John

  Active

  Busy

  Manitoba:

  Winnipeg

  Dull

  Quiet

  Quebec:

  Brandon

  Dull

  Active

  Quebec

  Active

  Active

  Sherbrooke

  Busy

  Quiet

  Saskatchewan:

  Three Rivers

  Busy

  Active

  Regina

  Dull

  Quiet

  St. Hyacinthe

  Busy

  Active

  Moose Jaw

  Busy

  Active

  Montreal

  Busy

  Active

  Maisonneuve

  Busy

  Busy

  Alberta:

  Hull

  Quiet

  Busy

  Calgary

  Busy

  Quiet

  Edmonton

  Busy

  Dull

  Ontario:

  Quiet

  Busy

  Ottawa

  Quiet

  Busy

  British

  Kingston

  Active

  Quiet

  Columbia:

  Belleville

  Active

  Busy

  Nelson

  Very dull

  Dull

  Peterboro

  Dull

  Active

  New West minster

  Very dull

  Quiet

  Toronto

  Dull

  Active

  Niagara Falls

  Dull

  Active

  Vancouver

  Very dull

  Quiet

  St. Cathorines

  Dull

  Active

  Victoria

  Very dull

  Active

  Hamilton

  Dull

  Active

  Nanaimo

  Very busy

  Active

  friend has asked me to answer this Question. The information which my hon. friend requires as regards actual numbers and percentages is not available, but I have the information given in the Canadian Labour Gazette for January showing the state of employment in the mining and metal industries in various localities of the Dominion in December last. It is as follows—

  Weighing of Coal Trucks at Keighley and Morecambe.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received complaints as to the weighing of coal trucks at Keighley and Morecambe stations by the Midland Railway Company; and whether he will forthwith institute a full inquiry into the weighing of coal trucks, either empty or full at the collieries, or at railway stations equipped with weighing-machines for such a purpose, with a view to promoting legislation for such an adjustment of The Weights and Measures Act, 1889, as to secure honest trading between colliery proprietors and their customers by placing them under the same regulations as apply to retail coal merchants in regard to having to supply the full amount of net weight of coal that is specified in their invoices.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Complaints have been received with reference to the weighing of certain coal wagons at the stations named; inquiry is being made of the railway company concerned and I will inform my hon. friend of the, result. As regards the general question of weighing of coal wagons at collieries and on rail, various suggestions have been received and will be considered when any amendment of the Weights and Measures Act is under consideration. In the meantime I might point out that the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, would appear to expose to heavy penalties any person incorrectly invoicing the quantity of coal forwarded.

  Labour on the Donegal Railway.
  MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the excessive hours and under-manning of the Donegal Railway, managed by the Joint Committee of the Midland and Great Northern Railway Companies, whose servants are working under no properly graded system, some in uniform and some not at the intermediate stations, and from the station master to the miles man doing all and sundry work often up to fourteen hours per day; and whether, seeing that this want of system and consequent
  1568
  want of responsibility expose the travelling public to risk of accident, he will take steps to bring about such change in the working of this line as will give more confidence and comfort to all those who travel by it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Board of Trade have been in communication with the Joint Committee on several occasions with regard to the hours of their employees, and certain improvements have been effected. The matter will be kept in view. The other points to which the hon. Member refers are questions primarily for the consideration of the Joint Committee, but I shall be happy to consider any specific cases submitted to me in which the safety of the public appears to be involved.

  Procedure under The Trade Marks Act, 1905.
  * MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade can he state whether rules of court have been made for settling the procedure under Sections 12 (4), 14(6), and 35 (1) of The Trade Marks Act, 1905; and, if not, what is the reason of the delay.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: So far as I am aware no rules of court have been made under the sections in question. It has been considered that no such rules have been required having regard to Rule 121 of the Trade Mark Rules, 1906, and to the established practice prevailing at the passing of the Act with respect to applications to the court for the rectification of the Register of Trade Marks.
  * MR. BOLAND: Is it the fact that the Rules Committee have not met to decide on the issue of any rules?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  Employment in the Belfast Linen Trade.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the average number of men, women, and children employed in mills and factories connected with the linen trade in Belfast during the period 1898–1907, inclusive, the average wages earned by them, and

  1569
  the number of hours worked by them per day respectively; and the number of men, women, and children employed during the months of December, 1907 and January, 1908, the hours worked by them per day, and the average wages earned by them respectively.

  Number of Persons Employed in Mills and Factories connected with the Linen Trade in Belfast in 1901 and 1904.

  (Compiled from the Returns made to the Homo Office.)

  —

  1901.

  1904.

  Persons above 18 years of age:

  Males

  4,842

  4,755

  Females

  16,074

  16,682

  Young persons between 13 and 18 employed as Full-timers:

  Males

  1,647

  1,600

  Females

  3,523

  3,572

  Children employed as Half-timers:

  Males

  872

  682

  Females

  1,719

  1,269

  Total all Ages:—

  Males

  7,367

  7,037

  Females

  21,316

  21,523

  Grand Total

  28,683

  28,560

  Average Earnings per week in 1905, 1906 and 1907, and Earnings for one week in December, 1907, and one week in January, 1908, of Workpeople employed in Linen Factories in Belfast District.

  s.

  d.

  1905

  11

  3·3

  1906

  11

  8·2

  1907

  12

  4·3

  One week in December, 1907

  11

  4·7

  One week in January, 1908

  10

  6·4

  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am unable to give all the particulars asked for by the hon. Member, but I will give such information as is available respecting numbers employed and average earnings of the people employed in linen industry in Belfast. It is as follows—
  These figures are obtained by averaging the wages earned by about 16,000 operatives, including men and women, also lads and girls (half-timers and full-timers). The figures for 1905, 1906, 1907, are the mean for twelve weeks, i.e., one week in each month. In both the months of December, 1907, and January, 1908, there appears to have been a good deal of short time in Belfast.

  Vaccination Law.
  MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that the Vaccination (Scotland) Act, 1007, enables parents to avail themselves of its provisions whatever the age of their children may be, whereas the Vaccination Act, 1007, is not retrospective, he will introduce a measure to assimilate the law in England and Wales to that in Scotland.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): The circumstances in relation to this matter were not the Same in the two countries under the Vaccination Acts in force prior to the legislation of last session. In England, as my hon. friend is aware, a parent could obtain exemption from penalties for not having his child vaccinated if he satisfied two justices or a magistrate that he conscientiously believed that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of the child. There was no such provision in force in Scotland. Hence when exemption on the ground of conscientious objection was allowed by the Scottish Act of last year, it was necessary to provide for the case of children born before the passing of the Act; but there was no similar need as regards England. In future in both countries a parent will only obtain exemption if he makes the requisite statutory declaration within a prescribed period after the birth of the child. It does not appear to me necessary to introduce a Bill on this subject.

  Incidence of Rating on Land.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the aggregate amount paid in rates by agricultural property in respect of charges for Poor Law services, police, main roads, asylums, and education; and the amount paid by all other rateable property.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The amount of rates levied on the occupiers of agricultural land in England and Wales has not been ascertained for any year since 1895–1896, and I am unable to give the proportionate amounts asked for. But I
  1572
  have had calculations made which throw some light on the subject. I may point out that the amounts raised by rates for five purposes mentioned in the Question are obtained from poor rates and other general rates and form part only of the total proceeds thereof. As regards the charges for lunatic asylums and main roads, it cannot be exactly stated how much falls on the rates as distinct from the part which falls on Exchequer Grants and other receipts. In the year 1904–1905, the expenditure under these heads amounted to £3,500,000. As to expenditure on poor relief, police, and education, the amount estimated to have fallen on rates in the year 1905–1906 was £24,200,000. Calculated on the total amount paid in the year 1895–1896 by the occupiers of agricultural land on account of poor rates, and the smaller rateable value of that property in the later year combined with the much greater rateable value of other property, the proportion of the £27,700,000 paid by them would be about £1,500,000. This calculation necessarily disregards other changes affecting the incidence of rates which have taken place in the interval.

  Incidence of Rating on Personal and Real Property.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what was the amount contributed in rates, according to the latest Returns, for Poor Law, police, main roads, asylums, and education by personal property and real property, respectively.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: It is not practicable to give the information desired. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the rates are levied on the occupiers of real property. The question of the ultimate incidence of rates is one which has been much discussed, but I am afraid I cannot deal with it within the limits of a Question. I may, however, refer the hon. Member to the report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation and the papers published with that Report.

  Dangers of Glanders—Rotterdam Old Horse Trade.
  MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention

  1573

  has been called to an inquest held by Dr. Waldo on 18th February, 1908, on a man named Shaw, who was stated to have died of glanders contracted while shipping worn-out horses to Belgium and Rotterdam for human consumption; whether the evidence showed that such horses were returned in the shape of sausages and tinned meat, and that though such food might be cooked it was Impossible wholly to destroy the germs; and whether, under these circumstances, his Department will take immediate action with a view to removing possible danger of spreading disease.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My attention has been called to the inquest referred to. I understand that one of the witnesses thought that to some small extent sausages made abroad from horseflesh were exported to this country, but I am informed that he did not say that horseflesh was returned to this country in tins. I am advised that the bacillus of glanders if present in meat, would not be destroyed if the cooking of the meat was imperfectly carried out, but that cooking which heated the meat to 55° Centigrade for ten minutes might kill the bacillus. As I stated in reply to a previous Question the importation of sausage meat is receiving my consideration in connection with the regulations which I am pre-paring under the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act of last session.

  Overcrowding of Poplar Workhouse.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if his attention has been called to the overcrowding at the Poplar workhouse, and to the fact that in consequence a number of the inmates are sleeping on the floor; and if he intends to take any action in the matter.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My attention has been called to the overcrowding at the Poplar Workhouse, and in consequence I assented in December last to the proposal that the buildings at Forest Gate which belong to the guardians and which were formerly used as a school should be opened as an additional workhouse. The necessary arrangements for the use of the buildings for this purpose have been pressed on with all practicable
  1574
  speed, and I understand that by the 8th instant seventy-eight able-boded men had been accommodated there, that the number had been increased to 132 on Sunday last, and that fifty more were to go there yesterday. I hope that the pressure will be removed at an early date.

  La Plata Cattle Trade.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether it has come to the knowledge of the Board that 15 per cent. of the cattle slaughtered in La Plata for exportation into Great Britain and Ireland are tuberculous; if not, will the Board have inquiries made through disinterested parties; and will the Board have extensive tests made for tuberculosis in imported La Plata beef, as it is well known that 15 per cent. is a low estimate of the tuberculous beef exported from Buenos Ayres.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Perhaps I may reply to this Question. It has not come to the knowledge of the Local Government Board that 15 per cent. of the cattle slaughtered in La Plata for exportation to the United Kingdom are tuberculous and their information would not lead them to suppose that such was the case. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to supply me with any evidence in his possession in relation to this subject.

  Liability for Maintenance of Parents.
  SIR GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he is aware that a labourer named Pentney, in the receipt of 15s. a week, was recently adjudged to pay first 1s. and then 6d. per week by the guardians of the Docking Union towards the maintenance of his father, and upon pleading inability to pay was summoned; that four justices unanimously decided they were not satisfied as to his ability and declined to make an order, and in consequence the guardians took off 1s. per week from the old people's relief; and whether, in view of the amending Acts giving discretion to the justices, he is prepared to amend the original Acts, so as to prevent them being applied to labourers at 15s. per week and at

  1575
  the same time stop the guardians from indirectly overriding the decision of the justices.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My hon. and learned friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I am aware of the case referred to in it. I am informed that the son was earning 15s. a week, that his wife earned 1s. a week by washing and at times more, that he had two children, one living at home and earning 6s. a week, the other being in domestic service. I am also informed that the father came before the guardians and stated that his son never gave him anything, and that the guardians took off a shilling a week from the relief in the hope that this would induce the son to contribute to the maintenance of his parent. Such, however, was not the case, and I find that the guardians have now granted the father the extra shilling a week, and have informed the son that they hope he will contribute 6d. to wards it. As I have stated on previous occasions, the subject of contributions by relatives is before the Poor Law Commission, and, pending their Report, I do not propose to introduce legislation with regard to it.
  SIR GEORGE WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the guardians have passed a resolution that if the relief is again withdrawn the son shall be prosecuted?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have no information as to that.

  Hackney Postal Districts.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that in the official Post Office Guide for January 1908, between pages 690 and 691, there is a map showing the postal districts of London, whereon Hackney is represented as being in the Eastern (E.) district, whereas on page 658, under the heading Postal District, Hackney is described as being in the north-eastern (N.E.) district; whether he is aware that no such district is shown on the said map; whether he will explain the reason for this apparent discrepancy; and whether, for the convenience of persons having correspondence with the Hackney district and for the guidance
  1576
  of the Hackney Borough Council, he will state which of the two descriptions is the correct one.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): The Eastern and North-Eastern Postal Districts were amalgamated for administrative reasons over forty years ago, and this arrangement is still in force. In 1888, however, in deference to the wishes of the inhabitants, permission was given to use the initials N.E., to designate places formerly comprised in the North-Eastern District. A statement to this effect will be found on page 636 of the Post Office Guide in the explanatory notes preceding the list of principal London streets, and arrangements have been made for the insertion in the next issue of a similar note on page 691, facing the map of the London Postal District.

  Post Office Circular on the Hobhouse Revision.
  MR. VIVIAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will place in the Library a copy of the Post Office Circular containing the recent announcement of the stops he is taking to carry into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants; and whether he will supply a copy of this Circular to any hon. Member who applies to him.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have placed copies of the Post Office Circular in the Library, and I shall be very glad to supply a copy to any hon. Member who applies for it.

  School Building Grants.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether any preliminary information has been given by the Board of Education to any local authorities as to the amount of building grants they may expect to get after the Board has decided that the proposed schools are necessary.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): Preliminary information has, in some cases, been given as to the amount of grant which might be payable if the school was decided by the

  1577
  Board to be necessary and if the regulations were found to be complied with.

  School Building in Wales.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if local authorities in Wales are acquiring sites and beginning to build schools before any decision has been given, under Sections 8 and 9 of the Education Act, 1902, as to the necessity of such schools, and in some cases before the period of three months required by the Act has elapsed; and whether such action would be within the power of a local authority or would have the approval of the Board.
  MR. McKENNA: The Board are aware that several local education authorities in Wales entered into provisional contracts for the acquisition of sites before the expiration of the period of notice required by Section 8 of the Education Act, 1902, but they have no reason to believe that any authority started building operations before the Board's decision upon the necessity of the school had been given. In any case no such action as the hon. Member refers to would be allowed to influence the Board in deciding as to the necessity or otherwise of any school.

  Board of Agriculture Offices.
  MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can state what steps, if any, the Government have taken or have in contemplation with a view to securing improved accommodation for the Board of Agriculture.
  I beg also to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the inquiry promised by him into the status of various Government Departments will embrace the question of the urgent need for better accommodation of the Board of Agriculture, and the possibility of housing this Department in one building, suitable to the importance of its functions rather than, as at present, in three totally inadequate offices situate at a considerable distance from each other.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT, Lancashire, Rossendale):
  1578
  The matter is engaging my earnest attention; it is, however, a large question, and I am not at present prepared to make any statement on the subject. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires me to add, in reply to the Question put down by the hon. Member to him, that he thinks this matter had better be dealt with apart from the general subject referred to.

  Boy Clerks in the Civil Service.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the scheme announced by the Government for the future arrangements as to boy clerks in the Civil Service has been under consideration for sixteen months, and when he proposes to make it known to the House; and whether he will afford an opportunity to the House of discussing it before it becomes operative.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: At the same time may I ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any reply has yet been sent to the memorial submitted by the boy clerks in the Civil Service in September, 1906; and, if not, what is the reason for the delay; and why no action has yet been taken to lessen the hardship to the boys, and the waste of time and money caused by the policy of admitting into the public service and training for their duties numbers of boys who have no prospect of permanent employment.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury): The question of reducing the number of boy clerks is one of great difficulty, and I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any definite statement on the subject. But the matter will not be lost sight of.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: When does the hon. Gentleman expect to be in a position to give an answer? The matter has now been under consideration fifteen months.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: When I have arrived at a decision, I shall be glad to communicate it to the House.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Has the hon. Gentleman no idea how long hence that will be?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I cannot make any promise.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, why, in view of his assurance that measures are in contemplation to reduce the number of boy clerks in the Civil Service, two examinations of large numbers of candidates for boy clerkships were held in September, 1907, and January, 1908, respectively.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The existing demand for boy clerks must be met until arrangements can be made for substituting some other kind of labour.

  Budget and the Stamp Duties.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the expediency of imposing a small ad valorem stamp duty upon all share certificates in joint stock companies.
  MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. ASQUITH): Certainly, Sir.

  The Budget.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Budget will be introduced before Easter.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend is not yet in a position to make any statement as to the date of the introduction of the Budget.

  Royal Gardens at Kew.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset hire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state the salaries and allowances, if any, of the director, assistant director, and curator of the Royal Gardens at Kew.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Somersetshire, S.): The salary of the Director is £1,000 per annum, with residence rent free; that of the Assistant Director is £500—£20—£700 per annum, and that
  1580
  of the Curator is £300—£10—£100 per annum with residence rent free.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: Then I can take it there is no other remnneration?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Yes.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somersetshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state whether the men employed as gardeners in the Royal Gardens at Kew do the whole of the practical work in cultivation of the plant collections under glass, and also a large proportion of the hardy groups; whether the hours of such men are from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. in summer, and from daylight to dark in winter; and whether it is the intention of the Government to increase the pay of such men from 21s. per week to 24s. per week, as is paid to the labourers.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The duties and hours of work of the gardeners at Kew are practically as stated in the Question. They are employed on the average of the whole year for fifty-four and-a-half hours a week. Their work is, of course, done under close supervision. The amount of their pay was recently the subject of careful consideration, and it was decided that, regard being had to the advantages obtained by these young men from their training at Kew, the sum of 21s. a week is sufficient to attract the class of men required and to provide them with adequate means of subsistence.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: Is it not the fact that large numbers of men who have been working at Kew for twenty years are at present out of employment?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I should like notice of that.

  Cattle Disease—Imports of Foreign Fodder.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth

  1581
  disease; and whether he has any evidence to justify the widespread belief in agricultural districts that the disease was imported with foreign hay or straw.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The reply is in the affirmative to both questions. I may perhaps be allowed to add that my noble friend proposes to issue an Order prohibiting the importation of hay and straw from certain countries, from which there is a danger of the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease by means of those articles. The Order will not apply to hay or straw used for packing merchandise and manufactured straw not intended for use as fodder or litter. Hay or straw landed for non-agricultural purposes will be allowed to be landed with a licence. The imports of these articles from the countries concerned are small, in the case of hay, less than half 1 per cent. of our total supplies.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Arising out of that reply I wish to ask whether it is true that a fresh outbreak as it is described in The Times of to-day of the dreaded foot-and-mouth disease was discovered in Edinburgh on Sunday night, at Balbirnie Place, Murreyfield. And whether it is the fact, as stated, that the majority of the animals at Balbirnie Place, were bought in Edinburgh on 5th February, the day after the suspicious symptoms were discovered, among Mr. Roberston's Elvanbank herd and that, so far as is known, none of the animals had been in contact with anyone working at Elvanbank. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the shortness of my notice, but if he can give a reply it may relieve a good deal of anxiety.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYreplied that it was the case that another outbreak had occurred. The disease was discovered on premises about half a mile away from where the first outbreak occurred among animals belonging to the same owner. On 5th February all the animals that had been bought on 4th or 5th February were inspected by officers of the Board and were then found to be perfectly healthy. The origin of the outbreak was uncertain at the present
  1582
  moment, but they knew for certain that the animals were not fed on any imported fodder. Twenty-one cows were affected. They were valued and by this time had no doubt been slaughtered.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Has the hon. Gentleman any information as to the cause of the outbreak?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: It is suspected that the disease must have been carried in some indirect way.
  MR. COURTHOPEasked whether, in view of the fact that the former outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was traced to imported hay and straw used for packing furniture, the Government would so amend the Order as to make it apply to all hay and straw imported into the country.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid that though the prohibition only applied to hay and straw used as fodder or for bedding, hay and straw used for commercial purposes must be landed under licence and regulation.
  MR. COURTHOPE: Is it not a fact that the former outbreak was traced to hay and straw imported in the packing of German furniture?
  SIR W. J. COLLINSasked whether the diagnosis was based on the naked eye appearance of the disease, or whether any micro-organism had been discovered.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid it was doubtful whether any organism had been discovered.

  Norwegian Steam Trawlers at Grimsby.
  MR. A. WILLIAMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what is the approximate number of steam trawlers under the Norwegian flag which fish regularly from Grimsby and other English East Coast ports?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): The number of trawlers answering to the description given in my hon. friend's Question fishing in the Moray Firth appear to be fourteen. They all fish from Grimsby.

  Scottish Education Bill.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is his intention to introduce an Education Bill for Scotland this Session.
  The following questions on the same subject were also asked—
  MR. SMEATON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he intends to introduce an Education Bill for Scotland during the present Session; and can he say at what stage of the session it will be introduced.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: To ask the Prime Minister, what Bills it is proposed to send this session to the Scottish Grand Committee; whether he is aware that five Bills dealing with education in Scotland have been introduced to Parliament during the last seven years, and that failure to proceed with these measures has caused inconvenience to educational authorities in that country: and whether he will, under these circumstances, consider the advisability of introducing another Bill dealing with this subject and sending it to the Scottish Grand Committee at an early date.
  MR. SINCLAIR: This subject is at present under close consideration. It does not seem advisable to introduce such a Bill unless sufficient Parliamentary time is likely to be available to permit its being considered and passed into law. I hope to be able to make a definite announcement upon the matter before the Easter Recess. In reply to the remainder of the question of my hon. friend the Member for the Central Division of Edinburgh, I need only add that I believe the facts to be as he has stated: that the inconvenience to which he alludes is best met, as I have no doubt he will agree, by the course proposed, and that, as he is aware, the Standing Orders on the subject establish a general rule by which all Scottish Bills go up to the Scottish Grand Committee.
  MR. GULLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that an equivalent is given to Scotland
  1584
  for the money allotted to England under the Education Bill?
  MR. SINCLAIR: That certainly will be considered.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: Am I to accept this as an answer to my question which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to postpone?
  MR. SINCLAIR: If you please, Sir.

  Sale of Diseased Meat at Hamilton.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the prosecution of a Hamilton butcher, in December last, for offering for sale diseased meat; whether he is aware that the meat had been passed by the Hamilton officials and that Dr. Dittmar had just previously reported favourably on the system of inspection in that town; and whether he now proposes, in view of these facts, to appoint a man with practical experience to supervise the work of the meat-inspecting officials in the different local authorities.
  MR. SINCLAIR: My attention has not previously been called to the prosecution referred to by my hon. friend, so my information is confined to what he now gives me. The Local Government Board report upon the subject of meat inspection in Scotland is now being printed and such points will be considered.
  MR. WATT: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet received the report of Dr. Dittmar?
  MR. SINCLAIR: That is the report to which I refer.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman have inquiries made throughout Scotland as to the practice of offering dying cattle for sale in public yards?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I hope the hon. Member will find that subject dealt with in the report.

  Small Holdings in Scotland.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will consider what Amendment, if any, is necessary in the Small Landholders Bill to enable cottars, fishermen, and agricultural labourers, to obtain a small holding; and if he will bear in mind the decision of the court in Gilman v. Peterson, by which, owing to some ambiguity of words, probably the majority of crofters were placed at great disadvantage.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Subsection (1) of Clause 9 of the Bill was designed to meet the decision referred to by the hon. Member and I think it does so. As regards cottars, fishermen and agricultural labourers, they have the same right to apply for a small holding as anyone else and to obtain one if duly qualified.
  MR. CATHCART WASONasked whether it was possible under the provisions of the Bill as it stood for a landlord to decline to accede to an application.
  * MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member should raise that point on the Bill itself.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I have no chance.

  Land Purchase in County Donegal.
  MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say how much land have the tenants purchased by agreement from their landlords in the County Donegal, under the Land Act of 1903, up to the end of 1907; what was the amount of the purchase money; and if he can say what is the acreage of untenanted agricultural land available for purchase in the County Donegal at present.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): Up to 21st February instant, purchases had been completed in County Donegal in respect of 47,305 acres of land, the total purchase price being £432,699, and the number of purchasing tenants 1,175. In addition, purchase agreements
  1586
  in respect of 4,357 holdings had been lodged, but as these have not yet been dealt with, particulars of the area and purchase price have not yet been tabulated. The area of the untenanted land purchased or agreed to be purchased is 602 acres, and the Estates Commissioners are negotiating for the purchase of 505 acres more. The Commissioners cannot say what the area of the untenanted land available for purchase in the county may be.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants in Donegal.
  MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of evicted tenants that have been reinstated by their landlords in County Donegal, and if he can state how many were reinstated as future tenants and debarred from entering the Land Court to have a fair rent fixed under the Land Act of 1881; and if he will in his promised legislation provide a means by which these future tenants can enter the Court and have a fair rent fixed by the Land Commission for their holdings.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that, so far as they can ascertain, fifty-eight evicted tenants have been reinstated in their former holdings in County Donegal by the landlords, but the Commissioners cannot say how many of these are future tenants. As regards possible legislation in respect of future tenants I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. friend to the similar Question of the hon. Member for West Donegal on 12th instant.

  Ballingcary Estate, County Cork.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of James Talbot Power, of Ballingcary, County Cork, has been filed with the Estates Commissioners for purchase; if so, when may an inspection of it be expected; has the claim of a sub-tenant named Jeremiah Sheehan, holding from John Creed, been received by them; and, if so, will it be referred to the inspector who is to report on the estate before it is finally vested in the tenants.
  MR. CHERRY: The purchase agreements in respect of this estate were lodged with the Estates Commissioners in August, 1906. It is not possible at present to state when the inspection of the estate will take place. Jeremiah Sheehan has been returned as holding a sub-tenancy under John Creedon, and the question of this sub-tenancy will be duly inquired into and considered by the Commissioners before the sale is completed.

  Rule as to Quotations from Official Documents.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask the Attorney-General a Question which perhaps he will be able to answer without notice? He may remember that in speaking the other day, he quoted from some Irish Report, and in accordance with practice I asked whether he would lay the Report from which he quoted in its entirety, on the Table of the House. He assured me he would do so, as indeed he is obliged by the practice of the House. I am not aware if it has yet been laid, and I shall be glad to know how soon it will be in our hands.
  MR. CHERRY: I should like to have notice of that Question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Very well; I have no desire to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman.

  Strabane Church Lotteries.
  MR. BOTTOMLEYhad on the Paper the following Question:—"To ask Mr. Attorney - General whether his attention has been called to tickets distributed in this country for what is described as an art union drawing in connection with St. Mary's Church, Melmount, Strabane, in which £1,500 worth of prizes are offered, the first of them being stated to be of the value of £100; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Lottery Act, he will say what steps he proposes to take in the matter."
  When his name was called, the hon. Member said an intimation had reached him that the Question should have been addressed to the Attorney-General for
  1588
  Ireland. As, however, he thought he had no right to interfere in Irish affairs, he begged to withdraw it.

  Cheque Signatures in Irish.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Bank of Ireland, which is the Government Bank in Ireland, accept from their customers cheques signed in Irish; whether the Postmaster-General honours, or is prepared to honour postal orders signed by the payee in Irish; whether the collectors of Inland Revenue in Ireland receive, or are prepared to receive, applications for gun and other licences written or signed in Irish; whether the Government have decided to regard Irish in the future as the commercial banking language of Ireland; and whether it is their intention to instruct the collectors of Customs and Inland Revenue, postmasters, and other Government officials in Ireland to issue notices to the public accordingly in Irish and English.
  MR. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that all sensible banks in this country are quite willing to accept customers who sign their cheques in Irish? If he wishes, I can give him specific information on this point.
  MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. ASQUITH): The relations between the Bank of Ireland and its private customers are not under the control of the Government, and I have no information as to the practice of that Bank with regard to the signatures of its customers' cheques. As regards postal orders, I am informed by my right hon. friend that the Rule is: "If the payee's name be written in characters other than English, the order may be paid, provided that the signature is in similar characters, and appears to agree with the name of the payee as shown in the body of the order. If an order in which the payee's name appears in English characters be receipted by a signature written in another character which the paying officer cannot decipher, the order may be paid if the paying officer is satisfied of the identity of the payee and of the fact that the writing is his signature. The paying officer

  1589
  should add to his signature the words 'known as—' or 'identified as—', as the case may be." In the case of gun and other licences, where the English name and address of an applicant is known to the Inland Revenue officers, they would not refuse to issue a licence on the ground that the application is not made in English. Where however the English name and address is not known, the application must be signed in English before the licence can be issued. The question whether Irish is in the future to be "the commercial banking language" appears to me to be one to be decided by the commercial and banking community itself rather than by the Government. Up to the present it has not been found necessary to issue the notices referred to in the latter part of the Question in Irish as well as English.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Does the hon. Gentleman propose to issue any instructions on the subject?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: No, sir, we do not propose to issue any instructions which are unnecessary.

  Irish Mail Subsidies.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that in the year 1899 the London and North-Western Railway Company agreed to accelerate the Irish mail train running from Euston to Holyhead in connection with the City of Dublin Steampacket Company's mail steamers from Holyhead; whether in that year the London and North-Western Company stated that they could only give the accelerated service if, in addition to the sum received for carrying the mails, they received a further sum of £6,500 per annum; whether this sum has been paid to the London and North-Western Railway Company annually since 1899; whether, according to the official time tables of the London and North-Western Railway Company, this so-called accelerated mail train takes five hours and thirty-five minutes on the journey to Holyhead; whether he is aware that since this subsidy was granted the railway company have run, and are running, a
  1590
  train without subsidy in competition with the London and Kingstown route, known as the London and North-Western boat train, which does the journey to Holyhead in less time than the so-called accelerated train; whether he is aware that, though this money was given to facilitate Irish traffic, the way in which that is done is by packing the mail train with people who are booked to intermediate stations on this side only; and whether, in view of the fact that the London and North-Western Railway Company not only run a faster train in competition with the subsidised accelerated train, but are proposing to alter the route of their steamers so as to bring them also into competition with the mail steamers, it is intended to insert in this year's Estimates provisions for the payment of a subsidy of £6,500 for a train actually slower than the railway company's own boat train.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: This matter has had my careful attention during the recess and I have arranged for the payment to the London and North-Western Railway Company for the train in question to cease as from 1st April next. The whole of the amount, however, will not be saved, as the payments to the company for the conveyance of mails in the year 1908–1909 will be increased by £5,500, in return for certain additional facilities to which the Postmaster-General attaches importance in connection with the company's Irish and other mail services.
  MR. MOONEY: Am I to understand that although you have taken away £1,000 from the London North-Western Railway Company, you have increased their grant for carrying the mails, and that therefore the company are practically getting this money in another form?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: That is not the case.
  MR. MOONEY: Is the House to understand that there is greater difficulty in carrying the mails now than in former years, and that that has caused the

  1591
  Postmaster-General to sanction an increased grant of £5,500?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: It is not an increased grant, it is a diminished grant, and any Question with reference to the arrangements for carrying the mails should be addressed to the Postmaster General.
  MR. MOONEY: Has there been a total saving of £6,500 on the one hand, and a further grant of £5,500 to the company on the other hand?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The total reduction will be £1,000.

  Gun Licences in Ireland.
  CAPTAIN J. CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Board of Inland Revenue, what has been the number of 10s. gun licences issued in Ireland in each of the five years, 1902–1903 to 1906–1907; and if he can state whether, apart from ordinary fluctuations, there has been a marked increase in the number of such licences issued since 31st March, 1907.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The number of 10s. gun licences issued in Ireland in each of the five years 1902–1903 to 1906–1907 is as follows:—

  1902–1903

  18,237

  1903–1904

  18,047

  1904–1905

  18,484

  1905–1906

  18,877

  1906–1907

  19,159

  As regards the last part of the Question, the majority of gun licences in Ireland are issued by Postmasters, and the Board of Inland Revenue inform me that they will not be in a position to give any information regarding the numbers so issued until the annual Return is received at the end of the financial year.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to the Assessment of Damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts." [Fatal Accidents (Damages) (No. 2) Bill [Lords.]
NEW BILLS.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL.
  "To amend the Law with regard to the appointment of Justices of the Peace," presented by Mr. Luttrell; supported by Sir Walter Foster, Sir Francis Channing, and Mr. Halley Stewart; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]
  SPURIOUS SPORTS BILL.
  "To suppress certain Spurious Sports," presented by Mr. Luttrell; supported by Mr. George Greenwood and Mr. Corrie Grant; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]
  CLERKS OF THE PEACE AND COUNTY COUNCILS BILL.
  "To amend the Law with regard to the appointment of Clerks of the Peace and County Councils," presented by Mr. Luttrell; supported by Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, Sir John Kennaway, and Sir Francis Channing; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Housing of the Working Classes, to amend the Law of Rating, and to establish Fair Rent Courts," presented by Mr. Bowerman; supported by Mr. Alden, Mr. Bell, Sir John Bethell, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. Steadman, Mr. Thorne, and Mr. Wiles; to be read a second time upon Monday, 6th April, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]
  PURITY OF MILK SUPPLIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To ensure the Purity of Milk Supplies of the Rural and Urban Districts of Scotland," presented by Mr. Watt; to be read a second time upon Monday, 23rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

  DIVORCE LAW AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  "To enable married persons whose wives or husbands have been sentenced

  1593
  to long terms of imprisonment, or are incurably insane, or who have been judicially separated for a period of five years and upwards, to obtain dissolution of their marriages," presented by Mr. Bottomley; supported by Mr. Walsh, Mr. Glover, Mr. Straus, Mr. Hugh Lea, Sir Henry Cotton, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Thorne, and Captain Kincaid-Smith; to be read a second time upon Friday, 6th March, and to be printed. [Bill 118.]

  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS FOR WIND ING ENGINEMEN) BILL.
  "To amend the Coal Mines Regulation Acts, 1887 to 1905, for the purpose of limiting the Hours of work of Colliery Winding Enginemen," presented by Mr. William Edwin Harvey; supported by Sir John Barlow, Sir Joseph Compton Rickett, Mr. Enoch Edwards, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Seddon, Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda), Mr. Glover, Mr. William Johnson, Mr. Albert Stanley, Mr. Hall, Mr. James Haslam, and Mr. Ashton; to be read a second time upon Tuesday,
  10th March, and to be printed. [Bill 119.]

  MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS BILL.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTin asking leave to introduce a Bill to appoint a Commission to inquire as to the need for the inspection of monastic and conventual institutions, said that in deference to the Speaker's desire expressed in private, due, he believed, to the fact that this Bill was identical with the measure introduced last year, he did not propose to make any speech in support of it. He would simply ask for leave to introduce the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to appoint Commissioners to inquire as to the need for the inspection of Monastic and Conventual Institutions."—(Mr. T. L. Corbett.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 101; Noes, 151. (Division List No. 22.)

  AYES.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Ferguson, M. C. Munro

  Perks, Robert William

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Radford, G. H.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Gretton, John

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Robinson, S.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Sears, J. E.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hills, J. W.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Hodge, John

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford East)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Clough, William

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Wiles, Thomas

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Willough by de Eresby, Lord

  Cowan, W. H.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  Marnham, F. J.

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

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Winfrey, R.

  Cross, Alexander

  Middlebrook, William

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Crossley, William J.

  Moore, William

  Younger, George

  Darlymple, Viscount

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. T. L. Corbett and Mr. Beaumont,

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

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Percy, Earl

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hall, Frederick

  Partington, Oswald

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Halpin, J.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Barker, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barnard, E. B.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Beale, W. P.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Rea, Walter Mussell (Scarboro'

  Bell, Richard

  Hogan, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rees, J. D.

  Boland, John

  Hudson, Walter

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Roberts, G. H (Norwich)

  Brace, William

  Jenkins, J.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire

  Jowett, F. W.

  Runciman, Walter

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Joyce, Michael

  Russell, T. W.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Seddon, J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Seely, Colonel

  Cameron, Robert

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Shackleton, David James

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lehmann, Rt. C.

  Snowden, P.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Summerbell, T.

  Crean, Eugene

  Machonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cullinan, J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down. S.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  M'Kean, John

  Tomkinson, James

  Dillon, John

  M'Killop, W.

  Toulmin, George

  Dixon-Harltand, Sir Fred Dixon

  Maddison, Frederick

  Ure, Alexander

  Duffy, William J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Walsh, Stephen

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Elibank, Master of

  Muldoon, John

  Watt, Henry A.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nicholls, George

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ferens, T. R.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hn. G. (York, W. R

  Fullerton, Hugh

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gardner, Ernest

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Williamson, A.

  Gill, A. H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  O'Grady, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon)

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Malley, William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Resolution agreed to.

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) [SALARIES, ETC.].
  Resolution reported: "That, for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to encourage the formation of Small Agricultural Holdings in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise—(i.) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the salaries of the chairman and of each of the other members of the Land Court; (ii.) the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of: (a) The salaries and
  1596
  remuneration of the Agricultural Commissioners and other persons appointed or employed by them and by the Land Court, and the expenses incurred by the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners in the execution of their duties; (b) an annual sum not exceeding £85,000 for the use of the Agricultural Commissioners; (c) compensation in certain cases to members and officers of the Crofter's Commission."

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think this is a fitting opportunity for the House to concentrate its attention, not upon the general merits or demerits of this Bill, but upon Clause 1 of the Bill, which has the effect of extending to the whole of Scotland the particular legislation provided in 1886 for a part of Scotland which is relatively large in area but small in population, backward in agriculture, and has no pretence to rival more fortunately situated areas in other parts of the country as regards general industrial and social developments. I am one of those who think that the provisions embodied in this clause are a great test of the capacity of the present administration for dealing with questions of social reform. Questions of social reform are in all our thoughts, but he must indeed be a novice in these matters who thinks that they are easy of solution, that they do not require the most careful consideration and all that experience and all that theory can teach us, and who does not view with dismay those rash, but maybe well-intentioned legislators, who rush into a question affecting immense interests and vast bodies of our population without the smallest apparent regard for the responsibilities incumbent upon them. I do not think in the whole history of legislation by a responsible Government there has been anything ever done that was more rash, more ill-considered, and more obviously foolish than this attempt to apply to the whole of Scotland legislation which was applied for very special reasons to a part of Scotland and which was derived, not from Scottish tradition, history, law, or needs, but from an experiment which has been tried in Ireland alone of all the nations of the world, and has been found to be a failure. What is the history of the Crofters Act in Scotland, which Act this Bill proposes to extend from the mountains
  1598
  and moors and the storm-beaten islands of the north and north-western part of Scotland to the whole kingdom? In 1881 Mr. Gladstone found himself face to face with something in the nature of an agrarian revolution in Ireland. He had to deal with it rapidly, and the particular ethical difficulty which met him was, in Ireland as in the Highlands of Scotland, that the tenant and not the owner of the land provided the capital necessary for the cultivation of the land, and that the buildings and improvements had been made, not at the landlords', but at the tenants' expense. The result was that property had really been created by two people, but was vested only in one. That difficult state of things could only be dealt with in one of two ways. It could be dealt with either by establishing a system of dual ownership, or by establishing a system of single ownership, vesting both the improvements and the land in one ownership. In 1881, Mr. Gladstone adopted the first of these alternatives. At the time he was face to face with difficulties of almost unprecedented magnitude in the government of Ireland. There were men on both sides of the House, and many Irish Members sitting then as now, below the gangway, who said that the true solution was not to be found in the establishment of dual ownership, but in the establishment of a peasant proprietary, or a system by which, instead of having two owners, there should be one owner and that owner the man who had created the improvements on the land. In that view Mr. Bright and others strongly concurred. I believe that Mr. Gladstone himself held that theoretically the plan he adopted was one which in the end was not likely to succeed. But he had to face an immediate difficulty. He adopted the Act of 1881 as an interim arrangement, as a passing phase in land legislation which was to lead at no great length, of time to a system of peasant ownership. I remember speeches of the present Duke of Devonshire in that sense, and I think it is not improbable that many statements by Mr. Gladstone can be found which support the view I have taken of the policy of the Government of that day. Time has shown that those who took that view took the correct view of

  1599
  the situation. The Lord Advocate has been apparently in communication with a particular official of the Irish Government. He wrote him a letter and got a letter in reply, which he read—an unusual proceeding, and I venture to think not a very dignified one—in which that particular Irish official said that good had been done by the Act of 1881. There are senses in which I think it is possible to maintain that much good was done by the Act of 1881, because the Government were face to face with a great agrarian revolution and the situation-had to be dealt with. But I do not believe that even the particular official to whom the Lord Advocate referred would maintain that dual ownership was a better system than single ownership. To maintain that proposition would be to run counter to the best of Irish opinion and to the most matured judgment that has been formed about Irish affairs by those who are not Irishmen, but who have been responsible from time to time for Irish administration. The Secretary for Ireland invariably tells us that he welcomes the operation of the Land Purchase Act. He regrets every obstacle which financial difficulties threw in the way of that Act, and he looks forward to the completion of the policy inaugurated thirty or forty years ago, and promoted by the great Act passed by my right hon. friend the Member for Dover, as the greatest of all boons that could be given by the financial credit and power of this country to the Irish population. That is the history of the Act of 1881, as it applies to Ireland. What is the history of the Act of 1886, which applied the same system to the crofting areas in the Highlands and islands of Scotland? Did the authors of that measure say it was a plan obviously of general application which they desired to see widely extended, but which they would try experimentally in one corner of Great Britain? No, Sir; the authors of the Act of 1886 found themselves in precisely the same position as Mr. Gladstone found himself in in 1881. They had to deal with a condition of disorder. They had to deal with a system of land tenure in which, broadly speaking, the occupiers had made and the owners had not made the improvements on the soil; and they adopted in the face of
  1600
  the same difficulties the same solution that Mr. Gladstone adopted. The same results followed. I do not deny that, as a transition measure, the Act of 1886 may have given some benefit to the Highlands. It may have conduced to law and order, it may have prevented some few cases of injustice—I think very few were alleged—it may have given tenants security for future improvements, it may have helped them to expend money which otherwise they might have been afraid to spend lest their rents should be raised upon the improvements which they themselves had created. But surely every observation that is applicable to the great theatre of Ireland is applicable to the smaller theatre of the north and north-west of Scotland. On a miniature scale, the problem was the same in all its characteristics, and I have always thought that ultimately the same solution, and the same solution alone, would adequately meet the case. But when you take this legislation, which had its origin in Irish land revolution, which was supported by something in the nature of a small Highland revolution against the payment of rent, based upon the economic fact that one man owned the land and another made the improvements, and propose to extend it to a part of the country where there has never been an agrarian difficulty, where the tenants do not make the improvements, where not one of the original justifying conditions can be found to prevail, then you are turning topsy-turvy—you are making hay of all the best traditions of legislation, and I venture to say you are showing yourselves quite incapable of dealing with problems of great difficulty, involving the future application of capital to land and the future interests of agriculture. Unless you can show that in the Lowlands of Scotland conditions prevail which make the experiment tried in the Highlands applicable, it seems to me your whole policy is utterly and hopelessly without justification. We are constantly told by those who are defending this Bill that the experiment of the Crofters Act has been so successful in the Highlands of Scotland that we should be foolish indeed if we were not to take advantage of so admirable a system, and extend it to all other parts

  1601
  of the United Kingdom. I need hardly say that that argument equally applies to England, but I do not mean to dwell upon that point. But let as treat it now as a Scottish matter. I do not mean after the manner in which it is treated by the Treasury Bench. The Solicitor - General for Scotland says, "What have Englishmen got to do with this Bill? We are dealing with a peculiarly Scottish problem; let us deal with it in a peculiarly Scottish way." Yes, but this is not a Scottish way; it is an Irish way, and it is a discredited Irish way. And, really, that is not all. Land tenure is a very large and complicated subject, upon which experiments have been tried and different methods adopted in different countries with different historic pasts and different conditions. Is there one country in the civilised world where any attempt has been made to find fixity of tenure or security for tenants' capital on the plan which the Treasury Bench has now adopted? The Lord Advocate or the Secretary for Scotland last week, in the debate on this Bill, said that in Denmark the system was one of peasant proprietors, but there were other plans for giving fixity of tenure, but he did not tell us what those other plans may be. I do not remember any. But is there any example anywhere of this particular plan? Have any of the other countries whose prosperity we envy, and in some respects desire to copy, adopted this system? Is it to be found in Denmark? Is it to be found in Belgium? Is it to be found in France? I have never heard of any such plan. In the United States. I need hardly say that this plan would be scouted as the most grotesque travesty of land legislation which could possibly be conceived. Therefore, the Government have no example to go upon except the example of Ireland, which has already been abandoned, and the example of this small corner of Scotland—small in regard to wealth and population—where it is alleged the experiment has had immense success. I am sceptical about the immense success. I do not in the least deny that it was better to have some solution of an economic and of an ethical problem than no solution at all. In that sense I believe the Act was better than nothing; but
  1602
  when I am told that all the improvements which have happily taken place in the Highlands are due to the operation of the Crofters Act it is drawing a cheque upon my credulity which I must absolutely decline to honour. Am I wrong in saying that the total amount of rents valued under the Crofters Act is not much more than £65,000 a year? I think I am right in saying £65,000 a year is the total amount of rents which have been fixed by the Crofters Commission. But more than half that amount is poured from the Treasury every year into that small district in Scotland. If there has been, as there has been in some parts of the Highlands, a great augmentation of prosperity, do you not think that some credit might be allowed for the fact that this House has voted large sums of money and for the effect brought about by the expenditure of these sums every year? Do you not think something might be allowed for the improved means of communication, for the guaranteed railways, for the improved railways, for the telegraphic communication, for the harbour improvements, and the money which the Congested Districts Board has at its disposal to spend every year? This £35,000 a year is more than half the whole rent valued by the Crofters Commission. If the condition of a population, which has a sum of money amounting to more than half the total rents poured into the district, at the expense of the Lowlands, is not ameliorated, then I think we may despair of ever ameliorating anybody's condition. I do not believe that the slightest examination of what is happening under the Crofters Act will justify the very rosy view and sanguine estimate which the Government apply to it. In the eastern parts of the Highlands of Scotland where the population and the climate are more closely allied and have more in common with Aberdeenshire and other portions of the Lowlands, I do not believe that the improvement in the crofting area is a bit greater than the improvement in the non-crofting areas which adjoin it. In the growth in wages, the improvement in houses, the improvement in education and sanitary conditions, or by whatever test you like to apply to prosperity, I do not believe you will find this marked difference between the parts

  1603
  in the Eastern Highlands where the Crofters Acts apply and the other parts of the Eastern Highlands adjoining where the Crofters Acts do not apply. And when I turn to the west of Scotland, is that an area on which the Secretary for Scotland and the Government can look with unfeigned satisfaction? I am not going into the controversy which has been raised over the treatment of Lady Cathcart by the Government or Lady Cathcart's treatment of those occupying under her in the crofting districts of the Western Hebrides. But there is one fact connected with her estate which gives cause for the deepest anxiety. It appears that in the last twenty years the population in Barra has grown by more than one-third, and it has grown in a way painfully familiar to every student of the congested districts in the west of Ireland. It has not grown because intensive cultivation has added immensely to the productive capacity of the soil, nor because new sources of industry have added to the wealth of the people, but by the well-known reluctance of the children to leave the crofts of their fathers, so that they prefer subdividing to either migrating or emigrating. Now, love of home is a sentiment which we all in a measure share, but every man who knows the history of Ireland and every man who has the smallest acquaintance with these islands of Scotland, knows that of all the causes of starvation and misery in districts so little favoured by nature and situated under such inclement skies, none has been more effective and deadly in its operation than this growth of the population in an area incapable of sustaining it. That way poverty and misery inevitably lie, and I cannot discover that the Government have shown the smallest perception of the danger which in spite of the Crofter Acts, is now threatening portions of the Western Highlands, or that they do otherwise than look with a kind of blind satisfaction upon these cases so big with the seeds of future miseries and destitution, and I fear even of future disorder. There is one more circumstance which cannot be left out of account. In contemplating the working of the Crofters Acts is it not true that a large number of the crofters greatly prefer being under the ordinary law to availing themselves of
  1604
  the privileges under the Crofters Acts, and these are often some of the most enterprising and vigorous of your crofting population? They greatly prefer being under the old terms with their landlords by which they can ask for assistance with capital and that co-operation to which they have been accustomed, and where the relations of landlord and tenant are really good and are certainly more conducive to the proper cultivation of the soil than anything you are likely to substitute. Therefore, I cannot admit that even in the districts where the Crofters Act has been a success, it is the kind of success claimed for it by the Government. It has proved a measure of advantage; it has produced a greater consideration for the law; it has in some cases helped improvement; but the idea that the Crofters Act has turned the Highlands and islands of Scotland into an agricultural garden is a pure vision that exists only in the minds of the Government and has no foundation in fact. Therefore, so far as the Highlands are concerned, there is no justification for an extension of the crofting law to other areas less suited to it and where dual ownership has not that ethical justification it may have had in the Highlands. Then I turn from the Highlands to ask what is the history of that part of the country to which you mean to apply this system of dual ownership. Has the agricultural history of the Lowlands of Scotland been a discreditable history? If anybody will take the trouble to read the history of the Lowlands of Scotland since the middle of the 18th century he will arrive at the conclusion that in no part of the world has there been a greater development in the science of agriculture; in no part of the world has the land produced more per acre of the staple crops, and produced them with greater success and by larger outlay of capital. You may say that may be correct as to the farmer and landowner, but how about the agricultural labourer? I venture to say you may search the world over and you will not find a more prosperous and a more independent body of men than the agricultural labourers in the Lowlands of Scotland. I am particularly acquainted with agriculture, as it is practised in the Lowlands, but I

  1605
  believe, with some slight modifications and alterations, the system prevailing there is the general system to be found over large areas in Scotland. And it is a system undoubtedly more beneficial for the agricultural labourer than the system which prevails in the Highlands, in Ireland, in England or Wales, or many parts of the Continent of Europe. I suppose the audience I am addressing is mainly Scottish and therefore acquainted with the system, but there may be some hon. Gentlemen present who do not know what that system is. There the contract between the farmer or the occupier and the labourer is annual generally, though sometimes it is for six months. The agricultural labourer does not usually move far from the district in which he was born and brought up and where his friends and family reside. He is within that district very movable. If he does not like one employer at the end of that term of contract he moves and enters the service of another. I do not believe in the subserviency of the agricultural labourer in any part of the United Kingdom, but to those who know the agricultural labourer to apply such a term to the agricultural labourer of Scotland is a ludicrous misapplication. During the year of the contract the agricultural labourer has a cottage in a place upon the farm steading, as we call it, conveniently situated for his work and he has it rent free. If he falls ill there is no diminution of his wages for six weeks. If he still remains ill after six weeks without being able to work he can retain his cottage rent free for the remainder of the year for which he has contracted to work. The wages are certainly above the average in other portions of the country, and in my own recollection the improvement in the houses of the agricultural labourers has been broadcast, and the whole character of the cottages in which they reside has entirely altered. Therefore, you have in the Lowlands of Scotland a system under which, as it seems to me, if you are to have hired labour on your land—and nobody doubts that it is an essential part of the agricultural system, though it may not be the main part—you are never likely to have it on a better plan and one more
  1606
  favourable to the independence, the security, and well-being of the class of agricultural labourer in whose interest you are chiefly concerned. There is no part of the habitable globe where larger sums have been spent by the owners of the soil upon buildings, cottages, draining, fences, and all the other necessary permanent equipment of a farm. Is that nothing? It is the main thing you have to look to, for agriculture differs from all other industries in this respect, that nobody makes a fortune by it. It has no great prizes. There is no prospect even of large interest on money expended. If, therefore, you want to get a great expenditure of capital, you will never get it by appealing to those motives which in other enterprises make men risk their fortunes. What are the Government doing? You have to deal with human nature as it is. What are the motive which induce men, whether on the Continent or in England, Scotland, or Ireland, to spend long hours of labour or vast sums of money, for no great remuneration, on the improvement of their land? It is the pride of possession, and it is the security. The owner of the land says, Both duty and pleasure, the responsibilities incident to my position, make it incumbent upon me to spend, even if unprofitably, money on the land I own. That motive has, in the south of Scotland more than anywhere else, induced landlords to expend vast sums of money. This Bill absolutely destroys that. The Government boast of destroying it. For they say to the landlords: You will be, relieved of the vast expenditure you have hitherto undertaken. Are you going to substitute for the motive of ownership another motive which will induce the small occupiers to expend money and labour upon the holdings which they till? You refuse to do that. In Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, you will get men to work, with their wives and children, hours which would hardly meet the approval of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, in order that their small holdings should give them a living, and should give for their sons the same source of pride which they are to them. You refuse to appeal to that motive. Having destroyed the interest of the large owner, you refuse to create the small owner.

  1607
  Having dried up one source of capital expenditure on the land, you proceed to dry up another. And you are doing this in a region of the country where there is no ground for drastic and risky remedies based upon the dangerous condition of the patient. The patient is flourishing. In the Lowlands of Scotland we have got through, without Government assistance, without vast sums of money spent by the Exchequer, a great agricultural crisis, without disorder, without discontent, and with less friction than has ever occurred in a great industry subjected to a tremendous and wholly unexpected strain. And this is the region where it is necessary to upset everything that at present exists, and to introduce into it a brand new importation from Ireland which has never been tried in any other part of the world, where, by the way, they have not been unduly reluctant to try land experiments. You are going to put the prosperous parts of Scotland under a bureaucratic heel in Edinburgh. A more foolish experiment has never been suggested by a responsible Government in this country. And this is a specimen of what we are to expect from this Administration in the way of social legislation. It is by this specimen of their ingenuity that we are to judge of the efforts they propose to make with regard to other great industries. It is in this spirit of rash and unauthorised experiment, of foolish obstinacy, that the Government, not content with introducing a Bill in 1906, not wisely and prudently anxious to bury it out of sight as decently as they can, reintroduce it practically without modification in 1907, spend the autumn in trying to flog up the flagging public opinion of Scotland, and, unmoved by argument, untouched by experience, incapable of learning even from their own friends in Scotland and England, reintroduce it for the third time, forgetting nothing and learning nothing, in 1908. An hon. Gentleman below the gangway, a supporter in a general way of the Government, informed us that the Bill was dead. The Bill may be dead; I daresay it is; but the example of the Bill lives. As a touchstone and test of the capacity of this Government to deal with difficult and complicated questions it is immortal. We shall not forget it; nobody will forget it.
  1608
  It is a test of their wisdom and knowledge, their power of learning from the experience of others, and their power of learning from their own colleagues on that bench. I occupied a quarter of the time on the debate the other day, and I regret to say that I have occupied a quarter of the time allowed to-day. But this first clause is worthy of many days debate. It stands as a permanent example of the ingenuity, the intelligence, and the caution of those who have devised it. Our duty is plain. It is to resist it now as we have resisted it before by every means in our power, and to save the most progressive parts of Scotland from the dead bureaucratic hand by which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends desire to strangle the greatest of our national industries.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I may, perhaps, be allowed to make a few observations in reply to the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the Committee. In discussing this Bill, ignoring differences of race, creed, religion, education and traditions, between the two countries, it is persistently stated that this measure is being founded on the model of Irish legislation, and that it is bound to lead to disaster to found a measure on that principle. But that assumes, in the first place, that the Land Act of 1881 is to be written down in history as a failure.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As a transition.
  MR. SINCLAIR: As a failure. It may be a transition or not, but as a failure. Everybody knows what led to the supersession of the Land Act of 1881 by subsequent legislation. In the first place, the Act of 1881 did nothing more than this—rightly or wrongly, it applied to Ireland the principles which had characterised the land tenure and farming of the most prosperous agricultural portions of that country. For generations that system had lasted in the north of Ireland, where to this day it persists to a large extent, and is the foundation of its agricultural prosperity. For what it is worth, though it is not precisely the model which is adopted in this Bill, history does not condemn the

  1609
  Ulster tenant right custom. That custom stands as a successful tenure which has led to agricultural progress and prosperity. The real truth is that in regard to the Act of 1881 it had to give way to the pressure which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. There were purchase clauses in the Act which had the support of Mr. Bright and the Duke of Devonshire, but the right hon. Gentleman did not mention that he himself, supported by Lord George Hamilton, came down to this House in 1883, and insisted that those clauses in the Act of 1881 had not been properly developed nor given a fair chance; and it was he and his Government who, in 1885, and in later years, introduced the purchase principle which made it perfectly impossible for the tenure under the Act of 1881 to be left undisturbed in Ireland. Owing, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, the Act of 1881 had not a fair chance, because they attempted to rum alongside of it the purchase system; so that we had pictures drawn for us of certain estates like the Dillon estate, where the tenant on one side of the line was paying rent under the Act of 1881, while a tenant on the other side of the line was paying a smaller rent under the operation of the right hon. Gentleman's purchase clauses, which gave him the fee simple of his holding. It is obvious to everybody that apart from the defects of the Act of 1881, what made that measure impossible was the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, the owners of land in Ireland—who thought they were not being fairly treated under the system of hire—to get, in their pride of possession, the full value of their property.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said nothing about pride of possession.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman said that, but it was the effect of the legislation of 1885 and of later years which made it impossible for the Act of 1881 to have a fair trial. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that the absurdity of applying this legislation to the rest of Scotland is not now suggested for the first time. When the Crofters Act was
  1610
  introduced the right hon. Gentleman himself clearly condemned it as a first step to the inevitable sequel of its application to other parts of Scotland. Twenty or more years ago a Bill was introduced into this House by a well-known representative of Scottish farmers, the late Mr. Barclay, with the object of applying fixity of tenure, and establishing a Land Court for the whole of Scotland. It is no new idea in Scotland, whatever it may be in this House. You will find that the Crofters Act did not deal with the same difficulties as those which obtained in Ireland, neither did it follow the same lines as the Irish legislation. There were rack rents, disorder, and evictions, but even with this similarity, there were radical and fundamental differences between the cases of Ireland and Scotland which preclude the supposition that they are exactly on the same footing, and that we are confronted by precisely the same difficulties. We have attempted in this Bill to meet what the right hon. Gentleman says is the ethical problem which he said confronted him, whether it is right and fair in the different conditions of the Lowlands to apply the same legislation as was adopted for the crofters' areas, where the small tenants had made their own improvements, and hand over the landlord's property in the shape of buildings and capital which he had put into the land. The question of whether it is just and fair is the question which we have endeavoured to meet in this Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman has never addressed himself to the point as to whether within the limits of this Bill a fair rent was to be fixed. We have made certain proposals under which we think this transaction can with fairness be carried out. We have submitted those proposals to the House, which has supported us by enormous majorities. The right hon. Gentleman specifically referred to the question of the success of the Crofters Act, but I will not labour that joint. Whatever the Crofters Act does, it certainly cannot alter the climate of the barren parts of Scotland, especially in the Western islands. No land tenure, no land laws can overcome the huge difficulties by which cultivators of land in those regions

  1611
  are confronted. It is no condemnation of cultivators in those regions if they cannot achieve the agricultural successes gained in the Lowlands. We have the problem of Vatersay and of Lews and other congested districts, and if the Crofters Act had contained powers for the creation of new holdings for devoting the land to the enlargement of holdings, so that they should become economic holdings, and for placing the crofters on the land, the House would have had a very different problem in Vatersay and Lews from what it is to-day. This Bill is not designed to supplement the Crofters Acts in these respects, but we trust it may. The right hon. Gentleman also alluded to another point. It has frequently been mentioned in this controversy as indicating the failure of the Crofters Act, namely, that a great number of the crofters under statutory limitations, remain outside the Act. There are something like 12,000 or 13,000 crofters who would otherwise be entitled to have a fair rent fixed who remain outside the Act. But it is no condemnation of the Act that this should be the case, and it would be no condemnation of this Bill which we are now laying before the House if that also occurred under it. It is a desirable thing in all respects that the tenants should exercise their own will, and if their landlords come to an agreement with them, and they care to remain on the terms which existed before, or on terms altered by consent, we see no reason why they should not do so. They are allowed to do so under the Bill, and they are allowed to do so under the Crofters Act of 1886. That is one class of crofter that does not have a fair rent fixed, and there are other classes of people, including those in the twelve excluded parishes, the crofters who are leaseholders and who are not admitted to the Act of 1886, and the purchase tenants in the Highlands and the proprietors of small holdings. They are all outside the Act, and it is no condemnation of the Act to say that all those who are entitled to have a fair rent fixed have not availed themselves of that privilege. The right hon. Gentleman then travelled to the Lowlands, and there we met the ethical problem which he mentioned to us. This is only going one step further than the agricultural
  1612
  holdings legislation takes us at the present time. When the tenant leaves his holding you recognise that he has some capital in his holding, and the capital is assessed when he leaves his holding. In fact you have what is in essence a Land Court set up to assess the value of the capital which the tenant has sunk in the holding and which by law he is entitled to take away with him. We go one step further in the proposal which we make which applies solely to small holdings and say you ought to recognise that capital throughout the duration of a man's tenancy as well as at the end. The right hon. Gentleman did not attach much importance himself to the definition of "crofter" and "crofting parish." They are purely arbitrary, I might almost say artificial distinctions. There is no obvious line, no obvious feature in Scotland by which we can recognise the crofter region from that which is outside the crofter region. If the case is strong enough, surely we should not allow these distinctions to stand in the way. What are the distinctions between the Highlands and the Lowlands in Scotland? There may be some Members who would call Caithness a highland county. It is nothing whatever of the kind. Except in the extreme west it is as purely a lowland county as any other in Scotland. The truth is that the Lowlands of Scotland are a strip running up the eastern sea-board and broadening in the southern parts of Scotland, but in every county in Scotland there is highland as well as lowland. There is lowland in Caithness and in Wigtownshire. There are highlands in Sutherlandshire and in Berwickshire. There are ten counties in Scotland of which half the area is highland. Four of them are in the crofter region and six are in the non-crofter region. It is quite impossible then to draw a distinction of that kind between the highlands and the lowlands. Therefore, when we recognise the evils with which the Bill deals we are perfectly free to consider the question on its merits. The right hon. Gentleman has never indicated his view of what the remedy should be for the state of things we are obliged to consider. He suggests that the Lowlands are a very prosperous part of Scotland, and that the agricultural labourer and farm servant in that part of Scotland is an independent and self-respecting man. I

  1613
  know he is; but the difficulty is, and farmers will tell you that is the difficulty, that there are not enough of them, and farmers in every part of Scotland are at their wits' end for labour. The very fact that these men are such good men and are so highly paid increases the difficulty. Farmers are not able to employ them. Everything has not gone very well with the owners of land. There has been a great fall in rents. Will that be taken as an indication of the smiling prosperity of the Lothians? The great fall of rent that is common to the whole of Scotland cannot be traced in other countries which have had the greatest agricultural success. Canada, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, which are supplying us with perishable farm produce which we hope these small holdings will rind success in producing, have suffered no fall of rents, and I cannot see that when there has been this great fall of rents, and there is this great scarcity of labour, and emigration, and land going out of cultivation, how the present condition of things can be defended as requiring no consideration and no remedy. The right hon. Gentleman says the patient is flourishing, but no one has been more eloquent than the right hon. Gentleman himself as to the necessity for some remedy for agricultural depression. This clause is founded upon Scottish experience, and it would be impossible for any Government to ignore Scottish experience when they came to deal with small holdings in Scotland. The largest experiment in small holdings in this kingdom has been the experiment under the Crofters Act—an experiment over a large area, and one which has met with a very large measure of success. How many families has it enabled to improve their holdings? How much capital has it not induced them to spend on inhospitable and difficult tracts of country? The real truth of it is that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon said in the Second Beading debate on the Crofters Act of 1886, it would be much more proper to try this experiment on the more fertile region of the Lowlands. And after the experience we have had in the Highlands and the northern parts of Scotland, we have all the more confidence that we may adopt the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman made. Surely, near the markets of the south, near great centres of population, where there is communication
  1614
  and transport, where there are large populations to feed, and where there is a much more genial climate and a much better soil, there is a more promising field for the application of this principle of security of tenure. The right hon. Gentleman questioned what I said the other day, and said that there was no way of giving security of tenure except by making the cultivator the owner of the soil. That is not so. If he will examine the history of agriculture in Denmark, he will find that the beginning of the agricultural prosperity of Denmark was under a system very analogous to the system which we have in this Bill. The peasant cultivators there were not in the first instance owners of their holdings, and it was only after some time, when they began to do well and accumulated wealth like other people, that it was possible, or that they desired, to become owners of the soil. And he will find also in various parts of England precisely similar tenures operating with success. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman proposes as a remedy for this difficulty, and whether he would put forward purchase as his plan. We have no objection to purchase, or to people becoming owners of their own holdings. They are perfectly free to become owners of their holdings, and county councils of Scotland are perfectly free to assist them to become holders of their holdings, and what is more, there is nothing under our Bill to prevent a landlord disposing of his laud as he chooses. He may equip it and let it or sell it for the purpose of small cultivation just as freely after the Bill has passed into law as he can at this moment. We interpose no obstacle, but the great obstacle in the way of any Government proposing a system founded on purchase is that the farm servants, labourers, and small holders who are likely to become cultivators of these holdings do not wish to purchase. There is no desire on their part to purchase. They have no means to purchase, and if the right hon. Gentleman will study the matter, as it has been my fate to do, so far as my opportunities have enabled me to do it, he will find that in England, for instance, men began with allotments and rose to be tenants of larger holdings, and then in time to come when they have capital like other people, if they wish it they put it in the purchase of the land themselves. But the beginning, the first

  1615
  rung of the ladder, is the tenancy system in some form or other. The Government wishing to make this a bona fide and honest attempt to meet the great evils which we are confronted with in the less populous country districts, seeing that the desire of the people generally, almost universally, is tenancy; seeing that it is only by that system that we can put it within their reach to put money into the land, to stock it, to till it and to use their experience in so doing, we have adopted the tenancy system. For my own part I cannot help believing, without exaggerating and without drawing deductions which are not warranted from crofter experience of this tenure, that this Bill has the prospect of bringing great benefits to the Lowlands of Scotland and to the country as a whole, and I would ask the Committee to bear in mind that there is a remarkable unanimity of opinion shown in this House and also outside in Scotland in favour of this view. I know we are not all agreed, and I am perfectly aware that there are exceptions on this side of the House; but I ask hon. Gentlemen to look back fairly at the history of any other legislative proposal which has been so long as this before the country and say if they can recollect a similar persistence and resolute unanimity in support of that measure. It would be a great pity if this opportunity were lost to Parliament to place this measure upon the Statute-book. Scotland will receive a serious blow if its wants are not met on this occasion.
  MR. J. F. MASONsaid that he was glad to hear the Secretary for Scotland say he had not a rooted objection to purchase. Up till now he had been under the idea that he was very much opposed to it in any case. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted Denmark as an instance of the success of the tenancy system; but that was hardly fair, considering that in Denmark fifteen-sixteenths of the whole holdings belonged to the people who cultivated them. Again, in France, whore small holdings had been a notorious success, ownership was practically the order of the day. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that nature had made a great difference between the conditions that prevailed in the north and in the south, and that it was not surprising that the people in the north could not do

  1616
  great things with their small holdings. That was the best part of their contention. Nature had made a great difference between the conditions of the north and south; but he did not think that it could be allowed that, because they could not level up the conditions of the north, they should level down the conditions of the south. The proposal to bring the conditions of the crofters into the entirely different area of the South of Scotland could only be justified by the success of the Crofter Acts in themselves and by seeing that the change would not do more, harm than good. In the north the landlords had not spent money on repairs and on the equipment of their small holdings as the landlords in the south had done. So far he agreed that this fixity of tenure in the north had been advantageous, because it had allowed the tenants to spend their money without fear of losing it. So far, so good. But he was not so sure that the Crofter Acts were such an enormous success as had been usually maintained. It was frequently urged that the crofters had spent very large sums of their own money. It was said that they had spent £150,000 in the island of Skye, but he did not know whether the crofters on the mainland had spent all this money or anything approaching the amount which had been mentioned in the case of the islands. But in spite of the money which it was claimed the crofters had spent themselves, and the enormous sums which had been poured from the public purse into these districts, the fact remained that the crofters were, as a class, living in a condition of poverty and hardship greater than that of any other class in Scotland. And yet it was proposed to convert other classes living in the south in a much more prosperous way to the conditions in which these people lived. What were the conditions of the south? There they had the landlords carrying out all repairs and finding the equipment of these small farms. Why did the landlords do that? They had heard it constantly said that the landlords would go on doing this. Why should they? Why did they do it now? Was it for philanthropic motives alone? Were landlords so much greater philanthropists than other people that they did this? He thought the landlords in the

  1617
  South of Scotland, like landlords in England, did the repairs and found the equipment on the farms because it was only in that way that they could retain their tenants and find new tenants when they wanted them. By one stroke they were going to remove the whole of that motive by giving a form of fixity of tenure which the landlord did not desire. What motive would he then have to continue to spend his money? He would not desire to keep a tenant, but to get the land back into his own hands if he could. 'They removed the motive for the expenditure of the landlord's money, and what did they put in its place? Only the expenditure of the tenant's money. So that they were going to take away from the tenant the advantage he had hitherto had of the expenditure of the landlord and throw upon him the burden of replacing the money out of his own pocket. This application of the crofter condition to the small tenants, who were in exactly the same position as small holders in England, had never been justified, and if they threw upon them the burden of equipment which was now carried by the landlord they would be doing them a very poor service.
  * MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that his right hon. friend had made some interesting admissions, but he still remained in the dark as to what the policy of the Government really was. No doubt the unanimity with which the Bill had been supported on that side of the House had been very remarkable, though the opposition in Scotland had been no less remarkable. But it was a great disadvantage that Scottish agriculture was not represented in that House. He could not rank as an authority. The Tight hon. Gentleman had told them that no landlord could know anything of agriculture or have any intimate acquaintance with the agricultural classes because he had never been a farm servant or a farmer. At any rate, he did not profess to be an agricultural authority, but he regretted that there was no direct agricultural representation in that House, otherwise the state of mind of the House towards the Bill might have been very different from what it had shown itself to be. One would almost imagine that if one was a land owner, or a farmer, or a farm servant, one was ignorant, that only an urban lawyer,
  1618
  or one who had no connection with the land whatever knew how to solve its problems. His right hon. friend had referred to the crofting statistics. There was a great deal in them which was applicable to the crofter districts, but very little which was applicable to the Lowland districts. The Member for Ross-shire had never concealed his opinion in season and out of season that the two cases should have been separated and dealt with separately. As to the Southern part of Scotland, the Member for West Fife had made the only speech that he had made since he came to Westminster in uttering a prayer to his right hon. friend and his supporters that well cultivated large farms should not be put into small holdings. He trusted the hon. Member would not be known as Single-speech Hope, but that he would pursue this matter, and perhaps it was one of those points upon which some impression might be made upon the Government. But, after all, this clause was the crux of the Bill, and they had been told that there could be no compromise upon it. He did not think there could be a compromise, apart from this clause, although there could be an agreement on a good many provisions in the Bill. The clause represented nominally an extension of the Crofters Act. What it really represented was a reversal of the whole Liberal land policy of the last twenty-five years, discarding all precedent and all authority and every kind of inquiry. The county councils had power to provide small occupying ownerships, but they had no compulsory powers; compulsory powers were not provided under the Bill, and that was one of the main reasons why county councils had been unable to set up occupying ownership, which was a form of tenure that was not to be permitted. The Leader of the Opposition had referred to this Bill as an example of the social work of the Government, a proposition which he did not accept, because he thought a great deal of the social work of the Government had been extraordinarily good. This Bill, however, was something rather apart from ordinary social work. He quite agreed that a great deal of the trouble they were confronted with now was owing to the neglect of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to deal with the amendment of the Crofters Act. If the machinery had been strengthened and the powers of

  1619
  the Crofters Commission increased, they would not be confronted with this Nemesis as a consequence of a policy of neglect. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of dual ownership in Ireland and in the Highlands. That system was introduced under conditions of agrarian agitation in order to legalise custom and to allocate joint rights. It was the recognition of a natural division of property which existed at the time. In the Lowlands of Scotland there was very little division of property unrecognised by the Agricultural Acts, except in exceptional cases, and they had therefore to consider not only any likeness between the proposed Bill and the Acts passed for the Highlands and Ireland, but also the condition of the Lowlands, and the conditions prevailing in the Highlands and in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Scottish agricultural system had broken down; but that statement was absurd, because the Scottish system, by virtue of its equipment was maintaining as large a population on the land as could be maintained upon it in a condition of economic prosperity, wherever the land was being properly cultivated.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The hon. Member begs the whole question when he adds: "wherever the land is being properly cultivated."
  * MR. MUNRO FERGUSONmaintained that there was no place in the world where the land was so well cultivated as in Scotland. He was aware that there were estates which were not properly kept up, and there were also bad tenants, but the agriculture of Scotland was the best in the world. A far larger proportion of England had been laid down to grass, whereas in Scotland the plough had been kept going at the owners' expense. Did the right hon. Gentleman imagine for a moment that he would succeed by adopting a proposal which withdrew the co-partner who provided four-fifths of the capital, namely, the owner? The owners had to find the capital for the equipment of the land because they were competing for tenants. He was at a loss to understand how the land was to maintain a larger population if they withdrew four-fifths of the working capital, which they must do under this Bill. Scottish agriculture never was
  1620
  doing better than it was at present. [An HON. MEMBER: Question.] At any rate he was entitled to his own opinion. Although rents had fallen 35 per cent., Scottish agriculture had been able to withstand the severest crisis experienced during the last thirty years. The improved housing and methods of cultivation, the progress of scientific agriculture, the beginning of co-operation, and the adoption of more business-like methods of conducting operations must carry one to the same conclusion, that agriculture was never carried on in a more progressive spirit than at present. That was the system which it was proposed to upset by this extraordinary anachronism of a Scottish Small Landholders Bill. They had heard a good deal about free sale and no free sale. In Ireland free sale was established not only because there was partial custom there, but because in no other way could tenants have obtained compensation for their improvements. Therefore, free sale was a logical element in the Irish Land Bill. In the crofter districts there was practically no agriculture, and the compensation was on a smaller scale. Consequently compensation for improvements became a logical part of the Crofters Acts. The system now proposed without free sale would collapse. He acknowledged that in many ways the Crofters Acts had done good. He had not troubled the Committee with his own experience, but he would now state it. He was associated with a number of small tenants who could come under the Acts if they wished, but only one of them had done so, and his was the worst conducted holding on the estate. One of his tenants had provided his own equipment, and his was about the best holding in the property, and he was not under the Act. For the rest of his tenants he had equipped himself, and they had all elected to remain outside the Acts. The Douglas Commission, after a full inquiry, reported that the Crofter Acts, while they had done some good for housing in certain districts by giving fixity of tenure, had had no effect whatever upon agriculture. There was practically no agriculture in the Highland crofter districts before the Acts, and there was none now. The Lord Advocate had drawn a picture of 50,000 people settling under this Act upon the deer forests. A small portion of the deer forests

  1621
  of Scotland might be used for crofting purposes, and there was a large area which might be used for afforestation; but to lead the House to suppose that they would maintain 50,000 people was absurd. The deer forests were now maintaining as large a population as they could possibly maintain under any system short of afforestation of the land. The statement of the Lord Advocate on this point was a stretch of the imagination to which nobody who was acquainted with the area to which he referred would pay the least attention. To note the full significance of this clause they had to bear in mind the past Liberal policy in regard to land reform. Last year they amended the Agricultural Holdings Act. They had had proposals made by which local authorities should have compulsory powers to take land, and they were supported by the whole of the Liberal Party. Then they had an Amendment proposed for the Crofters Acts giving compulsory powers and improved machinery. This was followed by Sir George Trevelyan's Bill, which proposed to extend the Crofters Acts to analogous conditions. There was at the present time an inquiry going on into the registration of title to promote the cheap transfer of land. All this tended towards the consolidation and strengthening of the agricultural system of Scotland, the maintenance of an economic standard of responsibility of management, the securing of the investment of capital, and freedom of access to the land for those fit to occupy it. With a few amendments and extensions that policy would be complete and it would be easy to get rid of the owner. It might be public advantage to strengthen the number of owners, but if they eliminated the present owners they ought to set up some alternative system in their place, and that was exactly what this clause failed to do. The clause was a travesty on all past policy. It applied similar treatment to opposite conditions on the Highland line, and opposite treatment to similar conditions along the English border. It transferred the investments of one man to another without security and did not permit of further investment of capital in the soil. It also eliminated the owner's initiative in the investment of capital. It compelled the small tenant
  1622
  to find £5 of capital for every £1 he had to find before. There was no security for larger holdings, because there was no independent valuation for holdings or equipment liable to sub-division. It destroyed all security against loss, waste, and deterioration, because it set up no responsible management in the place of that which it destroyed, and it replaced the economic standard of value by the standard of rent which the small landholder could afford to pay. If he could not afford to pay within 5s. or 10s. an acre what the present tenant paid, that loss was to be met by the State or by the individual whose property was taken for the service of the small occupier. It provided limitations which would hamper intensive cultivation, and it bolstered up what his hon. friend the Member for Peeblesshire had called the poor landlord, who was unable to perform his duty in equipping the land, and the incompetent tenant. The clause had no money behind it, and without a very large allowance it would be inoperative or it would be destructive instead of being constructive. It was said that it was "so cheap." He thought that it would be found in working very expensive. No doubt it presented some element of cheapness. It was that element of cheapness which would render capital unobtainable afterwards. They were told that the tenant's pocket would be opened by this clause, because the tenant must open his pocket to find equipment. He had never found any evidence of the tenant being willing to open his pocket to find equipment. If it was not found by the tenant, it would have to be found by the State.
  MR. SINCLAIRwas understood to say that the tenant did so under present conditions.
  * MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that, under present conditions, the tenant did not open his pocket. Let them take the Highland area to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. There he was able to equip his holding under security of tenure. He did not do it if he could get anyone else to do it for him. In the Highlands, where it had been the custom of the tenant to equip his holding, there was a much greater tendency on the part of the

  1623
  tenant to provide equipment then in the Lowlands where they had not been accustomed to do it. The Bill rendered the owner incapable of equipping, because no owner in his senses would equip under it. He said that advisedly, because he knew the conditions well. He himself equipped quite readily for his Highland tenants as co-proprietor, and he looked upon them and himself as part and parcel of the estate; but in regard to the small holdings under this Bill he would not think of equipping for tenants without an independent valuation in case of sub - division. The Government, therefore, fell between these two stools—they cut off the very man who hitherto had provided the equipment, and they did not provide it themselves. This clause had been founded rather, he thought, upon phrases and by turning a blind eye to facts. They were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the clause represented rather a matter of method than of principle. It seemed to him odd that, if it was a matter of method, all expert advice should be ruled out in promoting the clause and in refusing any change with regard to it. Who knew how, when, or where, the clause originated? He would like to know what authority there was for it. What agricultural authority had ever been given for extending the crofter legislation to the rest of Scotland? They were told upstairs that it was proposed by a united Government. But they found that it was not a united Government that wished to extend it to the rest of Scotland. They found Lord Tweedmouth demonstrating unfavourably towards it, and they found Lord Elgin retaining his seat so firmly that wild horses would not draw him off it. They had heard a great deal about the advisability of co-operation, which was taken as the ideal in many industries. He would like to know what better example of co-operation there was than that which they found between landlord and tenant in Scotland. That had been one of the most highly effective forms of cooperation, and yet they would destroy the one industry where it was a natural growth. They wanted the free co-partnery which this clause destroyed, and which enabled the man who found the
  1624
  bulk of the capital to associate himself with a competent man to manage the land. They could form nothing on this clause, because the only issue from it was agricultural deterioration, chaos of the agricultural system, and endless litigation between the nominal owner and the occupier. He had endeavoured to show how far they could go without destroying their agricultural system. He much regretted that he happened to be engaged in his municipal duties when the Bill which was drafted by the leading agriculturists of Scotland was before the House on Friday. That was a Bill which really represented the leading agricultural opinion of Scotland. It was not his Bill, but it was produced by the leading tenant farmers of the Highland Society, and the Chambers of Agriculture, and by other leading agriculturists on both sides of politics. He thought that on the lines of that Bill some compromise might be found. The right hon. Gentleman had recently developed a strange desire for compromise in another place, which seemed to be quite a new phase of Liberal policy. Much as he would like to see a good amendment of the Crofters Acts, he would like to see it on different lines from those proposed. It was upon very different lines from those they were asked to adopt that they would restore the population to the land, and do what they could to raise the status of the landward population.
  MR. A. DEWARsaid he understood that the proposition before the Committee was whether it was expedient to apply the principle of the Crofters Acts to the Lowlands of Scotland. The only part of the speech of the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs which appeared to him to be quite relevant to that proposition was where he endeavoured to show that the Crofters Acts had not been much of a success—he understood that the hon. Member admitted that they had had a qualified success—and, secondly, where he said that in the Lowlands of Scotland agriculture was as good as it could be. So far as the latter proposition was concerned, his view that that was an argument against all small holdings whatever, for if the condition now under the system of large farms was exactly what the hon.

  1625
  Gentleman desired, the best in the world, and the most successful that anyone had ever seen, why agitate for any change? But it was within his recollection that the hon. Gentleman produced a Bill every year to have that system which he said was so good rectified. The fact was that the hon. Gentleman had always desired some change, and he understood until to-night that he had always desired small holdings. It seemed that his view had changed in that respect. The real question to which the House must direct its attention was—had the Crofters Acts been successful? In order to ascertain one must try to realise what was the condition of affairs in the Highlands of Scotland before 1886 when the Crofters Bill was introduced. Anyone who had read the history of the Highlands of Scotland in the writings of Sir Walter Scott, Dr. Norman McLeod, and Professor Blackie, all of whom had one view, knew what the Highlands had suffered before the passing of the Crofters Acts, and that the people were under a tyranny more oppressive than any tyranny in Europe. That was the view of those thoughtful Scotsmen. The crofters were the most patient race in the world, and for many a long year the tyranny was tolerated, but at last just before 1885 the crofters rose in flat rebellion. The last straw had been put on their backs, they refused to pay any rent, and when an officer of the law went with writs to eject them they deforced and assaulted him and refused to allow him to serve the writs. The Government sent a policeman to quell the disturbance; they apprehended the crofters by the batch; they brought them to Edinburgh, they put them on trial and sent them to prison, and all that had no effect whatever. The rebellion still continued; the crofters refused to pay rent or to leave their holdings. The Bill of 1886 was introduced. The simple principle of that Bill was that a Land Court should be established, consisting of impartial and skilful men, and that they should say what the rent should be, that it should be fair and that the small holders should never be ejected. That principle acted like magic. The rebellion was at once quelled the agitation in the Highlands ceased, and the crofters from that day to this had been
  1626
  satisfied. The real test of the success of the Act was the contentment of the people on the land. The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Leith Burghs had both illustrated to the Committee how poorly off and how miserable the crofters were. He agreed that the land was the poorest in the world; that the crofters were confined to narrow spaces; that there was no room for extension of their holdings. True, the land they held would not produce wealth, but the people were happy because they were independent; and what more did the hon. Gentleman want? His point was that if that principle succeeded on that bare land, on that un fruitful soil, under those inclement skies, and if it had quelled a rebellion and rendered the people contented, the onus lay on the Gentlemen opposite to prove that these results would not follow if the system were applied to the whole of the rest of Scotland. That was really the whole case. Notwithstanding the series of propositions of which they had heard so much from the hon. Member for Leith during the past six months, he wanted an answer to the question: if a fair rent, fixed by a Land Court, succeeded on poor soil, why should it not succeed on good soil? He knew that hon. Members would answer: "Oh! the conditions were very different;" and they would talk about climate and soil; but again he asked, if the system succeeded on a bad soil and under bad climatic conditions, why should it not succeed with a good soil and under better climatic conditions? He asked hon. Gentlemen who had travelled in the Highlands to contrast the buildings that existed there twenty years ago and now. Formerly the crofter's house was a building a few yards long, in one end of which the crofter and his family lived and slept, and in the other the cows, pigs, and other animals were huddled. The building was put up by the crofter and his wife, and the walls consisted of stones fixed together with mud and the whole was not worth half a sovereign, Hon. Gentlemen told them that the Crofters' Act was passed to protect this building, which was not worth half a sovereign, and asked why not give the crofter the same tenure as the ordinary Lowland farmer got? That was not the

  1627
  reason at all. The reason was that the only way independence could be given to the crofter was to give him security of tenure. Was it the case, however, that in the Lowlands the landlord always equipped his farms and supplied the buildings at his own expense? He did not think that that was so when the case was properly understood. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs had spoken only of the case of the large landed proprietors. He knew a good many landed proprietors in Scotland who were not the best judges of what was good for their tenants. It was not the case that the landlords always paid for new buildings, but leased. If they erected the new buildings they charged the tenant 6 per cent. interest on the cost and could borrow the money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners at 3½ per cent. Moreover, when the lease came to an end the value of the improvements was included in the rent under the next lease. A landlord might get a small rent in proportion to the buildings on the farm, but the rent would be much less if the buildings were not in repair. However, that part of the argument was not quite so important as the other. With a view to prove that the Crofters Act was not successful, the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the agitation that was at present going on in the Island of Barra. He knew something of that matter; and he would like the Committee to know what the real facts of the case were. Fifty years ago the Island of Barra, some fifty miles in length, was entirely covered with small holdings. Adjacent to the Island of Barra—only a couple of miles away—was the Island of Vatersay, which was occupied by only one grazing tenant. Fifty years ago Vatersay was covered with small holders who were evicted from their holdings and the houses which they themselves had built. These took refuge on the extreme end of Barra. They were there not as small holders in the ordinary sense; they were not crofters but cottars, who made their Irving mostly by fishing; they had no land of their own. They were squatters, but never with the consent of the landlord, and now that part of Barra was congested to a great extent. In 1883 the Deer Forest Commission scheduled the Island of Vatersay for the purpose of providing small holdings
  1628
  to crofters, but the landlord refused to divide it. When the County Councils and Parish Councils Bill was passed in 1892 the Barra parish council petitioned Lady Cathcart to divide Vatersay into small holdings. She refused. Then the parish council petitioned the county council of Inverness to create small holdings in Vatersay compulsorily, which they had the power to do. The county council sent down a committee to make inquiry on the spot. That committee stayed nine days on the Islands and reported to the county council that the land on Vatersay was suitable for small holdings and ought to be made available. The county council of Inverness, however, refused to put into operation their own committee's report. That was an object lesson to those who declared that the crofters were themselves to blame. These people had no place to make a living out of the land, and although their own parish council and the county council committee recommended that small holdings should be provided for them on the Island of Vatersay, the landlord, supported by the county council of Inverness, refused to give them. Could anyone wonder that the people in the Highlands looked with suspicion on the action of the county councils in Scotland? Would anyone wonder, when the full facts were before the House of Commons, that they who represented Scottish constituencies should oppose any suggestion that the powers proposed to be given to the Agricultural Commission under this Bill should be taken out of their hands and put into the hands of the county councils? The real argument against Clause 1 had not been stated in the House, but it had been stated in another place and in Scotland by Lord Lansdowne. Lord Lansdowne said that his real objection to Clause 1, which was the essence of the Bill, was that it took from the landlord the precious power of being able to guide the destinies of his estate. He agreed; but he would observe that the estate had no destiny; it was the people on the estate that had a destiny, and it was their destiny that the landlord had in his power. He agreed that where they had a just and generous landlord like Lord Lansdowne; that might be the best form of government of an estate, just as it

  1629
  was conceivable that the beat form of government of a country might be that of an all-wise autocracy. But Lord Lansdowne claimed that power not only for himself, but for all landlords.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Lord Lansdowne never objected to compulsory purchase. What he did say was that while you left the estate to the landlord he ought to be allowed to guide it.
  MR. A. DEWARsaid he admitted that and would deal with it in a moment. He was only dealing in the meantime with the question as to whether it was a wise and prudent thing to leave in the hands of one man the right to control the destinies of another man. Lord Lansdowne claimed that power not only for the good but for the bad landlords. Was any man who had sufficient money to buy an estate to have the right to guide the destinies of the people he found on that estate? He did not think that that was a wise power for a man to possess, and if it could be got rid of with justice it had better go. The slave holders of old used the same argument. They pointed to the plantations and to the happy and prosperous negroes upon them, and said: "We guide their destinies; they cannot do it themselves." That argument took in many good people, even Mr. Gladstone himself. For a long time it was believed to be the only possible way, until ultimately it was realised that both the slave and the slave owner were better without a system of slavery, and it was done away with. The Leader of the Opposition had said that what the Bill proposed could not be done justly, and that it was confiscation to take this right away from the landlord without payment. He thought not. It was the right and duty of the State to regulate all private rights in the public interest. He said all private rights, and he thought our Statutes were an illustration of that because they Were, in many cases an invasion, of private rights in the public interest He might instance the Factory Acts. A man took a piece of land and built a factory on it and thought he could carry on work there as he chose, but along came the inspector who said: "Unless you spend £1,000 on proper ventilation or
  1630
  proper heating, or in some other way, we shall close your factory." Did the right horn Gentleman contend that the proprietor of the factory had any right to say: "If you interfere, buy my factory?" Or they might take the case of a coalfield. A man bought a coalfield and thought it was his individual right to work that mine as he pleased, but an inspector came 'along and said: "Unless you spend £10,000 in making an escape shaft we shall close your pit." There were many similar instances. There was the case even of the cabman who was bound to take a fare a certain distance for a shilling. Pursuing the right hon. Gentleman's argument, had not any individual a right to buy a cab and charge what he pleased? But in the interests, of the public he was limited in his charges. Was it to be said, however, that a man who bought a parish or a county, and sometimes acquired it in a disreputable way, could exercise his terrific power for good and evil uncontrolled? Had he a right to say. "Buy my parish or my county, or I will do as I choose?" Any business man could give many illustrations of the kind he had brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this policy of the Government would not cure depopulation; but that depended upon how one looked upon it. Those who had had to consider why the labouring population in the country districts left the land gave different reasons. One said because of free trade; another, that wages had fallen; a third, that prices had risen; while yet another quoted the attractions of the town and of the public-houses and the beer-houses and so on. His answer to that was that the blacksmith usually was a man who had bought a stake in the country, and he was never attracted by the glare in the towns. Who were attracted by it? It was usually the labouring man who left the farm to better himself. It meant that he was tired of earning £1 a week and of not being his own master In view of the education now given nobody could believe that any one set of men were born to remain in a sphere out of which they could not lift themselves. Under the circum-stances the man became dissatisfied with his surroundings. Moreover, the man who left the country and came back to

  1631
  the village afterwards, although he might have only a humble shop in a back street in town, was another man, and encouraged the others to go to towns and try their luck, and everybody knew how often their luck failed them. The explanation of why men went to the towns was that they were given no inducements to remain in the country. If the House were going to solve this question they would have to look at it from the labourer's point of view, because it was a labourer's question. He acknowledged how courteous their opponents had been in regard to these matters and he knew that they felt keenly, but he thought that they had looked at the problem too much from the landlord's point of view. He did not think it probable that they knew what was passing in the agricultural labourer's mind. If it was a desire to better himself he thought they would agree that it was to better himself in his particular line. What did he want? A little bit of a farm; he wanted not only a place to live in but a home. They could not give him a home without security of tenure, and it was not a home if he was only to spend a few years in it, even if they gave him a nineteen or thirty-five years' lease. It was only a home when it was one upon which he could spend his health and strength, live his life, and form a refuge for his old age. The second thing he wanted was for some one to say what was a fair rent, and the third thing, which would get the best out of him, was the right to transmit to his children. The right hon. Gentleman might not think of it, but the very same instinct which induced the wealthy man to create an entail upon his son was in the working man, who also thought that his family should succeed him. If they were to make the best of him let them look at the matter from his point of view and give him these three things which he asked or rather which they asked on his behalf. He was convinced that it would do him good and the community and landlord no harm at all.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was too conscious of haying occupied the time of the Committee for an undue period
  1632
  to make another lengthy speech, but he wished to deal with the particular issue raised by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh. He did not think that in the latter part of his speech the hon. Gentleman had taken sufficient account of the arguments which he brought forward from their point of view, which was precisely the same as the hon. Member's except that he pointed out that if they were to enable a man to take an interest in the development of his property and give him the power of entailing it they ought to give him a freehold. But he would not occupy the Committee on the broad issue, and if the hon. Gentleman read what he said, he would see that he pointed out that the motive which had been considered the strongest in every country in the world was the motive of ownership, whether small or large. The hon. Gentleman had attacked him for considering this matter from the landlords' point of view, and for claiming for them immunities from the obligations which were cast upon other citizens, but he had not done so. The hon. Member had said that the factory owner could not use his factory as he liked, because the inspector came in and saw that his machinery was guarded and that in other respects the Factory Acts were carried out. For what reason? In order to look after the health and safety of our fellow subjects. Who asked immunity for the landlord or anybody else if similar safeguards were demanded in his case? They might multiply inspectors and the safeguards in regard to life and health and no objection would be raised by anybody, certainly not by him. Then the hon. Gentleman had said that a man could not manage his coal-mine as he liked; the inspector came in and said he must do this or that. But that was for the safety of the coal-miners. What was the analogy between that and a landed estate? The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that a man with landed estate held the fortunes of every person on that estate in the power of his hand What justification was there for thinking that? He could understand that allegation being made against an employer of labour, because he had it in his power to dismiss at a week's notice or less

  1633
  the great majority of his employees. But the landed proprietor was no employer of the people who lived upon his estate and had absolutely no power over them at all. Let the Committee take the case of the unhappy Lowland lairds of which he was an unhappy specimen. What power had he over the people employed on the farms on his property? Did he choose them, employ them, settle their wages or their tenure of residence on the land? The person who employed them was the farmer, he engaged them, paid them their wages, and dismissed them. What had he to do with it? What had the landlord got to do with the fate and fortunes of nine-tenths of the persons who lived on his estate when it was let as it often was to other occupiers? The hon. Member had taken a most fantastic view of the powers of a landlord. Let them control those powers as much as they liked within proper limits, but all he pleaded for—and he was sure he was not pleading a selfish or a foolish cause—was that in the case of land, just as when a man had a factory, he should be allowed to use it to the best of his ability for the objects with which he was concerned, subject to what the law allowed and laid down with regard to his rights and duties towards others whom he employed. What hon. Gentlemen wished to say to the landlord by this Bill was: "You happen to own an estate, we are going to choose your tenant for you and settle the terms under which he will be your tenant; we are going to take away all your motives for assisting him and forming friendly relationships." All that was to be taken away. What would hon. Members say if that were taken a Way in the case of the employer of labour? A man built a factory and spent a large sum of money in fitting it up, just as the landlord expended a considerable amount on buildings, drains, labourers' cottages, and so forth on his farms. Would hon. Members come down
  1634
  and say: "You have no right to control the fortunes of your factory in this way, we propose to manage it, we propose to judge the kind of output there is going to be, and the kind of cottages you build in the neighbourhood of the factory, because we think that everybody employed in a factory should have a permanent home and be able to leave it to his son. We therefore, propose to take in hand these buildings which we say everybody has a right to and which a man may send on to his son." What would hon. Gentlemen opposite think of that? In the country as well as in the towns, in the Highlands as well as in the Lowlands, there was a mutual interdependence of one class upon the other. They could not have the isolated units of which the hon. Member dreamt. The idea that the power which mutual relationship always gave between; the employer and the employed, between the landlord and the tenant, could always be abused either in industry or agriculture was wrong, and he maintained that there was no occupation in which it was less abused than in agriculture, and in which the hardships of competition were less felt than among the various classes concerned. There was no industry in which more friendly feelings obtained among all those concerned in it; and the idea that there was some special tyranny exercised by the landlord over those who were brought into relations with him, and that they were controlled in the preposterous manner suggested in the Bill, was a dream of the hon. Member. If they tried to prevent one class of the community from having an interest in the fortunes of another class they would reduce isolated communities to a state consistent only with savage life, and their scheme would have no-relation to the actual facts of existence in which men met for common objects and worked together for that production in which landlord and tenant, employers and employed, were all equally concerned and on which all equally depended.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid he was rather surprised that any Member of this Committee should have had the idea that the farm servants of Scotland were slaves like those who used to work on the plantations.
  MR. A. DEWARsaid he did not say that. What he said was that the landlords claiming the rights they did over their tenants were claiming the same rights as the slave owners.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid that all he could say was that every labourer employed on the land in Scotland was subject to exactly the same conditions as the labourer employed in any other part of the United Kingdom. No doubt if he had a good berth and was unfortunate enough to lose it, it would be very inconvenient to him, but that was the first time he had ever heard of the proposition, which he did not think the hon. Member could carry through, that a man under no circumstances whatsoever was ever to get notice to quit or to be sent away. If the hon. Member carried that out in his own business or occupation he might find his business would not progress very greatly. The argument that a landlord had no right to manage his own property came very strangely from the Liberal Benches. The argument which had always been used by the Party opposite, whenever complaint was made that agriculture in this country was not in a prosperous condition, was that the landlords and farmers did not adopt business methods. The argument had hitherto been that if a man found his occupation was not profitable he was a fool not to turn his capital and machinery to some other which did pay. If landlords found large holdings pay—or to take the illustration of the Prime Minister, of the deer forests which were said to lead to the depopulation of the land—hon. Gentlemen opposite should be the last to object, because their argument had always been if a man's occupation did not pay he should turn his energies into another channel. The hon. Member in the latter part of his speech had spoken of the terrible condition of Scotland before the passing of the Crofters Acts,
  1636
  and had given very excellent reasons why the Crofters Acts should be passed for the crofting districts. Those counties were in a state of revolt, and something had to be done. But did the hon. Gentleman suggest that that was the condition all over Scotland? Of course it was not, and there was not the same need or demand for extending the Crofters Acts to the whole of Scotland as he had suggested. But to prove his case the hon. Gentleman ought to have gone further and given strong evidence as to the good which had been effected by those Acts in the districts for which they were passed. It was true there was now content among the people who in the past feared to be evicted, and no doubt there had been reductions of rent in certain counties. But he did not know that the economic condition of the crofting country had improved to such a great extent as the hon. Gentleman would have the Committee believe. There was still a great amount of distress in the crofting districts, and many families were living in buildings which would not be passed by a sanitary inspector in the Lowlands. In addition to that, he believed, that in the crofting districts, in spite of fresh dwellings having been built and facilities given, the population had increased to a very small extent, if at all. No proof had been given that the Crofters Acts had brought about a good state of affairs in the crofting counties. They had not encouraged people to go back to the land, nor resulted in suitable buildings, or in increased cultivation of the soil. There was also the further fact mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition that a large sum of money had been annually spent among a population not large. £35,000 a year had been spent, and if the amount was distributed even by a Government Department it would be a strange thing if some people did not get some little benefit from it. The whole proceedings relating to this Bill were the most wonderful he had ever reao or heard of. First, there was the spectacle of the Prime Minister denouncing the House of Lords because of their action when the Bill was before them last year. Then during the recess, when many people expected a visit to Scotland from the Minister for Agriculture, and to have some

  1637
  explanations and reasons for the Bill of which they knew nothing, the noble Lord informed the Chamber of Agriculture which was against the Bill that he could not accept the invitation, to go to Scotland and address them on this topic. They could not help thinking then, knowing the kindness of the noble Lord and his propensity for not creating a jarring note at what would otherwise have been a convivial reunion by saying something which would not please the Chamber of Agriculture, that he had been told by the Government he had better keep away. Having thus chained and muzzled the noble Lord, the Government, however, let loose the First Lord of the Admiralty, who was allowed to go to Scotland and speak on this Bill at Perth, where he gave the case completely away, so far as the Government were concerned. The noble Lord had said that he much preferred the working of the English Bill. The Government in the future would no doubt learn wisdom and muzzle all noble Lords. In addition to the argument of the success of the Crofters Act, it was said that the people of Scotland wanted the Bill, and, undoubtedly, a majority of the Members representing Scotland were in favour of it, but whether their constituents were was quite another matter. His own view was that if this Bill became law it would be a mistake, as those on the Liberal Benches who represented Scottish constituencies would learn to their cost. He had no doubt that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies did not differ from the rest of them and that they sometimes spoke in glowing terms about the advantage of the Bill, without altogether explaining its disadvantages. Undoubtedly, if the Bill became law, a good many people in Scotland would be very greatly disappointed and would suffer a good many disadvantages. He would leave out the question of the landlords altogether, because they had heard a good deal of talk about them already. The Secretary for Scotland appeared to think that the great body of farmers of Scotland were in favour of the Bill. It was the first the had heard of it. He would have thought that the vast majority of them were
  1638
  bitterly opposed to it, seeing that they would be liable to have part of their farms taken away from them, and to be ejected from their homes without notice by the Land Commissioners. Then they came to the farmers, who were to be particularly benefited by the clause—the farmers with under 50 acres of land. He was very doubtful, if the Bill became law, whether their position would be materially improved. In his opinion, in many cases they would be direct losers. A man would naturally think, if the clause were passed, that he would be able to go to the Land Court and get a reduction of rent. In the first place, that reduction was purely problematic, and, secondly, in a great many cases, he might not get a reduction at all, and in certain cases he might even get his rent increased. What advantage could he get which he had not at the present time? By the Act of 1906, he had already practically got security of tenure. That Act made it extremely difficult for a hard-hearted landlord to turn his estate into a game preserve, for he had to pay high compensation for unreasonable disturbance. The tenant had been given freedom of cultivation and full claim for compensation for game. He did not see what further benefits he could have, unless he was going to get a large reduction of rent. It was, however, extremely problematic that he would get any reduction if the clause was passed. On the other hand, he would get a good many disadvantages. When the Bill was passed, and the Crofter Acts were applied to the Lowlands, the landlord would say to his tenant: "You have got security of tenure and everything else on which you have set your hearts, and which your Liberal representatives have told you will make you a free and independent man. Under these circumstances, you will do all the repairs on the farm." Then, if a bad year occurred and the man lost the greater part of his crop, there would be no going to the landlord and trying to get a reduction of rent, which he believed, had in many cases been granted during the past recess. There were these disadvantages even to the tenants who were going to receive the greatest benefits. In his opinion, he would merely get a little more security of tenure, and at

  1639
  the same time he would suffer the disadvantage of never getting any help from his landlord. There was, however, another class of people, the people whom the Government had told that if they once got a small holding they would be different men and able to walk down the village street with high heads. There would in one or two years' time be failures among those men; and, when they had lost their little capital, they would not be best pleased with those hon. Members who had recommended them thus to invest their savings. There would not, even among the successful applicants, be contentment. There would be a repetition of what had occurred over and over again in regard to land legislation in Ireland. They would not be merely unprosperous, but they would be working out a miserable livelihood by excessive toil, far harder than they would have as labourers; and they would demand fresh Land Courts, fresh reductions of rent, and fresh alterations in the law. The Government, by the Bill, would inflict a grievous harm on every single tenant who farmed over 150 acres of land. They would create a feeling of insecurity and stop two classes of men who had expended money on agriculture in the past—viz., the landlord and the big farmer—from doing so in the future. That would mean less employment and a great loss to agriculture. He believed that the Government were flying directly in the face of all economic law. Although in certain districts, with milk raising and intensive cultivation, the holdings might answer, the main crops of British agriculture must be corn-growing and stock-raising; and he did not believe that these men in small holdings, even with security of tenure, could compete with the stock-raising and wheat-producing countries of the world, with all their latest machinery and big herds of cattle. He believed that in many cases these men were bound to fail, and that those hon. Members who had encouraged them to undertake an industry not economically sound would find that there would be a great many complaints against them.
  * MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he was not alone
  1640
  among the representatives of the crofting districts in feeling that they were running a very great risk in reference to this particular clause. He was glad no one had denied that the Crofter Acts had done good for Scotland, but they had been unceasingly agitating and urging for amendments in the Acts. Some of those amendments they would perhaps get under the Bill, and some of them they might not possibly get. The representatives of the crofting districts felt far more deeply in this matter than those hon. Members who looked at it from a theoretical or political point of view. They had been looking forward for many a long day to an amendment of the Crofter Acts, and, whilst they would be the last in the world to refuse any rights to their friends in the South, they thought they were deserving of special treatment and consideration in regard to this matter. There were, he knew, several hon. Members who took the same view as he did. It seemed to him, especially from the speech of the Lord Advocate the other night, that the Crofting Act had not been altogether the success which was maintained for it. It had not done everything to settle the land question. There were many important matters which required urgent attention at the hands of the Government, notably of all the cottars question. He claimed equal knowledge with most people as to the views of the people in the Lowlands. He was ready to admit that the Leader of the Opposition had given a fair and accurate description of an agricultural labourer in the South of Scotland, but he did not think the inference he had drawn was altogether a fair one. He said that the labourer there demanded no alteration in his not and was perfectly content. He (Mr. Wason) knew of his own knowledge that many of the men did demand an alteration. What they wanted above all things was a small bit of land which they could call their own, so that they would not be driven hither and thither at the mercy perhaps of some particular farmer. They wanted a piece of land which they could cultivate in their hours of leisure. It would be greatly to their advantage if they had more hours of leisure and more opportunity of spending time in their own homes. At the same

  1641
  time, of course, advantage would accrue to the farmer, because he would not have to pay their wages. Every hon. Member from Scotland to whom he had spoken was entirely of opinion that unless in the South they started this land question from the villages and got people to start from there, there would be great difficulty in working the Bill and in getting suitable people on the land. If those people were to be barred from obtaining and cultivating holdings, unless they were going to give up their existing means of employment, the Bill would be a bitter disappointment to the whole of the Lowlands, and to all those people who were now looking forward to some chance of prosperity and a greater amount of happiness than they had had in the past. The right hon. Gentleman had sketched quite fairly the farm labourer, but his sketch was nothing like what it ought to be. If he had a better chance given him in life, there would not be on the labourer's part the same desire to emigrate. They were in the North of Scotland exceedingly anxious about the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking the other day, said that the Government were prepared to accept reasonable Amendments, and, he supposed, a fair compromise; and the Secretary for Scotland adopted a similar attitude. If there ever had been an occasion when a compromise was necessary it was on a Bill of this sort. He did not take the same view of the landlords of Scotland as did the Secretary for Scotland. His continual argument had been that landlords and tenants must work hand in hand, and if the landlords did not cooperate with the tenant land reform would be a failure. But the landlord had never accepted the Crofter Acts, at least in his constituency. In Orkney and Shetland they had never been content with the Crofter Acts, and had done their best to drive the men out of the benefits of the Acts, and to become again landlords' men. If ever there was a case for a compromise this was one. A Frenchman said the lion was a most mischievous animal, that when it was attacked it defended itself. The landlords were defending themselves in every way they could, and in countless ways the people were suffering
  1642
  from their hostility. He thought that if the Government could obtain peace with honour by way of a compromise they would be wise to do so. He could not forget a speech made when the Liberal Party was not strong, and had only a small representation in this House. He remembered the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking in Inverness and saying that he was authorised to speak for the Liberal Party, and advocating the extension of the Crofters Acts to places where similar conditions obtained. The Government would have been wise to have stopped there, but this Bill went far beyond that. What was wanted was an elastic Bill, which this was not. The proposal as it stood would injure the rights of the people, especially in the South of Scotland, where land ran up to as much as £5 an acre rental. A man with 50 acres might pay a rental of £200 or £300 a year, and this Bill stereotyped him there for all time, whilst at the same time there were men near by who only wanted an acre or two of their own on which to earn a living. In other parts of the same country there were vast tracts of land which also would not come under the Bill. Looking across to the hills from the back of his own house he could see thousands of acres of land on which in past times there were a good many homesteads, but which now were nothing but a gigantic sheep ranch which supported a few shepherds.
  AN HON. MEMBER: That is free trade.
  * MR. CATHCART WASONsaid it was not free trade, but landlords and landlordism. That was what they wanted to alter and so make it easier for a man to earn a living. What was wanted was an amendment of the Crofters Acts and a Land Court free and unrestricted in its operation. He would for his own part be satisfied, rather than to get nothing, with a Land Court restricted in its operations. He would be content with a Land Court with power to acquire land on bankrupt estates, trust estates, and corporation lands in different parts of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. Member for Leith Burghs talked of landlords as if they

  1643
  were angels, all desirous of co-operating with the tenants and doing the best they could; but that was a fanciful picture. That there were such landlords he did not deny. Many of them sat in this House. It was only the landlord of that kind that could. It was the bad landlords of Scotland that had caused this desire from one end of the country to the other. He knew that compromise was not the doctrine to preach on this occasion. He knew it was considered best to nail one's colours to the mast and go down with all the glory of war, but he did not want to go down. He wanted to go back to his constituents and say: "Look at what the Government have done for you." The people in Scotland wanted the Government to fulfil the promises they had made. In view of this question affecting as it did the whole of Scotland, in view of the hostile attitude many of the landlords had taken up upon it, he certainly trusted that although this Chamber was not permitted to propose any compromise wiser counsels would prevail when the Bill reached another place, and that hon. Members would not again have to go back to their constituents on the question of land reform.
  * MR. COCHRANEsaid that they listened now, as they had listened in Committee, with the greatest interest to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland while he smote this Bill hip and thigh and said it did not fulfil the pledges of the Government. He thought the Secretary for Scotland must have been asleep during the interval between this and the discussion in Grand Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman had not been asleep, he had, as the Leader of the Opposition had stated, forgotten nothing and had feared nothing. He had taken as much advantage as possible of those meetings which had been arranged for him with so much skill by the hon. Member opposite who had been described as holding the political destinies of Scotland in his hand, instead of availing himself of the plentiful and experienced information which was also to his hand. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs, who had made such an exhaustive criticism on this Bill, had said he was not a man of experience, but who did not know that
  1644
  the hon. Member was a good and generous landlord, and did his duty? In addition to the hon. Member there were half a dozen of the Cabinet who were opposed to this Bill. Lord Tweedmouth did not hesitate to pour his contempt upon it. Lord Elgin, whose silence was more eloquent than speech, refused to be drawn into giving any opinion upon it. Two very respected Members of the Liberal Party in Scotland Sir Thomas Gibson Carmichael and Dr. Douglas had made inquiries which should have been made by the Government, preliminary to this or any other Bill. They had taken upon themselves as a private duty the labour that should have been the duty of the Government, and with remarkable skill had formed a Committee to inquire into the subject. The Committee include five of the very same gentlemen who had been selected by the Secretary for Scotland for their ability, integrity, and sound common sense to go to Denmark to investigate and report upon the agricultural industry there. These gentlemen went through Scotland and the crofting districts to inquire into the crofting question. He invited every Scottish Member to read the lucid, informing, moderately worded and convincing report those gentlemen had produced. The right hon. Gentleman would not take even the expression of opinion of Scottish agriculturists. He remembered the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture years ago when it was notoriously constituted on somewhat Liberal lines. He remembered that they were described by the Secretary for Scotland as hard-headed Scotsmen whose opinion ought to carry weight. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that those hard-headed Scotsmen were still as hard-headed as ever they had been on the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, and by increasing majorities they had condemned again and again the principles of the Bill which they were now considering. To his mind this particular clause presented the most objectionable features of any clause in the Bill. It applied the crofter system which was condemned in the Report he had referred to, and also by the experience of hon. Members of this House as being inapplicable to other parts of Scotland. It was now proposed to apply this

  1645
  crofter system to the whole of Scotland. The hon. Member for Caithness hoped that some compromise might be arrived at in the House of Lords. His view was that if they adhered to this clause compromise was absolutely impossible. He hoped some extention of the crofter system to similarly situated parishes in Scotland might be possible. They were told in this clause that the crofter system was to be applied to the Lowlands subject to certain provisions, and the principal of those provisions was that a Land Court was to be set up, which was not contained in the original proposals of the Secretary for Scotland. This change was to be made without discussion in Committee or in this House, except in the most cursory manner. A Land Court was to be introduced, and no explanation had been given why the Government had changed the view they held when the Bill was first introduced, dealing with this subject. Why had such a body now been incorporated in the Bill? It was to be an absolutely irresponsible body from whose decisions there was to be no appeal. The Secretary for Scotland had stated that in case of any damage by compulsory removal there would be compensation. He remembered when the Bill was before the Scottish Grand Committee the question was asked whether the damage done could not be estimated by independent arbitrators, who should be paid for by the Land Courts, and the right hon. Gentleman refused to listen to that reasonable request. To call the scheme drafted by the right hon. Gentleman for paying compensation to landlords, tenants, and labourers who might be displaced, fairness was nothing more than a grotesque travesty of justice. The man who had done the damage and endangered the property would be able to say that he considered the claims put forward for compensation were frivolous, and only worth a small sum. He knew that a great many hon. Members would vote for this Bill who had never heard a single word of the debate. Those hon. Members who had listened to the debate would vote with considerable reluctance in support of their Party. A scheme such as this meant something in the nature of a tragedy for Scottish argiculture, and it
  1646
  would make it very difficult for landlords to invest their capital in land. The Secretary for Scotland had asked what class of land was most suitable for small holdings, and he answered it by saying the most suitable land was that which was accessible to markets by railways and roads. The right hon. Gentleman expressly excluded all those lands in the neighbourhood of burghs which were most suitable for small holdings on account of something he intended to propose later. He had done this simply because it might interfere with some other project he was going to bring under review to-morrow.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is dealing with points which will more properly arise on other clauses.
  * MR. COCHRANEthought that the aim of legislation should be to raise the standard of comfort in the country rather than impose in the Lowlands of Scotland a standard of existence to which they had fortunately been strangers. The crofters were not self-supporting at the present moment, and were only able to pay their way by the assistance they received from friends better situated than themselves, who lived in foreign countries. Consequently, their present tenure was something in the nature of a tenure by postal order, because they got their support largely from Canada and Australia, where their relatives resided. The Lord Advocate had talked about planting 50,000 men on the deer forests, but he would never be able to plant a prosperous and thriving tenantry on such land. They were told that this Bill would cure depopulation in the Highlands of Scotland. Again he would quote the returns issued during last year to controvert entirely that statement. The population of the crofting parishes in 1881 was 342,898; in 1891, it had fallen to 333,000, and in 1901 the total was 324,000. Therefore the claim that they would arrest depopulation by this Bill stood on a very feeble foundation. There was a further point which he thought hon. Members who were interested in Scotland might consider; it was pointed out in the evidence of Mr. Drysdale, who said that many of these

  1647
  crofts were being worked not by the manhood of Scotland and the class they would like to see reared up, but largely by women. Mr. Drysdale gave two parishes, one containing 182 crofts, 82 of which were occupied by women, and the other containing 169 crofts, sixty-six of which were worked by women. He was afraid that if the right hon. Gentleman intended to settle the suffragette question by making them owners in Scotland, he would not be conferring a very great benefit upon the country. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland had asked why did these men go to Canada? Simply because when they went there they became the owners of the soil. If the right hon. Gentleman would deal with the question of purchase, which he had shut out from his Bill, he would find a remedy for this state of things. During the course of the Grand Committee they implored the right hon. Gentleman not to cut himself off from carrying on experimental purchase of land in the Lowlands. There was only one way in which they could do this in the Lowlands, and it was by purchasing land in suitable areas, carving it out in different sized holdings, and placing in charge of each settlement someone capable of giving instruction and guidance to those who needed it. That policy could be carried out by the Government purchasing land freely in the open market, and by enabling those on the land to become their own proprietors. Men, and Scotsmen in particular, would exert themselves and work if the ultimate result was that they might raise their heads higher in the social scale and find themselves owners of the land they tilled. That was a very proper aspiration. This clause in the Bill was condemned by all Scottish agricultural opinion. He believed as an outsider and observer that the Bill was barely tolerated by Members of the Cabinet who sat near the right hon. Gentleman. He believed that it would disappear in oblivion, and that its disappearance would not be regretted in a single parish. It was designed to produce a land system which had not succeeded in any part of the habitable globe—a system foreign to Scottish methods of agriculture, which were the finest in the world.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. URE,)said that when he listened to the Leader of the Opposition and to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire he had great difficulty in recognising the Bill, with every line of which he was familiar. He had discussed the Bill on public platforms throughout all parts of Scotland during the autumn recess, and it had met with favour from all his fellow-countrymen who had taken the trouble to understand it. It had been received with gratitude by those for whom it was primarily intended. It was a Bill to denounce which not a single Member for Scotland who opposed it last summer had had the courage to call a public meeting of his constituents.
  * MR. YOUNGERsaid he had denounced it at five meetings of his constituents.
  MR. UREsaid he was sorry that the hon. Member did not call a public meeting of his constituents for the purpose of condemning the Scottish Small Landholders Bill.
  * MR. YOUNGERsaid he condemned it pretty stiffly when he did address a meeting.
  MR. UREsaid that the hon. Member was well entitled to say what he chose against the Bill. He stood by his assertion that the Bill had not been denounced at a public meeting called for the purpose by any Member for Scotland. The Bill had been denounced as a tragedy involving death and ruin to agriculture, as a Bill designed to destroy the independence of the yeoman farmer, the pride of ownership, and the friendly feeling which existed between landlord and tenant in Scotland. It was a Bill, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs, to knock agriculture on the head. The Leader of the Opposition had spoken of it as a travesty of what agricultural legislation ought to be. He replied that the right hon. Gentleman's attack on the Bill was a grotesque travesty of the provisions of the measure which he was criticising, for the application of the Crofters Acts to the whole of Scotland

  1649
  meant only that after they were applied every small farmer in Scotland, and every small farmer who would come into existence under the machinery provided by the Bill, would be entitled as a matter of right to remain in his holding unless some good reason existed for turning him out, and every small farmer would have the right to bequeath his holding to any member of his family, provided it could be shown that he was a suitable person, The right hon. Gentleman did not deny that these were great advantages to confer on small farmers, but what he and his friends said was that they could only confer these advantages by giving them full rights of ownership. He asked the Committee to observe how narrow was the dividing line between the two sides, and how intemperate was the language of the Leader of the Opposition. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not deny that in the public interest it was of great advantage to increase small holdings in Scotland. They did not deny that there was plenty of suitable land and suitable men to occupy it. They did not deny that the creation of small holdings could not be left to voluntary effort, that compulsion might be needed, and that it ought to be given. The Government said, on the other hand, that it was quite possible to secure the cardinal virtues which were to be found in ownership, namely, the right of security, and the right of transmitting property to a member of the family, without the drastic and revolutionary remedy which hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to apply, if they took the existing system of landlord and tenant in Scotland to which the people had become accustomed, and cut out of it the liability to arbitrary eviction, the right which the landlord now enjoyed of turning out his tenant without good cause, or, perhaps, any cause at all. That was the object of applying the Crofters Acts to the whole of Scotland, and that would be the whole effect of so applying them. These were great advantages which would be secured. He readily allowed that they could not give security of tenure unless they set up a Fair Rent Court, and applied statutory conditions. Without that court they would have the landlord fixing such an exorbitant rent that the tenant
  1650
  being unable to pay, would be turned out. If they did not lay down statutory conditions, they gave security of tenure with the one hand and took it away with the other. During the autumn recess seven skilled men made an investigation into the operation of the Crofters Acts, and they had given the results of their impartial inquiry. No man would allege that those seven investigators entered upon the inquiry with any prepossession in favour of this Bill. What was the result of their inquiry? They came to the conclusion that the chief good objects which the Crofters Acts had produced were: Complete independence to the tenants; and full security for fair rents and for the improvements which they had effected upon their houses and holdings. They came to the conclusion that every advantage that security of tenure alone could produce had been produced in the crofting counties, and they asserted that they were prepared throughout the whole of Scotland to apply the Crofters' Act wherever the conditions were similar. [OPPOSITION cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite agreed with that. Let them see what was the difference in the conditions and inquire whether the difference was such as to make the security of tenure which was good in the crofting counties bad in the Lowland counties, because, after all, that was the pivot on which the whole argument turned. That was the crux of the question, and the centre around which the controversy took place. The difference was that, whereas in the Lowland counties the landlord, as a rule, made the permanent improvements, in the Highlands the converse was the case. Why was this security of tenure a good thing for the small farmer who made his own improvements, and a bad thing for the small fanner who had not made his own improvements? That was the only question which they had to discuss, and he was going to answer it in the word of the seven famous investigators. They said that if the landlord was not deprived of freedom of choice in the selection of his tenant, and if he was not deprived of freedom of selection in the improvement on his farm, he should not be unwilling to spend his money in equipping his farm.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 350; Noes, 95. (Division List No. 23.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Cox, Harold

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Crean, Eugene

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Crombie, John William

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Agnew, George William

  Crosfleld, A. H.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cross, Alexander

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

  Alden, Percy

  Crossley, William J.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cullinan, J.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Armitage, R.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hodge, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hogan, Michael

  Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry

  Devlin, Joseph

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Astbury, John Meir

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

  Hope, W Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dillon, John

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Barker, John

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hudson, Walter

  Barnard, E. B.

  Duckworth, James

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Duffy, William J.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Duncan, G (Barrow-in-Furness

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Beale, W. P.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Isaacs, Rufas Daniel

  Beauchamp, E.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Bell, Richard

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Bellairs, Carylon

  Elibank, Master of

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Erskine, David C.

  Jenkins, J.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Essex, R. W.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby).

  Black, Arthur W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Boland, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jowett, F. W.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Brace, William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kelley, George D.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Branch, James

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Brodie, H. C.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lambert, George

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

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire

  Gill, A. H.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Lough, Thomas

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Gulland, John W.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Cameron, Robert

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Lynch, H. B.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Macdonald, J. R, (Leicester)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hall, Frederick

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Halpin, J.

  Maclean, Donald

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Clough, William

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

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

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  M'Crae, George

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Killop, W.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Maddison, Frederick

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Thorne, William

  Massie, J.

  Reddy, M.

  Tomkinson James

  Meagher, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Menzies, Walter

  Rees, J. D.

  Toulmin, George

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Middlebrook, William

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth)

  Ure, Alexander

  Mond, A.

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

  Verney, F. W.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Montagu, E. S.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Vivian, Henry

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Walker, H. De. R. (Leicester)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Robinson, S.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Walters, John Tudor

  Muldoon, John

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Walton, Joseph

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

  Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Murray, James

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wardle, George J.

  Myer, Horatio

  Rowlands, J.

  Waring, Walter

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Runciman, Walter

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Russell, T. W.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Nicholls, George

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Watt Henry A

  Nolan, Joseph

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Nuttall, Harry

  Sears, J. E.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Seddon, J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Whitehead, Rowland

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Grady, J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wilkie, Alexander

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

  Partington, Oswald

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Snowden, P.

  Williamson, A.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wills, Arthur Roberts

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

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  Perks, Robert William

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Winfrey, R.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Summerbell, T.

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

  Sutherland, J. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Radford, G. H.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Meynell

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cave, George

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, H.)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gardner, Ernest

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.

  Bertram, Julius

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J (Birmingh'm

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Corbett, T. L (Down, North)

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Bull, Sir William James

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  1654

  1655

  Hills, J. W.

  Percy, Earl

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

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

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Moore, William

  Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton

  Younger, George

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Starkey, John R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Nield, Herbert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  And, it being after a quarter before Eight of the clock, the Chairman proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded this day under the Order of the House of 13th February.
  Question put, "That Clauses 2 to 33, inclusive, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 352; Noes, 96. (Division List No. 24.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Agnew, George William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Elibank, Master of

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Erskine, David C.

  Alden, Percy

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Essex, R. W.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Allen, Charles (Stroud)

  Cameron, Robert

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Armitage, R.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Fenwick, Charles

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Ferens T. R.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Cleland, J. W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Astbury, John Meir

  Clough, William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Barker, John

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gill, A. H.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W)

  Barnes, G. N.

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Beale, W. P.

  Crean, Eugene

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Bell, Richard

  Crombie, John William

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Crossley, William J.

  Gulland, John W.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cullinan, J.

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W Brampton

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

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hall, Frederick

  Boland, John

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Halpin, J.

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Devlin, Joseph

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Bowerman, C. W.

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Brace, William

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

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

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hart-Davies. T.

  Branch, James

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Duckworth, James

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J T (Cheshire

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Meagher, Michael

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Menzies, Walter

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Micklem, Nathaniel

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

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Middlebrook, William

  Sears, J. E.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mond, A.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Seddon, J.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Shackleton, David James

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.

  Mooney, J. J

  Shaw, Charles Edw, (Stafford)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hodge, John

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Hogan, Michael

  Muldoon, John

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Hope, John Jeans (Fife, West)

  Murray, James

  Snowden, P.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Myer, Horatio

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nicholls, George

  Steadman, W. C

  Hudson, Walter

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Nolan, Joseph

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Summerbell, T.

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Grady, J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thorne, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Partington, Oswald

  Tomkinson, James

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pearce, William (Limehonse)

  Toulmin, George

  Kekewich, Sir George

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Kelley, George D.

  Perks, Robert William

  Ure, Alexander

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Verney, F. W.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Lambert, George

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Vivian, Henry

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Walters, John Tudor

  Lever, A Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

  Walton, Joseph

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

  Lough, Thomas

  Radford, G. H

  Wardle, George J.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Waring, Walter

  Luttrell Hugh Fownes

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Meddy, M.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Radmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Maclean, Donald

  Rees, J. D.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Kendal Athelstan

  Weir, James Galloway

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhmpt'n)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  M'Kean, John

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dunde

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  M'Killop, W.

  Robinson, S.

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  M' Micking Major G.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Williamson, A.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rowlands, J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Runciman, Walter

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

  Massie, J.

  Russell, T. W.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  1658

  1659

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

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

  Winfrey, R.

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Percy, Earl

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Cross, Alexander

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Dixon-Hartland. Sir Fred Dixon

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

  Faber, George Dension (York)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Barrio, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gardner, Ernest

  Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)

  Bertram, Julius

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Starkey, John R.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Thomson, W. Mitchcll-(Lanark)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hills, J. W.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cave, George

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hon. Col. W.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C W.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham)

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

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

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

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

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, George

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm)

  Moore, William

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down. North)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Nield, Herbert

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to report the Bill to the House, pursuant to the Order of the House of 13th February.
  Bill reported without Amendment.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," pursuant to the Order of the House of 13th February.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 347; Noes, 90. (Division List No. 25.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Branch, James

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brocklchurst, W. B.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Brodie, H. C.

  Agnew, George William

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beale, W. P.

  Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J T (Cheshire

  Alden, Percy

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Bell, Richard

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Armitage, R.

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Astbury, John Meir

  Black, Arthur W.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Boland, John

  Cameron, Robert

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Camley, Sir Frederick

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Barker, John

  Brace, William

  Cleland, J. W.

  Clough, William

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N E.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Massie, J.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Masterman, G. F. G.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Meagher, Michael

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Menzies, Walter

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Middlebrook, William

  Cooper, G. J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mond, A.

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

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Cowan, W. H.

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

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cox, Harold

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Crean, Eugene

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Crombie, John William

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Muldoon, John

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hodge, John

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hogan, Michael

  Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Murray, James

  Balziel, James Henry

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Myer, Horatio

  Davies, M. Vauhgan-(Cardigan

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nicholls, George

  Berlin, Joseph

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Hudson, Walter

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Nuttall, Harry

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Duckworth, James

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Connor, T P. (Liverpool)

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Grady, J.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, W

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Partington, Oswald

  Elibank, Master of

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Erskine, David C.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Essex, R. W.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Kekewieh, Sir George

  Perks, Robert William

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Kelley, George D.

  Philipps, Col Ivor (S'thampton)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Fen wick, Charles

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Ferens, T R.

  Lambert, George

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Pollard, Dr.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lough, Thomas

  Radford, G. H.

  Gill, A. H.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Reddy, M.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Maclean, Donald

  Rees, J. D.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton

  Gulland, John W.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn Sir W. Brampton

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  M'Kean, John

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Killop, W.

  Robinson, S.

  Halpin, J.

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

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rose, Charles Day

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

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rowlands, J.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Runciman, Walter

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Russell, T. W.

  1662

  1663

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Thomas, Abel (Camarthen, E.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Sears, J. E.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Seddon, J.

  Thorne, William

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Shackleton, David James

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Toulmin, George

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ure, Alexander

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Verney, F. W.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Williamson, A.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Vivian, Henry

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wadsworth, J.

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

  Snowden, P.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Wilson, J. W (Worcestersh, N.)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Walton, Joseph

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

  Steadman, W. C.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Winfrey, R.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wardle, George J.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wason, Rt Hn. E (Clackmannan

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Summerbell, T.

  Watt, Henry A.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Percy, Earl

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cross, Alexander

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Dixon-Hartland. Sir Fred Dixon

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bertram, Julius

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gardner, Ernest

  Starkey, John R.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cave, George

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Hills, J. W.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Cecil Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Younger, George

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

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

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

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Nield, Herbert

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Whiteley)—put, and agreed to.

  King's Consent signified.

  MACEDONIA.
  * MR. G. A. HARDYrose to move "That this House
  1664
  regrets the failure of the reforms which have been introduced for the amelioration of the condition of Macedonia, and urges the Government to press for the establishment of executive control by an authority responsible to the Powers." He said that in bringing this Resolution before the House, he fully realised the

  1665
  dangers and difficulties which surrounded it. He also realised how inadequate an advocate he was to introduce such an important Resolution, therefore he would briefly take up the time of the House in introducing it, leaving it to those who had carefully studied the subject, or who, like the hon. Member for West Ham, who had recently visited the region of Macedonia, more ably to state the ease. They were, however, thankful that in the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs they had a Minister who earnestly sympathised with these poor oppressed peoples, and they confidently looked for his whole-hearted support. The Macedonian question was one which appealed to all who sympathised with suffering humanity. But there was a higher court than that to which they appealed, and that was the national honour, and it was because we were so deeply pledged as a nation by our actions in the past and by treaties we had signed that he brought this Motion before the House. It was scaroely conceivable that those who deprecated any action on our part could be aware how deeply we were pledged as a nation to see justice done. Our direct interest in this court began some thirty years ago. Public feeling in Great Britain and Europe had been roused by the eloquence of Mr. Gladstone, who denounced the terrible atrocities in Bulgaria in 1876. A conference had been summoned and the action of the Porte in setting aside the recommendations of the conference brought about the war between Turkey and Russia. The Russian people were united as one man in their desire to free those of their own race. The defeat of Turkey brought about the Treaty of San Stefano, which liberated Macedonia. In an evil moment Lord Beaconsfield stepped in, and using the power of England refused to recognise the treaty and called the Congress of Berlin. The result was the handing back of Macedonia deliberately to Turkey under the promise of certain definite reforms. We as a nation were thus responsible to Macedonia and it was our duty to see that our pledges were carried out. In 1903, after twenty-five years of waiting and suffering, the Macedonian people rose in rebellion—a mad act which only the desperate
  1666
  necessity of their case could excuse. That rebellion was put down with terrible cruelty. Austria and Russia then stepped in, and an arrangement was made at Mürzsteg by the Emperor to try and bring better conditions to help the country. Turkey's assent was given to a very modified form of control. Lord Lansdowne was far from being satisfied and urged much stronger measures, but ultimately accepted the modified arrangement. The most important part of the Mürzsteg programme was in the reorganising of the gendarmerie, and placing them under the supervision, but not under the direct control, of the foreign officers. Practically their work had resolved itself into simply an attitude of watching and reporting to the Powers. The result had proved thoroughly unsatisfactory. In 1903, Lord Lansdowne again urged that stronger measures must be taken. He wanted a Commission to have real control of the finance and administration, and in urging it he said—
  "The Commission would be given administrative and executive power and would in the first instance be instructed to frame without delay schemes for the effective control of the administration of finance and justice."
  He had also stated that—
  "Nothing could be satisfactory which did not include: (a) An immediate reduction of the military forces in Macedonia and its neighbourhood to the forces strictly required for maintenance of internal order and security."
  It was in the midst of this last attempt of his that the change of Government occurred and the matter was dropped. In 1906 and 1907 Turkey desired to raise the import duties from. 8 to 11 per cent., which money she promised to use after satisfying a few commercial reforms for the Finance Commission in Macedonia. The conditions for allowing this increase were laid down by Austria and Russia, who made proposals for judicial reforms, all Powers agreeing as interested parties, especially Great Britain, who was interested in 60 per cent. of the trade. In 1908 the Minister for Foreign Affairs made further proposals to increase the gendarmerie and give it powers to hunt down the bands, most of whom were now Greek, but as Austria and Russia refused their support it was withdrawn. But now a new and startling development had occurred.

  1667
  Austria had sought the permission of the Porte to survey or build a railway through Novi Baza, and thus connect Bosnia with the Macedonian railways and ultimately with Salonica. Russia, evidently realising that this action had been done apart from the arrangement made between the two countries, replied by suggesting a railway from the Danube to the Adriatic. We could only now conclude that the entente between Russia and Austria was at an end, and that the opportunity had arisen for Great Britain again to press for reforms in Macedonia. Speaking for himself, he did not think they need object to the railways as long as the Macedonians were not taxed to make and sustain them. What had been the result of the four years following the reform scheme? However well it was intended, it had proved a direct incentive to murder on a vast scale. The Powers deliberately held out a prospect of an approaching modification of territorial boundaries with a view to the more regular grouping of the different nationalities, and the result of that had been to fan race hatred and bring the most disastrous consequences on the country, consequences more terrible than anything since the massacres of 1903. Since the introduction of the reform scheme, in a country of 1,500,000 people, 10,000 people had been murdered.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Nearly as bad as Ireland.
  * MR. G. A. HARDYsaid that it was worse than Ireland, bad as Ireland was. When they thought that that was a third of the population of Ireland, barely the population of Wales, and practically the population of one of our big towns, they could see the terrible conditions to which the poor unfortunate people of Macedonia had been subjected. The monthly murders still showed no sign of diminution. He noticed in that day's Times a telegram from Sofia stating that—
  "During the past few days a number of fresh atrocities had been reported in Macedonia. The continuance of outrages on a large scale at this season of the year was altogether an exception and was very ominous for the coming spring. The principal event last week, according to a report by gendarmerie officers was an attack on a settlement of Vlach shepherds,
  1668
  near Karaferia by a Greek band. Four shepherds were killed, three were wounded, and 3,280 sheep and goats and 150 horses and mules were slaughtered. Recent occurrences illustrate the statement in a memorandum by gendarmerie officers that the excesses of the Turkish troops in the villages show no diminution. The French adjoint. Colonel Verand, has protested against the misbehaviour of the troops in carrying out perquisitions in the kazas of Nevrokop and Djumaia. In the Zarovo districts of Seres the troops compelled a priest and several villagers to set fire to a house in which a band was concealed. In view of the British proposal to transfer the pursuit of the bands to the gendarmerie, the following official figures are interesting as indicating how the troops discharge this duty. Killed in 1907—Bulgarians, 236; Greeks, 89; Serbs, 88; Vlachs, 4. Captured—Bulgarians, 10; Greeks, 29; Serbs, 8."
  The small number of captured compared to the number of those killed told its own tale. He would give only one other illustration as to the terrible condition of that country, and that was an account of an outrage recently committed by Turkish troops at the village of Belitsa in the Vilayet of Monastir—
  "In the afternoon two detachments composed of about 150 soldiers each reached Belitsa from Kirtchevo and Ochrida. The soldiers remained in the village more than forty-eight hours. During that time they assembled all the men of the village in one place, where they were kept under arrest by a party of soldiers, while the great majority of the troops broke into the houses, and, on the pretext of searching for supposed 'komitajis,' violated the unprotected women and young girls, and gave themselves up to every kind of vloience and plunder, carrying off and eating everything that could be taken away or consumed. Thirteen women were violated, and several young girls suffered the same fate. In the case of one of the peasant men unspeakable outrages were committed by the troops."
  EARL PERCY: What documents are you quoting from?
  * MR. G. A. HARDYsaid he was quoting from the Blue-book. What could be done? They pressed for executive control for the Finance Commissioners as desired by Lord Lansdowne, the Sultan to retain suzerainty, as in Bulgaria, but not direct rule. The Commissioners would thus control the Army, gendarmerie, and justice, as well as finance. Now was their opportunity. In Writing to Mr. Bryce at a public meeting which he could not attend, the present Foreign Secretary used words which it seemed

  1669
  to him were almost prophetic. He wrote—
  "I am sorry to be out of reach of the meeting. I fear that separate action by the British Government alone would be useless or worse, but the leading Governments of Europe, including our own, or even two or three of them together, could certainly stop massacres and secure permanent reform in Macedonia. And it is shameful that they do not do it. I hope the meeting will help to stir the public conscience both in England and elsewhere till the Governments in question or some of them are forced to co-operate and act effectively. Our Government should encourage and support such action by every means in its power."
  The cry from Macedonia, heard and responded to by the Apostle Paul, was for spiritual help and knowledge, which he planted in fruitful ground and which grew and developed into a strong Christian Church 1800 years ago. For 500 years their fellow Christians had had to exist under the blighting cruelty of the Turk and still survived. The cry came again, and this time the appeal was to Christian England from a nation bleeding at every pore. The cry was, "Save us, or we perish." The cry came from widows of murdered husbands, husbands of violated wives, orphans bereft of their parents, from a beautiful but desolate country. In God's name might they respond and help!
  * MR. GOOCH, in seconding the Motion said that the discussion came at a very opportune moment. A few days ago the Vienna correspondent of The Times telegraphed the following words—
  "The future of Macedonia and the Balkan States and of the Eastern question is at stake."
  That was putting the case very high, but he did not think too high. All Europe, not only the large but the little Powers, were waiting anxiously for the speech which the Foreign Secretary would make, and they very much hoped that that speech would be of such a character as to contribute to a successful solution of the most difficult problem which confronted statesmanship within the limits of Europe. To understand the situation, he ventured to ask the House to recall the condition of affairs which existed before the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs took office. When he came to power a little over two years ago, he found
  1670
  the ground occupied by the Austro-Russian Programme known by the name of the Mürzsteg Programme. That programme had a large number of clauses, but only one of them, by common consent, had actually resulted in anything at all tangible and beneficial to the country interested, and that was the scheme by which the so-called gendarmerie were handed over, not for command, but for instruction and advice; to a very limited number of European officers. He did not believe people over here, when they read about the European officers of the gendarmerie, perhaps realised that those officers, unlike officers in any other part of the world, could not give an order, and if they did it would not be obeyed. All they could do was to give advice to the real commanding officers, and when massacres took place they could photograph corpses, which they had often done, and report to their own Government. Lord Lansdowne, as they knew very well, in giving his consent to that very imperfect programme, reserved to himself and to Great Britain the full right of intervening at a later stage with a more drastic and far-reaching programme of reform, should the Mürzsteg Programme, as he expected, fail to achieve the solution of the problem, and as his hon. friend below had just said, only a day or two before the late Government went out of power a Financial Commission was established. That Commission was the one and only piece of really useful machinery that had yet been set up in Macedonia, and although it had not done very much, it made possible a great deal more than had at the present been achieved. What they asked for that night, in all subsequent reform, and all subsequent changes which were likely or possible to be introduced, was that that foundation should be retained and that reform should be super-imposed upon it. Since the right hon. Gentleman came into office, he very much regretted to say that in the opinion of a large number of people in this country who followed Balkan affairs with close attention, of many statesmen, and of the population of the Balkan States themselves, there had been a distinct relaxation of interest and effort on the part of Great Britain. He did not say there had been that

  1671
  relaxation; but what he did say was that that was the impression which the right hon. Gentleman's policy had made in the minds of a very large number of people, both here and in the Near East. If he were to say that nothing had been accomplished since the present Foreign Secretary came into power except the attachment of certain conditions to the granting of the increase in the customs duties, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not contradict him. He wished that were not correct, but he feared it was. It was literally the only thing that had been actually done during the two years or more that the present Government had been in power, and that was done, as they knew very well, because the raising of duties was suggested not by England or any other great Power, but by Turkey herself in her own interests. Apart from that single thing, which was a very poor record for two years of diplomacy, they came to two things which had been attempted to be done. The first was the proposal for judicial reform. Austria and Russia undertook to elaborate a proposal of judicial reform some eighteen months ago. They took a very long time doing it, and after it was presented to the various Powers, it was presented to the Porte only a few months ago. From what they heard in the papers that programme of judicial reform was a very poor affair, but poor as it was it was too strong meat for the Sultan, and he had up to the present time refused to accept it. He would like the Foreign Secretary, when he spoke, to tell them exactly in what state the negotiations in relation to judicial reform stood at the present moment. The Foreign Secretary's chief objective in connection with Macedonia in the last few years had been to try to suppress the newest and gravest element of the existing disturbance, namely, the Christian bands, which dishonoured the name of Christian. He had tried to do that in three ways. The first way, which had been utterly inadequate, had been by repeated remonstrances at Athens, at Belgrade and at Sophia. That having failed, the Powers collectively last autumn informed the Balkan States concerned that the article of the Mürzsteg programme, which held out the prospect
  1672
  of the possibility of territorial re-adjustment on racial lines, would be cancelled. That no doubt was a very wise step to take, but unfortunately it had had no effect at all, and so only a few weeks ago the Foreign Secretary had taken the matter into his hands, and for the first time since he took office had made a really strong and comprehensive demand for the reform of Macedonia. That reform was that the gendarmerie should be so far increased as to be capable of dealing with the bands themselves, and that the money necessary for the increased number of gendarmerie should be obtained by a corresponding reduction of the Turkish Army in that province. That was rejected, first by Austria and then by Russia, and if they were to trust the public press the English proposal had been withdrawn. If that was so he trusted it was not given up altogether, and he hoped the Foreign Secretary would tell them exactly at what stage this proposal stood. It was so good, so reasonable and so necessary that if it was refused in that form it could only be that the Foreign Secretary might put it forward in another form and press it with all the power at his disposal. At the time they did not know why Austria and Russia had refused to accept this. They had guessed that their interest in Macedonian reform was not very deep, and now they knew it. The successful request of Austria for a favour for herself only three weeks ago had changed by a dramatic stroke the whole situation. In asking for a railway through Servia she was entirely within her rights; but when she said the railway was purely economic, those who knew anything about the place knew that that was not the case. She already had a direct route from Vienna to Salonica. The new railway was a strategic and military line. This demand on the part of Austria had had two effects already, one comparatively unimportant, but the other of enormous importance. The least important was that it had caused Russia to ask in her turn for a railway from the Danube to the Adriatic. It would pass through Servia, which would be only too delighted to have an outlet for her pigs and her other staple products for the West of Europe, instead of sending them through Austria or by

  1673
  way of Salonica and the Mediterranean. They knew very well that if the Russian railway was made it would be in the first place a strategic checkmate to the Austrian railway, and therefore anybody who was afraid of Austrian influence becoming predominant in the Balkans might take comfort from the fact that in all probability if the one railway was built the other would be built also. He was very strongly in favour of the opening up of the country by railways, though on the condition that it must not be at the cost of an enormous and crushing burden disguised under the name of a kilometric guarantee, which he regretted to say was the case with most of the railways in Asia Minor. A railway, necessarily, was itself an emissary of civilisation in nearly all parts of the world, but not in the Balkan Peninsula. In Macedonia it had been very little but an additional burden on the people, because the railways, instead of going from town to town and catering for local traffic and industry, carefully avoided the towns and lengthened the route even over the most level plains in order to increase the amount of kilometric guarantee to the investors, and, besides, imposed an additional burden on the population, owing to the fact that the line had to be very carefully watched by soldiers all along its course. Therefore, their approval of railways was subject to the very important proviso that no unfair burden was placed on the people. The more important result was that the Murzsteg programme was killed. It had very little life in it six weeks ago when this bomb was thrown into diplomatic areas, and now it had no life at all. The chess board was clear, and a new game was going to begin. What they were asking for was that Great Britain's policy should play a very much more leading part than it had done during the last few years. The fact that a new situation had arisen had been recognised in every capital in Europe, except Vienna. It had been recognised even by Baron d'Arenthal, when he said a little time ago, immediately after throwing this diplomatic bomb, that the exclusive mandate of Austria and Russia had come to an end, and that the question of Macedonian reform had become one for all the great Powers. The concession
  1674
  which Austria had asked for, though legal, was one which could not become operative until she had obtained the leave of the Porte, and it was obvious to anybody who knew Turkey or human nature that a Power could not press Turkey to give reform in Macedonia while at the same time she was asking for something for herself. He hoped they would hear nothing more about a mandate to the interested Powers. They had had an opportunity and had misused it. Now it was the turn of the disinterested Powers, and he hoped England would be leader of those disinterested Powers. A Concert could not be a very homogeneous body, and might be an incoherent and weakly organism, but the Concert would go on and the question was who was going to lead it. Austria and Russia had led it until now, and he asked that Great Britain should lead it in the near future. There were two things to be done in order to achieve that object. The first was that the Foreign Secretary should somehow or other manage to convince Europe and the Balkan States that he was in real earnest about this matter. He did not mean to say that people thought he was not in earnest, but there were degrees even of earnestness; and there was a very definite impression abroad, not merely in the Balkan States, but in more than one of the capitals of the great Powers, that the interest of the English Foreign Office in this matter had not been so deep as perhaps it was in earlier years. The first thing we had to do was to convince the other Powers that we cared very much about it, and that we were determined to obtain some effective reform. The second thing was, to find some alliance, some practical working arrangement within the limits of the Concert, which would enable England to carry out the policy which he was sure the Foreign Secretary desired. The Foreign Secretary's letter four years ago, which had been read, said truly that England could not act alone, but it went on to say with equal truth and with still more importance that it was not necessary for action to get unanimity with all the Powers. Therefore the practical question arose: To whom should they look? Austria, he did not say permanently, but for the time, had put herself out of

  1675
  court. If she asked for anything from Turkey for Macedonia the Sultan would have a perfect right to think, and would probably know, that the asking was a mere formality. Therefore the desire of many people, not only in England and in the Balkans, but in Russia itself, was that we should win over Russia to a more advanced policy in the Balkan Peninsula. The treaty that we concluded last summer would facilitate friendly discussions on all inter-European matters, and in addition to that they must never forget that Russia was Slavonian and that Vienna was German. Russia, thirty years ago, was not a tyrant or an autocrat, but a liberator, and the Balkans had never forgotten that, and there were large masses of Russian opinion that had never forgotten it. One of the most remarkable and interesting features of the discussion of the last two or three weeks had been the expression of opinion, not only in the English and Balkan, but in the Russian Press, that the time had now come for Russia to swing round to her French ally and her new English friend. Many people were of opinion that Russia would be willing to help. She could, of course, carry France with her, and then Italy would be only too ready to join. The question next arose whether Germany or Austria, possibly drawn nearer together by the general hostility which their recent Turkish policy had excited, would be able, if they desired, to block the advance. So anxious were he and his friends to put an end to this great European scandal, that they would be willing for this country to secure the assent of Germany by a bargain in connection with the Bagdad railway. He did not wish to discuss that large question that night, but it was well known that with the Germans, who took a realistic view of politics, appeals either to treaties or humanity were likely to have much less effect than a bargain in connection with the Bagdad railway, On which they had set their heart. He threw out that suggestion simply as a possible way of removing German hostility. Very briefly he would explain why they were asking the Foreign Secretary and the country to take an interest in this question, and why the Government should make a move. Lord
  1676
  Fitzmaurice said last night, speaking of the Congo, that they were bound by treaty and by humanity to act. That was equally true of Macedonia. In regard to the question of humanity, the sufferings of Macedonians, and so on, he would say but little, because his hon. friend the Member for West Ham had been there a few months ago, and he would no doubt give the House the benefit of his recent experience. Without any exaggeration of language he thought Macedonia could be described as the Congo of Europe. It was a tragedy in which the Macedonian peasant was the victim, and the Turkish soldiers, the Christian bands, and the Albanians were the villains of the piece. No man's life was safe there, and anyone who doubted that statement should read the Blue-book published last year, which was full of the most sickening and revolting cruelties from beginning to end, and then he would agree with him that no man's life was safe there and no woman's honour. The Times correspondent, who knew as much about Balkan politics as any living man, stated that the year 1906–7 was the worst year since the great rebellion of 1903. So much for the reason why this country should take action. And, finally, as to what to do. There were three proposals before the country. One proposal which found a great amount of support was that they should do nothing, and stand idly by watching the ebb and How of diplomatic force; and intrigue. He felt sure that the Foreign Secretary would have nothing to say to that. The second proposal was that we should treat Macedonia like Bosnia, and hand it over to Austria and Russia. He confessed that that suggestion filled him with amazement and indignation. There were three absolutely decisive reasons against it. In the first place, the Macedonians of all races would oppose it. In the second place, Russia's record in Georgia and other parts did not lead them to desire that Macedonia should be handed over to her tender mercies. The third reason was that, supposing the whole of Macedonia were handed over to Austria and Russia, then good-bye to liberty and to the freedom and unfettered development of the Balkan States. Having exhausted those two policies there

  1677
  remained a third and, in his opinion, the only possible programme, and that was to reassert the great principle laid down by Lord Lansdowne that the only real reform was control. That was the true Macedonian policy, and he was sure the right hon. Baronet would not contradict that. That programme, which was explained so fully in 1905, had been given to the House in general outline by the mover of this Resolution. The Financial Commission should be given executive power, and control of expenditure. The gendarmerie should be increased to hunt down the bands; and the officers should have power to command the force and not merely to report outrages. The army in Macedonia should be decreased and put under the orders of the Inspector-General assisted by the Financial Commission; and the system of farming taxes should be abolished. Some form of judicial reform should again be put forward, and all these reforms, or any one of them as they came, should apply not only to the existing vilayets, but also to the vilayet of Adrianople. Those were the proposals of Lord Lansdowne. They had been before Europe for three years, but until now there had been no really effective chance of getting them accomplished. He thought the Foreign Secretary had a better chance of getting some, if not all, of them accomplished than had hitherto existed, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman's speech would constitute a distinct advance on any utterance he had made since his accession to office, and form a rallying point for those who were interested in the liberation, development, and prosperity of Macedonia.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House regrets the failure of the reforms which have been introduced for the amelioration of the condition of Macedonia, and urges the Government to press for the establishment of executive control by an authority responsible to the Powers.—(Mr. George Hardy.)
  * EARL PERCY: I can promise the House that I shall not take up much time, because we have already been reminded that there are several hon.
  1678
  Members who have recently visited Macedonia who are anxious to tell us their experiences. At the present moment we do not know whether the policy of His Majesty's Government has changed, or the precise reasons which have led to the rejection of their proposals. There is, however, one comment which I may be allowed to made on the Motion which has been moved. The Motion under discussion invites this House to urge the Government "to press for the establishment of executive control by an authority responsible to the Powers." I understand that the right hon. Gentleman recently put forward the proposal that executive control should be given to the European officers who are acting in command of the gendarmarie and that that policy has fallen through owing to the refusal of the Powers to support it. The hon. Member now suggests that the Government should continue to press this policy and so far as the merits of the proposal are concerned I agree with him, but at the same time I cannot help feeling that the situation when once a proposal has been rejected is somewhat changed, and that we ought not to press the Government to insist on measures to which the Powers object unless we very carefully consider the consequences to which such a course might lead, and the action which it would be necessary for this country to adopt under such circumstances. The hon. Member outlined three possible policies. I am not going to follow him in his analysis of schemes for the alienation of territories which belong to the Sultan, though I would observe in passuing that his advocacy of co-operation with Russia in opposition to the other Powers is hardly consistent with his statement that there is no Power whose intervention would be more distasteful to the population of Macedonia than that of Russia. I quite agree that there are three policies open to this country to adopt. One is that we should wash our hands altogether, to use a homely phrase, of reform in Macedonia, and that we should say henceforth that we have no responsibility whatever for anything that goes on there. The second is that we should continue to act as a member of the Concert as we have done hitherto, assisting the other Powers by suggestions of our own where we think we

  1679
  can do so usefully, and supporting their policy at Constantinople; but that we should recognise the fact that from the outset we have deliberately abandoned the initiative to Austria and Russia whose geographical proximity to the scene of action not only gives them the greatest interest in the maintenance of law and order, but the most effective means of securing it. The third policy is that we should put forward some ideal solution of our own, without regard to the susceptibilities of our colleagues in the Concert, and be prepared to insist on its adoption in the teeth of opposition, both by the Powers themselves and by the Turkish Government. The policy for which in my opinion there is nothing to be said—a policy into which it seems to me there is a danger of our drifting—is that we should remain nominally a member of the Concert, bound by its collective decisions, pledged to do nothing which will in any degree affect the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire, but at the same time that we should be perpetually putting forward, and advertising to the public from day to day the fact that we are putting forward suggestions of our own which are not accepted by the other Powers, the probability of the acceptance of which we have not taken the trouble to ascertain beforehand, and the rejection of which by them has very serious consequences. In the first place it cannot but weaken the effectiveness of the action of the Concert by revealing the fact that it is not united. In the second place it induces the Turks to resist every proposal we do put forward, not because it is unreasonable in itself, but because they know from bitter experience that it is only the prelude to others more extreme. And lastly, it encourages the revolutionary elements in Macedonia to continue the agitation in the belief that, sooner or later, this country will be compelled to intervene actively on their behalf. That is a consideration which I have frequently put forward in this House, and it is a consideration to which I attach the greatest importance. My experience is not so recent as that of the hon. Member, but I went through Macedonia in 1902 when the disturbances were just beginning, and certainly it was at that time the ineradicable
  1680
  belief of the Christians of every denomination that this country could be counted upon in the last resort to intervene, and that there was even a good chance that we would establish a Protectorate or annex the country ourselves. Nothing could disabuse their minds of that idea. Precisely the same experience has been related to me by travellers who have subsequently visited the country, and I cannot help feeling that the worst of debates like this in the House, of which no one would complain on other grounds, is that they infallibly result in bolstering up that belief. I believe myself that the more plainly we repudiate it, and the more those responsible for the Government make it clear that under no circumstances will this country intervene actively, and take isolated action in the case of Macedonia, the more humane will be our conduct from the point of view of the people concerned. As to the three policies I have mentioned, I regard the idea of separate action on our part as outside the range of practical politics. We have far too many commitments on hand already to justify us in embarking on a crusade in which we have no direct national interest, and there is the further consideration which I think is rather lost sight of in these debates, namely, that we cannot possibly adopt a policy of that kind without running the risk of widespread disturbance of peace in the East, the consequences of which will principally affect, not ourselves, but Austria and Russia. As for the policy of washing our hands altogether of all that goes on in Macedonia, if we merely consulted our selfish interest, I think there would be a good deal to be said in favour of that policy, but I should regret its adoption for two reasons. In the first place, we have undoubtedly a responsibility under the Berlin Treaty—a responsibility which I think has been greatly exaggerated. But it is a real one, and I should be loth to repudiate it. The second reason why I should regret the adoption of such a policy is that I am not prepared to admit that the Mürzsteg Programme has been a failure. As a matter of fact every item of that programme has been put into execution, and there is

  1681
  not, I think, a single material criticism which was directed against it, when it was first introduced, by friends of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion which has not been met and remedied. I remember that one of the complaints made was that the tenure of the Inspector-General was limited to two years. The tenure of the Inspector-General has been since prolonged, and, practically as everyone knows, he is irremovable except with the consent of the Powers. "Oh," it was said, "the European control ought to be more sub - divided, instead of being vested exclusively in the hands of Austria and Russia, who are supposed to be animated by reactionary views." There is not a single great European Power which has not been admitted to a substantial share in that control. It was suggested that the control could not be effective so long as it did not extend to the sphere of finance. Now the whole of the finances of Macedonia are placed under the effective control of the Financial Commission. They have absolute control over both expenditure and the raising of revenue. [An HON. MEMBER: Not the amount.] My recollection is that every item in the Budget has to receive the preliminary approval of the Financial Commission. The real gist of the complaint that the Murzsteg scheme has been a failure arises from the solitary fact that it has not been successful in putting an end to crime and outrage in Macedonia. That was the main complaint of the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Motion. They related that there had been 10,000 murders in the course of the last four years. That is a horrible and shocking state of things that we should all like to see put an end to at the earliest moment, but I remember that five years ago when I was first called upon to take part in these debates in this House we were constantly assured that these murders and atrocities were the result of Turkish barbarity and—with a strange oblivion of events in Eastern Roumelia and Odessa—that such occurrences were impossible except under Moslem rule. We now have it not only stated in the Blue-books, but admitted by the right hon. Gentleman himself in reply to a deputation
  1682
  last year, that to a considerable extent, indeed so far as the majority of the outrages are concerned, they are not due to the action of the Turks, but to the action of the various Christian communities, and that they have their origin not in a common desire on the part of there communities to get rid of a common oppressor in the shape of the Turkish Government, but in the intense anxiety of each that, if ever Turkish rule disappears, not one of them shall be exposed to the tender mercies of the other. I know it is said that the Turkish Government do not object to these outrages, and that if they do not actively connive, they take no active steps to stop them. The hon. Member for Ripon has published his opinion that so far as the Inspector-General is concerned he is sincerely anxious to put down the operations of the bands—and in any case it hardly lies in the mouth of those who say that the Turkish Government cannot be trusted to put down disturbances with out cruelty, to complain that it does not act. For my own part, I deeply deplore this state of things. I deeply deplore the fact that the Turkish Government does not seem to recognise that it is to its own interest to act with the European gendarmerie with a view to putting a stop to it. So far as I under stand it, and I think I can speak on behalf of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit on these benches, I entirely approve of the policy with regard to the police put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. Well, if we are not to adopt isolated action, and if we are not to wash our hands of all responsibility, then it seems to me that there is only one practical alternative, and that is that we should remain in the Concert and accept the inevitable limitations if such a position; that we should recognise that progress, if progress there be, must be slow; and that our suggestions should be such as have a reasonable chance of being adopted. There is one suggestion I should like earnestly to press on the right hon. Gentleman, which if not apparently important, I believe is very important. It has already been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I observe that Baron Aehrenthal, in his speech the other day, pointed out that one cause of the continued disturbances

  1683
  in Macedonia was the hope held out to the various nationalities under the Murzsteg programme of an eventual rearrangement of the administrative areas according to the distribution of the various nationalities. I always thought that that particular provision in the Murzsteg programme was a very debatable one, and might lead to disastrous consequences, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will definitely press for its abandonment altogether. I cannot help thinking that when the time arrives to which the authors of the Murzsteg looked forward when they suggested that eventual redistribution of areas, a far better solution would be that which was adopted in its Lebanon, where instead of grouping the various nationalities in homogeneous areas we prevented the ascendancy of any by arranging for the equal representation of each on the local administrative councils. As regards the proposal for the reform of the Judiciary, we do not know its character, whether it is confined to the appointment of inspectors, or extends to the association of European assessors with the Turkish Judges. I do not think that the mere appointment of inspectors would be of very much use. The only other point is the proposal made in regard to the police. I understand that two suggestions were made by the right hon. Gentleman. The first was that executive authority should be given to the officers of the police, and that flying columns of gendarmerie should be organised in order to deal with the bands. I imagine that the effectiveness of such a policy will depend very largely on its details, and that it will lead to very little practical results if the gendarmerie are to act separately in water-tight compartments under their own officers in the various spheres allotted to the different Powers. I observe that the hon. Member for Ripon finds an analogy in the organisation of gendarmerie columns in Bosnia during the Austrian occupation; but I would point out that in Bosnia the control of the military and of the police were in the same hands, and that the circumstances of Macedonia present a much closer analogy to those which existed in the Lebanon where one of the Powers entered
  1684
  that country with the assent and mandate of all the other Powers with 6,000 troops for its pacification. I do not think that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman would stand much chance of success unless the gendarmerie acted in close touch with the Regular Army if not under the orders of the military authorities. The second suggestion is that the Turkish Government should reduce the number of regular forces in Macedonia while at the same time there should be a substantial increase in the numbers of the gendarmerie. I am not sure that it is reasonable to expect the Turks to reduce their regular forces until the additional gendarmerie at provided. It must be remembered that the Bulgarian Army against the possibility of invasion by which the Turkish troops are concentrated in Macedonia, amounts to three or four times, on mobilisation, the number of the Turkish garrison. When Lord Lansdowne suggested a reduction of the Turkish troops in order to set free money for reforms in Macedonia he insisted that Bulgaria should be asked to reduce its army in a corresponding degree, or that failing that, the Powers should give a collective guarantee that Bulgaria should not be permitted to invade Turkish territory during the period when the reforms were being carried out. As regards the substitution of gendarmerie for regulars it must be remembered that the gendarmerie and the army perform quite different functions, and that it will take some time to raise the additional force. What are the prospects of securing the necessary recruits for the gendarmerie? I observe that General Georgis is pessimistic on that point, and the 4,000 gendarmerie already enlisted might do much if they were relieved of civilian duties such as the collection of tithes and the supervision of monopolies. The criticisms which I have offered are largely criticisms of detail, but it is impossible until we know more to judge how far the non-success of the Government's policy is due to the apathy of the other Powers in the Concert or to a want of elaboration in the details of that policy itself. I have no fault to find with the policy advocated in the Resolution, but I should view with very considerable alarm the withdrawal, either temporary

  1685
  or permanent, of Great Britain from the Concert of Europe, because I believe that, however disappointing the results of that Concert have been, it is certainly the most effective instrument which has yet been devised for introducing any reform at all, and the consequences of disappointing the people of these Balkan States who have so long been invited to place their hopes on the united action of Europe may be serious indeed.
  MR. MASTERMANsaid that not for the first time he had listened with pleasure to the speech of the noble Lord, and to his eloquence, ability, and courtesy towards his interruptors. But on the present occasion he must express as profound disagreement with the noble Lord's main conclusions as one rational human being could entertain for another. He found in the noble Lord's speech a profound difference in tone and temper from the speech on a similar subject recently made by Lord Lansdowne in the House of Lords. It seemed to him that in the noble Lord's utterances there was a definite and rather scornful repudiation of the whole system which Lord Lansdowne had carried out with success.
  *EARL PERCYsaid he had expressly stated that he concurred in the views put forward by Lord Lansdowne.
  MR. MASTERMANsaid that the noble Lord had declared that the one policy that seemed incredible was the policy of putting forward large and somewhat vague propositions for reform by one of the Powers which might be repudiated by the other Powers, but which might excite some hopes in the revolutionists.
  * EARL PERCYsaid that what he had stated was they should not be put forward before it was understood that they were likely to be accepted.
  MR. MASTERMANsaid that even with that qualification he could not help saying that Lord Lansdowne had given some encouragement to those who were desirous of seeing some reforms accomplished when his appeal was being made.
  * EARL PERCYsaid that Lord Lansdowne's suggestions were almost all accepted.
  MR. MASTERMANsaid that Lord Lansdowne suggested to the Turkish Government in a public utterance that there should be a Christian Governor.
  * EARL PERCYsaid that what Lord Lansdowne had put forward was one of two alternatives; the appointment of a Governor, or the appointment of a Commission with executive powers; but Lord Lansdowne had expressed no preference for the former.
  MR. MASTERMANsaid that in the short time at their disposal he did not want to enter into a controversy across the Table with the noble Lord as to what things had been done in the past. They had seen with pride that Lord Lansdowne was leading the Concert of Europe, and if Lord Lansdowne's programme put forward in public utterances, and not in the secret utterances of diplomacy, had now been in active operation in Macedonia, he and his friends would have been perfectly content, and this Resolution would never have been proposed. After all, what were his friends, whose speeches were characterised by moderation, fairness, and sanity, pressing for in this debate? They did not ask that the Turks should be driven bag and baggage out of Europe, but were simply attempting to realise what he honestly believed would have been realised at the present moment if Lord Lansdowne had retained the control of the Department of Foreign Affairs. The noble Lord had said that the Mürzsteg programme was a good programme, and that practically its best points had been carried out; but those who had taken an interest in this question were unable to endorse that opinion. He had only intervened in the debate because he thought that the House might be interested to hear as shortly as possible what had been the experience of one who had got behind the screen which at present sheltered Macedonia from Europe, and sheltered the knowledge of Eurpoe from Macedonia. There was great divergence between the statements made in high diplomatic circles regarding Macedonia, and the

  1687
  actual condition of that unfortunate country. In this connection he would like to pay a special tribute to the work of the correspondents of The Times in all the Balkans and especially in Macedonia. One of these correspondents had visited the heart of the disturbed district, and had given entirely reliable and trustworthy information. And yet the speeches of the noble Lord, who was no doubt sincere in this matter, showed that the true facts of the case were not really known. They were told by correspondents from every capital in Europe that not only had the Mürzsteg programme been deliberately torn up by the action of an interested Power, but that it had failed in the very work which it was intended to do. He believed he was right in saying that the Minister for Foreign Affairs acknowledged that, apart from the new situation created, it was time to realise that four years of reform under that programme had not been much better than years of insurrection. The Mürzsteg programme in effectual action had been confined to the introduction of the gendarmerie and the establishment of the International Commission. The gendarmerie had never in the least degree approached the proposals contained in the Mürzsteg programme. The object of the plan was a mixed gendarmerie, with European officers and European non-commissioned officers engaged in the work of maintaining public peace and order in Macedonia, but that had never been carried out. He had visited these districts through the kindly hospitality of the International soldiery, many of whom with numbers of officers were at the present time scattered over the disturbed district. One and all they were in a condition of disgust and despair. As to the condition of what was called reform, there was no alteration, and in the vilayets of Monestir and other places the Mürzsteg programme which the noble Lord thought had been carried out had not been put into effect. What was going on had been described as "the European comedy," but it was not a comedy it was a farce, and it more nearly approached a tragic farce than anything that he had any knowledge of. The officers were perpetually in the presence of murder, outrage, and injustice. The noble Lord seemed to
  1688
  suggest that the warfare of the rival Christian bands was responsible for what was going on, and in Austria the other day it was stated by an official that the killing of Turks had practically ceased; but the Minister who made that statement had been misinformed on the subject, and if he would take the trouble to inquire of his own Austrian officers he would hear a different description. It was perfectly true, and they had always deplored it, that some of the most unfortunate conditions prevailing in this unfortunate country were due to the rivalry, as they thought largely encouraged by the third article of the programme and connived at without a shadow of doubt by the central Turkish Government, of these bands who wished to convert their neighbouring Christian fellow citizens to various forms of religion. But when he asked the officers whether the elimination of these rival Christian bands by strong influence applied at Belgrade, Sofia, and Athens would render the I country entirely peaceable, they one and all denied it. They said that although the bands greatly aggravated the condition of misery of the unfortunate population, yet in some respects they had done good, and they ascribed to their existence the comparative immunity in some instances from cases of outrage and abduction of women because those who were Turkish subjects found that the bands knew how to take vengeance upon them. Therefore there was a general desire that the Foreign Secretary should tell them that some measures would be taken, because the elimination of the rival Christian bands would not be in the least degree satisfactory without the very definite establishment of order and good government and some elemental rights of justice as between Christian and Mahomedan The other point of the Mürzsteg programme, which it had been attempted to carry out, was the International Commission, and he could not believe and he should not believe it unless he heard it from his own mouth that Lord Lansdowne ever intended that International Commission to be established at Salonika, without determining to follow up what he had asked all Europe to join with him in pressing and without some executive control. The Commission had done

  1689
  more harm than good by its impotence. Up to a few years ago an Italian Officer told him that where there were European travellers or where European officers were established, the Turks could not commit outrages with impunity, but he said their presence there had made that state of things cease, because outrages were committed with perfect impunity in their very presence and at their very doors. While he was lunching with one officer there came the news of one murder and at dinner time there came the news of another. A British officer in Constantinople told him that the idea that Christians and Europeans could not command Mahomedans was perfectly absurd, and the suggestion of a flying column came from the very remarkable man who was leader of the English section in Monastir. Many of the officers I were in despair and disgusted with their impotence and intended either to give up the work at present or in the immediate future, and one of them said to him "I will be no longer an actor in the European comedy." Meanwhile, they were waiting for the scheme of judicial reforms of which the House had no information at the present time. The fundamental impression he had of the country was that the taxation was iniquitous, as also was the system of giving over a large subject population who were unarmed into the complete control of a small dominant population who were armed. That system remained quite independent of the work of the Commission, with most deplorable results. Referring to the new railway programme, the hon. Member said it was quite true that those whom they imperfectly represented in this House, the committees in England which contained men who had given their lives to the study of these questions, were entirely prepared to accept any development of railways in the Balkans, but when they were dealing with a promise of a survey of a railway of singular engineering difficulty, which would take five years in construction, followed by a railway of very much more difficulty, that to San Geovanni, which would take twelve years, they were outside the world of practical polities. In regard to the aid to be given by these means for the amelioration of the condition of the people of these districts,
  1690
  a new situation had been created, which was already being taken advantage of by the Turk, who had already asked that the gendarmerie should only continue on their taking service under the Turkish Government, which would mean their disbandment in twenty-four hours, and that the reform programme should be as far as possible curtailed. There was a strained interest in the whole of the Near East with regard to this question, and they were waiting with profoundest interest for the speech of his right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary. In connection with the Balkans, the Balkan Committee regarded the action of Lord Lansdowne with gratitude and satisfaction, but they looked upon the history of the past two years with profoundest disquietude, and that disquietude was reflected throughout the whole of the Near East. At Salonika, Sofia, and Constantinople, they could not understand the comparative cessation of action on the advent of a Liberal Government to power in England. During these last two years at least 5,000 of the population had been done to death, women had suffered indignities worse than death, and children had been burnt alive. Whole villages had been destroyed, and large sections of the land had passed out of cultivation. There had been an enormous exodus of the male population to America. And what was more serious than all these things, serious as they were, was that the people who were murdered and who were still being murdered, week by week were men who were not rebels, but chance casual representative members of the peasantry who happened to live in the villages which came under the influence of the devastation of one of the Christian bands, or the rival devastation of the Sultan's troops. There was no security for the civil rights of life and property. Everybody knew that where the elementary right of protection for life and property did not exist the people were seized with fury or despair; the fury which made them take to the hills and become rebels, or the despair which brooded like a black cloud over a great many of these villages to-day. If this would make for European peace, as the noble Lord would have them believe, they might be prepared to accept

  1691
  it—if it was a condition of stable equilibrium. But it was not a condition of stable equilibrium, and if it continued it could only terminate in one way. There had been repeated attempts to neglect a condition of things very similar to this under the idea that the re-opening of the question would lead to European war or insurrection, and in every case it had resulted in insurrection and European war. Even now he had no doubt, from the general information he had received that the men scattered abuot the western quarters of Servia and the back streets of Salonika were saying at the present time as they had said four years ago: "There is only the old inquiry. Is it not better to have an end with horrors than horrors without end?" They made no kind of impeachment of the Foreign Secretary. It was unnecessary, almost impertinent, to make such a statement in this House. They did not know his difficulties in connection with the methods of diplomacy, though they knew they were many and great. Nobody could know them. But what they feared was lest the slow and steady influence of the diplomatic world which thought it best that nothing should be done, and of the official world which thought nothing was worth doing, should check or stifle efforts at reform. A Foreign Minister of one of the countries concerned in this matter, and who wanted support, remarked with a covert sneer that England was now settling down to domestic problems. It sounded kind, but what was really meant by that Minister was that he was no longer being worried by the right hon. Gentleman as Lord Lansdowne had worried him. What he meant was that England was become interested in matters of domestic policy and was ceasing to engage in high politics. If they could restore, as Lord Lansdowne had said, the experiment in reform there would be much to be said for it. The Turks, as everybody knew, were an agreeable and kindly people in ordinary affairs, and if these people could have been left alone to make their own terms with the Turks their condition might have been better; but they were not. The House had often been told that things which seemed to them to be profoundly illiberal had to be done on the ground that continuity of foreign policy should be ensured. They
  1692
  now respectfully asked that when a Conservative Minister had set out on a Liberal foreign policy a Liberal Foreign Minister should pledge himself that continuity should follow. The policy started by the late Government could not now be truncated. The honour and prestige of the country were concerned. The people of Bulgaria thought that the people of England were not only in the Concert but had been leading it. And they regarded the present position as an insult—as a slap in the face for England. They asked for no more than a continuance of the Lansdowne policy, for an effective policing of the disturbed regions by a gendarmerie in which the European officers were no longer made the laughingstock of the world, but were given some effective control, with control of the financial and judicial arrangements given to the International Commission now sitting in Salonika. They did not believe the resources of the British Empire were so scanty as some Imperialists would have them believe. Lord Lansdowne had been quite willing to avail himself of what even now was still believed to be the strong co-operation in the way of a suggested appeal through Governments, who wished to do nothing but who had large Slav populations, to those Slav populations behind them who were profoundly interested in the Slavs of Macedonia. He believed we had an asset in that profound friendship, trust, and confidence in England which existed at the present time in some of the Balkan States, where, in strange and sometimes pathetic fashion, Englishmen were shown that the people were still ready to believe that the England of Gladstone was not yet dead. At the present time we had alliances and understandings which Lord Lansdowne had not when he first started this policy, and we had at our back the greatest instrument of destruction the world had ever seen. It was with these weapons that he asked that continuity should be observed.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): My hon. friend who has just sat down has spoken with a force and feeling and with an impressive sincerity of manner of the misery he has seen during his recent

  1693
  visit to Macedonia. I will not for one moment detract from the sombre force with which he painted for the House the situation as he saw it. Nor will I detract for one moment from his suggestion that if that situation is continued worse consequences than we have yet known must come from it. But I do think that when he places upon the present Government, or rather upon me personally, the heavy load of the responsibility for the situation during the last two years he is unjust. We have pursued the policy of Lord Lansdowne. My hon. friend said that if Lord Lansdowne had been in office during the last two years he would have realised results which we have failed to secure. How can my hon. friend prove a statement, of that kind?
  MR. MASTERMAN: I said it was only an opinion. I did not make it as an assertion.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: My hon. friend declared with emphasis that Lord Lansdowne was earnest and strenuous in the matter of Macedonian reform. Does it not occur to him that it is just possible that we, who succeeded Lord Lansdowne, might fail in obtaining those particular results which Lord Lansdowne himself was unable to achieve? The noble Lord did achieve the maximum which could be achieved with the consent of the other Powers, working through the Concert. What was the situation upon which we entered? It was this. The effort which had been made under Lord Lansdowne, working through the Concert, and obtaining the maximum results which, as I have said, had been obtained by his policy, was exhausted, and we took up the situation at that very moment. The naval demonstration which had been originated when Lord Lansdowne was in office was in progress for the purpose of securing the establishment of the Financial Commission, and when that demonstration came to an end it left the Concert, not stimulated to further efforts, but exhausted by the effort it had made. The naval demonstration was not a very whole-hearted affair. The utmost was obtained from it that could be obtained. But when that one result was obtained
  1694
  from it it would have been impossible for Lord Lansdowne, or any one else, to have strung the Concert up to the pitch of making another effort for a considerable period of time. That was the moment when we came into office. But that was not all. Not only was that the condition of the Concert, but before the Financial Commission had been obtained the hope had been held out by Lord Lansdowne that if the Commission were granted we should agree to a 3 per cent. increase in the Turkish Customs. My position for the first months, consequently, was this. The Turkish Government claimed as a right, having granted the Financial Commission, that we should carry out the engagement, as they alleged it to be, to concede the 3 per cent. increase in the duties, and some of the other Powers came to us pointing out that if we did not concede the increase the whole scheme of financing the reforms in Macedonia would be endangered. I was not prepared to accept the statement that Lord Lansdowne's engagement had been as absolute as it was said it was. But that was the plea advanced by the Turkish Government, and that was the pressure put upon me by some of the Powers in the Concert. It seemed to me that there were further conditions with regard to Macedonia to be stipulated for before we conceded that increase. That position I assumed and maintained for many months under considerable pressure both from the Turkish Government on the one side and from some of the Powers of the Concert on the other side. So long as that situation existed—so long as we did not give way on the 3 per cent. increase, it was absolutely futile to put forward any other proposal to the other Powers. Their answers would have been, had we asked them at any moment to press further proposals forward: "Concede the 3 per cent. increase first, or else, so far from getting any further proposals, the measure already agreed upon will be endangered." That was our position for many months It was not till the summer of last year that the 3 per. cent. on the Customs duties was arranged. During the whole of that time we had taken the initiative with regard to the conditions of Macedonian reform. During the whole of that time we had borne the burden

  1695
  and the heat of the day. Not until we could secure certain further conditions with regard to Macedonian reform, including, by the way, for the Financial Commission an effective control of the Civil Budget, was the 3 per cent. increase to be conceded. Directly that was arranged we began to show our interest in the question of judicial reforms; and, finding that Austria and Russia were willing to put forward a scheme of judicial reforms, we did one of the things Lord Lansdowne always said he was willing to do—we left the initiative to them provided they were prepared to propose something practical. That was always one branch of Lord Landowne's policy. In order to secure union in the Concert he was prepared to leave it to them to put forward reforms if they were willing, but reserving the right to make any other proposals he thought fit. We left the initiative to Austria and Russia with regard to judicial reforms, although we did take in the discussion of these reforms an active part in Constantinople to insure that the reforms should be proposed on a footing likely to be effective and satisfactory. We did not stop there. While the judicial reform proposals were being elaborated, crimes of violence and outrage in Macedonia were increasing. The greater proportion of them—not the whole—were committed by bands of rival nationalities upon each other. The British Ambassador at Constantinople last summer, about the time that I received a deputation at the Foriegn Office on the subject, pressed on the Sultan earnestly that he should concentrate his efforts upon the increased evil done by these bands in Macedonia, and that he should use the instrument which Europe had put ready to his hand—the gendarmerie with the European officers—to clear the country, of these bands. The proposal was received well enough, but nothing came of it and we then went on to take the initiative in putting the proposal that the gendarmerie should be increased, that mobile columns should be formed,
  1696
  and that the European officers should be given executive control. We have taken the initiative in making that proposal. The noble Lord warned me of the danger of putting forward proposals without having made sure that the other Powers were ready to accept them. I agree with what my noble friend has said, that Lord Lansdowne was not bound by any limitation of that kind. I have been constantly criticised by my noble friend's speech for not having secured what Lord Lansdowne had put forward but failed to secure. The situation in Macedonia in our opinion was so bad, and what is even more, the prospect of that situation was so bad, that it was absolutely necessary that some proposal likely to be effective in touching the real evil in Macedonia—the crimes of violence by bands—should be put forward without further delay, and so we put it forward. That is, in brief, the history of our action in the last two years. Can any one point to the action of any Power who has done more or any Power who has done so much? What opportunity have we missed for putting forward any proposal that the other Powers were likely to accept? Not one. If that be so, then I maintain that there is no ground for complaint that we have not been alive to the honourable obligations of this country. We have not only within the last two years, but before that, borne our share and more of the responsibility of the Treaty of Berlin, and borne it without counting the cost to ourselves either in political interest or commercial advantage. And when you ask the British Government to justify the action of the Concert, I will ask hon. Members to bear in mind that if you are a member of a Concert you do not recommend yourselves to your colleagues, you do not increase your influence with them, by boasting of your own action within the Concert. It seems to me that too often, when we are criticised for not being active enough, those who criticise

  1697
  us desire that we should demonstrate publicly that but for us and our action nothing would have been done at all. Even if that were true, it would diminish your influence if you made a boast of it. My hon. friend who seconded the Motion sketched out a policy of action within the Concert. I admit his sincerity in sketching out that policy; but I would ask anyone whether the policy he sketched out did not show how very difficult it is to adjust a policy within the Concert such as he described. Because the policy which he adumbrated was one of buying off one Power, ignoring another, and making special allowances to the third. How can you suppose that the Concert would remain a useful instrument if you adopt that plan? On one point I should like to be quite clear. It is constantly suggested in this place that we have to prove our earnestness to the Powers by giving them to understand that a disagreeable consequence will follow if what we consider necessary is not done. My hon. friend said that we had too great a reputation for being attached to peace. Ought we to go so far as to say that if we cannot get our way in the Concert we are prepared to precipitate a catastrophe? Does anybody suggest that we should give the other Powers to understand that if they will not do what we think necessary in the question we are prepared to take separate action ourselves? If so, no doubt you have a formidable lever, but are you prepared to accept the consequence? I should like to be quite clear on this point. I do not believe separate action by this country—isolated action, breaking away from the Concert—would be effective in settling the question of Macedonia, and I do believe that it would plunge us, to begin with, and others after us, into difficulties of which nobody can foresee the end. You may easily, by separate action, set loose forces the consequences of which would be entirely beyond your own control, because this is not as simple a problem as, for instance, the Bulgarian
  1698
  problem was years ago. It is not a question now of liberating a unit, setting it free to develop itself. Macedonia is not a unit—it is a geographical expression. The very statements made by those who have brought this Motion before the House, as to the mischiefs done by the bands against each other, are an admission that the problem you have to deal with is not one of liberation, but one of securing better government under exceedingly difficult circumstances. What you have to provide for in Macedonia is not a unit which is in a position to govern and develop itself, and become a homogeneous unit if it has liberty—what you have to do is to arrange some system under which the different sections of the population shall be saved from each other. That is an exceedingly complicated problem. Unless you are going to establish some kind of order under such exceedingly difficult conditions, it is not enough to take separate action—it will throw the whole thing into confusion. I am convinced of this—that if we were to take separate action in the Macedonian question, separate action, which means forcible action, resorting to force ourselves, we might begin with the Macedonian question, but nobody can say with what question such action as that might end. Therefore I rule separate action out of the question, both because of the consequences it might have and because it could not be effective. If that be so, what ought our policy to be inside the Concert? I should like it to be recognised a little more than it is—I only say this in passing for a reason I will explain—that the Financial Commission and the gendarmerie have done more good in the country than they are credited with. The good they have done is more than counterbalanced by the other evils which have arisen since they were first asked for—that I admit. I do not wish to qualify that in any way. But the Financial Commission has improved the collection of the finances, it has improved the drawing up of the Budget, and the

  1699
  gendarmerie has improved the detection and the suppression of ordinary crime. I should like that to be recognised, because when you have men like Mr. Graves on the Financial Commission, and Colonel Bonham in the gendarmerie, I think it is only fair that in their own country there should be recognition that the work they are doing is not entirely thrown away, and credit should be given to their work. And, of course, I trust that other foreign officers and representatives on the Financial Commission who belong to other countries find the same recognition of their good work amongst their own people. But I admit that all the good that can be done by the presence of those people is outweighed by the continuance of disorder and insecurity and the kind of violence of which we have heard. For the Bulgarian and Servian Governments to do all in their power to suppress the formation of bands outside Macedonia, that pressure which has been exercised by ourselves and other Powers, must, in my opinion, continue to be exercised whenever there is occasion. It is exceedingly difficult to drive that pressure home, because each Government in turn says that it is doing its best to prevent bands forming in its own territory and crossing into other countries, and points, each in turn, with some degree of truth, to the fact that the outrages credited to its own nationality in Macedonia are in retaliation for others committed on some previous occasion. All I can say is this, that our sympathy with the small nationalities remains undiminished, but the surest way for any of those nationalities to retain the sympathy of this country is to do its utmost within its own territory to restrain and prevent the formation of these bands which cross over into Macedonia. And, even if all these Governments did their best, if they did all in their power to discourage
  1700
  the formation of bands and the passage of bands from their own territory into Macedonia, even so the question would be far from solved, because what is absolutely necessary is that in Macedonia itself there should be vigorous, effective, and impartial action by the authorities in the country. Till you have that you cannot be successful. I have spoken hitherto largely of our own action within the Concert. I now come to what has been called the new situation, which has been developed in the Concert generally by recent events. The contemplation of that situation is perhaps the most important subject we have before us at the present moment. Everyone who has read the Press in the last fortnight will be aware that a new situation has arisen from the railway project which has lately received an Iradé from the Sultan. Our attitude towards these railway projects taken as railway projects by themselves is, and should be, one of benevolent neutrality. Some of them are rival schemes. I see no reason why we should be entangled in support of one rival railway scheme as against another rival railway scheme; nor do I see why we should take in hand to oppose one in order to favour another. We are favourable to any railway development which is likely to promote general trade and develop the country, and, therefore, so far as that particular point is concerned, taken by itself and on its merits, I do not see that we are very greatly concerned. But this latest railway project, launched as it was on its present stage at a very critical moment in the history of Macedonian reforms, has undoubtedly been the occasion of very marked comment, not only in this country, but wherever an interest is taken in Macedonian reforms. That this special moment should be chosen for promoting a large railway scheme which requires

  1701
  the Sultan's consent was sure to excite apprehension lest individual Powers within the Concert should be turning their attention to objects specially adapted to their interests, which they have a perfect right to do, but lest they should be doing it at the expense of Macedonian reform. Any impression of that kind must produce a most unfortunate effect on public opinion generally in the Balkans, at Constantinople, and on the Concert itself. I should regret exceedingly that any such impression should gain ground, because I wish to see the Concert maintained for Macedonian reforms. Besides that, it is a guarantee for peace. Surely the comments in the Press in the last fortnight have made it clear how very slight a thing may put the Macedonian question on one side, and raise other questions in its place. In discussing the Macedonian question you are never far from the Turkish question. The Turkish question has more than once led to a European war. As long as the Concert exists you have a certain guarantee that that question will not lead to war at the present time; but if the Concert disappears you can no longer feel the certainty you have to-day, that the different Powers interested in the Near East will long continue to keep in touch with each other. Once they lose touch with each other you cannot tell what misunderstandings may creep in between them nor to what extent those misunderstandings may go on. It would be most unfortunate if individual Powers in the Concert were to become more concerned with their relations to each other than they were with the problem of Macedonian reform. That would change the Concert from an instrument of Macedonian reform, which to a certain extent it has
  1702
  been, and which I trust and believe it still will be, into a diplomatic manœuvreing ground. So I would ask is the apprehension that the mere launching of this or another railway scheme has really affected the Concert adversely well-founded? I trust not, but I do feel that it is incumbent on the Powers in the Concert, after all that has passed, to make it clear that there is no ground for such an apprehension; and I welcome the signs which we have seen lately that the Powers are more impressed than ever with the bad state of things in Macedonia and the gravity of the situation. In Baron d'Aehrenthal's speech the other day, though there may not have been much light as to the remedies to be applied in Macedonia, there was no glossing over the seriousness of the situation. In fact, in the communications from the other Powers in the last fortnight there has been an emphasis laid by them on the serious state of things in Macedonia which has been more emphatic and more impressive than anything we have had from some of them before. There is ample reason for this. The outrages in Macedonia, compared with the corresponding period of last year, have increased, and if they have increased at this period of the year the prospect is bad indeed when the spring and summer comes. Though I welcome the fact that the Powers are disposed to emphasise the seriousness of the situation—to emphasise the danger is only to emphasise the need of a remedy. It does not take us any further that the Powers should be in agreement that the situation is very bad unless the admission that the situation is very bad is to be followed by practical suggestions for its improvement. Now judicial reforms are very desirable, but they will not pacify the

  1703
  country and they do not touch the immediate evil of the bands. I was asked in what condition they were at the present moment. For a long time we have been ready to sign the Note as to judicial reforms before the other Powers were agreed to sign it. But there has been a hesitation to sign the Note, arising, I believe, from the conviction that the increasing evils in Macedonia are not those which will be directly affected by judicial reforms even if carried out, and that therefore they are a reform which, while meeting with opposition at Constantinople, will not be effectual in pacifying the country. Therefore, although desirable, and an object to be pursued, they would not by themselves, unless accompanied by some different measures, effect the result which we desire. But then the Powers are pressing for a renewal of the mandates of the Financial Commission and the civil agents. Of course, that ought to go without saying. The renewal of the mandates is in effect a condition necessary to the carrying out of the conditions of the 3 per cent. increase of Customs. If these are to be refused, those conditions are ripped up, but even when mandates are renewed, you are only continuing the present state of things, and not making an advance. Then as to the gendarmerie proposal which we have made. The Powers have replied to the proposal, not all in the same terms, but some of them, at any rate, considering it to be impracticable or inopportune; and to others, of course, the proposal must be inopportune which does not commend itself to the whole of the Powers. I do not believe that the proposal will be impracticable provided that it has the goodwill of the Turkish authorities in Macedonia; and whether it has or not depends
  1704
  on the earnestness and union of the Concert in pressing it on the consideration of the Turkish Government. I believe that no proposal could be more in the interests of the Sultan himself. There is the instrument ready to his hand with which the country can be pacified; and I cannot conceive any derogation to his prestige, dignity, or authority in consenting to make use of a gendarmerie under European officers. I am asked whether the proposal has dropped. Of course, we are not going to press that, or any other proposal, against the opposition of other Powers in the Concert—we are not going to press it to the extent of separate action. But we are going to reply to the answers which we have had from the Powers; and when we have settled that reply, I should propose to lay before the House what our gendarmerie proposal actually was, what the reply from the Powers was, and what our answer to that reply has been. Meanwhile, the proposal remains, and can be taken up at any time. I should be delighted to see the proposal dropped on one condition—and that is that a better suggestion is made by any other Power. We have no amour propre in the matter ourselves. We are perfectly ready at any time to abandon any proposal of our own, if any of the Powers will come forward with any other proposal which will be likely to be more effective or as effective and which recommends itself more to the Concert as a whole, because I am convinced that the Macedonian problem can be settled if the Concert will only seriously take it in hand. Lord Lansdowne, as the noble Lord said, made more than one proposal, and, amongst others, he suggested a Turkish Governor. If a Turkish Governor were appointed for a fixed term of years—a man whose

  1705
  character and capacity were accepted and recognised by the Powers—and if he had a free hand and his position were secure, I believe that the whole Macedonian question might be solved. Under secure and effective administration such as that everything that has been done already—the Financial Commission and the gendarmerie—would have the fullest use made of it; the reforms that are already in existence would spring into full life and the country, I am convinced would be swept of bands and pacified.
  MR. MASTERMAN: Under what authority is that proposed? You say a Turkish governor in a position of independence or under some authority. Responsible to whom?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I said a Turkish Governor, whose character and capacity were recognised and accepted by the Powers—I mean a Governor appointed with the consent of the Powers, irremovable without their consent, and secure in his appointment for a term of years. I am not putting that forward as a definite proposal to which we ourselves are pledged. I am reviewing the general situation in Macedonia, and I say that our gendarmerie proposal is there for consideration, but that we keep an open mind for every suggestion or proposal which is likely, to commend itself to the Concert, and, among others, to this, which, if not entirely Lord Lansdowne's suggestion, at any rate, would be suggested to anyone who had read Lord Lansdowne's own suggestion with regard to the Governor. But if the administration is to be effective, there must be a large reduction of the Turkish troops at
  1706
  present kept in the country, throwing a tremendous financial strain upon it. Would a suggestion of that kind be so impossible as some people may suppose? I see no reason why a Turkish Governor appointed under satisfactory conditions should not be a Mussulman, provided his character and position and powers are satisfactory. I see no reason whatever, because this is no religious squabble. I see no reason why, under a satisfactory system of that kind, the foreign officers in Macedonia should not all be, as some of them are now, placed upon the Macedonian Budget, instead of being paid by the Powers direct. And, if there were to be a large reduction of the Turkish force, of course some security must be given that the reduction of the Turkish troops will not be taken advantage of by invasion from outside. It means that while any arrangement of that kind lasted, and as long as it was working satisfactorily, the Powers would have to give a collective guarantee that Turkish dominion should not be interfered with from outside—a guarantee of external security. The greatest weakness of Turkey itself is the continuance of the present Macedonian difficulty. Any settlement which would relieve the financial strain in Macedonia and which would pacify the country would bring Turkey political security and a guarantee of its integrity, neither of which can be too safe, either of which may be placed in danger if the Macedonian situation continues as it is. And under any satisfactory administration of that kind in Macedonia the provocation to rival bands to retaliate upon each other would cease. The risk of action by the bands would become so great under an effective use of troops or gendarmerie that they

  1707
  would not undertake it. And under any settlement of that sort, which was adopted for a term of years, the temptation to the different nationalities to press their own interests or to establish their own claims in Macedonia by violent action would be diminished, because they could no longer regard the Macedonian situation, as many of them do now, as incapable of solution. The danger to the European Concert at the present moment is not the danger from differences or quarrels between the Powers themselves. The danger to the Concert is not, I think, that the individual Powers who are in it are going to differ and fall out with each other, but I do think that the danger is that the Concert itself might perish for lack of vitality. The record of the last two years has been a record of comparative failure. Failure in itself is a most disintegrating force, and the Concert which has come into existence to secure Macedonian reform cannot, without peril to its existence, allow the years to go by and lie under the imputation of failure. Some degree, at any rate, of success is necessary to it in order to keep it together. The negotiations which must be consequent on our gendarmerie proposals will show what vitality the Concert has. It cannot prove its vitality by nagging and grinding away at small things which only irritate the Turks without doing any good. Small amendments of and tinkering at the Mürzsteg programme will not improve the situation. With things as they are in Macedonia anything which is less than a real remedy can be but little better than a farce. Both under Lord Lansdowne and for the last two years since the present Government has been in office Great
  1708
  Britain has been an active, loyal, earnest, and disinterested member of the Concert. But if good results are to follow from continuing that rôle, the work of the Concert must be directed to things which are not trivial or paper reforms, but which will be substantial and effective. We are rapidly ariving at that point when the Concert must either justify itself or stultify itself by its action. Macedonia, if it continues to be neglected, must sooner or later provoke a catastrophe. The situation can be remedied without precipitating a catastrophe, but it can only be by decided and united action on the part of the Powers themselves. Union in the Concert is not enough by itself. Union and determination must be combined, and neither should be sacrificed to the other; and we, for our part, shall continue in the Concert to do our utmost to secure that both union and determination are promoted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether, after the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman, it is proposed to proceed to a division. ["No."] I should hope not. Under the circumstances, I can only say that if there had been a division I should have supported the right hon. Gentleman.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes before Eleven o'clock.