§ Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £221,100, 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, 1915, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland."
1417§ Mr. BARNESI wanted to point a little moral in regard to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Major Hope). He suggested an examination of fruit imported from foreign countries. I would suggest that a great deal more might be achieved by an examination of the labour and other conditions in which fruit is grown in Scotland, because I know that at the present time there are fruit farms there where the labour conditions and the conditions of life generally are of the most abominable and filthy character. Tramps are taken off the road; they sleep about four in a bed; there is no medical examination, and no provision is made whereby safety and decency can be maintained. I therefore suggest, as an alternative to examining fruit coming in from abroad, that the conditions under which fruit is gathered in Scotland should be made much better than they are at the present time. I have a good deal of sympathy with what has been said from the benches opposite as to the small return for the amount of money spent under this Act. It is a lamentable thing that we should spend thousands and thousands of pounds every year, not on officials, but in many other ways, as to which I do not know that they were contemplated when the Act was passed. I agree with the hon. Member opposite who said that it is a very small return that with three years' experience, and after spending a great deal of money, only 214 new holdings have as yet been set up, and that there are no less than 8,000 applications for these holdings. As to the reason for this small achievement, I am inclined to think that a great deal less might have been spent in compensation to landlords, and that more would have been spent otherwise if the Act was given a fair interpretation.
I notice that an hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Ayrshire is rather on the defensive so far as landlords are concerned. He assures us that landlords are no worse than other people. I do not know that anybody said they were, but they have friends at court more than other people have, and, as a result, we have the case of Lindean and similar cases, where, after having had the estates cut up, the landlords are in receipt of as much or more money than they were before, and yet are given compensation for, I suppose, loss of selling value. I do not know that this has been done with any other class in the community. I do not say that landlords 1418 are worse than other people, but they have had opportunities given to them which other people have never had. May I remind the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) of the Act dealing with publicans which was passed last year. Their property has been taken away and nothing given to them, whereas in this case the landlord retains what he had before and gets something given to him for nothing. You cannot give the money to the landlords at Lindean and elsewhere and, at the same time, use it for fencing, draining, and setting up small holdings. If we are going on with this sort of legislation at all I am inclined to think with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), that it is not the best sort of legislation, but, unlike him, I think we ought to buy the land, whereas he wanted to tax it. We ought to buy it outright. Then we should have better results than we have had under this Act. I thought three years ago that this Act was going to afford a medium by which we should allow things to remain pretty much as they were, so far as ownership was concerned, but that we should get the best out of it. I am rather inclined to the other view now, and am of opinion that if we are going to effect any great and permanent improvement on a large scale, we shall have to take our courage in both hands and enable the local authorities to buy land outright, not to buy it on the fancy prices landlords have hitherto been given, but on a fair value, namely, on the value upon which they themselves pay taxes or rates. If we proceed on that line we should achieve better results than we have done under this Act, or should do under the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI do not propose to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken in all that he has said, but I heartily agree with a good deal he did say about co-operation, and the grouping of small holdings. A great deal of money has been dissipated by too much expense having been incurred in the formation of single holdings here and there. The Board of Agriculture would be well advised in future, so far as they possibly can, to constitute groups of holdings where the compensation would be a great deal less than it would be if they took a single holding by cutting out one of the best parts of a farm. I think we had a case in Caithness where the small enlargement of a holding, of a rental of only 35s. a year, 1419 cost £300 in compensation to obtain. Why? Because the particular part taken was the only suitable bit of ground on the whole farm for lambing. It was where the sheep always congregated, and, of course, the farm was seriously reduced in value from the fact that it was taken over. It would be a great advantage to buy the land, which is by far the best plan, always provided we do not go on managing the estates ourselves as we have been doing in the past in the case of Syre, Barra, Glendale, Seafield, and so on. The State makes an uncommonly bad manager.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThat is so. They pay an ordinary landlord their rent when they very often decline to pay it to the right hon. Gentleman and his minions, and for a very good reason. Our experience of these estates which have been purchased in the Highlands has been very unfortunate. The purchase of the land outright and the re-sale to the small holder could be done quite well, and it would be much more successful than the present system, but the hon. Member must not forget that it is only honest to pay compensation for loss. The State, for its own reasons, is pursuing this policy. It is trying to create a very much larger number of small holders on the soil than at present, which is a very legitimate, proper and desirable policy, but it is only here and there that the individual is affected. The whole of the land owners of Scotland are not affected by this policy. It is only here and there that land is suitable and is taken. When it is taken why should the individual suffer? If he can show that he is suffering a loss he ought to be repaid by the State, as Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman always said. It may be there is something to be said as to the manner in which these sums of compensation are being assessed and paid. I am only putting the point that where a loss can be proved it is the State that ought to suffer and not the individual. I will give an instance which came under my own notice the other day, which is interesting. A good many crofters in the North of Scotland have been seen lately by a friend of my own who has been discussing the question with them and asking information about it, and in ever so many cases he noticed a particular desire on the part of the crofters that if anyone should suffer from the creation of these holdings it 1420 should not be the individual landlord but the State, and he heard a very strong criticism made of the spirit shown in the Committee upstairs in connection with the matter. That I thought was a sign of grace.
§ Mr. BARNESThe compensation has been given upon a speculative basis, and not upon an actual loss at all.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI am not discussing that question at all. That is not really the point. I am only discussing the question as to who ought to bear the loss. There may be differences of opinion about the amount of the loss and the fixing of compensation. My only point is that where a loss can be shown to arise from the formation of these small holdings, it ought to be borne, not by the individual but by the State as a whole. In connection with what I said about the financial position of some of the Congested Districts Boards purchases, the first thing I noticed was that the Report of the Board of Agriculture did not contain the smallest information about those properties. The Congested Districts Board always gave an annual account of each of these properties, and this Report ignores them altogether. I asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he could afford that information and he was courteous enough to do it in the White Paper which supplements the Report. I hope this will appear annually. I hope that another omission which I notice will be rectified in the future, that is that there ought to be a separate account of small holdings. We ought to see precisely year after year what the position is in regard to these small holdings, how much money has to be advanced in the creation of them, how the loans are being repaid, and what the liabilities and arrears are, and I hope this will appear in future in the Report of the Board of Agriculture. Another point in connection with the accounts which is very important is that this Report deals with the year up to 31st December last, but the accounts only come up to March of last year, so we are asked at the end of the Session to deal with the accounts of the Board of Agriculture and we only have them up to March 31st of last year, or fifteen months behind the date. I see no reason in the world, as the Report is never as a rule published until April or May, why the accounts should not be brought up either to 31st December, so as to make it coincide with the Report itself, or else, if that is 1421 impossible for any reason, it might be brought up to 31st March when the financial year ends and the accounts are made up. It is very inconvenient to deal with a general account like this which is so very far behind the date which we are dealing with as this is now.
I should like to say a word in connection with the position of Syre and Barra, which appear to me to be in a deplorable position altogether. Leaving out the question of the cost of sheep stock on both these estates, in the case of Syre, the total cost, purchase price, works, fencing, surveying, management, and law expenses has been £13,479. Up to Martinmas of 1911 we received, in the shape of annuities £140 a year, which I suppose will repay the purchase price of the property for that period. From that time there has been a resettlement, and the fair rents since that date have been fixed at £109, so that what you appear to get from Syre is £109 on an outlay of £13,479, but the owners' taxes and rates on that amount to £90, so that your net return for an expenditure of £13,479 is £19 a year plus the shooting rent, which, I understand, is £250. There is an example of economic management. There is an example of what happens when the State purchases property of this kind and lets it out to small holders and, as a rule, receives only a small portion of the rent, and very small rents at that. Take Barra, the other case. There the cost of the property was £12,438 up to this date. The annuities there from Martinmas, 1911, were £204. These have been commuted since that time to a fair rent of £92 a year. Again the owners' rates are £68, leaving a margin apparently of about £24 a year on an outlay of £12,438, and in this case, as far as I can make out, there is no shooting rent at all. So we have these two unfortunate cases staring us in the face. They are the first cases on this White Paper, and the figures I have given of the present rental and the rates upon the landlord are quite correct. The arrears on most of the estates are very heavy, and they seem to be increasing in all except one, so that we have a warning from that not to proceed with this policy. We might require to face a loss if we had the power to do it in such a place as the Lews, where the right hon. Gentleman is placed in a very great difficulty indeed. But we have had a very strong warning in the figures I have mentioned, which I think are correct, not to proceed, at all events, with this policy any further than you can help. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman may 1422 see his way to place these accounts, first of all, in a more up-to-date form if possible, and to give more detailed information than has hitherto been given. The whole of the incomes is put on one side and the whole of the expenditure on the other. The income includes all sorts of items, such as rents and annuities. Everything is lumped together. On the expenditure side repayments of loans, and one thing and another, are given in a way which makes it perfectly impossible, to make out whether the balance is on the right or the wrong side. If the accounts could be presented in a more unstandable form, it would be a great advantage. I think we should have each year proper and adequate detailed accounts of the position with respect to small holdings loans.
§ Mr. DUNCAN MILLARThe Debate has ranged over a wide variety of topics, and I venture to think that on different grounds the Board of Agriculture has been somewhat unfairly attacked. As to the question of a forest administration area, the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) spoke somewhat strongly in condemnation of the policy of the Board. I cannot believe that they can have read the Report which was circulated, and that they have followed what has actually taken place in regard to the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. It appears from the Report that the Advisory Committee's recommendation was adopted by the Board. After they recived it, a request was made to the Treasury that immediate funds should be made available for the purchase and equipment of the area. Then the Committee's Report recommending the acquisition of the area was sent on to the Development Commissioners with the request which was made to the Treasury. It went to the Development Commissioners in December, 1913, and it remains in their hands. I do think that the House has reason to demand an explanation why so much delay has taken place, to ask what is going on at the present moment in connection with this matter, and to ask further what the Development Commissioners now propose to do.
I have always taken the view that it is desirable that we should get as central an area as possible for demonstration purposes. Reference has been made this evening to the recommendations of the 1423 Departmental Committee. It was not stated to the House that one of the recommendations was that the area should be in a district of easy access by rail from the existing teaching centres, and that there should be provision within that area for dealing with different characters of timber. If the delay which is at present taking place is caused by further consideration of the matter, I hope we may very soon have some indication given to us of what are the views of the Development Commissioners. I am very doubtful whether leasehold is the best system on which an area of this kind should be acquired. Certainly much will depend upon the conditions and the length of the lease itself. I hope that, whatever scheme is adopted, it will fall in with the recommendations which have been made by the Departmental Committee, and that there will be no question of dealing with the interests of one university or district, but that it will be a scheme which will give satisfaction to Scotland as a whole, and to the students studying at the different centres.
With regard to the work of the Board during the past year, I am bound to say that, the Report sets forth a record of great industry on their part, but it shows also that they have been greatly handicapped in many ways. When we consider that there were 8,132 applications, including applications for new holdings and the enlargement of existing holdings and that 5,017 of these applicants have been interviewed, we get some idea of the amount of labour which the officials of the Board have had in dealing with the question of small holdings. But the number of holdings constituted is undoubtedly discouraging. When one turns to the considerations which unquestionably have led to this somewhat disappointing result, I think it is fair to keep in view that the Board of Agriculture have had to act under great limitations and restrictions. In the first place, it has been very difficult for them to acquire suitable land for holdings in the districts where the applications have come from. Under the Act, as the Committee are well aware, the restrictions are somewhat severe in regard to the character of the land which can be acquired, both with respect to land under lease and in the case of farms not exceeding 150 acres. There are other restrictions as to certain classes of land which cannot be taken. These 1424 conditions necessarily restrict the area very considerably and often prevent land from being acquired in districts where it is specially desired. Apart from that, we have another very important consideration in the difficulties which have been placed in the way of the Board's action. I do not want to say anything too strong with reference to the action of Scottish landlords, because I believe there are many good landlords, although I think the Board has been somewhat unfortunate in having to deal with a good many difficult landlords who have been suspicious of the action of the Board since the beginning. We find set forth in the Report reasons to explain why in many instances the Board have been frustrated in their attempts to secure land. In these cases it has been owing to the action of the parties with whom they have had to deal. I do not wish to go into that in detail, but the fact is that these obstacles have been placed in the way of the Board, in many cases for the distinct purpose of frustrating the objects of the Board, and farms have been relet during the progress of the negotiations.
What is, after all, the most important point raised in the Debate is the difficulty which has arisen in regard to the amount of compensation claimed by many of the landowners on whose land holdings were to be constituted. We have had the experience of three arbitrations which we may take as typical of the class of arbitration we shall have in the future, and without going into details of any one, I should like to state to the Committee that as the result of these we have had 96 holdings constituted over 23,128 acres at a cost of £26,387, or, in other words, it has cost £274 in compensation alone to constitute each individual holding. I would ask the Committee to consider that the chief item of compensation is for depreciation in the capital value of the estate. This amounts in the three cases to £13,449. That is the amount which, as the result of three arbitrations, has been pocketed by the proprietors in question in the name of depreciation in the value of their estates. Remember that the owners have been placed in as good a position as they were in before as regards letting value while continuing in possession of the estates. I think that it ought to be made clear that it was not the intention of the Statute that compensation should be awarded on such 1425 grounds, and the sooner we secure some Amendment of the Law the better.
I wish to draw the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to the position which prevails in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. In Lanarkshire we have had a considerable number of applications for small holdings. We have had some thing like 181 applications already. There have been only two schemes which have yet been reported, amounting to 158 acres and three new holdings. One, amounting to six acres, has been settled by agreement. It is very desirable in a district like Lanarkshire, where you have got a large number of persons engaged in industrial occupations, that the Board should take means to acquire land for the purpose of providing gardens and allotments and small holdings for those who are engaged in other callings. In connection with the new housing schemes which are being carried out, particularly at West Benhar, in Lanarkshire, where a whole village has been condemned and where new buildings are being put up, I hope the Board will take action to provide land for these purposes. Where it may not be possible to provide the buildings, at any rate, they should acquire the land, because there is a great deal of land hunger, and it is very desirable to encourage those who are in a position to spend a considerable portion of their time in carrying on the work of small holdings and gardens and fruit growing in connection with their other occupations. I hope that it may be possible to deal in future more rapidly with the applications which have come from the Lowland districts and that the Board of Agriculture and the Secretary for Scotland will keep in view the fact that we in the South of Scotland have quite as strong a claim upon their consideration in regard to the constitution of the new holdings as the other parts of Scotland.
§ Mr. MORTONI desire to say a few words on the one great question which we have to consider in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness Burghs in asking the Secretary for Scotland for some information with regard to the establishment of an agricultural institution in Inverness for the benefit of the Highland counties, and I hope that he will be able to say he will be in a position to do something to get that establishment started before long. I am quite aware 1426 that it would not be in order to discuss the Land Bill which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, and the fact that that Bill is hanging about somewhere, and may, we hope, be advanced this year, prevents me from discussing the question of the Board of Agriculture in a way in which otherwise I might do, because, if the proposals in that Bill are carried into effect, we hope that it will apply the remedy. We have, unfortunately, to bring before this House year after year the Fisheries Board, and in this case the Board of Agriculture. I heard an hon. Gentleman refer just now to estates that do not come under the Smallholders Act at all, and, therefore, I suppose that the Board of Agriculture has nothing to do with that. There is no doubt that the question of the larger farms of Scotland is one which must be dealt with, but, meanwhile, we are only dealing with the small land holders, and on this I may say a word or two with regard to my Constituency of Sutherlandshire.
The land question is the one question which is being considered in Sutherland at the present moment, and it has been so for many years, especially since the Act of 1911 was passed, which we hoped would do something for them. Practically but very little has been done for the county of Sutherland at all, yet that is the one question which they consider. They do not trouble themselves about the Ulster question, though they are very strong Protestants indeed, as they are satisfied that it will be settled otherwise, but they want this question settled. I would like to tell the Secretary for Scotland that, notwithstanding what has been done, or what is proposed to be done in the Bill now before this House, we must have more money if we are to settle the land question in Scotland, not money to give away in Grants, but, by way of loans at a low rate of interest; otherwise we cannot meet the agricultural position at all. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who I have no doubt will be in office for many years to come, will bear that in mind. I know that Scotland has been badly treated in regard to money, and I was not, therefore, surprised to hear another Member representing Edinburgh mention that in some Development Grant England had got about £70,000 last year, Ireland had got about £20,000, and Scotland had got only about £4,000. That is the way Scotland is neglected. I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will try to see that that is remedied. One thing they do not 1427 forget in regard to Scotland is to come and collect the taxes there. They always come and collect them there earlier in the year than in other places. The land question in Sutherlandshire and in all the Highland counties is in a different position from the land question in other parts of Scotland, because the land was annexed or stolen from the clans, a hundred or two hundred years ago, and that was borne in mind, of course, when the Crofters Act of 1886 was passed, which dealt with the land question in the crofting counties in a different way from anywhere else.
I have always been sorry that we had not a separate Land Act dealing with the Highlands of Scotland. There is the fact that the land was taken from them, whereas one time it belonged to the clan who paid no doubt a tribute to the chief. That is a reason why we should always bear in mind that these crofters ought to have an opportunity of getting relief. I do not trouble myself much about purchase which we have heard of to-day. Purchase so far has not been successful, because as a rule, no matter who deals with it, they give too much money, and consequently the settlers are unable to pay their rent or make a living out of the land. Therefore, it is not satisfactory. No doubt it would be quite correct if the Government took the land at a fair price, so as to be able to let it in a way in which it would turn out useful for the people. We have to remember what has occurred in the Highland counties in connection with the demand for land in Sutherland at the present moment. Next week they are going to hold a demonstration to recall the wicked and cruel evictions which occurred in Sutherland in the year 1814, and probably the only question which will be talked of there will be the land, and the land for the people, at a fair rent with fixity of tenure. If you let it go too long they may not be able to pay so much, or not willing to do it, but, at any rate, we have the right to ask that these matters should be attended to by Parliament. I am not blaming the Secretary for Scotland in the matter because I do not suppose that he has the power to compel the Government to lend to us, but I do say that we are entitled to have these matters attended to. Scotland, and especially the Highland counties of Scotland, are the best managed and most law-abiding of any part of the United Kingdom, but that ought not to be a reason for neglecting 1428 them, rather it ought to be a reason for giving them prompt attention.
Unlike the other parts of the United Kingdom, Scotland pays a very large revenue of the country, larger than she ought to pay. I think that ought to be borne in mind by the Secretary for Scotland when he demands from the Government funds to carry out this work. I do not want to make any serious complaint with regard to the Board of Agriculture, because it has been admitted that they have not the necessary powers. A Bill is now before the House to deal with that question. I am not quite satisfied that the Board of Agriculture has got the right men to manage these matters, and I trust that the Secretary for Scotland will get rid of some of them and fill their places with those who can carry out the Act, as we hoped and believed it was intended by Parliament it should be carried out, when they passed it. These are most important questions to the Scottish people, most important in preventing depopulation of the country, in settling the people on the land, and in giving them an opportunity of living in better conditions. I have no hesitation in saying that if the people of Sutherland could get possession of the land at a fair rent that county alone could support double the population that it has at the present moment, besides which they would be able to supply a good many articles of food for which you now go to foreign countries. All these things ought to be thought of, and in the words of the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, "We should colonise our own country." We have done a great deal for foreign countries and I suppose for foreign tariffs. What have foreign tariffs done for us? Nothing at all. We have a right to demand that something shall be done for the people of this country before we deal with the people of Africa, or somewhere else a long way off. That is one of the difficulties we have to deal with. But let us hope that there is a good time coming, and that at any rate if Parliament will only do what we expect, namely, pass the Bill to amend this Act with regard to small-holders, we may then hope and trust that something will at last be done to allow the people of Scotland, especially in the crofting districts, the opportunity of getting a decent livelihood for themselves and their families.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. MOLTENOI listened with some considerable interest this afternoon to the 1429 hon. Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson), who complained of the slowness of the operation of this Act, and of the small number of holdings that have been created. He went on to claim joint author ship of the Act, but I am afraid that my view of his joint workmanship will not quite correspond with his own. I think the slowness of the creation of small holdings is largely due to the alterations made in the original Bill, in deference to the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I remember very well that arrangements were made outside the Committee, and then announced to the Committee, for dealing with the Small Land Holders Bill. I denounced those arrangements, and I pointed out that I feared they would interfere most seriously with the working of the Act, that they would delay its operation, and that they would lead to enormously increased expense. I did my best to oppose the alterations, and I cannot associate myself at all with the joint work of the hon. Member. As hon. Members know who have been attending the Committee upstairs, we have been engaged for many weeks upon a Bill for the Amendment of the Act, and the need for that Bill is entirely caused by the alterations which were made in the original Bill by hon. Members opposite, against the views of supporters of the Bill on this side of the House. I do not wish to go further into that question, but I desire to refer to a subject which was raised by the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott), who urged very strongly that there should be some great scheme of forestry for Scotland. I think, perhaps, the hon. Member was not quite understood in regard to what he intended to convey. As I understood him, he did not wish to have a large and expensive scheme entered upon at once. What he did intend to convey, as I gathered, was that an experimental area should be obtained in which could be planted trees that could be grown economically and would yield a return within a reasonable period. My own view is that it would be a very unwise and enormous waste of public money to take any considerable area in Scotland for the purpose of forestry. Our knowledge is too limited at present, and before we enter upon any scheme of any magnitude we should obtain an experimental area in order to gather information as to what trees can 1430 be grown economically—that is to say, which would yield a return after a period in Scotland.
I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will not take any precipitate action in the taking of great areas in Scotland, and I hope we shall remain content with the establishing, as soon as possible, an experimental area, which I think would be of immense use for the whole of Scotland, if it were established in a central position where it can be reached from Glasgow and Edinburgh, and if the land obtained would grow trees that could be grown in every district of Scotland. I wish to come to the main point, and that is the question of small holdings. I think the Report which we received from the Board of Agriculture is a very interesting one, and I congratulate the Secretary for Scotland and the Board upon it, I think it gives evidence of very great activity, and I think that the Act has been tried with vigour, energy, and zeal. I only regret that the efforts of the Board have not been more successful in the creation of small holdings. But the reason for that is made perfectly clear in the Report itself, namely, the hampering conditions and embarrassment under which the Board has had to act. There is no doubt that had the Board had better machinery and better and fuller powers, with larger funds at its disposal, it would have been able to accomplish a great deal more than it has done. I am not going for one moment to blame the Board or the Secretary for Scotland in regard to any deficiencies as to what we hope would have been done. I think the cause is perfectly plain, and the Bill to amend the Act which is now before the House, and which I hope will certainly be passed at an early date, is absolutely essential if progress is to be made in the creation of small holdings in Scotland. There were last year applications for small holdings to the extent of 5,382, and this year they have increased to 8,132, while during the period under review we have created only 214, which includes enlargements, and at that rate it would take forty years to comply with present demands, which are by no means the limit of the applications. Last year we were led to hope that 500 would be created during the year. Attention is also drawn to the fact that the moment it is known a scheme is going to be started in the neighbourhood around applications come in, and that will be so I am perfectly 1431 certain all over Scotland. I am glad to see that in the Lothian area the number of applications has increased, and we may expect a very large increase in the number of small holdings in the Lothian area as soon as this point of establishing small holdings becomes a practical one and schemes are taken in hand. The Board have pointed out some of the difficulties they have found in their way in the creation of small holdings. One of the greatest difficulties has been the fact that on the increase of compensation to a sum exceeding £300 it is possible for the land owner to call in arbitration. That was a Clause which I very strongly opposed, and we were more than justified in predicting that it would be detrimental to the working of the Act. I do not propose to go into details as to the compensation awarded in connection with estates upon which holdings have been established, but I do think it really amounts to a grave and gross scandal that the enormous sums which have been awarded in those cases should be paid because of the prejudice against small holdings.
Major ANSTRUTHER-GREYThey were not paid because of any prejudice, but because of damage, as fair compensation.
§ Mr. MOLTENOI would like to remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in the case of Lindean not only was the owner receiving a larger rent than he received before, but he also received £4,100 simply because of the dislike of small holdings, and for no other reason. He suffered no damage in the enjoyment of his estate, and if he were a patriotic man he ought to be pleased at having small owners on the land in a prosperous condition and not regard them as detrimental to his estate. I have got here a letter from one of a party who visited Lindean in connection with meetings of the Chamber of Agriculture, and the feeling was generally expressed that it was impossible to understand how anybody could object to small holdings on that estate as a prejudice. There is a very interesting article in the "Scottish Farmer," an authority which up to that time had taken a very hostile view to the possibilities of the success of small holdings in Lindean, but on a personal inspection at Lindean and learning the circumstances of the small holders, I am glad to think that the "Scottish Farmer" was entirely converted to the wisdom of 1432 the operation. It was able to congratulate the Board, and I should like to do so upon the successful inauguration of that scheme. In a laudatory article the paper says:—
We have some difficulty in understanding how these twelve holdings on Lindean, when in full working order, will depreciate the value of the property on which they are planted, nor is it easy to see how their existence interferes with the amenities of Sunderland Hall.One of the Scottish farmers on the point as to how very satisfactory those buildings were from the point of view of amenity, says:—Next day the whole of the company, nearly 200 in forty-eight motors, passed through Heriotfield and saw the new buildings in course of erection. I am bound to say I cannot conceive any place more suitable or more likely to succeed. In view of all this, what a farce the claims for compensation are. There is not the slightest disturbance of amenity. The new colony is a clear mile or more away from Scott-Plumer's house and cannot be seen from there, and if they were in view there could be no prettier sight.I think the landowners of Scotland ought to welcome as a pleasant, agreeable, and patriotic sight a community of small holders taking life upon their property. When they claim a sum of over £4,000 because of the prejudice created by having those prosperous small holdings upon that property, I do think they are not taking a patriotic line. I think they are taking a line which must be curbed by Statute, and that we must prevent those gigantic and intolerable sums being paid from small holdings merely because of the prejudices of a certain class. Anybody who has been in Switzerland or the Tyrol will not think it a disagreeable sight to see attractive little farms flourishing all round. It ought to gratify any true patriot to see such a sight, and to see happy and flourishing homes of people growing up in his neighbourhood. An hon. Member opposite smiles at that, but I mean what I say. I think it does no credit to the patriotism of the landowners in question to put in those preposterous claims, and I think it does us no credit in this House that it should have been possible under a system which we have established, and for which the hon. Member for Central Glasgow has taken credit, that such claims should be able to be enforced. I have referred to the success of these holdings because they have been criticised most adversely, and I am glad to think that that criticism has been disproved by fifty or more of the most prominent agrculturists in Scotland. I regret extremely that the efforts of the Board have been curtailed for want of funds in cases where small holders have made requests for loans to assist them in 1433 rebuilding their houses, and I would particularly call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this, because I believe this to be some of the most beneficent work the Board could undertake. Reference is made to the matter in the Report on page 15. One of the best effects of the original Crofters Act was to be seen in the enormously improved housing accommodation. In the Isle of Skye, for instance, within a very few years a sum of £150,000 was spent in improving the houses of the poor crofters, and all over the Highlands, I understand, that two-thirds at least of the dwellings, including some steadings, have been rebuilt as soon as they were able to borrow money for the purpose. Here these small holders are extremely desirous to get assistance for improving their dwellings.I would particularly ask the Secretary for Scotland to give his consent to a larger sum being devoted to this purpose and, if necessary, obtain larger funds. For England we have a Housing Bill under which large sums of public money are to be advanced for the purpose of houses being built by a Government Department. Here we have the owners themselves only too anxious to take up the duty and the burden of improving their own dwellings if only they can get the money. The Board report that they would be only too pleased to extend their operations in this direction, but that owing to the limitation of their funds they have been obliged to restrict their operations to what were formerly congested districts. They have had many applications outside those districts, but on account of want of funds, and other demands in connection with small holdings, they have been obliged to limit their loans in this respect. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there could not be a more beneficent or more secure expenditure than that of allowing these men to borrow money on fair terms for the improvement of their own dwellings. That operation is now curtailed simply for want of funds.
§ Mr. MOLTENOI understand that it is. May I read what the Board say?—
So great, indeed, was the initial demand, that it was thought prudent at the outset"—
§ Mr. MOLTENOI understand that that still prevails.
§ Mr. MOLTENOI am glad that that assurance can be given.
Owing to the geographical restriction mentioned above, it was found necessary in the meantime to refuse applications from persons residing outside the scheduled area, but, on the other hand, the Hoard have seen their way to grant no fewer than 134 separate applications, involving the rebuilding of 105 dwelling houses. …I read that statement as meaning that they were still obliged considerably to restrict this operation; but if the right hon. Gentleman says that that is not so, I am very glad to hear it. I hope that every encouragement will be given to the extension of the operations of the Board under that head. I do not think we shall have a satisfactory administration of the Small Landholders Act until we have a Minister sitting on the Treasury Bench responsible to Parliament for the operations under the Act. I cannot conceive how it could be possible for the Secretary for Scotland, burdened as he is with the administration of the whole of Scotland, to add to his other duties the immense labour involved in initiating and carrying on operations under this Act. The Act not only establishes a Board of Agriculture, but it is to resettle small holders in Scotland—an enormous operation. What do we find elsewhere? I regard to Ireland we find a very active Vice-President on the Treasury Bench. We all know what the condition of Irish agriculture is. We know what the Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction has done. We know that it commands enormous funds—hundreds of thousands of pounds—three or four times as much as our Board commands. [An HON. MEMBER: "Legislation!"] I am informed that legislation is not necessary, but that, by an administrative act, a Minister could be placed on the Treasury Bench to be responsible for the proceedings under this Act. I urge most strongly that that should be done.We have seen the benefit of such an arrangement in the case of Ireland. The Minister is here to answer questions, to-back up his officials, to encourage them, and to fight for them, and, when the fight comes for the money, he is on the spot and can speak with authority. Such a Minister would be in touch with Scotland. We all know the enormous amount of detail involved in matters of this kind. It is essential that the Minister should be constantly in touch with those who are actually carrying out the operations under an Act of this kind. It cannot be satisfactory that the Minister should be situated in London while the operations 1435 have to go on in Scotland. I have nothing to say against the present Secretary for Scotland. I think he has acted in an unexceptionable manner in regard to this matter. He has devoted an enormous amount of time and labour to it, but I feel certain that the work is too great for any man to take on his shoulders in addition to the work already involved in the administration of Scotland. In England we have a Minister for Agriculture who is concerned only with agricultural development. In Scotland we have a great land problem to be settled. Scotland is in a different position from that of any other portion of the United Kingdom. Scotland has only 78,000 small holders all told. Ireland has over 500,000, and England has an enormous number. The whole problem is different in Scotland. The people are not on the land. They have to be put there, and it is a much more difficult problem to put men afresh on the land than to keep there those who are already on it, and improve their property.
Therefore, I maintain that if we are really to make this Act what it ought to be, and to meet the incessant demands of Scotland, we must have a more active administration of the Act. The demand is not being met at present. A mere matter of 200 small holders a year is really ridiculous. It is like baling out the ocean with a teaspoon to treat the agricultural problem of Scotland as being settled by an operation of that kind. We have held this Act up to the people of Scotland as a panacea for all their difficulties, and so it is. They have accepted it as such, and now, when they have come forward in their thousands to take advantage of it, we say to them, "In forty years you may get a holding." That is not practical politics. Moreover, it is very injurious to the country. We have an enormous emigration. The population is diminishing in number. You have the most skilful agricultural population in the whole world being driven out from their homeland, because of the failure to make this Act respond to the demands made upon it. There is no reason why, with this machinery together with proper and adequate funds—and no more profitable investment could be made—we should not settle 1,500 or 2,000 persons yearly in Scotland in a position to make themselves prosperous and happy homes. If the right hon. Gentleman has any influence, I hope he will mention to the Prime Minister, as 1436 I have done, the urgent need for the Board of Agriculture to be represented on the Treasury Bench by a Minister who can speak with authority in this House.
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe condition of the House and the course of this Debate remind me forcibly of the famous phrase in one of Bacon's Essays, "'What is truth?' said jesting Pilate, but did not stay for an answer." Many Members have made speeches and asked questions, and they all appeared very much interested in the subject, but there are very few here to listen to the answer. I am glad that the hon. Member for Aberdeen University (Sir H. Craik) is here, because I have several things to say to him. But I think it is rather an accident that he is here in time. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) asked several questions about education—
§ Sir H. CRAIKWhere is he?
Mr. McKINNON WOODI think he has an engagement. Before I reply to his questions I should like to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend who last addressed the Committee (Mr. Molteno). I say to him quite frankly that I agree with all he has said as to the desirability of having a Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries officially in Scotland. I am quite prepared to admit, and, indeed, to assert, that it is quite impossible for one man to look after all the other Departments and also this new Department of Agriculture, which never belonged to the Secretary for Scotland until the last two years, and which, with fisheries, would very profitably occupy the time of one Member of this House. The hon. Member for Bridgeton asked me a question about education, and the same class of question was raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Glasgow University. Why was it, asked the hon. Member for Bridgeton, that the Board of Education had applied to the Development Commissioners to have certain Grants for intermediate education in agriculture? The answer to that is that the work that they are entrusted with is in connection with agricultural teaching in the secondary schools. The hon. Member for Sutherlandshire and the hon. Member for Inverness both asked questions about a school for the training of small holders, which it has been suggested might be instituted on the Board of Agriculture's own land 1437 near to Inverness, and the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire asked me to give him the latest information on the subject.
As the hon. Member is aware a deputation from Inverness came to see me a few weeks ago and made certain suggestions as to this institute, and the Board of Agriculture are about to make arrangements to meet those gentlemen, or some of them, in Inverness in order to learn from them how much help—I do not mean only financial help—put other kinds of help they could guarantee if this institution were created. That matter, therefore, is being carefully considered. I am sorry to say that the application we made to the Development Commissioners has not yet resulted in anything. It may result in something in the future, but at the present time it has not done so. I now come to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen University. Aberdeen, Mr. Lyall, is a wonderful place. The claims of Aberdeen are never neglected. But what Aberdeen was disturbed about to-day I cannot learn from the speech of the hon. Gentleman. He seemed to me to mix up the question of the University of Edinburgh and the college of agriculture there, and the question of the demonstration area, so that I really could not understand what he was driving at. What are the facts? The facts are simply these: The College of Agriculture in Edinburgh are about to obtain some land and the governors considered whether they should not put their educational institution on that land instead of keeping it in Edinburgh. So far as I know no agreement has been come to on that point. I believe that the Chairman of the Board of Agriculture thinks it would be a good thing if they used this land, but how Aberdeen should consider this an injury to them I do not know! We would all be prepared to say that it would be a good thing if the standard of agricultural education were raised. Anything that tended to raise it would have our support. But why, because Edinburgh raises the standard of education, there should be any jealousy shown by Aberdeen I do not know. Let us not have jealousy; let us have emulation. If Edinburgh raises her standard of education, let Aberdeen and Glasgow follow!
As to the question of afforestation, we have been in communication with the Development Commissioners, and the Development Commissioners have agreed to assist us to appoint three new advisory 1438 officers for forestry. These will assist owners with advice in regard to planting, and will perform other duties which are performed by advisory officers in other parts. Of course, a good deal of time has been spent in looking for a demonstration area, but I can discuss the subject with a perfectly clear conscience. I have done all I could to assist it and nothing to hinder it. A Committee was appointed before I occupied my present office. They brought forward a Report, valuable and interesting in many respects, but which did not suggest any particular area. Soon after I came into office I appointed an Advisory Committee, and that Advisory Committee made it its first duty to look for a suitable area. They took some time. I do not blame them. It is a difficult search. They had to find a place that was suitable for educational demonstration purposes, and they took until something approaching the end of last year—I forget the exact date—when they presented a Report to me. I considered it without delay and put it before the Development Commissioners. The Development Commissioners had two objections to the selection of the Committee. They thought the land was not sufficiently central in position, and they thought that it did not include a sufficient variety of timber. They may have had other reasons for objecting to it, but they were not prepared to give us the money. Now I understand that they have been considering the thing and looking over several areas. Though I have no official information from them, I believe that a report from them is on its way to the Board of Agriculture making some suggestions as to the area, about which, of course, I naturally can say nothing until I have seen the proposals. I do not know what the exact nature of the proposals are, but the hon. Member for Aberdeen University made two statements which I think he ought not to have made. I do not quite understand how he can say that the Committee's action was unanimous when it was well known that one member was strongly opposed to the recommendation. It is perfectly well known that he is opposed to it. He never made any concealment about the matter.
§ Sir H. CRAIKHe did not vote against it.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI am not going to make a great point about it, because the bulk of the Committee made the recommendation put forward and relying upon that, and having considered the 1439 matter we came to the conclusion that there was no better scheme before us. I brought that scheme, on behalf of the Board of Agriculture, before the Development Commissioners, and I do not think it is treating the matter quite fairly to bring in the name of the Lord Chancellor. There is no ground for doing it; that sort of thing ought not to be done without sufficient reason. The Lord Chancellor has never interfered in the matter at all, and has never said a single word to me about it. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh asked me a pointed question as to what was the real reason of the delay in setting up small holdings.
Mr. PRICEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman—[An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up!"]—before he passes to the query of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, what information he can give us on the last named point. Before the demonstration area is definitely settled will the Board have any veto; or will they be compelled to accept the recommendations of the Development Commissioners?
Mr. McKINNON WOODI do not think I am compelled to accept the Commissioner's recommendations. I have been asked a question as to what the Development Commissioners have got to do with that matter. They have got a good deal to do with it, because they have the money. I cannot buy a demonstration area out of £200,000, and we must get the money from them. If England and Ireland have got money, I do not see why Scotland ought not to have some. As to the question of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, several hon. Members have suggested that lack of money was responsible for the delay in setting up the small holdings. A long time ago I said that I had no doubt that if more money was required for the purpose the Government would provide it. The fact is what I complain of is that we have not been able to spend our money quickly enough, we have not been able to get our schemes through, and I must in justice to the Board of Agriculture and in my own defence, point out the reason of that. This Bill we are told to-day expressed the composite work and was the joint production of the combined wisdom of both parties, but it is because the machinery provided in this Bill is cumbrous, costly, and unwieldy, that no better progress has been made. Who would 1440 imagine when Parliament set up an independent Court to consider this question that the most important part of the subject—questions of compensation to landlord and tenant—is taken away from that Court and given to an arbitrator, now to one and now to another, and all the experience of that Court is thrown away. The hon. Member for South Lanark lamented that they had not piled up a body of precedents. So do I. And the reason is because, by the action of the Party opposite, they have been allowed to delay the Land Court.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lyell)I do not think the Secretary for Scotland is out of order in discussing the administration of the present Act. It would be out of order to discuss the possible amendment of that Act.
§ Mr. WATSONMy remark was about the want of explanation of the principle in regard to the reduction of rent. That has nothing to do with settlement compensation.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThere is nothing sacrosanct about past legislation.
Mr. McKINNON WOODWhat is the position? You bring your case before the Court, the parties interested bring their evidence before the Court. You proceed to make your plan. At the present time, on the insufficient information which you have, you have no power to prosecute it, unless people give it to you voluntarily, and I shall have something to say upon that point, and when you have done all that, and the Court is seized of the information in this matter, in which economy is a vital interest, you put aside all that work and you go to a person who, up to this point, knows nothing about it, however competent he may be, and you go over the same process again. The cost of the 1441 Lindean arbitration was £90 a head to the small holders. Is anybody surprised more progress is not made, and that progress is slow when your machinery is so cumbrous?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThat is not what the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite said. He said, "No, it is our joint Bill." The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the late Lord Advocate said when this principle of arbitration was introduced that it would make the Bill unworkable—that it would "Smother the Bill" was the expression he used. And everybody knows perfectly well it is most disingenuous to pretend anything else than that that was forced upon us in another place. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow raised the question of some criticism of the Board of Agriculture on the part of the Land Court, and he pointed out that the Land Court said that when the case was heard the promoters presented an amended scheme with the number of holdings reduced or increased according to the circumstances. What is the reason of that? The reason is that the landlords and factors will not give the information very often, and it is only when we come into Court that we get the information we want. And then they turn round and blame us for altering the scheme. I do not take the whole of this paragraph as being censure of the Board of Agriculture. They point out some of the schemes are prepared without sufficient consideration in detail. Quite so; we have not got the details. I am not going to refer to legislation, but it is evident we must have some legislation in order to get the details. It is said by one or two Members that we ought to purchase. The hon. Member for Blackfriars said it, and the hon. Member for South Lanark, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs said we ought to purchase. They do not mean the same thing. The hon. Member for Blackfriars thought we ought to purchase land for small holdings and let it out to the tenants. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs pointed out that my predecessor at the Scotch Office, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, tried some experiments, and he pointed out how unfortunate they were. I had not time to check his figures.
§ Mr. A. C. MORTONIt was equally unfortunate in Sutherlandshire.
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe fact is, State ownership makes bad tenants. We find tenants do not pay us or get into arrear. If you were to go through with the plan of the hon. Baronet opposite, I do not see how you are going to meet the wishes of the hon. Member for Blackfriars, because we have not got people with money in their pockets to buy the land, and it is very doubtful whether it is desirable to burden people not possessed of wealth who have not more than enough money to stock their holdings with mortgages and deeds. It is far better they should pay rent coupled with security of tenure. So I do not think the alternative of purchase and resale, or purchase and letting, is one at the present moment which I should be very willing to recommend. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow brought forward a case of which I had not heard. It was the case of taking a farm which he said was worth £1,500 or £2,000 a year. I never heard of it. I asked my advisers, and they have not heard of it. I wonder was that the case of Ballifettrish, where only 137 acres was taken for new holdings and for enlarging, and the arbitrator gave compensation to the tenant of £1,243 for a loss of profits on 137 acres—£113 per holding, with an eight years' term of lease, yet unexpired, or £9 an acre! I am told the land is probably worth £3 an acre. These are the principles of compensation that follow from arbitration.
The hon. Member opposite said he wished the Land Court had laid down some reasonable principle on which these things might be settled at an earlier date, but, if these are to be the awards, I am very anxious about the terms on which agreements would be possible. The hon. Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson) expressed the opinion that we should only provide for those in the district, and the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs, looking at the matter from a more practical point of view, brought up the case of Lewis. If the Board of Agriculture cannot put the people from Lewis on to the Island of Skye, where are we going to put them. You cannot settle them in Lewis itself. I cannot accept the principle that you must never arrange for putting people out of their own district. One of our greatest difficulties is that people do not want to go out of their own district. The hon. Member for Kincardineshire (Captain Murray) and other hon. Members urged with great force that, instead of having one, two, or three small 1443 holders and putting them down by themselves, you ought to try and have a group of them together, because it would be more economical and better for development and co-operation. I entirely agree with that, but you cannot do it if you are going to keep men, in any strict sense, in their own district. The hon. Member for Kincardineshire found that this was so when he came to discuss the matter, and his suggestion is a very valuable one. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Major Hope) criticised some of our figures, and expressed astonishment that we had only spent £11,700 on live stock, general development, and education. The hon. and gallant Member is entirely mistaken in that figure, because that is by no means the limit of the amount we have spent on those purposes. We have spent a great deal more than that on education alone. If I could get money from other sources I should keep more money for the purpose of small holdings, but instead of having only spent £11,700 upon the purposes referred to, as a matter of fact we have spent nearly £50,000 on those purposes this year.
Mr. McKINNON WOODSome of it comes out of the Education Vote, but where the hon. and gallant Member is wrong is in making out that we were only spending that paltry sum on all those purposes, because the actual sum is four or five times larger than he stated.
Mr. McKINNON WOODIt could not be shown in the account of the fund out of which it did not come, and that is a very curious principle of accounting for the hon. and gallant Member to suggest. I admit that we ought to be making more progress, but I will give one other result of a recent arbitration. Hon. Members know what the selling value is, and yet what is the result? I will take three farms in South Lewis. We gave £2,950 for the buildings, £2,600 for shootings, £1,430 for other purposes, £1,000 for depreciation of the fishing, and £4,639 for depreciation in the value of the estate. There are hon. Gentlemen opposite who know the value of property in South Lewis, and I would like to ask them what justification is there for a depreciation of £4,639 due to the creation of small holdings. There is 1444 another surprising item. The sum of £500 is given because it is supposed that schools will be required, and rates will have to be paid for those schools. Did anyone ever contemplate that a sum like that would be brought into the account?
§ Sir G. YOUNGERDoes the right hon. Gentleman remember what the owner's rates are? The whole of the rent practically goes back in rates.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI do not think that is the point, and that has nothing to do with the question of the loss of selling value owing to the creation of small holdings. It is impossible under these conditions to go on creating small holdings.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThe rates are a public burden, and they would reduce the capital value of the estate if increased.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERGiven quite rightly.
Mr. McKINNON WOODNow we know where we are. What is the use of pretending that you want small holdings created in Scotland, if enormous fines like that are to be paid by the public authority? I do not propose to discuss that branch of the subject any further, because I might be tempted to go into the question of future legislation, but I think the Committee has seen what the difficulties are with which the Board of Agriculture has had to deal, and how serious are their responsibilities. I must say that I think before we can promise to deal with due expedition and due economy with the creation of small holders in Scotland, there must be more simplicity in the administration, and we must not have the work done twice over. The work must really be committed to one authority to come to a determination, not only as to fair rents, but as to compensation, and we must have some understanding that the compensation we have to pay must not exceed the fee simple value of the whole estate.
§ Sir H. CRAIKThe right hon. Gentleman has chosen in his reply to indulge in some perfectly irrelevant remarks. What has the conduct of the Board of Agriculture to do with the action of the arbiters under this Act? I wish simply to refer to the answer the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to make to the criticism which I raised upon the area of afforestation, and the action of the Board 1445 of Agriculture in that respect. The right hon. Gentleman says I have no right to refer to the fact that one Member of the Departmental Committee dissented from the rest of his colleagues.
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe hon. Member is entirely misrepresenting me. I said he had no right to refer to the Lord Chancellor, who has nothing to do with the matter.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I adhere to every word I said, both with regard to that Member of the Departmental Committee and the Lord Chancellor and his party. I wish further to say that the right hon. Gentleman chose to omit a very material fact, namely, that the matter of the choice of the afforestation area was left to the Development Board. He forgot to toll us that the member of the Departmental Committee who dissented from all his colleagues is a member of the Development Board, with no right to any opinion on the question at all. In these circumstances, I have no alternative but to move the reduction.
§ Mr. PIRIEI can quite understand the irritation of the Secretary for Scotland, and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) should have brought out a fact which the Scottish Office have tried to keep in the background ever since this scandal took place. It is high time that these scandals which take place were made known, though I can quite understand the irritation at that sort of thing being made public.
§ Captain MURRAYIs the hon. Gentleman entitled to make a personal attack on a Member of the Development Commission who is unable in any circumstances to defend himself?
§ Mr. PIRIEI am repeating what is perfectly well known by everyone who takes an interest in this question. It is the talk of everyone, both in Edinburgh and Aberdeen. The truth is sometimes unpleasant to hear. It is high time the opportunity was taken in the few minutes we have of discussing the Scottish matters to make these things more widely known among the people of Scotland. I congratulate the hon. Member upon having brought the fact out, and I am not in the least surprised at the irritation of the Scottish Office, who have a shuffling way of avoiding these matters. I shall certainly support the hon. Member in the reduction, and vote with him.
§ Mr. BOOTHI congratulate my hon. Friend upon his belated appearance, but I cannot congratulate him upon the way in which he has intervened in the Debate. He alluded to the few minutes devoted to the question, but I would remind him that earlier in the evening, when he was not here, a count was taken.
§ Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £221,000, be granted for the said Service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 207.
1447| Division No. 204.] | AYES. | [9.59 p.m. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Fell, Arthur | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Malcolm, Ian |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gibbs, G. A. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Gilmour, Captain John | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Barnston, Harry | Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) |
| Bird, Alfred | Goldsmith, Frank | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Boyton, James | Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) | Stanier, Beville |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Watson, Hon. W. |
| Cassel, Felix | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Weston, Colonel J. W. |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Hibbert, Sir Henry F. | Yate, Colonel Charles Edward |
| Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole | Hills, John Waller | Younger, Sir George |
| Currie, George W. | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | H. Craik and Mr. Pirie. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Alden, Percy | Arnold, Sydney |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Barnes, George N. | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | O'Dowd, John |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | O'Malley, William |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Boland, John Pius | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Shee, James John |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Hazleton, Richard | O'Suilivan, Timothy |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Brace, William | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Higham, John Sharp | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hinds, John | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Hodge, John | Pratt, J. W. |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Hudson, Walter | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Radford, G. H. |
| Clough, William | John, Edward Thomas | Reddy, Michael |
| Clynes, John R. | Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Crooks, William | Jowett, Frederick William | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Joyce, Michael | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Cullinan, John | Kelly, Edward | Robinson, Sidney |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth) | Kilbride, Denis | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | King, Joseph | Rowlands, James |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| De Forest, Baron | Levy, Sir Maurice | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Delany, William | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Sheehy, David |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Lundon, Thomas | Shortt, Edward |
| Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clithcroe) |
| Dillon, John | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert |
| Doris, William | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Sutherland, John E. |
| Duffy, William J. | Maclean, Donald | Sutton, John E. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) |
| Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | M'Curdy, Charles Albert | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | M'Kean, John | Walsh, Stephen (Lanes, Ince) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Wardle, George J. |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Waring, Walter |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Webb, H. |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Meagher, Michael | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Falconer, James | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | White, Patrick (Heath, North) |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Millar, James Duncan | Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Molloy, Michael | Wiles, Thomas |
| Field, William | Molteno, Percy Alport | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.) |
| Fiavin, Michael Joseph | Morrell, Philip | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Morison, Hector | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Glanville, Harold James | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | Muldoon, John | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones | Murphy, Martin J. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Yeo, Alfred William |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Neilson, Francis | Young, William (Perthshire, East) |
| Hackett, John | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | |
| Hancock, John George | Nolan, Joseph | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.