Commons Sitting of 18 July 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.
South Hants Water Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Barry Railway Bill,
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.] Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
Cambridge University and Town Water Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill,
As amended, to be considered tomorrow.
Middleton Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.] Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
Abertillery and District Water Board Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till to-morrow.
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
Local Government Provisional (No. 8) Bill,
Local Government Provisional (No. 14) Bill,
Local Government Provisional (No. 15) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Provisional Order Bills,
Ordered, That, in the case of the Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords], Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords], Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords], Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords], Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords], Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords], and Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill [Lords], so much of Standing Order 73 as provides that notice of the day on which a Bill for confirming any Provisional Order will be examined shall not be given until after the Bill has been printed and circulated, be suspended.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 3) Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

GROSS DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURE
Return ordered, "showing for the financial years 1904–5, 1905–6, 1909–10, and 1910–11 (estimated), respectively, the total annual Expenditure of each of the following Departments, namely:—

(1) Army (including Ordnance Factories);

(2) Navy;

(3) Civil Services;

(4) Revenue Departments;

under each of the following headings for each Department, namely:—

(a) Expenditure from net Votes voted in Supply;

843

(b) Expenditure from Receipts appropriated in aid;

(c) Expenditure out of issues to meet capital Expenditure under various Acts;

(d) Expenditure incurred on account of this Department by other Departments; together with the totals of (a), (b), (c), and (d) for each of the four Departments, and in addition a deduction from the total of each Department of the Expenditure incurred by that Department on account of other Departments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 243, of Session 1905).—[Mr. Gibson Bowles.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Southern Nigeria (Reported Arrest of the Oloye of Oye).
  Mr. KINGasked whether any report upon the arrest in Southern Nigeria of the Oloye of Oye had been received at the Colonial Office; and if an explanation of this arrest could be stated?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The Governor has been asked to furnish a report, but sufficient time has not elapsed to allow of its receipt.

  Java Plantations (Forced Native Labour).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands Government had called the attention of His Majesty's Government to the prospectus of the Anglo-Dutch Plantations of Java, Limited, and in doing so claimed the right to expropriate the estate; and whether, in view of the advertised advantage in this company of the right to forced labour for private profit, His Majesty's Government would refrain from giving any diplomatic support to the company in order that British shareholders may be saved from participating in a system indistinguishable from slavery?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As no appeal has been made by the Anglo-Dutch Plantations of Java, Limited, for the support of His Majesty's Government, the second part of the question is based on a hypothetical case, which I am not prepared to discuss; nor can I say without further information what is the true character of the labour referred to.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the prospectus it is specifically stated that the company are able to compel the natives to work?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: They have not asked for our assistance, and when they do so it will be time enough to consider whether we ought to render it.

  British and German Navies (Tonnage).
  Mr. VERNEYasked what were the net and gross tonnage of the German Imperial Navy in the years 1870, 1880, 1890, and 1909, or part of that time; and further what were the gross and net tonnage of the British Royal Navy in the years 1870, 1880, 1890, and 1909, or for part of that time?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): I regret that I have not the information available, but I could have a return made of the displacement tonnage for effective fighting ships, if that would meet my hon. Friend's wishes.

  Indian Prisoner Savarkar (Escape and Recapture).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked whether the Indian prisoner Savarkar, while being carried to India for trial on charges of sedition and treason, escaped from the ship while calling at Marseilles; whether he was recaptured and brought back in custody by the French police; and whether he has made any communication to the French Government upon the subject?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I understand that the prisoner made an attempt to escape while the ship was at Marseilles, but was stopped with the aid of the French police. No occasion has arisen for communicating with the French Government on the subject.

  Cardboard Box-Making (Decisions of Trade Board).
  Dr. ADDISONasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to form a Board in respect of the cardboard box-making trade; and what steps will be taken after the formation of such a Board to bring its decisions to the knowledge of the many scattered home-workers in this trade, so that they may be able to avail themselves of the benefits which may be due to them in consequence of the decisions of the Trade Board?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton): The employers engaged in the paper box trade in Great Britain have elected their representatives on the Trade Board and the Board of Trade are proceeding with the nomination of the representatives of the workers. In accordance with the regulations as to giving notice, which have been laid before Parliament, every occupier of any place used for giving out work to out-workers will be required to exhibit notices of the minimum rates of wages fixed by the Trade Board and officers will be appointed for the purpose of securing the observance of the Act. I quite appreciate the importance of bringing the decisions of the Trade Board to the notice of the home-workers and shall be happy to consider any further means which the Trade Board may suggest for this purpose.

  Law Guarantee and Trust Society.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked whether, in the light of further investigation into the affairs of the Law Guarantee and Trust Society, Limited, the President of the Board of Trade is now prepared to direct the Official Receiver to take the necessary steps for obtaining a compulsory liquidation with a view to securing full inquiry into the affairs of the company?
  Mr. BUXTON:I have made careful and personal inquiry into the question, and have taken the advice of the Law Officers as to the powers of the Board of Trade, and I am advised that the Board of Trade have no power to order an inquiry into the affairs of a company in voluntary liquidation, and that the power to appoint an inspector under Section 109 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act is confined to living companies. I have, in answer to previous questions, pointed out that the only means provided by law for an official investigation into the affairs of a company in liquidation is the inquiry which is conducted by the Official Receiver into the affairs of every company which is ordered to be wound up by the court. The powers and duties of the Official Receiver do not, however, arise until an order for winding up has been made by the court. The only possible step open to any officer of the Board of Trade to secure a winding-up order is the presentation of a petition by the Official Receiver. The Official Receiver's right to petition the court is, however, limited to cases where he is in a position to prove that the voluntary
  846
  winding up cannot be continued with due regard to the interests of the creditors or shareholders. A petition by the Official Receiver thus requires evidence of a special nature to support it. I am fully disposed to view with sympathy the wishes of hon. Members who have put questions to me on the subject of the Law Guarantee Trust and Accident Society. I have, however, as yet no such evidence before me, but if proper evidence is laid before me—that is to say, statements of definite facts, with the names of the persons who are willing to substantiate them on oath—I will at once lay the statements before my legal advisers in order to ascertain whether they are sufficient to give the court jurisdiction in the matter. I may remind my hon. Friend that the normal method by which an order is obtained for the winding up of a company by the court is by means of a petition presented by a creditor or by a shareholder; and in the present case it is open to any creditor and to any shareholder of the company to petition the court for such an order.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received from me personally a very specific statement of the facts, and has not he also received a representation from the Lord Chief Justice of England, who is a shareholder in this company, expressing his opinion that there is great need for a public and full examination?
  Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Member kindly sent me the statement to which he refers, and I have read the report of the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice, and, as pointed out, certain statements are made therein. But in order that I may move I must have statements made by those who are willing to be responsible for them, and who are prepared to substantiate them on their oath if necessary, and I would be very glad to discuss such statements if my hon. Friend will submit them. Statements made in the newspapers in which the names of persons who are prepared to substantiate them are not given, are not quite statements in the sense to which I have referred. If those who have made them are prepared to come forward and substantiate them on oath I will be very glad to lay them before the Law Officers with that object.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: How is it possible to substantiate statements on oath unless some court investigates the matter? It would not be done by a private oath.
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not ask them to send that evidence to me on oath. What I would like to see is sufficient substantiation to justify me under the Act in moving in the matter. Evidence sent to me may afterwards have to be substantiated on oath if it is sufficient to justify the case being sent into court.

  Cocoa and Chocolate Exports.
  Mr. GRANT (for Mr. Douglas Hall)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the total value of the exports of manufactured cocoa and chocolate from this country for the year 1909–10; and whether he has any means of ascertaining the total amount of manufactured cocoa and chocolate supplied to the home market?
  Mr. BUXTON: The total value of the exports of cocoa or chocolate ground, prepared, or manufactured in the United Kingdom in the year 1909–10 was £168,330, but this sum is exclusive of the value of the exports of confectionery containing chocolate, which amounted to £387,053. The value of the cocoa or chocolate ingredient in such confectionery cannot be stated. Some information with regard to the total output of cocoa and chocolate in the United Kingdom has been obtained under the Census of Production Act, and preliminary figures will be issued during the course of the year. It has not, however, been found possible to distinguish the output of confectionery containing chocolate of other classes of confectionery.

  Railway Shunting (Fatal Accidents).
  Mr. HUDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that during a single week in January last the Press of the United Kingdom reported six inquests on servants killed while engaged in coupling or uncoupling railway vehicles during shunting operations, three of these being servants of railway companies, and three employés of owners or users of private sidings; will he state which of them in the ordinary course were reported to the Home Office; and whether all these accidents are collected and returned to Parliament by the Board of Trade in the annual Return of Accidents on Railways?
  Mr. BUXTON: The three fatal accidents to railway servants which my hon. Friend probably has in mind occurred on 18th, 22nd, and 29th January, but one of them was not a coupling accident in the ordinary
  848
  sense of the word. All these accidents would be included in the Board of Trade Return. Accidents on private lines are only reportable to the Board of Trade when they occur to servants of a railway company, and accidents to employés of the owners of such lines are in most cases reportable to the Home Office, and not included in the Board of Trade Returns.

  Anæsthetics (Unqualified Administrators).
  Dr. ADDISONasked the Home Secretary, in view of the Report upon Anæsthetics issued by the Coroners' Committee and the decision of the Lord Chancellor in the case of Bellesby v. Heyworth, if he can state what steps the Government proposes to take, by legislation or otherwise, to protect the public against uneducated and unqualified persons practising medicine or dentistry?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: May I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave last Wednesday to the hon. and learned Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool?

  Cruelty to Animals.
  Dr. ADDISONasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the operation of spaying two rabbits under an anæsthetic by a skilled operator without his licence being in order has been declared a contravention of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, he proposes to take any action in regard to the corresponding operation which is performed in numbers of cases on young pigs and on young male cattle and sheep in this country every year by unqualified persons, and without an anæsthetic?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. The operation on the rabbits, being "an experiment calculated to give pain" and performed without the necessary authorisation, was a breach of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876. The other operations to which my hon. Friend refers do not come within that Act; and I am advised that there is nothing illegal in them if carried out bonâ fide for commercial or domestic purposes and without causing unnecessary suffering. I have no evidence that the existing law with regard to them requires amendment.
  Dr. ADDISON: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say if this operation on rabbits performed by skilled operators and without pain to the animal

  849
  is considered an offence under the Cruelty to Animals Act why persons are allowed to perform, perfectly untrained, the same operation on other animals without skill and with the infliction of pain?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know that this operation is ever performed on rabbits bonâ fide for medical purposes. Obviously, an operation of a character that is performed already is one that would come within the scope of the Act.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it prohibited for one class of animals and not for another?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The law of the country has been framed in order to restrict and regulate operations upon animals for the purposes of scientific investigation, but it has not hitherto restricted the ordinary actions which are taken for commercial purposes in regard to certain animals.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Is it true as suggested in this question that these operations on young farm animals are conducted by unqualified persons, and that if performed by properly qualified persons they constitute cruelty?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: They do not come within the scope of the Act, in my opinion.

  Mine Inspectors (Staff).
  Mr. HANCOCKasked the Home Secretary whether the Government proposes to increase the number of mines inspectors in the near future; and, if so, can he inform the House when this increase will be made, and what position these inspectors will occupy as compared with those already appointed?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The subject is receiving my consideration, but I am not in a position to make any statement at the present moment.
  Mr. HANCOCK: In the event of the number of inspectors being increased, will steps be taken to bring the fact to the knowledge especially of those in mining circles?

  Cycle Accidents.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Home Secretary whether he will cause accidents resulting from the use of bicycles and tricycles to be reported and registered in like manner with accidents resulting from motor-driven vehicles?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: All accidents which are known to the Metropolitan Police to have been caused by motor cycles or other cycles, and which have resulted in either personal injury or in death, are recorded in the Commissioner's Annual Report (tables 13, 14, and 15). Accidents caused by motor cycles throughout England and Wales are included in the Return (No. 100 of 1909) or Street Accidents Caused by Vehicles.
  Mr. J. D. REES: In that case why cannot the accidents referred to in the question be included in that Return?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No. A return of accidents from all cycles would involve much labour and expense, more than would be justified.

  Shop Hours Bill.
  Mr. WATTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that some retail drapery firms in large cities fear that the Shop Hours Bill, recently introduced by him, may have the effect of giving the employés in these establishments two half-holidays in the week, one on Saturday afternoons and evenings, from the fact that the district where they are placed is deserted on these afternoons and evenings, and the other on some other day of the week arrived at by the vote of the locality; and, if so, will he see that some Amendment is introduced which will prevent this effect?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall be happy to consider any representations that may be sent to me on the subject. None have reached me up to the present, and, so far as I can see, there is no reason to fear that the Bill would lead to the results which my hon. Friend fears.

  Assize Circuits.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked whether any proposal has been made to remove the Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery, hitherto sitting at Shrewsbury, to the city of Birmingham; and whether, in view of the inconvenience to prosecutors, witnesses, jurymen, and others having business at these assizes, an opportunity will be given for the discussion of the proposal in this House before it is carried into effect?
  Mr. LLOYDasked whether, in regard to the scheme for the alteration of the assize circuits throughout England, it is proposed to move the assize business now transacted at Stafford to Birmingham;

  851
  whether the Home Secretary is aware of the feelings held on this subject by the various localities and authorities concerned; and whether he will give them an assurance that no decisive steps shall be taken without the advice and full knowledge of the localities concerned?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I can only refer to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the Western Division of Cumberland last Wednesday. The matter is not one for my Department, but the Solicitor-General informed the House some time ago, in reply to questions from hon. Members, that opportunity will be given for discussion in the House of any proposals involving any substantial alteration in the present circuit system.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will an opportunity be afforded for discussing the matter?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: All questions relating to the business of the House should be addressed to the Prime Minister.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Would the alteration referred to be considered a substantial one?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I should not like to say without seeing what other alterations there are in contemplation.

  Home Office Staff (Appointments since January, 1906).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked what is the total number of persons, not at the time of appointment in permanent Government employment, who have been appointed since January, 1906, to positions in his Department with salaries exceeding £100 a year, and who did not previously to their appointment pass an examination by the Civil Service Commissioners; and what is the total annual amount of their salaries?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There was one appointment without examination in 1906, and there were five in 1908. The commencing salaries amount in the aggregate to £4,200. In all these cases a certificate was issued by the Civil Service Commissioners under Clause VII. of the Order in Council of 4th June, 1870, which provides that a certificate may be granted without examination if the head of the Department and the Treasury consider that the qualifications required for the situation are wholly or in part profes-
  852
  sional or otherwise peculiar, and not ordinarily to be acquired in the Civil Service.
  Lord BALCARRES: Does this cover the appointments under the various inspectorates?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I understand so.

  Church in Wales (Report of Royal Commission).
  Mr. LLEWELYNasked the reason for the continued delay in the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Church in Wales?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that the cause of the prolonged delay in issuing the Report of the Royal Commission is that a separate Memorandum undertaken by one of the Commissioners has not yet been received, and I propose to communicate again with the chairman of the Commission.

  Case of Margherita Garibaldi.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked whether the Home Secretary's attention has been drawn to the case of Margherita Garibaldi, who was sentenced to death at the Staffordshire Assizes on Wednesday last for the destruction of her newly-born infant; whether he proposes to advise the clemency of the Crown; and, if so, would he make known his decision at the earliest possible moment?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I could not have answered this question if I had not already given my advice to His Majesty on this case. I advised His Majesty that the prerogative of mercy should be exercised, and the capital sentence was respited last Friday. The prisoner was at once informed.

  Funeral of King Edward (Cost of Police).
  Mr. KINGasked what was the total amount distributed to the Metropolitan Police by way of gratuities or special allowance for extra work or services in connection with the funeral ceremonies of His late Majesty, and if the amounts paid will be specified under any Vote which can be discussed in Committee by the House; or will this charge wholly or partly fall upon the ratepayers of London?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The extra remuneration allowed to the Metropolitan Police in connection with the funeral of His late Majesty amounted to £8,527, which has been paid from the Metropolitan Police

  853
  Fund. That fund is provided partly by local rate, partly by contribution from the Local Taxation Account, and partly by a Grant from the Vote for Police (England and Wales) in respect of Imperial and national services rendered by the Metropolitan Police.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Is the Home Secretary aware that the First Commissioner of Works on Friday last stated that the total cost of His late Majesty's funeral was £40,000, and was this item included in that amount?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know whether it was included in the expenses of the funeral which were considered under the Vote on Friday last. I think not. It will be a charge occurring under the ordinary head of the police.

  Wallis versus Haines (Mistaken Description of Seeds).
  Mr. LLEWELYNasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the judgment in the case of Wallis versus Haines and others, decided in the Court of Appeal on 21st June last, under which farmers and other purchasers of seeds will in future have to run the risk of mistaken description of the seeds, he will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill, similar to the Fertilisers and Foodstuffs Act of 1906, in order to fix the responsibility of guarantee as to kind upon the original grower of the seed and thereby prevent errors in description, fraudulent and otherwise?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): Yes, Sir, but this matter is by no means free from difficulty from a legal point of view.
  Mr. STANIER: Will the hon. Gentleman confer with the Law Officers of the Crown in order to see whether this sort of misrepresentation can be stopped?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I have already replied that it is under consideration.

  Royal Gardens, Kew (Appointments of Gardeners).
  Mr. JAMES PARKERasked how many gardeners left the Royal Gardens, Kew, during the period from 1st January, 1909, to 31st December, 1909; how many obtained appointments in the Colonies; and how many obtained appointments in Great Britain?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Twenty-nine young gardeners left Kew in 1909. Sixteen of them are known to have obtained situations in Great Britain and four in the Colonies.

  Ordnance Workers (Secretary to Committee of Inquiry).
  Mr. W ABRAHAM (Dublin) (for Mr. Nannetti)asked whether a decision has yet been arrived at as to the name of the secretary to the committee of inquiry into the grievances complained of by the Ordnance workers of the country; and, if so, will he give his name to the House?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The matter is still under consideration.
  Mr. W. ABRAHAMasked whether the question of appointing a representative from Ireland on the committee of inquiry has yet been decided; and, if so, will the hon. Gentleman state to the House the name of the person appointed?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: This matter also is still under consideration.

  Applications for Small Holdings.
  Mr. J. H. WHITEHOUSE (for Mr. Noel Buxton)asked what steps the Board of Agriculture takes to investigate the case of an applicant for a small holding who, upon the rejection or neglect of his application by a county council, appeals to the Board to have the matter reconsidered?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board ascertain the reasons for the rejection of an applicant by a council by inquiries made locally by one of their inspectors, or by other suitable means. They do not acquiesce in the rejection unless they are satisfied there are good grounds for the action of the council.
  Mr. J. W. WHITEHOUSEasked whether, in view of the difficulties experienced by applicants under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, in obtaining land in the counties of Surrey and Kent, it is proposed to appoint a Special Commissioner for either or both of those counties; and, if not, what steps the Board is taking, or proposes to take, to surmount the difficulties referred to?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of Special Commissioners in the counties named.

  855
  The difficulties are largely due to the high value of land in these counties, which cannot be overcome by any action of the Board. I may add that about 1,500 acres have been acquired by Kent and 300 acres by Surrey, and compulsory orders have been made for the acquisition of a further 111 acres in the latter county.

  Severn Fisheries Provisional Order Bill.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether it is proposed to proceed further this Session with the Severn Fisheries Provisional Order Bill?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: It is proposed to ask the Examiner to give notice on the 20th instant of the examination of the Bill so far as the Standing Orders are concerned.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Having regard to the fact that every riparian county except Worcestershire has reported adversely to this Bill, does the Government propose to treat it as a non-contentious measure?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I do not think that arises out of the question.
  Mr. STANIER: Will the Bill be presented in the form it is now in, or with the Amendments as proposed by the Board of Agriculture?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I think the hon. Member must wait.

  Pollution of Streams (Tarred Roads).
  Captain BARINGasked whether the hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the pollution of the Darenth and other streams by the washings from tarred roads; and whether any inquiry has been made into the matter by his Department?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Complaints have from time to time been made to the Board of the death of fish in the Darenth attributed to various possible causes, but not specifically to washings from tarred roads. The attention of the Board has, however, been called to newspaper reports of cases, both in the Darenth and elsewhere, in which injury to fish by washings from tarred roads has been alleged. In the case of the Darenth the Board have been in communication with gentlemen locally interested, and have suggested that certain steps should be taken to ascertain the cause of the death of the fish in that river.

  Slaughter-Houses (Powers to make By-Laws).
  Mr. CAWLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board how many rural authorities have applied in the last 12 months for powers to make by-laws to prevent cruelty in slaughter-houses, and how many of those applications have been acceded to; and whether the Board favours the application for and use of such powers?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I find that in the last twelve months the powers referred to have been conferred by the Board upon five rural district councils. No separate record is kept of applications for these particular powers, but I may say that they are freely given to rural authorities who apply for them.
  Mr. CAWLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many local authorities have by-laws under the powers conferred on them?
  Mr. BURNS: Thirty in the year ending 30th June, 1909, and thirty in the year ending 30th June, 1910.

  Local Education Authorities (Special Grants).
  Mr. G. J. SANDYS (for Mr. Newman)asked the President of the Board of Education when the regulations providing for special Grants in aid of certain local education authorities for the year 1910 will be issued; and whether it is the present intention of his Board to pay the full three-fourth Grants to all education authorities whose rate exceeds the produce of a rate of 1s. 6d. in the pound on the area of their authority?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

  Domestic Economy Committees (Local Education).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the importance to all girls in their after-life of a knowledge of needlework and the art of mending and darning, and the growing feeling on the part of the domestic economy committees of local education authorities that insufficient time is now devoted to this subject in the elementary schools, the Board

  857
  will consider the desirability of modifying the regulation under which the less practically useful subject of drawing has recently been made a compulsory subject for girls, with the consequent reduction of the number of school hours previously devoted to needlework?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The Board have every desire that ample time should be devoted by girls in public elementary schools to practical needlework in all its branches. It is not quite accurate to say that drawing has recently been made a compulsory subject for girls, but the Board attach considerable importance to its inclusion in their curriculum. If any local education authority finds difficulty in arranging the time-table so as to preserve a proper proportion between needlework, drawing, and the other subjects, the Board will be glad to assist them to the best of their ability.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I should like to know whether it is a fact that compulsory drawing by girls has excluded a good part of the needlework which used to be done in the elementary school?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I do not think that is necessarily so.

  School Attendance (Partial and Total Exemption).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether it is the intention of the Board to carry out any, and, if so, which, of the proposals contained in the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Partial Exemption from School Attendance, issued in July, 1909; and whether, in view of the practically unanimous opinion of agricultural educationists that many of the boys best fitted for farm work do not in fact improve their education by remaining at school after the age of twelve years, and that boys who do not handle live stock before the age of thirteen years seldom develop into good stockmen, the Board will, while abolishing altogether half-time labour in the best interests of the child, the teaching staff, and the school, consider the desirability of permitting total exemption at the age of twelve years in the case of all boys in rural districts who, although backward in the literary work of the school, have displayed proficiency in the school garden or at manual instruction classes, and for whom beneficial employment to the satisfaction of the local education authority or of an after-
  858
  care committee can be secured immediately upon their leaving school?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The Report is still under consideration, and my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any statement as to the action the Board propose to take on it.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Are we to understand that the Board is considering the proposal to reduce the age to twelve years in any circumstances?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The Board is considering the whole question of partial and total exemption with a view to legislation.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Before any decision is put in force will the House have an opportunity of discussing it?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: It will have an opportunity, of course, when legislation is brought forward.

  Rural Education Conference.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Education whether there will be any, and, if any, what, relation between the rural education conference referred to in the Memorandum of arrangements between the Board of Education and the Board of Agriculture, dated the 22nd September, 1909, in reference to agricultural education and the Inter-Departmental Committee of the two Boards referred to in the same Memorandum, or whether it is intended that these two bodies shall work quite independently of each other?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: If the hon. Member will refer to the Memorandum in question, and especially to the last sentence of paragraph 4, I think he will there find an answer to the main question, and that the alternative suggested at the end of the question does not arise.

  Towyn Church School.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education if he would submit to Members of this House a copy of the report of the Board inspector who visited Towyn Church school in June last?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The communications which passed between the inspector and the Board were informal. There is no report to submit. If there were, my right hon. Friend does not think anything would be gained by submitting it.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked if the whole cost of the proposed addition to Towyn council school will fall upon the ratepayers; and in what proportion will the local and general rates contribute?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The answer to the first part of the question is, so far as the Board are aware, in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to Section 18 (1) (c) of the Education Act, 1902, and to the local education authority.

  Civil List Pensions (Case of Mrs. H. Cox).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the death of Mr. H. Cox, after a long period of suffering, as the result of injuries received in the course of his duties in connection with the application of X-rays; and whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, he will recommend the widow for a Civil List pension?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am aware of the sad circumstances of Mr. Cox's death. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's question, it is impossible for me to express any opinion until I am furnished in the usual manner with such information as is required in the case of all applications for relief from Civil List Funds.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman sympathetically consider any applications that may be sent in?

  Supply (Board of Agriculture Vote).
  Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether any opportunity will be given for the further discussion on the Vote of the President of the Board of Agriculture before the House adjourns in August?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. There will be no further opportunity for discussion in connection with any specific Vote.
  Mr. HUNT: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman considers part of a day sufficient to devote to this the most important industry in the country?

  Convention of London.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister when an opportunity will be given to discuss the question as to whether the Convention of London should or should not be ratified?
  The PRIME MINISTER: An opportunity will arise on the Second Reading of the Naval Prize Bill at the adjourned meeting of the House.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any date is fixed for that?

  Tobacco Import Duty.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary to the Treasury what would be the Import Duty paid to the Government out of £100 worth of raw tobacco of the value of a halfpenny per ounce; and what would be the Import Duty paid to the Government out of £100 worth of cigars of the value of £6 5s. per pound?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): Assuming that by "£100 worth" is meant "£100 worth duty paid," and that the prices given are import values, the amount of duty included in £100 worth of duty-paid tobacco of an import value of ½d. per ounce would be £84 12s. 3d., and the amount included in £100 worth of duty-paid cigars of an import value of £6 5s. per pound would be £5 6s. The hon. Member will no doubt observe that the tax upon tobacco as compared with cigars maintains the same proportion as it has done for the last six years.
  Mr. HUNT: Is this a sample of Free Trade taxation in favour of the working people?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As I have endeavoured to point out, it is a sample of the finances of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain).
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the consumer pays those import duties?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: We have not had any representation from the exporting foreigner that he pays it.

  Old Age Pensions, Ireland.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Secretary to the Treasury upon what grounds Thomas M'Loughlin, of Cloonmore, Drumkeerin, county Leitrim, was deprived of the old age pension; whether he is aware that M'Loughlin produced a certificate of his age received from the Reverend Patrick M'Morrow, P.P., V.F., and that the registry clerk produced the baptismal registry to the pension officer;

  861
  and, having regard to such facts, will an inquiry be ordered with a view of granting M'Loughlin the pension, and paying him the amount due since it became due?
  Mr. HOBHOUSEdesired that the question should be postponed.
  Mr. F. E. MEEHAN: May I ask is the right hon. Gentleman accustomed to postpone these questions, because they refer to old age pensions?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The question is postponed, because it is difficult to get, in a short period of time, all the facts of the case. Representations have to be made to the Pensions Officer in Ireland; and in a somewhat distant parish it is difficult to obtain particulars.
  Mr. JOYCE: May I ask did the right hon. Gentleman communicate with my hon. Friend in postponing these questions?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understood the Department always did. If such a communication has not been made it ought to be made.
  Mr. F. E. MEEHAN: I have not received any communication.

  Traction Engine Traffic (Scotland).
  Captain WARINGasked the Lord Advocate if he is yet in a position to state whether the request in the petition from the Banffshire road authorities to the Secretary for Scotland regarding the regulation of traction engine traffic will be given effect to?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): Assuming that my hon. Friend refers to the question of the use of studs on the wheels of traction engines I would refer him to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh on 23rd June to the effect that there is not at present sufficient agreement to justify the Secretary for Scotland in dealing with this matter in the only manner possible—namely, by action applicable to Scotland at large.

  Voluntary Schools, Scotland.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the voluntary schools of Scotland are entitled, in accordance with the undertaking given by the Secretary of Scotland during the passage of the Education (Scotland) Act into law, to receive, out of the residue, 6s. for every unit of the whole average attendance in the voluntary schools; and whether he can state when this amount will be distributed?
  Mr. URE: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to his question on this subject. To that answer I cannot usefully add anything.
  Mr. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to the report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland which has just been issued there is a balance over the estimate of last year of £2,600, and in addition a balance of £17,000 carried on to this year; and whether out of that balance he will see that the voluntary schools get justice in this matter?
  Mr. URE: I have no doubt the voluntary schools will get complete justice in this case.

  Loans for School Buildings (Scotland).
  Mr. EUGENE WASONasked the Lord Advocate whether the Government will be prepared to extend to Scotland the same terms that have been promised to England with regard to loans for school buildings, that is to say, that the period of repayment will be extended over fifty years instead of thirty years as at present?
  Mr. URE: The present period for repayment in the case of new buildings is forty years, not thirty as stated in the question. This period will now be extended up to a maximum of fifty years as is proposed in the case of England.

  Royal Marine Light Infantry (Case of John S. Barnard).
  Mr. NIELDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that John S. Barnard entered the Royal Marine Light Infantry on 26th September, 1896, and was then medically examined and passed as sound; whether he is aware that, subsequently, whilst serving in His Majesty's ship "Tyne," under Captain Bruce, on the China station, he was attacked by sunstroke at Corfu, and, as a result, invalided from time to time as suffering from melancholia, and for that reason was discharged the Service in April, 1905, with two good-conduct badges and a twenty-four months' gratuity of 4s. 8d. per week ceasing in April, 1907; whether he is aware that Barnard's application for light employment by the Admiralty has been repeatedly made and refused; and, seeing that, failing to get work, Barnard and his wife have been imprisoned on a charge of begging, and with their two children have

  863
  no means of subsistence, whether he will take steps to have Barnard's case reconsidered?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKENNA): There is nothing in the official records to indicate that this man has ever suffered from sunstroke, and the medical reports show that his invaliding for melancholia was not in any way attributable to Service causes. In these circumstances the pension which he has already received is the full amount to which he is entitled under the Regulations, and no further assistance can be granted to him. With regard to the man's present destitute condition, it may be mentioned that he married after his discharge from the Navy, and at a time when he had no employment.
  Mr. NIELD: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that the man was perfectly sound?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; I am afraid I am not able to admit anything beyond what I have said in the reply. If the hon. Member will address any further question to me I will inquire.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: May I ask if the attacks of melancholia came on after the present Government came into power?
  Mr. McKENNA: I should gather not.

  Income Tax.
  Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Income Tax assessors in the West of Scotland, when refused production of balance sheets by the taxpayers, adopt the system of threatening to raise the assessment, thus forcing the taxpayer to appeal, and having thus made the case an appeal they are entitled to insist on the production of balance sheets; and will he see that this practice is put a stop to?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am not aware that any such action has been adopted by the assessors referred to. If my hon. Friend will be so good as to furnish me with the details of any specific case, I will cause inquiry to be made.
  Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there may be a black list of complainers, and that they will be punished hereafter?
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the actual or estimated cost per annum of the Department responsible for the collection of the Super-tax?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is estimated that, under normal conditions, the cost of the salaries in this Department will be about £10,000 a year.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked whether profits arising from betting transactions are at present chargeable with Income Tax?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I may refer the hon. Member to the case of Partridge v. Mellandaine (1886) 18 Q.B.D. 276 (II. Tax Cases 179), which decided that a person who attends races and systematically bets, is liable in respect of the profits he derives from the vocation of betting.

  Playing Cards (Duty).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the amount received during the past financial year in respect of the duty upon playing cards?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The duty received upon playing cards during the financial year 1909–10 was:—Playing cards imported, £9,009; playing cards made in the United Kingdom, £29,928; total, £38,937.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many men and woman are ruined by playing cards?

  Manufacture of Dice.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the amount received during the past financial year in respect of licences for the manufacture of dice?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No Excise Licence Duty is payable in respect of the manufacture of dice.

  FINANCE ACT, 1909–10.

    PREMIUM BONDS (STAMP DUTY).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the amount received during the past financial year in respect of Stamp Duty upon premium bonds negotiated in this country?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret that I am unable to supply the hon. Member with the information he desires.

    LICENCE DUTY (ANNUAL RENTAL VALUES).
    Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the promised reduction in the basis of rental valuation upon which Licence Duty is to be charged on houses

    865
    of over £50 of annual value in Ireland until the register of licence values is completed, he is considering the grant of equivalent treatment to houses of similar value in England and Scotland where the annual rental values are fixed on a much higher scale than the unreduced valuation in Ireland?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I explained to the hon. Member in the reply which I gave him on this subject on the 14th instant, the valuation of licensed premises in Ireland rests on an entirely different basis to that in England and Scotland. The Finance Act of last year provides for a new valuation being made in respect of these latter countries, and this is being proceeded with at the present time.
    Mr. G. YOUNGER: Does the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is the third concession he has made to Ireland? I do not complain of it for a moment. The first was——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put what he wants in the form of a question. This is not the time for argument.
    Mr. G. YOUNGER: I beg your pardon. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the time has come to reconsider the question of valuation in England and Scotland?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I have already explained, not only has the time come, but we actually provided in the Finance Bill last year that the question of value should be reconsidered, and it is being reconsidered at the present moment.
    Mr. G. YOUNGER: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that steps are being taken to proceed with the revaluation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been discussing it this morning. It is being proceeded with at this present moment. I agree it is very important to reconsider it.

    SUPER-TAX.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that pension for which payment had been made by the recipient by way of compulsory deductions from his pay was practically on the same footing as periodical payments made on account of insurance, he would arrange that pensions earned by such payments should be deducted in calculating total income for Super-tax?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Sir J. D. REES: In what respect do these deductions differ from payments on account of insurance?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a very large question, which has been discussed many times in connection with Finance Bills.

    RESTAURATEURS (LICENCES).
    Mr. FELLasked if, under Clause 2, Schedule 7, of the Finance Act of last year, many of the principal restaurateurs and caterers in London and the country would be compelled to either take out an ordinary public-house licence, which was in most cases impossible, or else surrender their off-licences to sell wines and spirits?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no notion as to what the hon. Member means. There is no Schedule 7 in the Finance Act of last year.

    Attack on Uncle of Raja of Naldanga.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he could give the House any information regarding the attack made on the uncle of the Raja of Naldanga; and whether it had been ascertained that he was shot for having given information to the police against political agitators against the British-Indian Government?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I regret to say that the uncle of the Raja was shot and very severely wounded on the night of 10th July. My latest information is that he is expected to live. It is thought probable that the motive for the crime was that suggested by the hon. Member.

    Tymon's Estate, Kilrush.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention had been called to the fact that, in the case of the Tymon's estate, near Kilrush, the agreements were completed four years ago, and whether steps could be taken to expedite this matter?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): When this estate is reached in order of priority it will be dealt with as soon as practicable. The Estates Commissioners cannot at present say when the sale will be completed.

    Marquess of Conyngham's Estate (West Clare).
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether, in reference to the estate of the Marquess of Conyngham, West Clare, of which the agent was Mr. Marcus Keane, of Beechpark, Ennis, county Clare, two memorials were, on 3rd April, forwarded to the Congested Districts Board, signed respectively on behalf of all the tenants of the Dough and Kilferagh townlands; whether in the Dough townland there were ten of the tenants whose estates were less than of £7 valuation, and in the Kilferagh townland thirty-one tenants whose estates were less than of £7 valuation; and whether, in view of the needs of the tenants, steps would be taken to expedite the settlement in regard to this estate?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The memorials referred to have been received by the Congested Districts Board, who are making inquiries as to whether the owner is willing to negotiate for a sale of this portion of his estate.

    Claim of Martin M'Gowan, Kinlough.
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the Estates Commissioners had yet considered the claim of Martin McGowan, of Aughadunbane, Kinlough, county Leitrim, an evicted tenant on the Johnston estate, for a grant to enable him to rebuild his house and stock his farm; and, if not, whether they proposed taking some steps to assist this tenant?
    Mr. BIRRELL: M'Gowan's application will be considered by the Estates Commissioners when the estate is being dealt with in order of priority. Proceedings for sale of this estate were only instituted in October, 1908.

    Ballygawley (County Tyrone) Disturbance.
    Mr. HORNERasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that on 1st July, when the members of an Orange band were returning from Annahoe House, Ballygawley, county Tyrone, where they were having a new banner unfurled, they were attacked and stones thrown and several shots fired at them, and that one of the bullets hit and injured the bicycle of one of the policemen who were accompanying the band; whether any steps had been taken to bring any of the assailants to justice; and, if not, what was the reason?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Proceedings by summons have been instituted by members of
    868
    both parties in connection with the occurrence referred to in the question. The matter is sub judice, and I cannot, therefore, make any statement in reference to it.

    Peace Preservation Act (Surrender of Weapons and Ammunition).
    Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if he would state the number of weapons and the quantity of ammunition surrendered under the Peace Preservation Act which it was intended to restore to the owners or their legal representatives?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is not possible to give this information at present. No claims have as yet been made, and if any should be made they will have to be investigated very carefully by the police.

    Probate Duties Act (Grants to Irish Counties).
    Mr. CULLINANasked the Chief Secretary whether, seeing that under The Probate Duties (Scotland and Ireland) Act, 1888, county councils in Ireland were entitled to a grant out of the produce of the Probate Duties in proportion to the amounts paid out of county cess on roads and bridges in the year 1887, that the Local Government Board for Ireland had certified that the amount paid out of the county cess on roads and bridges in the South Riding of county Tipperary during the year 1887 was £17,964, and that the county council of the South Riding of the county Tipperary had, through their officials, represented to the Local Government Board for Ireland that the sum of £17,964, as certified, was substantially too small, and that the South Riding of county Tipperary was, consequently, suffering a wrong in the allocation of the Grant, he would direct the Local Government Board to examine into the expenditure on roads and bridges in county Tipperary, South Riding, in the year 1887, and to issue a new certificate setting forth the amount correctly; and whether, in case there was a difference of opinion between the figures of the Local Government Board and those of the county council, the former would submit their calculations to the county council?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The amount certified as having been expended on roads and bridges by the grand jury of the South Riding of county Tipperary in 1887, and paid out of county cess was ascertained more than twenty years ago in the manner prescribed for all the counties in Ireland.

    869
    The Local Government Board see no reason either to doubt the accuracy of the amount certified or to reopen the matter after such a lapse of time.
    Mr. CULLINAN: In view of the importance of the matter to the county council, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Local Government Board to consider the matter in connection with the county council?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I think that, after the lapse of time, and seeing that the matter applies to all the counties in Ireland, it would be unwise to reopen an account, as to the accuracy of which there is no doubt.

    Territorial Royal Garrison Artillery, Ardhallow (Gun Practice).
    Mr. WATT (for Mr. Godfrey Collins)asked the Secretary of State for War whether he could arrange that the gun practice from Ardhallow battery during the week commencing 18th July could be postponed till a later date, so as to avoid danger to life during the Clyde holiday week?
    Mr. AINSWORTHalso asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that the Clyde was largely used for excursion, sailing, and boating parties during the Glasgow holiday week; and whether he could arrange that the firing from the Ardhallow fort should be suspended during that time?
    Mr. HALDANE: I will reply to these two questions together. The dates for the practice of the Territorial Royal Garrison Artillery companies at Ardhallow are chosen so as to permit as many men as possible to attend training and gun practice without interfering with their civil occupation. The gun practice from Ardhallow Battery will be arranged so as not to interfere with the Royal Western Yacht Club races on 18th July.
    Mr. AINSWORTH: We are greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the arrangement he has made for one day, but will he consider the advisability of extending it to the whole of the week?
    Mr. HALDANE: I am afraid I cannot give that undertaking, as gun practice is a vital matter, but every care will be taken.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gun practice is for the advantage of the few and the disadvantage of the many?

    Woolwich Arsenal (Number of Employés).
    Mr. VERNEYasked what was the number of men employed in Woolwich Arsenal in all departments before the war in South Africa and the number employed now?
    Mr. HALDANE: On 11th October, 1899, the numbers employed in Woolwich Arsenal in all departments amounted to 17,164, and on 9th July last to 13,840.

    Pointed Bullet.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether the British military rifle is now adapted to the new pointed bullet?
    Mr. HALDANE: The reply is in the negative. The present rifle will not be adapted to the new cartridge with pointed bullet until the sighting has been adjusted, and this will not be commenced until a stock of the new ammunition is available. Until then the present ammunition must be used. Manufacture of the new cartridge is proceeding, deliveries are now being made, and extensive trials are in progress.
    Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea as to when this rifle will be ready?
    Mr. HALDANE: It will take a little time. Extensive trials with a number of rifles and the new cartridges are being made, as we want to see how the new bullet works on an extensive scale before issuing it to the whole of the forces.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that other nations have had this pointed bullet a couple of years, and that it makes a much worse wound than our bullet?
    Mr. HALDANE: In the attainment of these desirable objects the more haste the less speed.

    Territorial Army (Voluntary Sub scriptions).
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Government was willing to pay the whole of the necessary expenses of the Territorial Army, or whether he expected some of those expenses to be supplied by voluntary subscriptions?
    Mr. HALDANE: Under Section III. (1) of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, the Army Council is to pay to an association out of money voted by Parliament for

    871
    Army Services, such sums as, in the opinion of the Army Council, are required to meet the necessary expenditure connected with the exercise and discharge by the association of its powers and duties. I have every intention of observing the law.
    Mr. HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that voluntary subscriptions will be added to help the Territorial Army?
    Mr. HALDANE: I have already said that under the terms of the Act of Parliament we are prepared to provide the whole of the expense, and are so doing.

EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
Notices of Motion, on going into Committee on East India Revenue Accounts (Indian Budget).
Mr. KEIR HARDIE (for Mr. Wedgwood): To call attention to recent legislation passed by the Government of India; and to move a Resolution.
Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: To call attention to the development of the economic resources of India; and to move a Resolution.
Mr. BURGOYNE: To call attention to the development of the economic resources of India; and to move a Resolution.

KING EDWARD VII.

  LETTER FROM HUNGARIAN PARLIAMENT.
  Mr. SPEAKERinformed the House that he had received the following communication expressing condolence with the British nation in the loss it had sustained by the death of His late Majesty:—
  [Translation.]
  "Hungarian House of Deputies, "Budapest, 14th July, 1910.
  "Sir,
  "At the time when the sad tidings of the death of your august Sovereign, His late Majesty King Edward VII., have reached us our country found itself amid Parliamentary elections, and the new House of Deputies was not yet constituted.
  "Now that Parliament has again been convoked the Hungarian House of Deputies hastens to express its deepest sympathy on the great loss sustained by Great Britain and, indeed, by the whole civilised world by the departure of your late Sovereign.
  "The uprightness of heart, the loftiness of genius, and many other admirable qualities that have distinguished His late Majesty, the personal friendship which attached him to the bearer of St. Stephen's Hungarian Crown, and Hungary's profound sympathy for the great English nation, made all of us keenly feel Britain's great loss.
  "I beg leave, Sir, to request you kindly to bring to the knowledge of the House of Commons the expression of the deepest condolence and sympathy of the Hungarian House of Deputies on the lamented death of His late Majesty King Edward VII.
  "I have the honour to be, Sir,
  "Your most obedient humble servant,
  "A. BERREVICZY,
  "President of the Hungarian House of Deputies.
  "To the Right Hon. the Speaker of the Commons, House of Commons, London."

BILL PRESENTED.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (HEALTH VISITORS) BILL.
  "To enable local authorities, under the Notification of Births Act, 1907, to appoint Health Visitors," presented by Mr. BURNS; to be read a second time to-morrow (Tuesday).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SUPPLY.
The PRIME MINISTER The PRIME MINISTER moved, "That the Proceedings on the Business of Supply, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15."
The House divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 114.

Division No. 102.]

AYES.

[3.45 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Addison, Dr. C.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Dowd, John

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Alden, Percy

Harmsworth, R. L.

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Allen, Charles P.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Anderson, A.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Pearce, William

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Hayward, Evan

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Hazleton, Richard

Pirie, Duncan V.

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Henry, Charles S.

Pointer, Joseph

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hindle, F. G.

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Boland, John Pius

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Rattan, Peter Wilson

Bottomley, Horatio

Hogan, Michael

Rainy, A. Rolland

Bowerman, C. W.

Hooper, A. G.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Bowles, T. Gibson

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Reddy, M.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rees, Sir J. D.

Bryce, J. Annan

Hudson, Walter

Richards, Thomas

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hughes, S. L.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hunter, W. (Govan)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Byles, William Pollard

Illingworth, Percy H.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Chancellor, H. G.

Johnson, W.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Seddon, J.

Chapple, W. A.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Jewett, F. W.

Soares, Ernest J.

Clough, William

Joyce, Michael

Spicer, Sir Albert

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Kelly, Edward

Strachey, Sir Edward

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Sutherland, J. E.

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Tennant, Harold John

Crosfield, A. H.

Leach, Charles

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Cullinan, J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Lynch, A. A.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Dawes, J. A.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Verney, F. W.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

M'Callum, John M.

Walton, Sir Joseph

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc., Spalding)

Waring, Walter

Doris, W.

Mallet, Charles E.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Falconer, James

Menzies, Sir Walter

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

Millar, J. D.

Whitehouse, John Howard

Furness, Stephen

Molteno, Percy Alpert

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Gibson, James P.

Mooney, J. J.

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

Greenwood, G. G.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

Guest, Major

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

Gulland, John W.

Muspratt, M.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Nolan, Joseph

Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

Hackett, J.

Nussey, Sir Wallans

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

Hancock, J. G.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

NOES.

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Adam, Major W. A.

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Bagot, Captain J.

Clyde, James Avon

Hamersley, A. St. George

Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)

Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

Balcarres, Lord

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Baldwin, Stanley

Croft, H. P.

Heath, Col. A. H.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Dalrymple, Viscount

Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Baring, Captain Hon. G.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Barnes, G. N.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hillier, Dr. A. P.

Barnston, H.

Duke, H. E.

Hills, J. W.

Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Horner, A. L.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Falle, B. G.

Hunt, Rowland

Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

Fell, Arthur

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

Fleming, Valentine

Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

Beresford, Lord C.

Gilmour, Captain J.

Kerry, Earl of

Bird, A.

Glover, Thomas

Knight, Capt. E. A.

Brassey, H. L. C. (N'thamptonshire, N.)

Goldman, C. S.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Brassey, Capt. R. (Banbury)

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

Law, Andrew Boner (Dulwich)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Llewelyn, Venables

Brotherton, E. A.

Grant, J. A.

Lloyd, G. A.

Burgoyne, A. H.

Greene, W. R.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Guinness, Hon. W. E.

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

Cave, George

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Lansdale, John Brownlee

874

875

Mackinder, H. J.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Macmaster, Donald

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Valentia, Viscount

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Rawson, Colonel R. H.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Mitchell, William Foot

Ridley, Samuel Forde

Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

Morpeth, Viscount

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Watt, Henry A.

Morrison, Captain J. A.

Rothschild, Lionel de

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Sanders, Robert A.

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Nield, Herbert

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

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

O'Grady, James

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Stonier, Beville

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

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

Peto, Basil Edward

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Proby, Col. Douglas James

Thorne, William (West Ham)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir H. Craik and Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.

Quilter, William Eley C.

Thynne, Lord A.

SUPPLY.— [18th Allotted Day.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DE PARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1910–11.— [PROGRESS.]
  [CLASS 2, VOTE 27.]
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)

  SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND'S OFFICE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £10,802, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Office, Expenses under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, and Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, including a Grant in Aid of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Fund." [NOTE.—£25,000 has been voted on account.]
  Sir JOHN DEWAR: I beg to move to reduce the Vote for the salary for the Secretary for Scotland by £100.
  It is not a very pleasant thing to have to move an Amendment of this kind, but I must say that unless some cases of gross injustice which have arisen in Scotland are remedied I shall have to insist on this Amendment, and vote for it in the Division Lobby. It is idle for us to deny that there is a great deal of irritation and dissatisfaction prevailing in Scotland owing to the present administration of the Scottish Office. It is felt that there is a great deal of dilatoriness and delay, and that a policy of letting things slide in connection with the management of the Scottish Office and Scottish affairs is adopted. The time has come when we ought to have some assurance upon these matters, and unless
  876
  a new policy is adopted a very serious condition of things will be found to exist in Scotland.
  The two questions to which I shall have to draw the attention of the Government involve more or less matters of detail, but they illustrate pretty well what I said when I pointed out that things were allowed to drift, and there is a want of courage and of willingness to adequately tackle matters in a broad and fair way. First of all, I wish to direct attention to affairs in the Island of Skye, where for a very small matter some thirty-five crofters are threatened to be put in gaol. The Congested Districts Board own a property and a farm there which became available for the enlargement of small holdings. Thirty-five crofters applied for this farm to be divided up amongst them for the purposes of the extension of their holdings, and the Congested Districts Board agreed to this course. There was some dispute and controversy between the parties as to whether the Congested Districts Board said the farm was to be divided up or not. It came to this, the Congested Districts Board gave 398 acres of the farm to the crofters, and they kept in their own hands sixty-three acres. These sixty-three acres are all arable land which the crofters really wanted, and they gave the crofters the lowland and the hillside which the crofters were willing enough to use but which was not of nearly as much value as the sixty-three acres. Thirty-five crofters were summoned and convicted and sent to prison because of this small difference of opinion between the two bodies. Of course, the Crofters Commission must be obeyed, its decision is final and from it there is no appeal. I want to draw attention to the special circumstances in connection with this case. The Crofters Commission is the body that has to settle all disputes between landlords and tenants and it has the confidence and the support of the landlords and the tenants alike. Most

  877
  unfortunately the Congested Districts Board which owns this property has two members upon the Crofters Commission so that the crofters appeal from this Board came before a tribunal which had for its members two of the crofters' landlords and consequently the crofters have not the confidence in the decision of that tribunal that they ought to have. I do not believe that the situation has had any effect whatever upon the two gentlemen who are members of the Congested Districts Board and who belong to the Crofters Commission, or that they were in any way influenced, but it is a matter which needs remedying, and it is not fair to ask these crofters in a dispute with the Congested Districts Board to take as their court of appeal, and the only court to which they can appeal, a body which has among its members two of their landlords.
  The crofters made a most reasonable request to have the matter referred to arbitration and they mentioned three men in whom they have confidence. Their request was refused and the Congested Districts Board proceeded to the utmost extremity of the law. It is a great pity that the Congested Districts Board did not adopt a more reasonable attitude. It is not possible to say whether the Crofters Commission was right or wrong, but I think it is a pity that the Congested Districts Board should refuse the request to have an independent tribunal appointed to deal with the matter. I am strongly of opinion that the Congested Districts Board and the Crofters Commission should not be as it were the same body. In this case they are the same body. Such an arrangement may perhaps save a little money, but it would be the greatest misfortune if operations like these were to taint the opinion of the Crofters Commission in the Highlands.
  The other question to which I desire to draw special attention is the burden of rates in the Western Hebrides. What I have said about the present management of the Scottish Office applies to this case also. It stands on one side with folded arms and does nothing. The condition of affairs has been brought to the attention of the Scottish Office for years and years, but things have only got worse. They refuse to tackle the question. The present burden of rates in the Western Hebrides is such as to paralyse and to render impossible any progress or reform which is so earnestly desired. The Scottish Office has refused to face this state of things. I have only to mention the
  878
  speech made by the Secretary for Scotland in the last election to show the hopeless and helpless character of affairs which exists in the Western Hebrides, and I may say incidentally that that speech did not add to the popularity of the Liberal candidates. The Scottish Office is apparently without resource, and unless we can get assurances that something is to be done, and that these questions shall be seriously tackled, I shall be prepared to go into the Division Lobby against the Government to-night.
  What is the special case to which I draw attention? It is the condition of affairs in South Uist. I have only to mention one or two details to show how extraordinary that state of affairs is. The rate proposed to be imposed there for education alone was 11s. 4d. Last year the rate was 2s. 4½d., and that is 1s. above the average for Scotland. The rates here are 23s. 4d. in the £, and over and above that there is a Land Tax and a Heritor's Tax of 2s., which brings the tax up to something like 25s. 4d. in the £ in that parish. A rate of this amount for education was never contemplated by anybody. One shilling and sixpence in the pound is supposed to be the extreme limit in places where the necessitous parish begins. In this parish 11s. 4d. in the £ is the rate proposed, and the Scottish Office is going to impose that sum and carry it through.
  4.0 P.M.
  In reply to a question which I put in regard to this rate of 11s. 4d. in the £, the Lord Advocate said that this figure gave a very unfair idea as to what the real rate was, because, first of all, there was to be taken into account a reduction of 40 per cent. I have looked up the local taxation fund and I find the reduction is 35 per cent. May I point out with regard to this point that there is a reduction in every parish in Scotland varying from 20 to 30 per cent. The difference between the rate in this particular parish and the other parishes of Scotland is not the difference between the gross rate and the rental of 60 per cent., but a difference between a reduction of 25 per cent. and 35 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman also points out that five-eights of the local rate are deducted under the Agricultural Rating Act. May I remind the Committee that every agricultural parish in Scotland gets that advantage, and the net rates are reduced in this way in every other parish whether they be rich or poor, so that these poor ratepayers in the Western Hebrides are

  879
  not in any better position. It is said that the rents are very small, but that fact indicates very strongly the poverty of the district. The rent amounts to something like £1 per head, and I think that is an indication of extreme poverty and inability to pay any rate approaching 11s. or 12s. in the £. What I complain of is that the Government is the cause of this high rate. What has caused a great increase this year is that the Government and the Congested Districts Board have been carrying out a system of land settlement, and the policy adopted has involved the building of additional schools and the provision of additional school teachers. Why did the Government not foresee that the carrying out of their scheme of land settlement would involve the ratepayers in this unfair and cruel impost? The attention of the Government was drawn to this matter, and what has been done amounts almost to a breach of faith. In a letter in the Press, from Lady Gordon Cathcart, there appeared the following passage:—
  "When negotiations for breaking up farms and creating new crofter holdings were in progress, I pointed out to the representatives of the Government that it would be necessary to provide new schools, and I stipulated that the Congested Districts Board should give a grant in aid of the exceptional expenditure. The representatives of the Congested Districts Board were sympathetic, and a Clause was introduced in the agreement that the Board would favourably consider a request for a grant, but the solicitor of the Board being doubtful as to the legal powers of the Board, introduced a saving Clause to the effect that the Board were in doubt as to their power to make such a grant, and in no way bound themselves to do so."
  The Public Accounts Committee decided that the Congested Districts Board had no power to assist in the erection of the schools, but surely the resources of the Government are not exhausted, and if the Congested Districts Board were willing to spend money for this object it ought to have been found. Up till last year every necessitous school district received through the School Board a special grant, and such a grant would have supplied the money required in this case. In the parish I have alluded to there are two boards struggling to do their best. The Congested Districts Board make small holdings, and the Education Department make demands upon the ratepayers, and the result is a crushing and most unjust rate. What I complain of is that the Government in this matter sit with folded arms and leave these two public bodies to fight this matter out. I hear that they are to spend hundreds of pounds in a Court of Session case. The Scotch Office ought to have stepped in in order to prevent this dispute
  880
  being taken into Court. I will read what the parish council say on this point:—
  "The parish council, who are intimately acquainted with the circumstances of the ratepayers, believe and aver that even if they were to comply with the demands of the school board, it would be useless to impose a rate of 11s. 4d. in the £ for education purposes, in addition to the other rates above set forth. Experience has shown that when high rates are imposed in South Uist the ratepayers, many of whom are small crofters and fishermen, are quite unable to pay.
  "These defenders are satisfied that if they were to impose an assessment on the parish calculated to raise the sum of £1,600 for educational purposes, not only would it be impossible to collect that assessment, but an attempt to do so would imperil the collection of the other parish rates which would fall to be included in the same demand note. These defenders have seriously taken into their consideration the situation brought about by the pursuers, and they are convinced from their intimate knowledge of local affairs that an assessment for the purpose of raising the sum of £500 for educational purposes, in addition to other local assessments, is the largest amount that can possibly be collected during the current financial year, and that even such an assessment will be a very heavy burden for the parish to bear.
  "If the demand of the pursuers is persisted in, the result will be that the whole machinery for collecting assessments in the parish will break down without accomplishing the object of the pursuers."
  The Scotch Office ought not to have allowed this question to get into such a position. The parish council has resigned because they are not willing to levy a rate of £1 3s. 4d. in the £. I hope it is not true that the Scotch Office have adopted the stupid, cruel, and oppressive course which has been mentioned, because it will only result in disaster. No doubt the rate may be collected from the proprietors, but it can only be done at the sacrifice of all sense of justice and of effectually stopping any increase of small holdings, not only in the Hebrides, but in any part of the Highlands. It is not to be expected that a proprietor will voluntarily arrange for an increase of small holdings if he knows the result is almost certain to be such an unreasonable increase in his rates. I do not know how much of this rate the Government officials will be able to collect from the smaller ratepayer, but I should think it would be very little. I am sure the moral effect of Government officials collecting an education rate of 11s. 4d. in the £ at the point of the bayonet will be most disastrous. Such a course is opposed to the policy of land reform which was laid down by Sir Henry Campbell - Bannerman, who assured the House that none of the cost of the creation of small holdings would be allowed to fall upon the landowners, but would be borne by the Imperial Exchequer. Notwithstanding this pledge, the Government, by the course they are adopting, are putting a charge of hundreds of pounds on the owner of this

  881
  estate as well as on other ratepayers. I have brought to the notice of the Committee a concrete case for which, so far as I can see, the Scotch Office can have no defence. The Government itself by its own act forces upon these people an expenditure which, if it is to be met out of the rates, will entail a rate for education alone of 11s. 4d. per £, a charge on the local resources never contemplated by any Government and a charge which I am certain could not be exacted anywhere else in the Kingdom. The Education Department, too, I think is to blame. Last year it passed an Act removing from the necessitous districts the relief which would have met the case. If the Scotch Office is without resource and sees no way of meeting this difficulty except by inflicting a rate of 11s. 4d. upon, perhaps, the poorest parish in the country, then the feeling of irritation and injustice to which I have referred has been amply justified.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I beg to second the Amendment, and the fact that I do so shows there is a good deal of uniformity of opinion among Scotch Members on both sides of the House with regard to the question. We are all agreed that this question of the West Coast should be settled once and for all. We may have different ideas as to how it is to be done, but all Scotch Members are sincerely anxious to see this land question settled, and we are certainly getting very tired of the muddling which has been going on. There are one or two questions I should like to ask with regard to the Congested Districts Board. In 1905–6 the total rates in Barra, exclusive of the Landed Property Tax, came to 20s. in the £, and everybody thought the limit had been reached, but apparently that was not the case. The crofters have been relieved of their rates so far as their houses are concerned, but still their burden is considerable; and, inasmuch as they have been given this relief, the burdens falling on others—shopkeepers, hotel-keepers, and tradesmen—have been increased. Quite lately, as the hon. Member who has just sat down has pointed out, in South Uist the education authorities made a demand for 11s. 4d. in the £, bringing the total parish rates up to the ridiculous sum of £1 3s. 4d. for every £ of assessable value. Of course, the result has been an absolute deadlock. It will be remembered that a short time ago, when the rates in East Ham reached 2s. in
  882
  the £, there was immediately a commotion in this country, and a measure was passed by which they were reduced. Hon. Members who are not aware what has been happening in Scotland will reasonably ask why we do not do the same thing there. We do not for a very good reason. The Secretary of State for Scotland, in his wisdom, has seen fit to do away with this provision so far as it applies to Scotland, and because of his patriotic action, and his action alone, we are debarred from getting any relief of this sort in the matter of education such as is given to far richer districts in England. I should like to ask the Lord Advocate if he approves of this, and, if not, why he has not done something to try to get it remedied? Of course, all the Education Department is responsible for is the education of the people. You cannot blame them, and in this case I think they have the greatest sympathy with the ratepayers.
  It is all right when there is a gradual development in any district such, for instance, as you have in England on economic lines, and where there is plenty of money behind the people, but up in that part of the country there is a perfectly different state of things. There you have a certain migration of people from one part the country to another part. It is usually engineered by the Government for the purpose of making settlements, and it is only right they should be prepared to pay the initial cost. The real trouble began when the present Secretary of State for Scotland took up the matter. Confusion then immediately became worse confounded. The surplus population was removed from one district to another, and people of another species of surplus population moved themselves and took the land themselves. The Secretary of State for Scotland is afraid to turn them out, although he has got decrees against them. You cannot expect the Education Department to take account of what the people are who are there. All they have got to do is to educate them. The hon. Member opposite quoted a case in South Uist where the proprietor, in return for certain facilities, was promised help by the Congested Districts Board with regard to the school rates, though I should add, in all honour to them, that they said there would perhaps be a legal quibble, but no doubt it could be adjusted. We see now in this particular district an education rate of 11s. 4d. and total rates of 23s. 4d., and no help whatever from the Government. They

  883
  have ordered new schools to be built and they are going to enlarge others at a total cost of over £3,000, and this district, one of the poorest districts in Scotland, has to find £1,502 this year. It is quite unfair, if they are going to have surplus schemes of this sort, that the Government should expect the ratepayers, already overburdened, to pay, especially as it is very doubtful whether the schemes are going to be a success. The result, of course, is an absolute deadlock. The parish council were ordered to raise this ridiculous rate of 23s. 4d. They tried to explain that our sovereigns are only worth 20s. and that it was impossible to do it. The Board of Education had to insist, and the parish council were brought up before the sheriff and prosecuted. He said he was very sorry, and he quite agreed the case was scandalous, but at the same time he had to convict. They appealed to the court of sessions. The judge was sympathetic, but he proceeded, metaphorically, to hang them. Hon. Members can be quite certain he was not sympathetic from a political point of view, because not long ago the same gentleman occupied the position now so ably filled by my hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Ure).
  We want to know what the Lord Advocate is going to do with regard to the parish council. Is he going to put the parish council in prison, or is he going to sit and hold his hands? It is a difficult position and we all sympathise with him, but we want to know what he is going to do. Meanwhile they have not dared to take further proceedings against the parish council, although they have been found wrong. The only thing they are doing is to supersede the parish council and to send down two officials to run South Uist and to collect these rates. May I ask whether these officials are insured or whether they come under the Employers' Liability Act? We hear a great deal, especially from hon. Members below the Gangway, of "the land for the people." I sometimes think their knowledge of that question begins and ends there; but how are you possibly going to settle people on the land if you saddle them with rates of 23s. 4d. in the £? It is perfectly absurd. You want to do away with the present landlords and to get the people on the land, and yet you are going to make them pay rates of 23s. 4d. If you insist upon a certain standard of education in these outer islands, you must be prepared to pay for your schemes and raise the money in some
  884
  way or other. I do not mind how it is, or whether it is done by the Congested Districts Board. That Board is at present allowed to pay away money under all sorts of heads—poultry, fish, piers, and so on. If the scheme is good, surely the initial expenditure will be justified; and, if the scheme is not a good one, then the Government have no right to make the ratepayers pay.
  There are a few points in this Report of the Congested Districts Board on which I should like to ask the Lord Advocate for a little explanation. On page 7 the Kilmuir estate is mentioned. There you see the area stated to be so many thousand acres. If you turn over to the next page you again see under the reference to Magnersta Farm, Uig, Mr. Macintyre, of the Crofters Commission, was informed that the area of arable land was 1,920 acres, although the Royal Commission had stated it was 2,692 acres. Again, a little further down on the same page you find it is stated the farm of Reef is said to contain about 600 acres. It was urged by the applicants, and they were strengthened in their position by the fact that the Reef was scheduled by the Highlands and Islands Commission as suitable for new holdings, but the present Congested Districts Board say:—
  "It is no doubt the fact that this Commission did schedule the greater part of this farm as suitable for the formation of crofts, but the report we obtained from an expert after an inspection of the farm, confirmed by a visit to the farm of two of our members satisfied us that Reef is not suitable for crofters' holdings."
  That is a rather curious commentary on a Commission upon whose Report hon. Members opposite very often lay the foundation of many of the remarks they make with reference to deer forests. I would like to ask if there are any more inaccuracies behind? This is a matter which affects only a few square miles. Are there similar cases to be found in the rest of Scotland? On page 8 of the same Report there is a reference to an experimental farm proposed to be established at Scuddaburgh. You find the Commissioners in this case granting three-quarters or more of the farm for the settlement of crofters, but sixty-three acres were left, which apparently they were unable to let or to do anything else with. The Commissioners point out that this remainder of sixty-three acres, together with the farm buildings, which no doubt were in proportion to the size of the original farm, would constitute a desirable croft, as it contained excellent arable land, and might be

  885
  used "as an experimental or model croft in order to demonstrate how improved methods of agriculture, carried out under skilful management, would add to the productiveness of the soil in Skye." I really do suggest there has been enough money already wasted without making an experimental farm of that sixty-three acres in order to instruct the inhabitants of Skye how to plant the very few things they can plant in that part. Why has this sixty-three acres not been leased as a croft? What rent has been got for this land during the last year, and to what purposes has it been put? We do not so much care to know what is going to happen in the future; we are more anxious to learn what has been done with it in the past, and to what purpose it is being applied at present.
  On page 9 of the Appendix in the reference to the Kilmuir estate, there is the most extraordinary sum I have ever come across. It is almost impossible to make head or tail of it, because the amount put down as capital expenditure includes, among other things, the rates paid on the farm, and the general total of what has been spent ever since the farm was taken over amounts to £147,578 2s. 1d. I want to know exactly what return there was for this last year, and what rent was received? We are told it is being worked on economic lines. If so, there ought at least to be some return to the Government for the money which they have spent on it. On page 8 of the Appendix, under the heading Vatersay Potato Ground, we find this potato ground costs £734 7s. 7d. The cost of the purchase of the island was £11,820, giving a total cost of £12,554 for this El Dorado in the Atlantic. The land is divided amongst fifty-eight crofters, and the total rent fixed by the Commissioners was £180, being at the rate of £3 2s. 9d. per holding. I want to ask, is this all the expenditure that is to be made on this productive spot? Have satisfactory houses been built, or are there any other loans which the Government will have to make in that respect? I want further to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having settled fifty-eight crofters of this new estate of Lord Pentland, they will not have to build a school there? My information is that the crofters settled here have come from a district, less desirable, perhaps, where there was a school which was put up by the Board of Education, and now that they have migrated to Vatersay, that school is practically empty. I want
  886
  to know whether the Government will not find it necessary to build a school at Vatersay? If there is to be a school there who is going to pay for it. In this case the Government is one of the principal landlords. Where is the money for the school coming from? Will it be supplied from the rates, or are the Government going to make a Grant straight away? We have heard whispers about the grant of £300 from somewhere. Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to give £300, or any other sum to Vatersay? If so—if they mean thus to override the Act—why cannot they do the same thing in South Uist? The rent of the Island of Vatersay before it was purchased by the Government was £320, and that rent was accepted as fair value by the Secretary for Scotland when he agreed to pay £12,000 for the island. He has now reduced the rents from £350 to £180, which is the present rental value of the island I suppose the Lord Advocate will urge in extenuation that fifty-eight families have been put on this land. I want to ask, are these families happy and contented? Are they paying their rents? If so, I have nothing more to say. May I suggest, in regard to this question of rents, that it should not be very difficult for the crofters to pay £3 2s. 9d. annually by doing decent work on the holding. If they do pay all right, the Government may claim success for their scheme perhaps, but if they are not paying, and if, on the contrary, they are grumbling and almost in a state of mutiny, as has been suggested in some quarters, how can the Government claim that the scheme has been successful?
  In former Reports of the Congested Districts Board we used to see such stereotyped phrases as "We regret to see," or "Serious attention has been drawn." In this Report we find the same sort of thing. On page 12 we are told, "We have had to take proceedings against certain selected defaulters for arrears." Surely the success of this scheme must depend on whether the people are contented or not, and a scheme under which it is necessary to take such proceedings cannot be successful. The arrears from March, 1909, to March, 1910, have increased from £3,941 to £4,710, or 29 per cent.; therefore, although the rent has been enormously reduced, it is clear the tenants are not paying, and the arrears are growing every year. You may let a man off his rent for a special year, but to do it systematically is not good for the individuals themselves

  887
  or for the place. When the tenants find that they can go on defying the law, that they can avoid paying rent, and that they can get everything for nothing, the result is to hang a millstone around the neck of the scheme and to deprive the Government of its interest. As a result of the action of the right hon. Gentleman in taking over the sheep stock and turning the ground from an economic purpose into an uneconomic purpose, the right hon. Gentleman has incurred a cost of over £10,000. I certainly do not see any equivalent in the return, neither do I see any equivalent in the happiness of the tenants, and I must say I think the people up there will prove to be not very far wrong in their contention that in a mental photograph the Secretary for Scotland ought to be placed in juxtaposition to the nine of diamonds.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: I observations of the last two speakers, and I feel confident that all the Members from Scotland here to-day will be prepared to accept what has fallen from them as coming from men who thoroughly understand the question now before the Committee. It is a matter which I should like to have seriously considered, and I particularly wish to impress upon hon. Members who have no special connection with Scotland the fact that the circumstances under which people live in Scotland differ so materially from those which obtain in other parts of the United Kingdom as to intensify the difficulty of carrying out the machinery of local government. The fact is the districts are so poor and so sparsely populated in many parts that there are no funds by means of which that machinery can be worked. The rateable value per head of population for the whole of Scotland works out at £6 per head, but there are parishes in the Highlands where it is under 20s. per head. Hon. Members will be able to see for themselves that in cases where you have to deal with a rateable value per head of under 20s. you cannot possibly carry on those forms of local government in the same way and to the same extent as they are carried on in other parts of the country, where the rateable value rises to £6 per head. It is clear that under these circumstances to carry on local government matters such as education and water supply is out of the question. More funds are necessarily wanted, and must be obtained. Where are they to be got from? You cannot get
  888
  them from the inhabitants; you cannot get blood out of a stone; and therefore it has been proposed that the local areas should be enlarged. Instead of collecting the rates from the parish you might collect them from the district or from the county, or, if you like, some other area; and if you do that you will at once, to a very considerable extent, get out of the difficulty. On the other hand, if you cannot do that, the only resource is to keep on as at present; but the point you have to consider is that somehow or other the Government must be prepared to face the fact that the money to carry on the local government of these districts which are so unfortunately placed must be provided by them. There are only two sources of employment in the locality, and a man must either rely upon the land or the sea; and if the Government is to step in and find money to run the local government in these unfortunate parishes, I think it is quite entitled to go to the proprietors, whom I would like to remind the House have continued as proprietors to pay rates which they are not called upon to do in any other part of the United Kingdom, and ask them to help them in aiding these districts. They are entitled to ask the proprietors to help them in every possible way, whether in the way of active employment of the people on the land or on the sea; and I am sure the proprietors would be willing to do all that they could.
  The only authority we have at present is the Congested Districts Board, and I certainly agree with hon. Members who have spoken in thinking that the Government might do something to bring the machinery of that Board in some way or another up to date. At present the Congested Districts Board has certain funds, and if they have not got enough it is very easy to give them more. They have also certain powers, and if those powers are not sufficient to enable them to deal with these cases it is very easy for Parliament to increase them, and I would certainly make an appeal to the Government and to the Lord Advocate to say that they will do that. If the Government are not able—and we all understand that at the present moment it is not easy to deal with any large and important scheme—they would certainly have time to deal to a certain extent with the problems which are before them at the present moment by increasing the powers of the Congested Districts Board and the funds at their disposal. I would just like to say that in the

  889
  constitution of the Board the Government might also make very decided improvements. We know that it is only what is called an honorary Board. No one on the Board is paid, and therefore it stands in complete disagreement with other bodies of this sort, and it is not the interest of anybody who is a member of it to give himself a great deal of trouble. The meetings of the Board, we are told, take place occasionally. A great many people have to be consulted, and it is not easy to get a quorum. I would implore the Government to realise that this is not a question which can be allowed to stand over. Every day the necessity for action increases, and every day a portion of the most valuable resources which we have, namely, the population of these parts, leaves our shores and our country. Whatever may be the difficulties of the problem of securing the land for the people, it should not be an insuperable task. I would beseech the Government to take the Congested Districts Board severely in hand, and give them money and give them power, which can easily be done by a short Act of Parliament, which can be run through both Houses in a few hours. If the right hon. Gentleman will further undertake to be responsible for the actions of the Board, we will undertake to keep him and his Board up to the mark in every way.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: I am sure there is no Member of the Committee who would not be inclined to agree that the Report which we are now dealing with, that of the Congested Districts Board, is an extremely depressing document. For a good many years now the Congested Districts Board have been making experiments of one kind or another, and they are this year, as in previous years, obliged to confess that in a very great many of those cases the experiments have not been by any means successful. I agree with the hon. Baronet opposite that the situation generally in the West of Scotland, particularly with regard to the excessive rating in many of the parishes, has become so acute and is getting so much more widely spread that it is really time that the Scottish Office and the Government adumbrated some kind of scheme to deal with the appalling state of things which now exists. I put a question on the Paper the other day asking for the total rating in the case of the three parishes of Barvas, Uig, and Lochs, in the Island of Lewis, in which I took some interest two or three
  890
  years ago, and I have just this moment had sent to me an answer to the question. The Department had not the information in time to put it on the Paper, and they have been kind enough to send it to me, and I find that the increase is very, very great in these parishes. At the time that I last spoke of them, in 1907, the totals were very large, but in these parishes we have now got the rates up to considerably over 20s. in the £. I notice that they are 28s. 9d. in one case and 25s. in another, and that is on a reduction of the gross rental. The state of the case is so bad that the proprietor of the Island of Lewis has been practically starved out of his property, and he is now living in a very quiet way elsewhere, because every shilling of his rental is swallowed up by rates, and he has an additional heavy burden in the shape of arrears of £15,000 or £16,000 of judicial rents which have not been paid. He has, however, to pay the additional entire local rating, although he has not received the money. The matter has been brought forward on two or three occasions in this year, and we appealed to the Secretary for Scotland to do something, but there has been that masterly inactivity exhibited since then which distinguishes the Scottish Office in most things. And we are not only in the same position that we occupied, but we have had the addition of one or two very serious cases.
  The situation, I suppose, is one in which the Treasury plays a large part, but it is one in which the Scottish Members themselves ought to play a large part. I do not know why it is that Scottish Members on both sides of the House in a matter of this kind cannot meet together and force the hands of the Government. I am quite sure there would be no indisposition on the part of my hon. Friends on this side to do anything they could, along with their Friends opposite, to enforce our views upon the Government. Is it to be said that if we did act in that way and tell the Government that we are determined to all vote against them, that we should not get something? I think the time has come when we should do that. It is not a long time ago that a Member of the Government said to me that if we only acted all together as the Irish Members did, we should be able to drain the Treasury in the same scientific manner that Ireland is doing. Until we do so we shall have the same masterly inactivity which the right hon. Gentleman with his great ability will expound, but of which I know in his

  891
  inmost heart he must disapprove. I wish to ask a few questions about one or two other points. First of all about the question of arrears, which show a very steady increase. The Noble Lord the Member for West Perth has already read out the figure, and there is an increase of some £800 in this year in the arrears in one place. One of the most unsatisfactory features in this particular part of the Report is this, that the Board itself, in calling serious attention to the backward state of the payments, use this very significant phrase:—
  "We have reason to believe that these people could have met their obligations in a much more satisfactory manner than they have done."
  That is a very serious thing to say in an official report of this kind. Does it mean that these people are deliberately refusing to pay obligations which they are perfectly able to pay, if a certain amount of pressure is put upon them? It must mean that, and I should like to ask why that pressure has not been put upon them, and also whether it is that the Congested Districts Board does not get any backing from the Secretary for Scotland in putting that pressure on. Because if they deliberately say that in a report, it is apparent that these people are being allowed to shirk obligations which they are perfectly able to meet. Then I want to ask a question or two on the subject of Vatersay, which, however, is a subject I do not suppose it is necessary to discuss at length. But if there ever was condemnation of the action of a Government Department in connection with any schemes of this sort, it is to be found at the very beginning of the Report, which is signed by the Secretary for Scotland, and which we are now discussing. At page 6 the Report says:—
  "It is, of course, much cheaper for the Board to get the landlords to subdivide the farms than themselves to buy the land and subdivide it"
  5.0 P.M.
  The Committee will bear in mind that Lady Gordon Cathcart offered the Secretary of State to herself subdivide this island, and the only condition she laid down was that while he was getting all these rents he should pay the compensation to the sitting tenants. Surely it is very obvious to the Committee that if you want a condemnation of the movement you have it in page 6 of this Report, signed by Lord Pentland himself. I should not have mentioned this but for the fact that it seems to me that a little wisdom has at last been taught by bitter experience to the Scottish Office.
  892
  I want to ask one or two questions which were put to Lord Pentland the other day in the House of Lords in regard to certain information which, I think, he was unable to give in connection with the loss on sheep stock of £3,450. So far as I can make out he said the actual loss was £1,625, which, however did not include a half-year's rent of £175, so that the loss was really something like £1,800. If that is so, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what the balance of £3,400 represents. It must represent something. It is a very large sum, and we ought to know. Of course, one knows perfectly well that there must be a loss in reselling sheep stock. That is an outlay in connection with the development of properties of this kind, which neither the Scottish Office nor anyone else can avoid; and it must be regarded as part of the cost of developing this or any other property, and settling a good many people on it. But these figures are presented in such a form and lumped together in such a peculiar way that it is almost impossible to make head or tail of them, and it would be very interesting if the right hon. Gentleman could give some definite information about them. There also is not a single word in the Report about the present position and prospects of the settlers on the island. We do not know whether they are satisfied or otherwise. We are not told whether the rumours one heard some time ago about considerable difficulty and danger having arisen from sand-drift has any foundation in fact, and we have not been told a word about the educational position, what money is to be found for schools, how it is to be found, and what the cost generally is going to be. There are all sorts of rumours about Vatersay. We know that Lady Gordon Cathcart originally did not consider the island suitable for holdings of this class. It is said it is not proving suitable, and it would be satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman were able to contradict those statements, which are certainly very prolific.
  Then on the question of Kilmuir, it is impossible to get at the bottom of anything. These accounts are presented in the most extraordinary fashion. The capital charges in connection with the estate are shown to amount to £147,578. They involve a very large figure, sheep stock and one thing and another, and in the general expenses apparently arrears are included which, I presume, will be arrears of rent which were standing over

  893
  at the time the Government bought the property. If that is so I think the amount is £1,700. But the astounding entry is made of rates. Actually all the rates which the Government seem to have paid are lumped into one sum, and included in this £31,123 appears a part of the capital cost required to carry on the property. That is a most ridiculous way to present an account. No one can tell what the position is. There is no money here to show what the rental of the property is, there is nothing to show what we get for our £147,578, and there are no figures to show how the rents are being paid, what the amount of arrears is, or anything else. You have a total sum amounting to £46,000 extending over a period, I suppose, of seven or eight years, since the Government got the property, and that leaves a balance of £101,390.
  I think the time has surely come, although it is perfectly true that the accounts have been presented for many years in this fashion, when the country and the House ought to know something about the real position of these various experiments and of these accounts. No man could ever find it out from this muddled up and astounding document which is presented annually by the Congested Districts Board. You include not only rent, but repayments of capital, as if they were rents, and you add in on the other side rates and everything of that kind, and you bring out a net balance at the end which represents nothing in creation, and you are left with an impossible task if you endeavour in any kind of way to find out how these experiments are succeeding or what is the cost of carrying on an uneconomic experiment of this kind in that particular district in order to ascertain whether the game is worth the candle or not. Until the accounts are presented in a proper and reasonable form no one will be able to tell. I do not at all wish to be captious in the matter. I recognise that the whole situation is one of great perplexity and difficulty, and I believe the Scottish Office have an extremely difficult task before them, even if they had the pluck to tackle it to-morrow. I should have great sympathy with them in doing it. I should not be at all critical. They have inherited a legacy of difficulty from their predecessors, and they have to deal with it now. It is becoming more acute, and it is no use to sit down and look at it. You have to deal with it somehow, and the right hon. Gentleman, with all his ability,
  894
  will find it an extremely difficult thing to justify the inactivity, the helplessness, and the nervousness of the administration, which we all regret so much, of the past year or two, and which I think is doing so much to aggravate the present difficulty. At the same time, the Secretary for Scotland may be assured of our sympathetic consideration in doing his best to tackle this difficulty, and if they require—as I think they will—to go to the Treasury for funds, they will have all the backing the Scottish Members can give them, and I earnestly press the right hon. Gentleman that he will, in conjunction with the Secretary for Scotland, do what he can to tackle the grave difficulty which has been brought before the House, and which, unless something is done, threatens to become a very serious and a very acute problem.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: I will not deal with the unfortunate position of these islands. The hon. Member (Mr. Ainsworth) struck the keynote of what should be the policy of the Government in regard to the Congested Districts Board when he said he thought their great duty was to try and keep these people on the land. I am sure anyone reading this Report of the Congested Districts Board must see that the whole of their trouble arises over the purchases of different estates from time to time, and this legacy was handed over to them by their predecessors. That will show Scottish Members, present and future, how extremely careful we ought to be in dealing with these questions of land purchase and land settlement. In many cases the Congested Districts Board can without difficulty cope with this question and confer a signal blessing to many communities by keeping the people upon the land. If, without going into these points of the purchases of estates, which are very poor reading indeed, seeing the enormous amounts of money which are overdue, hon. Members will consider what the Congested Districts Board has done, they will find that it has had a most beneficial effect. It has assisted in many cases in telegraph extensions, which have made life much more endurable and comfortable for the people in paths, piers, and various works.
  I am specially desirous of calling my right hon. Friend's attention to a matter about which I have put a number of questions during the last twelve or eighteen months, and to which it is no reflection on him to say he has not been able to give me any satisfactory answer. I am sure

  895
  that is not his fault, but is due to the circumstances of the case. In one of the farthest spots in my Constituency there is an island of the name of Foula. It does not contain many families—I think only about forty—but they live under extremely difficult conditions. The only means of getting to the island is over twelve miles of very stormy ocean, and there is practically no pier or landing place of any sort. The late Secretary for Scotland, Lord Dunedin, sent a fishery cruiser there a few years ago, and was good enough to give me a passage on her. The sympathy of the Scottish Office and of the Congested Districts Board was enlisted. The Congested Districts Board, of course, cannot do work entirely of their own motion, and they have to be assisted by the local council. A certain amount of money had to be found locally. The people found all they could, and they then appealed to the outside world to get more. After much difficulty they succeeded in getting the statutory amount which was required to fulfil the conditions laid down by the Congested Districts Board, and the money was duly deposited in the bank. The landlord, as far as we know, up to that moment, had been extremely anxious to get the pier built, but after the Congested Districts Board had voted their subsidy, and after the public had subscribed, the landlord refused point-blank to give them their site. He claimed that he could not afford to do it. It is not a rich island, but still there was a moral obligation on his part to undertake the work. Seeing that this gentleman cannot afford to give the site unless he is guaranteed against any future loss, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to provide the very small sum of money which would enable the county council to give the proprietor the necessary indemnity which he must have before he will get the site. I am told it will only be about £100. In that way we shall get over the difficulty and the people in the island will enjoy the benefit of some little accommodation. If hon. Members had been out in an open boat on a rough ocean, seeing the land quite near but not being able to get to it because of the want of a pier, they would feel exceedingly sympathetic towards the islanders.
  I wish to say a few words, again on the question of keeping the people on the land, in respect of the item under which the Congested Districts Board can aid and
  896
  develop the fishing industry. Some few years ago, at the solicitation of myself and others, Lord Dunedin instituted an experiment and purchased for the Congested Districts Board a motor boat. It was not, however, a success. Perhaps it was too heavy for the engines, so that we did not get the results we desired from this purchase. Things have changed since then, and the motor boats are very much more likely to be used in the future than they are being used now. What I think the Congested Districts Board might very well do in this matter would be to develop some scheme by which the fishermen who have now got boats of their own, instead of selling the boats for a mere song, should have some means provided by which motor engines could be fitted into them. There is one island in the Pentland Firth where the inhabitants were very desirous of getting a small motor into their boat. They appealed to the Congested Districts Board without success. Then an appeal was made to other people, and with some difficulty we got a motor to put into the boat. It cost £120, but if the boat had been sold it would hardly have brought the price of firewood. Once you put a motor into a boat, you have an exceedingly useful implement for fishing, carrying, or anything else. If the right hon. Gentleman could induce the Secretary for Scotland to formulate some scheme by which assistance could be given to men desirous of getting motors a great service would be rendered. In the case I have alluded to what happened was this. The fishermen agreed themselves to hand over their boat, motor, and whole equipment to trustees and they subscribed themselves as well, so that the public who subscribed could see that they were getting something for their money. That is one way in which assistance could be rendered by the Government to help people on the land.
  There is one more point on which I wish to express an opinion, namely, in regard to the way in which the Congested Districts Board deal with stallions. I find that last year there was absolutely no Grant to either Orkney or Shetland in respect of this very important subject. Large Grants have been made to North Uist, Barra, Harris, Skye, and many other places in the Highlands, but to Shetland, where, above all places, we do want a special Grant from the Government, none was given. Hon. Members know that the crofters there are very poor and struggling

  897
  people, and they also know that the Shetland pony is a very valuable source of revenue to them. I think the Government might perfectly well continue in some form or another the grants which have been made in previous years for Shetland stallions. I am quite aware that the Congested Districts Board have been extremely considerate in many parts of Shetland in the past as regards this matter. They provided stallions for several districts at considerable cost, and they expected in time that the people would be able to secure the necessary animals for themselves. The people are poor, and when they are offered good prices for the ponies they are almost forced to sell. The position is this: in many places, I regret to say, it is almost impossible for a small crofter to get the use of a stallion without practically hypothecating his produce. That is an extremely objectionable state of affairs. If the Government would establish some local means in Shetland whereby services could be obtained, they would do immense good to the whole of the districts. The Secretary for Scotland appointed a committee of agricultural experts to inquire and report into this whole question. I interviewed one or two members of the Board on this subject, and if I did not get anything else I got their sympathy. Perhaps when their report is issued they will show that something may be done towards assisting the very poor districts of Shetland, and also that something may be done to maintain our breed of Shetland ponies, which is very valuable to the country.
  Mr. A. F. WHYTE: I wish to join in the appeal made to the Lord Advocate for exceptional treatment of what is undoubtedly a highly exceptional case. The financial trouble in the outer islands is, after all, not a new thing, but by degrees it has grown worse and worse during the past three or four years, until now it is of such a nature as to demand that both sides of the House will not allow the time to slip away, and that it will be properly dealt with. The problem to be solved, of course, goes much deeper than any administrative action we can discuss to-day. It is a problem which has its roots both in the nature of the land and in the nature of the population that lives on the land. In the first place, as to the nature of the land, those who know it know quite well how difficult it would be even for the most sturdy and independent population
  898
  to extract a complete livelihood from it. There is an old story which runs that the outer islands were created late on a Saturday night, when the materials were running low, and when the Creator himself was tired. I think that admirably describes part of the problem which we ask the Scottish Office to deal with now. In discussing local burdens, speaking generally, I think we are entitled to take population as a fair index, not only of the burdens which have to be imposed, but also of the capacity of the people to bear those burdens. That is a perfectly just rule for an ordinary normal community, but it is a rule which does not apply in the case of the Highlands and Islands, for various reasons, the chief among them being that it is the people themselves who create the burdens, while they are absolutely unable to bear them, and should not be called upon to bear them. The question can be put in a clearer light if I point out that in the case of the richest parishes in Scotland the valuation is £40 per inhabitant, while in the poorest parishes it is rather less than 10s. It simply means that a rate of a penny in the £ in the richest parishes produces something like a hundred times as much as the same rate in the poorest parishes. I shall take the case of three parishes in the Lews, outside and excluding the parish of Stornoway. There are 15,900 people in the parishes of Barvas, Uig, and Lochs. Out of that number something like 6,000 or 7,000 are people who pay nothing whatever for their maintenance, and do nothing whatever to support the burden imposed on the community in which they live, though they are creators of the burden. I will recall a case which the Lord Advocate must have heard quoted many times before, in which two-thirds of the gross rental received by the landlord went in a particular year to meet the local burden. Out of the other third he had to pay the ordinary expenses of maintenance of the estate, Income Tax, and other calls upon his income.
  Mr. G. YOUNGER: And now the Supertax.
  Mr. A. F. WHYTE: As the hon. Member reminds me, he will now have to pay the Super-tax. Although that case is bad enough, it is really stated in its best light, because it was a prosperous year, when the owner succeeded in letting all the fishings and shootings, but if a comparatively small percentage of the lettable

  899
  shootings are not let, then the case practically represents absolute bankruptcy. As to the question whether there has been any substantial increase in the burdens, I would remind the Committee that on 14th July last year Major Anstruther Gray asked the Lord Advocate:—
  "Whether he is aware that the rates in the parish of Barvas, in the island of Lewis, stand at 28s. in the £; and if so, whether he can see his way to take any steps to remedy this state of affairs."
  In reply, the Lord Advocate said:—
  "The burden of the rates in Barvas and the other Lews parishes while undoubtedly great, has not substantially increased during the last three years, and has not increased beyond the average proportional increase of rates in Scotland during the last ten years. I cannot, on behalf of the Government, hold out the prospect of any special grant"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1909, col. 2,032.]
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it "has not substantially increased during the last three years." The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger) and the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Dewar) have both given figures showing how considerable has been the increase. I will take the increase in one particular direction, namely, the poor rate as it falls on occupiers. In the parish of Barvas in 1907–8 the poor rate was 8s. 8d., in 1909 it was 14s. 3d., an increase of 5s. 7d.; in Lochs, in 1907–8, it was 7s., in 1909 it was 10s. 7d., an increase of 3s. 7d.; in Uig in 1907–8 it was 7s. 1d., and in 1909 it was 8s. 1d., an increase of 1s. The same thing happened in the case of owners, except in Uig, where it was l¾d. lower. If I turn to the average poor rate for Scotland I find that it was 8½d. in 1900, 10¾d. in 1907, ll¼d. in 1908, and ll¼d. in 1909.
  Mr. G. YOUNGER: I have here the most recently published figures. The poor rate in the parish of Barvas in 1907–8 was 14s., in 1908–9 £1 3s. 9d., and in 1909–10 £1 4s. 1¼d. That is the last three years.
  Mr. A. F. WHYTE: I am indebted to the hon. Member for completing my figures. I was taking the burden as it falls on one class of the community only. According to the Lord Advocate's answer to Major Anstruther Gray last year it is very great. I imagine he explains it by the proportion, but I do not think the question of proportion can come in here when you have arrived at a burden of such magnitude. The Secretary for Scotland, in discussing this burden on occupiers, said that it really falls on occupiers who are sporting tenants and merchants. It not only falls on sporting tenants and merchants, but on all
  900
  other independent members of the community, and they are largely composed of teachers, ministers, and other people who are doing the best work in a parish. When the Secretary for Scotland referred to merchants he conveyed the idea of people of ease and capacity to bear the burden, whereas these unfortunate people are shopkeepers, and everyone who has been in those parts of Scotland knows what kind of stores they keep. The shopkeepers in the outer islands are very often people who are only able to make ends meet by combining shopkeeping with some other occupation. Then, again, the occupiers are very often those who are engaged in the administration of the law and in maintaining the local administration of the poor rate, education, and so on. They are the people who have to impose these rates upon themselves, and I was not in the least surprised to hear that in one parish a councillor resigned because he refused to levy the burden.
  That was the crux, that the central office is insisting upon the imposition of the burdens of civilisation upon a very poor community, and is not prepared to stretch out a helping hand in order to help them to bear those burdens. Those burdens represent services, of which the community on which they are imposed stand in crying need. Therefore there can be no question of effecting any stringent economy by reducing these services. Over and over again we have been told that these burdens cannot be reduced even by the strictest economy, because a stricter economy than is now secured under the existing administration would mean bad and inefficient administration. Finally, in regard to the whole problem the Secretary for Scotland told Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in the House of Lords, last year, that the problem was neither large enough is scope nor typical enough in character to entitle the Government to commit themselves in respect of it to any general line of policy with regard to the main recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. We are not considering here a normal case of relations between Imperial and local expenditure. We are considering a highly exceptional case, which does not trench upon the general subject discussed by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. But the Secretary of Scotland takes up that attitude, and our answer to it is that that is not the kind of statesmanship which these islands need. I think we are entitled to a promise

  901
  from the Scottish Office and those who represent it on the Front Bench, that they will adopt a different attitude from that which has been adopted up to the present. This question, we are told, is not large enough in scope. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to wait until absolute bankruptcy settles down, and makes all administration impossible, and makes the lives of the independent members of the community so burdensome that they would throw up their places altogether, and leave the island? Then it is said that the problem is not typical enough in character. Why, that is our whole case. We demand highly exceptional treatment, because it is a highly exceptional case, and in pressing our plea with the Government I would ask the Lord Advocate to consider the question in this light: Suppose his own native city fell into some paralysing emergency of any kind which called loudly for Government intervention and Government support from Imperial funds, the Government would immediately stretch out a helping hand to the City of Glasgow simply because the City of Glasgow can make itself felt in the councils of this country.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: It did not as a matter of fact.
  Mr. A. F. WHYTE: Yes, towards the end of last year when Glasgow was making an appeal the Government going out of office met the needs of Glasgow out of Imperial funds. That was simply because the needs of Glasgow are vocal in this House, while these outer isles if their councils had not been disorganised would have received the kind of attention which they pleaded for long ago. What we plead for with the Government is that they would relieve the independent inhabitants of those islands of some part of the grievous burden which they have borne in times past and are still bearing, and which they would be content to bear if there were any prospect of relief in the future.
  Mr. CLYDE: The serious character of the situation which has been brought before the Committee by the hon. Baronet who represents the county of Inverness and so pointedly enforced by the speech to which the Committee has just listened certainly is worthy of the present Debate, and worthy of that Debate in this sense, that public attention ought to be called to this state of affairs, and, if possible, the attention of the Government also. But it is still more so because the situation
  902
  with which we are confronted at the present moment is one which will most certainly repeat itself in the near future, and the only point about which I want to say a word or two is not deeply in the direction of remedy, but is in the direction of remedy with reference to the conduct of the actual business out of which this difficulty has arisen. The difficulty is nothing short of the breakdown of local government in the particular district in question, and the breakdown of local government in that district is attributable to what is barely short of the actual bankruptcy of the district as a rate-producing area. When the scheme of transmigration of this crofting population is proposed on whose shoulders is then the responsibility of taking some thought for to-morrow? It is impossible to transmigrate a considerable body of population like this from one place to another and plant it artificially in a place that is strange to them without making some kind of provision for the equipment of local government which it is going to leave behind, and which does not come of itself in the new localities in which the population is placed. The difficulty at the present moment is in South Uist, and it is acute enough; but I gather from what has been said this afternoon that that difficulty is going to repeat itself before long in Barra. I understand that Vatersay itself has been populated by people who came from a neighbouring island, and I am told that all the educational machinery of the island which they have left is now in a state of abandonment and disrepair. I am told that there is a school standing in Mingulay now which cost some £3,000 to build, and its doors are shut because there is nobody left in Mingulay except a few old men, and I understand that in Vatersay that school will have to be replaced; and precisely the same difficulty that has made South Uist bankrupt in its local government is liable before very long to make Vatersay bankrupt in its local government.
  I do think that the Committee is entitled not merely to have some light thrown on what it is that is proposed to be done in South Uist, where the difficulty is immediately pressing, but I think that we are entitled to have some light on this question, namely, that when a transmigration is proposed who is it that is responsible for seeing that the scheme is properly equipped in the new locality in which it is going to be planted. If a new country is being settled, I understand, the first things

  903
  that the local schemes provide for are a church, a school, and a post office. Who is responsible with reference to one of these transmigration schemes for thinking either of a church or a school or a post office? Is it the business of the Congested Districts Board to give some thought to these essential necessities of the population in the place to which they are going to be artificially planted in the new locality? If it is not their business, is it the business of the Secretary for Scotland? Does the Secretary for Scotland ever discuss one of these schemes with the Congested Districts Board before the scheme is made? If there is not any one individual whose business it is to take thought for to-morrow, is there no public or conjunction of individuals upon whose shoulders this business rests as a matter of government? Why should I say as a matter of government? As a matter of plain business how can this thing be done unless there is some kind of co-ordination among the various parties concerned? I am not speaking under the impression that the difficulty is due to the present Government, nor am I at all speaking under the impression that that difficulty is not very great; but what I do submit is this, that the difficulty is essentially one which a little business consideration of the problem before the work is undertaken ought to be capable of reasonably overcoming, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in his speech this afternoon will be able not merely to throw some light on where the money is to come from to prevent the actual occurrence of bankruptcy in South Uist—because come from somewhere it must—but I hope also that he will be able to throw some light on the future with regard to this matter and give the Committee some sort of assurance that when schemes of this kind are proposed in future the necessary equipment of local government, without which these schemes cannot come to fruition, will be adequately provided for before the scheme is put into operation. One question more and I am done. I understand that all that has hitherto been done in South Uist, in view of the resignation of its duties by the members of the parish council who have been ordered by the court to raise this impossible revenue, is to send two representatives of the Local Government Board to South Uist. What I would like to know is what are these two gentlemen supposed to do when they get there? Are they going to be armed with powers to enforce this
  904
  rate, and, if so, who is going to arm them with them? If they are only going there to look round, then is the position that we do not know what the next step is going to be? The question I press is, are these two men sent down there for the purpose. of enforcing this rate, and, if so, on what authority is that done?
  Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: I shall be very brief in what I have to say in referring to the rating question and the working of the Congested Districts Board, because on more than one occasion during the last few years I have raised the question of rating, and for many years I have been one of those who thought the Congested Districts Board should disappear, although I admit with regard to that, that what has fallen this evening from the hon. Baronet the Member for Inverness-shire (Sir J. A. Dewar) deserves very serious consideration, because from one point of view, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Perth, in his very able contribution to this Debate, the districts concerned are not vocal. I wish that the hon. Member for Ross-shire (Mr. J. G. Weir) were here. But I have in my time represented the island of Lewis, so I must do what I can to take his place. In supporting the hon. Baronet the Member for Inverness-shire, I think he will agree with me that if the case for Inverness-shire is hard, the case of Ross-shire is even harder, because in the island of Skye, while you have a large amount of land which is in process of operation by crofters, in the island of Lewis you have the problem of the resettlement of a very large population—a far more difficult problem really than in the island of Skye, and one of the most difficult problems, if not the most difficult, which have to be faced in Scotland, and one which is rendered all the more interesting by this fact that the population of Lewis, as a whole, is one of the finest populations in Scotland. The finest men I have ever seen were the Naval Reserve men from some of the parishes in North Lewis. Therefore the matter is one which has interest as well as difficulty. The rates in the island of Lewis are absolutely impossible. I went into the details some two or three years ago, and matters have not improved since then. We are still waiting. It is a consolation to have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that next year, if he is in office—as I hope he will be—the question of readjustment of local taxation will at length be dealt with.

  905
  The present trouble arises from the fact that Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Report has been pigeon-holed by one Government after another. If the principles of that Report, which I believe in the main are sound principles, and especially of the Report signed by two distinguished members of the Commission—Sir George Murray and Sir Edward Hamilton—as well as the principles of the Minority Report, could find expression in the readjustment of local taxation, such a state of things as now exists in the Western seaports of Scotland could not be found. The mistake that has been made for some time past is that some special provision has not been made for the requirements of the districts which have been referred to, and in which there are tremendously heavy rates. This matter of heavy rating in a limited number of parishes and the question of the Congested Districts Board may be minor matters, but they are amongst the most urgent requiring to be dealt with; and I hope the Lord Advocate will treat them in a somewhat different spirit from that with which he has shown in past years. I am not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands what the state of matters really is. It is all very well to say that the crofters are comparatively lightly rated; the fixtures are not rated in their case, but how can any industry thrive or anything be undertaken with a view to the promotion of its prosperity, where the rates are so tremendously heavy as in the case of the crofters. It is impossible that any industry can prosper under such conditions, and the burden complained of falls upon the poorest parishes. There are various reasons for these heavy rates. For example, extravagant school buildings, which cost an enormous amount of money, constitute a part of the excessive burden in these poor parishes.
  As regards the Congested Districts Board, I have always been in favour of abolishing that body. An inquiry into it is being held at the present time, but it is not an inquiry which will carry much weight. The Congested Districts Board is represented upon it. It ought to have been an independent and a strong inquiry, which would have reviewed the position of other Boards besides the Congested Districts Board. I have appealed to my right hon. Friends opposite, as well as to my right hon. Friends on this side of the House, to institute an inquiry into the working of these Boards in Scotland, but I have not yet met with the slightest
  906
  success. In regard to the inquiry which is taking place, it is insufficient and weak, and will not carry very much weight or influence, whatever the result may be. The Crofters Commission has been extraordinarily successful in inspiring confidence during all the land troubles in the Highlands, and I certainly should not risk losing the prestige which the Crofters Commission now enjoys. At the same time the Congested Districts Board might, I think, have managed to work with the Crofters Commission, but if that be found impossible then it must be remodelled, lock, stock and barrel. If it is to be an independent authority it needs a practical head knowing the conditions, and it wants also a staff who might have to be paid, though I think it would be better if it could get them unpaid. It needs men who will give their time to the work. The Crofters Commission commands confidence, but the Congested Districts Board does not, and that is the difference between the two bodies. Then there has been a conspicuous misfortune in the case of the bridge which fell the other day in West Ross-shire. I have had the information which I possess confirmed by an authority in whom I have every confidence. A bridge was urgently needed over the River Apple-cross. The proprietor of the land offered to pay a quarter and the district committee offered to pay another quarter. The Congested Districts Board undertook, after considerable negotiation, to find half the money. The finance committee of the county council took considerable interest in the transaction, and suggested that an engineer should be employed. His remuneration, however, would have amounted to £82, while the cost of the bridge was to be £650. The Congested Districts Board indicated their willingness to make a grant towards the cost of the construction, but they objected to the inclusion of £82 for the engineer. They were of opinion that the road surveyor could carry out the work.
  Anyone who knows the neighbourhood is aware that the suggestion was not practicable. The surveyor would have had to go thirty miles to the nearest railway station, and then, having travelled by rail for some distance, would have to take another road before he could get to the site of the bridge. The Congested Districts Board's supervisor, without consulting the district road surveyor, authorised the construction of the bridge, and it fell shortly after it was built. The county

  907
  council then appointed an engineer to report, and his report was that the concrete work was four and a half feet short of the requisite depth in the case of one pier, and that, in short, the bridge was bound to fall from the way in which it was constructed; and even if it had been constructed according to scale it was not likely to have lasted very long. All the piers were short in their foundations, which were not according to the specifications. This is a matter which I leave between the county council and the Congested Districts Board. All I wanted to prove is that the manner in which works of this kind are carried out by the Congested Districts Board is one which does not command public confidence in the Highlands. I think it is urgent that both the problem of rating and the problem of having an effective Congested Districts Board should be faced without delay. I do not think we can expect any body such as the Congested Districts Board to be able to find markets and to transport the produce to them—in short, to enable the people to produce to the greatest advantage, and to sell to the best advantage in the markets. I believe that would best be accomplished by such a body acting in co-operation with voluntary associations on the lines of the Agricultural Organisation Society. In the island of Orkney we have a whole network of co-operative societies, and we find that they increase the self-reliance of the people, stimulate production, and bring prices to a level, which is of great advantage to the small producer. In no part of Scotland have such efforts met with greater success than in the Highlands and in the West of Scotland. I think a large part of the work which the Congested Districts Board has attempted to undertake could be run in conjunction with these societies on voluntary lines. I do not desire to criticise too harshly the work of the Board, because I think a good part of their work was such as was impossible for them to overtake and overcome. The whole matter requires practical consideration, and, both in respect of the rates and the Congested Districts Board, I trust that the Debate we have had to-day in regard to the present most unsatisfactory state of affairs will have a good result, and that it will not be necessary to repeat the arguments which we have advanced on so many previous occasions in urging the Government of the day to come to a practical settlement in regard to the constitution of the
  908
  Congested Districts Board as well as in reference to the levying of a rate on a fair scale in the poor parishes.
  6.0 P.M.
  Captain GILMOUR: I think it is eminently satisfactory that there is so much agreement between Scottish Members on both sides of the House on the matter we are discussing. As to the urgency of the problem that is before us there is not the least doubt. The question of rates has been so fully dealt with that I do not touch on it, but I should like to refer to those parts of the Report which deal more particularly with the agricultural interests as administered by the Congested Districts Board. I venture to say that the administration of the Scottish Office with regard to local affairs and the rates has been conducive to a want of confidence on the part of the people of all ranks and parties in Scotland, and that that want of confidence is also most distinctly felt with regard to their administration of the agricultural side. I find in this Report that the Committee, which has already been referred to, is sitting and will, I suppose, in due course make their Report. As the right hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro Ferguson) has pointed out, that inquiry is being carried on not altogether by those who are apart from the administration of the present Congested Districts Board. There are certain people interested in it, and they may or may not be without bias in considering these matters. I would wish to impress upon the Committee the necessity of a reorganisation of the body which deals with these matters. It is, I think, perfectly patent to anyone who has a knowledge of the facts that those who have in the past bought stock for the Congested Districts Board, and for the use of the various communities to which they are apportioned, have not been successful in the conduct of their purchases. I think that has been owing to the want of co-operation between those who have administered the work of the Congested Districts Board and those who are specially qualified to deal with agricultural matters in the districts which they are working. I am perfectly certain that there are plenty of eminent men in agriculture who may safely buy for the Congested Districts Board.
  I notice in the Report in dealing particularly with the purchase of bulls for the Congested Districts Board, that those are bought on condition that proper arrangements are made for the care of the

  909
  animals. I should like to ask whether it is the fact that at the end of the season a large portion of those bulls are sold in poor condition, and at very considerable loss, to the Congested Districts Board. It may be that that policy is altered, but I am informed, and I believe my information is correct, that after those bulls have been in the district which they have been sent to they are sold at a very considerable loss to the Board. I believe they could very properly be kept over, as is indicated in this Report, and be reallotted either to the same district or another district afterwards. There was one other point which I think would show very clearly to the Committee that there is great need for some reorganisation. There was a question asked in this House about a year ago with regard to an accident which took place with one of those Congested District bulls. The Congested Districts Board gives a bull to a district on the understanding that they will not be responsible for any accident which may happen. That may be a perfectly proper arrangement to make, but I submit that in the case brought to my notice the mismanagement was almost beyond belief. An accident happened and a man died of his injuries. When the matter came to be dealt with by the Congested Districts Board orders were given for the destruction of the bull. The bull was destroyed and buried. There is no business man who has any dealings with stock who would have done anything of the sort. Even if it had been deemed necessary to destroy it, at least the carcass and the hide might have been sold. As it turned out, there were people ready to take over the hide. The unfortunate dependents of the man who was killed were denied any assistance from the Board and did not even get the benefit of the hide. That is an instance of what is going on.
  I should like, also, to refer to a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Leith Burghs with regard to the work which has been done in the Highlands in the development of the agricultural interests by agricultural co-operation. I do wish to express the hope that the Congested Districts Board and the Scottish Office will be perhaps a little more conciliatory, and will endeavour to take with them in the work of the Congested Districts Board that advice and assistance which will be very readily given by the officials of the Agricultural Organisation Society in Scotland. They are composed of a body of men drawn from all agricultural classes,
  910
  who are giving their experience and their knowledge very willingly in order to assist not only agriculture in the Highlands, but also all over Scotland. I think that we have reason to fear that their advice is not always very kindly received by the Scottish Office, and particularly by those who are in authority. I hope that a little more care and a little more attention may be given to the work which they are doing. I am of the opinion, which was expressed by the hon. Member for Leigh Burghs, that a great part of the work cannot properly be undertaken by the Congested Districts Board, but may properly be, and is already, even to a limited extent, being carried out most successfully by the agricultural co-operative societies which have been formed. There is nothing which can be of greater benefit to the small crofter than encouragement in the marketing of his produce. That is part of the Congested Districts Board's most important work which may properly, I suggest, be done by such bodies. I do hope that in these matters, and in the selection of breeding stock, that there will be a little more practical care taken in the selection and in the distribution of them in Scotland.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: I am sure the House always listens sympathetically to anything affecting the Highlands, but at the same time there are other matters worthy of consideration on the Estimates, and I think there is a tendency to let the Debate fall too much into one channel. I have advocated for a number of years that we should have two days for the Scottish Estimates, one of the days to be wholly taken up with what might be termed the Congested Districts Board and Agriculture and Fisheries, whilst the other day could be devoted to Education and other interests. The point to which I should like to call the attention of the Lord Advocate is a matter on which, on 21st March, the Scottish Members received a deputation from Scotland. That deputation was as to why adequate representation was not made in the various committees or commissions of inquiry appointed into various subjects in which Scotland had a very keen interest.
  Mr. G. YOUNGER: On a point of Order. Is it not in accordance with the Rules of Order to take and dispose of one class of Vote before we enter upon another, and therefore should not this particular question of the Congested Districts Board be finished first?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I do not think so. The hon. Member has so little developed his argument that it is difficult for me to say.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: As this is the Secretary for Scotland's Vote, and the only Vote on which I can raise anything, that is the reason I took the opportunity. If the Committee wishes to divide solely on the Amendment as to the Congested Districts Board, and if I can raise my subject afterwards, I am willing to speak later.
  Mr. WATT: Is it not the case that any administration of the Secretary for Scotland can be brought in under a Motion to reduce his salary by £100?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think, strictly speaking, that is so, but it is desirable in these cases to keep the Debate to one point as far as possible. In this Debate the hon. Member would be wise to take the opportunity afterwards.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: May I ask whether in the event of giving way now, and that a Vote is taken to reduce the Secretary of Scotland's salary by £100, I should be ruled out of order if I referred to the other matters at a later stage? I have a Motion myself on the Paper to reduce the salary of the Secretary for Scotland, and therefore I presume I should be in order in making a similar Motion as that made on this Vote.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I desire to refer to one subject which has been referred to by several previous speakers, and that is the difficulties that arise in regard to the administration of the Education Act. In all these matters of the administration of Statutes the pressure that is caused thereby on the rates is becoming a more and more urgent question. It is a question that has to be dealt with as a whole, and not in regard to any particular Statute, such as the Education Act. It does no good to any of us, or to those poverty-stricken districts which are suffering from the pressure, to be annually, or more frequently, told by the occupants of the Treasury Bench that they recognise the urgency of this question, that it must be dealt with as a large question, and that it must be dealt with without delay. Year after year passes, and yet we have nothing done in amelioration of that position. While the Statutes that you pass may be good for an immense part of the country, on their financial
  912
  side they are absolutely unworkable in those poverty - stricken districts. The sooner the Government leave off making vague and unsatisfactory promises and give us something like clear action in dealing with this question the better, not only for the good of the district, but for the administration of the Acts themselves. The Acts must not be dealt with separately as Education Acts, or Poor Law Acts; the financial question must be dealt with as a whole. It is with regard to the Education Acts, however, that the pressure of the rates does most harm. It injures the very name of education in the ears of many of those concerned. What we wish is that there should be a free expansion of educational improvement without every step in advance being accompanied by an enormous increase of the rates of these poor districts. It is impossible for education to be advanced as it ought to be if every improvement of the schools has, as a necessary consequence, an enormous increase of the rates, which are already so high.
  I wish to quote a parallel which arose under a Unionist Government in 1888. At that time precisely the same state of affairs arose, the only difference being that the difficulty was not largely caused by the Government of the day, as it has been in the present instance, because it was from the actual steps taken by the present Government with regard to the small holdings that the pressure upon the education rate was made so heavy in South Uist. But so far as the breakdown of the education administration which then arose is concerned, it was on a far larger scale, and required far bolder measures than anything that has arisen on the present occasion. Instead of being confined to one small parish, the difficulty arose in every Hebridean parish, and included school boards in Lewis, in Harris, and in the Island of Skye. The Unionist Government did not permit any money to be wasted in the first place upon legal proceedings, and, above all, upon fatuous legal proceedings, between two local boards in the same area. That is one way in which money was saved. Nor did the Government of 1888 think that they could deal with the difficulty by sending down a Government servant to collect the rates. Of all the proposals that could have been made, it seems to me that the most foolish was to send down a Government servant to collect on his own authority rates which the local board assert they cannot possibly raise. I doubt whether Govern-

  913
  ment delegates have any business whatever to demand rates from these people. Under what Statute can they do it? Is there any Statute whatever enabling the central authority to impose this duty upon a delegate or to arm a delegate with any such authority as is necessary to collect rates? Even if it is possible, is that the way to help the locality? Will it relieve the people of single burden? These delegates will have to be paid, and the legal expenses will have to be defrayed. What is worse, it will not help the locality to do its educational work one bit the better. You propose to help it in its work by sending down Government servants to say, "We will sweep away your furniture and all your belongings; we will put them up to auction, as though you were passive resisters; and perhaps by this means we may extract from you some small pittance."
  Surely the plan followed by the Unionist Government in 1888 was far better. There was no money spent on litigation, on fights in the Court of Session between parochial boards and school boards, or on attempting to levy rates which you are told the people are too poor to pay. The Government on that occasion brought financial assistance from the Treasury in their own way. The late Lord Goschen, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, threw himself heartily into the work. He placed at our disposal—I was then head of the Education Department—a certain sum of money, to be distributed on condition that we were permitted to advise the authorities in the discharge of their duty, that they allowed us to help them in making their work more efficient and to point out where extravagance was occurring, and that they acted upon the advice of our inspector, who insisted upon greater efficiency, by which a larger grant would be earned. The difficulty in 1888 was so great that all these school boards, thirteen or fourteen in number, informed us that they had given every teacher notice of dismissal, and that on a certain day every school in the district would be closed. Immediate help had to be and was given. An arrangement was made by which our inspector should be present and act as a temporary adjunct of the managers in the management of each school, assisting by his advice and co-operation as long as the managers were pleased to have that assistance, and not for one moment longer. As a consequence, the notices to the teachers were withdrawn, the schools
  914
  remained open, a careful distribution of that very limited sum, amounting to only £4,000 or £5,000 a year, enabled us to set these school boards on their feet again, and gradually we were able to withdraw the whole of this assistance owing to the economies which were practised and the increased Grants earned by the schools by their increased efficiency. Surely by ransacking the archives of the Department the Secretary for Scotland might have found some more satisfactory method of dealing with these poverty-stricken localities, and of carrying on the vigorous and efficient administration of the Education Acts, than that of permitting these two unfortunate boards to spend money on litigation and of sending down delegates from the Local Government Board to act as tax gatherers. By what authority will they so act? No doubt tax gatherers are appointed by the Government. We have ample experience of that. But to use Government officials to extract rates is surely a new, and, I should have thought, an unconstitutional proceeding. It certainly will not bring any help to the locality. Far greater assistance would have been given, and in the long run it would not have been one whit more extravagant, by providing out of the central funds, as an act of grace and of necessity, such assistance as Lord Goschen gave when a similar difficulty on a far larger scale arose in 1888. That example, however, has not been followed, and I cannot think that the representatives of the Government can congratulate themselves on the methods they have adopted, or on the prospects with reference to the administration of the Education Acts.
  Mr. G. N. BARNES: I do not know a great deal about the matter which has been raised, but, prompted by the speech to which we have just listened, I am constrained to offer a few observations upon it. We have heard an interesting, and in some respects, instructive dissertation upon grants in aid as compared with the method of collecting what I suppose are legal charges in these particular areas. We have also heard something of the good old-fashioned Tory doctrine of relieving the landlords. As I say, I do not know anything about the case in question, and I am not going to prejudge it. In certain districts where the population has shifted, and consequently only a small number of people remain to bear the charges, there may possibly be a case for sending relief or for consideration being

  915
  given. But I should like the Minister when he replies to bear in mind that, generally speaking, moneys of this sort when coming from the Imperial Exchequer simply go to the relief of landlords, a process for which I have no great love.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does the hon. Member know that in this case the Government is the landlord?
  Mr. BARNES: I know nothing about the case, but I am entitled to speak on the general principle. It does not matter a fig about the particular case. I have heard a great deal to-day about the amount of the rates in South Uist and in the island of Lewis. I understand that both these districts are under the Congested Districts Board, and, consequently, I suppose the tenants are, to some extent, safeguarded. Still, the owners of the land have a large amount of the rates to pay, and I want to guard the Imperial taxpayer against these particular landlords. I understand that there is one lady, who has been very much discussed in this House, largely interested in one of these places. What will he the effect of spending £4,000 or £5,000 a year in this particular district in reference to the relief of rates? Will it go into the pocket of this lady? To my mind there seems a danger of that taking place.
  Mr. G. YOUNGER: Why should it not?
  Mr. BARNES: I do not know, but I have heard a great deal said about this particular person having already made a very good thing of the tenants in that and other areas. I only desire, so far as my imperfect knowledge of the subject goes, to draw to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman that particular aspect of the question so that he may have it in his mind when replying to the requests which have been made. I go further, and say that I am always suspicious when I hear this unanimity on both sides on behalf of the landlords.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: What about shopkeepers, hotel-keepers, and other people of that sort who also have to pay rates?
  Mr. BARNES: I am now speaking of normal districts. We will keep off these two particular districts which have been mentioned a good deal. So far as I can understand the question, it all depends upon the rent. It sounds a terrible thing
  916
  for a 25s. rate to be imposed upon a particular district, but after all, if the rent is low, it does not make that difference that would otherwise be the case. In so far as relief is given under normal conditions from the Imperial Exchequer, the result is that the landlord, in consequence of the tenant's rates being low, is in a position in many cases to put up his rent. It is only that aspect I got up to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, so that he might have it in his mind—although doubtless he has it in his mind already.
  Mr. MORTON: It is very seldom that time is found for the consideration of Scottish affairs, which shows that Scotland is neglected by a Liberal Government. Whether it is because Scotland sends nearly all Liberal Members to this Parliament or not I do not know, but, as my hon. Friend says, it is the reward of Scotland for so sending Liberal Members. I should like to ask where is the Secretary for Scotland?
  The CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with this Vote.
  Mr. MORTON: I understand that this Vote is for the salary of the Secretary for Scotland. What I would like to ask, Sir, is whether I cannot ask why the Secretary for Scotland does not appear in this House?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have told the hon. Gentleman that he cannot ask that upon this Vote.
  Mr. MORTON: Very well, then let me——
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, whether your ruling goes the length of saying that we cannot complain that the Secretary for Scotland has not a seat in this House, having regard to the fact that an important Division took place on the same point a few years ago?
  The CHAIRMAN: It did not take place in Committee of Supply. When the Scottish Vote is before us we cannot possibly complain that the Secretary for Scotland is in another place.
  Mr. WATT: Is my hon. Friend in order in calling the attention of the Committee to the absence of the Scottish Secretary in so far as he is Chairman of the Congested Districts Board?
  The CHAIRMAN: Certainly not. It does not arise on this Vote.
  Mr. MORTON: I am sorry it does not arise, because this is about, the only opportunity of the Session of asking why the Secretary for Scotland has not a seat in this House, as he ought to have. I should like to ask two or three questions in connection with the Congested Districts Board. Although their funds, I admit, are very limited, and they ought to have more, I complain that practically nearly all that money for some years past has been given to one county. I want to know why Inverness gets nearly all that money, and Sutherlandshire gets but little? I tried last year to get an explanation. I hope we shall get some to-day, although we have not got the Secretary for Scotland in this House. The money is too limited. More money ought to be voted; but no matter what the amount may be, it ought to be fairly divided amongst the counties which come under the jurisdiction of the Congested Districts Board. I do not know why Inverness-shire should be so lucky. So far as I can understand the district that is voted upon here to-day, the Island of Lewes, is perhaps the worst of all and the most needing assistance from an Imperial Grant, because the population is congested in that island. The whole difficulty is the land question. But for that in the Island of Lewes both the cottars and the crofters would be able to get on better than they do now. Some time ago we were given a legal opinion that the Congested Districts Board could not buy land and let it out to the crofters. Legal or non-legal, that has been done. In other counties as well as Inverness-shire these cottars and crofters do not want to purchase land. They want to rent it at a fair rent with fixity of tenure. If the Congested Districts Board has not got enough money and cannot loan, borrow, or otherwise get it to do something to settle these difficulties in Lewes and elsewhere, they ought to come to Parliament and ask for more money.
  I should like to get some official information with regard to Strathnaver, Sutherlandshire. Some ten years ago the Congested Districts Board bought from the Duke of Sutherland land in this neighbourhood, but the difficulty that has constantly arisen is that they paid too much for it. Therefore the settlers are not able to repay the money for the land. Over and over again we have asked the Congested Districts Board through the Secretary for Scotland to do something to relieve these. I want to know from the Lord Advocate—who, I admit, very ably
  918
  represents the Secretary for Scotland, but who, of course, has his own business to attend to, including old age pensions, and therefore has not got much time to spare for the poor crofter—whether he could not tell us of some way to relieve these settlers in Strathnaver. I suggested some years ago that they might be allowed to repay the money in one hundred years instead of fifty years which would make a considerable difference. I do not see why they should not do that, and so be relieved of their present troubles. I should like to know from the Lord Advocate what he thinks of that, and whether he will compel the Secretary for Scotland, wherever he may find him, and whatever he may be doing elsewhere, to look after these settlers in Strathnaver, and show them some way of getting out of their difficulties.
  Some months ago I asked the Lord Advocate—then acting Secretary for Scotland—a question in regard to changing some sheep farming and arable land into a deer forest at Gordonbush farm, known as Knockan herding, near Kinbrace, Sutherland. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to offer to inquire into the matter and report to me. I have heard nothing of it from him yet. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give me some explanation to-day of this matter, because, among all these troubles and the difficulty of finding a living for these people, it does seem extraordinary that land which is fitted for sheep farming and arable purposes should be turned into a deer forest, and for other sporting purposes. I have no objection to sporting, but men ought to be considered before deer and deer forests! As now it is held that land can be purchased and let to the crofters and others, I should like to see the Board purchase this land that it is proposed to turn into a deer forest, and let it to the cottars or crofters. I am aware that I cannot deal with any subject to-day that requires legislation, but the Congested Districts Board has power to deal with this question. Whether they have got money enough or not is not my business. If they have not got money enough to carry out the purposes for which they were appointed they ought to come to Parliament. I do trust that this Liberal Government, which is largely supported by the Scottish people, and always is, will take some means to assist the Scottish people out of these various difficulties. Scotland should be treated fairly. It is the most

  919
  law-abiding part of the United Kingdom. Its people have had more to do with the birth of events all over the world than any other country. I do trust, therefore, that the Government will consider it worth their attention and notice to do something, through this Board or otherwise to prevent depopulation, and the driving out of the country of a number of able-bodied people, fine men and so on, as they have been spoken of to-day—when if they were dealt fairly with they would make a good living. There may be other means of dealing with these questions that I do not know of, but certainly Parliament and the Government that happens to be in power is responsible for doing something to settle this question and to carry out what the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said should be the work of a Liberal Government, namely, to colonise our own country. This Congested Districts Board is appointed for the purpose of carrying out the colonisation, especially of some of the Highland counties, where there are all these troubles about land and other things. I do hope we may see some attempt made to deal with this question. England has already received a good deal. Ireland has received a good deal more. Scotland has received nothing at all. Even we humble private Members who have attempted to do anything have been insulted rather than otherwise for our pains. It does seem extraordinary that Scotland should be treated in that way.
  I hope to hear from the Lord Advocate that, however much he may be interested in another good work, such as old age pensions, he will do something to settle this question where old age pensions do not apply. The people in Scotland concerned are young people who may be driven out of the country because they are not allowed to make a living at home. If I could only get the Government to do their duty in Sutherlandshire, instead of having a population of 30,000 people, it could find accommodation for 60,000 or 100,000 people. It is only a question of colonising. It ought not to be impossible to carry out such reforms as would settle all these questions and prevent some of the best of our population from being driven into the big towns or from being forced to emigrate to foreign countries or the Colonies. With a proper Government and proper management employment could be found for them in their own country. I hope, therefore,
  920
  that we will hear something from the Lord Advocate to-night in the interests of Scotland.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I make no complaint whatever of the vigorous and robust phrases which have been used by my colleagues from Scotland in the course of the Debate. I daresay I myself, if I were in their position, would have used similar language, and if I do not emulate their example I hope it may not be thought that I feel less strongly upon the important and grave topic which occupied our attention this afternoon. Upon the question of rating in the West Highlands I shall say little, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Perth, in his very admirable speech, showed, it was a question that lay much deeper than mere administration. Neither this Government nor any other will ever deal with that question piecemeal. It is obvious it must be treated as part of one whole. I do not for a moment deny the urgency of the question; it is deeply urgent in parts of the United Kingdom; it is exceptionally so in the West Highlands. It is a problem not quite easily settled—on the contrary, it is one very difficult to solve.
  Parliament, in its wisdom, has decreed, not in our time, but in the time of some of our predecessors, that the same standard of sanitation, education, and the like, shall be maintained and insisted upon in these outlying parts of His Majesty's dominions as in other parts of the country. These are expensive, and while Parliament decreed they should be maintained, Parliament at the same time did not think it necessary to revise a system by which the money was raised to meet these requirements, and accordingly you have the increased expenditure necessarily incurred in districts which for the most part—or, at all events, to a considerable extent—are barren and unprofitable, where there are few industries, and where the income of the people is derived exclusively from the sea and the land. And, therefore, our present system of rates of shillings in the £ will be very high, because the assessable figures are very low. The problem is not as easy of solution as it at first sight appears. It must be faced, and whether or not a solution will be found in the direction pointed out by Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Lord Kinross, in their very interesting and instructive Memorandum, which they appended to the Report of the Commission, to regulate taxes, or whether the consummation will be found in the

  921
  direction pointed out by the majority of the Commission, it is impossible to say, and it would be premature for anyone at the present moment to predict. Possibly neither in its entriety will be accepted; but it is obvious you cannot throw upon these localities unaided the burden of maintaining these high standards which we all insist shall be maintained. Again, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Perth, and I admit that there may be exceptional cases—cases which require exceptional treatment under the present conditions, and to which exceptional treatment must be applied, and the concrete question before the Committee this afternoon is whether or not the parish of South Uist is one of these exceptional cases to which exceptional treatment must be applied.
  I rather think that the question has been already determined by the fact that an agreement was made between that parish and the Congested Districts Board by which a contribution was to come from the funds in the hands of the Board. Then it was found that it was not possible to do that. That, I most frankly say, was an admission that you had an exceptional case to deal with, and a case that required exceptional treatment. I agree with what is said by the hon. Member for Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) that if exceptional treatment is given to the parish of Uist the result may be that you make a payment out of the pockets of the general taxpayer, largely for the benefit of the largest ratepayer in this parish, the landed proprietor. It was found, as we all know, that the Public Accounts Committee would not pass the payment, and frankly I am not surprised at it, for I have carefully examined the Act of Parliament under which the Congested Districts Board was called into existence, and I cannot find any statutory authority for such a payment being made out of the Congested Districts Board funds. Therefore I think the Committee may take it that payment out of the funds at the Board's disposal is not a practical solution of the difficulty at the present time. That does not in the least degree preclude us from going on to consider whether other means may not be found by which this crisis may not be dealt with. From the language used by some of my colleagues this afternoon, one would incline to suppose that the Island of South Uist has been a sort of derelict so far as the Government is concerned. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  922
  The total sum which the parish council levied for poor rates was £1,800—the last available figures—and of that 42 per cent. came from the Government Grant. But in that very year there came from the pockets of the taxpayer, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. George Younger) said, no less than £4,844 in the shape of old age pensions. So it is a mistake to suppose that this parish, which has received from the central fund £4,800 odd, and which collects £1,800 for Poor Law administration, has not received any attention.
  It is said furthermore that the rates are high, and frankly they do look astonishingly high if you simply regard the number of shillings in the £, but do not let it be forgotten that that does not represent the gross revenues of the parish. As we all know, before you strike a rate on the revenue certain reductions have to be made, and they are very material in this particular parish. Under the section of the Poor Law, which nearly all of us have off by heart, because we receive petitions every year in connection with it, there is a provision that you must deduct a number of things before you strike the assessable valuation. Every ratepayer is entitled to deduct as much as he can show as applicable for repairs and maintenance and so on. On striking the valuation in Scotland the parish council takes a percentage and so obviates the necessity for fully inquiring into the exact amount and the percentage in this parish of Uist is something like forty-five. I am taking the figure of the very latest information given us from time to time, and if the hon. Member (Sir John Dewar) will look at the Report from which he read a passage this afternoon he will find that the parish council has this year deducted 45 per cent. This probably accounts for the very striking and remarkable rise which has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs in the case of the parish of Barvas and Lochs and Uig. According to my information, which is for 1907–8, you will find that 5 per cent. was deducted for maintenance and repairs. In 1908–9 it was raised in the parish of Uist to 45 per cent., so that, as the Committee will see at once, when you raise your deduction and reduce your assessable area the amount of shillings in the £ mounts up like wildfire.
  Sir JOHN DEWAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what difference that makes as compared with Aberdeen where you take off 25 per cent.?
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. URE: I am not instituting any comparisons—I am merely stating facts. Comparisons with any other parish would be misleading because of the remarkable and striking rise in the parish. There is hardly any comparison between this parish in early years and in later years. You could not go on any such comparison. In the parish of Uig the deduction was for shops and dwelling houses 30 per cent., and in relation to agricultural matters 5 per cent. In the year 1889, in that same parish of Uig, the rate for shops and dwellings was 45 per cent., and for agricultural matters 40 per cent. You are apt to be misled when you regard simply the number of shillings and pence in the £. I do not say that the rate is light in those parishes, on the contrary, I think it is heavy. All I say is that we should not have our sense of perspective distorted by unfair comparisons, and we should see exactly where we stand by comparing the gross rent with the assessable rent.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: If the right hon. Gentleman has gone into the calculations, can he say whether or not, allowing for the deductions, there has been a considerable rise?
  Mr. URE: I do not think there has been a rise. I am speaking of Barvas, Lochs and Uig. I cannot say definitely, because I only received the figures this afternoon. I have admitted that the situation is exceptional in South Uist. It is not correct to say that Lady Cathcart was forced to break up the farms into small holdings. I admit that it was pointed out by the Congested Districts Board that it would be to the advantage of the people if those farms were broken up, and Lady Cathcart acquiesced in a view which probably she would not otherwise have taken. The result of breaking up the farms into small holdings was that there was a change in the distribution of the population inside the parish with the result that it was necessary, in order to provide education for the children, to erect two new schools in South Uist, and to enlarge a third school. There was another cause of expense which has no relation whatever to the breaking up of the farms into small holdings, and it was the necessity of providing a new school in another district because some voluntary schools were given up. It is the fact, however, that the whole expenditure attributable to the breaking up of the farms was the construc-
  924
  tion of two schools and the enlargement of another school. That expenditure cost the parish £1,600, in which is included £394 arrears from a previous year. It was the statutory duty of the parish council to impose the rate, and they had no right whatever to question the action of the school board. It was their duty to collect the money, and they had neither a right nor a duty imposed upon them to consider the policy. The expenditure was rendered necessary by the change of population, but the council considered it to be their duty to criticise the amount of expenditure upon the schools, and they refused absolutely to perform their statutory duty. What was to be done? It has been said that the Scotch Office drove them into the courts, and the hon. Member for Glasgow University said they allowed them to go on with the litigation. I condemn as strongly as any hon. Member the litigation which has taken place between these two bodies, and I think it is disgraceful. The Government, however, have no power to stop it, and it was not our duty to do so. We have no power to compel the parish council to perform its statutory duty, and we have no power to restrain the school board from carrying out its statutory duty, however much we may lament the disgraceful exhibition of a suit at law between two public bodies throwing money away on litigation. Our hands are clean in this matter. I have no option and no right to intervene, and the Government could not have intervened, however much we disapproved of the action of these two bodies. The parish council refused to perform their statutory duty, and the members of the council resigned. May I say, in reply to what some hon. Members have stated, that I do not propose, even if I had the power, to imprison the members of this council for refusing to carry out the order of the court. I only regret that they did not resign before the litigation took place, and then all this expense might have been saved. If the council did not mean to perform their statutory duties they ought to have said so without putting another public body to the expense of an action at law.
  In the circumstances there was only one possible course open to the Local Government Board of Scotland, and that was to take advantage of the power they possessed under the 18th Section of the Parish Councils Act of 1894, and appoint men temporarily to discharge the duties and perform the functions of a parish council. What we did in this respect has been done

  925
  before in the case of Barra. That is not only a precedent, but it is a very good one, because under it the affairs of the parish council of Barra never before were so well administered as they were by the officials of the Local Government Board. The officials who were sent down knew the whole locality, and they reviewed the financial position and put affairs in a very much better state than they had ever been before. The Local Government Board for Scotland have acted under statutory powers in appointing these well-informed men, familiar with the locality and its needs, to administer temporarily the affairs of this parish council. They are clothed temporarily with all the powers the parish council possessed, and they are empowered to do everything that the parish council itself could have done, and their first duty will be to ascertain exactly what is the financial position in this particular parish. When they have done this we shall then be in a position to see what our duty as a Government will be.
  The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. G. Younger) called attention to the fact that in the Congested Districts Board's Report they point out that there were some places at all events where the rates were being withheld where they could very easily be paid. I am not assuming that that is the situation in South Uist, but I think we ought to know exactly what the financial position is, and when we have done this, then will be the time for the Government to act. We cannot give further powers to the Congested Districts Board without an alteration in the Statute, and that, of course, at the present time, is out of the question. I may point out, however, that there is a clause in the Education Act of 1908 under which, I think, the Department is empowered to give a grant in relief of the rates in this case if they are satisfied that under the circumstances it is desirable. I am sure the Committee will not expect me beforehand, without the Department or myself knowing the true financial position, to give any definite undertaking. I think, however, that that is the way out of the difficulty, and after we have ascertained exactly how matters stand, that will be the time for the Education Department to consider whether they cannot take advantage of the provision to which I have referred, and make such a grant as may be thought desirable in order to tide this particular parish council and the school board over the difficulty. It may be desirable, in the interests of the
  926
  parish council and the school board, and in the interests of Scotland generally, that the rates for last year should be collected. Without prejudging the question at this moment, what I have suggested seems to me to be a way out of the difficulty. Before I leave this subject I wish to repeat that I consider this case is an exceptional one, otherwise the Congested Districts Board would never have made the agreement they did with Lady Cathcart. The hon. Baronet the Member for Inverness (Sir John Dewar) may rest assured that the Government have considered the best way out of the difficulty. We agree that an impasse has arisen and the case is highly exceptional. I hope we shall find a satisfactory way out of the difficulty, and I may say that we shall keep in view all those things which the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division has told us and no relief will be given unless a very clear and exceptional case is made out. I turn to the Island of Vatersay. I am not going to review the circumstances under which the negotiations with the Government fell through. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs seems to be under a misapprehension that the negotiations were broken off because the Government refused to relieve Lady Cathcart of any loss she might sustain by breaking up the island into small holdings. But that was not the case. The negotiations were broken off on totally different grounds. The point was whether the Government would agree to guarantee the rents of the small holdings, and no Government Department could do that.
  Mr. G. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite correct in saying that? I do not think any guarantee was asked for beyond the compensation to the outgoing tenant.
  Mr. URE: The hon. Member is perfectly correct. Primarily we were asked to guarantee the rents. But I do not wish to enter upon this old story, because I reviewed the whole history of these transactions last year and hon. Members will find a complete account of them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I turn now to the situation as it at present exists in Vatersay. The Congested Districts Board made up their mind, after carefully examining the ground and hearing everybody who had anything to say on the subject, that the best course would be to create small holdings upon the island of Vatersay itself, and they determined that fifty-eight was the correct number. They had

  927
  eighty-three applicants, and they chose the best fifty-eight, and fixed the total rent at £180. They determined, for common grazing and the like, that they would assign other islands which along with that formed part of the same purchase. The whole area was something like 3,455 acres, and of that only a portion was on the island of Vatersay, the remainder being on other islands round about. I do not say it was a profitable transaction from a business or a money point of view, but if any Member of the Committee really believes a Government Department would buy an estate in the West Highlands as an economic investment, he is suffering under a very grave delusion. The Noble Lord the Member for West Perth (Marquess of Tullibardine) offered me the assurance, if I would assure him that the people were contented and happy and were not in a grumbling or discontented frame of mind, that he would be contented and happy, too. I think I am able to offer him that assurance. The only difficulty which exists at present is that they have not begun to build their houses. We strongly urged them to do so, and we have fixed the term within which if they do not, others will be found to occupy the whole, but we hope before that time arrives, at all events, a beginning will be made with the erection of houses. The excuse they give is they are so busily occupied with their fishing that they cannot leave that occupation to undertake house-building. That excuse may be well or ill founded, but it is what they say. Whether they intend really to build and occupy is a different question, and we shall see when the time arrives. We have successors ready to take their places readily enough.
  The Noble Lord asked what we had done about education, and the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Clyde) asked if there was no authority to see the educational needs of a newly created community were met. Yes, the Department and the School Board of Barra at once entered upon communications, and a grant of money was made to Barra and devoted to that purpose, and the educational needs of the island are completely met to the full satisfaction of both the school board and the department. It has been found unnecessary to erect a new school. A building already on the island has been utilised. The Education Department has never encouraged extravagance in these outlying parts of the
  928
  country. We have always desired to restrain expenditure towards extravagance. We did so in Uist and Barra, and we have relaxed the building regulations which are in force in other parts of the country wherever it is desirable in the interests of the pockets of the people and where the education of the people does not suffer. It is perfectly true that the school at Mingulay has been closed, closed for the very reason that the men living in Mingulay have left. They were a poor, wretched lot, living on a barren rock, and the first thing they did when they had the opportunity was to leave Mingulay. There is not, however, such an enormous financial loss as the Noble Lord indicated. He said it is something about £2,000 or £3,000, but I am told the school only cost some £700 to build when new.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I never mentioned that.
  Mr. URE: I beg the Noble Lord's pardon. Some other Member of the Committee mentioned £2,000 or £3,000. I am not finding fault with anyone; probably they are misinformed. Surely no one would say we must keep a school open when there are no children to attend it. What were we to do when these people left this barren rock where they could not get a living? We have had to spend considerable sums in Vatersay itself. Will any Member of the Committee say we should have stinted expenditure on water? We have spent £476 on water, £300 on paths and roads, £30 on drainage, £200 on fencing and other purposes; and, in all, I see from the accounts we have spent £1,074. I say all that was necessary expenditure. Nobody can say we spent too much, and I hope no one will say we spent too little. At present we believe the crofters who are settled will be able to pay the modest rent fixed. I am not aware any of them are in arrears. At all events, we have had no complaints, and we believe we have a happy and contented population on that island, and our experiment, if not a financial success, is, at all events, socially a success.
  I pass from that to the main topic which the hon. Baronet who moved to reduce this Vote raised. I mean the difficulties which have arisen at Idrigill. The hon. Baronet used very strong language about the conduct of the Department, but I think I shall be able to satisfy him that in every stage of the history of the transaction the

  929
  Congested Districts Board and the Department have been right and the applicants wrong. In the Island of Skye there is a township called Idrigill, where there were some thirty-seven crofters, whose crofts were very small, and whose common grazing land extended only to 271 acres. An enlargement was certainly desirable, and an enlargement naturally and appropriately took place on the farm immediately adjoining Scuddaburgh Farm. That farm extended to 450 acres. It had some old dilapidated buildings upon it, which were out of repair. It had a rental of £65, and, accordingly, if the Crofters Act had been rigidly adhered to, the farm of Scuddaburgh was not available, because, under the Crofters Act, the rent must be fixed at £100 before you can take the farm for enlargement and for division for common grazing. It so happened, however, that Scuddaburgh Farm formed part of the estate of Kilmuir, bought in the time of our predecessors, in 1904, by the Congested Districts Board. The Board raised no objection to Scuddaburgh Farm being taken, and on 23rd October, 1908, the Idrigill crofters presented a petition to the Congested Districts Board for the enlargement of their holdings by taking in the whole farm. The Board answered that they were perfectly willing to divide the whole farm among the Idrigill crofters if the men were in a position to pay a fair rent, to cultivate the ground, to stock it so far as it was grazing land, and to keep the buildings in tenantable repair. These are all laid down by the Crofters Act as conditions on which alone enlargement can be given. Does any Member of the Committee say the Congested Districts Board were wrong in requiring the fulfilment of the ordinary conditions laid down under the Crofters Act when these poor people presented their application for the enlargement of their holdings. I think they were not. Immediately they heard the Congested Districts Board were willing to give the whole farm up on these conditions the Idrigill crofters presented a petition to the Crofters Commission in February, 1909, asking the Crofters Commission to say whether or no they were able, as they expressed themselves able, to pay a fair rent, to cultivate and stock the ground, and to keep the buildings in repair. Does any Member of the Committee say it was wrong to submit that question to the Crofters Commission? Surely it was the proper tribunal to decide that question. The Crofters Commission considered the statement made by
  930
  them, indeed they heard their evidence upon oath, and after a full and careful inquiry they came to the conclusion that twenty-four out of twenty-five applicants were quite capable of stocking the grazing ground and of paying a fair rent for the grazing ground, but that they were not in a position to cultivate the arable ground or to keep the buildings in tenantable repair. The Crofters Commission went further, and said it would be a positive disadvantage to these poor men to give them sixty-three acres of arable ground, because it was a mile and a half to two miles away from their present holdings. The buildings were old, but valued at £200. These men were not permitted to sublet to somebody else, and accordingly it would have been a positive disadvantage to have given them these sixty-three acres and to have burdened them with the payment of a fair rent of ground of which they could make no good use. Their decision was communicated to the Idrigill crofters on 25th February, 1910. Some weeks intervened, during which I am afraid these men got into the hands of others who were less scrupulous and cleverer than themselves, with the result that on 9th April they held a meeting at which they resolved they would take the whole farm, and nothing but the whole farm, that they would defy the decision of the tribunal to which they themselves had referred the question whether they were fitted to properly stock and pay a rent for the whole farm, and furthermore that if within ten days from 11th April the Congested Districts Board did not make over the whole farm they would take possession of it and commence to till it. What were the Congested Districts Board to do under these circumstances? There was really no course open to them except to ascertain whether these men thoroughly understood what they were doing and the serious character of the step they proposed to take. Accordingly, on 18th April, after thoroughly explaining to the men what the situation was, the Congested Districts Board presented their application for an interdict against their taking possession of the whole of the farm, which they threatened to do. On 23rd April the men fulfilled their threat, and took possession of the holding. On 25th April the Secretary for Scotland caused the factor for the Congested Districts Board to see the men and once more explain the situation. Even after that they felt it their duty to make one more effort to come to an understanding, and

  931
  on 22nd May the Secretary for Scotland directed that the Assistant Under-Secretary, a man of calm judgment, who fully understood all the facts should point out to these men the lawlessness of their action, and discuss the whole matter with them once more. On 5th June the Assistant Under-Secretary met the men on the ground and explained the situation to them, and informed them that these sixty-three acres would be dealt with in the interests of the whole crofting community in that neighbourhood, that the ground was taken for that express purpose, and that the crofter's interests pecuniarily and materially alone were the considerations which guided the action of the Board. In spite of that the crofters insisted that they must have the whole farm, and they decided to put at defiance the decision of the Crofters Commission. What was to be done then? Had we up to that stage acted hastily or in a way likely to embitter feelings already highly excited; had we acted in a manner calculated to encourage lawlessness? I believe that when Members of the Committee calmly review the situation they will admit that there was no undue haste, that everything was fully explained to the men, that every effort was made to point out the seriousness of the situation, and to tell them the reasons why the Congested Districts Board must adhere to the decision given by the Crofters Commission. After that no other course was open to them than to apply for an interim interdict. That was heard in court on 1st July. The men did not appear. It was continued till 7th July, and on that date the Sheriff's Substitute appointed proof to take evidence. The men then appeared and made, I think, a very incompetent appeal. The question is now in the hands of the proper tribunal, and I decline to say anything more about it. All I need say further on the subject is that on the 12th of the present month the local judge made the interim interdict perpetual, and he accompanied his decision with a most careful, thoughtful, and closely-reasoned judgment, in which he reviewed the whole history of the case. He held that the Congested Districts Board was right, and that the crofters were wrong. Furthermore, he dealt specially with the point raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Inverness-shire (Sir John Dewar), whether or not these men had been promised the whole farm. The Sheriff pointed out that on their own statements, and upon
  932
  the statement made in the Petitions, they themselves had sent to the Congested Districts Board, and to the Crofters Commission, they were condemned, because they showed clearly, both in writing and verbally, that no such promise had ever been made, and when they were put to it they were wholly unable to say when, where, or by whom any agreement had been made to give them the whole farm. There was also the point raised as to the Members of the Crofters Commission being also Members of the Congested Districts Board. It is true that two of the three Crofter Commissioners who considered and decided the case, were members of the Congested Districts Board, but then that was perfectly legitimate; there was no objection to it on the ground of legality, and it was perfectly well known to the crofters themselves when they submitted the question to the Crofters Commission who were the individuals to consider and decide the case. Let me ask the Committee to bear this in mind—that the Congested Districts Board are not in the position of private proprietors who have private interests alone to serve. They have no interest to serve but the public interest. Their duty and functions are to consider what will be for the advantage and benefit of these people, and they have no personal aims of their own.
  That is my case. That is the present situation; 397 acres have been added to these men's holdings at a very small cost which will enable them to stock their holdings and pay the rental; sixty-three acres and the buildings have been withheld, not with the purpose of being occupied by the Congested Districts Board, but in order that they may be used for the benefit of the crofters in this district—not of the crofters alone on this farm, but also of other crofters in the district. The Congested Districts Board, in due course, will decide to what use this land shall be put. It may be used as a sort of model farm to let the people see what can be done by scientific methods, or, it may be split up into one, two, or three separate holdings, accordingly, as the Crofters Commission determines. But on the whole facts the Board will decide what will be best for the district. It has no reason whatever to consider anything but what will secure the benefit and advantage of these people. It will act with fairness and justice, and will give consideration to the feelings of the people. It has acted so

  933
  far as I can judge, from the beginning, with dispassionate tact, and with an enlightened regard to the public interests of the crofters, but it feels very strongly that the law, meantime, must be obeyed. Lawless action cannot be tolerated. Conduct which would not be permitted in any other part of His Majesty's dominions cannot be permitted in the island of Skye. The Commissioners feel also very deeply that no action should be permitted on the part of these simple, ignorant, and I am afraid, misguided men which would bring the law into disrespect. Lawless action must be promptly restrained, and nothing must be done to engender bitterness, and I believe complete success will attend their efforts if only they are pertinacious in their defence of the law.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether a new election has been ordered, and whether the parties have been appointed to collect the rate?
  Mr. URE: We have in the Barra case pronounced an order for a new election. I do not at present know exactly what the order is, but I imagine it is in the stereotyped form.
  Mr. G. YOUNGER: I think it might be interesting to the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what is the real position in regard to the selected defaulters.
  Mr. URE: I have no figures here. I should have said, with regard to the criticisms of my hon. Friend as to the form in which the accounts were presented, I believe that form has been challenged for the first time in the hon. Member's speech, and I will certainly draw the attention of the Congested Districts Board to his criticism. If he desires any information with regard to any specific item, I shall be pleased to give it to him.
  Mr. G. YOUNGER: What I want is information as to the selected crofters to be proceeded against for arrears of rent.
  Mr. URE: I do not possess that information. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question.
  Mr. HARRY HOPE: When one sees the districts which are under the jurisdiction of the Congested Districts Board one cannot help feeling that here are districts where there is great opportunity for work being carried on of a really practical and
  934
  effective character. Is the Congested Districts Board doing all that it can possibly do in assisting the people in these districts and in increasing their prosperity? I certainly think not. It may be said that they are hampered with want of money. It may be said that even with the £35,000 at their disposal they have not enough funds to do all that they might do if they had more money. But without entering into the question whether more money ought to be given to them to spend or not, does it not seem perfectly absurd, and contrary to the best ideas of what is good business, that those members of the Congested Districts Board who are carrying on this important work should be unpaid? We all know that if men are unpaid the probable result will be that their work is not of the very best that they can give, and I think much of the supineness which has characterised the action of the Congested Districts Board in the past is due to the fact that the members of the Board have been unpaid officials. In these districts the produce which these men are selling consists largely of eggs and butter. What do we see if we examine what is taking place in foreign countries with which we deal largely for similar products? We see immense strides made in those countries in the industry. We see in those foreign countries how by a system of technical instruction brought to the door of every small holder and by organisation being effectively carried on, the quality and quantity of the products is enormously increased. I think that this mistake has been brought home to the Congested Districts Board, because when I was a Member of a Departmental Committee which inquired into it, I saw a deplorable state of affairs. We saw that the produce was marketed in a most inferior manner, and that goods were not graded and packed properly, which resulted in a worse price being obtained for the produce than that which was given for that of other competitors. As regards the organisation of this industry I quite agree with the hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro Ferguson) that that organisation can best be carried on by voluntary societies. We are fortunate at the present time that we have an Agricultural Association in Scotland, which is able to carry on work of this nature, and to encourage these people to come into the co-operative system of business under which they get a much better price for their produce. I do hold, however, that the Congested Districts

  935
  Board will never do any really practical work unless they bring technical instruction within the reach of every small holder in the locality, and after that when these men are instructed as to the best methods of carrying on their work, as to the best breeds to keep, as to the best manner in which their produce can be graded and marketed, then you will find that by that and the good work done by the Organisation Society you will have prosperity brought into these districts. We see how much benefit has resulted in Ireland from money being spent there, and we in Scotland are entitled to treatment of the same kind. Personally, I would like to see this work being taken up by the Congested Districts Board in a whole hearted manner, and far more than that, I should like to see this good work carried on in all the other districts throughout Scotland. I am quite sure that the small holders, if they are to make the most of their holdings, will never do so unless we have the work carried out as is being done by the Department of Agriculture in Ireland. I do hope that the result of this Debate will be that energy will be put into the work of the Congested Districts Board that more work will be done by them, and that in time such work will be carried out in the other districts throughout Scotland.
  Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: I am disappointed with the Lord Advocate's speech in this respect. He led us to believe that the South Uist rating case was wholly exceptional, and I do not agree with that. I say that there are cases in the county of Ross which are also wholly exceptional, and that cases of these very heavy rates apply in more places than in South Uist, and do not apply to that place alone. Therefore the Lord Advocate's remarks were unsatisfactory. Then the Lord Advocate alluded to the good intentions and the disinterestedness of the Congested Districts Board. I have never disputed their good intentions. What I have thrown doubt upon is their competence. I do not believe in their competence, whereas the Lord Advocate seems disposed to think that they can do no wrong. I do not agree with that.
  Mr. URE: I used the word "exceptional" with regard to South Uist because of the change of policy there which necessitated the opening of two new schools. That was the change of policy directly
  936
  resulting from the urgent pressure brought to bear upon the proprietors by the Congested Districts Board to divide their land into small holdings. The other cases referred to by my hon. Friend may be exceptional in other senses, but they are totally different to this case.
  Sir J. DEWAR: I should be very glad to withdraw this Amendment if we had had a satisfactory reply, but I do not think it is satisfactory. The Lord Advocate has said that the Education Department have discovered rather tardily a method under which they can contribute to these schools, but they still bear a rate which is odious. They bear rates amounting to 9s., and so long as the Government propose to exact such a sum I am sorry to say I am not satisfied.
  Mr. PIRIE: I hope we may see a little more backbone on this side of the House in pressing some Amendments than we have hitherto had. We have devoted four hours to the criticism of conduct which well deserves criticism, and the only way of driving home that criticism is to move these Amendments and press them to Divisions. There has been up to now too much talk and too little action, and I am delighted that the hon. Baronet is going to press this to a Division. The reason why I say so is this. The Lord Advocate said the case was urgent and extreme, and yet in spite of that he comes to this House, knowing that it was to be brought before the Committee, and he said that when the exact facts are looked into certain results might follow. I say he ought to have come down with the exact facts and that we are bound to vote for this Amendment in condemnation of the general apathy of the Scottish Office. I say of the Scottish Office ordinarily that it knows nothing, it does nothing, and in very many cases, and this is the worst of all, it cares nothing. We have only one opportunity of criticism in the year during these few hours up to eleven o'clock, part of which time will be taken for another purpose—we have only this one opportunity in the whole year of calling attention to these matters, and after this evening the Scottish Office will calmly go ahead, confident that it cannot be criticised for another year. I am delighted that we are going to a Division, and I hope hon. Members, especially the younger men in this new Parliament, will take their courage in their hands, and I am sure they will be backed up by Scottish public opinion in voting against the apathy and indifference of the Scottish Office.
  Mr. MORTON: I understand that the Lord Advocate has not replied to my question at all, and I hope we shall have the courage, as my hon. Friend says, to go to a Division to show the Liberal Government, as far as we are concerned, that we object to the treatment of Scotland and are no longer able to support it.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: I hope the Lord Advocate will be able, on behalf of the Government, to say something more as to the future. We are all perfectly satisfied with the explanation of what has happened in the past, but what we want to know is what is going to happen in the future. We cannot bring before the Committee too strongly the fact that the population is gradually and steadily leaving the islands, and the only means of keeping them there is to increase their access to the land and increase their holdings, but the position of things is just where it has been for the last few years. We are all aware that as the rent value has decreased the poundage has increased, but what I wanted to point out was this: 45 per cent. has been taken off the rental on which the rate was first asked for, and assuming rents of £1,000 a year, 45 per cent. being knocked off, £550 is all that the proprietor has to receive on the basis of the net rental. The poundage comes to 90 per cent. of that, and the fact remains that the proprietor or occupier, whoever he may be, has to pay a larger sum into the local treasury than he has got to take. I only ask the Committee how can this bad state of things possibly go on, and how is the Government to keep going on when there is not enough money in the local treasury to pay the expenditure? What I should like
  to know before the case goes further is, if the Scottish Office are not going to deal with those two extremely important points: First, that in many parts of these districts the local treasury does not receive, and cannot receive, enough money to meet its own expenditure, and, secondly, is the land question to remain in abeyance while the powers of the Congested Districts Board are insufficient for the purpose of preventing the population leaving the country every day by means of which the United Kingdom is losing one of the finest populations it ever possessed?
  Sir W. MENZIES: If the hon. Baronet the Member for Inverness-shire goes to a Division, I shall accompany him into the Division Lobby, and I will give the reason in one moment. The only education which can be given in these islands and distressed districts in Scotland is afforded from the Education Fund, and there are already a sufficient number of districts in Scotland which are starved. There has been a previous manipulation of this balance of the Education Fund, and it has resulted in a diminution of the amount which is given to distressed districts of Scotland, and I presume that another manipulation would still further diminish the amount which this part of Scotland gets. If the hon. Baronet goes to a Division I shall vote with him.
  Question put, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the Secretary for Scotland."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 64; Noes, 128.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: I should like to ask whether the Lord Advocate, on behelf of the Secretary for Scotland, can give any explanation with regard to the composition of Committees which have been appointed to inquire into affairs in Scotland. I understand that many of these Commissions are appointed upon the decision of the Cabinet, and in view of the fact that the Secretary for Scotland is in the Cabinet he will be acquainted with the appointment of these Commissions?
  The CHAIRMAN: Unless these are Committees specially appointed by the Secretary for Scotland the question does not arise. The only thing which we can take here is the official acts of the Secretary for Scotland as Secretary for Scotland.
  Mr. PRICE: The point I wish to raise is that, inasmuch as this affects Scotland, and the Scottish Office is the only Department on which we can raise questions affecting Scotland, this is the only Vote on which I can raise the question.
  The CHAIRMAN: If these are Committees appointed by the Secretary for Scotland as Secretary for Scotland this is the proper time, but if they are Committees appointed by heads of other Departments this is not the time. The time is when the salaries of the heads of those other Departments are under consideration.
  Mr. PRICE: I wish to ask why it is that the Secretary for Scotland does not know that these Committees are being appointed upon a question affecting Scotland, and therefore, as he is not acquainted with them, no representative for Scotland is placed on the Committee?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is out of order.
  Mr. WATT: In so far as the names of the Members of these Committees are supplied to the Home Office by the Secretary for Scotland, cannot we on the Secretary for Scotland's salary discuss the names which he sends up to represent Scotland?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am not aware how they are appointed.
  Mr. FLEMING WILSON: It is a question here, in the opinion of some of the Scottish Members, of the failure of the Scottish Office to properly represent the interests of Scotland in matters which are being dealt with by the Cabinet. It is a failure to take action in a matter deeply affecting the interests and well-being of Scotland. Surely that subject ought to be capable of being raised when the salary of the Secretary for Scotland is being dealt with. I wish to bring before the notice of the Committee the failure of the Secretary for Scotland to appoint women on Commissions specially appointed to deal with home work.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is not a question of a hypothetical Commission. We can only concern ourselves with what the Secretary for Scotland has done. If the hon. Member has a complaint to make of the Secretary for Scotland appointing a Committee as Secretary for Scotland, and the composition of the Committee is in his opinion unsatisfactory, he can bring that case forward, but if the Committee is otherwise appointed, he cannot bring the case forward on this Vote because the Secretary for Scotland is not responsible for the appointment of the Committee. Hon. Members are talking as if these matters were settled in the Cabinet, but we do not know what goes on in the Cabinet.
  Mr. FLEMING WILSON: I was not speaking of any hypothetical Commission. I was speaking of the Commission which has been appointed to deal with home work.
  The CHAIRMAN: By whom was this Committee appointed?
  Mr. FLEMING WILSON: It was appointed by the Home Secretary.
  The CHAIRMAN: Then the proper time to bring it up is on the Home Office Vote.
  Mr. PRICE: May I ask, when the Scottish Office does not know which Department is appointing a particular inquiry, whether we could not raise it as a point which the Secretary for Scotland should have information upon?
  The CHAIRMAN: I really do not know what the hon. Member means?
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I think the point which my hon. Friends wish to make
  942
  is that the Secretary for Scotland should make representations as to the membership of these committees. There are numerous instances besides that of the Home Work Committee where Scottish ladies of great knowledge would possibly desire to serve on the committees and would be most useful. My hon. Friends desire to raise the point that in general cases, as well as on specific cases, such as the Home Work Committee, the Secretary for Scotland should have taken some cognisance of it and made representations to his colleague in the Cabinet.
  The CHAIRMAN: I perfectly understand what hon. Members mean. The Home Secretary is responsible to Parliament, and if hon. Members desire to raise the point they must raise it on the salary of the Home Secretary.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I want to ask whether it is not competent for a Scottish Member to complain that the Secretary for Scotland has appointed a Scottish Committee to inquire into the important question of home work?
  The CHAIRMAN: That might be in order.
  Mr. WILKIE: I wish to ask the Lord Advocate that when Committees are appointed in which the workers of Scotland are specially interested, as well as those in other parts of the country, he will see that we are not ignored as in the past, and that we have representation on these committees as well as other parts of the Kingdom.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: The number of points of Order which have been raised is largely due to the fact that there is grave dissatisfaction with the administration of the Scottish Office.
  And it being a Quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  SUPPLY.— [18th Allotted Day.]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1910–11.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
    (IN THE COMMITTEE.)

    SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND'S OFFICE.
    Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £10,802, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Office, Expenses under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, and Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, including a Grant in Aid of the Congested Districts Fund."
    Question again put. Debate resumed.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: At the interruption of the Debate on this Vote I was endeavouring to explain why so many of my colleagues from Scotland were disappointed at being unable to take part in the discussion on the Vote for the salary for the Secretary for Scotland. There has been more desire on the present occasion to criticise that Vote than has been the case for a great number of years. The cause of that desire and the reason for the dissatisfaction which prevails is that there is a general feeling, not only among Liberal Members, but throughout Scotland generally, of disappointment and dissatisfaction at the recent administration of Scottish affairs. With regard to the Secretary for Scotland personally, of course we say nothing. We all recognise he was a most popular Member of this
    972
    House; personally he is all that could be desired, but politically he seems to have been entirely too weak for the strong officials of the Scottish Office. My first explanation of the dissatisfaction which prevails is that there appears to be no community of interests between the office of the Secretary for Scotland and the majority of representatives of Scotland in this House. Of course, the reason for our disappointment undoubtedly is that he is probably not aware of the opinions of Scottish Members with regard to certain methods of Scottish administration; and, although it has been ruled out of order to discuss on the present occasion the question of the House in which the Secretary for Scotland should sit, I must say it is a matter of great regret that there is not someone representing the Scottish Office in this House more in touch with Scottish Members than the right hon. Gentleman can possibly be whilst sitting in another House. I should like to give some indication—some reason—why we make complaint of the administration of Scottish affairs. In the first place, I may take the financial point. We complain that on all matters affecting the financial interests of Scotland there has been no real stand by the Secretary for Scotland in the interests of Scotland. When Ireland comes to be considered, millions are thrown across the Table at the mere suggestion of an Irish Member, but time after time Scottish interests have been completely sacrificed because we have no one at the Scottish Office who has been able to stand up properly to the Treasury in the interests of Scotland. Take the unemployed administration money to which Scotland was entitled. We know that large sums of money were lost so far as Glasgow is concerned simply by the failure of the Scottish Office to make proper demand and to put on pressure in regard to the amount to which Scotland was entitled. That is one question. Then I take the case of appointments, and there I complain that the Secretary for Scotland is governed too much by political considerations when he makes appointments in Scotland, whether it is the case of a doctor or an auditor, or whether it is the case of a higher post, such as the administration of the constabulary. I do not complain, as the Under-Secretary for the Board of Trade from his hilarity probably imagines, that the preference is given in favour of Liberals. By no means, my complaint is that the man must be a high and dried

    973
    Conservative before he has any chance of appointment in regard to the general administration of Scotland. I complain that the Scottish Secretary has shown himself to be that type of Radical which unfortunately exists at the present time who thinks that the only way to satisfy his conscience and to make a successful administrator is to do everything that his political opponents would desire. That is the case throughout Scotland, and it is true if you take appointments in any part of the country. Week after week I get complaints from Liberals throughout Scotland until I cease to take any interest in them to the effect that it is quite out of the question for them to have any part in the appointments in Scotland if their sympathies with the Liberal party are known.
    I say that is a very remarkable and incredible state of affairs under the present Government and the present administration of Scotland. Hon. Gentlemen who sit on that bench who know anything of the administration of Scotland know that what I say is true. It was largely through the influence of my friends and myself that a vote of censure was prevented from being passed by the representatives of Scotland at their annual meeting complaining of this administration in the last few years, and I am only giving to the Committee now what we all think, and that is that the Secretary for Scotland has not taken that full advantage of his opportunities which he might have taken and of the enormous powers which he possesses with regard to administration and other matters. That has been one of the reasons why there has been disappointment on these benches to-day. I will take one case, of which there are many with which I will not trouble the Committee. I will take, for example, the expression of opinion on the part of the majority of Scottish Members that the headquarters of the Scottish Office should be in Scotland, and not in London. We sent a memorandum, signed by forty-two Members, who are a majority of the representatives of Scotland, asking that that simple reform should be carried out. The Noble Lord has the power to do that. He has the power by administration to carry out that report, made by the representative opinion of Scotland with absolute and complete agreement, and I think we are entitled to complain that more heed was not given to the representation which we made then, which has been disregarded by the present Secretary for Scotland. For
    974
    all these reasons I make a humble protest before this Vote is passed that the Secretary for Scotland is, in my opinion, greatly out of touch with Scottish opinion, as his appointments throughout have disqualified Liberals notwithstanding what their capacity may be. Therefore I say he has not shown that capacity and that enthusiasm in the Administration of Scotland or in regard to its legislation which the occupant of his office ought to show, and for these reasons I make a humble protest against this Vote.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. PIRIE: As the one who had the honour of introducing the deputation to which allusion has been made to the Secretary for Scotland, presenting the petition signed by forty-two Members of Parliament, which proposed that the Noble Lord should as an administrative act change the head- quarters of the Scottish Office from London to Edinburgh, I think I am justified in claiming the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I dwell upon that point. It is almost incredible, from the point of view of Members who hold Liberal principles, to have to believe that the Secretary for Scotland, professing to acknowledge the right of self-government and advocating a strong degree of Home Rule, should receive the deliberate and studied opinion of forty-two Scottish Liberal Members of Parliament requesting him to carry
    out a mere adminstrative act and treat it with contempt. The Secretary for Scotland was good enough to say at that time to the disappointed deputation that the government of Scotland was one conducted under abnormal conditions; but I should like to know what has been done during the years that he has been in office to render those conditions any more normal. Nothing whatever has been done, and I say that the question of this transference is not to be allowed to rest. He was told—I think I told him myself—that he need not imagine that by his rejection of this entirely justifiable demand that the matter ended. Indeed, we told him that, so far from that, the fight was only just beginning, and I think I speak on behalf of many of my colleagues when I say that the Scottish people are determined to see this question settled in the sense that the deputation demanded. Of all the Departments we look upon the Scottish Education Department as being the one that should be most closely in touch with Scottish feeling, and as the one of which we are justly proud. Besides that, we have ample

    975
    authority for this change—the authority of no less an educational expert than the present Secretary of State for War. It seems to me, however, that when Scottish Members get upon the Treasury Bench they seem to lose all sense of obligation as Scottish Members. I will, however, make exception in the case of two Members of the Government out of the four who are present. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] I will name them. One of them is the Chief Whip (Master of Elibank) and also the Gentleman who holds a dual post, including that of Lord Advocate, because he has not only to answer for his own Department, but for a Department for which he is not responsible, but which it is very desirable he should be responsible for.
    But apart from this, when you have a Member such as the Secretary for War declaring, as he did in the preface to a book on Scottish educational reform, that of all reforms necessary for the efficacy of Scotch education the transference of the Department from Dover House to Edinburgh was the most urgent, surely you might have expected the Secretary for Scotland to give greater consideration to the demands of his Scottish colleagues than he did. That demand was backed up at the same time by Scottish educational opinion, as represented by a large deputation from Scottish School Boards, which waited on Scotch Liberal Members. The Secretary for Scotland must not imagine that this question is by any means settled. We do not intend to allow it to remain dormant. It is true he has to a certain extent taken some small steps to allay feeling on this point by the transference of a few members of the educational staff from London to Edinburgh, but that is by no means enough. We shall not rest satisfied as regards the Scottish Education Department until all notices emanating from the Scotch Education Department are sent out from Edinburgh. Then there are many of us who wish to take further steps. We should like to see the whole of Dover House transferred bodily from London to Edinburgh. We believe it would assist enormously in the good administration of Scottish affairs if Dover House was handed over to the Treasury to make the best bargain they could by selling it, and with the proceeds to establish proper Scottish offices in Edinburgh. We believe it is only by a system of devolution that proper efficacy and proper control of Scottish administra-
    976
    tion can be secured. For these reasons I am exceedingly glad that the opportunity, which so seldom comes of criticising Scottish administration, should have taken the form it has to-night.
    Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: I sympathise with the desire which has been expressed that the Scotch Bureaucracy should, at any rate, be made residential. In Ireland, where there is a strong bureaucracy, it, at any rate, lives in the country. We have a no less powerful bureaucracy governing us in Scotland, and that, unfortunately, is situated 400 miles away in London. If we are to be governed by a bureaucracy I should infinitely prefer to see it at home, and, therefore, I would not only urge the change of the Scottish Education Department from London to Edinburgh, which was carried by the Scotch Liberal Members at the time the Education Bill was before the Grand Committee, but I entirely agreed, and I have long advocated, that the Scottish Office itself should be in Edinburgh. All that is wanted here would be a small office for the convenience of the Secretary for Scotland and of the Scottish representatives. I do not believe in government by bureaucracy, which was, unfortunately, fixed upon Scotland at the time of the Union, and which has been developed at a rapid rate ever since and with considerable rapidity of late years. Therefore, I hold that the proposals which have been made to-night are eminently reasonable. The Debate to-night has shown the need for these changes, and, little as I believe in bureaucracy and much as I desire to see my country under the control of her representatives instead of a bureaucracy, I think the change which is proposed is one for the better, and I entirely sympathise with the views which have been expressed.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I really think it is time that someone on this side of the House should rise to support the Government. I congratulate the Lord Advocate and the Chief Whip on having obtained some measure of confidence from the hon. Member, and regret that the Solicitor-General so early in his political career has so entirely lost the confidence of such veterans as the hon. Members (Sir H. Dalziel and Mr. Pirie).
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I did not refer in any way to the Solicitor-General. On the contrary, I have the fullest confidence in him.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: That shows the usefulness of the intervention of the Opposition, but it still leaves me in wonder as to what ails the Solicitor-General and the Under-Secretary of the Board of Trade. I agree with the hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Dalziel) that we should not complain if it was true that all the preferment was given by the Government to their opponents in Scotland, but I do not at all think that is the fact. I think that at any rate as far as legal ability is concerned they have invariably chosen the best man.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: The Secretary for Scotland has not much to do with that. It is the Lord Advocate.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: The hon. Member's comments were quite general, and at any rate there has been some preferment given which cannot be said to have been given to political opponents. I understand the view of those who would sever the Educational Department, which I agree is one of the most, if not the most, important Scottish Department, from all direct contact or control by those who are the representatives of the Scottish people. But when Parliament is sitting you have the Lord Advocate, the Secretary for Scotland, and all the Members for Scotland in London, and the Department would be severed from all communication with these Gentlemen except by correspondence. Many Scotch people would prefer to have it in London and some would prefer to have it in Glasgow, but it would not be a satisfactory position if one could not communicate with the Education Department unless one went to Edinburgh, Glasgow, or Aberdeen, as the case might be, or perhaps to Dundee. I am certain anyone who has had experience in connection with the Education Department in Scotland would find it much more convenient to go to Dover House and Whitehall than to any office they could have in Scotland.
    Mr. PIRIE: What about the school board? Which would they find most convenient?
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: The Scottish school board find it very convenient to come to London.
    Mr. PIRIE: The taxpayers have to pay for their deputations.
    The CHAIRMAN: I was unable to quite separate the part of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Pirie) which dealt with the
    978
    Education Office from that which dealt with the Scottish Office. If hon. Members desire to have the Education Office in Scotland, that point should be raised on the Education Vote.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: We on this side of the House are well pleased to find that there is such a spirit of independence indicated on an occasion like this, but there is no Motion before the House, and no chance of giving practical effect to their protests. I am not surprised to find that that protest is made under circumstances when there is no opportunity of giving effect to their views by taking the opinion of Parliament.
    Colonel GREIG: I have listened to this Debate, and I have come to the conclusion that practically there is only one solution for these difficulties which we in Scotland suffer from at present. I have very much sympathy with the feeling expressed by the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) and others. I have watched the proceedings in regard to the Scottish Office narrowly, and I have come to the conclusion that these difficulties are not brought about through the fault of Scottish administrators or administration. They are simply the result of the system which exists at the present time. This House is a congested district. In one quarter it has taken the form of a distinct and independent Nationalist party, which, irrespective of all other considerations, is held together by working on these lines. Sometimes that effects objects for their own country which are beneficial, and at other times it leads them into courses which some of us may regret, and which may seem to us to be detrimental to the general interests of the Kingdom. I should very much regret if a Scottish party were formed to take such a line as that. It may be that we do not press sufficiently our own particular grievances. It may be that Scottish administrators think that we do not sufficiently press them. If that is so, I believe it is simply due to the fact that we think there are higher interests to which we must pay attention, and that it would be unfair to the general interests to press these particular matters in regard to Scotland. Suppose you were to transfer the Scottish Office to Edinburgh, it would then be out of touch with this House. The solution of the whole question to my mind—and I say it unhesitatingly, having considered it from every point of view, and having before me the successful experiments in our

    979
    Dominions beyond the Seas—is to have provincial legislatures in every portion of the Kingdom.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now raising a very large and interesting question, but as it involves legislation it cannot be discussed now.
    Colonel GREIG: I shall not discuss that matter further. We have had a discussion to-night of Scottish matters, but when they are brought forward what do we find? We find that the enemies of liberty on the other side of the House throw in objections with the view of embarrassing the Government. Although I sympathise very much with what has been said by hon. Gentleman around me, I shall vote with the Government to-night.
    Mr. W. H. COWAN: I cannot see why there should be any hesitation on the part of the Government to remove the Scottish Office to Edinburgh. The Government have received a petition signed by forty-two of the elected representatives of Scotland urging them to take this step. I think I am not speaking too strongly when I say that they have treated that petition with contempt. The Scottish Members do not mean to allow that demand to be treated with contempt. There is a very strong and widespread feeling in favour of the removal of the Scottish Office to Edinburgh. Really it is a ridiculous thing and an anachronism that the administration of Scottish affairs should be conducted in London. We do not see why Scotland should be treated as a conquered country. When Scotland came into the Union it was a free and independent State. It came in on a footing of absolute equality, and for a long time the administration of Scotland was conducted by the Minister entrusted with it, in consultation with the Scottish representatives, and in accordance with their wishes. What we now ask is that the Scottish Office should be transferred to Edinburgh, and controlled from Edinburgh, and should be administered in sympathy with the views of the Scottish Members, and not in accordance with the views of the English majority in the House of Commons. We do not see see why in a House of 670 Members, where we have only a representation of some seventy Members, we should labour under such a disadvantage as this. It is because we think that the transfer of the Scottish Office to Edinburgh is the first step
    980
    towards obtaining control over Scottish affairs and their administration by the Scottish people and their representatives that we shall strongly press this point.
    Mr. RAINY: One question which I would like to ask the Lord Advocate is whether when he speaks in this House on Scottish affairs he may he taken as speaking for the Secretary for Scotland? When the Town Planning and Housing Bill was going through Committee there was a certain Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Munro Ferguson), of which I had charge, and it was withdrawn on the specific assurance of the Lord Advocate of the day, now Lord Shaw, that the Local Government Board for Scotland would be materially strengthened. I was given to understand not that it meant that architects would be appointed, but that there should be an addition to the Local Government Board for Scotland. So far as I know no such official has been appointed. I would be glad, therefore, if the Lord Advocate would give us an assurance that when he makes a statement it does bind the Secretary for Scotland, and that we can count upon the assurance given.
    The CHAIRMAN: That, again, is not in order.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I believe that we are discussing the salary of the Secretary for Scotland. I desire entirely to dissociate myself from some of the hon. Members who have attacked the Secretary for Scotland. Of course, the Secretary for Scotland who could please all the Scottish Liberal Members was never yet born. He is an impossibility. The Secretary for Scotland may have his faults, but he has passed some very good measures, particularly the Education Act of 1908. While English Members have been struggling with three Bills he passed a measure which ought to be a model for the English Bill when it comes on. Reference has been made to the removal of the Scottish Office, and if we got Home Rule I suppose it would be in Edinburgh. But so long as the Scottish Members attend Parliament at Westminster the Scottish Office ought be as near to them as possible. When you get Home Rule take it where you like, I am finished with it; I do not want to go to Edinburgh. So long as Members from Scotland attend here, however, it is absolutely necessary that they should be in touch with the Scottish Office. Take some of the Offices in Scotland—the Office of

    981
    the Local Government Board in Edinburgh, for example. There was a little question about the appointment of a doctor in my Constituency in the Highlands.
    The CHAIRMAN: I really must point out that there is a separate Vote for the Local Government Board, and the hon. Member cannot discuss that question.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I was only about to show the undesirability of removing the Scottish Office to Edinburgh. It was about eighteen months before the question of the appointment was settled, though it might have been dealt with in three months if the Local Government Board Office had been in London. I entirely dissociate myself from the Vote against the salary of the Secretary for Scotland. Scottish Members on the Front Bench have been very highly approved by my hon. Friends, but they do not approve of the absent one. They have had opportunities of attacking him before, and it would be better if there was some one here to defend him. I wish to support his salary, and none will be more grateful than I if he can see his way to help forward measures for Scotland. It is quite clear that there is somebody else anxious to get the post, but I do not see anyone better qualified for it than its present occupant.
    Mr. BARNES: I have no desire to cut down the salary of the Secretary for Scotland, but I do wish to join in the expression of the wish that he should be a little more in touch with Scottish Members. I have had occasion, with several Scottish Members, to go to the Scottish Office, and I have found that, after representations have been made on various questions, precious little attention has been paid to them. A deputation of Scottish Members went to the Scottish Office some four or five months ago, and, as I think, they made out an unanswerable case for something being done for the better administration of the Public Health Act in Scotland. We put the case to the Scottish Secretary that potato diggers and poor agriculturists who come from Ireland every year were housed under shockingly bad conditions. Names were not given, but the localities were made known where people had been actually found in hen coops, or places of that sort. There was scarcely room to move about the floor, and there these poor persons had to sleep. The answer to us was that the matter was in the province
    982
    of the county council. Nobody denied that. Here was a case where the county council had not administered the Act which it was within their particular province to administer. Although we pressed the Scottish Office on that occasion, as we had done on previous occasions, we got absolutely no satisfaction. Something was said about officers of the Scottish Office being sent to the districts, but, so far as I know, not a single word has been heard from that day to this as to any action taken by the Scottish Office with a view to protecting those people. I quote that as one instance to the Lord Advocate and ask him whether he could not see his way to the more efficient working of the Scottish Office in that particular matter. I desire to refer to another matter which has been dealt with by the Scottish Trades Congress, by the Glasgow Trades Council, and I think by other trades councils as well, as to the fact that no Scottish representatives have been appointed on the Trades Committee and Commissions that have been set up.
    The CHAIRMAN: This is a question we have had up before, and the Secretary for Scotland does not seem to have been responsible for the appointment of the Committee.
    Mr. BARNES: I am aware that the Home Office has made those appointments, but my point is that the Scottish Office has been asked on several occasions to make, as we thought, proper representations to the Home Office with the view either of getting that Scottish representation or a separate Scottish Committee set up to inquire into some of these matters. We put it to the Scottish Office in regard to home work that there are special conditions appertaining to that home work in consequence of the peculiar social conditions, shall I say, peculiar housing conditions, and otherwise in Scotland different from those in England. There, again, we have got no satisfaction and no explanation why the representations that we have made to the Scottish Office have not been given that consideration to which we think, at all events, they have been entitled. The complaint we are putting up now is not that the Scottish Office is not in Edinburgh, though I for my part should prefer that. I think the hon. Member who spoke last would have a bad quarter of an hour if he made the same speech in Edinburgh or Glasgow as he did here.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I have no desire to speak in Edinburgh or Glasgow.
    Mr. BARNES: I was trying to save the hon. Member's feelings, because I do not want to suggest that he would have a bad quarter of an hour in Aberdeen. Our demand at this moment is not for Home Rule, although most of us are in favour of it, but that the proper representations made to the Scottish Office here in London have not had that fair and sympathetic consideration to Which we think they are entitled.
    Mr. EUGENE WASON: I recognise this as a demonstration of the new Scottish Home Rule Association. I do not take that to myself, and I should not have intervened if it had not been for one or two of the speeches I have heard. The question under discussion is that of the salary of the Secretary for Scotland. It is an old story that the absent are always wrong, and he is not here to defend himself. I can only speak myself as being one of the oldest Scottish representatives here. As one who has known the Secretary for Scotland for twenty-five years, I can say that I have never yet approached him on any subject connected with Scotland that I have not received his most sympathetic and respectful consideration. Aberdeen is divided on this question. We have the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Pirie) on one side and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) on another. I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) said with reference to the deputation which waited on the Secretary for Scotland respecting the conditions under which certain industries in Scotland were treated, and especially the potato industry, of which I know a good deal, in Ayrshire.
    I do not think my hon. Friend quite accurately stated the fact, though the inaccuracy was doubtless unintentional. The Secretary for Scotland said that if any Scottish representative brought to his notice any case in any district in Scotland where the conditions required special notice, he would at once have inquiry made by the Local Government Board. It would be out of order for me to go into the question of Home Rule for Scotland. As a former chairman of the Scottish Liberal Members, I count them all my friends. We are all working for a common object and a common end, and I wish them to understand, so far as I am concerned, that, while I am absolutely in favour of what is called Home Rule for Scotland, I
    984
    do not think we shall ever attain our object if we endeavour to make ourselves an independent Nationalist party on the same lines as the Irish Nationalist party or the Labour party, and I will tell the Committee why. The conditions under which Scotland is governed at the present are absolutely and totally different from those which prevail in Ireland. If Irishmen had had the same influence in the government of their own country as the Scottish people have had with regard to education and religion, you would never have had a Nationalist question in Ireland at all. I do not think any man who has been at the head of the Scottish Office has done better than the present Secretary for Scotland, and I do not think that any Scottish Member has any reason to complain of the action of Lord Pentland since he has occupied that position.
    Mr. WATT: I desire to join the small but select band who wish to bring before the Committee the shortcomings of the Secretary for Scotland. My first regret is that he is not in this House to face the seventy-two Members sent here by the electors of Scotland. It is a misfortune for Scotland that the Secretary for Scotland is in the other House. For many years it has been a part of Liberal policy to advocate that the Secretary for Scotland should be in the House of Commons. There is hardly a Member of the Front Bench who in past days has not participated in Votes of Censure on Conservative Governments for putting the Secretary for Scotland in the House of Peers.
    The CHAIRMAN: That question cannot be discussed. We are not dealing now with the question of who holds the office of Secretary for Scotland. He is not responsible for his own appointment. We can only deal with matters for which he is responsible. The question as to whether or not he is entitled to sit in either House is not one that we can discuss at the present moment.
    Mr. WATT: Very well, Sir, I will forsake that and get to the point. But I do say that if he is to be in the other House we ought to have an Under-Secretary in this House. The misdeeds of the right hon. Gentleman that I desire to call attention to are that representations have been made on five occasions that Scotland should be represented on Commissions by men and women whose names have been submitted. It was the right hon. Gentleman's duty to select from these names.

    985
    One Commission that was appointed, that of the Street Trading of Children——
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must know that he is out of order, because the Commission was not appointed by the Secretary for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman must be aware by now of the fact that he is not entitled to discuss this.
    Mr. WATT: I am very desirous of abiding by your ruling. The point I wish the Committee to see is this: Representations were made that these people should be appointed on these Commissions.
    The CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are out of order.
    Mr. WATT: I am very sorry, Sir. Another Commission was appointed on home work. Can I refer to that?
    The CHAIRMAN: No. I have already ruled on that, and warn the hon. Member that his remarks are irrelevant.
    Mr. WATT: I will not proceed any further.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: The Debate on the whole has been exceedingly interesting, but so far as I have been able to ascertain, the only whole-hearted enthusiastic defender of the Secretary for Scotland is my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate. He has defended the Secretary's administration with a great amount of zeal. The net result of this Debate will be that, so far as the opinion of Scotland has been expressed, it has been an overwhelming censure on the administration. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] If we go by numbers it has been so. Let those hon. Members who think otherwise get up and answer the points which have been made. I claim I am perfectly right in all I say, that the majority of the Scottish Members who have taken part in this Debate have complained of the administration—of the want of sympathy, activity and enthusiasm, and of the failure to take advantage of opportunities on the part of the Scottish Office. I venture to say that we represent the views of our constituents, and I invite any of my colleagues to attend the meetings of the Liberal Scottish Association and make a defence of the present Administration, and they will receive a response that will surprise them. We do not complain personally of the Noble Lord. He means well, but he has absolutely shown lack of strength in his administration of the Scottish Office, and he has allowed the permanent officials, who, although men of
    986
    great ability, do not hold with our political sympathies, to rule and carry on the administration. No right hon. Gentleman on the Front Government Bench has attempted to reply to the criticisms made upon that administration. I do not complain of the Lord Advocate. No doubt he made a very good case out of very bad material, but he has not ventured to reply in this instance. I see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury in his place. I would like to know the real inner mind of the Parliamentary Secretary on some of the criticisms that have been made. I should like him to get up and tell us the points on which he thinks the Secretary for Scotland has acted with the greatest degree of satisfaction and enthusiasm. There is one request I would make to the Parliamentary Secretary, and that is that he will, so far as he is able, convey a true and faithful account of the Debate to the Secretary for Scotland.
    Mr. URE: Lest the Committee might come to the conclusion that there was nothing to be said for the Secretary for Scotland, because I did not rise to reply in the Debate, let me say that while I am very thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) and the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Pirie) for what they have said of myself, I hope they will not think me ungrateful if I say I dissociate myself entirely from the complaints they have made of my Noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland. I have observed that only two concrete charges have been made gainst my Noble Friend. One was by my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen, who complained that the whole Education Department was not removed, bag and baggage, from Dover House to Edinburgh, or Aberdeen, or Glasgow, or some other popular centre in Scotland, at the request of hon. Members. Well, if any good reason was shown for the removal, it would have been removed, but no good reason has been shown. If there had been a Home Rule Parliament in Scotland, if the ideal of my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen had been realised, no doubt there would be a great deal to be said for transferring the whole of the Scottish Education Department to Edinburgh; but as long as the Members for Scotland sit in the Imperial Parliament in London, surely it is a more convenient arrangement that the Scottish Education Department should be in London.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman I have already told the Committee that that question should be discussed on the Education Vote.
    Mr. URE: I bow to your ruling at once. The only other concrete charge was that made by the hon. Member for Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) that nothing has been done in response to the complaints of a deputation that drew attention to the condition of the workers in the potato fields. Very careful attention was paid to the complaints of the deputation, and they were asked to bring under our notice any cases they knew of, yet not a single case was mentioned. We ourselves knew of no case, and in order to discover if there were any we ordered the Local Government Board to circularise the county councils to see if any complaints were made with a view to having them instantly attended to. My hon. Friend's complaint, therefore, is entirely without foundation. Many other general charges were made in the course of the Debate, but it is impossible to meet general charges when no particular cases are given.
    Mr. MOLTENO: It must not be supposed that silence gives consent to the various charges which have been made against the Secretary for Scotland, as the Member for Kirkcaldy seems to think. I entirely disagree that any of those charges are justified by anything which the Secretary for Scotland has done. It is impossible to satisfy everybody, but I must say that the cases which have been brought forward are really very trivial. With regard to general policy Scotland is deeply moved on the land question, and the Secretary for Scotland is entirely in sympathy with what Scotland wants upon this question, and he has taken the proper line on the land question. Already the Secretary for Scotland has introduced two great Bills into this House—two of the greatest Land Bills ever introduced for any part of Great Britain, and it is not his fault that they have not become law. He has dealt with the education question and brought it to an issue, and he has successfully passed an Act which is now working admirably. While the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary for Scotland we saw Scotland, at the last election, return a larger number of Liberal Members than she has ever returned before.
    Mr. MORTON: May I remind the hon. Member that more Liberal Members were
    988
    returned in 1885 than at the last election. I regret that I have received no answer from the Lord Advocate to the points I raised. I hope that the Government, on the advice of the Lord Advocate, will see that we have a better representation officially in this House in the future than we have got now. I do not care what happened at the last election. I think the local affairs of Scotland ought to receive more attention.
    Sir JOHN JARDINE: I rise to express my concurrence with what has been said as to the action of the Secretary for Scotland in regard to the greatest measure we have had for Scotland for many years—I allude to the Land Bill——
    The CHAIRMAN: The action of the Secretary for Scotland in regard to legislation has nothing to do with Supply, and the hon. Member must confine himself to administration.
    Sir JOHN JARDINE: Would it be out of order if I referred to the provision made in Scotland for the growing of tobacco? We are looking forward to the people of Scotland being put in as good a position as regards the growing of tobacco as the people of Ireland. It would revive an old industry in the Lowlands, and is a matter which we should very much like to see the Secretary for Scotland carry out.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I beg to move, "To reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for Scotland by £50."
    In view of the general and very severe censure of the Secretary for Scotland expressed on the other side of the House, I think it would be most unsatisfactory if hon. Members opposite had not an opportunity of showing the reality, or the contrary, of the strength of their opinions. I therefore propose to test that by moving a reduction of the salary of the Secretary by £50.
    Mr. MORTON: I am desirous of supporting this, because I want to support what my hon. Friend (Sir John Jardine) has said with regard to the growing of tobacco. Two years ago when a Bill was passed for Ireland the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us he was quite willing to do for Scotland what he was doing for Ireland. I want to know why the Secretary does not take the matter in hand and get at least as much for Scotland as was given to Ireland—£6,000 for five years. There is ample proof you can grow tobacco in

    989
    Scotland, and it would employ a great amount of labour.
    Sir WALTER MENZIES: The tone of this Debate has not redounded very much to the credit of Scotland——
    Mr. MacVEAGH: The first humorous Scotch Debate we have had.
    Sir WALTER MENZIES: I humbly hope that the Committee will now come to a satisfactory decision. Hon. Members who have said so much against the Secretary for Scotland can follow up their words by voting against his salary.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: The hon. Member for the Camlachie Division (Mr. Mackinder) has promised us the opportunity of expressing our opinions in the Division Lobby. We are grateful to him, but let me point out that we should support his Motion for very different reasons to those with which he moved it. Our object is not to turn out the Government, which would be the result if we voted for this Amendment. A General Election in a time of truce and during pleasant weather would be most unpleasant. For my part I think the purpose of this Debate has been achieved. It has shown the Government that there exists among their most loyal supporters a feeling of discontent with the administration of Scotland, and we hope and believe that the expression of that discontent will have good effect and that in future more attention will be paid to the opinions of representatives of Scotland than in the past. If it is not after this warning, then on the next occasion we may be glad to avail ourselves of an opportunity afforded by the hon. Member.
    Mr. G. YOUNGER: I am anxious lest the Secretary for Scotland should be terrorised and intimidated into departing from the very wise decision he came to against the request of hon. Mmebers. I do not propose to vote to reduce the Noble Lord's salary, as I believe he was perfectly right in refusing to transfer the Scottish Office to Edinburgh. This appears to me to have been simply a Scottish Home Rule demonstration. The Debate has not tended to increase my respect for those who desire to see Scottish Home Rule, and it does not in crease my desire to see a Parliament in Edinburgh, which I believe would be something like a glorified town council, and very different from the representation from Scotland which we have in this House, which I believe would be perfectly
    990
    and thoroughly effective if Scottish Members acted together more closely and thoroughly than they do now. I am bound to say that at the beginning of the Debate to-day I took part in a Vote for the reduction of the Scottish Secretary's salary on a very definite question of administration—a question on which we had every reason to make a formal protest, and that was the only manner in which we could register it—but a general complaint against the administration of the office is one I cannot agree with. We are precluded from discussing legislative changes, and but for this fact we might have something to say, but we are not entitled to do so. In regard to administration, however, I am bound to say that when I have gone to the Secretary for Scotland I have always found him treat me with the utmost courtesy and give consideration to what I have put forward. Under these circumstances, having no active objection to any administrative act, I cannot support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. I can understand that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to avoid a Vote on this question, and I think the Noble Lord was not far wrong in an interjection he made a few minutes ago. which was a Parliamentary opinion and thoroughly justified. For these reasons I cannot join in this Vote.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I regret that unfortunately I cannot vote with both sides of my party on this occasion, and I therefore intend to support the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Mackinder). The reason I do so is in order to be consistent. During this afternoon we had a great many criticisms of the Secretary for Scotland. I knew nothing personally against him in any way. He is an old friend of mine, a most excellent soldier, and an ornament to another place, but we on this side have been criticising his administration the whole afternoon, and I am only sorry that some of those Members other than the Members of the new National party for Scotland were not here to help us in getting some measure of justice for the crofters of Scotland.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: We were here, and voted with you.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I am sorry to say I did not vote. Apparently certain Members, quite rightly, have come here to defend the Secretary for

    991
    Scotland, and one (Sir W. Menzies) said nothing had been brought against him. The night is not done yet, and we shall, I suppose, hear something brought against him. It is, however, curious to find a Notice of Motion to reduce the salary of the Secretary for Scotland by £100 by the hon. Member who says there is nothing against him.
    Sir W. MENZIES: When I put the Motion down I was under the impression that it would be possible to discuss education. I was told it would be impossible, and therefore without withdrawing the one proposal I put down another. I shall no doubt have an opportunity in the next hour and a half of moving it.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: In fact the hon. Gentleman wants to have his cake and eat it. What it means is apparently that we have here a sort of reconnaissance in force, perhaps not in sufficient force, by the new Nationalist party to move a reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary, and, so far as I can gather, they are going to be satisfied with threats. The sort of idea is that everybody is of the same calibre as the Secretary for Scotland and the Vatersay crofters. I mean that threats are no use at all to Vatersay crofters, and I do not think, honestly, they are much use against the Government unless they are accompanied by something else. Why not have the pluck to go into the Lobbies against the Government? Let them follow the example of hon. Members for Ireland instead of always going into the Government Lobby when it is necessary. I hope we shall see hon. Members voting for this reduction.
    Mr. MACKINDER: In view of what the hon. Member (Mr. Younger) has just said, I wish to add to what I said just now that our object in proposing and supporting this reduction is in no sense identical with the object of hon. Gentlemen opposite in complaining with regard to the Secretary for Scotland. Our attitude, of course, is one of criticism of the Government. None the less, we shall be disappointed, after all we have heard, if hon. Gentlemen opposite are not ready to support their words by action. I think, without in the least identifying either myself or, if I could, the hon. Member (Mr. G. Younger) with the reasons which have been urged from the other side, we are entitled, while urging
    992
    our own objections on general grounds of the administration of the Government, to see what amount of reality there is behind the threats.
    Mr. WATT: The action of the Secretary for Scotland is made with the approval of two hon. Members opposite. No stronger argument could be adduced in condemnation of it. Concrete instances have been asked for as to the views of the Secretary for Scotland, and I desire to give one of what I think is an error in administration. A position has been vacant, namely, that of Commissioner of Lunacy in Scotland. If there is one post which the Secretary for Scotland could well fill it is that of Commissioner in Lunacy.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is a separate Vote for lunacy.
    Mr. PIRIE: I do not desire to give a silent vote on this question. I feel obliged to vote in favour of the Amendment, and I wish to say why I shall do so. I shall do so as a protest against the present system, of which the Secretary for Scotland is the head. In common with other Members of the House, I take the opportunity of saying that no more popular or courteous Gentleman has ever been in this House, but it is not a question of popularity or courtesy. It is a question of principle. The Government seem to imagine that because Scotland is largely represented by Liberal Members there is, therefore, nothing to criticise in the administration of Scotland. The Liberal Members were elected not because of the admiration which the people have for the Scottish Office, but on account of the views they hold on the constitutional question with which the country is face to face. Very few of the Scottish Members who are Members of the Cabinet take the trouble to attend on the occasions when Scottish matters are discussed. I think they should spare a little time to look after Scottish business and interests. Scotland would fare very much better if she had fewer Members on the Front Bench. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) told us Scottish opinion might be considered as counting for nothing. As a protest against that remark I shall vote for the Amendment.
    Question put, "That item A be reduced by £50 in respect of the salary of the Secretary for Scotland."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 146.

    Division No. 103.]

    AYES.

    [8.1 p.m.

    Adam, Major W. A.

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Attenborough, W. A.

    Fell, Arthur

    Pirle, Duncan V.

    Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

    Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Fleming, Valentine

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Barnston, H.

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Rice, Hon. Walter F.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Royds, Edmund

    Bird, A.

    Hamersley, A. St. George

    Rutherford, Watson

    Boyton, J.

    Hickman, Col. T.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Brassey, Capt. R. (Banbury)

    Hillier, Dr. A. P.

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Butcher, J. G. (York)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Campion, W. R.

    Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

    Waring, Walter

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Cave, George

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Coates, Major E. F.

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Colefax, H. A.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir J. Dewar and Mr. Whyte.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Duke, H. E.

    Mitchell, William Foot

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Hancock, J. G.

    Radford, G. H.

    Allen, Charles P.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Mtrose)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Anderson, A.

    Harmsworth, R. L.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Haworth, Arthur A

    Reddy, M.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury E.)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Richards, Thomas

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Heath, Col. A. H.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Barnes, G. N.

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

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Hogan, Michael

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Holt, Richard Dunning

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Bowles, T. Gibson

    Hudson, Walter

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Seddon, J.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hunter, W. (Govan)

    Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Johnson, W.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Jewett, F. W.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Cameron, Robert

    Joyce, Michael

    Tennant, Harold John

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Leach, Charles

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Chapple, W. A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Clough, William

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Macdonald, J M (Falkirk Burghs)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Cowan, W. H.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Crossley, Sir W. J.

    Millar, J. D.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Cullinan, J.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Dawes, J. A.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

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

    Muspratt, M.

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Doris, W.

    Nussey, Sir Willans

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

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    O'Dowd, John

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

    Falconer, J.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N E.)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Pearce, William

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

    Gibson, James P.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Gill, A. H.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Glanville, H. J.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Glover, Thomas

    Price, C. E (Edinburgh, Central)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Hackett, J.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Question "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

    Division No. 104.]

    AYES.

    [11.20 p.m.

    Adam, Major W. A.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

    Gretton, John

    Pirle, Duncan V.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Proby, Colonel Douglas James

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Quilter, William Eley C.

    Barnston, H.

    Hamersley, A. St. George

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

    Heath, Col. A. H.

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Hillier, Dr. A. P.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bird, A.

    Hills, J. W.

    Rice, Hon. W.

    Brackenbury, H. L.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Brassey, Capt. R. B. (Banbury)

    Horner, A. L.

    Rutherford, Watson

    Carllie, E. Hildred

    Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Cave, George

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Keswick, William

    Strauss, Arthur

    Clay, Captain H. Spender

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Law, Andrew Boner (Dulwich)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Duke, H. E.

    Llewelyn, Major Venables

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fell, Arthur

    Mitchell, William Foot

    Forster, Henry William

    Morpeth, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mackinder and Marquess of Tullibardine.

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Goldman, C. S.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Allen, Charles P.

    Hancock, J. G.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Anderson, A.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Harmsworth, R. L.

    Radford, G. H.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Rainy, A. Rowland

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Reddy, M.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Richards, Thomas

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hayward, Evan

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Brigg, Sir John

    Hazleton, Richard

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hogan, Michael

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hudson, Walter

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hughes, S. L.

    Seddon, J.

    Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid.)

    Hunter, W. (Govan)

    Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Shortt, Edward

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Johnson, W.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Chapple, W. A.

    Lambert, George

    Thomas, D. A. (Cardiff)

    Clough, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Corbett, A. Cameron

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Crawshay-Williams, Ellot

    M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Crossley, Sir William J.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Cullinan, J.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Millar, J. D.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Whyte, Alexander F.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Falconer, J.

    Muspratt, M.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Furness, Stephen

    Nolan, Joseph

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Geider, Sir W. A.

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Gibson, James P.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Gill, A. H.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

    Glanville, H. J.

    O'Dowd, John

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon (St. Rollox)

    Glover, Thomas

    Palmer, Godfrey

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Parker, James (Hallfax)

    Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

    Guest, Major

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Hackett, J.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. M.

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    FISHERY BOARD, SCOTLAND.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £16,301, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays." [NOTE.—£8,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I think it is especially unfortunate that three very important questions which are still on the Paper, namely, Scottish Fishery Administration, Scottish Education, and Scottish Local Government Board, should only be reached at this hour of the night. I enter my emphatic protest in the first place against the way in which Scottish business has been treated this evening by the time of the House having been occupied for nearly two hours in the discussion of English business. Even on the one night of the Session when Scottish Estimates are before the House, the predominant partner claims to reduce our opportunities out of it to that extent. I do think that the subjects which are still to be discussed are worthy of very serious and careful attention on the part of Members of this House, and I make no apology whatever at this late hour for entering upon a question which is of very great importance to many constituencies in Scotland. I refer to the great Scottish fishing industry. I sincerely hope I shall have the support of many Members in the House in this discussion being continued, and that an opportunity will be taken of laying this question as fully before the House, as it deserves to be laid. Representing, as I do, a constituency in which a very large section of the population is interested in the line and herring fishing, I should like in the first place to draw attention to the great need for more efficient marine superintendence, and for the prevention of illegal trawling which is taking place all along our shores in Scotland to such an extent.
    I do not for a moment seek to attack the trawling industry. I approach the question in no vindictive spirit. I recognise it has an important place amongst the interests of this country, but what I do say is that although it is a very important source of food supply it is an industry which must be carried on
    996
    under fair conditions, and in such a way as to avoid injury to other great industries and injustice to line fishermen throughout Scotland. As we are dealing with a purely Scottish question I should like to point out that in Scotland the proportion of fishermen who are actually occupied in the trawling industry is a very small one, only 3,115 men employed out of a total of 39,208 fishermen in Scottish waters. Therefore, it is only right that we should take into account the interests of the great numbers of line fishermen whose livelihood depends on the success of line fishing. In the second place, I should like to say that trawling as a rule is worked by large companies, whereas, in the case of line fishermen you have men of small capital who have more difficulty in carrying out their operations in the industry with which they are associated, and who require every support and assistance. I think that the policy of excluding trawlers from fishing within the three-mile limit, and from fishing within the various closed areas along the coasts of Scotland has been abundantly justified on very important considerations, and is supported by the results of scientific investigation.
    I do not think there is anyone who would challenge the fact that the result of trawling within the inshore waters of Scotland has necessarily done an immense amount of damage to the spawning beds, and destroyed a great amount of immature fish, and has virtually cleaned out altogether fish which formerly used to be plentiful there. Notwithstanding the series of enactments against the trawlers for illegal trawling, I am very sorry to say that to-day the evil is, I think, worse than it has ever been. I think I can substantiate that proposition. I should like to illustrate it by reference to the constituency which I have the honour to represent. If you take the chief centres of line fishermen along the east coast of Fife, and refer to the Report of the Scottish Fishery Board for last year, you will find that almost everywhere there has been a most striking and serious decrease in the quantity of fish landed. I may refer particularly to Anstruther and Cellardyke, where, according to the Fishery Board Report last year, there has been "a considerable decrease in the quantity and value of the fish landed, and the winter herring fishing was almost a complete failure." In regard to Crail, there is recorded a decrease in all kinds of white fish. At St. Andrew's there has been "a decided falling off in all kinds fish

    997
    landed, and the fishing is gradually falling off at this station." It is a very serious matter to my constituents that the fishing industry has suffered to such an extent in this district, and there are similar reports from other parts of the East Coast of Scotland. What is the reason of this great decrease? In the first place you will find a reason for it in the great increase of illegal trawling. I think that that point is worthy of special attention, because during 1909 the Fishery Board Report records sixty-three cases tried in Court as compared with thirty cases in 1908, and a yearly average of twenty-eight cases since 1886. In East Fife, during the six months ending 28th February, 1910, there were five prosecutions for illegal trawling in the Firth of Forth and St. Andrew's Bay, and in each case a conviction was obtained.
    The situation which has arisen has been largely due to the ineffective policing of the inshore waters. The fleet of cruisers in Scotland is totally inadequate for the work it has to perform. There are at present only five cruisers under the authority of the Scottish Fishery Board. It is necessary that Scotland should have more assistance from naval vessels than she has had in past years. The only gunboat we have at present engaged in fishery work—H. M.S. "Ringdove"—is transferred to the north during the great summer herring fishing, and being kept there on harbour duty, is consequently unable to do anything in the way of patrolling the sea in other parts of Scotland. The Fishery Board is in the unfortunate position of having far too little money to expend upon these objects. I hope it will be possible to obtain a larger grant from the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account for the purpose of marine superintendence in future years. At present it is impossible for the Board to build a new cruiser without accumulating money out of the grant which it receives, and that takes a considerable time. With regard to cruisers, it is well recognised that although their officers seek to perform their duties as faithfully as possible, they are not well fitted to act as police boats. They ought to be rigged out more as plain clothes detectives, if I may use the phrase, To catch trawlers it is absurd to send out boats which are so easily recognised at a great distance, and which have not the necessary speed to overtake the vessels they are pursuing. If the Fishery Board had a few guns on board their
    998
    cruisers, so that they could fire a shot across the bows of a trawler, that would have a very great effect in bringing the poaching vessel up. I think further that it would be very advisable indeed that we should have not only large cruisers, but small, swift steam launches at the disposal of the fishermen at different points around the coast, who would take them out if necessary when the trawlers were trawling in inshore grounds; because it must be kept in view that it is a very difficult thing indeed to detect the trawlers when they cover up their numbers, as they frequently do, and when they fish at night within prohibited limits.
    I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Vote whether it is not possible to secure greater attention on the part of the lighthouse keepers on the island of May These men at present receive a certain amount from the Fishery Board for watching and sending in reports in regard to the movements of trawlers, but they do not appear to be of much service in that respect. Would it not be possible to arrange that those who are situated in the best possible position to take and to give evidence against the trawlers trawling illegally should be able, or permitted, to give their evidence on shore where it would be possible to obtain convictions? I am quite aware that now there is no means of enforcing such a regulation against the lighthouse keepers. It is a matter of courtesy to allow them to take part in this work. But where possible it is desirable that they should give evidence in Court. Even when detection is secured, and convictions are obtained, the state of matters is most lamentable. What happens in almost every case is that where a substantial fine is imposed that instead of it being paid the master of the trawler is sent to prison for apparently a short period, and his family are kept during that period. There is no serious or sufficient penalty enforced against the owner. I should like to emphasise this point by the figures of the fines in 1908. In that year fines were imposed on convicted masters of trawlers to the amount of £2,136. Of this only £439 was paid. Twenty masters went to prison. In 1909 the fines imposed amounted to £4,738, of which only £1,026 was paid, and twenty-nine masters went to prison. Those who were fined very small amounts paid them, but the owners in the majority of cases

    999
    preferred to send their masters to prison, so as thereby to escape the penalty. In five cases in East Fife last year, where fines were imposed only one fine of £15 was paid. The result is that illegal trawling continues unabated, especially in the Firth of Forth.
    It is a very urgent, important, and very difficult question which has been created from the point of view of the fishermen. I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that further steps should be taken at the earliest possible moment to secure an effective remedy to the evil system under which masters of trawlers receive payment of a share of the profits. It is a very bad one, because it encourages them very often to fish in shore especially in bad weather, and I am bound to say that in some cases it has been noticed that the boats used are very unseaworthy, and the masters in consequence have to get their fish in bad weather close in shore, and very often they take the risk of getting them within the three-mile limit. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see his way to carry into effect provisions that already exist in the Act of 1895, Section 10, Subsection 6, which orders "that the owner should be made liable to the payment of the fine …" I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that that provision, which is a dead letter in the Act where it is at present embodied, should be applied to the ordinary cases of trespass within the three-mile limit. I am sure that that in itself would be an effective remedy.
    The time really has come when in order to secure a livelihood for our line fishermen who go out a short distance from their homes to fish, it is absolutely necessary that not only the trawlers should be excluded from the three-mile limit, but that we should have some reasonable extension of that limit. I refer to one other case, and that is the excellent fishing ground situated round Bell Rock. Although the question has arisen several times as to whether that is an island or not I think such technical distinctions sought not to prevent us carrying out a policy that would prevent these waters from being cleaned out of fish altogether. In many cases further protection is necessary where there were formerly such excellent fishing ground. I shall not deal with the question of foreign trawlers further than to say that I hope the Government will keep in view the fact that foreign countries are
    1000
    beginning to claim a further limit than the three-mile limit. I put a question to the Foreign Secretary as to what the territorial waters off Norway were, and he informed me that in Norway they claim a four-mile limit, whereas we have only three miles. I think it is but right we should exclude the foreigner to the same extent that he excludes us in the North Sea. The time has come when the North Sea Convention should be reconsidered, and the limit extended within which trawling ought to be prohibited along our coasts. There is already embodied in the Act of 1895 a provision in which a thirteen-mile limit is set forth.
    I want to call attention also to the grant for piers and quays. The sum available for that work is altogether too small. It includes a sum of £3,000 voted under an Act of George IV., and under the Act of 1909 there was a deficit. Very heavy sums are deducted from the grant fees before anything is devoted to the aid of piers. There is great need indeed for the improvement of our harbours all round the coast of Scotland, and a great deal of money requires to be expended on that matter. I might refer particularly to the harbour of Anstruther, which ought to be one of the most adequate harbours in Fife. It is not so at the present time; there is no deep water quay, and the result is that a great amount of loss is sustained through boats having to wait outside until the tide rises sufficiently to enable them to come in and get their fish to market. Sometimes a day is lost, and that means a considerable loss in the price of the fish. That applies to many other harbours along the coast, and seeing the increase in the larger boats in steam liners and drifters, in recent years, it is very necessary indeed that better harbour accommodation should be provided along the cost of Scotland.
    I should like to ask in view of the Development Fund whether the Fishery Board of Scotland is not in a position to ask for a very substantial grant out of that fund. A fund for the construction and improvement of harbours might very well be administered by the Fishery Board as far as Scotland is concerned, and I throw out that suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. There is great necessity for keeping the Fishery Board more in touch with the fishermen. It is very desirable to have a public Board that exists

    1001
    entirely to promote the interests of the fishing classes. The Fishery Board has a capable and energetic Chairman and staff, but where you have four fishermen representatives appointed to that Board it is very desirable that these men should have a practical knowledge of the fishing industry, and that they should represent the interests of those who appointed them. I hope that when new appointments are made next year, those Members who are supposed to represent fishermen will be very carefully selected. I trust that the fishermen will be consulted, and that they will be allowed to indicate which man they desire to represent them. The fishermen have a special claim upon the Government because they have many risks and hardships to undergo. They render the country a great service in providing a food supply, and they also afford splendid material for our Navy in time of war. I appeal to the Government and to the right hon. Gentleman on the points I have raised to see that something is done in the direction of conserving our fishing grounds, protecting them against the ravages of trawlers and seeking to foster that spirit of independence and enterprise which has always characterised the fishermen of the East Coast in their arduous calling.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I wish to support what my hon. Friend (Mr. Duncan Millar) has said in regard to the representation of fishermen. I think the new Board should have upon it one representative who understands the cause of the line fishermen. I think also the Government should pay particular attention to the Development Act. It might be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to take into account one of the most remarkable movements recorded in the Report, namely, the fitting of motors to ordinary herring boats. Many fishermen have had motor engines fitted into their sailing boats, and this change has been strongly urged by others who are men of considerable experience and responsibility. The fishermen might be assisted by an advance for which they would be able to give good security, and I think the Government would find it quite worth their while to make this experiment. I have been waiting for the best part of three years for an opportunity to bring before the Lord Advocate a special point affecting the line fishermen in my own
    1002
    constituency. Some eighteen months ago I forwarded a Petition from about 200 line fishermen, but no practical steps have been taken to give effect to it.
    I therefore take this opportunity very briefly to rehearse the arguments advanced in that Petition. Trawling, they say, has reduced their industry to a parlous condition. Without going into the general arguments used last year, I should like to press upon the attention of the Lord Advocate the special point already mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's Burghs relating to the Bell Rock, which occupies a very curious international position. The rock is nine miles and three-quarters south-south-east of Arbroath. There is a lighthouse erected and maintained by the Government. It is inhabited by three men who are always on the rock, and one is on shore. There are observatory buildings on the shore in connection with the lighthouse. The men who live in the lighthouse vote in Arbroath and go to church there, and their children attend school there. The Bell Rock is an island. It is British territory, and therefore it would be possible to take the three-mile limit around it and prohibit trawling. The case of Norway is a precedent. It was stated in answer to a question the other day that Norway reckons her coastline as from the furthest outlying island or rock which is not washed over by the sea. There is the point that the Bell Rock is temporarily submerged; for eight hours it is under water. Clearly you cannot sit upon a rock which is eight hours under water because you would drown, but, equally, per contra, you cannot build a lighthouse unless you have something to build it on. I submit the rock and the building are a joint structure, and therefore constitute British territory. If the Lord Advocate can put aside his general economic prepossession, and he will not seek on this occasion to disentangle the original site value of the Bell Rock, but if he will follow for the purposes of my argument, not Henry George, but Stowell, Wheaton, and Westlake, then I think he would be good lawyer enough to agree with my contention. We have often been told we must not say things which are inconsistent with things we have to bring forward in international arbitration, as for example the case of the Behring Sea. But I saw a dictum by the British representative, Sir Charles Russell, in that arbitration,

    1003
    which I think exactly meets the case. He said:
    "If a lighthouse is built upon a rock or upon piles driven into the bed of the sea, it becomes, as far as that lighthouse is concerned, part of the territory of the nation which has erected it, and, as part of the territory of the nation which has erected it, it has incidental to it all the rights that belong to the protection of that territory—no more and no less."
    That seems to be a clear contention that the rock would be regarded as British territory. Westlake adds:
    "It might be fair to claim an exclusive right of fishing so near the spot that without the light, fishing there would have been too dangerous to be practicable."
    12.0 M.
    I will ask the Lord Advocate to take these facts into his consideration. The fishermen interested in this particular spot have never been able to get an answer to the numerous questions I have put on their behalf as to the reason of the Government for returning a blank denial to their request. I should like to go at greater length into the very unsatisfactory position at the present time of the three-mile limit. It is very uncertain whether that has been universally accepted as operative at the present moment. I could quote at great length from the text books, but I will confine myself to one quotation from Hall:
    "It is growingly felt not only that a width of three miles is insufficient for the safety of the territory, but that it is desirable for a State to have control over a larger space of water for the purpose of regulating and preserving the fishery in it, the production of sea fisheries being seriously threatened by the destructive methods of fishing which are commonly employed."
    The International Institute which met in Paris in 1894 went into the whole merits of the question, and it said in regard to the necessity for having a greater breadth than three miles there was no difference of opinion, and it was suggested that six miles should be the normal distance, with an extension in time of war. It was settled by an overwhelming majority last Session that fish caught in certain areas should be regarded with the same suspicion as attaches to Chinese pork. I hope the Fishery Board will give attention to this matter. I get constant complaints of the catching of immature fish, of destruction of lines and nets, and of depredations generally, in that part of Scotland which may be described as lying between Aberdeen on the north and Berwick on the south—such as you have had previously in the Moray Firth. I would suggest to the Lord Advocate (and it is about to be proposed by my men at the Fishery Conference) that a new line under the Fisheries Act, 1889, should be
    1004
    drawn from Barron's Ness to Tod Head, which, for the benefit of hon. Members who may not have been studying a large scale map, is something like a line from Dunnottar Castle to St. Abb's Head, or from Bervie in Kincardineshire to Dunbar, in the south, about the same width as the Moray Firth from Duncansby Head to Rattray Point, some eighty miles. I think the whole question has been reopened by the arrest of a Hull trawler in Russian waters, reported in this morning's papers. It raises the whole question of enclosed bays. The matter, of course, is sub judice, but it appears that a British trawler was caught forty-three miles from the nearest land. No trawlers are allowed to fish within three miles of an imaginary line of ninety miles, guarding the entrance to the White Sea and the Gulf of Mezen, between Sryatoi Noss and Cape Kanin, as these art rightly regarded as Russian territorial waters. At any rate, quite apart from the controversial part of the question—the apparent claim of the Russian Government to a twelve-mile limit—it is clear that the line across the White Sea is one which the British trawlers have accepted, apparently, without the slightest argument—for they have not claimed the right to enter the White Sea—and that it is ninety miles from headland to headland.
    Mr. GUY WILSON: British trawlers do not accept that. The only reason why they did not enter the White Sea was that they did not wish to bring about any controversial bother.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: I do not want to prejudice the case. I took the facts from the Hull correspondent of the "Daily News," but my hon. Friend is naturally better acquainted with the circumstances than I am. I hope the Lord Advocate will look very closely into the three questions I have brought forward: the Bell Rock, the extension of the three-mile limit, and the possibility of drawing a new line in that portion of Scotland south of Aberdeen. May I also express my earnest hope that the Government will go on with the work that they have so well begun, and will look into the fishing difficulty in a part of Scotland which, no less than the Moray Firth, merits close attention, and that they will not allow to be crushed unnecessarily, and in a manner injurious to the whole community, a class who carry on with enterprise and courage the old tradition of an island people.
    Mr. SUTHERLAND: I agree with an hon. Member who has spoken that if there is to be a vote of censure it should be passed upon the person or persons who on this day, when the Scottish Estimates are being discussed, allowed the time to be eaten into by a private Bill. I do not want to join with those who Propose a vote of censure, or something like one, on the Secretary of Scotland, but I may be allowed to say this, that in the case of several departments which lodge under the roof of the Scottish Office, they should take for their motto festina lente, or to put it into Scotch, their motto should be "ca,' canny." I have received a communication from the people of Lerwick regarding a petition which I presented to the Secretary of Scotland two or three months ago. The people of Lerwick have received no reply to their petition, and I received a communication from some of these men interested in, and who have done most to develop, the herring industry in Scotland, to the effect that they have cause of complaint against the Scottish Office because no reply has been given to their communication. They complain that the Chief Inspector of Fisheries of Scotland went to the Continent and sent in a report regarding the different brands, which showed that he was considerably biassed against those who do not use the Government brand. The best thing that can be said about the present Fishery Board for Scotland is that it is fast coming to an end. When the Fishery Board was appointed five years ago great complaint was made, and all I can say is that I hope when the new Board is appointed the appointments will not be made on the plea that the members appointed will, like the followers of Falstaff, fill a hole as well or better.
    I admit that the Fishery Board for Scotland has during the last few years done good service, but that is largely owing to the fact that the Chairman of the Fishery Board has shown distinguished ability and zeal. It seems to me that the fishing industry is of sufficient importance that we should have not a Board in England and a Board in Scotland, but that we should have a separate Government Department. It seems ludicrous that the fisheries of England should be under the Board of Agriculture. If you look at the Board of Agriculture and ask how many of them know anything about fisheries the answer will not be far to seek. It is notorious that, in matters of public policy, the Board of Agriculture in
    1006
    England is openly hostile to the views and policy of the Fishery Board of Scotland. On the Continent one often sees villages on the shoulder of a hill clustered round the little Catholic church at the top. In the North-east of Scotland you find harbours dotted all along the coast, and little villages have sprung up in connection with them, and have become almost dependent upon the success of the harbour. In most cases the harbours have become too small. Town councils have done their best to extend the harbours. I know of one case where the town council has levied a voluntary rate of 1s. 6d. in the £ for harbour extension. The herring fishing industry has been revolutionised, we have a larger scale of boats, and the result is that the harbours are far too small. If accommodation is not provided, the owners of the boats will have to leave, and villages will be depleted, perhaps obliterated. I think this question of harbours is a national one which should be undertaken by the Government. I hope we shall get our full share of the Development Fund. I do not suppose we shall get more; if we do, it will be the first time in our history. The Government of the day must make up its mind as to what its policy is to be in regard to harbours. Are they to provide merely large harbours or are they to extend those harbours which are capable of extension? I quite admit that some small harbours should not be extended or, at least, that only a few hundreds should be expended upon them; but many from Cromarty to Fraserburgh are capable of extension on very moderate terms. The Government ought either to appoint a Royal Commission to see what harbours should be extended, or should have an Advisory Committee to advise them as to what should be done in the matter. It is not a question for the Fishery Board, but for the Government. I spoke to the Secretary for Scotland some time ago on the matter of a Royal Commission and received a sympathetic hearing. I trust the Lord Advocate will give us a satisfactory reply.
    Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: It appears to me sometimes that the Fishery Board lacks the necessary touch with the interest which it is supposed to represent, and I would, therefore, urge upon the Lord Advocate to represent to the Secretary for Scotland the necessity, when the next appointments are made, that persons should be appointed who really

    1007
    have at heart the interests of the fishing Industry. I will give an illustration from my own constituency. One of the burghs which I represent must be well known to hon. Members who go for sporting purposes in the autumn to Scotland. I mean the burgh of Nairn. It has got a very fine golf course. It has also a very fine fishing population, which numbers something like 300 families. They are as fine a type as can be found in the whole of the northeast of Scotland. These people have spent something like £27,000 of their own funds on the harbour. They had a grant from the Government eight or ten years ago of about £5,000 for the improvement of the harbour, but owing to storms, and perhaps imperfect construction of the harbour originally, defects manifested themselves in it some years ago, and ever since I have been Member for the constituency I have been representing to the Fisheries Board the necessity for the grant of an additional sum of money for the restoration of the harbour. The Fisheries Board has appeared to treat these representations with complete indifference. There was two years ago a great storm which broke down the end of the structure and threw it across the mouth of the harbour. The result is that the harbour is gradually becoming absolutely useless.
    I am sorry to say that notwithstanding the representations which I have constantly made to the Secretary for Scotland he does riot seem to be able to bring about in the mind of the Fisheries Board any recognition of the real importance of taking some steps with regard to the repair of the harbour. The Fisheries Board do not appear to know what the facts as to the trade of the place are. They say that the prospects of the industry of Nairn do not warrant the spending of any more money on the harbour. They say that it is barely holding its own, whereas if they had sent someone down to examine into the facts they would have found that the value of the boats there had risen between 1898 and 1908 from £11,000 to £47,000—in other words, it has very nearly quintupled itself—and yet the Fisheries Board say that it is barely holding its own. I agree with the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Sutherland) that if this state of things is not remedied the fishery there must come to an end, and that will be disastrous, not only to the fishing population, but, also to the population of the whole town, because they
    1008
    depend largely on the people who derive their incomes from fishing.
    There is another matter where I think the Fisheries Board has not been sufficiently careful of the interests of the fishing population in that part of Scotland. They seem to have allowed the Admiralty authorities td practice long range shooting at night without giving sufficient notice to fishermen. I have had complaints over and over again as to the dangers which fishermen run from this practice. The Admiralty give notice through harbour masters when firing is going to take place. But word is conveyed to the harbour master far too late for him to convey it in his turn to the fisherman. The result is that the fisherman goes out, and very likely finds heavy shooting across the line of his nets. Those are the kind of things in which I would like to see a closer touch between the Fishery Board and those whose interests it is supposed to represent. I do hope that the Lord Advocate will represent to the Secretary for Scotland the necessity for his not only getting a better representation of the fishing industry of the North of Scotland on the Fishery Board, but will also represent to him the absolute necessity of providing funds for the general development and improvement of harbours on the coast.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Earlier in the evening the Lord Advocate, alluding to another question, stated that, as this was a national Parliament, it would be inexpedient to remove the Board of Education from London to Edinburgh. With regard to this question of the Fishery Board of Scotland, I think that every Member who has had dealings with that Board would be very glad to have the Fishery Board centred in London instead of in Edinburgh as at present, so that we should be able to get in closer touch with them. Until we have something of a Home Rule Parliament in Edinburgh to deal with these things it is better to have a great department of State in London. I wish to associate myself cordially with what has been said about illegal trawling along our coast and the great danger we run of losing a very valuable source of food supply. Those hon. Members who represent the great trawling interests in the country must realise, as I think Germany has already realised, that it is quite possible to overfish the seas and deplete the ocean of the fish which are such a valuable

    1009
    source of food supply. Representing as I do one of the largest fishing industry centres in the United Kingdom, I wish to point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. R. Harcourt), when alluding to this question, entirely forgot the existence of that valuable tract of fishing waters, from Shetland down to Caithness, the most valuable fishing waters, perhaps, that we have got, and which suffer more from the devastations of trawlers than any other place. There the evil has been so great that the people themselves have taken the matter into their own hands, and are doing what will, perhaps, not commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, offering a reward to persons who will catch those trawlers, and try to get convictions against them. So far the result has been satisfactory, and they have been able to get a great many convictions by that system.
    I have risen chiefly to complain of the action of the Fishery Board with regard to the whaling question in Shetland. That is a question on which the whole of my constituents are absolutely at one as to the effects on the fishery. On a cursory glance at the situation hon. Members and the Fishery Board might come to the consion that, perhaps, we had no case. For this year, up to the present time, the herring fishing in Shetland has been in certain parts a success. For instance, at one station in Shetland 244,000 crans of fish have been landed up to June and July, as against 126,000 crans in 1908. There has been an enormous increase in one or two other places, showing a total increase for Shetland alone of 90,000 crans of fish—a very substantial increase. What I wish to point out to the Lord Advocate and the Fishery Board is that on the west coast of Shetland the position is just as bad as ever it was, and the stations which used to be flourishing centres of the fishing industries are still in a disastrous condition. There is no doubt of the fact that since whaling was started in Shetland, the herring fishing has decreased all along the west coast. As pointed out in a letter I received this morning the enormous increase in the take of herring elsewhere has not been experienced in the waters where whaling takes place. There the scarcity of herring is just as great as ever. What the connection is between whaling and herring fishing is difficult to trace with any degree of accuracy, but there the fact remains that since whaling began
    1010
    places that were formerly prosperous are now a desert. This is universally attributed to the presence of the whalers. A resolution was passed last month to the effect that in the months of June and July whaling should be prohibited, and that the number of ships should be restricted to one. Further, it was resolved that the County Council should get the benefit of the fees paid by the steamers. At the present time the County Council has to incur very considerable expense in looking after the health of the whalers, and as far as possible to carry out the law. They have no funds of their own to do it with, and I think on that point alone the Lord Advocate should make some considerable concession. The matter has reached such a pitch of importance that the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, at the last General Election, wrote to the association connected with the industry in Lerwick, in which he said:—
    "If the facts" (and they are the facts) "you bring to my notice are correct, and if Norwegian whalers carry on in British waters an industry so injurious to fishermen that the Norwegian Government has thought it necessary to prohibit it in their own waters, it seems to me that the Shetland Herring Protection Association have an overwhelming argument in their favour. The case would appear to be one, if I rightly apprehend the facts, which emphatically calls for a policy of safeguarding the legitimate interests of Home industries, which is a part of the programme of the Unionist Party."
    I should like to hand this to my right hon. Friend so that he can see the sort of difficulties we had to face in the northern country, on the eve of the election, on this subject. The matter is one of great importance, and of course Shetlanders cannot forget that the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity of dealing with this question by introducing a Bill which might very well have readily passed if it had not been for other political considerations which
    occurred at the same time. I wish to emphasise the point raised by my hon. Friend with regard to motor boats. The Fishery Board this year on this question state:—
    "On one point, those best qualified to judge are emphatic, and that is that fishermen who possess first-class sailing boats should certainly have auxiliary motors installed instead of selling their boats and purchasing steam drifters. As has already been pointed out, one bad season has a disastrous effect on the fortunes of the owners of steam drifters, and a series of bad seasons would probably spell ruin to many. There is little doubt that not a little of the neglect of motor auxiliary power up till recently was due more to the spirit of emulation among fishermen, not to be behind their neighbours in the matter of the speed of their craft, and that the pros, and cons. of the subject were not carefully weighed. It is to be hoped that in future, however, the wisdom of considering capital outlay, working expenses, etc., as well as gross

    1011
    earnings, will appeal to fishermen who contemplate adopting mechanical power for the propulsion of their boats."
    That seems to be the whole argument in favour of this view. Considering that the fishermen now have got to sell their boats at comparatively an old song, and that they are expending very large sums of money in steam drifters, which run up to £3,000 and upwards, I trust the Fishery Board will see the policy and the wisdom of introducing some scheme so that fishermen who are now in possession of their boats should be provided with sufficient security.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Several hon. Members have drawn attention to the great hardships in the North of Scotland, and I should like to draw attention to the difficulties of fishing in the South and West of Scotland, and to a case of very great hardship. I support the representation made to the Lord Advocate in regard to appointments to the Fishery Boards, that in considering such appointments sight should not be lost of the interests of the fishermen who should be represented on all those Boards. Their interests are of very great importance. In regard to the area to which I wish particularly to refer, that is the area of the Solway, there are many great difficulties and complications. It is administered partly by England and partly by Scotland, which gives rise to many complications. It is a district in which various tides flow and it is impossible to say what is the sea and what is the river; where the estuary begins and where the Solway. We have had a large amount of litigation, and I am sorry to say that legislation has not led to clearing up the difficulties created by Nature. We have had as many as seven judges sitting on one point, which has led to most unsatisfactory results. It would not be possible to go into the details of these cases which are constantly in the Courts.
    The Court of Session is frequently occupied with such cases. I would like to ask of the Lord Advocate that the Government should give assistance in clearing up the difficulties, legal and practical, which surround this question of fishing in the Solway in the directions to which I have referred. Royal Commissions have reported, but no steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations of those Commissions. I would strongly urge on the Government that they should give their assistance to putting and end to this very difficult matter. We have
    1012
    a large body of men engaged in the industry. From time immemorial the industry has been carried on there. The men are earning their livelihood under conditions of the greatest difficulty. They run enormous dangers every day owing to the navigation of the Solway, and they are entitled to carry on their occupation without being constantly harassed by prosecutions, and being compelled to bring actions in various places to get their difficulties decided. I strongly urge on the Government that the time has come when it is their duty, there being so many interests involved, to put an end to this state of constant litigation by having careful inquiry made and coming to a definite conclusion after due consideration of all the interests concerned.
    Mr. COWAN: Representing a constituency which includes the whole sea-board of what is undoubtedly the most important county in Scotland, I desire to associate myself with the statements which have been made about the illegal operations of trawlers. My complaint against the Government is not that they are unwilling to do what they can to help the industry or to help a very deserving population, but that they do not seem to know what is going on around the coast. In reply to a question which I put to him the other day about the patrolling of the coast of my county the Lord Advocate stated that no complaint of illegal trawling had been received by the Fishery Board from the stretch of coast mentioned since November last. Since November last I have received numerous complaints from fishermen of illegal trawling. In an answer to the following supplementary Question: "Do any statistics exist in the Scottish Office of the number of days on which the Fishery cruisers were in harbour?" the Lord Advocate said, "I have given all the statistics which we possess." According to my information, the log-books of the cruisers are sent once a month to the head office at Edinburgh, and in those log-books every hour of the cruiser's time is accounted for; therefore, the Lord Advocate or the Scottish Secretary - whose absence from this House we all deplore—could have obtained the information to enable an answer to be given to that question. There is a strong feeling round the coast that the Government is neglecting the interests of the fishing folk. Looking at the matter from the Imperialist point of view, there is no doubt whatever that

    1013
    the preservation of a hardy, seafaring population is one of the most vital questions to the country. We depend for the safety of the country in the last resort on the Navy, and it is from the population of these coasts that the Navy is recruited. If we cannot obtain the necessary number of recruits for the personnel of the Navy, our maritime supremacy will very soon be a thing of the past. It is a deplorable and a significant thing that the population of these small seaports all round our coast, particularly in the north-east of Scotland, is steadily and alarmingly decreasing. We have got to do something to encourage these people, and to make it as easy as possible for them to carry on their trade. This is not only in the interests of that population, but it is in the interests of the whole of the country, whose food supply so largely depends upon them. I find so far from the fishery cruisers watching the trawlers, that it is the trawlers that watch the fishery cruisers. The trawlers have a most admirable intelligence department. They know exactly where the cruisers are, and by telegraphing to certain centres they are always able to know what they are doing. The cruiser is coaling! Very well, that means that the trawlers can sail out, fish in prohibited waters with the certainty that they will not be pursued, that they cannot be captured, and that in all probability they will not be detected.
    What is the cure for this state of things? Several cures have been suggested. One that I would impress upon the Government is well worthy of their consideration. That is, that instead of building additional cruisers, or instead of building any large number of additional cruisers—and I think one or two are needed—motor boats should be built which would steam in all weathers at a speed of twelve or fourteen knots an hour, and which, issuing out of the smaller ports, and at any rate, acting as detectives, could report by telegraph to the stations where the cruisers lie the exact location of the mischievous trawlers that engage in these illegal practices. Another criticism is this: my information leads me to believe that the officers of these fishery cruisers have not a sufficient inducement offered to them to make any extraordinary effort to effect captures. In fact, I am told on excellent authority, that in one case where a fishery cruiser, in a tour around Shetland, captured no less than nine trawlers, that so far from being complimented or promoted for that
    1014
    service, the chief officer was almost forthwith transferred to another station.
    Very little attention is paid to the complaints of the fishermen. Complaints do not appear to reach Edinburgh. They certainly do not reach the Lord Advocate or the Secretary for Scotland. When a fisherman sends a complaint by telegram to Edinburgh, what happens? A letter comes back by post probably a week later—very rarely sooner than a week—simply acknowledging the receipt of the complaint, and saying that it Will receive attention. Sometimes it has attention, but very often not. When it does have attention, what form does it take? Some representative of the Fishery Board goes to the locality and interviews the fishermen. I am told—I am quoting information the fishermen have given to me themselves, and I do not see why they should say it if it is not true—that some of these officers are not always as conciliatory as they might be. They browbeat the fishermen, and their desire seems to be to break down the case of the fishermen, instead of inquiring into the truth of it with a view to taking that drastic action that the necessities of the case demand. Reference was made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Andrew's Burghs to the injury done to the hatcheries around the coast. The Fishery Board, at very great expense, has laid down these hatcheries. Yet very often these illegal trawlers run in, scoop up the immature fish, and also destroy the tackle of the line fishermen, and waste a large amount of money.
    These cruisers can hardly expect to be very successful. They have to set out on a hunt against trawlers, fishing with their lights out, while the cruiser has all her lights burning like a great floating hotel. What we want is surprise patrols and not ornamental promenades. We want cruisers to go out, I will not say with their lights out, but we want them to go out as if they did not want to be detected, but wanted to detect somebody else. I am told that a great deal of trouble results from the fact that the head fishery office staff is overworked. If that is the case, it is the duty of the Government to ask for some larger grant and to have a sufficient staff that may adequately discharge its functions. The facts are that the line fishermen in Aberdeenshire are losing their living because these trawlers—to the legitimate operations of which we do not object—are encouraged by the supineness and carelessness and indifference of the

    1015
    authorities to pursue their illegal trading. They are destroying the living of hundreds and thousands of the most deserving race, and of the finest men in the country. I ask the Scottish Office to devote a little more attention to the North-east of Scotland, and I hope the next time I have an opportunity of putting a question to the Lord Advocate as to what is going on he may be in a position to obtain information to satisfy my legitimate curiosity.
    Mr. PIRIE: I must enter a humble caveat against some of the statements made on this subject. I wish to put forward an aspect of the question which will command the sympathy and approval of friends of the line fishermen. I refer to a state of affairs in Moray Firth which are as inimical to the interests of the line fishermen as they are to the fishing industry of the country generally. This information did not come to me from the Scottish Office, but was dragged out of the Treasury in answer to a question of mine as to the working of the Act with regard to the prevention of trawling in limited areas. That information was to the effect that last year that thirty-eight foreign trawlers had been reported as fishing in the Moray Firth. A measure was passed with the distinct object of preventing trawling in the Moray Firth, and the result is that thirty-eight trawlers are reported as fishing there. I do not go into the arguments for or against each of the two great branches of the fishing industry which ought to work together. There is only one solution of this problem. Either that Moray Firth ought to be opened or it ought to be closed. Anything is better than the present system.
    [Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present]——
    I desire to call attention to the very late hour at which we are conducting this Debate. I think the point I was dealing with was one quite worthy of being brought forward. Surely we are not asking too much by insisting upon one day for the discussion of Scotch business. Under the circumstances, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Mr. URE: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Motion. I think we have almost concluded our discussion on the Fishery Board Vote and there remains
    1016
    only two other Votes. There will be another opportunity for discussion on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.
    Mr. PIRIE: I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I wish to join in the protest which the hon. Member for North Aberdeen has made against the consideration of Scottish business at this late hour. My hon. Friend has moved to report Progress, and the reasons he has given are such as the common-sense of the House will readily accept. There is only one day during the whole Session upon which Scottish Members have any opportunity of discussing Scottish administration and Scottish affairs, and on that day how have the Government behaved? They have put down an important Private Bill with the result that an hour-and-a-half of the most valuable part of the sitting was occupied discussing that measure. Surely, under the circumstances, it is not too much to demand that, as we only get one day a year—and some years not even one day—for the consideration of all the most important branches of administration in Scotland, we should have a complete day. It ought to be a day which would give full opportunity of raising the various matters of vital interest to the people of Scotland. You have to get a most important statement from the Government with regard to the Fishery Board, a statement which is awaited with great interest among the fishing communities of Scotland, and obviously it cannot be reported at this late hour. When that is concluded we have to discuss the whole question of education in Scotland, and it is treating Scotland shabbily to ask us to do so after one o'clock in the morning. It is a scandal and a disgrace that Scotch interests should be treated in this fashion, and our case is complete for reporting Progress.
    1.0 A.M.
    2.0 I ask the Government to accept this Motion, and to give us another day for the discussion of Scotch administration. We can well occupy a full day on local government alone without any consideration for the vast question of education. That is a reasonable demand, even if it prolongs the Session a day. If I am denied, then I say, let them give us a guarantee that the Report will be given at a time when other questions affecting Scotland can be fully discussed. If they could arrange to put down the Report for seven or eight in the evening that would give us two or three hours. I hope the Government will

    1017
    not take up an attitude which is absolutely unsympathetic and uncompromising. It is reasonable to ask that these important questions should not be rushed through at this hour in the morning. Some of us have questions from our constituencies which we have been waiting months to raise. No doubt we shall have a late sitting if anything like justice is done to the important matters to be brought forward, and I appeal to the Lord Advocate, and especially to the Patronage Secretary, whether an opportunity could not be given, if even only for a few hours, when these important questions affecting Scotland can be brought forward. He knows that action of this kind cannot be popular in Scotland, and I therefore appeal to the Government generally to pay a little more heed to the simple request we are making that we should have a further opportunity for considering the interests of Scotland.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: I wish to join in the protests made by the two previous speakers, and to urge upon the Government the necessity of reporting Progress. The very important question of education has still to come on, I suppose at about two o'clock in the morning. There is a motion on the Paper in the name of one of their own supporters, impugning the action of the Department. I therefore hope the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Pirie) will have the courage of his opinion and take a division upon this motion.
    Sir WALTER MENZIES: May I say that I should only agree to report Progress provided we are allowed another day to discuss the Education Vote.
    MASTER of ELIBANK: I would ask my hon Friend not to press this motion to report Progress. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir Henry Dalziel) understands that we cannot reopen Supply. It is necessary for us to get the Report stage to-morrow under what is known as the guillotine. No one is more anxious to see Scottish affairs fully discussed than myself. I should like to point out that we have really discussed Scottish affairs for the same length of time as if this Private Bill had not been introduced. I would, therefore, appeal to him not to press this motion as there is a general feeling in all quarters of the House that we should complete this Scottish business to-night.
    Mr. PIRIE: I do not desire to act against the wishes of the Committee, and by permission of the Committee I will withdraw my motion to report Progress.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. PIRIE: I wish to finish my remarks in regard to the Prevention of Trawling in Prohibited Areas Act of last year. I say it is of no use. What has happened? Thirty-eight trawlers have been caught fishing in the Moray Firth, while British trawlers have been excluded. That makes it an actual preserve for the foreigners to the detriment of the British industry. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Cathcart Wason) has referred to the question of fines. It is really an unworthy proceeding, and I said so last year.
    Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON: With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Pirie) as to the working of the Illegal Trawling Prevention Act, I think his reference to the thirty-eight trawlers which had been observed in the Moray Firth since the passing of that Act must refer to trawlers that have been seen on thirty-eight occasions, and not thirty-eight separate trawlers, which is a very different thing. There are three or four trawlers which habitually disregard the wishes of this country, which come over from Ostend or Dutch ports to fish in the area of the Moray Firth. The hon. member for North Aberdeen may be interested to know the opinion of the fishermen who suffered from these depredations whose opinions I took occasion to ascertain some four days ago. I have a telegram from the fishing port of Burghead saying: "Fishermen satisfied that the Act has done good. Fish more Plentiful." Here is a telegram from Hopeman: "Fishermen highly satisfied with the Illegal Trawling Prevention Act." I have also a telegram from Lossiemouth: "Fishermen fairly pleased with Trawling Act. Not now troubled by English, but only by Dutch trawlers."
    Mr. WATT: Was that from the Town Clerk?
    Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON: No, it is not from the Town Clerk, but from the fishing people. I have always held the opinion that sooner or later the question of the bonâ fide trawler would have to be reconsidered. My view is that the only effective means of preventing trawling in areas where trawlers do so much damage to

    1019
    immature fish is by other countries as well as ourselves joining in an international agreement for the scheduling of areas in the North Sea, such as the Dogger Bank, for the protection of immature fish. It is well known to trawlers and all who take an interest in fishing matters that if you trawl to any excess in a fishing area such as the Dogger Bank, you do damage to the trawling industry and destroy immature fish. We have the instance of what Russia has done in regard to the White Sea in the way of preventing trawling fifty miles off the coast. There is a desire to extend the territorial waters, but it is only the Foreign Office of this country which hangs back in the supposed interests of certain Grimsby and Aberdeen trawlers. For the sake of that one industry alone our Foreign Office hangs back from assisting in an international movement. Several other countries have approached our Foreign Office but without success. When it comes to the question of pearl fishing off the island of Ceylon we claim territorial waters for considerably more than three miles. If German pearl fishers ventured inside those limits our Foreign Office would doubtless have something to say. For all these reasons, I think that what we have done, although it has been beneficial, does not go far enough. The time will come when the question will again have to come to the fore, and the Foreign Office will have to move with the spirit of the times and take further steps in the matter.
    Mr. NEWTON: I rise for the purpose of supporting the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, in which he impressed on the Government very forcibly the view that attention should be paid to the depredations of foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth. I have heard the whole of the arguments used during this Debate, but it was not until the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen that this point with regard to foreign trawlers was brought to the attention of the representative of the Scottish Office. There are many English fishermen—and I represent some of them—who feel strongly that so long as Acts are passed to restrict the number of English fishermen in the Moray Firth it is necessary that Acts of at least equal stringency should be passed to suppress the depredations of foreign trawlers. It is felt to be a very serious grievance that foreigners should be admitted to waters from which English fishermen are excluded. I do earnestly hope that the
    1020
    representative of the Scottish Office will pay some attention to the speeches made on his own side of the House on this question.
    Mr. SEDDON: I wish, in a very few words, to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I have done this on former occasions, and I think the Lord Advocate should give a definite undertaking to the people of Shetland that something will be done so far as the herring fishing is concerned. In certain parts of Shetland where the villagers used to get a precarious living by their fishing their living is now absolutely destroyed. The interest of these residents is much more important than that of financiers, whether English or foreign, and one of the chief complaints of the Shetland people is this, that these whaling companies are permitted to come into these waters. Norwegians who have been evicted from their own waters are permitted to come to Shetland simply because certain people have money in these companies, and are getting high dividends, and consequently the permanent officials are saying nothing against it. It may be said that science has not determined whether whaling interferes with herring fishing or not, but the fact is that the herring are gone, and if it were only to give these people the satisfaction of knowing that the Scottish Office is not influenced by people who have money invested in these whaling companies, the Scottish Office would be doing a good thing if they paid attention to this subject. Having been in these regions I appreciate the fact that the people are law-abiding. I believe they are a long-suffering people, but, as the leader of the Opposition once said, there are limits to human endurance, and if these limits are reached, you will have much more work cut out for you, and be put to much greater expense to put down lawlessness than you would in having an inquiry and in giving these people the assurance that the Scottish Office is not pandering to the wealthy to the detriment of the poor people living there.
    Mr. AINSWORTH: I desire to add my testimony to what has been said by the hon. Member for Elgin as to the necessity of closer union between the Fishery Board and the interests of the fishermen. A wish has been expressed that we should have one man on the Board personally interested in the fishing trade. But why

    1021
    only one? Why should they not all be intimately acquainted with the fishing trade? I think that carries with it the admission that the Fishery Board, as constituted at present, is hardly in touch with the fishing industry. We have on the west coast a most important question that we have again and again tried to get the Fishery Board to deal with, namely, the question of a close time for herrings. Everybody who knows anything about this question knows that the Loch Fyne trade has for some time been in a most depressed condition. What we want is that the Fishery Board should deal with the question. There is also the question of harbours of refuge. Everybody who knows the Clyde knows the great importance of harbours of refuge coming up from the lower waters of the river. Especially just now, when we have an opportunity of getting money from the Development Fund, why cannot the Fishery Board satisfy themselves as to what harbours—and especially harbours of refuge—are required, and then approach the Development Board and get the necessary funds. I hope the Government will remember that the present Fishery Board comes to an end at the beginning of next year. Then the whole question can be dealt with, and I hope they will think it out in the meantime and decide what to do. In England you have a Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and as far as agriculture is concerned its power extend over Scotland as well. If the Fishery Board were thrown in with the Board of Agriculture we would have a Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland, with a Parliamentary Secretary representing both interests in this House. We should have somebody here who would be responsible, and we should be able to do something more than has been done in the past to deal with this matter which affects so much the future welfare of the population.
    Mr. G. YOUNGER: I am sorry to interpose for a moment, but the speech of the hon. Member for Argyll compels me to say that he has raised a question on which there are acute differences of opinion, namely, a close time for herrings on the west coast. A large body of fishermen is opposed to a close time, and one of the reasons why the Fishery Board refuses to support such a proposal is, I believe, because they do not see the possibility of enforcing it. That I believe to be one of the serious difficulties
    1022
    of the question. I do not know how it may be with the last suggestion of the hon. Member as to the composition of the Fishery Board, but I do not agree with him that the Fishery Board should be composed of people engaged in or well acquainted with the fishing industry. I never found two fishing people who had the same opinion about anything. I have never forgotten that the very first time I went to my Constituency as a candidate I was introduced on board a steamer to a man who said he would put me up to all the intricacies and difficulties I would have to face on the subject. He discoursed to me volubly on the subject for two hours. I thanked him for the information he had given me. He said, "Yes, I have told you all I know." I said good-bye to him, and his last word was, "There's nae mon kens naething aboot herrings." I think he was about right. I have found out nothing about the habits of herrings, where there should be close times, trammel nets or seine nets. On the whole I think the Fishery Board as at present constituted does its work very well, and that the members of the Board are anxious to do what they can to increase and improve the fishing industry, and I certainly deprecate the addition of a large number of practical fishermen to that Board, because I am perfectly certain it would mean confusion worse confounded.
    Mr. URE: No one who has listened to the discussion, which I hope will now draw to a close, will be inclined to disagree with the anonymous friend of the hon. Member for Ayr. There are no questions discussed by this House about which there is so much honest difference of opinion as with regard to these fishery questions. The hon. Member for St. Andrews complains that illegal trawling has increased and that patrolling is less efficient. The information in the hands of the Fishery Board is exactly to the contrary. Complaints of illegal trawling have almost absolutely closed, as far as the Fishery Board are concerned, and they are at present under the honest belief that the coasts of Scotland were never better patrolled than now. Especially does that apply to the coast of Fife. A cruiser is detached, which constantly patrols that coast, and it is also the object of surprise visits from time to time by a couple of cruisers. The result is that, so far as the information in possession of the Fishery Board goes, the coast of Fife is excellently

    1023
    patrolled, and the coasts of Scotland are most efficiently protected from illegal trawling. My Friend the hon. Member for East Aberdeen complained that the statistics which are available in the hands of the Fishery Board have not been made available to him. He reminds me that three or four days ago I said to him that I had supplied all the statistics in my possession. That is perfectly accurate. Let me remind him that there was a supplementary Question, and that in the answer to that I said that I had given all the statistics in my possession, but I was not asked whether those were the whole of the statistics in the possession of the Fishery Board. As to the Bell Rock Lighthouse, for three miles out and around the shores we are inside the territorial waters, where we can enforce our legal rights, but for diplomatic reasons it has been thought desirable that we should not stand on the summit of our rights in the waters surrounding the Bell Rock any more than we do in the waters around the Eddystone. I am not sure that we really suffer seriously by our failure to exclude that particular area. I am sorry to hear that those who are convicted of illegal trawling show the bad taste of going to prison instead of paying the fine. If that act of folly continues, then I think we shall require to take into consideration the very admirable and cogent suggestion made by the Member for St. Andrew's Burghs with regard to the operation of penalties. But we shall wait and see whether that is not a passing phase.
    An HON. MEMBER: It has been going on for three or four years.
    Mr. URE: It will probably come to an end very soon. I understand there were fewer and fewer during the past year. Another hon. Member, the representative of Orkney and Shetland, has called attention to the whaling industry. I do not quite understand what the complaint is. As we all know we passed an Act of Parliament two years ago for regulating the whaling industry. Is the complaint that the Act is not properly enforced, or that the Act is ineffective? We have licensed a certain number of companies and have placed them under strict regulations, and I cannot understand what it is really in the whaling industry which injures the herring. Is it the killing of whales or the leaving of whales alive? Is the presence
    1024
    of whales deleterious to the herring fisheries or is the absence of whales? There again we find difference of opinion, and it is as difficult to decide as on any other question. There is nothing to enquire about, because you find one man gives one view and another man another view. We all know that the fluctuations in the appearances of herrings are great, without being able to trace any cause of it. It is impossible, therefore, to say that the whaling near these far off islands has affected the herrings either one way or the other. A far more important question was raised by the hon. Member for Elgin Burghs and the hon. Member for the Inverness Burghs when they drew attention to the question of harbours. The Fishery Board do their best with the limited sum at their disposal. I understand they have given a very considerable sum for the harbour of Nairn. Even although it has not been sufficient, still, with the money at their disposal, they have done their best.
    Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: That was ten years ago. The request now is for assistance in the present difficulty. The Harbour Authorities of Nairn interviewed the Secretary for Scotland when he was in Inverness a year ago, and he told them that Nairn ought to consult the Fishery Board. Nairn has consulted the Fishery Board, but the Board has taken no steps to give its opinion or advice. I should like it to be impressed on the Board that it is its business to give advice on the question. If it has no money it can at least give advice.
    Mr. URE: The Fishery Board, I am sure, will be extremely glad. I will see that they give the best advice as to how to deal with the harbour. But I would advise my hon. Friend the Member for the Inverness Burghs to press their claims and see that the funds which will be placed at their disposal are wisely used. With regard to the harbours throughout the coasts of Scotland I quite recognise the lack of them. It is a question which well deserves the consideration of the Board. I think those are all the points raised. There is one other question. I think the time has not yet arrived in which you can really come to a final decision in regard to the effect of the trawling in the prohibited areas. It has only been in operation for a comparatively limited period, but it is significant that those who are most closely

    1025
    interested in the question, namely, the fishermen in the Moray Firth, are perfectly satisfied with the operation of the Act. No complaints have been made to the Fishery Board in regard to them. It is perfectly true that thirty-eight cases of foreign trawlers have been observed in the Moray Firth. Nobody has pretended that the Act would effectually exclude trawlers from the Firth. What it was hoped would be done, and what to a large extent has been done, has been to prevent them landing their catches, thereby discouraging that particular form of trawling, for the best of all reasons that they have to take their catch to a foreign port, and therefore the profits would be exceedingly small. It has been found by experience to be far more profitable for them to trawl elsewhere than in the Moray Firth, with the result that the trawling has practically ceased. I do not say for a moment that we can pronounce a final opinion that the Act has been a complete success. But so far as we have gone it has been successful.
    Mr. PIRIE: You said that a few months ago. But it is an absolute failure.
    Mr. URE: Nobody can tell in so limited a time. It is an experiment. We all knew that it was purely experimental. The experiment up to now has proved a success, and if we wait a little longer we shall be able to pronounce a final opinion upon it. So far as experience goes it would seem as if it were a very unprofitable thing to trawl fish in the Moray Firth and land them in a foreign port.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question with regard to the whaling stations? These whaling stations were abandoned in Norway because the Norwegians found the herring fishery was ruined owing to the whaling operations. Since they moved to Shetland we find that exactly the same state of affairs has arisen, namely, that where these companies carry on whaling operations the herring fishery has gone down steadily year by year, and is almost worse than ever it was before. The Government ought to consider whether they cannot meet the moderate demand the people of that country are making, namely, that for a short time—say, for one or two months in the year—whaling operations should be prohibited in these waters. The right hon. Gentleman said he would see what he
    1026
    could do. The fault rests really with the previous Governments, but we are dealing with facts as they are. I think there is a case made out for a close time of one month in order that we may see whether that would not have the effect of restoring to the West coast of Scotland the prosperity which it enjoyed in former years. In regard to the increase in the herring catch this year it has taken place entirely in parts which are not frequented by whalers.
    Mr. PIRIE: All I can say with regard to the answer of the Lord Advocate is, that it is the lamest answer I have ever heard made by a legal luminary. Everyone of the difficulties predicted by the opponents of the Bill have so far been proved up to the hilt. The foreigners are going on with the trade because it is profitable. This measure is typical of so many other Scottish measures. The Government seem to think that obstinacy is a sign of strength, but obstinacy is a sign of weakness, and it is because weakness is at the head of the Scottish Office that they have listened to no representations. It is true that the Bill was more a political kite intended to catch votes. The Government are sheltering themselves behind the constitutional question in order to avoid criticism. I protest against it not only in the interests of my Constituents, but in the interests of the fishermen themselves. I am really surprised that the Lord Advocate should have led himself to so inimical an act.
    Mr. URE: I am afraid the hon. Member could not have heard me. Those in whose interests and for whose benefit the Act was passed are satisfied with the results.
    Mr. PIRIE: Faked telegrams.
    Mr. URE: They say, and they ought to know best, that they are satisfied with its operation.
    Mr. PIRIE: Not at all.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I am not at all surprised that the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Pirie) is not prepared to divide the House on this question, because in the Division last year he only got one Member to vote with him. I should like the Lord Advocate, if he can, to tell me for what diplomatic reason the Government are not prepared to draw the ordinary territorial line of three miles

    1027
    around the Bell Rock? He admits the Bell Rock to be British territory. I should also like to know whether they have any intentions of reopening the question of the three-mile limit, and whether there is any objection to what my Constituents ask for, that a fresh line should be drawn somewhere south of Aberdeen so as to give them the benefit of the legislation passed last year for the benefit of the fishermen of the Moray Firth.
    Mr. URE: I am afraid I cannot hold out to my hon. Friend any hope. With regard to the diplomatic reasons I will communicate with the hon. Member.
    Mr. NEWTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman also communicate those reasons to me? For my Constituents are also equally interested.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    [CLASS 4, VOTE 8.]

    PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,453,725, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for public education in Scotland, and for science and art in Scotland, including a Grant in Aid." [NOTE.—£800,000 has been voted on account.]
    Sir WALTER MENZIES: I am exceedingly sorry to have to bring this very difficult question before the Committee at this very untimely hour, and I ask their forbearance. I only bring it forward because it is most important. It can be answered favourably by the Lord Advocate without raising any question of international law, because it is purely a matter of internal administration. The Committee will remember that I have always been opposed to the scheme of allocation from the moment it saw the light. I consider it unjust and unfair. It forces on the mind of anyone who looks at the figures the feeling that there is bias, a bias in favour of certain counties. I do not believe there is any bias for or against any county, but when one looks at the figures he is bound to suppose there is some bias. It is not only unjust, but in my opinion it is illegal. Hon. Members will remember that there were two schemes of allocation brought forward. The first was withdrawn very shortly after it was produced. That scheme was, in my
    1028
    opinion, in strict accordance with the letter and spirit of the Act. Unfortunately, owing no doubt to previous errors of distribution, it did not give to every education district a share of the increased Treasury grant. These districts grumbled, but if the then existing distribution was wrong, it would have been the duty of the Secretary for Scotland to do what was right, and to amend the Act. The Act was not amended.
    It was said that the words of the Act were flexible; that there was nothing rigid or peremptory about it; and a new scheme of allocation was produced actually within two or three days of the first scheme. As if by the movement of a magician's wand twenty or thirty thousand pounds was deducted from the grants which had been made under the first scheme to the industrial education districts. Now, I hold as strongly as it is possible for me to do that there should be no words in any Act of Parliament which would allow the Secretary for Scotland, or the Education Department, or the Lord Advocate, or anyone else to so alter and manipulate the figures as to take £20,000 or £30,000 from certain localities and give it to another without alteration of the Act. I took occasion last year to show how this allocation worked according to the actual average attendance in schools, and I have asked time after time for any reason why, for instance, Dumbartonshire should receive 9s. 3d., Lanarkshire 9s. 5d., Linlithgowshire 9s. 1d., and Renfrewshire—all industrial districts, mark you—9s. 8d. per head of the pupils in average attendance at State-aided schools, whereas, for no reason I have yet been given, Berwickshire has 18s., Orkney 23s., Peebles 20s., Selkirkshire 17s., and Wigtonshire 17s. No man has ever given me a reason why there should be this difference, and I ask hon. Members to remember that I do not make this complaint without having made inquiry at every reasonable source as to the reason for these differences. I have been told that when you consider secondary education, and bursaries and medical inspection, circulating teachers, assistants in small schools, and a lot of subsidiary services it will be found that there is no reason for complaint and that these seemingly unjust figures would turn out all right. I waited patiently for a year, and I find that the allocation of money to elementary schools, after you have deducted all these expenses, is of the most extraordinary nature. Dumfriesshire, for

    1029
    instance, gets 9d. per pupil towards the cost of elementary schools, Kinross 8½d., Kircudbrightshire 9d.; whereas Edinburgh has 8s. 8d., Wigtonshire 10s. id., and Glasgow 10s. 3d. I have asked, time after time, for the reason, and the only reason I have been given for this extraordinary diversity of grant is that secondary education would explain it. It does not explain it to me.
    It is only fair to the Department to say that there is the very widest discrepancy in the amounts paid by various education districts for secondary education. For example—and I should like the Lord Advocate, who has the most marvellous memory for figures of any man I ever knew, would explain this to me—in Aberdeenshire out of £17,365, 86 per
    cent. is spent on secondary education and the subsidiary objects to which I have alluded, and 14 per cent. on elementary education, whereas in Glasgow 6 per cent. of £50,000 is spent on secondary education and 94 per cent. on elementary. I think it is an extraordinary state of things that this should occur under one grant. My object is to try to explain to the Committee that this is an unjust allocation. I should like to say in passing that out of a balance of £421,000 £225,000 appears to be divided among 30,000 pupils, while £196,000 is divided among 727,000 pupils. It is an altogether disproportionate provision. I should like in very few words to call the attention of the Committee to my own Constituency. It suffers more, if I may say so, than any other constituency in Scotland. In the last distribution of seats the constituency of South Lanarkshire was apparently carved out as a purely agricultural constituency, whereas the other three constituencies in Lanarkshire are industrial and coal-mining districts. This constituency of South Lanarkshire is as large as a county; it is larger than most. I have brought this matter before the Secretary for Scotland when he was in this House, and he gave me this answer on 24th November, 1908. Members can see that I have been working to get this injustice removed for two years. He said:—
    "It would be quite possible to consider whether the special circumstances of a district such as South Lanark were not of sufficient magnitude to justify the creation of a special district committee for that special district."
    I need hardly say that nothing whatever was done in the matter. Nothing has been done, and the injustice not only remains, but is even greater than anyone would suppose it was. I would
    1030
    like to make a little comparison between my own Constituency and that of Berwickshire. In Berwickshire there are 300,000 acres; in South Lanark 400,000. The population is almost as sparse. The population in South Lanark is 136 per acre; in Berwickshire it is 14. The important consideration in this matter is the valuation and the education rate, because the Act says that the greater aid shall he given to those districts in which per head of population the burden of expenditure on education purposes is excessive as compared with the valuation. Well, I trust to prove that the valuation per head of the population in South Lanark is £8 17s. 5d., whereas in Berwickshire it is £10 3s. The education rate in Berwickshire is 8½d. on the average, and in South Lanark 9d. Now, by the Act it ought to be that South Lanark should have a greater amount per head of pupils in average attendance at State-aided schools than Berwickshire has. But, on the contrary, and without any reason that any human being can explain or that I have elicited from the Front Bench, Berwickshire gets 18s. 3d. per pupil, and South Lanarkshire gets 9s. 7d. And after deducting what is paid for secondary education one would have supposed that the average amount would have been the same because of the similarity of the constituencies. But it is not so. Berwickshire gets 6s. after secondary education and all the bursaries and everything else have been deducted, and South Lanark gets 3s. 10d. That is contrary to the Act. It might very well be said that this allocation gives greater aid where the valuation is high and the expenditure on education is low; but where the population is poor and the valuation is low, and the education rate is high, the Education Department steps in and gives a low Grant. "To him that hath," the Education Department says, "shall be given; from him who bath not shall be taken even that which he hath."
    I intend to make one or two other comparisons which are quite as fruitful as that as to the extraordinary nature of the allocation. I will only ask the Committee to remember this—that I put all this before the Lord Advocate last year, and he told us that £190,000 was distributed according to population: £94,000 according to the Act, £6,000 for highland counties, and one or two more particulars he gave. Every item of that allocation is distinctly and

    1031
    directly opposed to the Act. I asked him to explain why the law was administered in this way. The Act of Parliament provides in Clause 15 that the grant provided by the Imperial Exchequer shall no longer be applied or distributed as heretofore, but shall be distributed in accordance with the definite principle stated in Clause 16, II. And Clause 16, II., says: "The scheme of education is to be prepared which is to be so framed as to give greater aid to those districts in which per head of the population the burden of expenditure on educational purposes is excessive as compared with the valuation of the district." I have given you one concrete instance. I could give you more, and I only spare you because of the very late hour. But these concrete instances show—I cannot say it too often—that the Scottish education fund is being administered entirely and absolutely contrary to the Act of Parliament of 1908. In his speech defending it on 1st July, 1909, the Lord Advocate said:—
    "Experience will doubtless enable us to make the distribution a sound basis in future"
    I will give the Lord Advocate credit for this—he has never for one moment defended that allocation, and I do not think he will do it even now. He said in the same speech:—
    "When we have made our distribution and gained our experience, we will prepare to distribute our money next year on even a better system than that now disclosed."
    I can honestly say that no possible distribution could be worse, and if he says there will be a new distribution I should be the last man to divide this House on the matter. If I am told the allocation is to be changed, if I am even told that the allocation of these moneys will probably be changed, then I will not divide the House. But if I am told again that they want to garner further experience, that they want to wait another year, that there are certain balances which were brought forward from other years, that they want still to wait, that they want, in fact, to stereotype the injustice, then, if I can get any Members to go into the Lobby with me I will certainly, even at this late hour, divide the House. In conclusion, I will just paraphrase one sentence of the Lord Advocate. All I can say is that I want fair play and nothing more, but I will not take less.
    2.0 A.M.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: The speech to which we have just listened deals with nothing but a purely financial question. The great question of education which touches Scotland more deeply than any other will be dealt with in a few minutes after two o'clock, without a single mention of any purely educational matter. Had I been able to agree with any of the conclusions of the hon. Member I would gladly dissemble my love for the Government and go into the Lobby against them, although I fear I should have been disappointed, but so far not a single Member opposite has stood up for his own proposals, not even the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Pirie). But, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with the conclusions of the hon. Member. One thing I can say from some experience and that is that the Government in any scheme for the distribution of this sum of money will have just as many opponents as they have on this one. We have met with the same thing over and over again in the old days, and I defy even the archangel himself to find a scheme of distribution which will satisfy any but a very small mind. The Act says certain things are to be kept in view in the distribution. It does not say that these are to be the sole and universal guiding things, or that nothing else is to enter into it. It would be a very serious matter indeed for educational administration if you had dislocated the whole work by diminishing the Grant which is now much bigger than has hitherto been given. That would have been a serious disturbance, and would have upset many schemes of local authorities, and it would not have been improved by a few local authorities getting larger sums than they bad before. What you have to try for is to make a fair distribution, and a part of that fairness is that it should be on a level with what has gone before, so as to enable the school boards in different localities to carry on much the same work they have hitherto done. One of the essential benefits of the minute is that it is subject to change.
    The whole question of the incidence of local taxation and the assistance the rates ought to have from Imperial Grants and other subsidies, is a question which must be dealt with on a large basis. Do not try to figure it out by altering this allocation. Do it on a large and complete scale. I assert, after a careful consideration, that looking all round upon the needs of the different localities

    1033
    in Scotland, and looking upon what is their past expenditure and the necessity of not disturbing them unduly, that on the whole the Government, in the scheme they have laid before the House, have done what is wise for all parties. To try to measure the Grants by the amount of the local rates, by the exact proportion of average attendance or population, or by the rateable value in each case, is unwise. To fancy that this will give you the best and most equitable distribution all over Scotland would be mere pedantry, and you would find that after you had spent months or years in trying to introduce it you would have just as many opponents as you have to this scheme. I trust that the Secretary for Scotland will not be persuaded to proceed with any undue rapid change. Let him, as fast as he can, get to the much larger point of the Imperial subsidies to local rates. But that question has nothing to do with education. If we could only eliminate these financial questions for our annual discussion we should have much more interesting educational topics discussed in their place. Had it been possible for me to do so I should have tried to do my duty in opposing the Government. I cannot find sufficient reasons in the proposals of the hon. Member for adopting this course, even if I believed he would have the backbone and strength of will to carry his threats into execution, which I very much doubt. So far as I can speak for my hon. Friends on this side of the House, we shall heartily support the Lord Advocate if he goes to a Division.
    Mr. GODFREY COLLINS: I am also here under a very strong sense of duty. Judging from the empty state of the benches opposite and the crowded benches on this side, it seems that the Liberal Members have a greater sense of duty than the Opposition. I rise to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for South Lanark (Sir Walter Menzies). I represent a constituency which, unfortunately, is in the same state as regards the educational Grants as South Lanark. Greenock used to receive £800 as a residue Grant from the Government, but during the past two years that sum has not been received, and it is only natural that there is a considerable dissatisfaction owing to the new rules. Last year, when the question was brought up, the Lord Advocate said that these Grants were not like the laws of the Medes and Persians. I hope that in another year that
    1034
    we may see the Grants altered, and that those districts which are not receiving the average amount for the whole country will have their Grants raised proportionately. Also I wish to draw attention to the circulars sent out by the Education Department to local school boards, which I understand are sent out by the Scottish Education Department in London from time to time. Would it not be possible for the Board of Education to put together the different circulars and send them out to the different school boards once a year, and, if possible, to invite the co-operation of the school boards along the lines they wish carried out? It seems to me very necessary, if they are going to continue to rely upon men who give their time to school board work, to carry them with them in the changes they make. Would it not be possible for the Scottish Education Department to consult and send on advance proofs to the school boards of the country, invite criticism and suggestion, and then allow a certain time to elapse before the new rules are put into force? It seems to me that the Education Department differs from the ordinary State Departments. In the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Service the instructions of the head office are carried out by paid officials at their different branches, but in the Education Department they depend on the support they receive from men who give their time voluntarily to local school board work. If they could carry with them the School Boards in the different ways I have mentioned, they would get a higher estate of efficiency throughout the country.
    Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: I should like to support the Member for South Lanarkshire on the question of the distribution of the Education Fund. I agree with him that the distribution is not in accordance with the spirit of the Act. My Constituency has suffered severely under a distribution adopted by the Department, contrary to the intentions of the Act. I have always believed that that distribution would never hold. The hon. Member for Glasgow University said the Minute was open to change. Change is exactly what we want, and exactly what we cannot get. If you compare Leith with Edinburgh in this distribution it becomes clear how, under the Act, fair treatment could be given to both communities, but in the actual distribution most

    1035
    unfair treatment was accorded to one of them—that which I represent. As this distribution is so easily changed, then let it be changed. With respect to one of the new Orders regarding the numbers in classes, I agree that its object was admirable. The classes in a certain number of schools are excessive, and cannot be properly taught, but it has to be remembered that the cost of adapting the existing schools for smaller classes will in some cases be a very heavy burden on the ratepayers, and I think the rule should be adopted with due caution. Its object is admirable, and it is very much needed. Probably something in the form of a gymnasium could be attached to many of the school buildings which cannot be adapted for physical training.
    I think that facilities for physical training are perhaps the most urgent of the needs of educational establishments. I agree that the reduction of classes is very necessary in some schools, but it should not be insisted on all at once, and without making due allowance for the burdens which it would impose on some communities. There is one other point to which I would draw attention, and that is the character of the school buildings. One of the difficulties we have in reducing the numbers in the classes and re-adapting school buildings is the permanent character of those buildings, which have been elected on those rigid lines to which the Lord Advocate referred. I am not sure the Lord Advocate was right in referring to rigid lines. He was apparently comparing the modified regulations at Long Island with the rigid regulations which exist in the rest of the country. These rigid regulations did obtain up to quite recently, but I am glad to be able to recognise the fact that we are now erecting buildings which can be adapted to the changing requirements of education. I do not think there is any rigid rule now. At any rate, I hope that throughout the whole country the rules will be no more rigid than they promise to be in the new schools of the Long Island. I think the Department would give great relief and afford greater educational facilities, especially in furthering their policy of reducing excessive numbers in classes, if they gave a lead to the schools boards, and especially the smaller school boards. We are still cursed with the small educational area, and the small school board is generally in the hands of its architect, who desires to
    1036
    set up some memorial to himself which will be a lasting testimony to his agricultural skill, and his power of putting money into stone and lime. I think the Education Department can give a lead in the direction of cheap evening school equipment, and I hope they will do it on the mainland as well as on the Long Island.
    Captain WARING: I hope this prolonged Debate will prove to the Government the necessity of giving two days to the discussion of the Scottish Estimates. I wish to associate myself with the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire with regard to the distribution of Education Grants. I accompanied him into the Lobby last year on this question, and I will do so again. I will do so with the greater pleasure now with the knowledge that the Member for Glasgow University will be in the opposite Lobby. One question which my Constituents are interested in is the question of the education of children of that particular class which we call in Scotland wandering tinkers. If we thought the Children Act would solve this question we would rest content, but my information, obtained from authoritative sources, goes to show that the state of things in this respect, so far as my Constituency is concerned, is far from satisfactory. I have here a copy of a local paper from Banffshire, containing a letter from the Rev. George Shaw, of Dufftown, in which he says that he visited a tinkers' camp, and found a family of seven adults and three children, all housed under two covers, nine feet square each. As to their education, he says:—
    "One of them told me his children had no education, had never been to school, and could neither read nor write."
    That letter was written on 9th July last, and I think it goes to prove that the 118th Section of the Children 1908 Act, on which the Lord Advocate appears to rely, has not, at all events yet, penetrated as far as Banffshire. There is no doubt that it is not to the convenience of Scotland to permit families to wander about and camp all over the place so long, as the education of the children would be exceedingly difficult. They belong to no particular parish. Nobody knows who is to pay for their education. In the winter it is possible to get hold of the children. I have heard of children who were attached to a school for four months in one winter, but with the advent of summer that all came to an end. I wish to ask the Lord Advocate whether he cannot consider the possibility

    1037
    of really getting hold of these children and insisting on their proper education. The tinkers have only got to settle down and have a house in some town, then the males can wander to their hearts' content in the summer and the children could attend school. But as long as the Government recognises this system of vagrancy this question will be difficult to solve. I do not want to touch on the moral aspects of the matter: the life is a very healthy one, but whether it is good for morals I am not prepared to say. Are these children never employed at work? Do they never work under the age of fourteen? I would rather like to know whether there are any prosecutions under that head. The question is one of considerable importance. It interests very greatly an important section of my Constituents, and I would like some assurance from the Lord Advocate that if he intends to rely solely on that 118th Section of the Children 1908 Act, he will at all events stir up its dormant faculty in order that its beneficial effects might reach Banffshire before long.
    Mr. T. F. WILSON: I wish to say a word as to the speech of the hon. Member for South Lanark. I am glad to know that the distribution of the district education fund is not stereotyped, because the distribution as at present really affords some very extraordinary results. Kirkcudbrightshire gets 9d. per scholar in average attendance; Wigtonshire gets 10s. 1d. per scholar; Lanarkshire, which is looked upon as up to date, gets 3s. 10d.; and the City of Glasgow gets something over 10s. 3d. I do not give these figures as absolutely reliable, because there are other considerations to be taken into account. These are the results, however, as far as they have been given to me. I understand there are questions of balances brought forward from previous years, and also questions of some authorities doing a great amount of work, such as medical inspection, and others doing a less amount. Of course, there is a grouping of authorities. Those getting the larger Grants are thoroughly well satisfied with the distribution as at present. There is a group of authorities, a very large and important body, who are getting a smaller share, and they are thoroughly dissatisfied. Now, if the whole education money were put into a rate per £ in relief of taxation, the group of authorities which are getting the smaller Grants would be relieved to the
    1038
    extent of 3 18–120 pence; the groups getting the larger amount would be relieved by 3 20–120 pence. That is not a very great difference, but the average education rate in the group of authorities which is getting the smaller relief is no less than 2½d. in the £ in excess of the average rate in the group of authorities which is getting the larger Grant in relief. Now, the reading of the Act says that the true test is necessity—the needs of the different authorities. I suppose that means the financial means as well as the educational needs. I do hope the Lord Advocate will be able to tell us that this scheme of distribution of the Education Fund is not stereotyped, and that we will have a very early change in the method of distribution, and something more equitable decided upon. There is a matter to which the hon. Member for Leith Burghs referred to, and which has affected one of the districts that I represent, and that is the Order recently issued by the Education Department as to the size of class-rooms. The present size is sixty scholars. Probably that is too large. I think the new Order that is about to come out is that class-rooms are to be reduced to something like fifteen scholars. I will endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Leith Burghs—that I trust the Education Department will proceed with due caution in this matter, because it may involve an enormous burden on the already heavily burdened ratepayers.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: There is a very wide feeling throughout Scotland on this subject. I had the opportunity during the Easter Recess of going up to Scotland and seeing a new school which had just been provided under the old Code—an admirably built school, which has classes for sixty scholars. But as between sixty and fifteen I do hope very much that the Scottish Education Department will adopt a reasonable policy, and have regard to the existing situation in cases such as this where a school has just been provided, admirably sanitary and well equipped in every way.
    Mr. URE: I do not think I can be accused of taking a narrow, selfish, or biased view of the distribution of money under this Bill. The Member for South Lanarkshire would know that if there is one county treated more unfairly than another from his point of view it is the county of Linlithgow. My county receives

    1039
    apparently 9s. 1d., his county receives 9s. 5d., and the Member for Leith Burghs cries out with 10s. 1d. Obviously the reason why in our counties the valuation is high in proportion to the amount expended is that we receive a smaller Grant. Instead of being exasperated and joining in the grumbles of my hon. Friend, my bosom swells with pride to think that the valuation of the county I represent is so much higher than that of the neighbouring county. I am very well content to take my 9s. 1d., compared with his 10s. 1d. I have very little hesitation in giving an assurance that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities asks for, and the reason I give for that is that nobody has yet been able to produce another rival scheme which would have any reasonable hope of being accepted. This scheme is not ideal. No scheme could be ideal. It would not please everybody. But I may say that this scheme not only adheres closely to the spirit and letter of the Act, but it pleases a much larger number of local authorities than any other scheme yet produced, and until my hon. Friends are able to give us a rival scheme which they can demonstrate would please a larger number of authorities than that now on the Table, I hope the Government will stick to their scheme. There is only one other matter. I explained it at full length last year. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro Ferguson) says he hopes the Education Department will not insist upon too high a standard for school buildings. He may rest as sured that the Education Department will continue the policy they have hitherto pursued, and encourage thrift wherever it is possible.
    Sir WALTER MENZIES: I can only say with considerable regret that I have not received any satisfaction whatever. It is not a question of appealing to me to bring forward a scheme which will please the majority. The question is, is it right and is it according to the Act? I say it is neither according to the letter nor according to the spirit of the Act, and, therefore, I regret very much that I must go into the Lobby against the Government. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir Henry Craik) about my backbone, I may say that I have a backbone, I will not only oppose this
    1040
    allocation at this time, but so long as I am in this House.
    Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: There is one matter to which I would direct the attention of the Department, and that is an injustice under which my Constituents in Inverness suffer, the fact that their medical inspection scheme, which they were the first school board to introduce, is now being superseded by the scheme of the county. Under the Burgh scheme the actual cost of administration is considerably less, and they feel they are going to be asked now to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of other parts of the county in which the school rate is lower, and, further, that the efficiency of the scheme will suffer. I know the Department recognises the way in which the Inverness School Board attempted the introduction of the system of proper medical inspection, and I ask the Lord Advocate whether it would not be possible to allow them to continue the scheme they have so successfully introduced.
    Mr. PIRIE: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Lanark (Sir Walter Menzies) on his speech on this occasion. It is in great contrast with the speech he delivered earlier in the evening. It is ludicrous that in his speech earlier in the evening, and in that of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Molteno), they did not say a word of criticism on the person who is responsible for the state of affairs which the hon. Member has described as being so unjust, who is nobody but the Secretary for Scotland. I am glad he has backbone now and I shall certainly support him. I call to mind the incident in Committee when the Bill was first introduced, when the Scottish Office came down with different schemes after listening to different deputations, and the more numerous the deputation the more numerous the change. The scheme satisfied no one, and it was a ludicrous arrangement and should be protested against as long as it exists.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,453,725, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland, including a Grant in Aid."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 15.

    Division No. 106.]

    AYES.

    [3.0 a.m.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Hayward, Evan

    Seddon, James A.

    Allen, Charles Peter

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

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Shortt, Edward

    Bentham, George J.

    Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

    Soares, Ernest Joseph

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Clough, William

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Waring, Walter

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Millar, James Duncan

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Cowan, William Henry

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Muspratt, Max

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Falconer, James

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

    Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

    Furness, Stephen

    Pointer, Joseph

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Hancock, John George

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    NO.

    Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

    TELLERS FOR THE NO.—

    Mr. Remnant and Viscount Dalrymple.

    [CLASS 2, VOTE 31.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FOR SCOTLAND.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £12,190, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board for Scotland."—[NOTE.—£7,000 has been voted on account.]
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: There are some very important questions we desire to raise on this Vote, but it is obviously too late to discuss them with efficiency or success. Therefore I will simply content myself with making another protest against taking this important Vote at this hour of the morning. I hope we shall yet have an opportunity before the end of the Session of raising a large number of questions we have been requested to raise by our Constituents.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Wednesday; Committee to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    PORT OF LONDON (PORT RATES ON GOODS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
    Mr. MORTON: I beg to move, "That the consideration of the Bill be postponed until the accounts of the Port of London Authority for the year ended 31st March, 1910, have been published, as required by Section 24 (4) of the Port of London Act, 1908."
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not be entitled to move that. He may move that the Bill be considered upon this day three months, or he may move a direct negative.
    Mr. MORTON: Then I will move: "That the Bill be considered upon this day three months." When the Bill was before the House for Second Reading we complained that we had not last year's accounts presented, as required by the Act of Parliament, although that time was two or three months beyond the end of the financial year, 31st March, 1910. We thought we could get the accounts in Committee or before the Committee sat. That is my great cause of complaint to-night, because if these accounts had been presented in proper order it is probable that I would not have taken up the time of the House at all, as we should have got the matter considered in Committee. At the present moment we have no authentic knowledge at all of the state of these accounts, and what we claim is that unless we see them we have no means of coming to a determination as to whether or not it is right to make a charge on the food and necessaries of the people of London. In Committee the chairman of the Port of London Authority (Lord Kearley) was asked in regard to these accounts (Question 156) whether he suggested that he did not know what the revenue is, and his answer was, "I suggest that nobody knows, and I will take good care that nobody knows until the accounts are in their final position and audited by the Board of Trade auditor." Having put his foot in it, he modified that answer in reply to further questions, but the sum and substance was that he prevented any extract or summary of these accounts being presented. He stated in his evidence that they were to be presented, in the first instance, to Parliament. That is not a fact. The Act of 1908 simply says that they to be "published." Therefore, the Committee was in the extraordinary position that they were not told what had been the result of the working of the Port during the previous year, and that a considerable charge was to be made on the food and necessaries of the people of London, while the
    944
    Port Authority altogether refused to say what they were going to do with the revenue. I wonder what would be said if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on introducing his Budget, refused to give to the House and the country any account of last year's proceedings, or if when he said he was going to put on such and such taxes he would not tell the House how he was going to spend the money? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to do that, he would put the House in a position similar to that which the Committee were in when dealing with this Bill. No account was given of what has been spent during the past year, or how the money to be got from the new charges on the food and necessaries of the people of London is to be spent. All we could do in Committee was to get the tax taken off fish, and that, of course, is something. The President of the Board of Trade was, I think, quite satisfied that that charge should be taken off the list, but what astonishes me is that he ever put it there. This is a Provisional Order for which the Board of Trade is responsible. Having got that one article of food taken off the list, we—and when I say we I mean the Corporation of the City of London. which is the market authority for all London—wanted to get more articles taken out. We say that there are a good many articles which will be taxed under this Bill where the charges could be materially reduced. Evidence was given in one case that it would cost £1,000 to collect £1,000 of these dues. The articles which come under this Bill are several hundreds. In fact, almost every known and unknown thing you can think of is charged under this Bill. We have to think of the 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 of consumers in or about London. We are willing to help the traders if we can, because they are very often tenants of the Corporation. The question has been asked, Why do not the traders appear? Some of the traders have made bargains, and they think they have done the best they could, but we do not appear so much for the traders as the consumers. What appears to me most extraordinary is that a Free Trade country should introduce this Tariff Reform Budget in London. They may say that it is only a small charge, but whether small or large, it is getting in the thin end of the wedge, and it is an absolute charge on the food and necessaries of the people, which ought not to be put on unless you can give good reason.

    945
    They have given no reason. They will not give us the accounts, and, so far as my personal knowledge goes, there is no occasion for putting on a charge at all. When Parliament consented to the doubling of the tonnage dues on vessels using the Port of London there was provision made for plenty of money for everything the Port Authority could possibly do in the river. If they have paid three times what ought to have been paid for the docks——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member keeps harking back to the Act of 1908. That policy was decided by the House two years ago, and we have to accept it.
    Mr. MORTON: I did not intend to make use of that fact except to point out that the interest to be found under the Act itself amounts to £800,000 a year. I will not pursue that matter further. My great point is that until we can see the accounts we do not know that the money is wanted at all, and we do not know what it is going to be used for.
    If it is to be used for dredging and improvement of the Channel then the foundation of my opposition goes. But so far as my own personal knowledge goes, there is plenty of money for all those purposes without taxing the food of the people. Some people tell us that the authority has too much money, and that if we could only see these accounts they would prove that they do not want this extra charge. At any rate it is all a mystery at the present time. We cannot see these accounts. I do hope and trust that the President of the Board of Trade, recognising the public duty that is upon him in this matter, will allow this question to stand over until we see those accounts. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen them, but he ought to see that the people of London are dealt with fairly and honestly, so that we shall not have another Metropolitan Water Board game. Having had warning by that we should at least have proper information with regard to what is wanted now. I do not want to say it, but it is a fact that we shall have to go to the House of Lords for what we cannot get in the House of Commons, if we cannot get this information here. I am sorry to have to say so, but we shall do so. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will see that in fair play the people who are called upon to pay the money should be allowed to see the accounts so that they may know how the money is being spent. They have got
    946
    these accounts and will not show them. However, with the view of getting at the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade, and if possible of obtaining the information we require, I Move that this Bill be considered on this day three months.
    Mr. PEARCE: I formally second the Motion of my hon. Friend.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Morton) misapprehends the financial position at the present moment. He complains that the Port of London Authority have not, in accordance with the Provisional Order, yet published their accounts for the last financial year. But I do not think the two things have anything to do with one another, and for this reason: The Provisional Order which we are now discussing is framed under an Act of Parliament passed two years ago, under which the Port Authority were to draw up a schedule of rates in order to raise certain revenue for certain purposes.
    Mr. MORTON: It gave them power.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: Which, of course, is an instruction to them to do so. It is quite clear from the Clause that that was intended. During the time the matter was discussed it was perfectly obvious to every Member of the House when the Port Authority was created that not only would they do so, but——
    Mr. MORTON: The Board of Trade said they may; but except to provide for a sinking fund, according to the opinion of the Board of Trade at that time, they would not be required to do so.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: That is the first time I have heard such a statement as that, but I should have thought—and I had something to do with the drawing up of the Bill—and my right hon. Friend, who was then President of the Board of Trade, and the House of Commons understood that certain revenues would be required possibly for carrying on the work of the Port Authority, and certain moneys required to meet interest and sinking fund for any new capital which might be borrowed both for dredging and improving the port, including the docks——
    Mr. MORTON: New capital?
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: New capital and for other purposes, and that these moneys would have to be raised in this

    947
    way. My hon. Friend says that these accounts ought to be produced as a sort of Budget statement. But the matter before the House is not for this year, next year, or any particular year. It is a question of maximum rates, which will, as far as I know, never be required to the full extent. It is only giving power to the Port Authority to raise certain revenue for certain purposes, and I cannot think really that the question of the annual accounts of the present moment has anything to do with the question of these rates. I understand that the chairman of the Port Authority the other day when he was examined explained that the reason—and it was a very simple one—why in this particular year the accounts had not been already presented was that the Port Authority had taken over no fewer than four distinct undertakings, three docks, and a portion of the Thames Conservancy that required a readjustment of accounts. The difficulty of making these readjustments is considerable, and up to date it has not been possible to produce the accounts. As my hon. Friend is aware, under the Act of Parliament separate accounts were to be given for these separate undertakings, and I do not think it out of the way in a matter of this kind that there should be some delay. I would point out that the accounts really have no particular bearing at this moment on this matter. These rates are intended for the future revenues of the port, and have nothing to do with the accounts of last year I may point out that in what the hon. Gentleman said in a portion of his speech, which, I understand, was chiefly directed to a later Amendment which he has on the Paper, he did me an injustice in reference to the Schedule. He said that the Board of Trade had insisted on a rate on fish. On the contrary, fish were put out of the category of articles on which rates were to be placed. I struck them out of that category, leaving the matter open for the Committee to consider. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, instead of putting a duty on fish, I have done my best to prevent any rate being put on, and I am glad to say that the Committee came to the same conclusion.
    Mr. MORTON: They were put in the Provisional Order.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: No, they were not. Before the Provisional Order was introduced at all the question whether fish would come under the category on which
    948
    duties should be placed was left an open question. It was put in by Lord St. Aldwyn in the inquiry over which he presided as chairman, but, as far as I am concerned, I have been adverse to the taxation of the fish coming into the port, and I am glad to say that the Committee agreed with my view. I hope that the House will understand that the question of these accounts is really not germane to the question of the rates which are proposed to be levied under the Act of Parliament, but that these rates are quite apart from the question of the annual accounts for the last financial year, and that therefore the Amendment of my hon. Friend should not be accepted.
    Mr. MORTON: What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do with the money he gets?
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: It is not my money.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Mr. PEARCE: I beg to move the following

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Regulation of Rates on Goods.)
    "In each and every year from and after the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and thirteen, the aggregate amount collected by means of port rates on goods discharged from or taken on board ships not within the premises of a dock of the Authority shall be so regulated as not to exceed one-third of the aggregate amount of all money received from port rates on goods."
    This Clause regulates the proportion of payments to be made by the riverside and the docks. More than half the trade of the Port of London is done in the open river. In this portion of the trade the docks are of no great consequence, and are of very little use, and, although it is fair that persons engaged in that trade should bear their fair share of the extra expenses of the port, I do not think it is the intention of the House that they should be burdened with an unfair proportion. There are two limitations in this Bill, one is the one-thousandth of the aggregate value which applies to the

    949
    whole trade of the Port. The second is the one three-thousandth which applies to the riverside trade only. If the Port Authority raise the maximum amount under their powers both these limitations apply, and no trouble arises. The situation that I want to deal with is when they are not raising the full amount under their powers. The argument is often used that it is impossible for the Port Authority to agree to a Clause of this sort, because it is not practicable to separate the amount in this way, but it is quite clear that if they raise the £330,000 they must do what I am asking. All I am proposing is that right through the time they are raising revenue they should observe the same proportion that they would be obliged to observe if they exercised to the full limit their taxing powers. Unless something further is done, it will be open to the Port Authority, if they only raise £130,000, to put that entirely on the riverside, and not on the docks at all. If they start by raising a large amount, then they will be able to put, not a proportion of two to one between the riverside and the docks, but any proportion they please. An argument against my proposal is that it is possible in the near future for the dock companies to develop riverside traffic themselves. If they do that it would be only fair that they should be charged against the riverside, and I should contend that any waterside premises of the dock company actually owned by them should be treated in such way, and that any development in that direction should count as for docks, and not for riverside. The Select Committee inquired into the matter, and this was the only point on which they desired to hear special remarks from the Port Authority. They said they were prepared to propose the actual Clause which I have the honour to move to-night. We went a long way, therefore, to persuade the Select Committee that our contention in regard to the riverside interests really was based on good reasons. The Committee heard the Port Authority, reinforced by the Board of Trade, who, I am sorry to say, came down against the riverside interests. I am not speaking of the President of the Board of Trade, who has shown a good deal of consideration, but of the legal representative of the Department, who certainly supported the view of the Port Authority, and very largely influenced the Select Com-
    950
    mittee against adopting the Clause I am now moving. They put into the Bill some sort of a security which goes a very small way in the direction of the proposal I submit to the House. They used the words that the Port Authority should endeavour "so far as they consider practicable"—these words being destructive of most of the force of the provision in which they occur. The second stipulation was that the Port Authority should not make "an unfair proportion." There is not much security in that. The other provision was that "regard is to be taken to the circumstances of the port at the time."
    The riverside and manufacturing interests of London consider that the words of the Order as now presented to the House afford very little security to them, if any at all. They are to trust the Port Authority. That is all very well, but they do not know what sum the Port Authority actually proposes to raise in the first year. The Port Authority have not seen fit to disclose whether they will raise £200,000 or £300,000, or perhaps less than £200,000. Lord St. Aldwyn held a long inquiry into the various rates of the Schedule, and there were negotiations during which the undertaking was given that the Port Authority were only going to charge 50 per cent. of the maximum duties now asked for under this Schedule. To my surprise, before the Select Committee only ten days ago, I heard the chairman of the Port Authority withdraw that undertaking, so that the position of the traders with whom the negotiations were made is certainly very much affected. One can hardly wonder in these circumstances that the riverside interests and the riverside manufacturers should now ask the House of Commons to make the position clear beyond any possibility of doubt. Despotism may conceivably be a good thing, and when we are told to trust to the Port Authority—though we are unaware of the intentions of that body—I recall a remark made here the other night by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who, in describing despotism, said it might be better to write its memoirs than live under its sway. However good the intentions of the Port Authority may be, from the very necessities of the case their sway must be very hard on the whole of the riverside interests of London. The riverside interests of London need all the protection this House can give them. The disadvantages under which industrial enterprises and under which manufacturers in London labour must he manifest

    951
    to everyone. We have an object lesson on the point in the building of a "Dreadnought" on the Thames. The Thames Ironworks Company obtained an order for a "Dreadnought," and they did so under enormous disadvantages—the disadvantages connected with the production of iron, the cost of coal, and the heavy rates and taxes of London. In the schedule of the port dues there is an additional handicap, heavily burdened though the Thames Ironworks Company are already. Anyone who knows the district around those works must be aware of the desolation caused by the absence of work, by the presence of unoccupied houses, and the lack of local business. The difference since there is work from this large order is very great. The Thames Ironworks are in one of the most difficult districts in London. There the houses are now occupied and shops are reopened. Anyone will understand how important it is that a large works like that of the Thames Ironworks Company, giving such a great amount of employment in the district, should not in any way be handicapped, as, under the circumstances, it is likely to be. These are my reasons for asking that the riverside interests should have the fullest security that the Port Authority can give. That security the Port Authority cannot avoid giving if they raise money to the full extent of their powers. Their argument that it is not possible to differentiate between the interests is not tenable. What I am asking the House to do is to say that whatever sum of money may be raised by the Port Authority those proportions of two to one should be observed. I think that is only fair, and, as representing a riverside Constituency in London, I am only doing my duty in moving the new Clause.
    Mr. MORTON: I beg to second the Motion. The proposition of my hon. Friend does not do all I want, but it does something. I have always recollected in these discussions that it is the private trader who has made the Port of London what it is. I can quite understand that if you were going to do anything for those people it would be right to charge them, but nothing is going to be done for them. There is plenty of money for any dredging that can be legally done by the doable tonnage dues which were put on by Act of Parliament in 1905. I say that these traders and others who conduct their own business on their own capital and by their
    952
    own work ought not to be taxed by these charges to make up losses in other directions in connection with the docks. If there is money wanted to pay the amounts mentioned by my hon. Friend let them put a charge on the docks, and on the goods that use the docks, and not on the goods of others who do not use the docks, and do not care anything at all about them. This new Clause would not, of course, do away with all of the evil in connection with this proposal, but it will mitigate it to some extent. I am bound to say, in common kindness and honesty to our friends the traders of the Port of London, that they should not be charged with other people's sins, or made to pay other people's debts. Therefore I have much pleasure in assisting my hon. Friend in his proposal that a new Clause should be inserted.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I do not think my hon. Friend appreciates sufficiently that if you are going to have a Port Authority, and if it is to carry out not only the ordinary details of its business, but if it is to improve the broadway, and if it is to improve the docks or the dock accommodation, it has got to have some revenue for those purposes. I am one of those who have always thought that on the whole it would have been better, and for the general advantage of London, that any balance required should be provided as security for the improvement by the rates. That is not the opinion of the London County Council of the time, and it was not therefore embodied in the Bill. That being so it is necessary that such a revenue should be raised for those purposes. It is quite obvious that in order to raise revenue you have to impose some rates, and that those rates will no doubt be objected to by all those who have to pay them, which, after all, is quite a human thing. I desire to point out in reference to this matter that certain advantages have been given to waterside manufacturers in the Act of Parliament as originally drawn, and in this Provisional Order as now proposed. My hon. Friend has, in a speech with which I have no objection to find, made certain statements in reference to this matter and how those people were affected. An anonymous circular has been placed in my hand, obviously issued by the waterside manufacturers and those persons involved, and that nearly every statement in it, and especially those in reference to myself and the Board of Trade, are absolutely untrue and grossly misleading. I am very glad my hon.

    953
    Friend, in the course of his speech, has not endorsed those statements. But I confess I must, as a Member of this House, and as a Member who is more or less responsible for this Provisional Order, protest against anonymous circulars being issued in reference to this matter.
    Mr. PEARCE: I am Vice-President of the Manufacturers' Association, and I should like to say, as far as the waterside manufacturers are concerned, that they had nothing to do with publishing that circular. If they had, it is entirely without any knowledge on my part, and as I am vice-president of the association I imagine I should have known if they had.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: Not only do I accept my hon. Friend's statement, but I have already disclaimed any connection on his behalf. But somebody has issued an anonymous circular, and as it is in favour of the waterside manufacturers, I naturally assumed it came from them. I only thought it my duty to protest against such a circular from whatever quarter it may have come. I am quite sure my hon. Friend has nothing to do with it. As regards the question of merits, as far as I am concerned, representing the Board of Trade, I think my hon. Friend will admit I have done my best in the first instance that this case should be presented to the Committee. I accepted an Instruction which he proposed after Second Reading in order that their case should be fully put before the Committee of this House, so that they should deal with this matter. Subsequently I endeavoured, as far as lay in my power, to get the Port Authority to meet the opinion and feelings of the waterside manufacturer with regard to this matter. They were anxious, for administrative reasons, and I think sound administrative reasons, that their hands in this matter should not be tied, though they were fully desirous of placing no undue burden on the waterside manufacturers. I requested them, and I pressed them, to accept some Amendment, which, appearing, as it does, in the Provisional Order, which becomes an Act of Parliament, would indicate clearly what the opinion of the House of Commons was and the opinion of the Committee in reference to this matter.
    While I believe anyone who has looked into the principle must admit that you cannot have a hard-and-fast rule, for administrative purposes, with reference to these rates, and with which it would be almost
    954
    impossible to manage the Port question, yet that these waterside manufacturers should have security that they should not be unfairly treated. Words to that effect, at my request and suggestion, were inserted. Those words really meet the difficulty of the waterside manufacturers and of my hon. Friend. I am bound to say I never felt, as he did, that the Port Authority, a great public authority, created by Act of Parliament, was going to commit injustice as between the various interests of the Port of London. I did not believe myself that it was really necessary to have statutory security, except in regard to the question of maximum, put in in 1908, for this particular interest; but, in deference to their wishes, and to the feeling which no doubt actuated them that they might receive some measure of injustice, I did induce the Port Authority to introduce these words. Under those circumstances, I feel bound to support these words, as I believe they are a very fair solution of the difficulty. It appears to me that in this matter we must give a certain latitude of administration to the Port Authority. At the same time, when it is felt by a particular interest of this sort that the Port Authority might overstep the just limits as between that interest and another, it is not an up-usual thing to ask that words should be inserted to guard against that unjust treatment. I believe these words fully carry out the idea in the minds of those who thought they might be unjustly treated. and under these circumstances I hope the House will support the Committee and the Board of Trade in opposing the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.

    SCHEDULE—PARAGRAPH 4.—(Power to Levy Port Rates.)
    Subject to the provisions of this Order and to any exemptions or rebates allowed by the Port of London Authority (in this Order referred to as "the Authority") under Section 13 of the Port of London Act, 1908, the Authority may demand and take in respect of all goods imported from parts beyond the seas or coastwise into the Port of London or exported to parts beyond the seas or coastwise from that Port port rates not exceeding the rates specified in the Schedule to this Order:
    Provided that no port rates shall be charged by the Authority on fish caught in the open sea and brought in a fresh condition into the Port of London direct from the fishing grounds.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Pearce) and also in the name of the hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton) [to leave out the words "or exported to parts beyond the seas or coastwise from that port"] is out of order, because it proposes to take away the discretion of the Port Authority, given to it by Section 13 of the Act of 1908.
    Mr. FELL: I move to add at the end of the paragraph the words, "or direct from the wharf where the fish has been landed for the sole purpose of sale, packing, and transhipment direct to London."
    When this matter was before the House a strong opinion was expressed in all quarters with regard to the proposed tax upon fresh fish brought into London. It was pointed out that it was an entirely new tax, and so general was the opposition to it that in the Committee upstairs words were added providing that no port rate should be charged on fish caught in the open sea and brought in fresh condition into the Port of London direct from the fishing grounds. Those words will apply to a larger part of the fresh fish brought to London, but not to all. The opinion was strongly held that such fish should not be taxed, and I hope this Amendment will be accepted. A great deal of fish is caught in small boats and transferred to larger boats, which then come to London or to the ports where the fish is finally disposed of. The fish may be taken to Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Penzance, or some other port, where it is transhipped into a steamer and sent to London. The objection to the original proposal was that it imposed a tax on the food of poor people, and when meat is at an extremely high price would be a very unfortunate time to impose a tax on fresh fish, as it would press more hardly upon the people than when meat was at a normal price. My point is that a considerable amount of fish is transferred from small ships to larger ships. It may be transferred over the side of the boats into the larger ship, or it may be landed or the wharf and put back into the other ship. The words in the Clause would probably cover fish transferred from the fishing boat into the steamer, but not fish landed on the wharf and afterwards put on the steamer. In order that the matter should be made quite clear, I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. MORTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: If the hon. Member attaches importance to the Amendment, why did he not put it on the Paper, so that I might have had an opportunity of considering it? It is quite impossible for me to say off-hand what its actual effect would be. Under these circumstances I do not think he can ask me to accept it. If he had given me longer notice I should have been very glad to consider it, and possibly to accept it, but that I cannot say definitely. I must ask the House to reject the Amendment on the sole ground for the moment that I have not had an opportunity of considering its bearings, and it would not be fair to the Port Authority to accept such an Amendment without consideration.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is a great deal of force in what the President has said. At the same time, the Amendment appears to be a very reasonable one, and I would ask if the right hon. Gentleman could not promise to consider the Amendment, and, if he approves of it, have it accepted in another place?
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will certainly consider it, and if it is found to be in accordance with what the House of Commons agreed to I will accept it. That is on the understanding that my mind is an open one, and that I must consult the Port Authority. I will certainly consider the Amendment, and consider it as favourably as I can; but I must not be understood as giving a promise to accept it.
    Mr. FELL: I understood that the Amendment had been handed in by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Sir Clifford Cory).
    Sir LUKE WHITE: This question came before the Committee, and the evidence given was to the effect that fish caught in the open sea was brought to London direct from the fishing ground, and was not transhipped at other ports. If there had been evidence before the Committee on the point, I think we should have agreed to the principle suggested by the hon. Member, that all fish caught in the open sea and brought as fresh fish to London should be exempted from this provision.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    PARAGRAPH 9.—(Exemption of Transhipment Goods.)
    No port rates shall be charged by the Authority on transhipment goods which expression wherever used in this Order means and includes goods imported for transhipment only and also goods which remain on board the vessel in which they were imported for conveyance therein to another port.
    For the purposes of this Section the expression "goods imported for transhipment only" shall mean goods imported from beyond the seas or coastwise for the purpose of being conveyed by sea only to any other port whether beyond the seas or coastwise which are certified and proved within the period and in the manner hereinafter provided (1) to have been intended for transhipment at or before the time of the report of the ship at the Custom House of within seventy-two hours thereafter excluding Sundays and holidays and (2) to have been shipped again as soon as practicable within the limits of the Port of London for conveyance by sea to such other port. Every such certificate as aforesaid shall be under the hand of the owner of the goods (which expression whenever used in this Order shall include the shipper and consignee of the goods and any person shipping or taking delivery of the goods on behalf of the owner shipper or consignee) or under the hand of a forwarding agent or of any other agent acting on behalf of the owner of the goods or under the hand of the owner master managers or agents of the importing or exporting vessel and shall be in such form as the Authority may from time to time require. The certificate stating that the goods have been intended for transhipment shall contain particulars of the description quantity destination route and mode of conveyance of such goods and shall be delivered to the collector (which expression as used in this Order means any collector or officer for the time being authorised by the Authority to collect port rates on goods) within seven days from the arrival of the goods or such further period as shall from time to time be appointed by the Authority. The certificate stating that the goods have been shipped again as soon as practicable as aforesaid shall contain such particulars as the Authority shall require and shall be delivered to the collector at or immediately after the time of shipment. The owner of any such goods as aforesaid shall at all times give such other information and evidence as may reasonably be required
    958
    by the Authority or their agent, in order to prove that such goods were intended for transhipment or have been shipped again as soon as practicable as aforesaid as the case may be.
    Mr. GEORGE THORNEhad two Amendments on the Paper—first, to leave out the words "or coastwise" ["from beyond the seas or coastwise"], and second, at the end of the paragraph, to add the words: "Provided that goods imported coastwise for transhipment shall be exempt from port rates chargeable on goods imported."
    Mr. SPEAKER: The next two Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. George Thorne) appear to be contrary to Clause 13, Section 1, paragraph 3, in the Act of 1908, which requires that all goods imported for transhipment should be exempt. As the Amendments would only exempt coastwise goods from certain dues, and would not exempt them from all dues, I think the Amendments are out of order.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I am grateful for your assistance in the matter, Sir, but may I submit to you respectfully that the point I desire to raise is to secure equality of treatment between the rates thrown upon the goods coming from inland and the goods coming coastwise.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That was a matter for the Committee upstairs to consider. I believe they have determined that point. All I have to consider is whether these Amendments are in order, bearing in mind the Act of 1908. In my opinion they are not.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that the original Act determines that goods which were brought from abroad into this country should be subject to certain dues. These goods are not brought from abroad, but from other ports in the United Kingdom. The object of the hon. Gentleman opposite is to prevent preferential treatment being accorded over the goods which come over a railway by goods which are brought from another port. I do not think that was contemplated in the original Act.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is no distinction at all in the original Act between different classes of goods for transhipment.
    Mr. MORTONhad given notice of the following Amendment: To move, at the end of paragraph 4, to insert the words: "Provided also, that no port rates shall be charged on other goods or articles used for the food of man until port rates to the extent of 60 per cent. of the maximum rates specified in the Schedule to this Order upon goods other than such goods or articles so used shall have been levied." And "Provided also, that no port rates on other goods or articles used for the food of man shall be charged exceeding in amount 25 per cent. of the maxima upon such goods or articles specified in the Schedule to this Order."
    The object of my next Amendments is, if possible, to protect the food and the other necessaries of the people of London from taxation. I find, however, so little interest taken in this question by a Free Trade Government that I do not propose, especially as we want time for other purposes, to move these Amendments.
    Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. MORTON: I object to that Motion. Can the matter be gone on with to-night?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.
    Mr. MORTON: Then I hope the Government will give us time to consider it. We want, at any rate, to see what is to be done in the matter in another place.
    Mr. WALTER M'LAREN: The decision you have come to, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Amendments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton will cause a very great disappointment in the commercial community in the Midland counties, who certainly thought that some opportunity would be allowed so that this matter could be considered. It is not a matter lightly to be passed over. The unfortunate fact of my hon. Friend being out of order in his Amendment seems to debar those of us who really take a very deep interest in it from considering the matter. I think, if only for that reason, it might be desirable to postpone the Third Reading of this Bill to see in what way it could be considered, whether on Report or in Committee, in relation to this particular matter. The position that Wolverhampton and other towns in the Midlands take is, if I understand it, that they will be handicapped as compared with coast towns.
    960
    This is really a very serious matter for the traders of inland towns. Take the case of Wolverhampton, which my hon. Friend knows much better than I do. What of the great works of Wolverhampton—those of Lycett's, which were deliberately removed from Wolverhampton to Newport because of the disability they suffered there owing to their inland situation? If they are to be under worse conditions by this Bill, which is what we allege, in consequence of the port dues, then it becomes more and more difficult for traders in inland and midland towns to carry on their competition against those traders who are situated at a seaport. I think some further consideration should be shown by the Board of Trade in this important matter, and that we should not be debarred by this unfortunate point of order from having the matter rectified in the present Bill. I think, therefore, that unless this Debate on the Third Reading can be adjourned so that the President of the Board of Trade may look further into the matter, we shall protest against the present situation by frankly voting against it. I beg formally to move that the Debate be adjourned.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to second that Amendment. The fact that the Amendments which I put down appear not to be in order places me in a position that I cannot now urge in the way I desire to urge the point covered by the Amendments. The result, Mr. Speaker, is that I am compelled to oppose the whole Bill, whereas, as a matter of absolute fact, I only desire to oppose that particular section of the Bill which seemed to me to be unjust and unfair. As the hon Gentleman who has just sat down pointed out, the object of my Amendments was to try to make the Bill, which on the whole I am entirely in favour of, consistent and to work with justice and fair play in the particular points in which the interests of the district I represent are I believe very seriously jeopardised. Consequently I am compelled to support the Motion which has been made in order that I may bring as clearly as I possibly can to the House what I could not urge in these specific forms of my Amendments. I do not know whether in the first instance before urging it any further the President of the Board of Trade is willing to listen to the appeal which has just been made that this Debate may be adjourned in order that the matter may be carefully considered, and the specific point I desire to

    961
    urge, looked into? If the right hon. Gentleman, however, is not prepared to do that I trust I may be in order on this Motion in stating the position in which we are placed. The effect of the Bill, if it passes, will be that the Midlands will be placed in future at a very much greater disadvantage as regards coastwise towns in export traffic than they are at present. Their disadvantage is great at present. I have brought that home to the House previously, and I trust I may be in order in submitting it now, because by the ventilation which will be given to the unfairness, as I gather it, between inland and coastwise traffic, we may hope in some way, if not now, at some later date, to see some alteration that may be made in the interest of trade in the Midlands. The effect of this Bill, if it passes in its present form, will be that goods now coming from Midlands or any inland towns, manufactured articles coming through the Port of London for export, will have to pay dues. In addition raw materials coming from outside into this country into the Midlands will also have to pay dues. The midland manufacturer will be hit both ways, both in his export and in his import. The coastwise manufacturer already has an advantage in not having to bear these heavy railway rates. No such handicap has been placed upon him at all. He neither has to pay export nor import rates. Clearly the position of the midland trader, which has been hard enough hitherto, is going in the future to be made much harder still. My hon. Friend referred to what those of us who live in the Midlands, and particularly those who live in the town which I have the honour to represent, are so familiar with, and that is that the burden imposed by railway rates upon the heavy goods traffic sent for export have been so great as to practically make it impossible, or almost make it impossible, to carry on in the Midlands this trade at all. I gave examples before. I may be permitted just to refer to them again. Large works in some of these towns have been removed—I believe I am stating exactly what is the fact—because they find the rates so heavy for carrying goods by railway, or the only alternative, that is by canal—and everyone who knows anything about it knows that the canals are under the control of the railway companies, and consequently there are little benefits to the inland trader by using the canals as distinguished from the railway. With a
    962
    burden such as has to be carried, it has been found by some traders that the best thing to do is to remove the business to the coast, and one large business has gone to Newport, Mon., and another to Elswick. They could not carry on in the inland towns, and they had to remove, and they are now flourishing at the port. Manufacturers in the Midlands are competing with manufacturers of the coast towns. They have a hard struggle, handicapped as they are, yet now it is proposed to increase that handicap by another. So far the people of the Midlands had to submit, but when it comes to a question of Parliament interfering, surely, if it interferes at all, it ought to interfere in the direction of lessening rather than increasing such a handicap; but to the surprise of everybody concerned, Parliament is asking to interfere in connection with the great Port of London, the prosperity of which we all desire so that the persons coming to that port may have a further advantage given them. Goods coming from the coast into the Port of London are to be free from rates as against the manufacturers in the Midland towns. On the merits, I submit it is absolutely entirely unjust, and it is a discrimination that Parliament ought not to consent to. I had intended to move an Amendment to that effect, but as I have not been able to move it, I have been forced to raise the question upon the third reading of the Bill.
    I ask hon. Members to consider the position in which we are placed. It is a position which is most unjust to the trade of the Midland towns, and if this Bill came before them now for the first time I am sure the sense of justice in this House would make hon. Members absolutely refuse any such discrimination. This is the third time I have burdened the House with this matter, but I did suppose the merits would have been considered by the Committee. Evidence was given from various towns including my own. I have heard or read it all. It was carefully placed before the Committee, and it was carefully considered by the Committee; I do not suggest anything to the contrary, and I can understand in the circumstances that it might not have been possible for the Committee itself to report any alteration in view of the difficulties actually existing, and that the Committee itself might hope that the House would do something. We certainly had hoped that the discrimination involving the Act of 1908 might have been got rid of by a fairer Act in 1910. I trust, as hon. Members

    963
    were not afforded an opportunity of supporting me in the specific Amendment I had intended to move, that they may be able to support me in the Division which will take place upon this Motion.
    We have never had the case which we have made answered upon its merits. Manufactured goods from Wolverhampton to London now pay dues, whereas goods coming from Hull to London do not pay any dues. The injustice is so manifest on the face of it that I have asked how on the merits it could be justified. The only answer I get is, "It is the result of a Parliamentary bargain." Surely there are two conditions necessary to a bargain. The first is that all the parties whose interests are concerned ought to be consulted, and in the next that the terms of the bargain ought to be precise and clear. I do not think either of these conditions has been fulfilled on the present occasion. The persons most involved are the traders of the Midlands, yet they never heard or knew anything about this bargain. When in 1908 the Bill came up for discussion, if I am informed rightly, this very discrimination did not appear in the Bill, and it was only put in at the last moment during the last of the Committee stage. When the matter came before Lord St. Aldwyn, although the railway companies were aware of it, the persons who were worst hit and who ought to have it brought immediately to their notice did not hear anything about it. The Act of 1908 decided that this should be done by Provisional Order, so that the bargain was not completed by the Act of 1908, and I had hoped to have an opportunity of showing how that bargain might have been rectified in the interest of all parties concerned. I submit, therefore, from the standpoint of a bargain, it is not fair that this discrimination should be made in favour of the coastwise traffic.
    I am told it is necessary to have a free port in the interests of the trade of the Empire. We all desire that the trade of the Empire should be extended to the fullest extent, and I have not the slightest desire to interfere with that, but I ask for equality of terms as between the inland towns and the coast, and if sacrifices are to be made in favour of the development of the trade of the Empire let there be equality of sacrifice. Why should the whole of the sacrifice be thrown upon the inland trade? I have not asked for any preference for the inland trade as against the coastwise trade. What I object to is
    964
    preference to the coastwise trade as against the inland. What will be the result of this Bill? The agitation which has been raised will not stop here, and this Bill will, in the interest of common sense and justice and fair play, have to be altered. The only answer made on the merits to me was the suggestion made outside, namely, that the persons we have to fight are the railway companies and not the Port of London. They tell me the railway companies are so intimately concerned in order to get a trade for themselves and to prevent the manufacturers going to the coast that they will listen. We have a good object lesson that they will not do anything of the kind. If they desired to keep the trade they would have lessened the rates, but they have refused. I am not one of those who is in the slightest degree hanging on to the tail of the railway companies. I am prepared to fight the railway companies and the canal companies in the interest of our inland trade, though I do not think this is the proper time. I am not here to try and make it easy for the railway companies I know what those companies have done, and I am not here to blame them. Under existing rules and systems they have to provide dividends for their shareholders, and I recognise their difficulties. I have lived for thirty years in the Midlands, and I know of no place better adapted for the development of trade if the conditions are fair, reasonable, and just. We have three railways running into Wolverhampton and a good canal system, but all these advantages are frustrated by the heavy rates imposed, which make it impossible for us to carry on our trade successfully. I am not here to deal with the railway companies, but I am dealing with the Port of London Bill, and I say I do not think it is fair in a Bill of this kind that my objections should be shelved by being referred to the railway companies. I ask for justice from Parliament, and it is not fair to tell me to go to the railway companies and ask for mercy. We ask to be fairly treated by this House on the merits of our case, and if this discrimination is to be persisted in I shall be bound against my will to ask the House to divide upon the Third Reading in order to show that hon. Members are opposed to any such unfair discrimination. Those who vote for the Third Reading of this Bill are simply saying to everyone now trading in the Midlands, "Your wise course is to go to the coast in order to escape from the

    965
    railway rates." I am taking this course not merely, in the interests of competing manufacturers in the Midlands, who will have to compete with the coastwise manufacturers, but in the interests of the real victims of the dislocation that will be caused, namely, the workmen. The coastwise manufacturers can take their skilled workmen with them, but the unskilled workmen cannot follow, and in this respect Wolverhampton affords an object-lesson, because we have now a large number of workmen casually employed, and many of them have no employment at all. I hope hon. Members will recognise the unfairness to which we are exposed by this measure, and I trust they will decide that justice shall be done. I may say that I have seen this thing first hand, and I am not speaking of something of which I have been told. I have seen it going on for thirty years. Yesterday I went down to a part of Wolverhampton which is exposed to this unfair treatment, and I saw the land lying derelict because the works had been removed to the coast. I also saw some of the empty houses and shops and the unemployed, a state of things which is the direct result of unfair discrimination. We have got that already, and it is cruelly unfair that on top of this should be added this unfair handicap in fighting the battle of trade in which we are told, "You must go to the coast if you want to live at all." At the eleventh hour I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to do us justice in this matter. I know he is placed in a difficult position, but I ask him, even now, to consider whether he cannot give time in some way to consider whether this discrimination cannot be removed in order that we may be able loyally to support the Port of London in regard to this measure. I trust that if there is no other way of removing what is unfair and unjust in this discrimination, that hon. Members will support me in voting against the Third Reading of this Bill.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Motion before the House is for the adjournment of the Debate and not the Third Reading. The speech of the hon. Member shows that there will be no advantage in postponing the Third Reading. As regards the Motion for Adjournment, I am sure the hon. Member for Wolverhampton will not expect me to debate the merits of the question. As the House is about to adjourn for this part of the Session at an early date, I wish to point out that this question
    966
    is one of urgency as to whether this Bill can be placed on the Statute Book before the Adjournment. It will be a matter of serious moment to the Port Authority if the measure has to be postponed until the autumn. This Bill has been before a Committee of the House of Commons, and it has still to go to a Committee of the House of Lords, where they will be able to consider this point. I hope that, under these circumstances, the House will reject the Motion for Adjournment, and allow us to proceed with the Third Reading.
    Mr. ERNEST POLLOCK: I wish to support the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate by way of protest upon this extremely important matter. I think my hon. Friend is right in moving the adjournment of the Debate instead of taking a Division on the Third Reading. A great many of us would be in favour of large portions of this Bill, but we have not had an opportunity of having this particular matter fully ventilated. This is a question of very serious importance to a large district in England——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into the merits of the question. The only question before the House is whether or not the Debate shall be adjourned.
    Mr. POLLOCK: The reason why the House should adjourn is that a very important matter which ought to be fully dealt with at some point by the House has not yet had the opportunity of being considered. The question which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton has dealt with so eloquently is one on which I desire to support him, and I do so on the same grounds and from the same point of view. The Bill which is now being debated is one which has disappointed those who have put their trust in the hope that they would be able to obtain the fulfilment of their expectations. In the interests of the importance of this question I think this Debate should be adjourned in order that an opportunity may be given for further considering the extremely important question which has been raised. Inasmuch as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was allowed to speak somewhat generally upon the matter, perhaps it will be best for me to say he has covered the ground that I should desire to follow, and, without trespassing any further upon the House, I should like to say that, whenever the opportunity does come, I should desire to support him, and I support him now.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps I had better explain. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton was, technically, speaking on the question of the Third Reading, and he was, therefore, allowed to travel over the whole subject. Until he concluded by seconding the Adjournment, I could not put the question, but, as soon as the question of the Adjournment is put, the House is confined by Standing Order No. 22 to a Debate upon the Adjournment. That is why the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was given a certain amount of latitude which the hon. Member himself has not received.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Might I ask at what point we may have an opportunity of traversing some of the statements made by the hon. Member?
    Mr. SPEAKER: When I put the question "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Sir COURTENAY WARNER: We who oppose this Bill are quite justified in pressing for the adjournment of the Debate, because, although we did not divide against the Second Reading, it was on the understanding that we should have some chance of discussing this matter. No doubt the question was raised in Committee, but our chances were very small there, and we do not consider the Midlands have had that fair consideration to which they are entitled. On that ground, I think we are justified in pressing that the Motion for the Adjournment should be allowed to pass and the negotiations go a little further to see if with some more consideration matters may not be arranged. It is not sufficient to say this Bill will come up again before a House of Lords Committee. It depends with how much sympathy those who are pressing the Bill, the Port of London Authorities and the Government, consider the very serious grievance which in our view exists. I think, therefore, my hon. Friend is quite justified, and I shall vote with him in asking for the adjournment of the Debate.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out to the President of the Board of Trade that if he consents to the adjournment of the Debate he will not in any kind of way injure his own case. There are at least ten days, and probably a fortnight, before we adjourn for the Recess, and during that time he can bring up the Bill for Third Reading, providing he has not come to an arrangement. He cannot say a fortnight's delay will make any difference to the operation of the Bill.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: If the Bill passes this House, a certain number of days' notice has to be given before the Committee of the House of Lords can be set up, and this is practically the last day on which I am afraid the Bill could get through in this portion of the Session. What it really means is that the Port of London Authority would lose three or four months' revenue, which is a serious matter.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It must be remembered we are to have an Autumn Session, and this is an important point advanced from all parts of the House, and not a party point. Even if it does cause a loss of revenue, I venture to say it ought to be considered. An hon. Gentleman behind said the matter could not be arranged, but it could by passing a short Act amending the Act of 1908. It may be that might be necessary, but that only shows the importance of adjourning the Debate. Really the House ought to consider whether or not it might be necessary to pass a short Act to amend the Act of 1908 before giving a Third Reading to this Bill. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will consent, at any rate, to the adjournment of the Debate. Possibly he might to-morrow be able to come to some agreement with the hon. Members on his own side of the House who have moved the adjournment, and I cannot believe one day will make the difference he thinks.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I hope the House will not agree to the adjournment of the Debate. Everyone who has spoken has admitted that on the main part of the Bill there is full agreement. There is a general agreement except for this particular part, and the Provisional Order is brought here on the mandate of this House by the Act of 1908. There has been an Executive inquiry held by Lord St. Aldwyn, and everyone was heard. The railway companies and the Midland counties could be heard, and, after that exhaustive inquiry, on the responsibility of the Board of Trade, the Bill comes to this House. It goes through all the forms of this House, and on the Second Reading Instructions were passed. A full and exhaustive inquiry is held upstairs, and the Committee reports. There has been a Debate here——
    Sir F. BANBURY: No, no Debate.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: There has been a Debate here this evening on the Report stage.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was ruled out of order.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I did not say there was any Debate on that particular point. I was using arguments why this Debate should not be adjourned, and I say it should not be adjourned because of all the various stages, the more than usual stages through which this Provisional Order has passed. No Provisional Order has had more discussion than this one, and I think it would be a very unfair thing to all those who have worked on the Bill, the Port Authority, Lord St. Aldwyn, the Board of Trade, and the Committee of this House, if all that valuable time were thrown away and the Debate were adjourned, with the risk of losing getting the Order through before the House rises for the Recess. There can be no case of adjourning the Debate. It is all very well for the hon. Baronet to say you might come to terms to-morrow. I admire people who fight as long as there is any chance of winning, but no useful purpose whatever could be served by adjourning the Debate. It is well known the whole of this question has been thoroughly threshed out. The Provisional Order is brought here on the mandate of Parliament, and I think it is carrying opposition a little too far to prevent the Port Authority having this Provisional Order to-night.
    Mr. McCURDY: I rise to support the Motion for Adjournment. The last speaker has referred to the numerous occasions on which this House has had an opportunity of discussing this Bill, but, so far as I know, this House has had no opportunity of discussing the only important matter in connection with this Bill, a matter which affects the Members representing the Midland counties. I can inform the President of the Board of Trade that, in the ordinary course of the present Parliament, I know of no measure which has come before it which has excited more interest among the responsible citizens of the Midland town I represent than the Bill which is before the House to-night. They feel that in the Amendment there is an endeavour to raise a grievance of substance, and we regard it as of so much importance that, with reluctance, I shall be compelled to vote altogether against the Third Reading of this Bill, unless I get some satisfaction. The particular purpose for which I rise is to inquire whether
    970
    the President of the Board of Trade cannot give us some assurance which will enable us to vote for the Third Reading of this Bill, if the Debate is not adjourned to-night. I understand it would be possible, with the goodwill of the Board of Trade, and of other persons, to still rectify the injustices of which constituencies such as mine complain, but unless the President of the Board of Trade can give some reasonable hope and some assurance that if we consent to the passing of this Bill to-night there will be some opportunity for the rectification of the injustice imposed by the Bill, I shall vote against the Third Reading. For this reason I support the Motion for the Adjournment.
    Colonel HICKMAN: I also support the Motion for Adjournment. The only thing the President of the Board of Trade has said against the adjournment is that it may do some possible monetary injustice to the Port of London for the space of a few months. But I must urge that if this Bill passes as it is now framed, and if there is no adjournment of this Debate, it will do most permanent injury to the industries of the Midlands, which is a much more important matter than any small injury that may be done to the Port of London for a few months. It seems to me the right hon. Gentleman, in his position as a Minister of the Crown, has a very high duty to see that justice is done in all Bills that are passed through this House. It does not appear to me that we are getting justice for the Midlands, and therefore I feel it my duty to support the Amendment.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I wish to make it clear that the vote I give to-night, in so far as it is affected by my own Constituency, must be in support of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to consider gravely whether it is not a very serious factor in this discussion that the great inland communities are dissatisfied with the inquiries that have taken place up to now, and whether that does not make it desirable, seeing that there is a feeling of unrest and dissatisfaction in many quarters of the House that time should be granted so as to see if some way cannot be found out of the difficulty. I rise, not for the purpose of prolonging the Debate, but to make it clear that there are many great industrial communities which desire this delay.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think it is quite clear that the feeling on both sides of the House is in favour of adjournment, I very much regret it, because delay may mean a very serious financial loss to the Port of London, and that is a matter of some moment. But under the circumstances, I am prepared, in deference to the feeling which has been expressed, to accept the Motion for Adjournment.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1908–9.
  Considered in Committee.
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
  "I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1909, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  "Total Surpluses

  …

  376,328

  18

  3

  Total Deficits

  …

  238,138

  0

  10

  Net Surplus

  …

  £138,190

  17

  5

  "And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services."
  [For Schedule, see 15th July, 1910, col. 829–830.]
  Question again proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
  Question put, and agreed to.
  "II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1909, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and

  SCHEDULE.

  Number of Vote.

  Army Services, 1908–9. Votes.

  Differences beween Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

  Surpluses.

  Deficits.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Pay, etc., of Army

  393,617

  4

  4

  —

  2

  Medical Establishment: Pay, etc.

  12,689

  6

  6

  —

  3

  Special Reserves and Militia

  —

  21,081

  15

  10

  4

  Territorial Forces

  —

  238,383

  15

  0

  5

  Establishments for Military Education

  7,053

  15

  11

  —

  6

  Quartering, Transport, and Remounts

  172,789

  14

  8

  —

  7

  Supplies and Clothing

  106,283

  15

  3

  —

  8

  Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

  19,009

  9

  6

  —

  9

  Armaments and Engineer Stores

  —

  14,687

  18

  6

  10

  Works and Buildings

  175,162

  8

  10

  —

  11

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  5,721

  4

  8

  —

  12

  War Office and Army Accounts Department

  5,682

  12

  1

  —

  13

  Non-effective Charges for Officers, etc.

  6,751

  10

  10

  —

  14

  Non-effective Charges for Men, etc.

  —

  31,894

  5

  10

  15

  Civil Superanuation, Compensation, Compassionate Allowances, and Gratuities

  1,403

  15

  3

  —

  —

  Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned

  —

  416

  12

  7

  Total

  906,164

  17

  10

  306,464

  7

  9

  Net Surplus

  £599,700 10 1

  2. Resolved, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
  Resolutions to be reported this day.
  [ADJOURNMENT.]
  MASTER of ELIBANK: I move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. REMNANT: May I point out to the Patronage Secretary that it was arranged that we should take the Police Weekly Rest Day Bill to-night? There is no opposition to that measure. I have spoken
  1044
  the net expenditure are as follows, namely:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  "Total Surpluses

  …

  906,164

  17

  10

  Total Deficits

  …

  306,464

  7

  9

  Net Surplus

  …

  £599,700

  10

  1

  "And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
  to the Home Office about it, and they are quite agreed on the Bill. I hope we shall be allowed to get the Bill through now.
  MASTER of ELIBANK: I would ask my hon. Friend to postpone it until tonight (Tuesday). I have made certain arrangements postponing certain Orders, and this is one of them. I suggest he should be put down for this evening.
  Mr. REMNANT: I cannot be here tonight. I hope the hon. Member will carry out the arrangement made.
  MASTER of ELIBANK: I did not know that there was any definite arrangement made. There seems to have been some misunderstanding. In view of certain engagements I have entered into in regard to the Order Paper I cannot possibly consent to take the Bill now.
  Mr. REMNANT: I spoke of the arrangements to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gulland), who said there was no intention of moving the Adjournment until this Order was taken. There is no opposition to this Bill, and I cannot see why it is not allowed to go through.
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY (Mr. Joseph Pease): If there is no opposition to the Bill it will be quite easy for it to go through, and it will be very easy for the hon. Member to authorise another hon. Member to move the Bill in his name.
  Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Three o'clock a.m., Tuesday, 19th July.