Lords Sitting of 31 March 1908

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Order applicable to the following Bill has been complied with:—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) [H.L.].
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Great Western Railway Bill [H.L.]—Reported with Amendments.
Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill [H.L.].—Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Audenshaw Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Llanelly Gas Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a, An Amendment made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Taff Vale Railway Bill [H.L.]; Fish-guard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill [H.L.]; Skegness Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; North British and Mercantile Insurance Company Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill; Dublin and South Eastern Railway Bill; Finchley Urban District Council Bill; Seaham Harbour Dock Bill.—Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CAPE OF GOOD HOPE (OBSERVATORY).
  Report of His Majesty's Astronomer at the Cape of Good Hope to the Secretary of the Admiralty, for the years 1906–1907.
  NAVY (ESTIMATES, 1907–1908) (PROGRAMME OF SHIPBUILDING, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, ETC.)
  Statement showing the probable effect on the programme due to re-appropriation of cash provision, etc.
  COMMERCIAL, No. 2. (1908).
  Despatches from His Majesty's Minister at Panama, respecting the employment of British West Indian labour in the Panama Canal Zone.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 7 (1908).
  Convention between the United Kingdom and France respecting commercial relations between France and Barbados, signed at London, 9th January, 1907. (Ratifications exchanged at London 18th March, 1908).

  ARMY.
  General Annual Report on the British Army for the year ended 30th September, 1907, with which is incorporated the Annual Report of Recruiting prepared by command of the Army Council.
  Presented [by command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES ACT, 1907.
  Three Orders in Council, dated March, 1908, viz:—For the transfer of the Yeomanry and Volunteers to the Territorial Force; Relating to the property of the Honourable Artillery Company; Applying certain enactments relating to the Militia, Yeomanry, or Volunteers to the Territorial Force.
  NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
  Orders in Council, dated 19th March, 1908, approving memorials of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty praying sanction to:—Certain improvements in the pay and position and new regulations for the retirement of engineer officers of His Majesty's Naval Service; the payment of a special allowance of 1s. 6d. a day to the chief or senior gunner of the Torpedo School Ship at Sheerness.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Order in Council, dated 19th March, 1908, entitled "The Northern Nigeria Order in Council, 1906."

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT, 1875.
  Order in Council, dated 19th March 1908, amending the Order in Council of 28th July, 1893, as amended by the Order in Council of 7th May, 1907, remitting to the Circuits of the Judges.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment; and to be read 3a to-morrow.
MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee without further amendment: The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House to be received to-morrow.
SUNDAY CLOSING (SHOPS) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments; The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended.
ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): My Lords, I do not intend to weary the House with any speech on this occasion. There is absolutely nothing new in principle in this Bill, and I beg formally to move that it be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

THE TERRITORIAL FORCE.
*THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHrose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for
248
War—(1) What assistance, if any, will be given to County Associations in the matter of recruiting by the military authorities to enable them to raise the number of recruits required for the various arms of the new force? (2) When the new units are actually raised, and the military authorities are compelled to retrench original members of the County Associations to make room for the representatives of the new arms, in order to avoid this invidious and unpleasant necessity, will the Secretary of State consider the advisability of having a supplemental list? (3) In the event of a range situated in one county, which owing to the disbandment of a unit in that county may no longer be required, where private contributions have been employed to secure the range, will compensation be given? If arrangements can be made to transfer the range to another county, will the two commanding officers of the units concerned be entitled to agree on the terms of transfer, or will such arrangements be entrusted to the County Associations or the Army Council? (4) The County Associations have to provide horses for ordinary training. The country has been partitioned by the military authorities into suitable areas for the purchase of horses in the event of mobilisation. What will be the relative position of the County Associations and the military purchasers? Will the military authorities purchase both for the Regular Army and the Territorial Force, or will the County Associations be expected to find horses either by hire or purchase for their own troops? (5) What is a "unit?"
The noble Earl said; My Lords, as the period of the existence of the old Volunteer system is rapidly coming to an end, I venture to think that the Questions I desire to put to the noble Earl the Under-Secretary are of considerable importance. My first Question refers to what assistance, if any, is to be given to the County Associations in their task of raising the recruits necessary for the various arms of the Territorial Force, and I think it is obvious that every possible assistance should be given to those who have undertaken to raise these new arms if they are to carry out satisfactorily the duties

249
they have so willingly undertaken. Sergeant-instructors are now responsible for recruiting for the Regulars, and, however good a sergeant-instructor may be as such, he is liable to be sent back to his regiment if his efforts as a recruiting sergeant are not successful. That is a system which I hope will not be maintained in the future, because in the new Territorial Force he would obviously be under two masters; and there is a strong objection, in certain parts of the country, on the part of village mothers to allow their sons to join the Reserve Forces if they can help it, because they feel that if the sergeant-instructor once gets hold of them they will pass them on to the Line. It would be instructive for us to know whose servant the sergeant-instructor is going to be, and we desire to know whether any professional assistance will be given to the County Associations in the matter of recruiting.
My second Question has reference to the County Associations, and the point I raise will become an important one at a very early date. I hope the noble Earl appreciates my use of the word "retrench," because that, I think, accurately describes the position at the present time. I understand, from an answer given in another place by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, that retrenchment may mean retirement, while hon. Members on the other side of the House are of opinion that retrenchment must mean discharge. When the new units are actually raised and room has to be found on the County Associations for the representatives of the new arms, the original members of those Associations will have either to be retired or discharged; and as it is very important to secure the assistance of as many as possible of those gentlemen who will have taken an active part in the early formation of the Territorial Force, it is obviously undesirable that they should be turned off the County Associations just at the moment when their experience is beginning to be of value. What I would impress upon the noble Earl is this, that the County Associations should be given the opportunity, if they so desire, of having a supernumerary list composed of the representatives of the new units, who will have all the privileges of members of
250
the Associations, who will attend the meetings and speak, and vote, and gradually be absorbed as vacancies occur.
The third Question standing in my name on the Paper is one of some little personal difficulty. It concerns ranges, and I ask it not as a member of a County Association, but in the disembodied spirit of a disbanded colonel of a Volunteer regiment.
The next Question is a very important one, and refers to the provision of horses. Two years ago chief constables were asked to make inquiries in their respective districts about available horses. The request was repeated last year. By this scheme the provision of horses for the Territorial Force is thrown on the County Associations. A further communication has now been made suggesting a division of the county into areas for horse buying in case of mobilisation—that is to say, apparently, for providing the necessary horses for the Regular Army on sudden mobilisation. I should like to ask what will be the position respectively of the Regular Army and the Territorial Force when mobilisation takes place. It has been pointed out, on more than one occasion, that it is absolutely important to have horses that have been trained to perform the duties required of them. The County Associations have to provide horses for ordinary training. Will the War Office representative be able to take all those horses for the Regular Army on mobilisation? It is just as well that we should know how we stand. We quite recognise, of course, that the Regular Army must come first, but we wish to know in what position we stand.
My last Question is—What is a "unit"? The noble Earl the Under-Secretary has written to me privately regarding this Question, and has asked whether I have anything at the back of my mind. I have not. From the civilian point of view a unit is one. I have a little book on tactics; I do not know whether it is very reliable, but it appears from it that, from the military point of view, a unit is any number of troops exceeding one. From the civilian point of view a mounted soldier would be a unit. In the event of misadventure

251
in the field and the temporary separation of the soldier from his horse, would he and his horse become two units? As the County Associations are to be paid by results, and as those results are to depend on the number of units raised, it is obviously important for the Associations to know if they may themselves define what a unit is. If so, I can undertake to say there will be no want of money. It is important to know, for instance, whether a half battalion raised in a particular district is to be a unit, or whether a company is to be a unit. Of what exactly will a unit consist? We had a conversation in your Lordships' House the other day about a gun allotted to Staffordshire and Shropshire. Is that gun a unit? I understand that it has arrived in Staffordshire, but without limber and without stores. Still, the commanding officer thinks well of that gun, and is of opinion that if he could get the other eleven complete at an early date he would be able to do some excellent work and show Lord. Roberts that he was wrong in the view he took. Here is one gun allotted to Staffordshire and Shropshire. While at the present time Shropshire and Staffordshire have a joint brigade of Garrison Artillery, under this scheme Shropshire is to be in one division, in one command, and in one regimental district, and Staffordshire is to be completely separated. Yet when I ask a question on the subject the noble Earl tells me that one gull has been sent to Shropshire and Staffordshire. It rather indicates that he does not know what is the foundation of this scheme. The men concerned are now waiting for information, and if the War Office could only forget its traditions and let us know fully what is proposed we believe we could make the Territorial Force a success.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, before I deal with the Questions put to me by the noble Earl, perhaps I may be allowed to congratulate him on having got part of his gun. I can assure him the other parts will follow very quickly. As regards the first Question, in the regulations which will be published almost immediately, officers commanding Regular
252
recruiting areas are ordered to give all the assistance they can in this matter, and Regular officers, when such a course is most convenient, are instructed to attest and finally approve recruits. As regards the second Question, I think the suggestion of my noble friend is rather an impracticable one. A man must be either a member or not a member of the Association. If, hereafter, we desire, as I daresay we shall, to raise an increased number of units from any particular county, we shall have to increase the numbers of that county's Association by framing a new scheme which will in due course be presented to Parliament, as laid down in the Act.
In reply to the third Question, if the range is private property, of which the corps has only had the use, it remains private property; but if the range in question is corps property—that is, property vested in the commanding officer of the corps, which has been partially provided out of private subscriptions—then all corps property of a disbanded unit reverts to the Secretary of State; and unless the private funds were distinctly advanced and secured as a loan no obligation to repay the contributions will be recognised. That is provided for by Section 8 of the Military Lands Act, 1892. As regards the latter part of the Question, the Secretary of State, in whom the range is vested on disbandment, can make such arrangements as he thinks fit whether for the transfer to another County Association or for any other purpose. I need hardly say that in such a case, he would, as far as possible, consult the views of those locally interested. In reply to the fourth Question, the provision of horses is a very difficult one, but the War Office, in conjunction with the Board of Agriculture, are endeavouring to draw up a scheme which will help us in regard to this matter. As regards the specific Question asked, I can say that the military authorities will only purchase for the Regular Army. The County Associations will be expected to provide for their own troops.
As to the meaning, of the word "unit" an exact definition is not easy to give. In its ordinary military sense, the word is a somewhat elastic term, depending

253
for its precise significance on the context in which it is used. In the King's Regulations the word is used to denote an infantry battalion or depot, a cavalry regiment or depot, a battery or depot of Royal Horse or Field Artillery, a company or depot of Royal Garrison Artillery, a field troop, bridging train, telegraph or balloon company, etc., in the Royal Engineers. It is used to denote a company in the departmental services like the Army Service Corps. It is, therefore, applied to the battalion of infantry, the regiment of cavalry, the battery of artillery, etc. To speak of the County Association raising units is to imply that the Army Council, through the general officer commanding-in-chief, informed the county that in the general scheme of the Territorial Force the quota of troops the particular county was expected to furnish was so many infantry battalions, so many batteries of horse or field artillery, so many companies of Army Service Corps, etc.
The War Office has issued a financial memorandum to Associations which fully explains the basis on which what is called the establishment grant is to be paid. In each arm of the service the organisation taken as the basis of payment is either the actual unit laid down in the general scheme of requirements or a sub-division of that unit. For instance, Staffordshire is asked to raise, say, four battalions of infantry, or thirty-two companies (eight companies per battalion). The establishment grant is £100 per infantry company. This county would, therefore, receive £3,200 in respect of its quota of infantry. Supposing that the county were asked to raise inter alia a battery of heavy artillery and ammunition column, according to the financial memorandum the grant for this unit would be £200. Supposing again the county were asked to raise a Yeomanry regiment, the county would be paid on the basis of £95 per squadron which is the sub-division of the mounted regiment.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: I understand that no extra grant is to be given in cases where half batteries are raised in one place and half batteries in another? Can the noble Earl tell
254
me what penalty attaches to a chairman of a County Association if he passively resists the Act?
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I cannot state off-hand what would be the penalty in such a case. I think it is a matter which should be referred to the Law Officers of the Crown. With regard to the other point referred to by the noble Earl, I am afraid we cannot make any extra allowance on that ground.
LORD LOVAT: The noble Earl, in replying to Lord Dartmouth's fourth Question, stated that the War Office, in conjunction with the Board of Agriculture, were drawing up a scheme; but that scheme will affect horses in the future. The point on which I understand Lord Dartmouth wants information is what the Associations are to do meanwhile with respect to the providing of horses. There has only been one circular issued as yet to the County Associations on the subject, and in that circular the Associations are asked to do nothing at all in procuring horses until the whole demand of the Army has been satisfied. The Army requires 60,000 horses, and according to the rate at which they were obtained during the Boer War, it will take something like nine months to realise that number. Are the County Associations to do nothing meanwhile? The registration is done, not as it should be by officers commanding the Artillery or Yeomanry, or by men having some knowledge of horses, but actually by constabulary. A local policeman goes round and asks people if they have horses suitable for the Regular Army. The way the registration is done at present is a perfect farce. I hope we shall be assured that some consideration is being given to this important question. I think, also, that steps should be taken at once, by Order in Council, to make the representation of the different units on the Associations more exact.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: As regards the latter point, that is a question I cannot answer off-hand. Perhaps the noble Lord will communicate with me as to any case in which, in his opinion, a change should be made, and I will see

255
that the matter is considered. As to the registration of horses, I have never made any secret of the serious and unsatisfactory condition in which we are placed in regard to that matter. But the point alluded to by Lord Lovat did not arise out of the Questions on the Paper; and if the noble Lord likes to put down a Question to be asked some time after Easter, I shall, perhaps, be able to give him some information.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: Is the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture prepared to tell us anything about the progress of the scheme referred to by Lord Portsmouth?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): I never like to say anything without being certain that I am absolutely accurate. I therefore ask my noble friend to extend to me his indulgence by allowing me to put off making a statement for a short time. I can assure him that things are progressing very favourably, and I hope ere long to be able to make an announcement which will be satisfactory not only to my noble friend but to the House generally.

SUNDAY OPENING OF ART GALLERIES.
LORD NEWTONrose to ask His Majesty's Government why the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, and the Tate Gallery were closed on Sundays during five months in the year, whereas other similar institutions remained open. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in calling attention to the anomaly which is indicated in my Question I think I may safely say that when in 1896 the House of Commons unanimously passed a Resolution in favour of the Sunday opening of museums and galleries, almost everybody was under the impression that the question was finally and definitely settled. I confess that until only a few days ago I was under that impression myself, and I only discovered my error when, on proceeding to the National Gallery a short time ago on a Sunday afternoon, I found to my astonishment—I had almost said to my indignation—that that institution was closed on Sundays for no less a period
256
than five months in the year—namely, during the months of November, December, January, February, and March; and the same thing applies to other galleries.
I find I am not the only person who entertained this mistaken belief, because in consequence of my experience I caused observations to be taken last Sunday, and ascertained that over 300 people went to the National Gallery shortly after 2 o'clock on that day, and naturally met with the same reception as I did; and I do not know whether they derived any consolation from the fact that they were probably informed that, though they could not visit the National Gallery, nevertheless the Geological Museum was open for their inspection. The anomaly to which I refer consists in this, that whereas the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, the Tate Gallery, and the Wallace Collection are all closed on Sundays during five months of the year, the British Museum, the South Kensington Museum, the Natural History Museum, the Bethnal Green Museum, and that institution to which I have just referred, the Geological Museum, are open all the year round. I am entirely unable to understand by what process ally person has been able to differentiate between the respective claims of these various institutions as regards Sunday opening. I have heard it suggested that the reason the establishments I have mentioned are closed is on account of the absence of artificial light But to me that is an entirely unconvincing explanation, because those institutions which are open on Sundays are only open from 2 p.m. until dusk, and it is hardly necessary to point out that daylight is precisely the same on Sunday as it is on a week-day. The question of artificial light cannot possibly arise, because on really foggy and dark days I believe all those institutions are closed.
It cannot be pleaded as an excuse for keeping certain of these institutions closed that the public shows no inclination to visit them. As a matter of fact, the Sunday opening of museums and galleries has been an absolutely unqualified success, and I do not think anybody at the present day would venture

257
to assert that it was other than a universal benefit. I believe that, roughly, 400,000 people visit the public galleries and museums in London in the course of the year, and the average Sunday attendance really amounts to a considerable figure. For instance, the average number of visitors at the South Kensington Museum on Sundays is 1,755; at the British Museum, 1,110; at the Natural History Museum, 1,176; at the National Gallery, 1,450. It is no argument to say that the same proportion of people would not visit these institutions during the winter months, because if anybody will take the trouble to refer to the figures they will see that in proportion to the time, just as many people visit those galleries which are open during the winter months as is the case in the summer time, and it seems to me only natural that they should do so at a time of the year when open air pursuits are less attractive. As a matter of fact, the galleries which are constantly open are under direct Government control, and all the galleries I have mentioned which are closed during certain months, are managed by trustees. Personally, I should be the last person to bring any sort of charge against those trustees. I believe them to be all, without exception, highly enlightened persons. I see several of them sitting in the House at the present moment; and the inference which I draw is that the obstacle to the proposed all-the-year-round opening must proceed from the Treasury. I cannot account for it in any other way, and I would like to point out that if I am correct in this inference it is really an objection of an extremely trifling character.
I understand that on Sundays the work of the ordinary attendants is discharged by police. These police, in the case, for instance, of the National Gallery, amount possibly to fifteen or twenty, all told. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say, therefore, that the expense of keeping the National Gallery open on Sundays could not possibly amount to more than, say, £7 or £8 per day. It is, therefore, obvious that for an additional expenditure of something like £40 a month, less than £200 a year, the National Gallery
258
could be kept open during the entire year; and it is equally obvious that the other galleries I have mentioned, which are now closed, could, being smaller establishments, be kept open at a still smaller expense. I venture to think that expense must really be the sole obstacle in the way, because what is called Sabbatarianism is really dead; and you could not have any more convincing proof of that than the fact that the National Gallery of Edinburgh is actually open during every Sunday in the year, possibly owing to the influence of my noble friend on the cross benches. But in any case there is no obstacle now put in the way of anybody who desires rationally to amuse himself on a Sunday. In all parts of London, people can now hear most admirable concerts at an extremely trifling charge. They can, if they wish to do such things, indulge in the more doubtful amusement of listening to lectures by more or less distinguished people; and, from a correspondence which has recently appeared in the Press, I observe that members of certain political clubs are able to enjoy advantages which are denied to many other persons. I would venture to ask the House whether it is not somewhat ludicrous that our finest art collections should remain closed, whilst so many opportunities for recreation remain available? That being so, and it being, as I am convinced, a pure oversight on the part of somebody who has not yet pressed the Treasury sufficiently hard, I cannot help hoping that, whoever is going to answer for His Majesty's Government, will reply in a favourable sense, and that this anomaly will shortly cease to exist.
THE EARL OF CARLISLE: My Lords, before the noble Lord who represents the Treasury replies, I should like to be allowed, as the oldest member of the Board of Trustees of the National Gallery, to say a few words. I am sorry I cannot speak in the name of the Board, because it has not met since the noble Lord placed his Question on the Paper; but I have been able to consult the director and the majority of my colleagues, and I can say that the noble Lord is perfectly right in his statement that we are most anxious not to put any

259
opposition in the way of the further opening of the National Gallery. I should like to say, by the way, that the National Gallery is open for a considerably longer time every day than any other gallery in Europe. That, however, is no reason why it should not be open on a larger number of Sundays than at present. I should like to tell your Lordships very briefly the history of the matter. In 1896, when the Resolution of the House of Commons was passed, the Gallery was opened on Sundays from May to September from three to six o'clock. In 1897, another month was added, and it was open for six months on Sundays; and in 1898 it was open for seven months. I quite think it desirable that the time should be increased. The objection that was made before was that as the Gallery was not opened until two o'clock in the afternoon and dusk fell very early in the winter, it was not worth while to give a whole day's pay for what would be not more than two hours' work. But that argument does not apply to two additional months, at all events—the months of March and November. Speaking for myself, I confess I should prefer to see the Gallery open for the whole year if the Treasury would give the additional money necessary. The cost at present, in the case of the National Gallery, is £217 a year, and for the whole year the cost would be £365, which is not a very extravagant sum for giving a great deal of additional pleasure. As far as the Board of Trustees are concerned, there is, no doubt, we shall attempt to get the Treasury to enable us to give increased facilities in this direction.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, it is a matter of very deep regret to myself that such prominent institutions as the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, and the Tate Gallery, should have been so unfortunate as to incur the displeasure of my noble friend Lord Newton. He is, however, entirely inaccurate in the inference he draws that the Treasury is responsible for this particular state of things. Lord Carlisle, who is, I believe, the oldest trustee of the National Gallery, is entitled to speak with greater authority on this question than, perhaps, any other Member of your Lordships' House,
260
and I think he will bear me out when I say that it is impossible for the Treasury to act unless approached in this matter, first of all, by the trustees of the institutions in question. A similar point was raised in the House of Commons during the tenure of office of the late Government, and was answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher, who pointed out that, owing to the frequent deficiency of daylight on winter afternoons and the fact that in any case the time during which pictures could be seen was very short, it was not considered worth while, in the absence of artificial light, to keep the galleries open all the year round on Sundays; and as to the introduction of artificial light he said that, at all events in the case of the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery, the trustees entertained a strong objection, apart from the question of expense, and he was not prepared to press them on the point. I should like to add that it may be necessary, if the galleries are to be opened all the year round, to install the electric light, with the consequent increased risk of fire, and that various structural alterations would have to be taken into consideration. The Treasury, however, will entertain any proposal put forward by the trustees of these institutions.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, as a colleague of Lord Carlisle I can corroborate what he has already said on this subject. The trustees are in favour of giving as many facilities to the public as they possibly can, and I have no doubt my noble friend who put this Question on the Paper will remember that if it had not been for the action of the trustees twelve years ago, the National Gallery, at any rate, might still be closed. When we had to consider the extent to which the Gallery might be opened on Sundays there were two limits to be taken into consideration. There was, in the first place, the limit of daylight: now the opening hour on Sunday seems to have been taken—I do not know exactly why, but I imagine in consequence of the House of Commons Resolution—as two o'clock, and I suggest to your Lordships that there are unfortunately certain periods of the year when in London, at any rate, the amount of daylight after

261
two o'clock in the afternoon is so insignificant as to render it scarcely worth while to open between 2 p.m. and the hour when twilight sets in. Of course, if you come to the question of introducing artificial light, you open up a very much larger question. I do not think my noble friend intended to raise that.
LORD NEWTON: No.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The other limit arises out of financial considerations. My noble friend talked airily about an extra expenditure of £200 per annum. I think the House is aware that the National Gallery does not enjoy a very extravagant subsidy from public funds, and we do have to consider rather carefully how we spend £200 or any other appreciable sum of money. But I do not see why some arrangement should not be made whereby the Gallery might be thrown open for a longer period of the year. The trustees are likely to hold their monthly meeting before long, and we shall then certainly consider what has been proposed by my noble friend, and, if necessary, approach the Treasury on the subject. Now one word in regard to the attitude of the Treasury. I do not think the Treasury has been quite so neutral in the matter as the noble Lord opposite seems to suppose. I have a very distinct recollection that when this matter was first broached and we applied to the Treasury for a slight increase in our staff in order to enable us to open the Gallery on Sundays, we encountered considerable difficulty; at last, as a solution, it was suggested to us that police constables might be employed for this purpose during a certain part of the year. We accepted that as the best arrangement obtainable, but it was made very apparent to us indeed that the question of the cost of opening on Sundays was a consideration which my Lords of the Treasury would not leave out of account.
LORD JOICEY: Can the noble Lord give the House any idea of the number of visitors to the National Gallery on Sundays?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: About 1,400.
LORD NEWTON: I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but I should like to explain that there is no question of asking the trustees of the National Gallery or any other gallery to instal the electric light. We are only asking them to do what is done in the case of other galleries in the same position, and therefore any additional cost which would be necessary would be merely paid for attendants.
LORD DENMAN: Will the noble Lord say exactly what are the hours on which he would like these galleries opened on Sundays throughout the year?
LORD NEWTON: The same hours as prevail in the case of the galleries which are now open all the year round—that is to say, from two to 4 o'clock during December and January. After January the time could gradually be prolonged until you got to six or seven o'clock in the evening. When I went to the National Gallery the other Sunday it was light until six o'clock. There was, therefore no reason why the Gallery should not have been available to the public for three hours at least on that day, without the slightest necessity for artificial light.

AFFAIRS IN THE ISLAND OF VATERSAY.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNrose to call attention to the recently published correspondence between Lady Cathcart and the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate, and to the present condition of affairs in the Island of Vatersay.
The noble Earl said—My Lords, I venture to hope that your Lordships have looked into the correspondence which has been laid on the Table, and I think those of our Lordships who have done so will be of opinion that it has repaid perusal. It affords an illustration of the condition of affairs which prevails at the present time in part of the western islands of Scotland, and of the manner and customs of the present Scottish Office and of the sense which they entertain of the responsibilities

263
attaching to them in relation to the protection and defence of property. The correspondence is somewhat long and voluminous, but I shall endeavour to tell your Lordships my story in the way of narrative as far as possible, though I shall, of necessity, I regret to say, be obliged to read certain passages from several documents. Let me, then, proceed to my story.
Lady Cathcart is a lady who is possessed of very large property in Scotland. Her property is situated in several parts of that country. She has property on the east coast, but, to her misfortune, she also has property in the western islands which has caused her a great deal of anxiety and trouble. Lady Cathcart has discharged the duties of ownership in the very highest and most dignified form. There is no one, with the possible exception of the Lord Advocate, who would state or insinuate that her ladyship has in any way failed in her duties as an owner. She has poured out her money most lavishly, and in regard to the particular part of her property which is in question to-night she has done everything that the most munificent owner could possibly have done. In the Island of Barra she built a harbour, set up curing establishments, and endeavoured to promote the welfare of the place as a station for fishing, for, in her opinion, after a long experience both on the western and eastern coasts, she thought this likely to prove the most lucrative employment for the inhabitants. In this, and in many other ways, she has poured out money without end. She has also endeavoured to act in harmony with the Congested Districts Board, and in course of that action, though sometimes against her own judgment, she has laid out in crofts large portions of this island, not always with very lucrative results to herself or even with benefit to those for whom it was done.
Your Lordships will find an instance on the last two pages of this Return—the farm of Glendale. In that instance the Congested Districts Board asked Lady Cathcart to divide the farm into crofts. She replied that she knew it was not suited for the purpose. They insisted, however, and the result was that her ladyship gave way and removed
264
the tenant. Then finally, when the experiment came to be tried, it proved, as Lady Cathcart anticipated, a failure. But what was the result? Lady Cathcart was left with this farm on her hands and to get out of her loss in the best way she could. Her ladyship has also endeavoured to work in harmony with the present Secretary for Scotland, and in the case which I am going to lay before your Lordships you will see from the correspondence that she did everything in her power to accept a plan to which she was confessedly opposed acting on her own judgment and her own experience; and it was only when the Secretary for Scotland refused to agree to the most ordinary terms—although the plan was his, he called upon her to provide the compensation for the tenant who was to lose his farm—that she ceased to be able to meet him.
In the island of Barra her property consists of about 22,000 acres, and, whereas when she came into the property a large portion was in the hands of farmers, there is now only one farm in existence, and it is the farm of which we are speaking to-night, the farm of Vatersay. I need not say, in regard to a Highland property of this kind, that it is not a lucrative affair and that the arrears are very large. I will not trouble your Lordships with the details except this, that the man who at the present time is the leader of the raiders who have seized the island of Vatersay—a man named Duncan Campbell—had a share for ten years, from 1891 to 1901, of a grazing called Kentangaval, which he held at an annual rent, fixed by the Congested Districts Board, of £2, and when he left at the end of that period what do your Lordships suppose his arrears were? They amounted to £19 out of the £20. During those ten years he made a payment of one sovereign only, and this is the man who is now in quest of new land, and who, in common with all the others, says he is prepared to pay rent. They promise to pay rent, but it is a mere figure of speech.
Now let us go on to the story contained in these Papers. The first matter alluded to is the seizing of the farm of Bornish in South Uist by cottars in the year 1906. Your Lordships will find it on

265
pages 28 to 32 of Appendix I. I wish to lay stress on the fact that it is not crofters who seize the land but cottars; and perhaps I may, for the benefit of some of your Lordships, state in a few words what this cottar system is. The cottars are, for the most part, the children of crofters, and, with the connivance of their parents, they build upon the paternal croft houses in defiance of all rules and of all common sense, and when it proves impossible to find subsistence for themselves and their families, because they, in turn, marry, they have to take themselves to some other occupation, and where it is not fishing it has taken the turn, lately at all events, of seizing land. On 21st February of that year these cottars seized the farm of Bornish, and Lady Cathcart's agents wrote to the Government expressing the hope that they would take immediate steps to preserve the public peace, and pointing out that the public authorities ought to prosecute the offenders under the Trespass Act, more especially as the Procurator-Fiscal was the only person who could put the Act in motion. On 22nd March, Mr. Sinclair, the Secretary for Scotland, replied—page 29—that after careful consideration he was not satisfied that the provisions of the Act could be properly set in motion in this case. He said—
"Questions of the assertion of a right to traverse or occupy heritable subjects fall to be tested in the Civil Courts by way of interdict, and it is only when a breach of that interdict occurs that criminal proceedings follow."
Let me observe, once and for all, that throughout the whole of these proceedings the cottars have never claimed any right to the possession of the land, and, indeed, in the petition which they are now presenting to the Courts in Edinburgh with regard to another matter they state positively that they do not lay any claim to the land, but that they have been obliged to seize it from necessity. Of course, against this refusal of the authorities to act Lady Cathcart's agents protested. The Trespass Act of 1865 provides that—
"Every person who lodges in any premises or occupies or encamps on any land, being private property, without the consent and permission of the owner or legal occupier…shall be guilty of an offence punishable as hereinafter provided."
266
And in Section 5 occur these words—
"Every prosecution shall be raised and proceeded in at the expense of the Procurator-Fiscal, and every such prosecution shall be commenced within one month after the offence has been committed."
On 10th April, page 32, the Secretary for Scotland repeated his refusal. The letter from the Scottish Office states that—
"Mr. Sinclair has again given his best consideration to the arguments advanced in your letter, but I am to state that, as advised, he adheres to the view that the Trespass Act of 1865 does not apply, and certainly was never intended to apply, to such a case as this. The provision in Section 5 that prosecution shall be commenced within one month after the offence is committed demonstrates that the statute was never meant to apply to continuous occupation of land."
In the first place, what does the Secretary for Scotland or anybody else know as to the intentions when that Act was passed? And what does it signify what the intentions were at that time? The Act speaks for itself, and it has to be interpreted by the Courts.
The Act states positively that any person who occupies land without the consent of the owner is liable to punishment, and when Mr. Sinclair says that the provision in Section 5 that prosecution shall be commenced within one month after the offence is committed demonstrates that the statute was never meant to apply to continuous occupation of land, what in the world does he mean? It is surely an extraordinary doctrine that by continuously occupying land an offender is freed from the criminal law. "Continuous occupation of land" seems to be a mere euphemism of the Secretary for Scotland for filibustering. A filibusterer is only to be removed after a process involving several months delay and considerable expense to the owner. Lady Cathcart's agent then wrote to say that as the Government refused to put the criminal law in force she very reluctantly must apply for an interdict, and she did so apply. But on 9th May—and this is an important communication, omitted, I do not know why, from the correspondence presented to Parliament—Mr. Sinclair wrote a letter in which he did his best, having refused to act himself, to deprecate any action on the part of Lady

267
Cathcart. Lady Cathcart's agents had written asking for police protection in serving the action for interdict, and the Under-Secretary, writing on behalf of the Secretary for Scotland, under date 9th May, said—
"That such action as is now contemplated,"
—the serving of the notices on the raiders—
"should be taken pending the introduction of legislation which is under the consideration of the Government involves serious responsibility, and I am to point out that that responsibility must be held to lie with Lady Cathcart and her advisers."
Having refused to act himself, he says: "For goodness sake, don't do anything; wait for my legislation." I venture to think that if Lady Cathcart were to wait for legislation she would wait some years. Lady Cathcart eventually obtained an interdict in the course of May. This interdict was obeyed by the cottars. That ends the first scene in the first act.
Now let us come to Vatersay. Early in June, 1906, some cottars took cattle over in boats and landed them on the island of Vatersay. Lady Cathcart's agents again urged prompt action, with, needless to say, the same result. They received a reply that the remedy lay with the owner. Ultimately, however, at the instance of the Sheriff of Inverness, who was sent to the island on 7th July by the Secretary for Scotland, an arrangement was come to under which the cottars were to remove the cattle, and on this Lady Cathcart's agents undertook not to take any further action in the immediate future. Needless to say the removal of the cattle has never been carried out, and there they remain at this moment, with a great many other cattle besides. Emboldened by this, early in the year 1907 some cottars landed in Vatersay. They asserted no claim to the land but they seized upon a portion of the farm, began to erect houses, and, when challenged, said they had come to stay, and there would be more besides them. Of course it was useless to apply any more for the criminal law to be put in force, and so on 4th April, 1907, Lady Cathcart obtained an interdict against these men. The notices were served but no answers were sent, and so the interdict was confirmed, but on 17th May—Page 33 of the Papers—the Sheriff visited Vatersay
268
and submitted a Report to Mr. Sinclair, to which I must for a moment allude. He arrived there on 17th May and saw the men of whom I spoke just now; he wrote down Duncan Campbell's ex parte statement, and then, in the course of his Report, he says he endeavoured to induce the men to go back; and he proceeds—page 35—
"My efforts proved unavailing. It seemed to me that there were influences at work which were not fully disclosed and which I could not effectually deal with."
Now comes the most important point. The Sheriff adds—
"I was assured that Lady Cathcart in the end would not use the 'lash' of the law. Their firm conviction, based on past experience, was that she would not be a party to imprisoning them or evicting them; further, that the Government would not allow them to suffer."
My Lords, that is the idea which unfortunately has got into the heads of these men. The Sheriff suggested that unless Lady Cathcart was permitted to go on with her interdict the only thing to do was for the Government to buy the island.
Now comes an interlude which seems to me to be well worthy of your Lordships' notice. On 6th August this matter was alluded to in the House of Commons. Mr. Balfour said he had reason to believe that the Crofters Acts were not working with so much success as was supposed in parts of the western islands. The Lord Advocate challenged him to name a part, and the right hon. Gentleman replied—
"Are there no difficulties in Barra?"
And this is what the Lord Advocate proceeded to say—
"In the whole of the jurisdiction over which my rule as Lord Advocate extends there has been absolute peace except in one small portion the Island of Barra, owned by one proprietor who has been unfortunate in his relations with his tenants."
I put stress on those words, because I shall have to refer to them later. The Lord Advocate ought properly, of course, to have said "her" tenants, because there was no other person except Lady Cathcart to whom this could possibly apply. What these tenants of Barra—they were not tenants, they were cottars—longed for, said the Lord Advocate, was land with security of tenure, and more land where their plots were

269
too small. As a matter of fact, they had no plots. The Lord Advocate proceeded—
"These poor tenants of Barra stepped across to the island of Vatersay, and on the shore planted a few potatoes, hoping to return in the spring to reap what little crop there was. To the best of his recollection that was the terrible offence that was committed."
The Lord Advocate added that he was asked to treat this as an offence against the criminal law, but it was a question of disputed civic possession—it was nothing of the kind—for, he said, these people claimed that they had rights on this barren shore. They never had any rights, and they have just pleaded in the Courts that they have none.
When a private Member makes a statement and is met with a direct contradiction by an official, he naturally gives in, supposing that the official has some justification or some authority for what he has said. The most charitable assumption that one can make is that the Lord Advocate did not know what he was talking about, because at that very time—he was speaking in the month of Augus—these people were on the ground. They had been there since the latter part of the previous February. They did not row away hoping to return in the spring to reap a crop of potatoes. They were there, they had built houses, they had cattle, and these matters had been reported at the Scottish Office during several months. Yet in the face of that the Lord Advocate made the statement I have referred to. The only charitable thing to suppose—and it is very difficult to suppose it—is that he did not know what he was talking about.
The next thing that occurred was on 5th September, when the Secretary for Scotland wrote to Lady Cathcart strongly advising her, as the only means of settling this question, to divide up the island of Vatersay into crofts—that is to say, he advised her to break her lease with her tenant, and divide the land among the very people who had raided it. The letter appears on page 4. The Under-Secretary wrote—
"Mr. Sinclair instructs me to say that in his view the best course now open is for the proprietor to clear up the doubts which seem to exist as to the water resources of Vatersay, and, having done that, to arrange for its settle-
270
ment by the number of families which may properly be settled there."
He added—
"Mr. Sinclair is well aware that Barra Vatersay situation is trying and difficult for everybody involved, for none more so than for the proprietor. He regrets greatly to think of her anxieties."
If his thoughts had only taken a little more practical turn, it would have been more to the purpose. He goes on to say he is well aware that she is genuinely and deeply concerned about the welfare of the people, and there is a lot more flattery of that sort; and then Mr. Sinclair adds that he will be most willing to co-operate with her in every possible way. Of course, Lady Cathcart knew quite well, from her own experience, that to take this course would be the most unfortunate thing possible, and her agents represented this to the Secretary for Scotland. Still, in her anxiety to co-operate with him she offered, very reluctantly and against her own judgment, either to sell the land to him or to give it to the Congested Districts Board for them to settle in such a manner as they should choose, provided, of course that they were to compensate her tenant. Mr. Sinclair replied that he could not accept the idea of purchase at all. He told her that this plan was her plan and not his, and was to be carried out by her; and, moreover, that the compensation to her tenant was to be paid by her and not by the Government who were insisting upon her ousting her tenant. Naturally there was another protest, and on 7th November—Page 12—Mr. Sinclair definitely refused to do anything in the way of compensation. The Scottish Office wrote—
"In regard to the surrender of the lease, Mr. Sinclair cannot enter into any obligation either in the matter of negotiation or of compensation. The former must be conducted by Lady Cathcart"—
that is to say, she was to have all the trouble—
"and the cost of the latter, if any, must be defrayed by her."
Did your Lordships ever hear of such a proposal?
Supposing Lady Cathcart had, for her own purposes, ousted her tenant or terminated the lease, she would have been obliged to pay compensation to

271
the tenant. Mr. Sinclair in this case was practically evicting her tenant. Why was Lady Cathcart and not Mr. Sinclair to pay the compensation? Your Lordships cannot be surprised that, in those circumstances, the negotiations broke down; and Mr. Sinclair, in a characteristic letter, with which I will not trouble your Lordships, at the end rather intimated that it was her fault. I have cut the correspondence down to the very minimum, but if your Lordships will read it for yourselves you will be perfectly amazed at the proposals which were made to Lady Cathcart and the ignorance of the Scottish Office on all matters relating to a farm of this kind. Now what has been the result of this correspondence? In the first place the cottars are still in Vatersay. They went there in February of last year in defiance of the owner. Mr. Sinclair did not interfere. They have defied the interdict of the Court, and at the present moment there are more than fifty of them encamped close to the house of this unfortunate tenant. Just imagine the position of that unfortunate man; His sheep are naturally mixed up with their cattle and are driven about in any way the cottars choose. Mr. Sinclair appears to have only one idea in this matter, and that is how to shirk responsibility.
Let me come to the Lord Advocate. What is the Lord Advocate's aim? I called your Lordships' attention just now to the fact that the Lord-Advocate alluded to Lady Cathcart as an owner who was unfortunate in "his" relations with "his" tenants. Just let us see how the Lord Advocate behaved in this matter. I refer your Lordships to pages 25 to 27. Lady Cathcart, whose friends had pointed out to her that she was evidently the object of the Lord Advocate's attack, wrote to him, and received a reply in which the Lord Advocate said—
"I fear that you are importing into the expression used by me something which is derogatory to yourself, and which was quite foreign to the subject or purpose, and I beg of you to disabuse your mind entirely of such ideas. The topic into which I was suddenly plunged was being dealt with solely on its public side. It was not part of the matter to deal out or apportion blame to individuals"—
272
Then why did he do it?—
"And you may take it from me absolutely that all the inferences, 'implications,' etc., of personal reflections on your Ladyship, as unfolded in your communication, are quite unwarranted."
What consolation was that to Lady Cathcart? She naturally asked the Lord Advocate if he would make a public statement to this effect in Parliament, but Parliament was subsequently prorogued without any such statement having been made. When Lady Cathcart wrote complaining that no such statement had been made to correct the false impression created, the Lord Advocate replied—
"As to whether any further public statement shall be made by me, that will, of course, largely depend on the requirements of the public service."
As was to be imagined, the public service has not required the Lord Advocate to make any further statement, and therefore, his calumnious insinuation remains unwithdrawn, and I suppose the Lord Advocate is congratulating himself on having, in such an honourable manner, got out of the difficulty.
Now what about the subsequent events, because these matters which I have been relating could not help having a very serious effect in the Western Islands. At the end of February last some cottars seized upon a farm at Barra which Lady Cathcart sometime ago sold to a tenant named MacGillivray. They stated, in a letter to the Secretary for Scotland, that they had seized this land, and went on to ask his advice as to how they should proceed in connection with these operations. Mr. Sinclair, in his reply, gave them one of those solemn warnings the effect of which your Lordships can all appreciate for yourselves. That is not the only thing that has happened. And now we are getting a little nearer home. Encouraged by what has taken place the cottars propose to seize a farm at Kilmuir, which belongs to the Congested Districts Board. They say they are obliged to seize this land, and they add that they wish—
"To get possession in October without further trouble."
If Mr. Sinclair is still in office in October next, I shall be curious to know what he does in this case. He has no Lady

273
Cathcart on whom to shift responsibility. Will he put the criminal law in force? I presume not. Then it will be very interesting to see whether he embarks on interdicts and so on, and whether those interdicts, if obtained, are subsequently obeyed.
And now, what about the future of Vatersay? He would be a bold man who would prophesy what is going to be the future of Vatersay if this Government continues in office. If there is one thing which this correspondence makes certain in regard to that matter it is that Mr. Sinclair has no fixed ideas—I am not sure that he has any idea at all—as to what is going to take place on that island. I think I have told your Lordships the whole of this story, but there is a curious resemblance between the proceedings of this Government in Ireland and their proceedings in Scotland. In both places persons who are engaged in ordinary, legal occupations, which they have every right to pursue, find themselves in this difficulty, that either their land or their cattle is seized. Ministers use the same sort of language in both cases. They regret the violation of the law, they itch to punish the offenders, but they do not do so. We do not do things by halves in Scotland, and whereas in Ireland the inhabitants only drive cattle down the road the cottars to whom I have referred take the land and stay there and defy anybody to remove them. I would remind your Lordships that it is only very lately that Mr. Sinclair founded his Scottish Bill on the great success of the crofting system in Scotland. He proposed to spread the crofter laws and the crofter tenure to the whole of Scotland. I wonder whether this is one of the instances—because he has given us none—that he had in his mind when lie made this proposal to Parliament. I leave it to your Lordships to consider each one for himself what would be the probable future of Scotland if the crofter tenure and the crofter laws were established throughout the whole of that country, and if the present Scottish Secretary were still administering the law. The experiment has been tried on the unfortunate Lady Cathcart. I am very thankful to think that, at all events for the present, we are not going
274
to have that experiment tried all over Scotland.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I shall endeavour, as far as possible, to make clear the point of view of the Scottish Office on the correspondence which we have before us. I think your lordships will probably agree that this discussion was, to say the least, inadvisable until the answers to the complaint for breach of interdict had been received; and I cannot help feeling that it is, perhaps, questionable whether the discussion will be of advantage, in view of the fact that the case is still sub judice. It is, therefore, I think, undesirable that a leaning should be expressed either to one side or the other. To continue the history of the interdict which the noble Earl began, the position at present is this. On 15th January, of this year——
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but what has this action for breach of interdict to do with the occupation of land? The two things are perfectly distinct and separate.
LORD HERSCHELL: I think I shall be able to explain that point. I am merely pointing out, to begin with, the present state of affairs, and I shall subsequently show that there were open to Lady Cathcart two courses of which interdict was one. The complaint for breach of interdict against all the persons previously interdicted was presented to the Court of Session on 15th January this year; the complaint was duly served on the respondents, and answers were lodged by them on 18th February last. The Court heard the parties on the answers on Wednesday, 11th March, and ordered the respondent, to appear at the Bar of the Court on 19th May. I mention this to show that this portion of the case is still sub judice.
It is worthy of note that throughout the whole of the proceedings the respondents have made no attempt to evade or prevent the service of the various writs of the Court, and, so far, therefore, there has been no need for any exceptional measures on the part of the

275
Government to enforce the law, which has, up to now, followed its usual course.
The whole question turns on this—Is the Government responsible for the present state of things in the island of Vatersay? It is said that the Government ought to have applied the Trespass Act of 1865. That is, of course, a legal point. But in similar cases hitherto that Act has never been applied; and, as a matter of fact, no Government has so far ever intervened except when deforcement of the officers of the Court acting under interdict proceedings has taken place. This has certainly not occurred in the present instance. The case for Lady Gordon Cathcart is founded throughout on the assumption that the responsibility must rest with the Government, and it is on this assumption alone that her claim can be justified that the Government should intervene to settle the matter, either by purchasing the farm of Vatersay and dividing it among those who require land or by financing a scheme of settlement on a non-purchase basis. The Scottish Office have maintained throughout this correspondence that the Government is in no sense responsible for the difficulties in which Lady Gordon Cathcart finds herself involved; and they have refused to consider a scheme of purchase. After all, such a scheme might have a very curious effect. Might it not in future tend to induce an owner of land who was desirous of selling his property to allow unauthorised persons to occupy that land, and so force the Government to buy it? Again, might it not tend to induce unauthorised persons to occupy land which they had no right to occupy? The position of the Scottish Office throughout has been that it is for Lady Gordon Cathcart herself to make a settlement. This she could do by one of two methods. She could apply to the Courts to remove the settlers by interdict, though it is true that that procedure is rather cumbersome; but we are not discussing the excellence, or the contrary, of Scottish law this evening. This was the course which was finally adopted by Lady Cathcart. The other course open to her was to ease the situation by providing land for the settlers. With regard to this latter course, the Government have stated
276
their willingness to assist her in such a settlement through the Congested Districts Board, provided that they approved of the scheme. But in doing so, they in no sense accept responsibility for the disturbance, nor do they accept the full financial responsibility for the settlement which the advisers of Lady Gordon Cathcart have endeavoured to force upon them. This question of responsibility for the disturbances seems to go to the root of the matter, and it is on this ground that the Government have adopted the point of view which I have endeavoured to explain to your Lordship.
LORD LOVAT: I would like to ask whether I am correct in thinking that the noble Lord said that Lady Cathcart insisted on sale; that she would only take purchase?
LORD HERSCHELL: No, I did not say that.
LORD LOVAT: That was certainly the impression which the noble Lord's statement made on several noble Lords on this side.
LORD HERSCHELL: What I said was that she insisted on terms which the Government could not accept.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: She insisted on their paying the tenant compensation. Those were the terms the Government would not accept.
LORD LOVAT: In the letter from Lady Cathcart's agents which appears on page 8 of the Paper it is stated that—
"Lady Cathcart reiterates her offer to sell to the Congested Districts Board, which the holds to be the proper course; or reluctantly, as an alternative directly suggested by the Secretary for Scotland, she would invite the Congested Districts Board to arrange for the settlement of the farm of Vatersay on reasonable conditions."
I think that shows quite clearly that Lady Cathcart was prepared to meet the Secretary for Scotland in the matter. But could the terms which the Secretary for Scotland offered be considered reasonable from Lady Cathcart's point of view? I ask your Lordships to turn for a moment to page 9, where you will see

277
that even such terms as were offered were immediately afterwards withdrawn by the Secretary for Scotland. He wrote—
"Again, upon the extent of land to be newly occupied will depend the loss of letting value of the farm, for which compensation will be paid by the Congested Districts Board."
That seems to me very simple English, and I take it to mean that if there were a loss of letting value the Congested Districts Board would make it up to Lady Cathcart. But at a later stage of the correspondence—page 18—Mr. Sinclair makes a complete volte face. He says—
"The Government is not prepared to assume responsibility for such part of the farm (if there be any, as may be the case) as is not devoted to the purposes of this scheme."
That may very easily be a large portion of the farm. It was disputed whether there was any water to be got on the island at all in a dry summer, and if there was no water a large portion of the farm could not profitably be occupied by crofters. On the question of water, again, we see a somewhat curious dealing on the part of the Scottish Office. In the letter on page 8, Mr. Sinclair states that he desires to do his utmost to ensure that the inquiry as to the condition of the water supply should be conducted in such a way as to be authoritative and convincing to all concerned; but subsequently he says there shall be no such inquiry. I think that in the action she took, Lady Cathcart was acting as any sane individual would act. I ask your Lordships to consider for a moment who comes out in a better light—Lady Gordon Cathcart or His Majesty's Government? Who was it in this case wished to put the people on the land? Although she knew that the farm of Vatersay was most unadaptable for division, nevertheless she gave her consent, subject to the sitting tenant being compensated. If your Lordships will refer to page 40 you will see what the experience was in connection with the Glendale property. This farm, which extends to about 4,475 acres, was formerly rented at about £100. The property was made over to the Congested Districts Board, and all that the Congested Districts Board was able to lay out was 1,100 acres. Why?
278
Because there were only 66 acres of arable land. The 1,100 acres were laid out in six holdings and a suitable common grazing. The crofters saw the land and were only able to offer a rent of £3 for each holding—that is, £18 for the portion of the farm which they were going to take up. According to Mr. Sinclair, the difference between the £8 and the £100 previously obtained is absolutely lost to the owner. In the case of Vatersay, where it was doubtful whether any water could be obtainable in a dry summer, the chances of getting adequate rent was even lower. I submit that it was most unfair to expect Lady Gordon Cathcart to bear the loss which would have resulted from the dispossession of the sitting tenant, and to establish these cottars on a part only of the farm.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I desire to express my hope that before this discussion closes we shall obtain from noble Lords opposite some rather fuller explanation than that which was given to us by the noble Lord who spoke just now. If he will forgive me for saying so, he made what was in reality no defence. He suggested to us—it was almost the only argument which I caught—that there was something improper in this discussion taking place while proceedings were in progress before the Scottish Courts. Does the noble Lord really mean to suggest that while this procedure, which he himself described as clumsy, drags its slow length along, your Lordships are to be precluded from commenting on occurrences so grave in their character as those which Lord Camperdown has described?
The noble Lord made another somewhat singular contribution to the arguments. He told us that in the view of His Majesty's Government there was some risk that if proceedings in trespass were resorted to parsons might be induced to occupy land in order to force the hand of the Government. I think that was his argument. What an astonishing conception! Do His Majesty's Government suggest that the unfortunate lady who is the victim of these occurrences has any desire to force their hand? No, my Lords, I think I may say of that

279
unfortunate lady that if she is to find any consolation in these occurrences she must find it in this, that they have been the means of bringing before the public and before Parliament what I can only describe as invaluable illustrations of the working of the crofter system in remote parts of Scotland, and of what, for brevity, I must describe as the working of the Sinclair system—a system which is not peculiar to that Minister, but which has many well-qualified exponents among the members of His Majesty's Government.
There is, fortunately, very little dispute as to the actual facts of the case. As to the proprietrix, no one can contend that she has not dealt with her crofters for years past in the most considerate and generous fashion. That appears on every line of these Papers. There is no doubt as to that. She has surrendered to them large tracts of country, and if she retained the island of Vatersay it was in the belief, apparently perfectly well founded, that it was a barren and inhospitable place, with a doubtful water supply; I think, indeed, you will find that it is on record in these Papers that at one time an attempt was made to till it, but the report was that it was land upon which even potatoes could not be grown. So much for the part of her possessions which this lady, so generous and liberal in her dealings with her crofters, thought fit to retain her own possession.
Now we come to the action of the crofters—they are not crofters, by the way, but cottars. It is a very important distinction, because the cottar has not, like the crofter, statutory rights either in his own holdings or in the neighbouring land. These men set to work in a methodical fashion. They first made a reconnaissance in force; they crossed over the intervening sea, marked out certain parts of the island which they desired to possess, and subsequently sent out an expeditionary force which took possession of the land, cultivated it, erected buildings upon it, and, though an attempt was made to impound their cattle, the animals were, I believe, rescued. I do not think my noble friend used language of exaggeration when he applied to these proceedings
280
the description of filibustering operations, and I do not think ever in recent Irish annals you will find more high-handed conduct. I will not labour that, because I see that Mr. Sinclair, in a letter, describes the conduct of those persons as—
"A defiance of the law which no Minister can do other than deplore and condemn."
Therefore there can be no doubt upon that point. This, it may be observed passing, is exactly the language which is habitually used by Mr. Sinclair's Irish colleague when he is describing similar occurrences in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Let me summarise, in the fewest possible words, the acts of this drama. The proprietrix of the island appeals for protection and points out that the natural remedy is to set in motion the Trespass Act of 1865. She is then told that this is not a convenient remedy, and is referred to an Act of 1686. Now is not it extraordinary that on all these occasions His Majesty's Government invariably go back to some antiquated statute rather than have recourse to an enforcement of the more recent provisions of the law which lie ready to their hands? May I remind your Lordships that in the Irish cattle-driving case His Majesty's Government refused altogether to avail themselves of a recent statute passed for the purpose of dealing with these outbreaks, and gave preference to two Acts of the reign of Edward III. and William IV? But practical suggestion of the Scottish Office was that Lady Gordon Cathcart should surrender at discretion. That was what it came to, and that is what I understood the noble Lord opposite to refer to when said that in the view of His Majesty's Government what was really necessary was to do something to "ease the situation." That is an extremely simple manner of easing a situation. Then the proprietrix very naturally made a counter proposal. She said, "If these are your views, if you want this island for your protegés, take the island off my hands altogether. You shall have it on reasonable terms, with this stipulation, that His Majesty's Government shall make themselves responsible for compensating the tenant at the time in occupation of the Vatersay farm." That

281
suggestion cannot have been a very unreasonable one, because I see that the Sheriff of Inverness, who presumably knows something about these matters—Page 36—suggested two modes of dealing with the difficulty, the second mode being this—
"Let the Congested Districts Board either buy the whole island of Vatersay or such part of it as Lady Cathcart would part with on reasonable terms, so that they may give allotments. This might involve a capital expenditure of, say, between £6,000 and £8,000 and could, I suppose, only be contemplated if the island was reported on by a competent man suitable for the settlement of crofters as regards water supply."
Therefore, Lady Gordon Cathcart cannot, I think, be charged with unreasonableness in proposing a solution of the difficulty which commended itself to a public official writing presumably with considerable knowledge of the affairs of the neighbourhood. That proposal was refused.
Next the proprietrix, with reluctance made another counter proposal. Your Lordships will find it on page 8 of the correspondence. She invited the Secretary for Scotland to arrange with the Congested Districts Board to settle the island upon the following terms. The Board were to satisfy themselves as to the water supply, they were to, arrange with the sitting tenant, they were to draw out a scheme of settlement, they were to agree that no person should be offered a croft unless he was a 'suitable and competent tenant, and that those persons already on the land who were neither suitable nor competent should be got rid of; and, finally, she proposed that the expenses of adaptation should be defrayed by the Board. That again, to my mind, was a well-considered and not unreasonable counter proposal, and Lady Gordon Cathcart accompanied it by an intimation that she remained of opinion as to the unwisdom, and even danger, of establishing a crofter settlement in Vatersay, and left the responsibility on Mr. Sinclair. That counter proposal was also ruled out, and the proprietrix was told that she was to undertake the task of removing the invaders, and to be responsible, if not for the whole, at any rate for a great part of the expense of compensating the tenant.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The whole of the expense.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The whole of the expense of compensating the tenant who was to be displaced. It is not surprising that Lady Gordon Cathcart should have hesitated to undertake the task which the Scottish Office thus desired to impose upon her. She had burnt her fingers before under similar circumstances. If your Lordships will look at page 10 of the correspondence you will find an account of another case which had arisen at a place called Glendale in which the same proprietrix was interested. It appears that the Congested Districts Board desired to convert the farm of Glendale into small holdings. Lady Gordon Cathcart, in order to facilitate matters, arranged with the tenant of Glendale to surrender his lease, but when they got to closer quarters with the question it was found that only a few small holdings could be carved out of the Glendale Farm, that the bulk of it was unsuitable for small holdings, with the result that the idea of dividing it into small holdings was abandoned, and Lady Gordon Cathcart had to take over the sheep stock and has not been able to find a tenant for the farm which is left on her hands. Can you be surprised, therefore, that this lady, having suffered in this way on a former occasion, should have been a little particular how she met the proposals made to her by the Scottish Office?
She, however, submitted yet another suggestion. She suggested that the Scottish Office should interview her tenant and try to arrive at some arrangement with him. That was refused, and there the story ended for the time. What is the result? Here you have an attempt to saddle a landowner, against whom nothing is alleged, of whom no complaint is made, whose record, indeed, is, as far as I am able to judge, an admirable one, with the task of turning out of his holding a tenant, against whom also nothing is alleged, in order to make room for what I can only describe as a gang of pirates—you do this with the full knowledge that if the island is to be divided up and settled by a crofter population, you will have to provide for them roads and

283
schools and various other things which cost money, and to the cost of which the unlucky proprietrix will have to contribute. I say that is a grievous hardship. Meanwhile the pirates are still in possession, and we are without knowledge as to the policy which His Majesty's Government intend to adopt in this and similar cases.
Only one word more. The crown of this edifice seems to me to be reached when we arrive at that personal correspondence between the Lord-Advocate and Lady Gordon Cathcart which my noble friend quoted. My noble friend reminded the House of the manner in which these transactions were referred to in the House of Commons by the Lord Advocate. I say, unhesitatiug1y, that no one could have listened to the Lord Advocate's statement without deriving the impression that this lady had been a harsh and inconsiderate landlord, that her tenants had been hardly dealt with, and that they were objects of commiseration. Can we be surprised that Lady Cathcart should have challenged the statement of the Lord Advocate and should have asked for some explanation of it? I must say that a more scant, I would almost say scurvy, apology, if it be an apology, I never read in my life. The Lord Advocate, in his letter, endeavours to reassure Lady Cathcart by telling her that—
"The inferences, implications, etc., of personal reflections on your Ladyship, as unfolded in your communication, are quite unwarranted."
But were they unreasonable inferences? I say the inferences which were drawn by all who listened to or read the Lord Advocate's language in the House of Commons were such as anyone would have drawn from similar language used by an official of the State; and when challenged, instead of unreservedly withdrawing his statements and expressing regret that he should have made them, he produces this long-delayed explanation, for the letter was ten days in his pocket before he took the trouble to answer it—an explanation not given in the House of Commons, where the charge had been made, but in a private letter, and in terms which I can only characterise as scarcely ingenuous. I trust that this discussion will direct attention to an
284
affair which seems to me most discreditable to all concerned, except to the lady who has been the victim or these transactions. I hope we shall be told, at any rate, before this discussion closes, what is to be the policy of His Majesty's Government it similar occurrences again take place, whether they intend to connive at them in the future, and, if not, what means they propose to take to prevent disorders such as those which have arisen on the island of Vatersay from spreading to other parts of Scotland.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, I should like, in a very few words, to try and put a different colour upon the transactions in question, and I do so with the greater confidence because I am intimately acquainted with all that Lady Cathcart has done for her tenants. She has all her life been anxious to do everything in her power for her dependents, both in the East and West of Scotland. A great deal has been done by her in the way of harbour construction, and in the building of piers; she has done everything to encourage fishery enterprise, and has given as much land as possible to the crofters and small holders on her properties. Indeed, I am rather inclined to think that this difficulty has to some extent arisen out of her desire to make a compromise even in the case of Vatersay. I agree that the action of these men in going over to Vatersay cannot be Stigmatised too strongly. They are not even crofters; they have no status at all; and their action has been monstrous. Vatersay is an island which does not come under the Congested Districts Board; it is not included under the operations of the Crofters Acts, and is in the Occupation of a tenant. These men took possession of that island in two different raids and put their cattle upon it. I say that that was intolerable. But on the opposite side of the House noble Lords have taken an extreme line. You always want us to do something outside the ordinary law. This case was to be met by the ordinary law of Scotland.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Is not the Trespass Act the ordinary law?
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: No, not in Scotland. The law we are accustomed to use for trespass is the law of interdict. It is a very complete and effective remedy.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: A very long one.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: There has been a great deal of talk about the negotiations that went on between the Secretary for Scotland and Lady Cathcart. I think Lady Cathcart has been very badly served by her agents. They made a great mess of it. If an interdict had been taken out at once and enforced, the trespassers would have been driven off the place. Instead of that, the agents put forward a number of proposals which were not accepted by the Secretary for Scotland and very naturally. Why should he use public money and pay £8,000 for an island which did not come within the Crofters Act? It was a monstrous proposal and could not be accepted by any Minister. I do not for one moment say that everything was done in the way it ought to have been on either side, but I repeat that the ordinary law could have dealt with the situation and ought to have been used by the parties concerned.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I must condole with my noble friend Lord Herschell on being at the very outset of his official career entrusted with so grotesque a brief by the Scottish Office as the apologia for this most lamentable correspondence. What were the arguments he was told to use on behalf of the Scottish Office? I must say they were rather signals of distress than arguments. He was told to say that the matter was one for which Lady Gordon Cathcart was responsible and in which the Scottish Office could not interfere. I imagine then from that that the Scottish Office considers that Lady Gordon Cathcart was at the bottom of the invasion of Vatersay, that she was responsible for the raid upon that island, and that it was for her to settle that affair as best she could. I am driven more forcibly to this conclusion by the second argument, which was so extraordinary that I very much doubt whether in either House of Parliament
286
such a plea had ever been advanced—uamely, that this system of squatting might be used by an unprincipled owner as a means of inducing the Government to purchase his property. I give you all the arguments used on any subject by any Minister at any time, and defy a parallel to be found for such a plea as my noble friend had to read probably in the handwriting of Mr. Sinclair or of the Lord Advocate.
Now I come to the voice of nature, uttered by the lips of my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. He, at any rate, took a manly and generous line not to be found throughout this correspondence in regard to the behaviour of Lady Cathcart to her tenants. Lady Cathcart throughout this correspondence is treated as a sort of malefactor who ought to be treated with the utmost rigour of the law. She is one of the most beneficent landlords in Scotland and one entitled to the highest possible consideration by any Government, but his argument was in its own way not less remarkable than that of Lord Herschell. He said, what can be more preposterous than that the Government should purchase land outside and beyond the Crofter Act? How, he asked, in a tone almost broken by emotion, could you' conceive such a thing as possible? But that was the very course suggested by the Secretary for Scotland. In this exceedingly elusive correspondence of this somewhat elusive Government, one is at a difficulty to find out what are the propositions on which they base their proceedings and what is the policy behind it all. They throw over their own correspondence, they disdain their own colleagues and anybody else, whether seated on the Opposition bench or simply an anxious and humble inquirer on the cross bench, Who is left at a total loss to know what to do.
Let me take another point, to show how lightly the Government treat not only their own colleagues and their own correspondence, but their own legislation. A body of these squatters land upon an island on which a farm is under lease. It is proposed to disturb the tenant in the currency of his lease. The unfortunate Lady Gordon Cathcart

287
has already had experience of this process. She has had to go through one of the most expensive proceedings known to agriculture—the purchase of acclimatised sheep—and as a reward she has found her farm left on her hands, the Congested Districts Board having nibbled at it, tasted it, and found it unsuitable. There she is with the expense on her shoulders, her money gone, and her farm taken. What does she propose to do? She proposes that an arrangement should be come to with the tenant, and that he should be compensated for disturbance. The Scottish Office raises unearthly shrieks at the very idea of compensation for disturbance. She only proposes compensation for disturbance under the Act passed by His Majesty's present advisers, the Agricultural Holdings Act of the year before last. It is compensation enacted by that Act which she says must be paid, and as she is not responsible for the disturbance she proposes that the Government should pay it. The First Lord of the Admiralty says it is an unheard-of proceeding, and the rivers would run backward in Scotland if anything of the kind were done.
There are two general considerations which I think are worthy of observation in this discussion. The first is that this extraordinary system of crofter districts is what it is proposed by His Majesty's Government to extend as the greatest of all imaginable blessings to the whole of Scotland. All I can say is that if this system of crofters, administered as it is by the Scottish Office with the encouragement of filibustering which naturally follows from this correspondence, is what we are to have, Scotland in a very short time will become a hell on earth. You cannot permit lawlessness in any part of His Majesty's dominions without its spreading. There is no such contagion, particularly among a semi-Celtic population, as the contagion of lawlessness. We are told that the common law of Scotland is impotent to put down lawlessness in any part of Scotland, that it is a slow and clumsy process, and that the law advisers of Lady Gordon Cathcart are greatly to be blamed for not having adopted that slow and cumbrous course though, as it appears, they actually did
288
adopt it. It is very difficult to please His Majesty's Government.
I want to ask a question as to that. The Lord Advocate is the great, law officer of Scotland who is responsible for the preservation of law and order in Scotland. Am I to be told that with a willing Lord-Advocate it is beyond the resources of law and order in Scotland for the Lord Advocate to preserve that law and order? If so, it is the greatest surprise that has come upon me in the course of my political career. The Scottish Office proposes to hatch the eggs of lawlessness in awaiting the legislation of which we have had a sample. When I came down to the House this evening I was only provided with the correspondence laid before Parliament. I was unaware of what had been the result. May I digress for one moment? My unfortunate friend Lord Herschell—whose connection with this affair has been ill-inspired all through, I will not say by whom, but I acquit him of any responsibility in the matter—was advised to tell Lord Camperdown, when he asked why these documents took two months printing, to say that they took so long because a number of illustrative documents were being prepared which would throw great light upon the matter. I never heard of an ordinary correspondence which required illustrative documents to explain it. If I may judge from the letters read both by Lord Lansdowne and by Lord Camperdown, the work of providing illustrative documents was inferior in pressure to the work of suppressing some of the most interesting letters of the whole series. I pass that point by. The correspondence is quite extraordinary enough as it is published without our wishing for any more illustrative documents.
Since we came to the House we have heard a little more about this business. We have heard that the contagion has already begun to spread, and it has spread unfortunately to an estate not owned by a private proprietor. If only an estate owned by a private proprietor were affected, that would be nothing. What are private proprietors? The dust of the earth. The Solicitor-General will tell you what he thinks of private

289
proprietors. The contagion has extended actually to an estate owned by the Congested Districts Board—that is His Majesty's Government itself—and so we are brought to this most melancholy and deplorable conclusion, that His Majesty's Government is one of those proprietors who have been unfortunate in their relations with their tenants, and that therefore these "poor things" are invading the estate of His Majesty's Government. Well, my Lords, it will not stop with the Congested Districts Board estate if this lawlessness is allowed to continue. I am certain it is not merely bad for Lady Gordon Cathcart, but it is extremely bad for the population of the Highlands themselves. I hope if no other good comes of this very one-sided discussion it will at least bring home to the Government that in the ancient kingdom of Scotland we do expect law and order to be preserved. In Ireland, under circumstances I think less glaring, because there is not a permanent settlement in the case of Ireland, some hundreds of men have been added to the Irish Constabulary, which is at least a sign of grace and a sign of a wish to enforce the law. In Scotland we have nothing but this correspondence.

SECRETARIES TO COUNTY ASSOCIATIONS.
LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it has been decided in the case of officers entitled to pensions under Article 510 of the Royal Warrant that the post of secretary to a County Association involves the loss of their pension.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, in reply to the Question put to me by my noble friend, I am afraid it is impossible that the pension should be retained in such cases. These men are Regular officers who would not be entitled by their years of service to retiring pay or Regular Army pensions. In certain circumstances, however, the War Office allowed them to retire, on condition that they took a commission in the Militia or Yeomanry, and in return for that they received a retaining fee of £100, involving liability to come up for
290
annual training and to be mobilised. The secretaryship of a County Association is practically a Civil appointment, and the holder of it could not fulfil these liabilities. For these reasons, as I have said, we have laid it down that a Militia officer cannot retain his £100 a year if he becomes a secretary of a County Association. As regards a Yeoman, we have not got a definite rule of that kind, but we say he must be seconded, and the effect is the same.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am inclined to think the account which the noble Earl gave of the circumstances under which these so-called pensions were granted under Article 510 of the Royal Warrant was a perfectly correct account, and I can quite appreciate the view taken by the War Office. I understood the noble Earl to say that he regarded these secretaryship as of the nature of Civil appointments or approaching thereto. If they are appointments of that kind I do hope that the emoluments of the holders will be fixed at a figure having some relation to the duties to be discharged. The sum of £100, if that is the figure which the Army Council has in mind, seems to me to be one showing a wholly inadequate appreciation of the importance of the post.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I do not think the Army Council have ever come to any decision as to what would be adequate remuneration. They have certainly not limited it to £100. I may add that the establishment grant for the various units has been raised. The effect of that, we hope, will be that in most counties there will be a sufficient sum of money to enable an adequate remuneration to be given to the secretary.
THE MARQUESS OF BATH: May I inquire whether the officers who become secretaries of Associations are merely seconded?
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: We have already decided the matter, by an order, in the case of Militia officers. No Militia officer can become the secretary of an Association. In the case of a Yeoman, we have not decided that he

291
could not become a secretary, but that he must be seconded. The practical effect would be the same. We hope that the Militia officers who are now in receipt of a retaining fee of £100 a year will join the Special Reserve, but they may decline to join the Special Reserve, and then rather a delicate question arises, because we would be imposing upon them the obligation of foreign service, which they did not originally undertake. Those cases will have to be considered on their merits.
*LORD HAVERSHAM: I presume that the officers who have earned Army pensions will retain them?
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Yes. What I have said does not apply to men who are entitled to Army retired pay.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: It is evident that no officer in the Special Reserve can take one of these secretaryships, because if war breaks out he cannot be in two places at once.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: We cannot allow the secretary of a County Association to mobilise. That is quite clear.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.